2 edits
Originally posted by moon1969Nope, winnging football is the God on that campus. Joe Pa was merely the high priest. Whatever needs to be sacrificed, like children, to achieve this happens, including Joe Pa it seems.
I was wondering if you still thought Paterno should not have been fired. Paterno was God on that campus. He was the most influential person at the university if he ever chose to exert that influence.
Originally posted by expuddlepirateIt's like someone in the Obama administration going rogue. Obama would be the chief target because he is under him, especially if he knew about it.
Coach Joe seems to be the greater target here than the perp, Sandusky, The head coach passing what he knew up the "chain of command" seems to be worse than the events that caused it. So let's give Coach Joe 25 years hard labour and Sandusky 6 monthes of house arrest.
Is that wrong?
Originally posted by sh76Do you think the victims can bring an action in negligent entrustment against PS, Paterno, or Curley (the AD) for allowing Sandusky to use the PS facilities even though they knew or should have known that Sandusky was using the facilities as an instrument to corner the victims and then molest them?
Paterno knew about the 1998 shower incident. He heard reports about later incidents. He continued to allow Sandusky access to PS facilities and reported nothing to the authorities. Therefore, in my judgment, he is morally culpable for what happened later on. Not legally culpable perhaps, but morally culpable.
Originally posted by normbenign-In the objectivist newsletter, she repeatedly argues against altruism as pure evil, as it is in direct conflict with man's survival instinct, and defies reason. Above all, man is a rational, thinking being, and as such has choices and decisions facing him at every turn. Those decisions mean decisions on ethical matters, moral matters. It is a waste of my time and effort to convince you that your accusation is false, although it is made without any substance. It is like me asking you to prove you don't beat your dog.
Rational selfishness is covered in an entire chapter of her book on "the Virtue of Selfishness". I don't intend to type the text in here for people too lazy or too cheap to buy the book.
In the objectivist newsletter, she repeatedly argues against altruism as pure evil, as it is in direct conflict with man's survival instinct, and defies reason. Abo ...[text shortened]... al selfishness is not blanket permission to abuse others if it is to your advantage.
It's not, you can simply cite relevant portions of Rand's work where she argues that there is a moral obligation to help people that are being taken advantage of, even if that is disadvantageous to yourself. So far you haven't.
-An Objectivist may take less advantageous choices if he rationally decides to do so. A father rationally chooses to feed and cloth his family and pay his rent or mortgage in lieu of spending all his money on frivolous personal pleasures. Your misunderstand the denunciation of altruism, which makes self sacrifice the primary good.
I haven't disputed this, I have merely noted that, just as an objectivist is free to care about others, he is also free not to care about others, as McQ did.
-However that decision may not have been rational, and ought to have been in conflict with ethical considerations. Objectivism is not blanket permission to do whatever you want, even if it defies reason, logic and facts. Rational selfishness is not blanket permission to abuse others if it is to your advantage.
Ought to have been in conflict with ethical considerations ? Please cite relevant portions of Rand's where she lays out these ethics and where she states that these take precedence over self-interest. I'm fully aware that Randian philosophy has some bounds, in that you're not allowed to intentionally (and directly) harm other people, but I am unaware of any obligation to act as a good Samaritan towards those who are being/have been harmed by others.
Originally posted by Barts"I have merely noted that, just as an objectivist is free to care about others, he is also free not to care about others, as McQ did."
-In the objectivist newsletter, she repeatedly argues against altruism as pure evil, as it is in direct conflict with man's survival instinct, and defies reason. Above all, man is a rational, thinking being, and as such has choices and decisions facing him at every turn. Those decisions mean decisions on ethical matters, moral matters. It is a waste of my ...[text shortened]... tion to act as a good Samaritan towards those who are being/have been harmed by others.
As an objectivist, and I'm pretty certain McQ was not, his obligation to himself was to use his mind to make the best rational choice, in his own self interest. That doesn't mean the easiest, quickest, or least difficult choice, or the one with the most immediate upside, such as not offending a superior on the job. When faced with any difficult decision, one may face the prospect of temporary disadvantage or harm, to stick to one's rationally developed ethics. In Atlas Shrugged when Reardon is faced with losing his business, and the rights to his metal, he doesn't just fold his tent and comply. Pragmatism might have dictated he cooperate with Wesley Mouch and Orin Boyle, but he rejected the short term easy way, in favor of his rationally developed ethics.
I suspect that in retrospect, McQ probably would choose a different course than he did that day, hind sight being 20-20.
Objectivism-The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff chapter entitled The Good, may give you what you seek. Clearly, a philosophy without any ethics can't be complete, and a rational philosophy could not exist without ethical considerations.
The situation might have differed if intervening would have been far more dangerous to McQ than losing his job. I could site a host of differing variables which might have rationally effected his decisions.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeAt least some of the victims are already employing high powered lawyers for the civil suits. Who will they target? Probably the deepest pockets, PSU.
Do you think the victims can bring an action in negligent entrustment against PS, Paterno, or Curley (the AD) for allowing Sandusky to use the PS facilities even though they knew or should have known that Sandusky was using the facilities as an instrument to corner the victims and then molest them?