Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.
Allowing yourself to be dragged into the same argument over and over again, because some people are just not listening (creationism, flat earthers, moon hoax believers, ...) is a waste of time. Publicly reminding the readers about the majority view on the situation and then letting the argument go is fine as a response.
(And yes, the majority view is that Rand is not worthy of any special attention as either a philosopher, political theorist, economist or author. Not more worthy than any other random member of those groups of people.)
There is absolutely merit to discussing ideas that you disagree with. And in particular to this context, I personally found lots of value in Atlas Shrugged. Often it lead to me disagree with her philosophy. If anything, reading things that you disagree with allows you to intelligently refute claims instead of vaguely claiming that someone is incorrect and refusing to engage. That is a sure fire way to make people dig into their beliefs.
The Nash equilibrium is also natural, efficient, and non-optimal in many cases. Which, in the face of "optimal", could be described as "wrong" if the belief is that optimal is desirable.
Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it can't be ethically wrong. We have another word for things like that--they're called "amoral" and it literally means there is no ethical choice being made. The concept of "natural" is orthogonal to this.
Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to.
Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back.
For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality?
We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential.
Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you".
Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
Killing newborn cubs and impregnating the mother with your own is also very natural and efficient. I hope you agree it's also very wrong and that the argument from nature is an amazingly awful argument.
> Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore
In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.
manfredo|7 years ago
tripzilch|7 years ago
Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s
AnimalMuppet|7 years ago
Confusion|7 years ago
(And yes, the majority view is that Rand is not worthy of any special attention as either a philosopher, political theorist, economist or author. Not more worthy than any other random member of those groups of people.)
obmelvin|7 years ago
TooBrokeToBeg|7 years ago
...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.
tunesmith|7 years ago
tripzilch|7 years ago
Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to.
Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back.
For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality?
We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential.
Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you".
Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
Confusion|7 years ago
bendbro|7 years ago
In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.