RoR: Forum

The word karma itself simply means fate, from the Sanskrit kar- "to make, act, do" from PIE kwer- with the same meaning. The English do, deed and doom, the Latinate fate and fact all come from the PIE root dhe- with the same meaning. The idea that one's fate depends on one's deeds is in itself not problematic. Rand herself was a strongg believer in conscience and the notion that evil men do not sleep easily. The only problem with the idea of karma is that it forbids personal action to pursue justice by retributive force and that it depends on some supernatural agency that may not affect the evildoer until a future reincarnation. In a case where no criminal act is involved, I see no problem with leaving a third party one will never meet again to his own doom. There is no point in brooding over petty rudeness and little lies. These people make their own little hells. But crime calls for justice.

Ted Keer

Post 1

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 5:40am

Ted,

The idea that one's fate depends on one's deeds is in itself not problematic. Rand herself was a strong believer in conscience and the notion that evil men do not sleep easily.

That's true. I didn't realize the concept could be used this way, and if that's a proper view by Eastern standards, I don't have a problem with that particular use, except it still doesn't identify what is wrong with a particular action, and why.

What I have a problem with is the lack of objective identity given to evil deeds when using this concept. I worry that using a moral shorthand like this will lead one to conscious/moral passivity toward all action, instead of working to understand the objective nature of good or bad outcomes, no matter how small they are.

Post 2

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 1:58pm

You are entirely correct that the concept is still used wrongly as advocating that the individual not take steps himself to pursue justice even in criminal matters - this itself supposedly leading to bad karma - and that some mystical force will reincanate you as a lower form in the next life. When people use the concept, I point out that yes, there is such a thing as a bad conscience, (Imagine what a "happy" person O.J.Simpson must be!) but that in criminal matters justice is our responsibility.

I just thought it would be helpful to point out that the concepts fate and doom come from the exact same root and share the same meaning as karma.

As an aside, Proto-Indo-European roots in dh- normally mutate to d- in english and f- in Latin. So you get some unlikely looking cognates:

PIE dher- "animal"
Lat fer- ferox (feral, ferocious)
Eng deer
Grk ther- "theropod"

PIE dhwor "gate"
Lat fores
Eng "door"

PIE dhe- "do, put, make"
Lat facere, factum (fiction, fact, fate)
End "do, deed, doom"
Grk the- "thesis"

I refer those who are interested to:

Mouthful of Air - Anthony Burgess (Out of Print)
Story of Language - Mario Pei (Out of Print)
In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory
Dictionary of Proto-Indo-European Roots - Calvert Watkins

These books can be had new or used for about $15 each and will widen your scope and deepen your thought. They require a very minimal familiarity with foreign languages and no fluency in any but English

Post 3

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 4:53pm

Hi Teresa,

I was once asked what I thought about Karma, defined roughly as the idea that people always get what they deserve in the end. Obviously, I don't believe any of the mystical stuff. But I said there might be a grain of truth hidden in the clutter. The idea of metaphysical justice. The idea that people often get what they deserve, not through other people, but through their own actions.

I gave the example of a womanizer who is convinced that women are nothing but play things. He goes from woman to woman, and many people might consider it terribly unjust that the women keep sleeping with him, even though (or especially because) they know he is a womanizer. But if you follow his life longer, you can see that he's not capable of having a real relationship. He can't experience real intimacy. He views conquest as the ideal, but it's always fleeting. Even when he has a woman, he's lonely.

There are tons of different kinds of examples. The idea is that you can't cheat reality, even if people let you cheat them. You may think you're getting away with something, but the results come back in unanticipated ways. Taking shortcuts in morality never lead you where you want to go.

So I can see some merit to the idea that even outside of conventional morality, where people punish you for your actions, there is still a tendency for you to get what you deserve. And certainly if you take the flip side, where someone acts morally and just in a consistent manner, there's a tendency for them to get a positive outcome.

Nothing mystical about any of this. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Post 4

Sunday, August 5, 2007 - 5:35pm

I can't argue with that, Joseph.

Unfortunately, nature can take way too long for my impatient nature.

Post 5

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 12:16am

As the old East Indian saying goes, "Don't let your karma run over your dogma."

Post 6

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:03am

Joe, I am going to dissent a little here...

