This is closer to Ayn's own view. My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
In a message dated 11/13/2008 9:06:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, scs@eskimo.com writes:
3. To be altruistic, you must make significant sacrifices (it must significantly cost you) to do what you do.
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
This is closer to Ayn's own view. My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
Ayn Rand never got to see Wikipedia, but I can't believe she wouldn't be proud of Jimbo's role. If she was so foolish as to try to edit, I'm afraid she'd have to be banned as a crank who insists on original research.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is closer to Ayn's own view. My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
Ayn Rand never got to see Wikipedia, but I can't believe she wouldn't be proud of Jimbo's role. If she was so foolish as to try to edit, I'm afraid she'd have to be banned as a crank who insists on original research.
There's a big Randy crowd out there that seems to forget that what she wrote was fiction.
Ec
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:56 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This is closer to Ayn's own view. My take on her view is "an altruist, is someone who gives up something our of their own *needs* (i.e. not their excess) to someone else who has done nothing to deserve it". Ayn was not against giving your excess to charity.
I'm much more concerned not about people giving away the product of their efforts for free and without attribution, but for their insistence that others do so as well. "anyone who really cares about credit for the authorship of his text, should really pick some other medium than wikipedia", "I'm *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article", "Even asking whether an article was written 90% by me or 2% or whatever [...] sounds perilously close to WP:OWN."
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because* you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
Anthony wrote:
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because* you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
Me, I wasn't claiming any moral position within the framework of Objectivism. It's more like a [[Random act of kindness]]. (But yes, part of the silly, delicious little thrill is precisely that the recipient will never know who his benefactor is. Whether this is rational or not I won't say.)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because* you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
Me, I wasn't claiming any moral position within the framework of Objectivism. It's more like a [[Random act of kindness]]. (But yes, part of the silly, delicious little thrill is precisely that the recipient will never know who his benefactor is. Whether this is rational or not I won't say.)
I was talking specifically about the moral framework of Objectivism, because that is the topic of this thread.
Here's a quote from Rand, which might as well have been made in response to your statement. "Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?"
2008/11/13 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Why would someone be *glad* that it's not obvious who wrote an article? What rational reason could there possibly be for such a position? I'll grant that in some situations it might be rational to give away your work for free and without attribution, but to be *glad* specifically *because* you are not attributed, I don't see how that can possibly be considered a moral position within the framework of Objectivism.
I suspect the difficulty here is that you're speaking Objectivist jargon, but those you're conversing with are speaking more conventional English.
(Are you sure Kurt Weber isn't posting using your email address in the From: line?)
- d.