TTI Forums

Tolthar Lockbar wrote:So is Karl Marx an evil man?

I don't think Karl Marx was an evil man, but boy was he wrong....

Whoever preaches evil ideas is an evil man.

Oleksandr wrote:Whoever preaches evil ideas is an evil man.

Would you agree that there are degrees of evil. I have said and done some evil things. On par I believe the vast majority of my words and deeds have not been evil. Would I be less evil than say... Lech Walesa?

Oleksandr wrote:Whoever preaches evil ideas is an evil man.

If an objectivist society in the near future is formed, and rapid technological expansion resulted from the ensuing economic freedom.. And time travel was invented... Would objectivist forces be justified in going back in time and silencing Herr Marx?

Arakasi wrote:
"Does the emergence of Objectivism as a dominant world philosophy _require_ the existence of a John Galt and the collapse of all governments to 'People's States' in order to occur? Why would that be?"

Actually, in a sense it does.

I believe very strongly that one of the primary functions in all governments today is to stay in power. A transition to an objectivist society (which is a pretty drastic change, even here in the US) would require governments to virtually vote themselves out of existence, and I just don't see dictators, monarchs and politicians giving up their power willingly. Furthermore, 'big business' and governments are often seen going hand in hand these days, so government support will continue to thrive in those businesses because the status quo is profitable to those businessmen personally.

Based on your response, and some other posts floating around here, I have a 'metaphysical' query for you -

Your refer to 'governments' and 'big business' (and others refer to intergovernmental organizations such as the UN) as if they were entities in and of themselves. Government, businesses, and the like are made of us groupings of individuals, all of whom, according to Objectivism at least, are motivated by their own self interest.

Do you believe that governments, businesses, etc (Institutions) have a 'life' or a 'will' of their own, independent of the individuals that make them up? That seems to be the implied result of your usage of terms. When you say 'governments have a primary function of staying in power' what do you mean? Don't you mean individuals have a primary function of staying in power? How could a government want to stay in power, unless the individuals within it wanted that same goal. How could businesses be corrupt, unless the individuals within them were corrupt? How could the UN be evil, unless all the individuals within it were evil?

How can you ascribe _any_ moral or ethical position to _any_ kind of organization? It's nothing but the sum of its parts - the individuals within it.


AT
[/quote]

Arakasi wrote:How can you ascribe _any_ moral or ethical position to _any_ kind of organization? It's nothing but the sum of its parts - the individuals within it.

Ever heard the phrase, "don't hate the player, hate the game?"

I am willing to ascribe a moral or ethical position to organizations, specifically to governments and 'big business,' because of specific practices, customs and procedures that make them immoral or unethical. Examples would be Political Action Committees and lobbying, the entire concept of 'campaign funding' as it exists in the US, pork barrelling, the politically drived nature behind acts such as tariffs on imported goods, etc.

Because many of the traditions that I define as immoral or corrupt predate any current member of said organization, I blame two parties: the organization itself, and those who are willing to join said organization.

"Mommy, when I grow up, I'm going to bribe a senator with a campaign contribution to keep my tobacco factory open."

Even if the intention of individuals who are a part of these organizations is pure, by participating in a system that is immoral, they are acting immorally themselves.

For example, voting for a democratic candidate, who is going to vote, in turn, for taxation, etc, is wrong in my opinion.

Governments keep 'themselves' in power by creating laws that go beyond protecting the power of any one person, but protect the power of the institution itself. Laws against seccession and sedition, laws allowing censorship, etc all do that. Anytime anyone in the US says, "It's a two-party system," they are continuing to uphold the tradition that keeps the republican and democratic parties in power.

My question really is one of 'freedom of action'; does a government has any discernable freedom of action _oustide_ the freedom of action of the individuals making it up?

For instance, I don't see how a government could have a 'freedom of action' to increase taxes if no individuals within that government wanted to raise them. In effect, government is merely a tool of the individuals that make it up. No one ascribes a moral position or 'freedom of action' to a hammer - why ascribe one to a government or any other institution.

I think labeling an organization with a moral qualifier is a misguided shorthand for labeling the moral positions of the individuals within it. If the people making up the government are evil, then the government is evil.

But this strikes me as a logical fallacy. It's a kind of anthropromorphism - ascribe human qualities to an inanimate or non-human object. Since morals are involved in the judgement of choices and actions, the subject of the moral qualifier must have freedom to act, or freedom of choice.

It also skirts close to a type of discriminatory -ism; ascribing a single moral qualifier to a group of individuals where there is no reason to suspect that _everyone_ within the group is appropriately labeled with that qualifier. Maybe only a portion of those individuals in government are evil. Calling the 'government' evil therefore commits the fallacy of calling some potentially good people evil simply by their association with the group.

It seems a small distinction, but I find that it is a very important one. Objectivism, for instance, states that it is concerned about 'individuals', and, yet, it addresses most 'moral evils' at organizations and groups.

AT

Arakasi wrote:I don't see how a government could have a 'freedom of action' to increase taxes if no individuals within that government wanted to raise them

It's because the government often has a piece of paper reserving the power to do so to that government.

Arakasi wrote:I think labeling an organization with a moral qualifier is a misguided shorthand for labeling the moral positions of the individuals within it

I see it as a useful shorthand for describing all corrupt members of a corrupt organization without having to list each one of them by name.

Arakasi wrote:Maybe only a portion of those individuals in government are evil.

First of all, let me clarify by stating that I feel that taxation is evil. Therefore, I feel that anyone working in support of an organization that collects taxes is working toward evil. Any project that is completed with funding taken from taxes is evil.

You can't be a card-carrying member of the Nazi party, for example, and protest your innocence because you personally committed no atrocities. Carrying that card, supporting that organization, willing or not, was evil.

Sophid wrote:If an objectivist society in the near future is formed, and rapid technological expansion resulted from the ensuing economic freedom.. And time travel was invented... Would objectivist forces be justified in going back in time and silencing Herr Marx?

You have to be careful about hypothetical questions like this: changing the past is a paradox; a contradiction.

If the context of the question can't be true, then its a waste of time, and can lead to bad conclusions.

Its easy to call a group of people immoral. Look at their ideas (or maybe just actions, doesn't matter is this case) and see if most of them have said ideas/actions. If they do, it is inductive reasoning to make a generalization/abstraction/concept.

Inductive reasoning makes the world go round... sorry, existentialism joke.

The common practices of the government are bad. The structure is bad. And the base of it is bad. Ideologically, the current concept of what a government is and its purpose is bad.

That is why it is bad.

Some clearifications:

Structure: Deficit spending and IRS. Also, the fed reserve (even though its not "officially" affiliated with the rest of the government, it serves a governmental purpose).

Base: Nothing. Should be a constitution, but its really nothing objective.

You have to be careful about hypothetical questions like this: changing the past is a paradox; a contradiction.

Only if your conception of time is deterministically linear.

But that is the subject of a gigantic post in and of itself



AT