I gave the example of a womanizer who is convinced that women are nothing but play things. He goes from woman to woman, and many people might consider it terribly unjust that the women keep sleeping with him, even though (or especially because) they know he is a womanizer. But if you follow his life longer, you can see that he's not capable of having a real relationship. He can't experience real intimacy. He views conquest as the ideal, but it's always fleeting. Even when he has a woman, he's lonely.

Please! Does Objectivism present itself as nothing more than Christianity minus god? Men who have multiple sexual partners are not necessarily incapable of intimacy...please stop dealing in Lifetime television stereotypes! Joe, honestly, that's a mess of psychobabble...isn't it possible that someone's a "womanizer" (and what a loaded term) because they find recreational sex, I dunno, fun? Even more insulting in your example is that some man is running amuck treating women as "playthings"...who are these women, innocent doe-eyed virgins until some twisted Casanova comes along and steals their innocence? I think treating and describing women who sleep with this man as some kind of victim is the real insult. Some women like sleeping with womanizers; but all of his partners entered into a partnership between two adults. So stop infantilizing one party.

Post 7

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:23am

Just like the congenital child molester, the serial rapist, the compulsive gambler, the compulsive liar, the promiscuous homosexual, the bestialist and the latest president to be impeached, we can surely imagine that there is something in his nature which makes the casual sex addict subject to chemical urges which most of us don't undergo.

So long as these people keep their relationships on a consensual level, and are willing to support any children they happen to father, surely no one could have a legal objection. As for a moral sanction, what does the sex maniac gain from the approval of his peers? Unless his peers subscribe to Screw magazine - in which case he might find he's been canonized.

Just please don't leave you seed lying about in public places.

Ted Keer

Post 8

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:35am

Steven, you're welcome to dissent, of course. But you seem to have misunderstood me. I was not arguing against having multiple sexual partners. I was quite clear about describing this example person as being convinced that women are nothing but play things. Would you like to argue that someone with a deep disrespect for women is going to be able to enjoy a deep, intimate romance with one of them? The two are not compatible. Our minds are not infinitely malleable.

As for the poor women, I don't disagree with you that they may like sleeping with a womanizer. I said so in my initial statement. I've seen plenty of examples. It doesn't mean they're all that way. Are you suggesting the opposite? Are you making an argument that all women get what they deserve when they get used by this kind of guy? Because you seem to dismiss the possibility that anyone might actually get hurt by him. It's not enough for you to show that in some cases, a woman isn't getting hurt (or even wants it). If you're going to dismiss any form of injustice, you have to show that in every case the woman isn't getting hurt.

You say "but all of his partners entered into a partnership between two adults".

I'm trying to understand your position. Are you suggesting as long as it was voluntary, there is no possibility of immorality on either side? There's no way for either party to deceive the other, or to take advantage of the other's expectations?

Yes, Objectivism is not simply Christianity without a god. But it's also not rank subjectivism, or some kind of glamorized libertarianism, where all things are equally good as long as it's two uncoerced adults. If you are simply arguing that the stereotypes are overly used, fine. But suggesting that it never happens? You have to be kidding!

Post 9

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 2:49am

Joe--

I have a hard time classifying anybody as a victim in the sense that you're talking about it.

There's no way for either party to deceive the other, or to take advantage of the other's expectations?

Of course there is, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a man who enjoys multiple sexual partners. You never posited anything about deceit or otherwise.

I guess the upfront question to you is this: you seemed to frame a womanizer as someone with multiple sexual partners; if no deceit was involved but the man views women as playthings and not people, does that make the act immoral? How revealing about one's intentions should one be?

Joe, I think where I really take issue is with the way you're framing this example...that is, that some vicious heartbreaker is run amok emotionally abusing women. Although men should not think of women as their playthings, didn't Rand explicitly state and implicitly describe that a woman's natural place in the bedroom is subservient to the man? That the natural place of a woman was to look up to a man?

Do I think that it never happens? Never say never. But I believe that media have popularized this idea of some mythical, super-alpha-male type who tears through the city on a lifelong sex binge; individual circumstances are FAR more complicated than the dime-store novel, one-dimensional stereotype of the "womanizer". I think that if you get down to it, the woman on some level knew that he was interested in sex only and rationalized her concerns away, etc. etc. As I said, there is always more to the story.

