Atlas Shrugged Movie in 2009

[RCA]

Wow! Maybe our numbers will grow stronger after this movie hits!

:eek:

EDIT: Forgot to post the link.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

[RonPaulVolunteer]

What?

[anaconda]

IMDB link

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

[Kludge]

Project is dead. Director quit, and Jolie is pregnant.

Besides, the last attempt at this was terrible. Rand's tomes cannot be brought to film in any less than 5 hours of movie.

[lynnf]

What?



fyi --

Atlas Shrugged (2009)
Writers:
Ayn Rand (novel) and
Randall Wallace (screenplay)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

lynn

[tonyr1988]

Project is dead. Director quit, and Jolie is pregnant.

Besides, the last attempt at this was terrible. Rand's tomes cannot be brought to film in any less than 5 hours of movie.

Yeah, they've been trying this for like 20 years. It just won't happen. I think they tried originally to do a TV mini-series, it failed, and then there were 500 attempts at a movie. It would be (potentially) nice, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[AutoDas]

I think a Bioshock movie would be more interesting.

Atlas Shrugged the movie would put kids to sleep.

[Anti Federalist]

Too bad...sounds like it might have been good.

Randall Wallace FTW.

[mport1]

I still need to read Atlas Shrugged. Its just so long and it seems like there is probably a lot of other more worthwhile things I could read.

[TastyWheat]

If Hollywood makes it I'm sure it will lose all of it's meaning.

[JRegs85]

I still need to read Atlas Shrugged. Its just so long and it seems like there is probably a lot of other more worthwhile things I could read.

That's exactly what I thought!

Just promise yourself you'll put the time into reading the book, and see what happens in a month...

[nate895]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.


My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

[RPTXState]

If Hollywood makes it I'm sure it will lose all of it's meaning.

Just like V for Vendetta

[Kludge]

We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!

Caring for others is fine so long as you realize that in doing so, you are caring for yourself. It is when you start to expect gratitude that you are a parasitic emotional leech of the needy because you need others to validate yourself in the eyes of other delusional parasites. "Selflessness" is a selfish act. There is no beauty in it. It does not make you more "human". It does not negate poor judgment of the past.

[BeFranklin]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.
.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

She was weird. Yes I read all her works, including newsletters. She contradicted herself even there, and had affairs and did speed while disclaiming the same.

[sevin]

We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

[Gaius1981]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

She was weird. Yes I read all her works, including newsletters. She contradicted herself even there, and had affairs and did speed while disclaiming the same.

What little respect I had for Rothbard has gone away now. He comes across as small and petty, and is consistently being misleading, and twisting the truth.

Rothbard unmasked (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)

[Gaius1981]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

Yes, that every man is an end in himself, and has the right to exists without sacrificing himself to others against his own will.

[Gaius1981]

Rothbard repeatedly talks about "excommunication". Objectivism isn't a political party, but an intellectual movement, and it's only reasonable that if a person doesn't agree with the philosophy which the movement represents, he should no longer be recognized as an advocate of that philosophy, else he would misrepresent it, giving it a bad name. Libertarian critics of Objectivism went overboard with their accusations when "Pope Peikoff excommunicated Greenspan" as they put it, saying that he should have shown more tolerance for Greenspan -- well, they must regret their words now.

[Conza88]

What little respect I had for Rothbard has gone away now. He comes across as small and petty, and is consistently being misleading, and twisting the truth.

Rothbard unmasked (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)

ROFL... Objectivity... something the objectivists lack. :o

The Good Life of Murray N. Rothbard by JoAnn Rothbard (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Freedom96/04_Freedom_JRothbard.mp3)

3min.50secs (Ayn Rand mentioned +) :) A story about the plagiarism accusation ;)

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)

I still recommend the book :)

[mediahasyou]

Project is dead. Director quit, and Jolie is pregnant.

Besides, the last attempt at this was terrible. Rand's tomes cannot be brought to film in any less than 5 hours of movie.

They should split it up into three movies, lord of the rings style.

[nate895]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

I really don't know how you can deny something that says "My philosophy..."

[Anti Federalist]

Caring for others is fine so long as you realize that in doing so, you are caring for yourself. It is when you start to expect gratitude that you are a parasitic emotional leech of the needy because you need others to validate yourself in the eyes of other delusional parasites. "Selflessness" is a selfish act. There is no beauty in it. It does not make you more "human". It does not negate poor judgment of the past.

