>> ^bobknight33:

Amen -- You go girl. Anyone who has the balls to stand up for our Lord and Savior in this day and age deserves to be listened to.

Anyone who is so close minded as to presume others should pay attention to their personal slice irrationality, should be subject to the measured ridicule of the sift.

This is precisely why I submitted it.

Don't even encourage the idea Bruni. Let him go to his own Caribbean island where he can spout his irrationality back on him self >> ^Bruti79:
He won't come to Canada, we have some pretty interesting radio and speech laws. =)

This guy believes the same thing millions of people do, including people in this thread. How a particular man chooses to act on a belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief itself.

You are simply invoking an emotionally charged term in an attempt to conceal the irrationality of your view - from yourself. If your views are indeed sound, why don't you confront them without such devices?>> ^Stormsinger:
Frankly, in my opinion, attempted mass murder precludes any consideration of your point of view.

--vive in all such circumstances.

(32)


25,6-7: "The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.

"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life..."

NA. Earlier, Rand told us that life is the only end in itself, and that one's own life is the purpose of each individual (25,2). She contradicts this by declaring something else to be the purpose of life.

Moreover, we have already seen that there is no reason within Rand's scheme why productive work is more morally virtuous than looting (comments 28-31).

(33)


25,7: "Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues."

I agree with this; however, Rand can give no adequate basis for it. (See comments 20-24.)

(34)


25,7: "Irrationality is the rejection of man's means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life."

I quote this to emphasize that Rand's view is that rationality is good only because it serves the end of 'life'; life is the only end in itself.

(35)


26,1: Rationality means a commitment to the principle "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality."

NA. How does this follow from her view of ethics? Rather, 'life' is supposed to be the highest value--one must place that above everything else. One's 'perception of reality' is only a means to furthering one's life, yet Rand seems to be saying that accurate perception is the ultimate end in itself.

(36)


26,1: "... It means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence)."

NA. How does this follow from the value of life? Why can't people survive while being dependent?

(37)


26,1: "It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)--that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)..."

NA. I skip over the rest of her elaborations on what rationality means, about which I would say the same thing. Granted, dishonesty and lack of integrity may sometimes lead to one's death (though not very often), but how can Rand justify these "must never" claims? She makes no attempt to argue that these things one allegedly must never do will, all of them, automatically kill you. That is what she would have to argue, given that life is the only ultimate standard of value.

I skip over her similar remarks about productiveness and pride.

(38)


27,3: "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others--and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

Above (comments 7-8) we saw that Rand adopts a purely agent-relative conception of value: that is, a thing cannot be said to be good simply. Rather, a thing can only intelligibly be said to be good for (or: good relative to) someone. This is what the ethical egoist has to say.

Since "is an end in itself" means "is good for its own sake," it follows that nothing can be said to be an end in itself in any absolute sense; rather, one can only say a thing is an end-in-itself for someone or other.

Now, what does Rand mean in saying "life is an end in itself"? This appears to be using "end in itself" in an absolute sense, but perhaps she means only that each particular life is an end in itself for that particular living thing. What does she mean by saying every human being "is an end in himself"? Again, is she using this in an absolute sense, or a relative sense?

Case A: Assume she is using "end in himself" in an absolute sense here. In that case, she is contradicting her earlier claim that value is agent-relative (comment . Furthermore, it would seem to follow that every person has a reason for promoting the welfare of everyone, as an end in itself. That is, utilitarianism would seem to follow, which is not what she wants. She thinks one should promote one's own life as one's sole ultimate value. Which brings us to the second case.

Case B: Rand must mean this in an agent-relative sense: i.e., each individual human being is an end in himself for himself (but not for other people). So for me, my life is the only end in itself, whereas for you, your life is the only end in itself. This is consistent with what she has said up to now. But now what about the rest of the passage: "not the means to the ends or the welfare of others." Well, of course for me my life is an end in itself. But for other people, it is not; we just established that. So why wouldn't my life be for them just a means to their own ends? Why wouldn't my life from my neighbor's point of view be good only as a means to promoting my neighbor's life?

