BEHOLD THE CRACKED.......LETTING IN MORE LIGHT !

Michael,

Thank you for cautioning me, I appreciate that you would make such an effort for someone you have never, and may never meet; and perhaps (wouldn't that be nefarious) doesn't exist even. In your words, LOL.. I am trying Michael, to use every bit of logic and reason that I have, to help solve this problem. Perhaps we lack the same understanding of the problem. Let's play a little game here. Anyone can join in. Phil Coates can't be the only one to invent games. Interesting that he's a teacher too. I need you and any others to empathize with my position; because my stance, like Griffith's and Harry Prosen's ( Prosen wrote the foreward to Griffith's Great Exodus essay) is grounded in empathy. If we can't find common ground on which to stand, how can we balance ourselves sufficiently, to continue the fight?

So here's the game:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In one post, using the resources of a middle class person, describe how you would resolve this real life scenario; and why you would apply those strategies. Also, suggest a prize for the superlative answer. Ready?

At the point of a gun, you have been told that you are to supervise the free play of 25 children for five hours each day for a week. You are all trapped in a modern kindergarten room. The children are from 3 to 7 years of age and come from all manner of homes where most parents are dictators; some benevolent some not. Your goal is to manipulate the environment to suit yourself and the children; so that by the end of the week at least, everyone, including yourself, is flourishing and happy; and the classroom is intact and in good repair, ready for the next victims.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My answer Friday morning because some like to sleep on problems before they respond.

Sharon

Post 41

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:51am

how you would resolve this real life scenario?

Firstly this is an unliely scenario. The motivations of the gun wielder and how the children and you are placed in this scenario is so unlikely as to be a poor example from which to extrapolate any real life conclusions. Scenarios like this are often seen in philosophical and moral discussions where they are used to prove some point, but in reality they are to far removed from reality to be useful.

Lets put that aside for a moment however.

At the point of a gun,

Your goal is to manipulate the environment to suit yourself and the children

At the first opportunity, using whatever is at hand I seek to disable the gun wielding thugs. It's the only rational solution to the irrational situation.

Ethan

Post 42

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:02am

It's a game Ethan.

Pretend that the bank manager who holds the mortgage on your house has the gun, because you missed last month's payment. To whom do you have empathy with Ethan, the bank manager or the person with the children?.

Are you in the " no understanding of empathy school"; or are you determined to cloud the issue with my imperfections in communication?

Post 43

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:21am

Most people who know me personally consider me to have an incredbly high level of empathy. My Myers-Briggs personality type is ENFJ

http://www.typelogic.com/enfj.html

I'll leave you to your game.

Ethan

Post 44

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 3:50pm

Sharon:

This is ridiculous. The bank manager has no right to hold me hostage at gun point. The mortgage contract provides the bank manager with recourse in the case of my default.

This is an exercise in problem solving, not emotion. I have no empathy with the children � I just would want to get them (and me) out of harm's way and call in the SWAT team. You can empathize all you want but it won't cause the situation to get any better.

MSK says: "You certainly have my respect." Not mine.

Sam

Post 45

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:56pm

Oh no children are being left in forests by cold hearted Objectivist MURDERERS... This is an important topic that we have to think about!

As Objectivists we also need to consider the implications of being forced to babysit children at gunpoint...

And third and most importantly -- we must ponder the possibility of BANK MANAGERS threatening children with guns! :)

- Jason

(Does anyone else have silly scenarios for us to ponder? It would be hard to top these first three.)

(Edited by Jason Quintana
on 4/20, 6:06pm)

Post 46

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:08pm

Sharon,

Could I recommend you rework your little game to use positive reinforcement (like winning a million dollars or something)? Your Pavlovian gunpoint "bell" got the dogs salivating. (Metaphorically speaking, of course...)

You might get some participation if you reworked it.

Michael

Post 47

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 7:50pm

I can't believe this is an Objectivist thread, given the kind of posts we've seen from Michael and Sharon. It's beginning to take on an almost surreal quality. I'm all for debating the ideas, but there comes a point...

