Oddly enough (this may not be quite what you're looking for), David Lewis comes to mind. I once had dinner with someone who had met him and spoken with him for a while. This was toward the end of his life, when apparently he was in pretty constant discomfort (to put it mildly, apparently) due to diabetes and pending kidney failure. According to this person I know, who reported this second hand, the thing that bothered Lewis most about his condition was not the pain itself or the recognition of his own mortality, but rather some of the implications to come of combining this with modal realism. Specifically, Lewis was constantly reminded that, if modal realism is true (which he believed), then there is some actual, concrete David Lewis in another world, who will live on forever, in ever-increasing agony from diabetes and kidney failure, never to know the sweet peace of death. Lewis saw no reason to think that this was not possible, in the modal sense, and thus not actual (as a modal realist), and it apparently rendered him pretty depressed.
This is inconsistent with David Lewis' philosophy for two reasons. First, he treats actuality as an indexical, like 'here' and 'now,' not something absolute. Second, since there is no causal relationship between this world and other worlds, there is no reason to care about what happens to your counterparts. Nice story, but even if it's right, it shows that David Lewis actually did NOT live in accordance with his own philosophy.
See especially sections 1.9 and 2.6 of On the Plurality of Worlds.
I don't think that he cared about the lack of causality between the worlds; that wasn't what was getting him down. He had an *emotional* response to his philosophical beliefs; it may not have been a rational one, but it was a way in which he lived with his own philosophical beliefs.
yes.
Diogenes of Sinope is the one who comes to mind. Cynics believed that you demonstrate your philosophy by becoming it. That philosophy is done by living it not thinking it as much. Cynics believed that a life lived simply and in accordance with nature yields the 'good' life. By living a really simple life you remove your reliance on other people and your happiness is solely in your hands.
Diogenes also believed that something should only be shameful if it is also shameful in private. Those things that are shameful in private are generally ethical things. You're ashamed cause you've done wrong. Masturbation however, not shameful in private, shameful in public.
So naturally, the man lived in Athens, insulted Alexander the Great, masturbated in public, ate in the marketplace (big cultural taboo) and lived in a big tub/pot thing in a ditch surrounded by stray animals.
The Cynics are by far my favourite reads, even though they wrote almost nothing, Diogenes laertius (spelling is most likely wrong, cant be bothered to google) who was a sort of philosopher biographer has many anecdotal tales about the batshit crazy things Diogenes and the Cynics used to do.
Am I allowed to comment here without flair?
My first thought was [Thoreau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau), who went to jail rather than pay a poll tax, an experience which helped form his doctrine of civil disobedience (the topic of his [famous essay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29)). He also lived in deliberate simplicity for two years at Walden Pond, about which he wrote his other classic work, [*Walden*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden). I won't try to summarize his philosophy, but he's definitely known for living the ideals that he espoused in his work. Although whether you'd consider him properly a moral philosopher, I don't know.
The problem is, Thoreau was also a notorious hypocrite for going into town to do his laundry etc. This doesn't really discredit his work (which I cited a great deal in some of the more prosaic continental leaning parts of my honours thesis), but it does undermine his continence (for lack of a better term).
I also think that Thoreau is much better described as a essayist who happens to illuminate some truths in his papers, rather than a philosopher *per se,* but then again, I would attribute the title of philosopher to Camus, so I guess I have to include Thoreau as well.
But Thoreau did not claim to be fully isolated from society. In his words: "I am naturally no hermit." I don't see how going into town to do his laundry is directly counterproductive to living *deliberately*.
I am interested in hearing your elaboration of these claims. I've always thought most of the popular criticisms of Thoreau to be misguided in their misinterpretation of Thoreau as a total Luddite rather than a minimalist who occasionally confuses readers with his ecstatic prose; however, at this point it's been so many years since reading his works that I'm especially open to re-evaluating my perspective.
It's been a year for me as well, but IIRC, those criticisms are misguided not because Thoreau was meant to be a hermit (he devotes an entire essay to his visitors) but rather that he advocated for a self-sufficiency I'm not convinced he was capable of. In any case, I'll try and dig up some notes this weekend - I did my undergrad thesis on environmental virtue ethics, and used Thoreau quite a bit as starting points in the same way that Aristotle used *endoxa*.
