Altruism, Christianity, Rand, etc. - A Continuation

Post Reply New Topic

In that case, like most philosophical discussions, this one is about words rather than about things. Most people would consider the word “manipulation” to be wholly pejorative. Indeed, Merriam-Webster defines the relevant sense of the word “manipulate” in pejorative terms:

to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one’s purpose.


I’m all for behaviour modification, as I have already said, in both children and adults. The difficulty is that, as you have pointed out, human beings are generally evil, and as such are likely, when given unchecked control over another’s behaviour, to use that control for evil ends. In the case of children, this isn’t apparent, because one’s children, if one is even remotely well-balanced, are seen as an extension of oneself, and so one’s own welfare is tied up in theirs; not a great many men manipulate their children’s behaviour for evil ends, though there will of course be pathological exceptions, especially in these narcissistic times.

If you’re one of the few men who see your own good as, without exception, coinciding with – or at least not being opposed to – the good of others. Then by all means, seek it. But the majority of men see their good in terms that, when viewed objectively, can be shown to arrive at the cost of others. The baker gets the housewife’s money and the housewife gets his bread; this is not a zero-sum transaction, in that both have benefited. The CEO of a multinational tobacco company who makes a fortune by manipulating people into making the irrational choice of becoming heavy smokers benefits at the expense of his customer, however, though he’ll likely euphemise his wrongdoing with inane rhetoric about “job-creation”, “productivity”, the “fight to survive” and so forth. There are very few people whose moral qualities are sufficiently well-developed to allow them to avoid the temptation to profit at the expense of others, and the probability of his succeeding in his endeavour to restrain himself decreases as the extent of such profits increases. Of course, free-marketers get around this hole in their system by shouting about “individual rights” and “paternalism”. The simple fact is that there is no such thing as free-will; we can all, to varying degrees, be manipulated into things which are against our interests. This is how the advertising industry works, and no doubt its proponents genuinely BELIEVE, like yourself, that they are manipulating people for their own good.

An additional trouble is that people, whose self-esteem is almost invariably fragile to the point of forever threatening to collapse, are unwilling, generally speaking, to admit to the evil of their own motives.

In conclusion, going around and telling people that they ought to manipulate people in order to get what they want, unless assuming a complete acceptance of the morally restraining principles you claim to personally uphold (I’ll take your word for it, but it’s STATISTICALLY unlikely), is likely to lead to disaster. Indeed, the use of operant conditioning techniques by those unqualified, either morally or intellectually, to hold them, is the reason for the disastrous state our world is in. If you seriously believe that the majority of people will accept such restraints, then you are capable of an astonishing degree of cognitive dissonance, given that you have already stated that one of your premises is that the human is intrinsically evil – and I agree.



No, but it looks like a very short book (more an essay), so I’ll try to read it tonight. I’m familiar with the idea of the selfish basis of benevolence; Rand stated, for all her reputation as a Nietzschean, that the most moral way to deal with others outside of one’s family and circle of friends is with an attitude of – I quote - benevolent indifference, and saw this, rightly I think, as no contradiction of the rest of her philosophy. Adam Smith can be and no doubt has been translated into similar terms. If this is the position you’re advocating, I have no moral qualms about your position, but rather about the fact that you are encouraging it in others using the rhetoric of selfishness and manipulation; most people, even educated people, are not particularly well acquainted on a philosophical level with the concept of rational, benevolent self-interest, and completely miss the fact that that’s the point you’re trying to make; encouragement of selfishness and manipulation, vis-à-vis most people is far more likely to lead to Nietzsche and de Sade than to Rand and Carnegie. Rand famously called selfishness a virtue, and within the narrow limits she and you have placed upon it, she was probably right, but this is not the understanding most people have of those terms.

Human behaviour must be analysed, to get an idea as to the effect of any course of action upon society as a whole, in statistical terms. We may meet a man whose selfish relation to others is perfectly symbiotic in nature, and no doubt many such men exist. But when we generalise that philosophy – or any other - onto collectives of people, it’s always the lowest common denominator that prevails, owing to the evil nature of man – especially “mass” man. This is a consequence of, as it were, the second law of thermodynamics.

I read the book and was quite disappointed; I was expecting it to be a serious, original work, but it's just a commentary on Rand whom, as I've already stated, I don't consider a serious or respectable thinker.


Its only worthwhile passage was one in chapter four, where the author makes a compelling and laudable defence of the value of custom.