Similarly, what about the remark, "man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself"? Clearly, given that my life is, for me, the only end in itself, I would be irrational to sacrifice it for the sake of others. But why would I not be rational to sacrifice others to myself? True, their lives are ends in themselves for them; but what has that to do with me? For me, their lives are not ends in themselves, since only mine is. So why wouldn't it be good, for me, to sacrifice their lives for the sake of my own?

What seems to have happened here is that Rand slipped from the agent-relative theory of value into the absolutist conception.

(39)


27,4: "In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of 'life or death,' but as an issue of 'happiness or suffering.'"

I think she means that, even though the good is in fact what serves our life (our survival), we aren't always aware of it as such; instead, we are aware of it as what makes us happy. In fact, what makes us happy does so because it promotes our life, but we're immediately aware of it only as what makes us happy.

(40)


27,4-5: "Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them ... [T]he standard of value operating his emotional mechanism is not [automatic]. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgements."

NA. There are a number of problems here.

First, Rand's claim that emotions result from value judgements is evolutionarily implausible. The other animals all have certain emotions, which we share (though we have a wider range of emotions)--e.g., fear, anger, love for one's offspring. But Rand would probably agree that the other animals do not make value judgments. Therefore, what she is saying is that at some time in our history, as humans broke off from the primate line, the emotional mechanisms of the animals got selected out, and then replaced by other mechanisms that induce us to have the same emotions.

Alternately, perhaps Rand would say that the other animals do have value judgments, but of a different kind: theirs are automatic and instinctive, whereas ours are not. Then again, she would be saying that the mechanisms that give the animals instinctive value judgments got selected out, and then replaced with mechanisms that lead us to make many of the same value judgments. (Cf. comment 21.)

Second, people can often have emotions that conflict with their value judgments, for instance, a person who experiences a fear of flying even though he knows that flying is perfectly safe.

Third, in order to claim, rationally, that people (a) have no innate knowledge, (b) have no innate values, and (c) have no innate ideas, Rand would have to cite some actual scientific evidence. This is armchair cognitive psychology. (Cf. comments 24, 25.)

(41)


28,5: "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. ... [I]f a man values destruction, like a sadist--or self-torture, like a masochist--or life beyond the grave, like a mystic--or mindless 'kicks,' like the driver of a hotrod car--his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment's relief from their chronic state of terror."

28,6: "Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims."

29,2: "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy--a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction. ... Happiness is possible only to a rational man..."

The initial claim is that happiness simply results from attaining one's values. But this is followed by the claim, apparently, that a person with the wrong values cannot experience happiness (or 'true' happiness).

Why wouldn't the 'irrationalists' experience happiness when they attained their goals? Perhaps Rand is saying that it is impossible for the irrationalists to attain their goals. Why? Rand implies that the 'irrational' goals are ones that lead to one's own 'destruction.' Now, there are two alternatives:

Case A: Suppose Rand means this literally: that those values, if attained, result in your being literally dead, i.e., not existing. Then we could understand why people with those values could not experience happiness (since they would be dead first). However, she has given no indication of why this would be true. Apart from the 'mystic' case, the other kinds of people she mentions do seem to be alive and to often get the things she says they seek (e.g., drivers of hotrod cars do get kicks). Why, therefore, are they not 'really' happy?

Case B: Suppose Rand meant their 'destruction' metaphorically, e.g., their ceasing to live the life proper to man. In that case, she has given no explanation for why these people would not experience happiness when they attain this improper state, given that it is what they value.

The third quotation suggests that perhaps Rand believes these people's pseudo-happiness is always tainted by guilt. But she has just told us (comment 40) that all our value judgements are chosen, not innate. So if someone chose the improper values, how would they feel guilt upon attaining them? Guilt would seem to presuppose that they somehow knew those values to be wrong; but by hypothesis, they don't, since they have such knowledge neither innately nor by choice.

The significance of this is that it is another example of Rand's failure to explain, in terms of her theory, why sadism, masochism, or various other things she believes to be wrong, are wrong.

(42)


29,3: "The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. ... [W]hen one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself ... one is ... affirming ... the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself."