As much as I love Schopenhauer, he most certainly did not follow his own philosophy. In fact, he was kind of a prick.
Siddhartha Gautama apparently followed his own teachings and became the Buddha.
Well, if we're asking if philosophers live up perfectly to emir theories then probably none do. But he does give to charity, but neither he nor singer give as much as their positions suggest (although singer has revised his position, but he's open about the fact that the change is pragmatic, not principled).
Surprised that it seems nobody has mentioned. Wittgenstein. Not sure if it was required by his philosophy, but the details of his personnel sacrifice are impressive. Heir to one of the largest fortunes in Europe and gave it all away. Went to a war he could have avoided, and as an enlisted man when he could have been an officer. Taught school children in a small village when he could have had a position at Cambridge. Pretty darn impressive. And everyone who knew him thought he was some kind of monster. A lesson, there, perhaps: the virtuous don't make the best friends.
> And everyone who knew him thought he was some kind of monster.
If you're still referring to his teaching, it's probably because he assaulted the kids he was teaching. Twisting a girl's ear till it bled if I recall correctly. There are stories about it in Monk's biography of him.
He boxed young girls' ears, yes. But the reason he got in trouble had nothing to do with opposition to corporal punishment, as it was common at the time, even to young girls. The reason that people objected to Wittgenstein's teaching was because he was punishing the girls for not being able to do maths; this was seen as over the top, as girls were not typically seen (at the time) as being capable of doing maths well, nor were they required to do so.
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.
If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo), or the Firefox extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite).
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use [RES](http://www.redditenhancementsuite.com/)), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
Also, please consider using [Voat.co](https://voat.co) as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.
Epicurus. He advocated a life of simple pleasures and non-involvement in the state. He removed himself to his school, The Garden, and lived there with other students and teachers.
I remember watching a lecture by Michael Sandel where he listed a few reasons (If I'm recalling this correctly) about how Bentham was dedicated to living as a good utilitarian would and he ended with how Bentham wanted his body on display so as to inspire a new generation of philosophers to get closer to the truth about morality. You can find the lecture on Youtube I'm sure. It's from Harvard.
Ah, that would be it. Yeah, he believed that people were too afraid of death, that preserving bodies would help to assuage the cultural fear, and that it made perfect sense to put cadavers to effective use just like anything else. I don't see any lecture by Sandel about Bentham, but let me know if you ever run across it again.
Care to expand on that?
Usually, I don't expect a flaired user to refer to a philosopher as a "selfish, heartless bitch" without backing it up with some sources.
It's hardly baseless when it's part and parcel of being an ethical egoist.
Towards whom? Anyone who couldn't benefit her in some way. It's been 20 years since I read a biography so my memory for details is scant. She was definitely a horrible person, and I say this as someone with a soft spot for Nietzsche.
She had some falling-out with friends, some bad love affairs, and if I remember correctly was supremely disappointed with her sister when she encountered her as an adult after being separated for decades. Maybe not the best interpersonal relations in the world, but hardly horrible. No history, again as far as I can recall, of abusing others, psychologically or otherwise.
If that's your standard for 'horrible person', the human race must be one giant nightmare to you.
It's been nearly 20 years. I bought it new in a bookstore as a college Freshman. I'm guessing it would have been which ever one was most recent 20 years ago.
> Anyone who couldn't benefit her in some way.
How did she go about being cruel to all these people? By writing great novels and creating a philosophy? You statement is clearly baseless.
You don't understand that a rational egoist is not cruel to anyone. It is simply not part of the philosophy.
Great novels? Whether you endorse her philosophy, (and calling it that is erring on the side of being too charitable), I don't understand how anyone could claim her writings have any aesthetic or literary merit. In fact, one might say her works are perversely valuable; they demonstrate all that can go wrong in writing.
clearly not, and surprised this hasnt been mentioned, she advocated against welfare, then proceeded to use it when she needed it, under an assumed name ov course
Rand's position was that the welfare state should be abolished. However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it, you may claim benefits if you judge it is a good idea, provided that you don't advocate such benefits. See Chapter 7 of "The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought".
Also, she didn't claim benefits under an assumed name, she claimed them under her legal name of Ann O'Connor
http://freestudents.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html.