I think, in Maimonides "levels of charity", he expresses this same thought, in that within the highest form of "charity" there is no opportunity to bask in the glow of "helping": you help by making the person in need of assistance self sufficient, no longer needing assistance, and you do this in way that the person receiving the assistance doesn't realize he is being helped.

The Christian version being "...teach man to fish and he eats for lifetime".

[nate895]

The Christian version being "...teach man to fish and he eats for lifetime".

That's Lao Tzu.

[Fox McCloud]

Caring for others is fine so long as you realize that in doing so, you are caring for yourself.

I would say that caring for others with complete disregard to caring for yourself is actually a very selfless act.

[Anti Federalist]

That's Lao Tzu.

Yeah yer right...;)

Now you know why I generally stay out of these religious circle jerks.

I usually end up looking like a horse's ass.:D

It's hard enough to get people to embrace liberty and freedom, let alone try to convince them of the "one true path to salvation" or even if there is such a path.

There are some truths that I accept and hold close, as you rightly pointed out, the sources of which through the ages, confused, lost or diminished.

I do hold, as an unshakable truth, that without freedom, that road to discovery will be forever closed.

[Kludge]

I would say that caring for others with complete disregard to caring for yourself is actually a very selfless act.

Every action by animals (humans included) is done to sustain themselves. It may be stupid, inefficient, or done under delusion, but it's always a rational decision driven by instinct. It's a bit of backwards science, but if you keep that in mind, you can almost always judge people and their actions accurately. Put more simply, I have not yet seen evidence that selflessness exists or is even possible.

We seek power (money, favor, influence, etc.) because we seek to secure our ability to sustain ourselves. Perhaps we open doors for good favor, hope that we'll improve some collective attitude, or because we would want the same done for us.

[BKom]

Atlas Shrugged is quite an interesting book. I read it in an afternoon about 30 years ago. The reason I was able to read it in an afternoon is this: I skipped all the pseudo-dialogue. That is speech making dressed up as dialogue. It's awful. And when a character goes on and on page after page making an actual speech, that is awful also. Terrible writing. Rand needed an editor badly.

I've written a few screenplays. And adapting Atlas Shrugged could be done easily to fit a 2 hour or slightly longer movie. Speechmaking would have to be cut or shortened. Speeches are not interesting in that context. They make the book drag and would certainly make a film drag.

Randall Wallace is a good screenwriter and I'm sure he could do a good job. He's the writer of Braveheart and other produced screenplays.

And if anyone wants to see how NOT to write a screenplay or make a film, please get a copy of the old Gary Cooper version of the Fountainhead. One of the worst pieces of trash ever filmed. I've always suspected it's because whoever wrote the screenplay (I don't feel like looking it up today) was too close to the material.

[BeFranklin]

What little respect I had for Rothbard has gone away now. He comes across as small and petty, and is consistently being misleading, and twisting the truth.

Rothbard unmasked (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)

What little respect? Ayn Rand told him to divorce his wife because she was another faith. She had her followers sign loyality oaths after Branden split up with her.

What don't you understand? Her fictional books may be one thing, but she acted like a cult leader in real life. You see anything wrong or weird at all with how Ayn Rand acted?

[BeFranklin]

Rothbard repeatedly talks about "excommunication". Objectivism isn't a political party, but an intellectual movement, and it's only reasonable that if a person doesn't agree with the philosophy which the movement represents, he should no longer be recognized as an advocate of that philosophy, else he would misrepresent it, giving it a bad name. Libertarian critics of Objectivism went overboard with their accusations when "Pope Peikoff excommunicated Greenspan" as they put it, saying that he should have shown more tolerance for Greenspan -- well, they must regret their words now.

Umm, like this was a one time thing :rolleyes: She did the same thing to Branden and others. And Greenspan went on to be the biggest pumper of paper money in the world after writing on the virtues of gold in Ayn Rand's book.

Not only do words have meaning, but actions have meaning as well. Greenspan probably caused the current economic collapse. Rothbard was right in 1972. It was all about power, and they weren't being truthful.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[tremendoustie]

Every action by animals (humans included) is done to sustain themselves. It may be stupid, inefficient, or done under delusion, but it's always a rational decision driven by instinct. It's a bit of backwards science, but if you keep that in mind, you can almost always judge people and their actions accurately. Put more simply, I have not yet seen evidence that selflessness exists or is even possible.

We seek power (money, favor, influence, etc.) because we seek to secure our ability to sustain ourselves. Perhaps we open doors for good favor, hope that we'll improve some collective attitude, or because we would want the same done for us.

