Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
The Great Atheist/Theist Debates have run aground without Hitchens to breathe life into them. Meanwhile, Sam goes off on Rand and Objectvism in his blog.
Sam and the Objectivists both think they uphold rationality, and both think that the good can be objectively determined, yet one claims reason leads to altruism, and one claims it leads to selfishness.
Sam think’s he’s a libertarian. A libertarian who thinks the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives.
Meanwhile, Rand vehemently condemns libertarians.
Note that I am not an Objectivist. Rand would term me a “whim worshipping subjectivist”. Sam has never seen fit to actually address moral subjectivism, instead preferring an intramural argument with liberal cultural relativists. Fine. How about an intramural argument with another objective moral rationalist instead?
Let’s see a Texas Cage match between Sam and Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley.
Government restricted to enforcing our rights versus government that forces us to do good.
Selfishness vs. Altruism as the objective moral good.
If the cage match tickets can’t generate a sale price of a $100+ there is not enough return on investment to bother with the performance.
I saw Sam in Seattle for somewhere in the neighborhood of $15.
And I was unaware Sam was so commercial. He seems earnest enough in both his advocacy of the WBCC as the objectively moral and his condemnation of all the harm he thinks Rand has done. I would have thought, just as a matter of ideological assertiveness, that he’d welcome a smackdown wiith the Objectivists.
Then again, perhaps not. He has been eager to peddle the WBCC as the foundation of Objective Morality, but not so eager to answer criticisms or engage in any serious way with philosophers criticizing his work. He’s put some effort into combating cultural relativism and Divine Command theory, but that’s about it.
As an intellectual matter, comparing and contrasting two ideologies that claim to rationally bridge the is-ought divide but come to diametrically opposed moral and political conclusions is a natural.
If the cage match tickets can’t generate a sale price of a $100+ there is not enough return on investment to bother with the performance.
I saw Sam in Seattle for somewhere in the neighborhood of $15.
And I was unaware Sam was so commercial.
I imagine his expenses are high, especially security. I’ll bet he could make a fortune by teaming up with Peikoff or perhaps some younger and quicker objectivist for a speaking tour reminiscent of the days when Liddy and Leary were rich partners in ideological contrast.
Sam think’s he’s a libertarian. A libertarian who thinks the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives.
Meanwhile, Rand vehemently condemns libertarians.
I liked the article. I’m glad to see that Sam took on the Randians and so called objectivists for being extremists whose polarized black and white world view does not even serve their selfishness well. Rand didn’t like libertarians because they weren’t radical enough for her. A chain smoker, she died of cancer, because she didn’t believe the government had any business protecting innocent but otherwise stupid people, like herself, from being taken advantage of. It was fitting, as to find virtue in selfishness is literally the strategy of the cancer cell. More nuanced understanding regarding the source of wealth, health and happiness escaped Rand entirely. As far as she was concerned, she was self made. Of course she was a hypocrite, she died on medicare, while receiving social security. The government provided and paid for the morphine she no doubt received on her deathbed.
I don’t think that Sam thinks that “the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives”. That seems unfair, and too black and white.
Sam think’s he’s a libertarian. A libertarian who thinks the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives.
Meanwhile, Rand vehemently condemns libertarians.
I liked the article. I’m glad to see that Sam took on the Randians and so called objectivists for being extremists whose polarized black and white world view does not even serve their selfishness well. Rand didn’t like libertarians because they weren’t radical enough for her. A chain smoker, she died of cancer, because she didn’t believe the government had any business protecting innocent but otherwise stupid people, like herself, from being taken advantage of. It was fitting, as to find virtue in selfishness is literally the strategy of the cancer cell. More nuanced understanding regarding the source of wealth, health and happiness escaped Rand entirely. As far as she was concerned, she was self made. Of course she was a hypocrite, she died on medicare, while receiving social security. The government provided and paid for the morphine she no doubt received on her deathbed.
I don’t think that Sam thinks that “the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives”. That seems unfair, and too black and white.
I, too, thought Sam’s article was good. And nowhere does Sam say, and never have I heard him say, that “the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives”
This is jut the one-eyed buybuy spouting his neocon song - the only one he knows. He has been totally brainwashed and really knows nothing about economics except for the defunct and clearly problematic propaganda of the Chicago ’ greed is good’ school that led America into the GFC and her current mess. He’s up on the podium waving his patriotic flag with all the other brainwahed Faux News befuddled teabagger rank and file without the slightest idea what it is he is advocating. All very sad. It’s as if Americans of that ilk have learned nothing from what has happened.