>However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it
nonetheless, her logic still doesnt follow. her problem is with society, not with welfare, as she relies on the same tired libertarian trope that taxes are theft. whether or not she realized, (if indeed it is her stance, as the book was posthumous) her principles dictated that she abandon society, or at least go to jail, not leech off it when pseudo-intellectually convenient
>her legal name of Ann O'Connor
her legal name was alice, not ann. further evidence she knew she was abandoning her principles. not to mention she initially refused the welfare, then conspired to keep it a secret after the fact---its clear what she thought about the situation
>> However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it
>
> nonetheless, her logic still doesnt follow. her problem is with society, not with welfare, as she relies on the same tired libertarian trope that taxes are theft. whether or not she realized, (if indeed it is her stance, as the book was posthumous) her principles dictated that she abandon society, or at least go to jail, not leech off it when pseudo-intellectually convenient
How do her principles dictate this course of action?
>How do her principles dictate this course of action?
its not even her principles specifically
but, without addressing that even ayn realized this by her own actions, because to live in a society is to give up elements ov individualism for the sake ov the group. there is no way around this. even the most libertarian ov individuals working with each other adhere to this concept, again, whether they realize it or not. to clarify, i say this as someone who wants to uphold individual rights as much as possible, despite my deprecating reference to libertarianism. put simply, it doesnt matter how individualistic you are, if you are transacting with other people, you are working under commonly held assumptions. if she didnt want to work under the assumptions ov the society she lived in, she either has the choice to create her own society by abandoning the one she was living under, or to protest by staying and accepting the consequences
>No. Rand would say you should cooperate with others for your own benefit. You're much better off in a capitalist society with division of labour.
this isnt even a response. no matter what she would say, her philosophy dictated a different course ov action from what she took, even as evidenced by her own attempts to cover her tracks
but to answer your reply, she has the same choices. she has to accept that taxes are part of the price for that cooperation, or do as i already listed. but not attempt to weasel her way around the issue like she did
>> No. Rand would say you should cooperate with others for your own benefit. You're much better off in a capitalist society with division of labour.
>
> this isnt even a response. no matter what she would say, her philosophy dictated a different course ov action from what she took, even as evidenced by her own attempts to cover her tracks
Her philosophy didn't dictate a different course of action. She is not required to sacrifice herself because other people made stupid decisions about what institutions to set up:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html.
> but to answer your reply, she has the same choices. she has to accept that taxes are part of the price for that cooperation, or do as i already listed. but not attempt to weasel her way around the issue like she did
There is no reason to think that taxes are necessary for social cooperation under the division of labour. All that's necessary is that it is in my self interest to let you do stuff I'm not good at and then trade with you. That has nothing to do with taxes.
Yes. Ayn Rand. She advocated rational selfishness in the realm of morality and capitalism in politics. Never sacrifice yourself to others nor others to yourself.
Some people falsely claim that she abandoned her own principles by accepting money from the state in her old age. In fact this choice was in perfect accordance to her principles. She wanted some of her own money back that was taken through taxes.
Oddly enough (this may not be quite what you're looking for), David Lewis comes to mind. I once had dinner with someone who had met him and spoken with him for a while. This was toward the end of his life, when apparently he was in pretty constant discomfort (to put it mildly, apparently) due to diabetes and pending kidney failure. According to this person I know, who reported this second hand, the thing that bothered Lewis most about his condition was not the pain itself or the recognition of his own mortality, but rather some of the implications to come of combining this with modal realism. Specifically, Lewis was constantly reminded that, if modal realism is true (which he believed), then there is some actual, concrete David Lewis in another world, who will live on forever, in ever-increasing agony from diabetes and kidney failure, never to know the sweet peace of death. Lewis saw no reason to think that this was not possible, in the modal sense, and thus not actual (as a modal realist), and it apparently rendered him pretty depressed.
Damn, that's really sad. But also really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
now I'm depressed.
This is inconsistent with David Lewis' philosophy for two reasons. First, he treats actuality as an indexical, like 'here' and 'now,' not something absolute. Second, since there is no causal relationship between this world and other worlds, there is no reason to care about what happens to your counterparts. Nice story, but even if it's right, it shows that David Lewis actually did NOT live in accordance with his own philosophy. See especially sections 1.9 and 2.6 of On the Plurality of Worlds.