Sorry you feel that way. I felt it added a little—what’s the word?—WARMTH to Rand’s philosophy, extending the title of virtue to benevolence and generosity. I think the majority of “brights” out there completely miscategorize Rand. The liberal institution demonizes Rand in particular as cold and mean-spirited. There’s no room for being nice to people for no apparent reason, which the brights hypocritically claim as their turf. They would have Rand spitting in the homeless bum’s face. Maybe Rand would, and maybe Rand wouldn’t, but all I can say is even Dagny Taggart gave a vagrant man a job without being forced to. Even the role of common housewife is rewarded as an occupation.


Oh...

And that cognitive dissonance regarding moral restraints? That statement is dead on. No, I don’t expect all people to accept and behave that way. I watch the news. I see how other kids act. I’m well aware. But that doesn’t mean I can’t make other choices or lead my own kids to make different choices.

And free will is a stupid thing to discuss. As a Christian believer, my stand on free will is that humans are created with the capacity to make free choices and ultimately do. The old sawhorse against this is predestination: If God already knows our choices, are we really free to make them? Ok, but there’s no way to know the answer to that question. The problem remains that it is logically possible to both make free choices that God already knew about and still allowed. And there’s all kinds of mental masturbation to counter that.

So my official word on free will: I’m going to go on believing that I can freely decide what I want for my own reasons. I’m not going to consider as relevant that God already knows what that will be.

My position on predestination is the same thing: God already knows and the sum of it is all within his plan. The ability to choose doesn’t negate the fact of predestination. There are no contradictions here.

The opposite position on either or both will be equally defensible or undefensible.

Therefore, it’s a silly argument that accomplishes nothing.

As to whether free will is negated by advertising/media: I’m bored by mainstream media. They are all fake to some degree, even Fox News. It’s so agenda-driven that the anti-Fox people don’t even try to hide it anymore. We can’t afford name brands, so we choose more affordable store brands that USUALLY are just as good if not better than the “legit” brands. When we do buy name brands, it’s whatever is available in bulk. We’ll buy stuff in “food service” quantities and save a lot of money. Granted, it’s hard to break even on membership fees, but the payoff is in reduced trips to the local grocery store. We lack access to cable tv, and limited access to “on-air” tv, so most of our viewing is either movies we recorded back when we HAD money to blow on cable or it’s public television (no ads). Maybe “they” are sending subliminal messages during Antiques Roadshow, but I’d say the risk is fairly minimal. Our kids, who are 11 and under, are huge fans of Dr. Blake and Father Brown. Aside from a few select episodes of Sesame Street and Arthur, we haven’t objected too much to their programming. The Ken Burns Vietnam documentary was incomparable in terms of photography, but I was disappointed that parts of it devolved into blatant anti-American rants. Ok, I acknowledge mistakes were made, evil people did what evil people do. What offended me was if the choice was made to go political, then it should have been balanced. Else just stick to the facts. Even my kids picked up on that.

Sure, they attempt brainwashing, and I think it evidently works. But not everyone has to succumb to it. If nothing else, SOME people are free and some are not.

Maybe you’ll find this helpful: I grew up going to church every time the door was open. I didn’t get to choose not to. I understood why. I just didn’t like it. Early on I noticed a tendency for preachers and Sunday school teachers to emphasize fear as a motivating element to come to faith. Within that, some things were taught that I immediately recognized as unbiblical and flat wrong. I was taught that these people were not to be questioned and to accept their teachings as settled fact.

My journey has been one of trying to discover what, if anything, was correct out of what people told me. A lot of that is eerily Randian. But over time I took all of those experiences apart. First, is there a God to believe in? I came to the conclusion that there is, and that was one of the few things I never doubted. Is Jesus the Savior? Same thing. If someone dies and goes to hell because you had the chance to witness to them and you didn’t, does that mean you’re going to hell, too? No. Should Christians be overly preoccupied with hell? No. If one is saved, he has nothing to fear. Not discussing hell doesn’t negate its reality, but it just isn’t relevant. So it doesn’t bother me that Christians don’t openly discuss it. Old earth or young earth? Who freakin’ cares, man? Get outta here! Evolution? Evolution can be demonstrated through rapid speciation in a few short generations. Get over it. I do believe in man as a special creation, though. And there a lot of lines to read between in Genesis 1...you know, like the first two verses. And who said the days of creation were CONSECUTIVE days? I believe that God is powerful enough to work that way, but I wasn’t there. I don’t know how He did it. I just know that the central point of Genesis 1 is God made the universe; it exists solely for His pleasure and He can dispose of it as He pleases. So age-of-earth arguments are about as intelligent as free will/predestination arguments.

A God who made us with minds and blessed us with reason would consider it a sinful waste to NOT use them to come to our own conclusions. We SHOULD guard against brainwashing.