About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linz,

 

Your article failed to address Michael’s interesting points. You only argued the obvious case that appeasement does not work as a strategy.

 

In Michael's article, the story about the bully repeatedly striking him was his demonstration that appeasement does not work as a strategy. As a tactic however, an individual can consider it the most rational of approaches.

 

There are many occasions when the most productive tactic is to appease. When someone misinterprets what you say or do, and insults you as a result, you accept that they are morally in the wrong. However rather than insulting them straight back, if you first chose to appease, then the misunderstanding can be corrected, and you walk away without the creation of an opponent who might be able to bite you in the arse at a later stage.

 

I hope you don’t equate “limp” with cowardice by the way. I consider Michael to be  a courgeous and strong man.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I did try to make the point:

"Eventually the disillusioned have to be stood up and told, honestly, that's is just dumb luck that their religion's tenets happen to agree with Objectivist principles.

Hopefully they can work that out before they start believing that Objectivism is just another convenient fix to numb that nasty little itch."

Ross

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phew thanks Linz, as a new member Michael's artical did make my wonder.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I sanctioned both (both Michael's essay & this criticism of it) -- time (and thought) will tell which one is more in the right. At the moment, I'm swayed by the reasoning of sir Linz.

Ed

Post 4

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed - So you can't think of a single instance (big or small) when using appeasement as a tactic might provide you with the most rationally beneficial results?

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 2:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Appeasement is the act of conceding certain things, of being pragmatic to achieve a result--an unprincipled result.

Nothing wrong with taking a softer line to swing someone round but it pays to harden it back up when you see they have no intention of admitting the truth of your proposition.

A rose in a fisted glove.

Or, perhaps, as per one of my favorite movie quotes. Oddly, from Al Capone (Robert De Niro) in The Untouchables:

"In the neighborhood where I grew up we used to have a saying. That you could get further with a kind word and a gun, than you could with just a kind word."

Ross

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, Interesting article.

I too think you missed Michael's point a bit. There is a time when kicking ass is valid, and a time when the soft-sell will work to "open up" the person your're trying to convince. "Kicking asses and denouncing people all the time just gets you enemies. If your opinion is that everyone should just get it when you denounce their beliefs, then I think you'll be disappointed. Michael's article has nothing to do with compromising Objectivism.

Ethan


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Linz.

Fraser if you are correct so was John Dewey.

Moral and social problems, for Dewey, are concerned with the guidance of human action to the achievement of socially defined ends that are productive of a satisfying life for individuals within the social context. Regarding the nature of what constitutes a satisfying life, Dewey was intentionally vague, out of his conviction that specific ends or goods can be defined only in particular socio-historical contexts. In the Ethics (1932) he speaks of the ends simply as the cultivation of interests in goods that recommend themselves in the light of calm reflection. In other works, such as Human Nature and Conduct and Art as Experience, he speaks of (1) the harmonizing of experience (the resolution of conflicts of habit and interest both within the individual and within society), (2) the release from tedium in favor of the enjoyment of variety and creative action, and (3) the expansion of meaning (the enrichment of the individual's appreciation of his or her circumstances within human culture and the world at large). The attunement of individual efforts to the promotion of these social ends constitutes, for Dewey, the central issue of ethical concern of the individual; the collective means for their realization is the paramount question of political policy.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm#H4


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I don't contend that morality should guide people towards socially defined ends. I do not argue that appeasement should be considered a moral good, merely that in some instances appeasement may provide a superior tactic in achieving personal happiness.

It is possible in cases of minor infraction to judge someone's actions as morally wrong and still to appease them. For example, a teacher inaccurately blames a pupil for some infraction and tells the pupil to move desks. The pupil can either appease the teacher by moving desks or point out that he is innocent of the infraction. If the pupil believes that he is likely to receive a greater punishment for protesting his innocence, then I argue that he is not acting immorally by appeasing the teacher and moving desks.

In this case, appeasement is a justifiable option, and it is not motivated by a desire to create social harmony - merely to avoid further punishment or harrassment.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bingo Fraser!

Rational self-interest takes into account long term goals. If you want to live in a free rational society, encouraging as many people to understand Objectivism is going to be a good thing. Lets not forget that part of the SOLO Credo:

We seek nothing less than to change the world.
Ethan


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fraser wrote:

"So you can't think of a single instance (big or small) when using appeasement as a tactic might provide you with the most rationally beneficial results?"

Yes, it can be used as subterfuge while you reach for the Colt .45 hidden in your waist band...

Or as Wynn Catlin put it "Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a stick."



Post 11

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fraser,


The pupil can either appease the teacher by moving desks or point out that he is innocent of the infraction.
Difficult situation, yes, that is why not everyone is a hero.  I think the proper action here would be to stress your innocence, but agree to move because the teacher wields the power to enforce that decision, a gun to your head so to speak.  To not make the point of your innocence, to go along to get along, is pragmatic and perhaps cowardly.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There may be legitimate times when it is tactically advantageous to just drop it and walk away, but APPEASEMENT(something entirely different) is not only never advantageous to ones long-term goals, it's just morally repugnant.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's the red herring here. Michael's article wasn't about appeasement, at least not how I read it.

Ethan

EDIT: Need to use spell checker before coffee

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/25, 8:04am)


Post 14

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan-
That's not what I took Michael to be saying either, but I do see how people could misconstrue it as such.


Post 15

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert-
 Difficult situation, yes, that is why not everyone is a hero.  I think the proper action here would be to stress your innocence, but agree to move because the teacher wields the power to enforce that decision, a gun to your head so to speak.  To not make the point of your innocence, to go along to get along, is pragmatic and perhaps cowardly.

I agree. My understanding is that the pragmatic approach (if we accept that this particular scenario does not involve cowardice) does not involve immorality.

Jody - Linz defined Michael's suggestion as appeasement, so I accepted his definition. How would you define appeasement?


Post 16

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This whole thing reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite authors, Steven Brust. Free Atlas points to the person who figures out the book and the quote.

Post 17

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Always speak politely to an enraged Dragon"?

Post 18

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heh! Close, it has to do with Dragons and onions

Post 19

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shrek

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.