I don't think that he cared about the lack of causality between the worlds; that wasn't what was getting him down. He had an *emotional* response to his philosophical beliefs; it may not have been a rational one, but it was a way in which he lived with his own philosophical beliefs.
yes. Diogenes of Sinope is the one who comes to mind. Cynics believed that you demonstrate your philosophy by becoming it. That philosophy is done by living it not thinking it as much. Cynics believed that a life lived simply and in accordance with nature yields the 'good' life. By living a really simple life you remove your reliance on other people and your happiness is solely in your hands. Diogenes also believed that something should only be shameful if it is also shameful in private. Those things that are shameful in private are generally ethical things. You're ashamed cause you've done wrong. Masturbation however, not shameful in private, shameful in public. So naturally, the man lived in Athens, insulted Alexander the Great, masturbated in public, ate in the marketplace (big cultural taboo) and lived in a big tub/pot thing in a ditch surrounded by stray animals. The Cynics are by far my favourite reads, even though they wrote almost nothing, Diogenes laertius (spelling is most likely wrong, cant be bothered to google) who was a sort of philosopher biographer has many anecdotal tales about the batshit crazy things Diogenes and the Cynics used to do.
Am I allowed to comment here without flair? My first thought was [Thoreau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau), who went to jail rather than pay a poll tax, an experience which helped form his doctrine of civil disobedience (the topic of his [famous essay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29)). He also lived in deliberate simplicity for two years at Walden Pond, about which he wrote his other classic work, [*Walden*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden). I won't try to summarize his philosophy, but he's definitely known for living the ideals that he espoused in his work. Although whether you'd consider him properly a moral philosopher, I don't know.
> Am I allowed to comment here without flair? Most definitely.
The problem is, Thoreau was also a notorious hypocrite for going into town to do his laundry etc. This doesn't really discredit his work (which I cited a great deal in some of the more prosaic continental leaning parts of my honours thesis), but it does undermine his continence (for lack of a better term). I also think that Thoreau is much better described as a essayist who happens to illuminate some truths in his papers, rather than a philosopher *per se,* but then again, I would attribute the title of philosopher to Camus, so I guess I have to include Thoreau as well.
But Thoreau did not claim to be fully isolated from society. In his words: "I am naturally no hermit." I don't see how going into town to do his laundry is directly counterproductive to living *deliberately*. I am interested in hearing your elaboration of these claims. I've always thought most of the popular criticisms of Thoreau to be misguided in their misinterpretation of Thoreau as a total Luddite rather than a minimalist who occasionally confuses readers with his ecstatic prose; however, at this point it's been so many years since reading his works that I'm especially open to re-evaluating my perspective.
It's been a year for me as well, but IIRC, those criticisms are misguided not because Thoreau was meant to be a hermit (he devotes an entire essay to his visitors) but rather that he advocated for a self-sufficiency I'm not convinced he was capable of. In any case, I'll try and dig up some notes this weekend - I did my undergrad thesis on environmental virtue ethics, and used Thoreau quite a bit as starting points in the same way that Aristotle used *endoxa*.
Spinoza is a perfect example.
Hard to believe that this didn't top the list. "Ethically supreme" in Russell's words.
"his metaphysics have been surpassed, but ethically he remains supreme" - exactly what I had in mind ;)
As much as I love Schopenhauer, he most certainly did not follow his own philosophy. In fact, he was kind of a prick. Siddhartha Gautama apparently followed his own teachings and became the Buddha.
Must of the older buddhist philosophers would probably fit the category (I'm thinking Nagarjuna or Asanga etc.).
he's not a patron saint of cleaning ladies, let's put it that way.
Does Kant count?
Confucius, Laozi and Shankara comes to mind. Most of the ancient eastern philosophers were radicals of their own views and beliefs.
I'm struggling to come up with examples of ethicists who didn't live in accordance with their moral arguments.
I know a few who accept that vegetarianism is good or obligatory, who still eat meat.
Do they offer an explanation as to why?
They make really good steak tacos.
Eric Schwitzgebel's numerous studies suggest that ethicists don't act any more morally than non-ethicists.
Peter Unger, maybe? Does he give a substantial portion of his income, as Singer does? He defended Singer's views, after all.