It is possible for a person to be alive but not happy, so how can it be that the maintenance of life is not a "separate issue" from the pursuit of happiness? Further, since Rand has said that life is the only end in itself, how can it also be that some kind of happiness is an end in itself?

This apparent contradiction could be resolved if and only if we assume that happiness is (that is, is exactly the same thing as) life. This is false, since a person can be alive but not happy--unless Rand wants to simply define "life" to mean "a happy life." But then her initial argument for why life is the ultimate value would not apply to this new sense of "life". (Cf. comment 27.)

Happiness, on Rand's theory of the emotions, is simply a signal that one is attaining one's values. It is the values themselves that are valuable; why would the mere signal be intrinsically valuable? Given the rest of her view, happiness could only be valuable as a means to furthering one's life.

(43)


29,5: "This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism ... 'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that 'the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure' is to declare that 'the proper value is whatever you happen to value'--which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication..."

First, it is unclear how happiness, rather than life, can be the purpose of ethics, according to what Rand has said earlier.

Second, it is unclear what the distinction is supposed to be between the 'purpose' and the 'standard' of ethics. If one's purpose is X, then why wouldn't one's standard be simply: that which achieves X? Here is everything Rand has to say about this:

25,3: "The difference between 'standard' and 'purpose' in this context is as follows: a 'standard' is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose--the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being--belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own."

I take it that survival qua man is the same thing as living a life proper to a rational being. The difference between the 'standard' and the 'purpose' in this example, then, seems to be that the 'standard' is something that applies to everyone--it is 'the life proper to a rational being'--while the 'purpose' is made specific to a single person--e.g., 'my living the life proper to a rational being.' Why this is a significant distinction escapes me. In any case, none of this explains why happiness could be a 'purpose' but not a 'standard.' Apparently, she is claiming that 'happiness' can be specific and concrete but not abstract?

Leaving that aside, the complaint against the hedonists seems to be one of circularity. They are not giving a genuine standard of value, since one's experience of pleasure depends on one's already having values; one then experiences pleasure as a result of attaining those values. This, however, is false. Children do not experience pleasure when eating ice cream because they believe that eating ice cream is good; quite the reverse. (Cf. comments 21, 24, 40.)

(44)


30,2: "The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims: the 'selfish' pursuit of one's own whims (such as the ethics of Nietzsche)--or 'selfless' service to the whims of others (such as the ethics of Bentham, Mill, Comte and of all social hedonists, whether they allowed man to include his own whims among the millions of others or advised him to turn himself into a totally selfless 'shmoo' that seeks to be eaten by others)."

This passage is misleading about the history of ethics.

First, it implies that there are some philosophers who held that people should turn themselves into totally selfless shmoos that seek to be eaten by others, but, while she names some 'social hedonists', she does not tell us who she thinks held the 'shmoo' theory. Perhaps she meant Comte (inventor of the term "altruism")--but Comte did not believe that 'altruistic' behavior was self-destructive. Nor did Bentham or Mill think that somehow, other people's pleasure had value but one's own did not.

Second, Rand seems to be using "whim" as a term of abuse. Utilitarians believe that one ought to bring about the most overall pleasure or happiness in the world that one can, but they certainly do not think this amounts to pursuing whims. Rand does, but it is unclear what she is saying is a whim here. The utilitarians advocate pursuing pleasure. So, is pleasure, itself, a whim? Perhaps Rand means that the desire for pleasure is a whim. More likely, she is applying her theory (see comment 43) that one will only experience pleasure when something happens, if one antecedently desired that thing--and it is the desires whose satisfaction causes pleasure that she is calling 'whims'.

Why would those desires be 'whims'? Perhaps Rand's point is simply that some of them are whims--i.e., that people can get pleasure from satisfying whimsical desires, and the hedonists do not discount those kinds of pleasures--those pleasures are just as intrinsically good as any other pleasures, according to the hedonists (except for Mill). This is a genuine objection to some forms of hedonism. Nevertheless, Rand's remarks are at best misleading--they suggest, to a reader unfamiliar with whom Rand is talking about, that these 'hedonists' all say: "A person should just pursue solely whims, of himself or of others, with no exercise of reason." Which, of course, is false.