Here's a good thought experiment. Say a person you do not know and would never see again were going to suffer and die from a horrible disease, say Ebola.

And, say, you could immediately and permanently cure them, but you'd have to give up one dollar. That's it, just one buck.

No matter whether you choose to save the person or not, your memory will be wiped, and you'll never remember the question was ever posed, nor have any knowledge about the person or their fate.

Would you do it? I think almost everyone would. And, there is no possible way for it to benefit you, not even as a good feeling, since your memory will be wiped.

Ergo, selflessness.

[BeFranklin]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.


Its a cheap diachotomy based off the golden rule. You either are "selfless" and sacrificing yourself, or you are "selfish". The golden rule is neither. It does not say love your neighbor more then yourself, or less than yourself. It says love your neighbor as yourself.

[tremendoustie]

Its a cheap diachotomy based off the golden rule. You either are "selfless" and sacrificing yourself, or you are "selfish". The golden rule is neither. It does not say love your neighbor more then yourself, or less than yourself. It says love your neighbor as yourself.

That's the ticket.

The thing is, it seems to me, there are really two definitions of selflessness: Giving up a lot of yourself to only help another person out a little. Or: Giving up something of yourself for a reason other than personal benefit.

According to the first definition selflessness is not good -- as you say, you should love your neighbor as your self, not more than yourself.

According to the second definition selflessness is good -- it is right to be willing to give of your self to help another.

That is, if I could lose a finger to save your arm, I should do it, even if I don't get any benefit. But, I shouldn't lose my arm to save your finger.

[tremendoustie]

This is the biggest misconception about Objectivism, and I'm tired of people bashing a philosophy they don't understand.

What it really says is we shouldn't HAVE to care about our fellow man, that nobody should be obligated to pay for his neighbor as they do in socialism or communism.

Yet, her heroes eschew voluntary gift-giving. Why is that?

[BeFranklin]

That is, if I could lose a finger to save your arm, I should do it, even if I don't get any benefit. But, I shouldn't lose my arm to save your finger.

Doesn't follow at all. Very poor understanding of the golden rule. The golden rule isn't based on self sacrifice.

[tremendoustie]

Doesn't follow at all. Very poor understanding of the golden rule. The golden rule isn't based on self sacrifice.

Then, how do you interpret it?

If I love you equally as much as I love myself -- all other things being equal, I would prefer to lose my finger rather than your arm, would I not?

[BeFranklin]

Then, how do you interpret it?

If I love you equally as much as I love myself -- all other things being equal, I would prefer to lose my finger rather than your arm, would I not?

At what cost to everything else, since man is more than a body?

Only after reading Rand would you start thinking in terms of everything being a self-sacrifice. It seems to me that the love of the golden rule would seek a situation where no one lost an arm or finger (geeze).

[tremendoustie]

At what cost to everything else, since man is more than a body?

Only after reading Rand would you start thinking in terms of everything being a self-sacrifice. It seems to me that the love of the golden rule would seek a situation where no one lost an arm or finger (geeze).

Oh, of course, you'd look for a better solution -- I was only speaking abstractly. And, I'm only speaking in terms of "self-sacrifice" because the discussion is about Rand.

The principle could be applied in many much more mundane ways. For example, if it would be easier for me to do something than for someone else to do it, I shouldn't try to pass it off on them ...

It means caring about the well being of others as much as you care about your own.

Ultimately, of course, you are only sacrificing in the physical sense, which, as you say, is of less importance ...

However, I do think the principle stands -- say you were pinned with a friend by some kind of avalanche or something, you'd want to weigh the well being of the both of you, equally, which means minimizing the total loss of life and limb.

[BeFranklin]

Ultimately, of course, you are only sacrificing in the physical sense, which, as you say, is of less importance ...

Or maybe I am not sacrificing at all, because it is of no importance?

I follow the golden rule. To apply it, my reasoning isn't like this at all.

Ayn Rand used a false dichatomy to begin her original work, her philosophy is ideal for sophism, she hated Christianity, and she ran her organization like a cult. Her most famous member caused the current econonic collape. It also seems to me to reak of possibly being part of marxist dialectics staged in the real world political realm. Rand's movement certainly seems little like the founders of this country, although I think designed to imitate (ie poison it).

I prefer the purtain work ethic. It is not being "selfish" or "selfless" to do so. There is no self-sacrifice there and everyone gains.

