Ayn Rand and a Moral Basis for Being a Sociopath

[WuWei]

@YamBake

Aren’t all words defined by society?

Define society.

[adroit]

@WuWei

If I kill a thief, am I not doing the most good for the most people?

Generally speaking, I’d say no. Material items aren’t more valuable than a human life.

[YamBake]

Oh, I’m sorry. Never mind.

[WuWei]

@adroit

Generally speaking, I’d say no. Material items aren’t more valuable than a human life.

That’s not what society says and it’s irrelevant.

That wasn’t my question. A thief causes harm to the common good, yes or no?

[WuWei]

@adroit

Generally speaking, I’d say no. Material items aren’t more valuable than a human life.

What objective value does a thief’s life have to “society”?

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@Jezcoe

It also breaks down at the extremes… hence the trolley problem.

Peter Singer is irrefutable proof of utilitarianism’s wrongness.

Why is that?

Voegelin on Utilitarians:

I just saw a very good example of this: Peter Singerspoke to a colloquium I attend at NYU. He argued that utilitarian ethics would make it mandatory for, say, a surgeon to, on occasion, deliberately kill a (mostly) healthy patient under the knife in order to harvest his organs for several other patients who need them. I think his demonstration was sound, but, of course, Singer, being an anithumanistic utilitarian, thought this was a good argument for occasionally doing just this, rather than a crushing refutation of utilitarian ethics!

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@Jezcoe

It also breaks down at the extremes… hence the trolley problem.

Peter Singer is irrefutable proof of utilitarianism’s wrongness.

Why is that?

Voegelin on Utilitarians:

I just saw a very good example of this: Peter Singerspoke to a colloquium I attend at NYU. He argued that utilitarian ethics would make it mandatory for, say, a surgeon to, on occasion, deliberately kill a (mostly) healthy patient under the knife in order to harvest his organs for several other patients who need them. I think his demonstration was sound, but, of course, Singer, being an anithumanistic utilitarian, thought this was a good argument for occasionally doing just this, rather than a crushing refutation of utilitarian ethics!

Thanks. What does that tell us about wealth redistribution?

[WuWei]

@adroit

Generally speaking, I’d say no. Material items aren’t more valuable than a human life.

How about a child raper?

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

Progressiterianism?

That’s more fun. Give me time to think up alternates.

[seniortoonces]

I think that Ayn Rand had to be joking.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Ahhh now you are hitting the crux of the problem with Objectivism

The only person who can judge whether one is “gaining” anything is the individual.

It is a philosophy that is based on transactions, not what is the “good” or “ moral” thing to do but what “value” one feels that they can gain.

Do you not gain when it is “good” and “moral”? Is that not a transaction as well?

Except, Rand defines those actions as immoral.

Say one is on route to a meeting that if one doesn’t make it they will lose the opportunity to earn $50,000. While walking there an old woman falls before and needs help guaranteeing that you will not make that meeting

What is the moral thing to do?

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Yep. That is why people are Utilitarian until we aren’t.

The problem with Objectivism is that one doesn’t have to stretch it very far until it breaks.

Rand would solve the Trolley Problem by killing the strangers and then justify later why they deserved to die

And if you think I am making that up… read Atlas Shrugged… she literally does that in that book.

I know. A warning.

A warning from a sociopath.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Except, Rand defines those actions as immoral.

Say one is on route to a meeting that if one doesn’t make it they will lose the opportunity to earn $50,000. While walking there an old woman falls before and needs help guaranteeing that you will not make that meeting

What is the moral thing to do?

That depends on you and your morality. Is society’s approval worth $50,000 to you?

[Jezcoe]

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@Jezcoe

It also breaks down at the extremes… hence the trolley problem.

Peter Singer is irrefutable proof of utilitarianism’s wrongness.

Why is that?

Voegelin on Utilitarians:

I just saw a very good example of this: Peter Singerspoke to a colloquium I attend at NYU. He argued that utilitarian ethics would make it mandatory for, say, a surgeon to, on occasion, deliberately kill a (mostly) healthy patient under the knife in order to harvest his organs for several other patients who need them. I think his demonstration was sound, but, of course, Singer, being an anithumanistic utilitarian, thought this was a good argument for occasionally doing just this, rather than a crushing refutation of utilitarian ethics!

Yeah… Utilitarianism does fail when pressed.

That is why Pigliucci posits… with fMRI evidence that humans are mostly Utilitarian right up the point where we are not.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

A warning from a sociopath.

Your society is immoral.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Except, Rand defines those actions as immoral.

Say one is on route to a meeting that if one doesn’t make it they will lose the opportunity to earn $50,000. While walking there an old woman falls before and needs help guaranteeing that you will not make that meeting

What is the moral thing to do?

That depends on you and your morality. Is society’s approval worth $50,000 to you?

Society’s approval doesn’t matter in Objectivism.

Only the individual need.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Yeah… Utilitarianism does fail when pressed.

That is why Pigliucci posits… with fMRI evidence that humans are mostly Utilitarian right up the point where we are not.

As does progressivism.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Society’s approval doesn’t matter in Objectivism.

Only the individual need.

But it does matter to you. And a great deal.

[Jezcoe]

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

Yeah… Utilitarianism does fail when pressed.

That is why Pigliucci posits… with fMRI evidence that humans are mostly Utilitarian right up the point where we are not.

As does progressivism.

You are losing the narrative my man.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Only the individual need.

Need for what?