The significance, again, is that Rand is able to illegitimately make her theory seem more plausible by attacking straw men.

(45)


30,5: "[W]hen one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest..."

The omission of quantifiers is used to great effect here. When they hear the idea that an individual should always do whatever serves his own interests, most people assume this means his right to sacrifice others. They are thereby 'confessing' their belief that it could be in someone's interest, some time, to injure, enslave, rob, or murder someone else. If one removes the italicized quantifier terms in the above, Rand sounds much more reasonable.

However, Rand has given no evidence for the conclusion that it is never in anyone's interest to harm anyone else (see comments 27-31).

(46)


31,3: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash..."

NA.

This would be a good time for a general remark about all the ethical claims Rand makes about what the life of man qua man requires, or what a rational person would value, and so on--that is, all her ethical claims after the claim that life is the ultimate value.

Not only does Rand gives virtually no argument for any of them, but she has given us no criterion of what is 'rational'--unless we are to take the criterion, 'what serves life is rational.' Let us consider four cases:

Case A: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means continued existence. In that case, Rand needs to give an argument that you will literally, physically die if you do any of the things she says are wrong, or refrain from the things she says are right. For instance, if you hurt another person, drive a hotrod car (28,5), or marry a slut (32,1), you will die.

Case B: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means "the sort of life proper to a rational person." This is circular.

Case C: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means "the life of man qua man," where this does not just mean "the sort of life proper to a rational person." In that case, Rand has given us no criterion for what does or does not serve the life of man qua man.

Case D: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means something other than (A), (B), or (C). In this case, Rand has not told us what she means.

Case E: The rational is something other than "what will serve your life." In this case, given what she said earlier, what is 'rational' cannot be used as a criterion for ethical judgement, since she already told us that what serves life is the only legitimate such criterion.

I think this problem is extremely significant. The problem is that--whichever one of these cases holds--"rational" and "man qua man" are simply fudge words. That is, their function in the theory is that they enable Rand to claim almost anything she likes as being supported by her theory, and also to reject any attempt to infer conclusions that she doesn't want from the theory.

I give a couple of examples to show what I mean by a "fudge". First, imagine I declare boldly, "No real philosopher has ever denied the law of non-contradiction." You respond: "What about Nicholas of Cusa, who thought that God has all properties, including contradictory ones?" I say, "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. He's more of a theologian." You: "Okay, how about Hegel?" Me: "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. He's much too incomprehensible to be a real philosopher. Only analytic philosophers count." You: "Okay, how about Graham Priest? He's an analytic philosopher, and he denies the law of non-contradiction." Me: "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. Have you seen his book, In Contradiction? It's terrible." Now, you can imagine that in each of these cases, an interminable debate might spawn about whether my stated rationale justified denying the figure in question the status of 'real philosopher.' In the course of the debate, I make a bunch of declarations about who is and isn't a 'real' philosopher, but I never come out with a precise, unambiguous criterion of 'real-philosopher-ness'. In this case, I am using "real" as a fudge word. That is, it is a word that insulates my thesis from decisive testing, because any proposed counter-example can, if I choose, be immediately bogged down in interminable debates about who is real qua philosopher. So I am never forced to give it up. At the same time, at the end of this debate, I can declare victory, since no one found a counter-example to my thesis. I probably won't convince anyone else, unless they were already favorably disposed toward my thesis, but I can almost certainly convince myself that I gave good reasons for rejecting each of the proposed counter-examples.

Second example. This one is more realistic. On a television program investigating his psychic powers, Uri Geller instructed the audience to phone in if anything unusual happened during he program. At the end, several people phoned in reporting bizarre occurrences that took place during the show. Geller claimed that this supported psychic powers (I'm not sure if he meant because he had psychically predicted these events, or because the TV show had psychically caused them, or just because the events themselves were inherently psychical). Of course, we know this is nonsense. But since Geller did not precisely define "unusual", nor was it known how many people were watching the show, no one could calculate the prior probability of unusual events happening during the show, and thus no one could actually prove that what Geller claimed was nonsense. This meant that people who wanted to believe in psychic powers could do so, and could interpret Geller's remark about unusual events as predicting the events the callers described. Geller used "unusual" as a fudge word.