[mmink15]

I think Angelina Jolie would be a horrible Dagny Taggart, and I suppose that would mean they want Brad Pitt in there too as Galt or Reardon
I imagine the Reardon trial and/or the I am John Galt radio address would be cut down to a couple of minutes while the romance story becomes the heart of the movie.
I highly doubt any movies even mildly supporting free market economics will be coming out of American film studios anytime soon.

[tremendoustie]

Or maybe I am not sacrificing at all, because it is of no importance?

I follow the golden rule. To apply it, my reasoning isn't like this at all.

Ayn Rand used a false dichatomy to begin her original work, her philosophy is ideal for sophism, she hated Christianity, and she ran her organization like a cult. Her most famous member caused the current econonic collape. It also seems to me to reak of possibly being part of marxist dialectics staged in the real world political realm. Rand's movement certainly seems little like the founders of this country, although I think designed to imitate (ie poison it).

I prefer the purtain work ethic. It is not being "selfish" or "selfless" to do so. There is no self-sacrifice there and everyone gains.

I'm no fan of Rand's morality or spiritual musings, only of her opposition to socialism and forced charity. I don't know if you thought I was some sort of Rand apologist, but I'm not.

I agree that it's not ultimately really sacrificing anything to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" -- that it's ultimately beneficial to all parties.

If you love someone, though, you are willing to give something up for their sake.

And, say you are in that situation -- say you've got groceries, and see someone who needs them more. I think the right reason to give the groceries up is because you care about that person's hunger, not for your own spiritual benefit.

Love spurs us to give things up for others, even if we do ultimately gain more. If the motivation is the personal benefit, however, I don't think it's really love ...

And I do think the principle applies -- if you are even hungrier than your neighbor, I think the right thing is to make sure you have what you need. As you say, you love your neighbor as yourself, not more than yourself.

[BeFranklin]

I'm no fan of Rand's morality or spiritual musings, only of her opposition to socialism and forced charity. I don't know if you thought I was some sort of Rand apologist, but I'm not.

I agree that it's not ultimately really sacrificing anything to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" -- that it's ultimately beneficial to all parties.

If you love someone, though, you are willing to give something up for their sake.

And, say you are in that situation -- say you've got groceries, and see someone who needs them more. I think the right reason to give the groceries up is because you care about that person's hunger, not for your own spiritual benefit.

Love spurs us to give things up for others, even if we do ultimately gain more. If the motivation is the personal benefit, however, I don't think it's really love ...

And I do think the principle applies -- if you are even hungrier than your neighbor, I think the right thing is to make sure you have what you need. As you say, you love your neighbor as yourself, not more than yourself.

How about it is better to give then receive :D

[tremendoustie]

How about it is better to give then receive :D

Very true :). But, if you give because you wish to enjoy the benefit of giving, not because you wish another to enjoy the benefit of receiving, love for the other person is not really your motivation.

It's one of those things which you only receive incidentally, when pursuing something else. Nothing's a bigger conversation killer than to say, "Now, let's have a good conversation." Rather, good conversations are what results when one is interested in the ideas and experiences of one's friends.

Also, I do not think it is healthy to neglect your self. If one is starving, one should not give one's food to the well fed. We are supposed to love ourselves as well, after all.

[BeFranklin]

What little respect I had for Rothbard has gone away now. He comes across as small and petty, and is consistently being misleading, and twisting the truth.

Rothbard unmasked (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html)


Rothbard, Playwrite
One of the first attacks on Rand, and the source of false rumors regarding Rand, was a play that Rothbard wrote, entitled Mozart Was a Red. The widely spread myth that Rand argued that smoking was a requirement for rationality is clearly stated in Rothbard's play. The main character is Carson Sand (Rand). Keith seems to be Rothbard while Greta is Barbara Branden and Jonathan is Nathaniel.

CARSON (turning to KEITH): Keith, would you like a cigarette? Here, this is a particularly rational brand.

KEITH (a bit bemused): "Rational...?" (A slight pause) Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. I don't smoke.

(Exclamations of disapproval from JONATHAN and GRETA .)

GRETA (lashing out): You don't smoke! Why not?

KEITH (taken back): Well, uh...because I don't like to.

CARSON (in scarcely-controlled fury): You don't like to! You permit your mere subjective whims, your feelings (this word said with utmost contempt) to stand in the way of reason and reality?

KEITH (sweating again): But surely, Miss Sand, what other possible grounds can you have for smoking than simply liking it?

