33 Comments

1. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-16 23:47:49

   Thespian warriors: They give up a lesser good (their lives) for a greater good (the honor of their city). This is a trade. No problem with that because it was in their self-interest to do so by the principle of utility maximization (whether they personally would end up seeing it or not is immaterial). Where I have a problem: The original posting indicated that economics suggests that people are basically selfish. But they are (nearly all of them--most likely even you!) and they (and you!) OUGHT to be! Placing the desires of others (altruism) over that of your own self-interest is simply unnatural and wrong, even by Christian standards. Although I will grant that placing your own interests as primary is also wrong from the ideal Christian perspective for the following reason: Although Jesus did NOT say, "Love thy neighbor more than thyself" (thus invalidating altruism), he did say, in Mark 12:31, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." However, I submit that NO ONE REALLY practices that. I would certainly expend more effort to save my child's life than the child of another. Wouldn't you? If you would, then you, like me, are selfish and not altruistic (or even a good Christian according to Jesus's earlier statement). Yet I do give to charity (because it makes ME feel good and it advances the causes that I PERSONALLY deem important). That being said, I am arguing for RATIONAL SELFISHNESS, which means that one does not lie, cheat, steal or otherwise harm or cause disadvantage to another. For more information on Objectivist thought, see (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html) (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html) (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selflessness.html) Now I will be quiet and allow for a response but please don't put up too many debating points all at once. I will respect Gina's dictate but object to being placed at a disadvantage in doing so.

2. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-16 23:20:04

   Jason, I assume, therefore, you are using definition #3, which you listed "the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim." This is a TRADE. BY THIS DEFINITION, if I surrender $1 for a hamburger, I am making a sacrifice. If that is the case, I have no qualms with you using the term sacrifice and I will simply mentally substitute "trade". However, sacrifice can entail MORE. See definition 8, which you also give. If you are using definition #8, I have a REAL PROBLEM WITH IT because it simply states that you give up something for something else. By taking definition 8 and subtracting out definition 3 (the trade), one arrives at the Objectivist definition given here (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html) Hopefully now you understand that I am objecting to a subset of the entire definition as given by you but which is in fact part of it (and which I clearly spelled out). Yet you never want to tell me which definition you are using (#3, to which I do not object or #8, to which I clearly do object). Notice that my definition may be thought of as highlighting the portion of your definition that I dispute. So please tell me, which definition is it that you use? #3 (the narrow one, which is the equivalent of a trade) or #8 (the broad one, which to my mind is utterly meaningless since it involves giving up anything for anything else) as they clearly do not mean the same thing.

3. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-16 11:28:54

   In any case, Zagros, you did not answer the point about the Thespian warriors. Which was that they gave up what they considered a lesser good, which was their lives, which they could experience for what they considered a greater good, which was the honor of their city. Which was an abstract good they would never see. Supposeing them to be right for the sake of argument, that is the difference between self-sacrifice and narrow self-interest.

4. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-16 10:39:05

   """ self-in⋅ter⋅est   /ˌsɛlfˈɪntərɪst, -trɪst, ˈsɛlf-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [self-in-ter-ist, -trist, self-] Show IPA Use self-interest in a Sentence See web results for self-interest See images of self-interest –noun 1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others. 2. personal interest or advantage. and se selfish in a Sentence See web results for selfish See images of selfish –adjective 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives. Now it is obvious Zagros, that when most people speak of selfish they speak of the meaning 1. And so on. Therefore we will concede that in Objectivist language it has a different meaning. However the popular and undisputed(except by you) referendum as reflected in the dictionary is the primary authority on language when arguing about definitions with outsiders. That is you cannot say a word "really" means something when it clearly means something else. Now as sacrifice when it says,things like greater good and the like, sounds vague, we must conclude from popular usage that there are different ways of giving up a lesser good for a greater. For instance an exchange is contractural, and usually precise. An extortion is under duress, and the greater good is one's life. In the case of a sacrifice there is a more trancendental sense to it, and you may not concede the validity of trancendental senses. Which is all very well. But that is in fact what most people mean.