Third illustration, but this one is an example of non-use of fudges. In scientific testing of drugs, it is standard to use "double blind" tests. This means that half the subjects are given placebos, and neither the patients nor the physicians observing the results know who has the placebo and who has the drug. Now, why keep the physicians 'blind'? The answer is, because it is too easy to fudge--that is, to interpret results favorably if you want the drug to be successful. Scientists know this, and they impose this restriction on themselves, to prevent themselves from fudging. (You don't always know when you're fudging.)

So a 'fudge word' is a word that functions to make fudging easy. "Rational" and "man qua man" are Rand's fudge words. She never gives a precise and unambiguous criterion for their applicability. Thus, suppose someone tries to argue that, on Rand's theory, it would be morally acceptable to steal from people, provided you could get away with it. Then she has at least two fudges she can employ (probably more): (a) She could claim that this is not in your interests, because there is always a risk that you might get caught, and it's not worth it. This works because no one knows how to calculate this risk, so no one can actually refute this claim. This is the sort of thing I have seen many Objectivists do. However, Rand doesn't do this in "The Objectivist Ethics"; she goes for the second sort of fudge: (b) She can claim that although you would gain money from this, it would not be in your rational interests, or it would not be serving the life of 'man qua man', or that it would reduce you to a 'subhuman' status. Thus, she can immediately bog down the counter-example in an interminable debate about what is or isn't 'rational', 'subhuman', etc., because no precise and unambiguous criterion of the rational, or the human, has been identified. She gets to make it up as she goes along.

Now, let's look at her definition of "rationality":

25,8: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action."

Does this obviate my 'fudge word' charge? Not at all. Whenever she encounters a behavior she disapproves of, she can declare that the person is not accepting reason as his only guide to action. The above 'criterion' just refers the fudge word "rational" back to the fudge concept of what is "supported by reason". If Rand could give us a precise, unambiguous list of what reason recommends and why, then this charge would be answered.

Rand's following list of things that rationality 'means' is filled with further fudge words. Here are some of the concepts that can be fudged: the notion of using full focus in all choices (if x makes a choice I don't like, I can claim he wasn't in full focus), the idea of a commitment to 'reality', the idea that values must be 'validated' and 'logical', the idea of living 'by one's own mind', etc.

Now, I am not saying here that all of those concepts are bad concepts and should never be used--any more than I think the concept "real" or "unusual" should never be used. Often we have no choice but to use vague concepts. But we should recognize that they are not like scientific and mathematical concepts. They are concepts whose application requires interpretation.

(47)


32,6: "[N]o man may initiate the use of physical force against others. ... Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use."

NA. Again, Rand would have to show how this follows from the premise of life as the standard of value--i.e., she would have to demonstrate that if you initiate the use of force, you will automatically die. 'Automatically', because she is saying you must never initiate force, so she must hold that you could never do it and not die.
Notes

1. All references are to "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition (New York: Signet, 1961), pp. 13-35.

2. I have cited passages where Rand mentions the connection between 'is' and 'ought' and where she discusses the standard of 'life' as an action-guiding principle. Unfortunately, she did not clearly distinguish 9 from 12, but it is clear she meant to assert 12.

3. All quotations are from "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition (New York: Signet, 1961), pp. 13-35.

4. The book is Ethical Theories, ed. A. I. Melden (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967).

5. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (New York: NAL Books, 1990), p. 29.