I liked the article. I’m glad to see that Sam took on the Randians and so called objectivists for being extremists whose polarized black and white world view does not even serve their selfishness well. Rand didn’t like libertarians because they weren’t radical enough for her.
Unfortunately, this is par for the course for Sam. If he wanted to support central planning, he could have attacked Hayek or Friedman. Instead, he chose the great liberal bogeyman Ayn Rand.
A chain smoker, she died of cancer, because she didn’t believe the government had any business protecting innocent but otherwise stupid people, like herself, from being taken advantage of. It was fitting, as to find virtue in selfishness is literally the strategy of the cancer cell. More nuanced understanding regarding the source of wealth, health and happiness escaped Rand entirely. As far as she was concerned, she was self made. Of course she was a hypocrite, she died on medicare, while receiving social security. The government provided and paid for the morphine she no doubt received on her deathbed.
Gloating over a woman dying of cancer because you disagree with her politics. Charming. The Rand Derangement Syndrome lives on.
As for the charge of hypocrisy, she would be a hypocrite if she told others to refuse using all government services, or medicare and social security specifically. Do you have any evidence that was the case?
I don’t think that Sam thinks that “the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives”. That seems unfair, and too black and white.
I note that you didn’t say it was false or untrue. Is it?
Sam wrote, in the article you cite approvingly:
I’d wager he would pick door number #1. But if he wouldn’t, I maintain that it is only rational and decent for Uncle Sam to pick it for him.
Looks like Uncle Sam forcing someone to make the right decision.
Sam again:
I agree that everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her labors and that taxation, in the State of Nature, is a form of theft. But it appears to be a form of theft that we require, given how selfish and shortsighted most of us are.
Again, government action is justified because we are morally and intellectually imperfect.
Now, I agree that Sam hasn’t explicitly stated a theory of the just purposes and actions of government. That’s much of the problem - it’s unclear that he’s given it much serious thought. But there is clearly a logical step missing in “arguments” such as “We are immoral and won’t do what is right for ourselves. Uncle Sam should make us do it.” What I attributed to Sam is the most direct way to fill that gap. If he has a better, more rational, less grotesque way, he would do well to share it.
A debate with an Objectivist would provide a wonderful opportunity for him to do so. To just debate the role of government, he’d do better to debate the someone from Reason magazine, but the Objectivists are more generally fitting for a debate because of the multiple unique parallels and extreme contrasts between Samism and Objectivism.
The effort would do Sam good. He seems to live in the usual liberal bubble, where the prevalence of Rand Derangement Syndrome and a preference for central planning approaches 100%, and just doesn’t understand what people could possibly object to in his schemes of central planning.
There was a similar incident a while back, when Sam wrote a blog about increasing funding for government education, and a lot of people tore him a new one over the issue. That original post, and the replies it generated, were consigned to the Memory Hole by Sam, and he no longer has a comments section under his Blog posts.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 27 August 2011 10:42 PM
This is jut the one-eyed buybuy spouting his neocon song - the only one he knows. He has been totally brainwashed and really knows nothing about economics except for the defunct and clearly problematic propaganda of the Chicago ’ greed is good’ school that led America into the GFC and her current mess. He’s up on the podium waving his patriotic flag with all the other brainwahed Faux News befuddled teabagger rank and file without the slightest idea what it is he is advocating. All very sad. It’s as if Americans of that ilk have learned nothing from what has happened.
Another well reasoned and substantive retort! Good job!
I imagine his expenses are high, especially security. I’ll bet he could make a fortune by teaming up with Peikoff or perhaps some younger and quicker objectivist for a speaking tour reminiscent of the days when Liddy and Leary were rich partners in ideological contrast.
I’m not sure the series would be that popular, but it has the potential to be intellectually interesting.
