Some of my best friends are communists
What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
1: Most likely there is government interference behind why children are working in sweatshops.
2: Without our system those 7 year olds would be starving to death trying to find a way to make a living.
Sorry my answers are vague but so was your statement.
I am not ignorant about Christianity.
Objectivism need no extra step to proceed logically. I reject the *gift* of natural rights. They exist because you must think in order t survive. Therefore all rational systems of politics and economics which protect those rights are virtuous. Systems which fail in protecting natural rights are not virtuous and will fail at some point.
You are watching it right now in the Ukraine, Argentina, and Venezuela. Earlier in Egypt. It is why Iraq and Afghanistan are not progressing even after the overthrow of evil govts. A system of govt was allowed to be put into place that does not value natural rights. It is doomed to fail and the people will not thrive.
***In defining a logical system, if God can give you life and so therefore the ability to think-why stop there?***
Who said that because I recognize that life is the gift of God, that it follows that I believe that God controls the ability to think?? I already said the God did not create puppets and he is not a marionette. We can follow whatever path in life we want, follow God or claim God does not exist – it only matters to the individual. I do believe that God after making a sacrifice for man is disappointed when one of us completely turns their back on him, but God will not force anyone to follow him. We exercise free will, and God will be the judge which is right. If you choose (and it is a choice) to reject God, as disappointing as that choice may be, it’s your choice.
**** Free will is poorly defined, in my opinion. It can't mean freedom from reality.****
It’s a choice thing – you don’t believe and I do believe – your OK, I’m OK – free will, no puppet strings. I never said it was freedom from reality - you did and I disagree. There is plenty of evidence for any who seriously seek it - and it's hid from those who reject it.
**** If I have to face reality to live, why do I have to "give back" anything to a deity? why do I have to acknowledge a blessing of my life to a concept that has no volition in my life?*****
Again, WHO said you must give back??? Who did I say to give back too??? When I donate to my church, I am supporting the ministries of that group of believers. As a trustee I can assure you that there is no “God Tap” into our bank account. No mystic money transfers, Nothing other than paying the light bill and gas for the lawn mower. Guess what? God does not require you to give. Not one penny. A person can come in, enjoy the service and leave and not one penny is going to be asked of you. Not hard for a smart person to understand.
*****If grace follows the devout, why is that grace selective? ****
Because the devout follow the father. If you don’t, you can’t expect to share in grace. That’s a very objectivist concept, why are you having trouble with it? The unbeliever has not paid the toll of believing.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Simple. Believing is the toll paid by the faithful. Value for value.
***In Objectivist epistemology, no such abstraction are needed to validate the original premise of I own myself. ***
Not challenged in Christianity. We are our own, we are individually responsible for working out our own salvation. We need salvation because at some point in our lives we reach a understanding that we’re not perfect and have done wrong that saying “I’m sorry” is not enough to gain forgiveness for. We come to a realization that there is a God who loves and cares for us apart from anything we can offer him EXCEPT our belief that he is. It’s a higher price than some can pay.
****The communism/Christian tie in is just noise to me. I am more interested in beliefs as a control-which can lead to slavery and death. I am not saying Christians actively promote such, at all. *****
Not a Tie-in, it’s historical reference. Knowledge. It has it’s own value too.
"You cannot say that a little self interest is good, but a lot is bad. It is either good or bad. "
As long as the system is based on man qua man-there is no limit. The more self interest the better.
like that stripper ;)
So what you really love is something else: building a business, travelling, rewarding yourself with a sportscar.
Personally, I think the one that comes closest to rational self interest that seems like you wanted unlimited money-is the desire to build interesting projects(I want to build the space ship that will carry humans to Mars or beyond, cure cancer) etc.
OK, Take a DEEP breath - You proved 1. A person has a natural right to life. Sorta blows the abortion crowd away, but without a right to life, nothing else matters.
There are several more, I'll let others list those, or you could look at the Bill of Rights. Those old white guys got things pretty much right and the collectivist types have been tearing it apart for 230(?) years.
Sorry I was just concerned when you questioned the statement and not his action.
In Objectivist epistemology, no such abstraction are needed to validate the original premise of I own myself.
The communism/Christian tie in is just noise to me. I am more interested in beliefs as a control-which can lead to slavery and death. I am not saying Christians actively promote such, at all.
I would add that the church is comprised of humans, who are fallible and corruptible. This has lead to atrocities and inconsistencies in practice over time. This should not be used as proof positive that all tenets of a faith are thus null and void - as one Objectivist who does not obey all tenets in lock-step is not proof that Objectivism is invalid (there are lots of other ways, but that's not one of them).
Load more comments...