6. "Intrinsically good" in ethics means the same as Rand's "an end-in-itself": i.e. a thing which is good for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of something else to be obtained by means of it.

religion is not the sole curse of war , but it is one of the many things that can cause war. it would be good to get rid of it along with all the other curses.

believing in something unquestionably purely on faith is incredibly dangerous.

atheism is simply not believing in gods or god, I see no danger coming from being an atheist where as if your prpared to belive that say cheistaintiy , Scientology, islam, is true then you can potentiality be a dangerous person from the religion and the ideals within the religions.


moderate religious people are in some ways like racist people that don't realise themselves to be racist , sure 90% of the time they represent no harm to society and they wouldn't attack coloured people or shout at them but there propagation of there insidious ideas slowly take a hold and you end up with a society of xenophobes making government policy based on irrationality.

I think atheism should be promoted but it should only be promoted in a purely factual way , in the same way you promote science , or information about flue vaxines.


also just because your an atheist dosnot make you a peace loving hippy , it just means you wont do things based on a belief in god , an atheists could still be a dip shit and go around hitting black people. but the important thing is that the hitting of black people dose not come from atheism.

I would argue that if sum one has come to the conclusion of atheism through reasonable thought and scientific thinking then its unlikely they will be the type of person that will be racist or hateful of other people. where as with religion it is far more likely that you can normally be a reasonable person but because of what it says in your religious script you will hate another people , or think it acceptable for your government to bomb another people. or that key scientific principles should not be tought in school . or that people should not be allowed to have abortions , not based on a good argument or your own personally worked out views from up to date evidence . but based on something written in a 2k year old book.

they seem like Nice people .

Its still a shame that they are infected with the mental disorder of religion.
its strange that they don't realise that the irrationality that allows people to beat abuse and imprison people in camps is the same irrationality that allows them to maintain there religion.

This story makes me realize just how valuable the modern tradition of Halloween is as an early inoculation against some of the most insane and harmful superstitions that have infested our culture for centuries.

It's truly sad that some people, who could easily live in the modern world, prefer the terror and irrationality of the dark ages. . . Or at least prefer that their flock remain terrified and irrational to solidify their position as spiritual or religious leaders.

Behavioral economics shows us the human brain has many predictable irrationalities.

Government intervention, like mandatory health insurance or prohibiting restaurants from using needlessly deadly trans fatty acids, seems to be an appropriate strategy to correct those predictable limitations of the human brain.

Holy crap, what a bunch of sheep. And I mean that literally too. They're all frightened and they're all flocking (one runs one way, they all follow). You cannot debate your point of view when you're pissed off as it leads to this sort of irrationality. No wonder Jesus and religious ministers refer to there followers as a 'flock'.

Sam Harris' approach to religion is extremely simplistic and trite. Religion is not a single, unitary phenomenon. Each religion is a complex social institution, belief system, and mode of practice in and of itself--and subject to all sorts of fractures, mutations, and polymorphisms. To treat religion the way Sam Harris does is to ignore both the real reasons people engage in religion and the many different ways religion influences behavior.

It's true that sometimes one can make generalizations about particular families or kinds of religions, however. If Sam Harris had made the more limited statement that, under certain sets of circumstances, the monotheistic Abrahamic religions frequently inspire violence and coercion, I could get behind that; it's quite obviously true, and has been since the Jewish King Josiah had polytheist priests executed for the crime of having the wrong religion.

But to extend this observation to all religion is patently wrong. Even if it is the case that religion in general inculcates a habit of irrational thinking (which is far from obvious to me; there are numerous counter-examples), it is not at all obvious to me why this would lead inevitably to violence. Ghandi's philosophy of non-violence was thoroughly grounded in the Bhagavad Gita. Rabindranath Tagore, another leading figure in the liberation of India, wrote poetry that profoundly expresses rapture with the Divine.

Not only does the "irrationality" of religion not inevitably lead to violence, but secular people themselves tend to hold to a wide range of irrational beliefs which do not seem to have led them to be, for the most part, particularly violent.

"There's no such thing as a god who asks us to do irrational things."

What kind of messed up definition of rational does he have? The entire basis of religion is irrationality.

Religoin is just one sort of mental disorder , and another form of irrationality.

Religion is redundant pointless , and enables good people to do evil things .

Religion is not constructive so why not just kill it?

enoch sam haris is always clear that he is against all religion and superstition He just happened to use a contemporary example in this short clip.

