Elliot:
JustinCEO:
I don’t think there’s a conflict between “social” and “interpersonal”. I read your use of “interpersonal” as indicating that you think morality is about other people and specifically about doing harm to other people. I read Rand’s use of “social” in context as describing the idea that morality is about other people, which she criticizes. So the connection between “interpersonal” and “social” is that they’re indicating the same basic idea about morality (which you advocate, and which Rand criticizes).
Your next clause, IMHO, clarifies your meaning: “and people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.” So you’re basically emphasizing that if you’re not harming other people, you can do whatever and that’s compatible with morality. I disagree emphatically (as does Rand).
I’m reviewing the discussion a bit. These quotes are from Justin’s first reply.
The forum makes it convenient to find replies to a post. It says “3 Replies” and you can click that to expand and show them.
None of those 3 replies attempt to engage with the meat of what Justin said here.
I thought Justin made some reasonable comments about a key issue. Then they never got discussed.
Instead, the next dozen messages – which were a mix from both Max and Justin – talked about other stuff. And none of it looked important. That’s when I went back and figured out how to check whether Justin’s initial good comments ever got discussed.
So Justin said something important right away and then both of you talked about other stuff that wasn’t important or productive and then you never really got anywhere in a long discussion.
You guys rabbit hole over local details that don’t matter.
I’d like to try to bring the discussion back to the points Elliot quotes rather than engage in more rabbit holing. The quoted material seems directly related to the topic of the thread, and that’s not true for some of the other stuff that came up.