5. Posted by jerryh on 2009-12-16 10:38:59

   Many times I wade through comments and do not reply because time does not allow a one-handed typist to reply to everything. In this case, however, I feel a word or two is necessary. What Jesus did on the cross was a sacrifice. Not only by the definition Jason has so appropriately given, but also I think by Zagros definition. God’s character demanded, after the Fall, that man be destroyed. This is evident with the Flood. For God, the greater good is not achieved by man’s salvation, He existed in eternity past without man and he could continue in the future without him or he could just create something different. For example, if I make something that is then damaged and takes more to be repaired, then remaking it, I will just remake it. Of course God’s nature also makes Him want to save what he creates, but in this, he has a choice. Once again I refer to the Flood; in that act God is demonstrating his wrath against sin, which is His ONLY valid response to sin. But in his mercy, and convent with Noah He says he is not going to destroy creation again. By saying this He leaves Himself with only one option, and that is to save creation. This is what Jesus did in going to the cross. Not only did he die, but God’s wrath for sin fell on him. During this time God’s nature was affected in a way which had never happened in eternity past and which we can never understand, echoed in the cry “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” This was something that God did not have to do for His creation, but something he chose to do. The greater good might have been for man, but it was never a greater good for God. Reading what Jesus says and Paul’s letters you come away with a sense that Jesus’ work is to be repeated by His people, “anyone who does not carry his cross…” and my favorite passage for Christmas, Phil 2:3-11, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition…” This is the fundamental truth of Christianity, to but aside one’s selfish desires for the other. And if no one can decide, the philosophers should split the soup between them.

6. Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-12-16 10:38:10

   I love the 'categorical imperative' game. Beside it being a good argument for heterosexual monogamy (true), most of the examples used to think about it break down (cf. the marionettes in Zagros's example). Who could imagine (such a faculty) someone actually feeding a person who was too weak to feed himself, in the middle of a plague, while the 'wisest' course of action is to flee to the hills? Some of us are so caught up in defining terms to fit an economic bias that we forget what agape love is. By all means, let's play our fiddle whilst Rome burns - at least we wouldn't be altruists (phew).

7. Posted by Lee "Relationships?!? Gross!!" Quod on 2009-12-16 09:14:23

   Zagros, imagine an alien appearing on our planet and beginning to lecture us on the foundation of the universe, without first establishing whether or not they were hostile. I know many atheists who don't argue that Christianity is true - they argue that it is evil, because they know Christians who are rude. And here at The Point it's considered rude to make our much beloved editor wade through enormous amounts of words, especially when the poster appears to have no intent to create a dialogue but rather only a monologue. Why not post your 15 pages on a website, and simply give us a link with a brief explanation that would spark our interest? You might have much better success that way - especially if you indicate a willing to listen as well as to speak, and to love as much as to educate.

8. Posted by Gina on 2009-12-16 08:34:49

   Zagros, my friend, you're not listening. I'm sorry to single you out, actually; you're not the only one that does this, and I should have set a policy in place about it a long time ago. You need to remember the blog format you're posting in (and especially our current problems with the comment section, which smushes everything into one paragraph). It is too difficult for readers to follow long, complex arguments in this format, and it's not easy or quick for me to read them all either when I'm screening comments. So rules need to be set and followed, and I'm setting one now. Please restrict yourself to two comments at a time, period. This goes for everyone here, bloggers included, and it is not a suggestion. If it means you need to condense your argument, then you'll simply have to make the sacrifice! ;-) Thanks, all of you, for your understanding and patience.

9. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-16 00:30:02

   Now this is what the word sacrifice means, Zagros. It means that because dictionary.com says so. And no one has, to my knowledge, denied the authority of dictionary.com in such matters: 1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. 2. the person, animal, or thing so offered. 3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 4. the thing so surrendered or devoted. 5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value. 6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner. –verb (used with object) 7. to make a sacrifice or offering of. 8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else. 9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit. 10. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice. –verb (used without object) 11. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out. 12. to offer or make a sacrifice.

10. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-16 00:22:06

    Zagros, attempting to change language against the consent of both previous and present consensus is a far more questionable enterprise then attempting to change philosophy. You are not just arguing against sacrificing, you seem to be arguing against the word sacrifice. While truth can have an objective reality, language is so much dependent on popular consent that trying to reinterpret it into an obscure an eccentric format is a quixotic activity. In other words, if the mass of mankind says the word sacrifice means something other then the definition you gave it and if you are the only one that defines it that way, then the mass of mankind is right. Because when all is said and done the definition of words goes by popular referendum.

11. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-16 00:09:43

    Gina, I would if I could. I posted multiple comments without a break becuase of space constraints on the comment sphere, not because I forget things. The system will not simply not allow more than a certain number of characters in a comment, so I needed to post more than one comment just to continue the discourse (which originally runs about 15 pages due to citations to the literature, etc.). It is difficult to articulate a defense for a position which is unpopular and apparently unknown to those for whom you are trying to inform. Imagine, for example, trying to explain Christianity and provide a complete formal proof of it objectively to an individual from another planet who has never heard of Christianity and you will start to see the daunting task. In addition, I am trying to ensure that I do not make the same mistake of not properly defining terms and axioms so that we can all be on the same page with the argument. If I am successful in constructing a valid deductive argument, then the only way to discard it is to attacks the premises (which, by the way, is how I am attacking the argument that sacrifice is a virtue). If instead it turns out that my argument is inductive, then it is probabilistic and others can evaluate its relative weight. I am using both deductive (falsifiable) and inductive (probabilistic) arguments in attempting to establish that sacrifice is a vice.

12. Posted by Gina on 2009-12-15 23:17:04

    Zagros, my point (made somewhat facetiously, it's true) is that I would prefer that you not post multiple comments in a row, but instead make your argument in one comment -- two if absolutely necessary, say if you forgot something in the first one -- and then wait for others to respond. It's just good Net etiquette. Thank you.

13. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-15 22:12:32

    “What was Christ’s incentive to go to the cross?” "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" - 1 Corinthinans 15:14 Furthermore, since the blood sacrifice is required for the sins, if he does not die on the cross, then Christianity is a hoax. Isn't that a pretty big incentive? The objectivist "point" is to reexamine the definitions that you are using (as you astutely stated, Lisie). Gina, I would agree with you IF this were a spoken debate but it is not and anyone can freely interject into the conversation. Jason, the notion objectivism or any philosophy "depends on the fact that it can survive" is irrelevant. If someone is annoyed with a philosophy (witness the people of Athens with Socrates or the people of Jerusalem with Jesus) and demands that the flame be extinguished, it will not be if it is objectively the truth. Indeed, the funny thing is that only the truth will "overly annoy you" since if it is a falsehood it can easily be ignored. What is it about objectivist philosophy (which holds that morality, knowledge, and values are inherently objective and thus discoverable based on reason as opposed to invented subjectively and which holds the only proper moral purpose of mankind is the seeking of one's own rational self-interest so long as one respects the rights of others to do the same) that makes you feel so uncomfortable? From "On Rand and Altruism: A Defense of Christian Self-Interest" found at www.libertarianchristians.com: "Jesus Christ taught, “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31), not in place of yourself, as altruism would direct. In Christ’s words “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?’ Christ appealed to “profit” and genuine self-interest, not altruistic ethics. Christ did say that in order to gain life one must lose it (Mark 8:36), but the life a man gives up is his old life; the life he is receives is a new, better life and thus no sacrifice at all." Finally, why do I have such a problem with sacrifice? The answer is that it leads to altruism, which is destructive and nonsensical. This is a difficult concept to understand, so let us utilize the categorical imperative (imagine if EVERYONE did it, would it be good?). For simplicity sake, we will limit the world to two philosophers, both engaged in altruism with a bowl of soup between them. The first passes the soup to the second, the second passes it back to the first and so forth ad infinitum. Result: they both starve. Conclusion: Altruism is destructive and evil unless at least one person refuses to be altruistic and instead chooses to be egoistic. http://www.thadguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/altruism.png

14. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-15 18:52:18

    Which statement, Rolley, is an example of the limits of trying to apply calculation to the incalculable.