Two rationalists who believe they have bridged the is-ought gap arguing the diametrically opposed moral positions their rationality led them to: selfishness vs. the WBCC, individualism versus altruism. If you’re interested in moral philosophy, that’s interesting, but I actually have my doubts that it would be generally popular.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 27 August 2011 10:42 PM
This is jut the one-eyed buybuy spouting his neocon song - the only one he knows. He has been totally brainwashed and really knows nothing about economics except for the defunct and clearly problematic propaganda of the Chicago ’ greed is good’ school that led America into the GFC and her current mess. He’s up on the podium waving his patriotic flag with all the other brainwahed Faux News befuddled teabagger rank and file without the slightest idea what it is he is advocating. All very sad. It’s as if Americans of that ilk have learned nothing from what has happened.
Another well reasoned and substantive retort! Good job!
\
Why, thank you, Buybuy. I am gratified that you are beginning to see the truth. Improvement noted. More work to do, though. Keep up the good effort.
I liked the article. I’m glad to see that Sam took on the Randians and so called objectivists for being extremists whose polarized black and white world view does not even serve their selfishness well. Rand didn’t like libertarians because they weren’t radical enough for her.
Unfortunately, this is par for the course for Sam. If he wanted to support central planning, he could have attacked Hayek or Friedman. Instead, he chose the great liberal bogeyman Ayn Rand.
Nobody said anything about “central planning”. This seems like a good example of a need to perceive the world in strict polarized terms. It supports my suggestion that “Rand didn’t like libertarians because they weren’t radical enough for her.”
eucaryote - 27 August 2011 09:10 PM
A chain smoker, she died of cancer, because she didn’t believe the government had any business protecting innocent but otherwise stupid people, like herself, from being taken advantage of. It was fitting, as to find virtue in selfishness is literally the strategy of the cancer cell. More nuanced understanding regarding the source of wealth, health and happiness escaped Rand entirely. As far as she was concerned, she was self made. Of course she was a hypocrite, she died on medicare, while receiving social security. The government provided and paid for the morphine she no doubt received on her deathbed.
Gloating over a woman dying of cancer because you disagree with her politics. Charming. The Rand Derangement Syndrome lives on.
As for the charge of hypocrisy, she would be a hypocrite if she told others to refuse using all government services, or medicare and social security specifically. Do you have any evidence that was the case?
I don’t think that Sam thinks that “the government should force us to make the right decisions in our lives”. That seems unfair, and too black and white.
I note that you didn’t say it was false or untrue. Is it?
Those were your words, another example of a need to force your, (and our), reasoning into simple pairs of parallel opposites. Of course this is a strong deviation from how the real world actually presents itself to us.
You know full well that Rand was a hypocrite for taking advantage of a “social safety net” when she herself insisted on her right to a disabling and fatal addiction. From a Randian standpoint, why should society pay for disabling diseases that one stubbornly brings on oneself? Rand rejected the scientific claims that smoking would kill her.
Nobody is gloating, I’m just pointing out that her hypocrisy exposes the vacuousness of her polarizing worldview. Her philosophies are far too coarse and unrefined to have any application to the real world, regardless of their appeal to the reptile brain.
buybuydandavis - 28 August 2011 12:22 PM
Sam wrote, in the article you cite approvingly:
I’d wager he would pick door number #1. But if he wouldn’t, I maintain that it is only rational and decent for Uncle Sam to pick it for him.
Looks like Uncle Sam forcing someone to make the right decision.
Sam again:
I agree that everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her labors and that taxation, in the State of Nature, is a form of theft. But it appears to be a form of theft that we require, given how selfish and shortsighted most of us are.
Again, government action is justified because we are morally and intellectually imperfect.
Now, I agree that Sam hasn’t explicitly stated a theory of the just purposes and actions of government. That’s much of the problem - it’s unclear that he’s given it much serious thought. But there is clearly a logical step missing in “arguments” such as “We are immoral and won’t do what is right for ourselves. Uncle Sam should make us do it.” What I attributed to Sam is the most direct way to fill that gap. If he has a better, more rational, less grotesque way, he would do well to share it.
Again, you’re taking quotes out of context and spinning them into absolute polar dichotomies. A hallmark of rational thinking is the ability to hold several seemingly contradictory frames of reference in mind at once - the world view obtained by this method yields a three dimensional landscape of choices that are not apparent to flat landers. I suggest that you avail yourself o this perspective more often.
It’s also unclear that you have given ” just purposes and actions of government” much serious thought.
Where do you draw your lines?