I don't think the Taliban would exist as thay do unless they have the desize of religion thay are not fighting for freedome of there people thay are fighting specifcly for there intepritatoin of islam and for everyone to follow that same interpitatoin. If religion did not exists you would not have groups such as Taliban fighting specifcly for religion , you would have groups fighting for land , control, power but at least you would have removed religion from the list of stupid things people fight for.

>> ^gtjwkq:
Setting working conditions and minimum wages is the art of benefiting the hired at the expense of the employers and the unemployed. Pretty soon a black market for illegal hiring will grow as businesses and people try to survive in tough times despite such ill-considered regulations. So you actually end up with 3rd world salaries that way.

Minimum wage is a whole other topic, but my read of what you're saying here is that 3rd world salaries in the US are unavoidable, and we should just accept it. Suffice to say, I disagree.

Just FYI, almost 70% of America's GDP accounts for consumer spending, its not reliable as an indicator of a nation's productivity. Over the years, a lot of that spending is just people borrowing with their home equity extractions and mostly credit card debt. Now that we're in a credit crunch, GDP will probably fall (unless statisticians come up with a more hedonistic interpretation for it).
In a recession like we're having, in the private sector you need more productivity and you need to flush out the malinvestments and money wasting businesses.

I agree with this, though I'd replace the Austrian-defined "malinvestment" with just plain "bad investments." Why did the market go for an asset bubble, rather than go after investments with a real long-term prospect?

In the public sector, you need less govt so it can be less of a burden on the private sector.
How can that possibly happen if govt borrows/taxes/prints a stimulus into existence (adding to the burden of debt), then proceeds to use all that taxpayer money to expand govt programs and spending (more burden),

How does laying off schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, closing VA hospitals, etc. Help recovery? It seems like a highly ideological statement to say that no one the government gives money to should be employed.

Being worried about the debt seems natural, but why you would say the spending itself adds burden? That seems to presuppose that money spent by government is automatically, intrinsically going to purchase nothing of value to anyone.

[It] bails out the inefficient businesses that should've failed otherwise (more burden)

For what it's worth, the left (myself included) isn't pleased about the bailouts. We're mollified slightly when the CEOs of several of these institutions is asked to resign. I'm not so worried about the auto bailouts (since they're all loans, and I suspect they'll be repaid), but the bank bailouts should involve more pain from people who aren't taxpayers.

and poorly hands that money out to businesses via govt contracts instead of letting consumers make better choices with their money themselves (burden burden burden)?

As a general proposition, I would agree with this, though we're "fortunate" in that successive rounds of conservative politicians have let our infrastructure crumble, so we have a very convenient, worthwhile target for stimulus. That's in contrast to Japan, whose stimulus mostly went towards things of little long-term economic benefit, like increasing their level of hurricane and earthquake resistance.

Blaming mostly investment banks for this recession is like force-feeding alcohol to a bus driver and blaming him for killing all the passengers in the resulting crash. Don't you have any idea of the Fed and other federal institutions' role in causing the market distortions that led to this recession? How can you give them a free pass as the major culprits?

I've seen Peter Schiff use this metaphor (and others like it) several times. It makes no sense.

You say government force-fed them alcohol, when really what it did is give them money. Why is government solely or primarily at fault for the investment bank using that money to make bad investments?

To me, this seems like trying to jail the CEO of Smith & Wesson for a murder committed with one of their guns, while holding the person pulling the trigger blameless.

It is a kind of selection, just not as brutal as you described, because its not the end of the world: people get fired, businesses go bankrupt, the assets of incompetent people are transfered to the competent people, people are hired again somewhere else and eventually the economy resumes growth.

Yes, people get fired, lose their health insurance, lose their savings (what's left of them), go even more deeply into debt, potentially lose their home...yep, nothing at all brutal in that!

The market is not an omnipotent unstoppable force, its complexity just eludes the narrow-mindedness of the fools that try to plan it, specially when they're the same fools that screwed it up in the first place. A market is already planned by those in it, and they have the best incentives in place to make the best plans, because they are usually the first ones to pay for their mistakes. Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are exempt from responsability and are seldom punished when they waste huge amounts of money. They are the ones who commited the worst sins.