(Expressions of fury, dismay from GRETA, JONATHAN, and CARSON, "Oh!", "Ah!", etc.)

JONATHAN (bounding up): Mr. Hackley, Carson Sand never, never does anything out of her subjective feelings; only out of reason, which means: the objective nature of reality. You have grossly insulted this great woman, Carson Sand, you have abused her courtesy and her hospitality. (sits down)

KEITH: But...but...what possible reason can there be...?

CARSON: Mr. Hackley, why are you evading the self-evident fact? Smoking is a symbol of the fire in the mind, the fire of ideas. He who refuses to smoke is therefore an enemy of ideas and of the mind.

Absolutely no sense of humor or ability to detect it, lol

[Truth Warrior]

They should split it up into three movies, lord of the rings style. Or even 6, "Star Wars" style. ;) :) Made for TV mini-series ( movies ) have come a long way.<IMHO> "The Tudors", "Rome", "Sopranos", "Lonesome Dove", etc.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian. In fact, she disliked the libertarian movement.

Objectivists make up a small portion of the freedom movement

In my opinion, Objectivists are completely selfish and are intolerable to be around. It's one thing to believe that you should have personal freedom and another to condemn philanthropy, manners, and compassion as sins of the weak-minded

[DeadheadForPaul]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.



We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

A++++

[Kludge]

Here's a good thought experiment. Say a person you do not know and would never see again were going to suffer and die from a horrible disease, say Ebola.

And, say, you could immediately and permanently cure them, but you'd have to give up one dollar. That's it, just one buck.

No matter whether you choose to save the person or not, your memory will be wiped, and you'll never remember the question was ever posed, nor have any knowledge about the person or their fate.

Would you do it? I think almost everyone would. And, there is no possible way for it to benefit you, not even as a good feeling, since your memory will be wiped.

Ergo, selflessness.

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

[tremendoustie]

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

Right, I'm sure that's why people would do it. For the split second good feeling :rolleyes:.

Fine, say all pleasure receptors in your brain are turned off during the question, and decision making process, so you won't feel good either way.

People would still do it, because in almost everyone's purely cold, calculating, intellectual list of priorities, a persons life still ranks higher than a dollar.

To many people, the well being of others is a lower priority than their own, but to assert that to everyone, no one else's well being is any priority at all, is simply absurd.

[Kludge]

Fine, say all pleasure receptors in your brain are turned off during the question, and decision making process, so you won't feel good either way.

People would still do it, because in almost everyone's purely cold, calculating, intellectual list of priorities, a persons life still ranks higher than a dollar.

I don't know much about neurology, but I doubt that it's possible to eliminate any feeling of pleasure in a person so long as they can think. If they derive no pleasure, you couldn't value the dollar, so it still wouldn't be selfless as there's no sacrifice.

[DeadheadForPaul]

No, it's still a selfish act. You did it because it made you feel good immediately after and during.

There is a possibility that someone could do the act out of DUTY.

Do you believe that every single person has fought in the armed forces because it made them feel better? Is it possible that one hated it but knew it was their duty?

[Kludge]

There is a possibility that someone could do the act out of DUTY.

Do you believe that every single person has fought in the armed forces because it made them feel better? Is it possible that one hated it but knew it was their duty?

What's duty?

Serving in the armed forces (negating the meager pay/benefits) would come from fear of the alternative and again can be attributed to instinct which seeks to sustain oneself.

[Thrashertm]

I still need to read Atlas Shrugged. Its just so long and it seems like there is probably a lot of other more worthwhile things I could read.

I am just finishing it. Trust me, read the first 50 pages. You will be hooked.

[tremendoustie]

I don't know much about neurology, but I doubt that it's possible to eliminate any feeling of pleasure in a person so long as they can think. If they derive no pleasure, you couldn't value the dollar, so it still wouldn't be selfless as there's no sacrifice.

It's a thought experiment, it doesn't matter if it's practically implementable. And, you can think rationally and make value judgments without experiencing physical enjoyment of the thinking.

There is no way to externally observe motivations, all we have is self-examination. Any cursory effort at self examination will reveal that the most common way we make decisions is by value judgments.

I value $100 more than $1000 because I realize that in the future I will be able to purchase more goods with $1000. I don't sit there and somehow imagine each and see how much immediate enjoyment and pleasure I experience from the process of imagining them, I make the decision because I value one more than the other. Specifically, I value the greater amount of stuff I can get with $1000 more than the lesser amount of stuff I can get with $100.

