Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[pjclarke]

Its a bit like the Bible, there's so much of it you can pick a line to support just about any possible position: once again the word is redefined by Rand from its common usage in the service of the cause:

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

and this zinger

The small minority of adults who are unable rather than unwilling to work, have to rely on voluntary charity; misfortune is not a claim to slave labor; there is no such thing as the right to consume, control, and destroy those without whom one would be unable to survive.

Leaving aside the naked barbarity of the last, she seems to be saying giving to charity is Ok, as long as it doesn't really inconvenience one, and the recipient is not actually in need and is able to contribute to one's own happiness. This is what I meant by a shallow justification for selfishness and certainly not what most people think of when they use the word - giving to victims of a natural disaster, for example, (and hoping the ships weren't hi-jacked by an Objectivist pirate on the way )

[SpontaneousOrder]

Which seems to be saying giving to charity is Ok, as long as it doesn't really inconvenience one, and the recipient is not actually in need and is able to contribute to one's own happiness. This is what I meant by a shallow justification for selfishness and certainly not what most people think of when they use the word - giving to victims of a natural disaster, for example, (and hoping the ships weren't hi-jacked by an Objectivist pirate on the way )

How would you know if you haven't read any of it?

[SpontaneousOrder]

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.

So you think it's a good idea to help people who aren't worthy of help? Or to help hungry people by starving yourself? Do you (personally) give all of your money to starving africans then - to the point that you're malnourished yourself?

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

So if you don't agree with this, then you should really be helping complete strangers to the same degree to which you help your son as previously mentioned, right? Do you?

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

So you have no preference in giving your money to help someone down on their luck who needs a leg up so they can get back to supporting themselves - or giving it to someone who needs cash because they don't feel like working ?


Do you read what you post before you press submit?

[pjclarke]

How would you know if you haven't read any of it?

I have read enough, please keep up.

[pjclarke]

So you think it's a good idea to help people who aren't worthy of help? Or to help hungry people by starving yourself? Do you (personally) give all of your money to starving africans then - to the point that you're malnourished yourself?

The old Straw Man again. Just can't resist. Let us leave me out of it, charitable donations are often made to starving Africans without applying some test as to whether each and every last one is worthy. Good thing too.

So if you don't agree with this, then you should really be helping complete strangers to the same degree to which you help your son as previously mentioned, right? Do you?

Non sequiteur. There is a completely valid middle ground between taking strangers into my home, and spending all my resources exclusively on things that benefit me and my happiness.

So you have no preference in giving your money to help someone down on their luck who needs a leg up so they can get back to supporting themselves - or giving it to someone who needs cash because they don't feel like working ?

Straw Man No 2. Please stop putting words in my mouth. People can be in need without being feckless. Rand herself was in medical need towards the end of her life and took assistance from a tax-funded scheme rather than 'voluntary charity'.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I have read enough, please keep up.

If you had you wouldn't have quoted the monibot who clearly hasn't read her work either.

1) 'empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive.'
2) 'The poor deserve to die'
3) 'the rich deserve unmediated power'

I challenge you to find a SINGLE reference for each (or any) of those 3 accusations. They don't exist. Infact Atlas Shrugged tends to lean in the opposite direction.

See Cheryl Taggart's character who comes from the gutter and is a minor hero in the book (although funnily enough she actually does die).

Read the scene where Hank Rearden holds the dying 'wet nurse' in his arms.

Understand a core tenet of the story which is that NO ONE should have unlimited power - men should only have influence insofar as they might have an equitable trade to offer.

[pjclarke]

If you had you wouldn't have quoted the monibot who clearly hasn't read her work either.

1) 'empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive.'
2) 'The poor deserve to die'
3) 'the rich deserve unmediated power'

I challenge you to find a SINGLE reference for each (or any) of those 3 accusations. They don't exist. Infact Atlas Shrugged tends to lean in the opposite direction.

See Cheryl Taggart's character who comes from the gutter and is a minor hero in the book (although funnily enough she actually does die).

Read the scene where Hank Rearden holds the dying 'wet nurse' in his arms.

Understand a core tenet of the story which is that NO ONE should have unlimited power - men should only have influence insofar as they might have an equitable trade to offer.

nope. If you have a problem with Monbiot, take it up with Monbiot, - he is usually pretty good at supporting his asertions. Quoting something for discussion does not imply I agree with every word he ever wrote. AS is such a doorstop you could probably find examples of every emotion under the sun somewhere therein.

Though I struggle to see much compassion in 'The small minority of adults who are unable rather than unwilling to work, have to rely on voluntary charity;' do you?

[SpontaneousOrder]

The old Straw Man again. Just can't resist. Let us leave me out of it, charitable donations are often made to starving Africans without applying some test as to whether each and every last one is worthy. Good thing too.

It's not a straw man - I'm asking you a question. And if you have any integrity you'll answer.

Non sequiteur. There is a completely valid middle ground between taking strangers into my home, and spending all my resources exclusively on things that benefit me and my happiness.

Calling something a non-sequiteur doesn't make it so. This middle-ground you speak of *IS* the judgement of "the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness".

Straw Man No 2. Please stop putting words in my mouth. People can be in need without being feckless. Rand herself was in medical need towards the end of her life and took assistance from a tax-funded scheme rather than 'voluntary charity'.

Not a straw man.

Not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking a question - again.

Rand herself was in medical need towards the end of her life and took assistance from a tax-funded scheme rather than 'voluntary charity'.

THAT is a straw man.

People can be in need without being feckless.

You're deliberately dropping the 'as such' from "and not on the ground of his need as such".

'As such' is like saying 'per se'. As you're a fan of throwing around random names for logical fallacies you've googled, then you might be pleased to know that this one is something of a contextomy - although not even a very subtle one.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Though I struggle to see much compassion in 'The small minority of adults who are unable rather than unwilling to work, have to rely on voluntary charity;' do you?

You're such slime! You simply cannot be this retarded.

'The small minority of adults who are unable rather than unwilling to work, have to rely on voluntary charity;'

If they cannot work they cannot earn their own money - so they must be given money or resources by other people. That is the definition of charity.

How can one ascribe, or not, a human feeling to a objectless fact of reality?!

It's like saying I should feel compassion towards the fact that water, if heated to 100 degrees, will boil.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Ooh...ooh.... i though of a better one. You're 'a rotter'