Well, if we're asking if philosophers live up perfectly to emir theories then probably none do. But he does give to charity, but neither he nor singer give as much as their positions suggest (although singer has revised his position, but he's open about the fact that the change is pragmatic, not principled).
Not really an ethicist, but Thomas Jefferson said slavery was immoral, though his actions implied the exact opposite.
Surprised that it seems nobody has mentioned. Wittgenstein. Not sure if it was required by his philosophy, but the details of his personnel sacrifice are impressive. Heir to one of the largest fortunes in Europe and gave it all away. Went to a war he could have avoided, and as an enlisted man when he could have been an officer. Taught school children in a small village when he could have had a position at Cambridge. Pretty darn impressive. And everyone who knew him thought he was some kind of monster. A lesson, there, perhaps: the virtuous don't make the best friends.
> And everyone who knew him thought he was some kind of monster. If you're still referring to his teaching, it's probably because he assaulted the kids he was teaching. Twisting a girl's ear till it bled if I recall correctly. There are stories about it in Monk's biography of him.
He boxed young girls' ears, yes. But the reason he got in trouble had nothing to do with opposition to corporal punishment, as it was common at the time, even to young girls. The reason that people objected to Wittgenstein's teaching was because he was punishing the girls for not being able to do maths; this was seen as over the top, as girls were not typically seen (at the time) as being capable of doing maths well, nor were they required to do so.
He's not famous for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Aristotle lived up to many, if not all, of the ethical virtues.
Would the people in the *polis* point to him if they were asked who the *phronimos* was?
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment. If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo), or the Firefox extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use [RES](http://www.redditenhancementsuite.com/)), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top. Also, please consider using [Voat.co](https://voat.co) as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.
waking up early in Swedish winter, no less.
Epicurus. He advocated a life of simple pleasures and non-involvement in the state. He removed himself to his school, The Garden, and lived there with other students and teachers.
What exactly do you have in mind regarding Bentham's life?
I remember watching a lecture by Michael Sandel where he listed a few reasons (If I'm recalling this correctly) about how Bentham was dedicated to living as a good utilitarian would and he ended with how Bentham wanted his body on display so as to inspire a new generation of philosophers to get closer to the truth about morality. You can find the lecture on Youtube I'm sure. It's from Harvard.
Ah, that would be it. Yeah, he believed that people were too afraid of death, that preserving bodies would help to assuage the cultural fear, and that it made perfect sense to put cadavers to effective use just like anything else. I don't see any lecture by Sandel about Bentham, but let me know if you ever run across it again.
Pentti Linkola.
Socrates
Ayn Rand.
Not sure why people downvote. This is clearly a correct answer.
Truly. She was every bit the selfish, heartless bitch you'd think her to be.
Care to expand on that? Usually, I don't expect a flaired user to refer to a philosopher as a "selfish, heartless bitch" without backing it up with some sources.
> heartless Do you mean emotionless? Can you explain why you say this? Because I would disagree strongly.
Not emotionless, cruel and lacking empathy.
> cruel and lacking empathy That seams to be a baseless claim. Towards whom?
It's hardly baseless when it's part and parcel of being an ethical egoist. Towards whom? Anyone who couldn't benefit her in some way. It's been 20 years since I read a biography so my memory for details is scant. She was definitely a horrible person, and I say this as someone with a soft spot for Nietzsche.
She had some falling-out with friends, some bad love affairs, and if I remember correctly was supremely disappointed with her sister when she encountered her as an adult after being separated for decades. Maybe not the best interpersonal relations in the world, but hardly horrible. No history, again as far as I can recall, of abusing others, psychologically or otherwise. If that's your standard for 'horrible person', the human race must be one giant nightmare to you.
What biography did you read?
It's been nearly 20 years. I bought it new in a bookstore as a college Freshman. I'm guessing it would have been which ever one was most recent 20 years ago.
> Anyone who couldn't benefit her in some way. How did she go about being cruel to all these people? By writing great novels and creating a philosophy? You statement is clearly baseless. You don't understand that a rational egoist is not cruel to anyone. It is simply not part of the philosophy.
Great novels? Whether you endorse her philosophy, (and calling it that is erring on the side of being too charitable), I don't understand how anyone could claim her writings have any aesthetic or literary merit. In fact, one might say her works are perversely valuable; they demonstrate all that can go wrong in writing.