Similarly, I value the life of another person more than I value one dollar. Even if the memory of the decision was to be erased, even if I never got pleasure in some way by savoring the decision, I can easily compare two goods and make a value judgment.

I think any honest self examination of the way a person thinks will reveal this. $1000>$100, problem solved. Person's life>$1, problem solved.

You can bend human psychology into a pretzel to justify a bizzare philosophy about self-interest, but any honest self examination by a normal person will reveal that they do care about others, to a greater or lesser extent. Not about the pleasure that they get from them, but just about that person.

Why should people not value others at all? Why must the horrible death of another person be less important to me than the pleasure I get from a stick of gum? This idea that every decision must be somehow traced back around to personal pleasure is absurd.

It's not the way we make decisions, it's not the way we think about them, and it's not the reality of our priorities.

Instead of redefining every human emotion, and positing invisible hidden motivations that no one has ever perceived, in order to make everyone into some sort of donkey, motivated only by the carrot of pleasure or the stick of pain, why not take human mentality at face value?

We're relatively selfish beings, who do often care for others, though usually somewhat less than ourselves, and are sometimes capable of generous action, most often when the cost is not too great.

I think that matches what we observe about our mentalities better than a single ubiquitous pleasure pain calculation.

[Shadow of a Doubt]

Atlas Shrugged is my second favorite book next to The Fountainhead, and Ayn Rand is my favorite author. That said, she was very flawed and I don't think Atlas would make a good movie. I think her books are so loved by some and despised by others because they pander exclusively to a certain audience, an audience that typically gets no attention, and therefore responds to her enthusiastically. When I first read The Fountainhead, I loved it immediately because I admired the character of Howard Roark so much, and it seemed like this was the first time I read a novel with a protagonist whose style of heroism I could appreciate, and it was an epic novel that revolved around him as well. To anyone who doesn't like Roark, though, even if they might be libertarian/paleo-conservative, it's an incredible effort that completely misses their pleasure center. It's the same thing with Atlas Shrugged. I was grinning throughout Francisco D'Anconia's "Money is the Root of All Evil" speech, but I knew that anyone who didn't share my love of Rand's stalwart voraciousness would be bored to tears, and most people don't.

[Kludge]

I think any honest self examination of the way a person thinks will reveal this. $1000>$100, problem solved. Person's life>$1, problem solved.

That isn't rational. I know, as best I can, that no person would ever do something which gives absolutely no benefit to their self.


any honest self examination by a normal person will reveal that they do care about others

:rolleyes:

Anyway, people can care for others due to entertainment value they may have, or perhaps they validate you in the eyes of others, or perhaps they bake they cookies you enjoy. You value some people more or less than others. Your friends have qualities you like. If you dislike a person, you will probably try to evade them as they burden your life. Given that people are practically limitless in supply, it would benefit your life (negating theoretical "blowback") if they were dead. In the same sense, would you save the life of a likely murderer? If you were a soldier in WW2, would you shoot Hitler? Or does he have inherent rights due to his inherent value?


Why should people not value others at all? Why must the horrible death of another person be less important to me than the pleasure I get from a stick of gum?

Simply by making the choice, it is a selfish act. Apparently, you dislike the thought of another's "horrible death". Thus, sparing them out of pity eases your mind. To let them die may instill regret.


It's not the way we make decisions, it's not the way we think about them, and it's not the reality of our priorities.

You're using collective terms when I obviously disagree.


Why not take human mentality at face value?

Everyone lies -- mostly to themselves, which in turn makes them lie to everyone else. Many people believe themselves some mystical race, chosen by God or "Nature", and that they are of exponentially higher value than other animals because they can think in abstracts and communicate with other humans. If you take religion out of the equation, it's very difficult to justify the sacrificing of an innocent animal for ourselves even though it's entirely unnecessary (actually, I'm interested in arguments if anyone has some).

[tremendoustie]

That isn't rational. I know, as best I can, that no person would ever do something which gives absolutely no benefit to their self.


So, anyone who acts in a way which is not in accordance with your theory must be irrational? There is no possible other rational motivation but the one you define?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."



:rolleyes:
Anyway, people can care for others due to entertainment value they may have, or perhaps they validate you in the eyes of others, or perhaps they bake they cookies you enjoy.

Plus, there's always actually caring about the other person's well being.

I wasn't saying you're not normal, I think if you consider it honestly, you'll realize you wouldn't sit there and compare how much pleasure you think different options would give you, you'd just decide the person's life is of greater worth.