15. Posted by Rolley Haggard on 2009-12-15 17:14:19

    I can’t help feeling it misses the point to ask “what was Christ’s incentive to go to the cross?” Incentive is a value-add. Ask any truly loving father or mother what their “incentive” is to love their children. I’d hope they’d say, “I don’t need any incentive – I love them; they are infinitely precious to me.” Is it any different with God, a three-letter word for ‘Love’? Love needs no incentive. Sacrifice is what love does for the beloved.

16. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-15 13:31:31

    Furthermore Zagros, your philosophy like any other depends on the fact that it can survive. It can only survive by people making the minor sacrifice of not being to annoyed and the major sacrifice of someone being willing to die if someone else is overly annoyed. Because if someoene declared you a vile heresy and launched an extermination campaign then you would either have to depend on members of your philosophy being illogical by your own account, or on people who do not adhere to it.

17. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-15 13:06:16

    Getting rid of present-value calculations is impossible for a view of the circumstances. If someone gives up something in the present, doubting or not believing he will see it's eternal value come to pass then the psychological effect is that of a sacrifice. The Thespian warriors at Thermopylae sacrificed themselves to prove that their cities honor was as great as Sparta's . Even though there is no evidence that they were able to witness any result of any investment of their Earthly lifes. Now you may say that the knowledge(which was unfortunatly forgotten) that Thespiae's warriors did not in fact leave the three hundred Spartans to die is not objectively worth one's life and subjectively the Thespians believed in a pretty dismal afterlife, and as they were pagans, they may have been right. However the funny thing is that the approval of the mass of mankind would go to the Thespians for doing as they did, and that does not change from culture to culture or religion to religion. In other words they thought it more important to be better then to experience the betterness. Now the mass of mankind is often quite capable of being wrong. But it is less capable of being wrong about language as that is the sum total of man's thoughts. And you are objecting specifically to the word sacrifice by crowding looking at everything in a hyperanalytical manner which fails of it's object simply because the analytical manner of speech is insufficient for conveying truth. That is why we have poetic and colloquial language after all. You are also looking at things from severely calculating and narrowly economic perspective which in practice not even merchants use because if they did, it would not be the case that the greatest warriors and explorers in history are often merchants. Like(presumably) some of the Thespians at Thermopylae.

18. Posted by lisie on 2009-12-15 11:02:48

    Hi, Zagros, I think you're right that the main problem is the definition of "sacrifice". I think that the term as used here can roughly be defined as "giving up something that is in one's significant interest". It does not necessarily mean giving up one's best interest, which as you point out would require giving up a greater good for a lesser good. The term, as I usually see it used, is a bit broader and can cover actions that result in a net loss, as in the student who drops out of school to do drugs and sacrifices his future for temporary pleasure, or in a net gain, as in the volunteer who sacrifices free time to help others. I specified "significant" interests because, although having $1 is in a person's interest, it is not significant enough to qualify as a sacrifice, in the usual sense of the term. Thus, Jesus giving his life for the salvation of the world counts as a sacrifice, because survival was (significantly) in His interests. However, it was not the type of sacrifice that would result in a net loss (the only type your definition includes).

19. Posted by Lee "Brilliantly parsimonious in your use of words, G" Quod on 2009-12-15 10:44:21

    Mercy??? Mercy!?!!?? Gina, you've just answered the question posed in Amanda's quote - bravo!!

20. Posted by Gina on 2009-12-15 07:56:25

    For mercy's sake, Zagros, please take a breath. I'm getting dizzy here. And you're not letting anyone else get a word in edgewise.

21. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-15 07:47:22

    Still, there may be one way we can reconcile our two positions. Economics does not prescribe what one ought to do (that is the realm of ethics and morality). It merely suggests that one does what one wishes to do and thus economics is morally neutral. People respond to incentives, that much is true. If you want people to do evil, you have to tempt them since they will lose their immortal soul. They will do what is wrong because they have short time horizons and discount the infinite value of eternal life to a finite sum (which, mathematically is possible, try adding 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + . . . and you will find that it sums to a number that is less than infinite) and thus, to God, this is irrational (What profiteth a man to gain the world but lose his soul? You now have your answer) since God exists outside of time and space and thus does not perform future discounting or present value calculations. Indeed, it is here AND ONLY HERE where following economics as your philosophy has a problem from objective truth. Since people discount the future, it is the discount factor which causes all the problems in the world. Get rid of present value calclulations and determine everything (as God does) without the illusion of time and you will always do the right thing since it is in your long-term interests to do so.

22. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-15 07:46:57

    Finally, I wish to take up two of your points, which are interrelated. The first is "it is human nature to put ones own interest in the simplest sense first more then it is human nature to make other's interest their own." Your second point was the point as of what self-interest consists. You indicate that self-interest is somehow subjective or, if not subjective, it at least differs based on circumstances ("a commisar's self interest consists of following the party line better then [sic] others. And thus will dilligently do work tangential to the desires and needs of mankind."). If you are arguing that self-interest consists of what one would do to advance in this life, I disagree with you. Self-interest is either objectively the same for all (since objectively the interest of being saved is superior to all other interests) OR it is subjectively determined by the individual (and thus you cannot objectively determine what my self-interest is without being me). If it is objectively the same for all, there is no need for altruism or altruistic behaviors. After all, my interests are fundamentally advanced by your interests and vice versa. However, I believe that you and I would agree that this is not the proper definition of self-interest. Self-interest is a subjective term, which you indicate in that first dialogue. In this case, since my self-interest is aligned with God's and yours may or may not be, it is irrational for me to even consider your self-interest in my determination of what to do. Indeed, to be altruistic would be to do *evil* in such a case. To deny this *is* to be inconsistent. If there are objective interests and those objective interests are the same for everyone, which is to follow God's plan, then there is no inconsistency in arguing that following my interests serves God. There is no need to add another layer of complexity (the interests of others) to the mix. If, on the other hand, interests are subjective then there are two possibilities: first, the interests of others and my own interests are aligned (that is that we are both serving God), but, once again, then there is no reason to not state that I am interested in serving my own interests. If, on the other hand, the interests of others are diametrically opposed to God's interests (because those interests are subjective interests, rather than objective interests), then it is morally repugnant and EVIL to serve the interests of others. It is for this reason that the philosophy of altruism *is* evil. Altruism rests on placing the SUBJECTIVE interests of others before the SUBJECTIVE interests of oneself but if YOUR subjective interests are in line with what they OBJECTIVELY ought to be, choosing to following the subjective interests of others is evil as stated above. If your subjective interests are NOT in line with what they OBJECTIVELY ought to be, how can you know what the objective truth is since, after all, once you see the objective truth, any rational creature would accept it.

23. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-15 06:56:00

    There are two things here: first, that anyone who follows the desires of another human being as opposed to their own is not able to know exactly what those desires are (the problem is that we cannot objectively know what the subjective desires of others are). Thus, altruism always fails. Second, when one's own desires are not in line with that which is objectively correct, one fails. The goal is to align one's subjective desires with that which is objectively correct and then follow those desires. In understanding our relationship with the Lord, we have to understand that the sin is in the mind before it is in the action. Christianity dictates that it is not sufficient to merely do good, one must BE GOOD for salvation. When one IS GOOD, one does good. "Faith without deeds is useless" (James 2:20) but faith is equally required, although, in fact, it is only by grace of God that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8-10). Yet grace is mistakenly misunderstood by many Christians. It is true that grace is an unmerited blessing but justice REQUIRES that it not be completely unmerited. Grace can only be showered on those who, although not deserving it (since none deserve it), but, nevertheless, try (faith). Otherwise it is a worthyless grace from the standpoint of the giver. You are granted forgiveness for your sins and bask in the glory of God only if you do that which is right and for the right reasons. Still, if you are truly one with God, you know that it is easy to do what is right for the right reasons. There is no sacrifice. Indeed, if you think objectively, if you are still convinced that you are sacrificing for God, then you do not truly believe, since a part of you desires that for which you ought (objectively) not wish. Please be clear, in this sense, I do depart from Ayn Rand and most objectivists (although you should read about one other person who has attempted to reconcile Objectivism and Christianity at christianobjectivists.blogspot.com) in that most objectivists begin with the premise that each individual man is wholely sovereign and that God's desires are meaningless. I argue that this is not the case and that this is Rand's fatal flaw (for her own use of her philosophy, not for her philosophy itself). Since Rand could not objectively prove God, she rejected God. I instead use her philosophy to provide a sound a rational basis for belief in God. I see objective proof all around that God exists, that I am His creation, and that my objective purpose in life is to serve His. As such, my goals and desires OBJECTIVELY OUGHT be in line with His. That is not a sacrifice and it is only a sacrifice when I go against what is my purpose in life, when I deny God, and side with the Devil. I submit that I will not do that. I further submit, however, that it is not for me to DICTATE to another how to live. I have taken the John Galt pledge: "I shall never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine." If others do not come willingly to God, it is not for me to tell them to do so. They must come willingly and not feel as though they are "sacrificing" to do so. For if they believe that they are "sacrificing" to do what God requires, they are not in line with what God wants (since they lack faith).

24. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-15 06:48:22

    Jason, check your premises. You are not understanding the answer. I am not stating anything about the goals. I am not stating (although YOU are trying to state that I am) that there are not objectively better goals. The philosophy of Objectivism states that THERE ARE objectively better goals (that is why it is called OBJECTIVISM). There is truth and there is that which is not the truth (A and not A). I certainly am not stating that you are merely the sum of your whims and there are objectively superior goals. YOU seem to be arguing that when you suggest that what Jesus did was a sacrifice. Objectively, the salvaction of mankind is a higher goal than the suffering of one man, isn't it? So again, I ask you, how can it be a sacrifice? I agree that we have a cognative dissonance but the problem again relates to your definitions. If you are arguing that a sacrifice is a loss of something, ALL trade involves sacrifice. The hamburger example is a perfect one. If you instead argue, as I do, that a true sacrifice only involves trading a higher goal for a lower goal, then Jesus did not sacrifice nor should you. Exactly what do you MEAN by sacrifice? The problem is that when you engage in a discussion, everyone MUST agree a priori on the axioms to be used. I have yet to hear your actual definition of sacrifice, not dance around it and try to assume what I think beyond what I state. You seem to be sacrificing the higher goal of understanding the philosophy for the lower goal of feeling superior in the idea that somehow your position is the better one. I am not that way. I fundamentally do not understand how Jesus could be sacrificing anything. My values and beliefs are in alignment with the Almighty. So long as that is the case, I am not sacrificing anything. I am my Creator's creation and it is a sacrifice for me to go against my true nature, which is a rational being in search of truth. When I choose to do that which is wrong instead of what is right, I sacrifice the higher goal (ultimate communion with God, which is objectively a superior goal) for the lower one (the wallowing in the pigsty of subjective desire). When I am not in control of my desires, when I am not making decisions in a logical and, dare I say, SELFISH manner, then I am in trouble.

25. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-14 14:53:54

    Also Zagros you are essentially claiming that all goals are subjective. My point is that some goals are objectively better then othere. That it is better to desire these goals. And should we not emotionally desire these goals it is our duty to suppress that desire and incline ourselves toward the higher good rather then the lower and that we have the power of doing so. It is an assumption that a given person is in fact more then the amalgamation of his whims. If you in fact believe that you are an amalgamation of your whims that is fine. But in that case there is no reason for anyone to believe you as what you said was just a whim.

26. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-12-14 14:38:40

    Fine, Zagros, let us just say we have an inpenetrable cognitive dissonance. However the point is a recognition that it is human nature to put ones own interest in the simplest sense first more then it is human nature to make other's interest their own.

27. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-12-13 23:14:35

    Fred, it was not my desire to convince you of the Objectivist ethics. I do not personally care. If you choose not to, that is your own business. What I do care to do, however, is to get you to define your terms properly and precisely. You state, "[t]he concept of sacrifice rests partly on the knowledge that in fact the more intense desire may not in fact be the best so that what one is painfully giving up is a sacrifice." I do not agree that one should go with the "more intense desire"--neither economics nor Objectivist philosphy would suggest that would be the proper method of evaluation. I do not argue that replacing a more intense desire with a less intense desire is the definition of a sacrifice but it is interesting that you do because that clearly is not the case with Jesus. He dies on the cross for the "more intense desire" to aid all of humanity than his "less intense desire" to not suffer. Otherwise, why would he have done it in the first place? I instead argue that it is a net loss (meaning that one gives up more than one gains). The dictionary notes this as one of the definitions, although it also has a definition that you might find more appealing, "the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim." Interesting, this means that one definition of sacrifice actually means the exact OPPOSITE of another definition. It is for this reason that I ask for clarification as to which definition is being used. Furthermore, the definition of sacrifice that you seem to like MAKES NO SENSE. Wouldn't it be more of a sacrifice if I gave up something I valued more in exchange for something I value less? After all, if it is this latter definition (the one you seem to like), then I would agree that Jesus sacrificed, but so did I when I gave up $1.00 to buy a hamburger two days ago. After all, I do desire $1.00 but I surrendered it to the vendor because I desired the hamburger more. Still, I would hardly consider the handing over of a dollar in exchange for a hamburger to be a sacrifice, would you?

28. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-18 10:58:12

    Zagros, your definition of "sacrifice" is obscure. In any case the concept of sacrifice rests partly on the knowledge that in fact the more intense desire may not in fact be the best so that what one is painfully giving up is a sacrifice. As for the statement "Does this not characterize your relationship with Jesus? Would you sacrifice that relationship for anything? If you will not, even to save the life of another, I would submit that you are being quite selfish" it is assumed that Someone already did the equivalent for three days. In any case I have not heard of Objectivist ministries to the poor, the oppressed, and the prisoners so that it is irrelevant whether we are being "quite selfish"(certainly irrelevant from your own point of view) when in fact we are saving quite a few lives. In any case it obviously is your rather quixotic business to convince us of the Objectivist position.

29. Posted by Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi on 2009-11-18 07:37:04

    Dear Ms. Bush: You state that it is important to define your terms. Yet you fail to do so. What is a "sacrifice"? The way I understand sacrifice (the replacement of a higher goal with a lower one), the pathway to salvation can NEVER involve sacrifice. I will never sacrifice the greater good for a lesser good or good for evil. To appease the Devil would truly be a sacrifice -- and it is completely unacceptable. However, when I give of myself for a higher good it is not a sacrifice for me to do so. Since I regard the higher good as superior to that which I am giving up, it is a trade, and trade is never a sacrifice because the engagement in trade always (by definition) makes me better off. If I am making myself better off, how can I be sacrificing at all? Of course, there are some times when I do sacrifice but I do so only at the point of a gun. In those cases, I am not voluntarily or freely giving up anything nor receiving anything in return. Instead, I am choosing between two things that I actually own. The classic example of this is taxes. If you are truly interested in sacrificing, why not render unto Caesar all that you own? Would that not be a true sacrifice? Yet, Jesus commands you to only render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Yet, even here, it is not really a sacrifice if I can make a point while rendering the ill-gotten gains to those who would claim what I have as their own. In this case, the point being made is what I receive. Still, in other cases, I may lose my life in the trade of lower principles for higher ones, just as Jesus did. That too is no sacrifice since I obviously regard my life as less important than the principle for which I am offering my life. Is that not truly the message of Jesus Christ? That there are some things that are more important than self? Yet if they are more important than self, how is it a sacrifice? Isn't it actually quite rational self-interest? What about those cases where I receive nothing? But do I? Do I not receive pleasure? Do I not receive, dare I say it, utility? Is this not what economists (and you are a budding one) suggest is the purpose of humans on this earth? To truly receive nothing would mean that I should provide for those even though I detest them, even though I feel in my heart and soul that I am doing no good at all for them but am only doing so to make them feel better. That is giving a drunk a drink. To me, giving the drunk a drink is a sacrifice and it is sacrificing OTHERS as well as ourselves. It is something I will not do. Similarly, what is selfishness? Again, you fail to define it. You write that there is a difference between self-interest and selfishness but you do not define what is the distinction between the two. As I understand selfishness, it is being committed to those things that cause us the most pleasure as opposed to the pleasure of others. Does this not characterize your relationship with Jesus? Would you sacrifice that relationship for anything? If you will not, even to save the life of another, I would submit that you are being quite selfish. I mean, who are you to deny another's pleasure merely for the sake of your own soul? Are you not by undertaking such a position arguing that your own pleasure is more important than that of others? Do you not see the ridiculously of such a proposition? Does this mean that I agree that this is the way to proceed? No. Does this mean that I disagree? No, again. It is not my position to try to convince you of the correctness of the Objectivist position. I merely want you to think and define your terms better so that others may understand them. It may surprise you that in some cases others may think similarly but employ a different understanding of the terms. Too often disagreements occur not because of the ultimate conclusion but because the two parties disagree on the meaning of the terms. However, more importantly, when we come to understand the true meaning of the terms that we do use by being explicit and complete in our definitions, we may find ourselves facing contradictions that are untenable in our lives. What to do then? We must better define our terms or else we must alter our positions. Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics Winston-Salem State University Winston-Salem, North Carolina

