6 Comments

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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."

6. 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.