Beggars in Spain

[GenSeneca]

Where is the justification to give due to ones self interest?

Value... It's a subjective term that's at the heart of rational self interest. It's entirely reasonable for you to value the life of your own wife more than you value the money you've saved for retirement. So if saving the life of your wife were of more value to you than the money you spend to do it, you would be acting in your own rational self interest.

The problem is calling such an action a sacrifice. You value the life of your wife more than you value your nestegg, so it's not a sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up something you do value for something you do not, or for something of a lesser value.

 

[Dr.Who]

Value... It's a subjective term that's at the heart of rational self interest. It's entirely reasonable for you to value the life of your own wife more than you value the money you've saved for retirement. So if saving the life of your wife were of more value to you than the money you spend to do it, you would be acting in your own rational self interest.

The problem is calling such an action a sacrifice. You value the life of your wife more than you value your nestegg, so it's not a sacrifice. A sacrifice is giving up something you do value for something you do not, or for something of a lesser value.

That definition of sacrifice makes total sense. One might very well value a trade off of one thing for another but avoid sacrifice since it is not a rational trade off.

I still pose the same question to you phrased another way:

What is it about Objecivism that would favor a value system that would result in more of us being our brothers keepers? The system appears to be very rational but also cold and uncaring. Can you show me that it is not?

 

[clarkatticus]

So, is it true that you think the American people do NOT help the poor? How is it that you come by this conclusion, if that is your conclusion?

Is it your belief (like most lefties) that high taxation (really confiscation at the point of gun by a huge oppressive statist government) of the productive class, is what we Americans must accept to help the poor?

Is it your belief that ANY reduction in the statist government's budget, hurts the poor?

Actually, I don't believe the churches and GOP organizations will be able to keep up with the demand of social services the GOP wishes to eliminate. A quick look at history before FDR will show that it wasn't done then, either. The operative word in my quote was "unconditionally", perhaps you overlooked that. I'm not a Christian, so the charity work I do comes from my own pocket and heart, I realize it's only a drop in the bucket but it makes me feel better.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, I don't believe the churches and GOP organizations will be able to keep up with the demand of social services the GOP wishes to eliminate. A quick look at history before FDR will show that it wasn't done then, either. The operative word in my quote was "unconditionally", perhaps you overlooked that. I'm not a Christian, so the charity work I do comes from my own pocket and heart, I realize it's only a drop in the bucket but it makes me feel better.

Are we as a nation able to keep up with the demand for social services?

First lets be clear that being able to is a completely different question than being willing to. Since there is a certain amount of money that is presently being taken from people and used for social services if the gov stopped taking that money from people then they would have it and would obviously be able to give it themselves. There is no question that we are able to give just as much as we are giving now.

Next, lets consider that just because there is a demand for something that does not mean that there is a need for something. Right now there are social service programs in which first graders can ask for condoms. No, a programs should not exist just because it can.

So, will the American people ever not give enough to fund important social service programs? I say no. Since you want these programs funded then show us that they will not be funded so that we can know that the answer is to take tax money to fund them. Can you show us any important social service need that lacks funding? And if so why do you insist that the answer is to get tax funding rather than to more strongly convince your fellow citizen to be more generous?

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, I don't believe the churches and GOP organizations will be able to keep up with the demand of social services the GOP wishes to eliminate. A quick look at history before FDR will show that it wasn't done then, either. The operative word in my quote was "unconditionally", perhaps you overlooked that. I'm not a Christian, so the charity work I do comes from my own pocket and heart, I realize it's only a drop in the bucket but it makes me feel better.

In the interest of being thorough can you show us what was needed and not provided before FDR? In all fairness we should look at the normal state of affairs and not at unusual states of affairs. Lets not look at the period during the great depression first. If you fail to find unfunded need outside of the great depression then lets look at the period during the great depression.

 

[clarkatticus]

It is hard to keep saying the same mantra over and over, but here goes, if we did not have 2 unfunded wars, unfunded RX plan, 16 trillion in world wide bank garantees, if we had not gutted Glass Steagall, legalized "bucket shops" and gave enormous tax breaks w/o covering them, we would not be argueing about the economy, worrying about funding medicare or SS. We would probably still be whining about Obama's religious affiliations and abortion would be the next big issue.

 

[GenSeneca]

What is it about Objecivism that would favor a value system that would result in more of us being our brothers keepers?

First, let me say that I've been on vacation so I apologize for the long delay in responding. As for your question, let me rephrase it slightly...

Does Objectivism hold that individuals have some duty or obligation to care for their fellow man? No, it does not. In fact it states that individuals have no inherent duty or obligation to any other individual or group. It further teaches that if your desire is to help your fellow man, then you can best accomplish this task through personal investments and personal achievements, i.e., by maximizing your own potential.

For example, Bill Gates gives away millions upon millions of his money to charity and philanthropic endeavors. He can do this because he didn't sacrifice himself to the service of others. We've heard the story about the big hearted charity worker who chose a much lower paying job to be in service to others, imagine if Gates would have done that... Had he set aside his own selfish, personal aspirations and settled for being a social worker, his empire wouldn't exist and the millions of people who benefit from his generosity would be getting nothing. Only the small handful of people he actually worked with would derive any benefit from Gate's sacrifice.