Maybe as a thought experiment I'll posit this: sexual tastes seem to vary as much as tastes in food and drink. Objectivists make no moral statements if I prefer sherbet over ice cream, so why should someone who is a dedicated short-termer or a one-night-stand-fan be told that his sexual tastes are suddenly a sign of some kind of problem? I'm just not sure where in the Objectivist epistemology or ethical canon such moral discrimination is founded (that's not to say that Rand does not expound on it, I just think that she's wrong).

I guess I should summarize:

A) I think that the womanizer stereotype is overused and generally unfounded
B) I am not sure that one sexual taste vs. another falls into the realm of morality, akin to preferring sweet to salty needs no moral code
C) A question: What do you mean by "playthings" anyway? What's the definition?

Hmmm...

(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 8/06, 2:52am)

Post 10

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 3:09am

Steven:

But I believe that media have popularized this idea of some mythical, super-alpha-male type who tears through the city on a lifelong sex binge; individual circumstances are FAR more complicated than the dime-store novel, one-dimensional stereotype of the "womanizer".

Gotta disagree there. I've met some personally, and while they broke no laws or used coercion, they did often fraud other women into a sexual relationship by mischaracterizing what they were after.

I had a thread going about the drug culture that I didn't get to hear you expound further on something I didn't understand you said. You characterized something as "elite hedonism" and I'm not sure I understand what that means. I previously was showing disdain for a culture of drugs where individuals didn't use drugs responsibly, (doing drugs to the point of self-destruction) and you had taken umbrage to it by saying people do take drugs responsibly. I believe I never argued against that as I too drink alcohol responsibly and have no problem with that. I was only making a judgement on someone's moral character, not advocating they be arrested or use force against them. Only showing I had disdain for people who waste away their lives abusing drugs not using them responsibly. Yet you labeled me a "moral conservative", I suppose I am but I'm not sure if that's intended to be an insult or praise? :)

Post 11

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 12:36pm

Steven, as I said, I don't have a problem with you thinking the example is overused. You may be too far in the other direction, but it's debatable. My first post was recounting an example I used years ago in answering a question. And I used it because I had witnessed it, and it was a familiar enough concept to those I was talking to.

As far as my original post not going into detail about deceit or false intentions, I wrote it quickly and didn't feel the need since most people are familiar with the idea. For instance, I thought Teresa understood.

I don't think it's fair to say that the woman knew "at some level". That's a way to excuse almost any con. No, if he lies about his intentions to get her to trust him, we shouldn't excuse it, even if she did know it at some level. You may also blame her for her own actions, but it doesn't make his any better.

To round it out, if a woman says she wants to have a purely sexual relationship, but really wants to trick a guy into a more serious relationship, one could say that he knows "at some level". One might argue that he's taking advantage of her because he knows her real desires, and he's cheating her. I don't think that's the case. I think she knows his desires (a purely sexual relationship), and she's trying to trick him. It doesn't matter if at some level he knows she wants more. As long as she states that sex is all that she expects, you can't go blaming him.

As for your point B., I think sexual taste does fall into the realm of morality. Like it or not, the values you get from different kinds of relationships actually are different. You can't simply say "I like X", because they're not equal choices. We can look at each kind, and see the values you can achieve from them, and weigh the importance of those values to a particular person's life. Even outside of the realm of judging people, each of us should understand the values with respect to our own lives and make an informed choice, not simply based on whim, but recognizing the costs and benefits that come with each. I'm not saying that one kind of relationship is always better than another, but I don't agree that they're all equal.

As for playthings, my view is grounded in the experience I've seen. There are multiple ways to approach dealing with others. You can approach it as a mutually beneficial trade. Or you can approach it by trying to take advantage of the other, gaining at their expense. A man or woman who has frequent short term relationships (even one night stands), is not necessarily in either category. Sex is good, and there's every reason to believe that people will want to trade value for value there. But there are also people who don't treat the other person as an end in themselves. They lie, deceive, distort, manipulate, take advantage of their emotional troubles, or whatever. In this case, there is no trade among equals. The other person is a plaything.

Post 12

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:18pm

The other person is a plaything. J.R.

Honestly, I would go further and say the other person doesn't even exist to the pleasure seeker. The pleasure seeker sees and treats his/her own body as the plaything, not the other's. Womanizers don't even see the women.

Steven, watch "Hitch." Great little movie.