You value some people more or less than others. Your friends have qualities you like. If you dislike a person, you will probably try to evade them as they burden your life. Given that people are practically limitless in supply, it would benefit your life (negating theoretical "blowback") if they were dead.

Yeah, there are certainly people like that. Yet, strangely, I do not want them to die, because I *gasp* care about them. I wouldn't want them to die even by some natural event, and if my wanting it were erased from my memory, and even if during wanting it, I were protected from any guilt.



In the same sense, would you save the life of a likely murderer? If you were a soldier in WW2, would you shoot Hitler? Or does he have inherent rights due to his inherent value?


This is a different moral question. This is not a question about the possibility of non-selfish acts. But, since you ask, I think I would be absolutely justified in shooting Hitler, as a murderer. Also, I'd judge the lives of those he was killing to be of greater value than his.



Simply by making the choice, it is a selfish act. Apparently, you dislike the thought of another's "horrible death". Thus, sparing them out of pity eases your mind. To let them die may instill regret.


Nope, not really. My thought process would be this: Which do I think is of greater value? Me having a dollar, or some guy I never knew and never will know not dying in horrible agony? Yeah, the guy's more important, it's not even close, the buck barely matters to me at all, I care about the guy's horrible death much more.

This even if you remove all pleasure and pain, and let me know you'll wipe my memory right after the decision. As I say, it's just a value decision, it requires basic comparative ability, not pleasure/pain.

Over life, I've developed a scale of relative value of goods, as I think most people do. I don't have to sit there and think for ten minutes about whether I'd rather have a hamburger or a steak, I know. Same for the person - there's no pleasure/pain about it, a person is more important than a dollar.

I think this is how most people make decisions, and I think most people would also value the person over the dollar.



You're using collective terms when I obviously disagree.


Ok, I guess, I'll give you that. Do you honestly make all your decisions by sitting down and considering the pleasure/pain for yourself inherent in each option?



Everyone lies -- mostly to themselves, which in turn makes them lie to everyone else. Many people believe themselves some mystical race, chosen by God or "Nature", and that they are of exponentially higher value than other animals because they can think in abstracts and communicate with other humans.


Well, I can't jump inside an animal's head, so I can't say for sure what value they have.

I do believe people are more than meat sacks, because they are self aware. Briefly, the attribute of self awareness does not describe the physical state of particles, but rather a mind's perception. Without being a person, you could not say conclusively that the person experiences self awareness or does not -- despite perfect physical knowledge. This implies that self-awareness is not a physical attribute.

For my part, I'd call this non-physical attribute a soul.



If you take religion out of the equation, it's very difficult to justify the sacrificing of an innocent animal for ourselves even though it's entirely unnecessary (actually, I'm interested in arguments if anyone has some).

Right, well, I think this is a different topic, but it is an interesting one. The question, to me, comes down to the minds of animals. Any animal that is truly self aware should not be killed needlessly. If you told me cows and pigs and fish and chicken, etc, were all truly self aware, after finishing being horrified with myself, I'd become a vegetarian.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Quite frankly, after reading what they (the objectivists) did to Rothbard for his wife being a Presbyterian, why anyone would to Ayn Rand as a good libertarian is beyond me.


We shouldn't care about our fellow man, we should simply live to pleasure ourselves. What a wonderful world!!! It is such an astonishing fact her philosophy never caught on beyond a few nobodies in New York.

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

[BeFranklin]

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

It was Ayn Rand herself that was acting like a fruitcake. Look at what she did to Branden after that, or other people. It wasn't a one time thing.

[nate895]

That's like writing off Ron Paul because of the zany activities and beliefs of his supporters. I've learned to not judge a person by his/her followers. Ayn did have personality quirks, but can't be judged for the actions of the objectivist cult.

She participated in the "trial" and was the one who ordered him to get a "more reasonable mate."

[jonahtrainer]

Originally Posted by BeFranklin
Doesn't follow at all. Very poor understanding of the golden rule. The golden rule isn't based on self sacrifice.Then, how do you interpret it?

If I love you equally as much as I love myself -- all other things being equal, I would prefer to lose my finger rather than your arm, would I not?

I intrepret the Golden Rule to be a negative prohibition on action and not a positive commandment. One 'loves' their autonomy and ability to choose. Thus one should 'love' their neighbor by not infringing on their ability to be autonomous and choose. One should not violate the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3) which is the use of fraud, force or the threat of force against an innocent. On this hang all the law and the prophets.