The system appears to be very rational but also cold and uncaring.

The words "cold" and "uncaring" are emotional, not rational. Let's stick with the rational for now. If you want to be as generous and as helpful as possible in the lives of others, sacrificing your own potential is self defeating. In your own personal life, you went to college to become a doctor, that cost a large amount of money, a huge investment of your time, hopefully you saw rewards fitting for such an investment. You could have forgone college and spent that time and money on some charity and, as a result, had a much lower paying job to support yourself.

The Altruist would appeal to your emotions, cheer your decision and laud you for sacrificing your own potential to the good of others. The Objectivist would appeal to your rationality and point out that maximizing your own individual potential opens up opportunities and abilities for you to help your fellow man that simply aren't available to you if you sacrifice yourself to the good of others.

Altruism is emotional, irrational, it teaches the individual that self sacrifice is a moral duty or obligation. In contrast, Objectivism rationally explains that self sacrifice is counterproductive, that whatever it is you wish to accomplish in life (even if it's being your brothers keeper), you best accomplish your goals by maximizing your own individual potential to reach your goal. Just as we cannot tax our way into prosperity or spend our way out of debt, you cannot fulfill your own potential by sacrificing that same potential to others.

 

[Dr.Who]

First, let me say that I've been on vacation so I apologize for the long delay in responding. As for your question, let me rephrase it slightly...

Does Objectivism hold that individuals have some duty or obligation to care for their fellow man? No, it does not. In fact it states that individuals have no inherent duty or obligation to any other individual or group. It further teaches that if your desire is to help your fellow man, then you can best accomplish this task through personal investments and personal achievements, i.e., by maximizing your own potential.

For example, Bill Gates gives away millions upon millions of his money to charity and philanthropic endeavors. He can do this because he didn't sacrifice himself to the service of others. We've heard the story about the big hearted charity worker who chose a much lower paying job to be in service to others, imagine if Gates would have done that... Had he set aside his own selfish, personal aspirations and settled for being a social worker, his empire wouldn't exist and the millions of people who benefit from his generosity would be getting nothing. Only the small handful of people he actually worked with would derive any benefit from Gate's sacrifice.


The words "cold" and "uncaring" are emotional, not rational. Let's stick with the rational for now. If you want to be as generous and as helpful as possible in the lives of others, sacrificing your own potential is self defeating. In your own personal life, you went to college to become a doctor, that cost a large amount of money, a huge investment of your time, hopefully you saw rewards fitting for such an investment. You could have forgone college and spent that time and money on some charity and, as a result, had a much lower paying job to support yourself.

The Altruist would appeal to your emotions, cheer your decision and laud you for sacrificing your own potential to the good of others. The Objectivist would appeal to your rationality and point out that maximizing your own individual potential opens up opportunities and abilities for you to help your fellow man that simply aren't available to you if you sacrifice yourself to the good of others.

Altruism is emotional, irrational, it teaches the individual that self sacrifice is a moral duty or obligation. In contrast, Objectivism rationally explains that self sacrifice is counterproductive, that whatever it is you wish to accomplish in life (even if it's being your brothers keeper), you best accomplish your goals by maximizing your own individual potential to reach your goal. Just as we cannot tax our way into prosperity or spend our way out of debt, you cannot fulfill your own potential by sacrificing that same potential to others.

It is a very rational system that makes a lot of sense.

Is it rational to embrace a system that in no way encourages doing good for others but only allows it? At best a system that allows altruism but does not encourage it is incomplete. At worst it is rational but we are emotional creatures and we must address our emotions. I concede that the system is rational and do not think we need to establish that before discussing the emotive realm. We are ready to discuss the emotional aspects of the system.

How do you think that shortcoming in the system should be addressed?

 

[Dr.Who]

First, let me say that I've been on vacation so I apologize for the long delay in responding.

I too have been away from the site for a bit. Hope you all had a wonderful thanksgiving.

 

[Gipper]

I too have been away from the site for a bit. Hope you all had a wonderful thanksgiving.

We did thank you.

I brined the turkey and roasted it perfectly. 24 family and guests at the house. My gorgeous right wing gun touting wife is also a wonderful cook, though rather messy and I get to clean up. But, all went without a hitch.

We had much to give thanks for even after considering the harm committed by the government upon us.

Hopefully all went well for you and yours too.

 

[GenSeneca]

Is it rational to embrace a system that in no way encourages doing good for others...?

Absolutely. It is irrational to embrace a system that places the well being of others above the well being of yourself.

At best a system that allows altruism but does not encourage it is incomplete.

Altruism is a philosophy of self destruction, so I don't consider a lack of altruistic influence to be a negative but rather a positive.

...we are emotional creatures and we must address our emotions.

Emotions should be recognized for what they are and addressed with logic and reason.

How do you think that shortcoming in the system should be addressed?

I don't see it as a shortcoming.