- Bill

Post 48

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:00pm

Well, Bill, it's easy.

Don't discuss.

Hey! Here's a great idea. Why don't you call Sharon an obscene name or something? That should be fun.

(btw - Just because I defend politeness to kindergarten teachers doesn't mean that I endorse everything they say, either.)

Michael

Post 49

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:55am

Well, I can see that the first allegory went right over like a lead balloon. That's nothing new for me.           But here, where the Mensa crowd plays?

You really believe that context is everything.   Did you hear that Michael Newberry will be giving art tutorials soon? He has interesting things to say about the essence of a thing.                                     Expose yourself to art!

Attempt # 2

The alegorical teacher and the bank manager with a gun. The teacher is not a teacher at all; but a gambling addict who has made quite a few errors in judgement lately, and fallen several months behind in his gigantic mortgage payments. The nefarious bank manager read something once; about a guy who learned it all in kindergarten; and always wondered if this was true. Since the banker didn't really need those several thousand dollars that the gambler owed, it was decided to set up the little scenario. Put the guy and a gaggle of kids into a kindergarten room for a week, and observe what happens. Sort of look and learn. If the children and the gambler/teacher are flourishing together by the week's end, and the kindergarten is in good repair; the gambling debt will be erased.

Is that enough context? Can you pretend that you are that teacher taking up the challenge, to save yourself from financial ruin?

It astonishes me that individuals, who endorse endless chat about science fiction fantasy and cartoon characters, find my challenge to be more outrageous and surreal, and less legitimate, even, on an Objectivist Board.               There's that protesting again. What is that?

btw   Have you ever read any fantasy writing by Ed Thompson?

All Best
Sharon

(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 4/21, 7:06am)

Post 50

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 6:30am

Hi Michael,

Thank you for supporting another pariah. It's a position I've been in all my life. I'm just too literal, too childlike. Too much context, I guess. OR

too many lying adults.

Regardless, it's all coming together now. . It's time to get out those Dylan albums again. "My Back Pages" is one of my favourites.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now".

Kind Regards
Sharon.

ps. How are your stomach muscles?

Post 51

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:46am

Why does anyone bother to read or post to this thread (as he says to himself)? I thought this was supposed to be an exercise in empathy. Who are we to empathise with? � nobody's a victim here, least of all the children. It's a benign situation.

This is just silly. Enough already of tolerating dissident views.

I'm gone.

Sam

Post 52

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:14am

MSK:

Well, Bill, it's easy.

Don't discuss.

Hey! Here's a great idea. Why don't you call Sharon an obscene name or something? That should be fun.

Don't tempt me!

- Bill

Post 53

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 6:30am

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins."

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged Part Three / Chapter 7 This Is John Galt Speaking

Sharon, bringing either force or fraud into the mix is a very bad idea if you are looking for an example of a moral dilemma that illustrates Objectivist philosophy in action. I pretty much dismissed your scenario because of the gun. How can you be forced to do something at the point of a gun for five hours one day and come back the next several days to do it again and again voluntarily? You'd have to be out of your ever-loving mind to go back the next day for that. I'd have the cops there to arrest the gunman, and it wouldn't surprise me if some kid decided to steal daddy's gun and bring it to school the next day.

I don't really understand the point of the example you posted and how it applies to Objectivist philosophy. It is pretty out there.

Kat

Post 54

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:17am

Hi Kat,

That was my thought as well. That's why I noted the only reasonable thing to do in that situation was to get the guy with the gun.

Ethan

Post 55

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:36am

Hi Kat

Thanks for staying curious about this mess.   I wanted to create  a   problem-solving situation whereby Objectivists would be obliged to put themselves in another's shoes.

I wanted to learn how the Objectivist mind, as opposed to mine, would come to a positive outcome. So, I took a page from Philip Coates' Book of Games, Puzzles and Entertainments; and designed a role-playing game. I guess it was too allegorical, and no one could enter into the spirit of the thing.

