I can see youre trying to explain the difference between "
exists" and "
exists as an entity in its own right". I completely agree human individual and human groups are
different, as you point out. But Im not seeing different categories of existence among them. I see human groups as real, effecting change in the world including in human minds, and not reducible to the various individuals. Of course they are a different kind of thing than individuals. But not different in terms of existing or not.[QUOTE/]
I have made a couple of sweeping generalizations (actually they are universal principles) 1. All living organisms need values in order to live. This is absolutely true. As a living organism, this principle applies to man too. This is absolutely true. 2. Any organism which consistently sacrificed its values will die. This is absolutely true. I'm talking about acting on the principle that sacrifice is a moral virtue. I'm not talking about doing nice things and having good will. I'm talking about placing the good of others above one's self interest as a guiding principle as altruism does. This principle is absolutely at odds with what the facts tell us about life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, selft-generated actions. This means that in order to live an organism must be the primary beneficiary of its own actions. This is absolutely true. Any man who acted consistently on the premise that his life and values come second would, if he was consistent, have to give up all of his values to others since there is always someone somewhere that is in need. Not only is this impractical, it is evil because it makes what a man must do to live and enjoy his existence the opposite of what he must do if he wants to be moral. It completely divorces values from life and that is why I say it is the morality as death. Think about it, what would be the ultimate sacrifice. It would be to die. Any moral code which holds death as a moral virtue has death as its purpose. Objectivism holds that man's life, the individual's life, as the standard of value.
Now to tie this back to the OP. Collectivism certainly has altruism or the good of others as its moral base. If the good of the group is the standard of value and the individual is required to put the group first what does that actually mean? Given that the group is just an aggregate of a number of individuals, then the group is everyone but you as an individual. It means sacrifice by all to all. It means that every other individual has a claim on you that is above your own interests. Therefore it abrogates the very concept of goodwill. You must sacrifice your good for the good of the group( other individuals) whether you feel any goodwill or not. That is why it can never lead to group cohesion. Now given the relevant facts pertaining to man's life, I.e., that he must act in order to live and he must be the beneficiary of his actions, there is no rational justification for such a moral standard. Objectivism rejects this because we recognize that there is no clash of interests among rational men and women. A rational man is one who recognizes that you can't consume more than you produce and if you want values from others you must offer value in exchange and not sacrifice yourself to others nor others to yourself.
I find it amazing that no one has disputed my statement that both believers and non-believers share the same basic moral premise.
I'm not the one who brought up insects, that was you and others, in an effort to try and defend the morality of altruism for humans. I don't base my morality on insects and other animals for the very valid reason that these animals have no need of morality since they do not reach the conceptual level of consciousness. They don't have to choose in the face of alternatives, they act automatically to further their own life. Therefore to base one's morality on what other animals do is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept since the concept of morality presupposes choice. Where no choice is possible, no morality exists.
Overall, I'm seeing a tendency in objectivism as you present it, to make these huge categorical statements to serve as a foundation for erecting the philosophy. I seem to find those categorical statements wanting, and distracting whenever I encounter them.[QUOTE/] What do you find wanting about the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity as the foundation of knowledge. Does not all knowlege presuppose that there is something to know and something possessing consciousness to know it? Is existence not concurrent with identity, to be is to be something and to be something of a specific nature. What is missing in regards to a foundation of philosophy. Oh yeah, the issue of the orientation of the relationship between conscious subject and the objects it is aware of, also known as the primacy of existence. These four concepts lie at the base of knowledge and identify the preconditions of knowledge. So what is wanting? What could be more fundamental or broader as a base than the axiom of existence.?
Yeah the Krampus is 29x3" wheels, fully rigid. I did put a suspension handlebar on it just to take the edge off little drops, especially now that Im in the 50+ old person category. The Gorilla Monsoon is amazingly versatile. That 2.0 to 2.4 tire range allows for lots of very different types of riding. I live in SW Colorado, so there's lots to explore here. I also have Brompton folding bike for overseas bike tours where inserting short train segments into my route is important. Just detach luggage, stick the folded bike on the luggage rack. So easy. 16" wheels and 6 speeds but you can do big days on it. Last trip was Kyushu Japan.
[QUOTE/]
I live in south central Colorado. Are you familiar with the turkey springs/Brockover mesa trails in Pagosa? One of the best places I've ever ridden. Awesome for bikepacking except not much in the way of water to be had. A few stinky reservoirs that I shudder to filter. Yeah, I'm turning 54 in a few days and I've devinitely cooled my jets regarding taking risks mountainbiking. It's one of those things that if you do it for any length of time you'll eventually have an injury requiring surgery. I'm much more into long explorations on the gravel bike these days than the technical stuff. I like to ride somewhere, camp and then ride back the next day.