humanities.philosophy.objectivism

James E. Prescott wrote:

> On Feb 22, 12:59 am, Mark N wrote:
>
>>You appear to be conflating concern for tangible benefits
>>with unprincipled, "range of the moment" thinking. [...]
>
> I am trying to avoid such, and to reject such attribution.

Then I guess it's a case of deceptive appearances.

[...]

>>Who said anything about "particular" actions or "particular"
>>tangible benefits?
>
> I did. What /you/ did was merely to ask whether for me
> there were "other considerations" besides the anticipation
> of benefit that make an action moral. I explained, "of
> course not, you fool ;-), what other considerations did
> you have in mind?," but, first, before doing that, I corrected
> the error that obvioulsy from the context had spurred such
> a silly question, the error of dropping moral judgement
> and substituting a calculation of anticipated tangible
> benefit.

It seems that there is no end to my errors. I'm fortunate to have you to
spot them and correct them for me. ;-)

>>If I didn't know better, Jim, I would suspect that you
>>have been deliberately conjuring up unwarranted
>>objectionable interpretations of things that I say, and
>>attributing them to me, just so that you can object to
>>them!
>
> But you know me better than that. I bend over backwards
> to interpret you in each way imaginable, the "best" along
> with the silliest. And I object to them all.

Well, I object to just about everything that you say too. So I guess
that makes us even.

>>>I suppose you could argue that my edits didn't
>>>change what you meant, but if so then I did answer
>>>your question. You don't get to have it both ways.
>>
>>I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't been
>>trying to have anything "both ways." I've just been trying
>>to understand your cryptic objections to what I said.
>
> Sorry. It won't wash. [...]

I give up, Jim. You win.

Mark


b
o
t
f
o
o
d