| | Various people have commented about predation outside of the violation of "rights." I totally agree. Which is why predation is a distinct issue from "rights." I realize that this is directly counter to the common Libertarian "Wert Frei" position advocated by Rothbard, George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and a host of other non-objectivists. In fact, this is one of the distinguishing points between most Libertarians and most Objectivists.
When did Ellsworth Toohey use force or direct fraud to accomplish his evil aims? By the purist "value free" Libertarian standard, Toohey was still an upstanding citizen. Jim Taggart, on the other hand, employed state power on various occasions to achieve his ends, but still, his portrayal is not fundamentally of a jack-booted statist thug, but rather as a person whose basic motivations are anti-life.
For an objectivist, then, a sociopath who simply takes advantage of the sins or ignorance of others in order to manipulate them into destruction of themselves and others is as evil as someone who simply threatens: "Either I blow your head off or you give me the money." Measured by the actual destruction of values that result, it would be hard to say, except comparing specific instances, which - force, fraud, or evil-manipulation - is more evil.
At the same time this illustrates the distinction between a discussion focussed on "rights," as differentiated from one focussed on "predation." The sociopath - as differentiated from the psychopath - typically does NOT use direct force or provable fraud, but rather depends upon the sins or weaknesses of his victims (Dominique, Gail Wynnd, etc.) - although the actual target may be someone who is both virtuous and smart and fully understands that he is the victim - as in Howard Roark. Note that Roark had some close scrapes there.
Phil,
When you say, "The attention and value that most people place upon intimacy, lovers, friendships, etc., often willing to risk their lives for a lover or friend, for example, simply reflects how important that mirror of one's "soul" in fact is," which is the first sentence in your last paragraph, post 31, you are quite clearly saying we get no value from friends or lovers beyond psychological visibility.
The whole second half of your post, 31, is about psychological visibility. You say, "...it is that need [psychological visibility] that drives the need to act... morally..." This, also, is in the last paragraph. Law is one subsection of morality, so what applies to morality applies to law.
Dumb? I would choose the term, "stupid" for what's going on here. I've gotten the "you're a troll!" thing before, but I don't understand what you mean. Am I supposed to be someone other than who I say I am? Why would you think so?
Mindy
Still attempting to obfuscate, I suppose that Mindy's posts ought to be answered, if only to demonstrate what she's up to to those who are clueless.
From my post #31: "So, I can consistently support rational values for civilization collectively, and try to convince all my associates to behave as though God was watching them, even though I personally have no belief in any such incentive, and meanwhile rip off my friends and lovers whenever there is a chance to do so in which great gains are accompanied by virtually zero chance of being caught." (emphasis added.)
At no point, although my final statement that Mindy quoted could be twisted that way, did I mean to suggest that acting honestly as a policy was not supported by the usual arguments for it. The problem is that this leaves holes in the argument for morality. One acts according to a policy, a standard, a principle for many reasons, such as cognitive economy, image if one is actually caught, etc. However, within that context, there is no reason - apart from the pseudo-reason of rationalism - for departing from policy when the incentives are sufficient.
The argument from visability plugs that loophole. Even if ONLY you could know, that's sufficient, on the grounds of the need for psychological visability.
" "The attention and value that most people place upon intimacy, lovers, friendships, etc., often willing to risk their lives for a lover or friend, for example, simply reflects how important that mirror of one's "soul" in fact is," " This is presented as evidence consistent with the conclusion, not as proof in itself. In context, one would think that it was clear in intent and scope, but I could have included the term "extreme" in front of attention, or otherwise made sure to indicate that elsewhere. I suppose that one value that trolls can contribute to a discussion is forcing one to be ruthlessly clear and inclusive, although that can also lead to being boring.
|
|
