Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Geoffrey

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The next time you see the guy, ask him if he needs help and if so ask him what you can do to help him. The other thing to do would be to contact a social worker at the homeless shelter and ask that person what you can do to help.

He'll just ask for money - I don't think has a longer term plan than this. He did say he'd like to have a job, but I don't know what to suggest other taking him to a job center. What kind of work should he be looking for?

How do you know that? Have you asked him? If you haven't, then aren't you prejudging him?

Well it isn't really prejudice, since I'm basing this on what he's said each time I met him before. But I'll ask him directly next time I see him.

Quote: Original post by bardbarienne
My experiences with her and other people who display objectivist tendencies is that there is a general lack of emotion or desire to assist unless it benefits them or their interests in some way. Things are taken literally - helping the poor monetarily isn't seen as something enriching, it's seen as bringing everyone to the same level

To some extent I agree, taking charity to the extreme would be foolish since bringing everyone to the 'same level' diminishes the motivation to do work, which in turn harms everyone (see also: communism). In part, this is why I'd rather help him learn to look after himself rather than giving him money (or food).

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Hmm, thinking about it further, I wonder if Rand's objectivist views are even compatible with parenthood?

You could argue that children bring their parents happiness, thus in many cases it is in the parents interest to have children. But obviously if they misbehave too much and become a pain you would have them put down...

edit: What does objectivism have to say about murder?

Quote: Original post by Geoffrey

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Hmm, thinking about it further, I wonder if Rand's objectivist views are even compatible with parenthood?

You could argue that children bring their parents happiness, thus in many cases it is in the parents interest to have children. But obviously if they misbehave too much and become a pain you would have them put down...

edit: What does objectivism have to say about murder?

The absolute individualist doesn't seem to be concerned about the happiness of others. If that's the case, then to be consistent, it would also have to apply to the happiness of their children (if they have any). Any exception would break away from the consistency of individualism (I think). Therefore, while the children of a parent may bring happiness to the parent, the parent is not obligated in any way to bring happiness to their children. And what a miserable childhood that would be! Therefore, if a child has such a miserable childhood, the individualist probably would be such a bad parent that they should seriously consider not being a parent. If everyone is an individualist, and after serious consideration decides not to be a parent, then the human species would go extinct after one generation. At the very least, one could say that absolute individualism is not "evolutionarily advantageous" and must be unnatural to human nature. Therefore, absolutist individualism should be rejected. (Sorry: This is starting to feel like a slippery slope argument)

Although I'm still quite ignorant on Ayn Rand's philosophy, I think her ideology was half developed. I say: "Love yourself so that you can love others in the same capacity." She got the first half down pretty well, but completely missed the second half :)

The objectivist believes in having "full respect for individual rights". If you murder someone, then you are infringing on their right to exist as a living human being.

What I'm curious about is how the objectivist views incarceration of prisoners...

Quote: Original post by slayemin
Hmm, thinking about it further, I wonder if Rand's objectivist views are even compatible with parenthood?

How funny, I asked myself that same question earlier today. I suppose with children the objective would be to pass along one's genes, like Dawkin's "selfish gene" theory. And with raising them, the objective would be to mold them into conservators for your estate. From what bardbarienne wrote about objectivists and how they pursue their objectives, it appears that my comparison with communism was spot on, although perhaps I should have stipulated Stalinism. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

Quote: Original post by Geoffrey

Quote: Original post by LessBread
How do you know that? Have you asked him? If you haven't, then aren't you prejudging him?

Well it isn't really prejudice, since I'm basing this on what he's said each time I met him before. But I'll ask him directly next time I see him.

I see. Well, like I wrote, just because he says that money would help doesn't mean you have to give him some. If you think about it, extra money would help just about everyone, but that doesn't lead people to readily give it away.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
The absolute individualist doesn't seem to be concerned about the happiness of others. If that's the case, then to be consistent, it would also have to apply to the happiness of their children (if they have any). Any exception would break away from the consistency of individualism (I think). Therefore, while the children of a parent may bring happiness to the parent, the parent is not obligated in any way to bring happiness to their children. And what a miserable childhood that would be!

What a miserable marriage prospect as well! Rand's wikipedia entry says she was married for 50 years. I've read elsewhere that she had numerous affairs. Her libertarianism may have verged on the libertine.

If you're interested in "selfish" philosophies, check out Max Stirner or Marquis de Sade.

Quote: How funny, I asked myself that same question earlier today. I suppose with children the objective would be to pass along one's genes, like Dawkin's "selfish gene" theory. And with raising them, the objective would be to mold them into conservators for your estate. From what bardbarienne wrote about objectivists and how they pursue their objectives, it appears that my comparison with communism was spot on, although perhaps I should have stipulated Stalinism. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

If you've never read Anthem by her, that's the entire premise of the book; a man is living in a socialist society that is hopelessly backwards, and when he discovers something and they merely brush it off, he runs away to start a new life.

If you're curious, my objectivist friend has, whenever the topic of children arises, stated blatantly that she hates babies and never wants to have them. However, she has found the love of her life. There's a little bit of polyamory going on that may be objectivism-related, but I'm just ruling out the idea that objectivists can't love just one person.

Can't love just one person, that person being themselves?

I've not read Anthem, but I used to listen to 2112 quite a lot. The first cut is Anthem, iirc. Or maybe that's from a different Rush album? I've not read any of Rand's novels. I downloaded a couple of them in pdf form, but I couldn't bring myself to read them that way. Maybe I'll check out a hard copy from the library or pick up a copy at a used bookstore. I've read a few articles about her, sympathetic and not sympathetic.

From what you've written about the role of 'the objective', to me it sounds similar in form to the overriding commitment to communism characteristic of Stalinists, except of course, with Rand, the content was completely opposite of communism. In this thread, some of the linked to articles attesting to the connections between Rand and libertarianism describe Rand as being quite militant about individualism, a militancy which also suggests a formal similarity with communism. "Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." — Friedrich Nietzsche

I'll say probably less then 5% of the homeless are truly good people who were dealt a bad card in life. When you give to the homeless you are probably not helping someone but merely giving them a hand out.

But if everyone had a hard heart towed the homeless, it could be a death sentence to be homeless. Though this may make the world a slightly better place for those of us who are not dealt a bad card in life, it would also make the world cold and uncaring for those who are.