30. Posted by vikingmother on 2009-11-11 09:58:17

    Good quote from Jason Taylor above.."..socialism and unfettered aristocracy are the only alternatives to capitalism..." I think if we transform sensible regulations on capitalism into uber-micromanaging regulations, we end up with the WORST of both alternatives...Socialists who form the new aristocracy... Silk Shirt Socialists...who are "entitled" to make lots of money off "evangelizing" for socialism...but who "preach" and then implement the humble life of excessive taxation and obscene regulation on the rest of us. (We know some of their names!!!) The ethical capitalist who makes a fair profit, acts ethically towards customers, and takes some time to help the weak...is a great treasure...He/she should be cultivated and not crushed! But Jesus life & words & works transcends the limitations of an economic view of the world...thus HE transcends their narrow definitions...in His actions. and yet HE has influenced countless businesspeople to act ethically towards employees, customers, and the weak. The effect of such Jesus-influenced capitalists (as well as Jewish capitalists influenced by the concept of caring for the stranger within their gates) on the US perhaps has never been fully measured. Some ethical capitalists who are not religious (here I think of Clarence Darrow) have most likely learned some of the Judaeo/Christian ethics and applied them.

31. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-09 12:56:39

    Also one easy mistake is to assume that because Christianity says to rise above humanity, therefore we must burn out normal humanity. If we are to say "the slave is our brother"(as in the song Oh Holy Night) we should not begin by saying our brother is not our brother. That is to court the danger of being a devil instead of a man because you tried to be an angel. Likewise to say we should have better motives then enlightened self-interest, does not mean our self-interest should not be enlightend. Capitalism has it's faults like any system and we may have gone to far out of our way in praising it. It does have virtues in encouraging respect for property; boldness, resiliance and inventiveness; and (at least as 18th century philosophers visioned it, which is not to say in practice), even neighborliness. It also has the advantage of having other criteria for power, then being part of a parasitic bureaucracy, or a parasitic warrior caste. And as socialism and unfettered aristocracy are the only alternatives to capitalism that have been thought up that is a reasonable point. The proper attitude to capitalism, I think, is to give two cheers but not three.

32. Posted by larry santos on 2009-11-06 18:16:50

    1 John 3:16 "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."

33. Posted by jason taylor on 2009-11-06 14:00:45

    Actually there is a difference between someone making a Christlike self-sacrifice and others forcing him to. In any case, the choice between self-interest and non self-interest based economies is meaningless. All economies are based on self-interest. The question is what does the self-interest consist of? A serfs self-interest consists in not being beaten and thus will work no more then need be. A commisar's self-interest consists of following the party line better then others. And thus will dilligently do work tangential to the desires and needs of mankind. And an enterprenuer's self-interest consists of being efficient enough to make more money and thus will work at pleasing customers. Any of these three might indeed personally do something for altruistic motives which is of course all very well indeed. But even the best of us pay heed to self-interest, and the self-interest of the last is more productive.