Do you “believe in” rules of law? Why?
buybuydandavis - 28 August 2011 12:22 PM
A debate with an Objectivist would provide a wonderful opportunity for him to do so. To just debate the role of government, he’d do better to debate the someone from Reason magazine, but the Objectivists are more generally fitting for a debate because of the multiple unique parallels and extreme contrasts between Samism and Objectivism.
Debates with “objectivists” is not unlike debates with other believer, pure ideology types. Again, you seem to have no ability to think in anything but absolute terms. Debating with those who are incapable of holding several contradictory thoughts in mind simultaneously, is strictly a waste of time. Sam Harris should have come to grips some time ago with the idea that appealing to atheists is also to appeal to some really luny ideas otherwise. He shouldn’t be surprised.
buybuydandavis - 28 August 2011 12:22 PM
The effort would do Sam good. He seems to live in the usual liberal bubble, where the prevalence of Rand Derangement Syndrome and a preference for central planning approaches 100%, and just doesn’t understand what people could possibly object to in his schemes of central planning.
Another reference to “a preference for central planning approaches 100%”. Your filter is really very narrow is it not? Does your preference for absolute anarchy approach 100%? If not why not?
buybuydandavis - 28 August 2011 12:22 PM
There was a similar incident a while back, when Sam wrote a blog about increasing funding for government education, and a lot of people tore him a new one over the issue. That original post, and the replies it generated, were consigned to the Memory Hole by Sam, and he no longer has a comments section under his Blog posts.
Yes, again, Sam should not be surprised that there is a market for those who deny responsibility for public, secular education. The Randians simply don’t give a shit about other peoples kids. It’s doubtful that they give a shit about their own kids.
Note that I am not an Objectivist. Rand would term me a “whim worshipping subjectivist”. Sam has never seen fit to actually address moral subjectivism, instead preferring an intramural argument with liberal cultural relativists.
Can you describe what you mean by moral subjectivism?
Note that I am not an Objectivist. Rand would term me a “whim worshipping subjectivist”. Sam has never seen fit to actually address moral subjectivism, instead preferring an intramural argument with liberal cultural relativists.
Can you describe what you mean by moral subjectivism?
Well, we only have the two words to work with. I could only gather that the implication is that morality is a function, (only), of what one, (aka the subject), makes of it. No, ‘objective”, moral benchmarks.
To a point of course, this is true, nonetheless as the limits to the reasoning are taken, we see that the relationship of morality to subjective experience, can be measured, (by history), to deviate strongly in a non-linear way in either direction. All of this is nonintuitive to the average “subject”.
Note that I am not an Objectivist. Rand would term me a “whim worshipping subjectivist”. Sam has never seen fit to actually address moral subjectivism, instead preferring an intramural argument with liberal cultural relativists.
Can you describe what you mean by moral subjectivism?
Well, we only have the two words to work with. I could only gather that the implication is that morality is a function, (only), of what one, (aka the subject), makes of it. No, ‘objective”, moral benchmarks.
To a point of course, this is true, nonetheless as the limits to the reasoning are taken, we see that the relationship of morality to subjective experience, can be measured, (by history), to deviate strongly in a non-linear way in either direction. All of this is nonintuitive to the average “subject”.
I came across the term just recently for the first time, when BBDD brought it up on another thread. I googled it and took a quick look at a few documents, but I’m still a little unclear as to the exact difference between moral subjectivism and moral relativism (and between moral subjectivism and consensus morality).
The idea that all of one or the other exclusively applies is a skewed idea to begin with. Human behavior is too complex on its social and physiological scales to adhere to distinct notions of altruistic and selfish motivations; we express both for different motivational reasons. I agree with Harris, armed with facts and evidence, science can help to make the best possible distinctions for the best outcomes for the individual, family unit and society as they are all intricately inter-meshed. Formal debates, as useful, informative and interesting as they may be, usually are frustrating and disappointing to me because they are rarely nuanced, they usually only highlight two extremes of a given spectrum rarely presenting a complete picture.
And just exactly what rights are those? How far can we extend our ‘rights’? How do we interpret what is a right and what is a privilege? Who decides?
Jingoistic flapdoodle.
An ebb and flow of ‘rights’ has always and will always be prevalent, and there is no reason why Government cannot be a provider to people to enjoy those rights as well as the protector of them.