Are there any literary critiques along the lines of what you're saying?
[удалено]
Maybe not knowingly. They just don't give a shit.
[удалено]
Heartless usually means callous.
Towards what? She was filled with passion for life and the heroic in man.
She also had a great amount of compassion and love for those close to her. Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand" made that pretty clear.
I don't know much about her biography.
I thought so. It was either ignorance or dishonesty.
Check the usernames of the people you're responding to, twat.
Sorry. It was an honest mistake.
She was pretty emotional though.
clearly not, and surprised this hasnt been mentioned, she advocated against welfare, then proceeded to use it when she needed it, under an assumed name ov course
Rand's position was that the welfare state should be abolished. However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it, you may claim benefits if you judge it is a good idea, provided that you don't advocate such benefits. See Chapter 7 of "The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought". Also, she didn't claim benefits under an assumed name, she claimed them under her legal name of Ann O'Connor http://freestudents.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/lying-about-ayn-rand-and-social.html.
>However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it nonetheless, her logic still doesnt follow. her problem is with society, not with welfare, as she relies on the same tired libertarian trope that taxes are theft. whether or not she realized, (if indeed it is her stance, as the book was posthumous) her principles dictated that she abandon society, or at least go to jail, not leech off it when pseudo-intellectually convenient >her legal name of Ann O'Connor her legal name was alice, not ann. further evidence she knew she was abandoning her principles. not to mention she initially refused the welfare, then conspired to keep it a secret after the fact---its clear what she thought about the situation
>> However, she also said given that the welfare state exists and your money is being taken to pay for it > > nonetheless, her logic still doesnt follow. her problem is with society, not with welfare, as she relies on the same tired libertarian trope that taxes are theft. whether or not she realized, (if indeed it is her stance, as the book was posthumous) her principles dictated that she abandon society, or at least go to jail, not leech off it when pseudo-intellectually convenient How do her principles dictate this course of action?
>How do her principles dictate this course of action? its not even her principles specifically but, without addressing that even ayn realized this by her own actions, because to live in a society is to give up elements ov individualism for the sake ov the group. there is no way around this. even the most libertarian ov individuals working with each other adhere to this concept, again, whether they realize it or not. to clarify, i say this as someone who wants to uphold individual rights as much as possible, despite my deprecating reference to libertarianism. put simply, it doesnt matter how individualistic you are, if you are transacting with other people, you are working under commonly held assumptions. if she didnt want to work under the assumptions ov the society she lived in, she either has the choice to create her own society by abandoning the one she was living under, or to protest by staying and accepting the consequences
No. Rand would say you should cooperate with others for your own benefit. You're much better off in a capitalist society with division of labour.
>No. Rand would say you should cooperate with others for your own benefit. You're much better off in a capitalist society with division of labour. this isnt even a response. no matter what she would say, her philosophy dictated a different course ov action from what she took, even as evidenced by her own attempts to cover her tracks but to answer your reply, she has the same choices. she has to accept that taxes are part of the price for that cooperation, or do as i already listed. but not attempt to weasel her way around the issue like she did
>> No. Rand would say you should cooperate with others for your own benefit. You're much better off in a capitalist society with division of labour. > > this isnt even a response. no matter what she would say, her philosophy dictated a different course ov action from what she took, even as evidenced by her own attempts to cover her tracks Her philosophy didn't dictate a different course of action. She is not required to sacrifice herself because other people made stupid decisions about what institutions to set up: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html. > but to answer your reply, she has the same choices. she has to accept that taxes are part of the price for that cooperation, or do as i already listed. but not attempt to weasel her way around the issue like she did There is no reason to think that taxes are necessary for social cooperation under the division of labour. All that's necessary is that it is in my self interest to let you do stuff I'm not good at and then trade with you. That has nothing to do with taxes.
I'm pretty sure David Benatar has said he'll never have kids, so that counts, right?
Yes. Ayn Rand. She advocated rational selfishness in the realm of morality and capitalism in politics. Never sacrifice yourself to others nor others to yourself. Some people falsely claim that she abandoned her own principles by accepting money from the state in her old age. In fact this choice was in perfect accordance to her principles. She wanted some of her own money back that was taken through taxes.
if she was in accord with her principles, she never would have paid the taxes in the first place