For example, two examples of violating the Non-Aggression Axiom are stealing and murder. Stealing violates choice in the past because that is the fruit of one's labor and murder violates one's ability to choose in the future. View this to understand self-ownership (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I). The violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3) is immoral and unjustified.

Your second question is about charity and is taught in commandments like 'let him have thy cloke also'. Charity is a higher law. However, if one does not extend charity it does not make them immoral or unjustified. Additionally, forcing someone to perform charity against their will is a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3). Misguided charity can so easily bear the weed of tyranny.

After all, God is omniscient and omnipotent and could provide for all the starving but does not and is not immoral or unjust for behaving such.

[tremendoustie]

I intrepret the Golden Rule to be a negative prohibition on action and not a positive commandment. One 'loves' their autonomy and ability to choose. Thus one should 'love' their neighbor by not infringing on their ability to be autonomous and choose. One should not violate the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3) which is the use of fraud, force or the threat of force against an innocent. On this hang all the law and the prophets.


Well, I agree that the Golden Rule includes not acting badly towards others, I think it goes beyond this. Actually, there are many versions of the idea, most are negative, as you suggest.



Bahá'í Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23


there are others ...

But, the golden rule as in the Bible is a positive:



"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12



I agree that not initiating force on your neighbor would be included here, but I do think it goes beyond this, to say that it is moral to take proactive, positive action towards your neighbor. Staying out of his beeswax is not enough.




For example, two examples of violating the Non-Aggression Axiom are stealing and murder. Stealing violates choice in the past because that is the fruit of one's labor and murder violates one's ability to choose in the future. View this to understand self-ownership (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I). The violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3) is immoral and unjustified.


I agree with this, these things would definitely be violations of the golden rule.



Your second question is about charity and is taught in commandments like 'let him have thy cloke also'. Charity is a higher law. However, if one does not extend charity it does not make them immoral or unjustified.

I actually disagree. I think that if one chooses never to help another person, while this should be legal and would be within one's civil rights, it is also immoral.

Although I should not be legally required to do so, I believe I have a moral obligation to help those who need it.



Additionally, forcing someone to perform charity against their will is a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom (http://www.runtogold.com/sounds/NAA.mp3). Misguided charity can so easily bear the weed of tyranny.


I definitely agree with this.



After all, God is omniscient and omnipotent and could provide for all the starving but does not and is not immoral or unjust for behaving such.

This is a pretty deep issue. My own belief is that it is our responsibility to help -- in a way, that we should do our best to be the means by which God helps people. I don't have all the answers. If God snapped his fingers and ensured that everything was perfect, there really wouldn't be any room for significant human action, with consequences. Say, anytime I tried to harm someone God made it impossible -- the stick I was going to hit someone with turns to Styrofoam, I can never get the nasty thing I was going to say out of my throat, and when I neglect my kids they magically become well clothed and fed. Human action in this case would be pretty meaningless -- I wouldn't really be able to intend harm if I knew it would never happen.

Likewise, if everything were already perfect, it would be impossible to show love to someone by helping them out, by giving up something for someone who needs it more, or by saying something encouraging, since none of these things could actually improve the person's situation in any way.

So, there have to be some real consequences -- we have to live in a real world where decisions matter if we're going to be real people capable of real good, real charity, or real love.

I don't have it all figured out though, and there's always a question of degrees. Couldn't things be better without being perfect, and still leave us room for choice? If the world were better but not perfect, would we actually appreciate it, or would we react to it the same way we react to ours, by decrying the worst evil and asking how God allows it?

I don't know all the answers to these things.

[OferNave]

Is Ayn Rand a looney? Yes.

Should you still read Atlas Shrugged? Fuck yes.

It's really that simple. Everyone's got issues. Doesn't mean they didn't do great work.

[nate895]

After all, God is omniscient and omnipotent and could provide for all the starving but does not and is not immoral or unjust for behaving such.

We live in an imperfect world full of sin and disobeying of God. If he were to provide for our every need, there would have been no point in his banishing us from the Garden of Eden, for the whole world would be as heavenly as the Garden of Eden. One day we will be liberated from all the horrors of this world, but we know not the hour or the day when our Lord shall come and lock up Satan in his cage forever more.

[tremendoustie]

Is Ayn Rand a looney? Yes.

Should you still read Atlas Shrugged? Fuck yes.

It's really that simple. Everyone's got issues. Doesn't mean they didn't do great work.

I agree, it's absolutely worth reading, very good book.