That's when I revised it on Post # 49.   Can you see now, how a person might have to come back day after day for a job he didn't want to choose voluntarily. I tried to create a Hobson's choice. Can you put yourself in the gambler's shoes? Can you describe how to achieve success under the circumstances he has been given?

If I am not yet clear, please let me know.   I appreciate your being direct about this.

Sharon

Post 56

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:19pm

Sharon,

You're advocating collectivism and altruism. Living for the "species" is exactly that. You have to justify your own life by how it helps the species. And if the species decides they'd do better with you dead, you don't have a counter argument. It's opens the door to all of the worst atrocities. Anyone who genuinely cares about children would not want the misery and death that comes with this philosophy.

And of course the true Axis of Evil is collectivism, altruism, and mysticism. The mysticism comes in when you try to use "science" to advocate ideas like "evolution is our natural purpose on this earth", "nature's goal of keeping humans thriving and evolving", and all the other species oriented philosophy. Nature does not have a purpose...it just is.

Now back to my real curiosity. Which is primary? The perpetuation of the species? Or happy children? You seem to use the first to justify the second, and that much bad philosophy can only be a rationalization. But feel free to correct me.

If killing children were good for our species, would you promote it? How about eugenics? Should we kill children who aren't too bright, or have some bad genes, aren't enough etc? This is a natural conclusion once the species is considered the ultimate value. Are you willing to advocate the killing of children? Are you willing to engage in a debate with people on the topic? Are you willing to have a scientific debate on the merits of baby killing to the species? If someone advocates slavery as a way of perpetuating the species, are you willing to debate it?

I consider that a huge step backwards from Objectivism, not a step forwards. I don't consider those ideas even open to debate. I don't believe an individual needs to be able to prove his worthiness to live to anyone else. It's his right. Nor do I think any merit to the "species" can justify the killing of an individual.

This is why philosophy matters. This is why "happy children" and feel-good philosophy cannot trump reason. While you may personally not support the murder of children and other innocent people, advocating collectivism and altruism opens the door to all of it.

Post 57

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 4:12am

Hi Joe

I am grateful that you are troubled by this issue.

I'm going to try and help you to see the situation from my perspective. In the last few days, I have come to a position that the ability to feel empathy with others is a key human attribute. How would I go about proving that to you? Could you see yourself embracing that theory?

Since humans, because of their long intellectual growth strand need an exponentially longer period of nurturing than lower animals, in order to reach a flourishing adulthood, it would be helpful to look at what support a developing human mind requires, in order for it to reach its full potential. Not that any human has reached its full potential, but it is among the goal of lifelong learners such as ourselves.

Setting Objectivism aside for a moment, why are altruism, mysticism and collectivism the axis of evil? I say they are improper, because they permit the proponents of such systems to evade the reality of living on this earth. They support unearned and undeserved gifts. This arrests intellectual development.
Once intellectual development is stalled, the rest of one's life is headed for spiritual ruin.

I have to leave for an appointment. If you get back before I do, please comment on what I have said thus far.

I appreciate this opportunity to explore these notions with you Joe. I will try to be a worthy opponent; because I really think we can find agreement in the end.

Sharon

Post 58

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:09am

Hi Sharon,
I think empathy is really a rather simple issue. It is expressed in the Golden Rule "treat others like you want to be treated". The root of this emotion - empathy, comes from self awareness and self-interest. We consciously or subconsciously think "what would I feel if I were in the other's situation?" "what do I wish from others?" And we would act toward others in a way that we wish others would toward us. In my opinion, there is no contradiction between empathy, self-interest, and Objectivist ethics.

Take the scenario you presented sometime ago, that you and your daughter were mugged in the park and your granddaughter was lost. Would I help you? Well, would I want others to help me if my child was lost? I thought the answer would be self evident.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/26, 7:13am)

Post 59

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:46am