Why are politicians exempt from accountability? Don't we have elections?

Which CEO of these companies is now on welfare or in jail? Seems to me, other people wind up paying for their mistakes, government bailout or no.

The terrible mistake in your criticism of the market is that you constantly blame its "emergent" irrationality as an excuse for thinking on its behalf. What you correlate to auto-immunity on an otherwise healthy body I would compare to a heavily medicated pacient that undergoes daily surgeries after years of treatment for what started out as a sore throat.

I think anyone familiar with the history of the Great Depression, and the 1920's generally would view things my way. This is why I decry Austrians with such venom -- they engage in revisionist history rather than adapt to the revelation that government isn't Satan, and that the market can indeed do the wrong thing all by itself.

Setting working conditions and minimum wages is the art of benefiting the hired at the expense of the employers and the unemployed. Pretty soon a black market for illegal hiring will grow as businesses and people try to survive in tough times despite such ill-considered regulations. So you actually end up with 3rd world salaries that way.

Just FYI, almost 70% of America's GDP accounts for consumer spending, its not reliable as an indicator of a nation's productivity. Over the years, a lot of that spending is just people borrowing with their home equity extractions and mostly credit card debt. Now that we're in a credit crunch, GDP will probably fall (unless statisticians come up with a more hedonistic interpretation for it).

In a recession like we're having, in the private sector you need more productivity and you need to flush out the malinvestments and money wasting businesses. In the public sector, you need less govt so it can be less of a burden on the private sector.

How can that possibly happen if govt borrows/taxes/prints a stimulus into existence (adding to the burden of debt), then proceeds to use all that taxpayer money to expand govt programs and spending (more burden), bails out the inefficient businesses that should've failed otherwise (more burden) and poorly hands that money out to businesses via govt contracts instead of letting consumers make better choices with their money themselves (burden burden burden)?

Seriously, if you're counting on govt to do anything productively, you probably got the wrong person for the job. People are far better at making choices with their own money than the govt is with money that they effortlessly take from others.

Blaming mostly investment banks for this recession is like force-feeding alcohol to a bus driver and blaming him for killing all the passengers in the resulting crash. Don't you have any idea of the Fed and other federal institutions' role in causing the market distortions that led to this recession? How can you give them a free pass as the major culprits?

AFAIK, creative destruction in economics is an often misunderstood sophism that doesn't apply to what I'm advocating. If an economy is moving towards a recession, the recession is not the problem, the artificial *boom* was the problem that the market is trying to correct with a recession. It is a kind of selection, just not as brutal as you described, because its not the end of the world: people get fired, businesses go bankrupt, the assets of incompetent people are transfered to the competent people, people are hired again somewhere else and eventually the economy resumes growth.

The market is not an omnipotent unstoppable force, its complexity just eludes the narrow-mindedness of the fools that try to plan it, specially when they're the same fools that screwed it up in the first place. A market is already planned by those in it, and they have the best incentives in place to make the best plans, because they are usually the first ones to pay for their mistakes. Politicians and bureaucrats, on the other hand, are exempt from responsability and are seldom punished when they waste huge amounts of money. They are the ones who commited the worst sins.

The terrible mistake in your criticism of the market is that you constantly blame its "emergent" irrationality as an excuse for thinking on its behalf. What you correlate to auto-immunity on an otherwise healthy body I would compare to a heavily medicated pacient that undergoes daily surgeries after years of treatment for what started out as a sore throat.

I'm afraid that you're a rude, narrow minded individual that has zero skills in bringing anyone into a cause.

My very first comment contained: "if those things (regarding the drugs in particular, because that's the crux of it really, did she have them or not) are true, then yeah, the media did a huge disservice to her."

You had me intrigued... but what did you do? You fired back with "But if you open a page with an empty heart, and a mission to criticize, you are going to come up with irrationality I guess. Bet you're a really nice guy to know. Let her die, eh?

FFS. Some people."

Sorry, but you're just a dick and you don't know it.

End of conversation.