Post 13

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 12:37pm

An Aristotilian "axiom" that I always come back to is that your character is a reality, your actions and decions dictate it with no care for what you may wish it to be, or trick others into believing it is. Whatever it is, but i'll call it karma for the sake of this post...happens the second an action has been taken.

Post 14

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 4:51pm

Ack.

I've been arguing with people over the term for a few years, and now I discover it doesn't necessarily mean you'll come back as a cock roach if you're evil, or idle rich if you're good.

Great.

Note to self: Non-Objectivists sometimes know what they're talking about.

Thanks, Audrey ;)

Post 15

Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 3:01pm

Objectivists make no moral statements if I prefer sherbet over ice cream, so why should someone who is a dedicated short-termer or a one-night-stand-fan be told that his sexual tastes are suddenly a sign of some kind of problem?

The objective problem is called math.   The path to 2^365 = saturation of a community before the month is over. In the latye 80s, the objective result of a failure to comprehend the 'religious tyranny' imposed by simple mathematical geographic (geographic? that too. I meant 'geometric')growth was dead 4 yr old hemophiliacs.

Some consider dead 4 yr old hemophiliacs to be some kind of a problem. Unless, of course, you are the CDC, which concluded that this was not a problem, because "for a significant percentage of hemophiliacs, HIV infection does not lead to AIDS, because the incubation period exceeds the life expectancy."

Sort of like a 'freebie.' Hey, they were going to die anyway.   Not a problem.

This problem/not a problem is related to the fantasy wish to separate our Holy psychological intentions from our factual biological actions.

At whatever reasonable failure/success rate one wants to claim, if one wanted to purposely design a human population self-terminating experiment to spread disease at the greatest possible rate, it is hard to beat 2^365 as a carrier.   I think that is why some of the tribe at least objectively frowns on it; they can do the math.

I think that is also why some of the tribe would frown on shitting in the water hole. Sure there is a lot of water in the swamp, but ... yuk.

This is no moral statement about any particular personal sexual act, it is simple mathematical consequence of group/population behavior. 2^365 behaviour is in fact impossible without significant overlap, even if we embrace our necrophiliac brothers and let them dig up a few.  No judgment against necrophiliacs. I mean after all, if you prick them, do they not ... well, at least ooze a little?   Necrophiliacs are simply the extreme examples of CDC logic in this regard:, because even with nearly instantaneous incubation, life expectancy is a negative number.

2^365 is well beyond significance in this universe. It exceeds the total number of elementary particles. As for such behaviour's impact on We the Living among a population, the bottom line is, saturation of the population so engaged in short order.

2^30 = 1 billion opportunities. A good month's work.   Of course that isn't going to be 1 billion unique opportunities. What it is going to be is, given a high enough success/failure rate, guaranteed saturation of any local community so blessed with mathematical illiterates.

Even limiting oneself to just one partner a month slows down the killing machine. At whatever level of success/failure you want to claim, a year of 2^12 behaviour pales in comparison with 2^365 behaviour.   Hey, have sex 123 times a day, not the issue; the issue is, with at least some nominal regard for serial monogamy. A little bit goes a long way.   A year's worth of one partner every 3 month is just 2^4 opportunities per year.   Compare any population with 2^4 opportunities per year with any population with 2^365 opportunities per year, and guess which one will be the subject of a NEJM article.

Which is why discrimination is a necessary tool of human survival among The Tribe.

It's one of the unsung reasons for why the 1st Amendment/Freedom of Speech is so important to our freedom.   We should all be absolutely free to warn each other off.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/25, 3:06pm)

Post 16

Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 6:08pm

Fred,

Not that I'm agreeing with Stephen, I'm not, but there is an important variable you're leaving out of your 2^365 formula:

Condoms.

The reason I disagree with Stephen is simply because if anything is to be "good," it has to be "good" across the board. It can't be "good" singularly, or for only a select group. "Good" is "Good." Not "good sometimes," or "good for me but not for you." Not liking ice cream doesn't reduce it's value. The human race is still better off for ice cream.

"Good" doesn't apply singularly, or to a select group. To be good for one implies a good for all.

The ability to display gerbil behaviour doesn't make gerbil behaviour "good."
If some want to claim gerbil behaviour in humans is good, they'll have to prove it's good for the whole human race. Anything less is whim worship, similar to multiple facial piercing.

Post 17

Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 1:30pm