Yes. Taking care of them was their creators' responsibility. If you desire people to adopt that responsibility, you will need to appeal to them through reason. Forcing you to take care of them, or stealing your money so that I can, are ethical violations masquerading as virtue. And your real question should be: what did the creators do to place themselves in this position, and how do we ensure that this doesn't happen again. Of course, if they've died that's another thing. — Garrett Travers

Here's my problem with that: there are irresponsible people in this world. They have kids without planning for it. Sometimes their kids have problems. There are also tragedies that happen to parents who happen to have kids that need a lot of help. So we have this group of kids who, through no fault of their own, can't take care of themselves and also, through no fault of their own, have no one to provide for them. You think private charity is enough to care for this group. But history has shown that, in times of severe hardship, charities get overwhelmed. So, in the Ayn Randian society, when times are tough and charities are struggling...sucks to be you?

1) We have many means of survival. Our mental processes are only one. 2) I don't think it's correct to characterize human mental processes as primarily associated with reason.
— T Clark

What would it be then? What allows you to do anything? You'll need to expand this beyond internal confusion. — Garrett Travers

This is an appropriate subject for a thread of its own. There have been many on the forum.

You apparently believe that our primary motivations are based on reason. That seems like a completely unsupported and unsupportable contention. I think the ball is in your court to justify your claim.

I think the claim that we develop our values through our conceptual faculty of reason is incorrect.
— T Clark

Cool, explain. Where do we get our values if not from ourselves? Saying other people will simply just mean that reason constructed values that have been passed on to us. It will be the same process. So, where? — Garrett Travers

I guess I'll turn this around - do you really claim you value the things you do because you used reason to consider them and made a rational choice? Most people don't. Children love their mothers before they have any significant capacity for reason. Love of family is not a rational choice, although you can justify it rationally in hindsight. I'll say it again, your position is unsupported and unsupportable.

I think one of humanity's primary values results from our social nature. We value other people. We have empathy.
— T Clark

And only in the society described above can such values be freely expressed. These are not incompatible, but complimentary. — Garrett Travers

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you, speaking for Rand, were saying that our values were developed through reason. As I said, I disagree with this. If, instead, you were saying that we use our reason to express our values, I'll at least agree that it is one of the facilities we use to do so, not the only one and not the primary one.

I am heading out now and won't be back for a few hours.

You apparently believe that our primary motivations are based on reason. That seems like a completely unsupported and unsupportable contention. I think the ball is in your court to justify your claim. — T Clark

No, I think that our only means of actually surviving in the world relies on it. That was the premise.

I guess I'll turn this around - do you really claim you value the things you do because you used reason to consider them and made a rational choice? — T Clark

Exclusively.

Most people don't. — T Clark

That's the problem.

Children love their mothers before they have any significant capacity for reason. Love of family is not a rational choice, although you can justify it rationally in hindsight. — T Clark

This is different. Humans are an altricial species with a rearing period of about 20 years or so. It takes them a long time to develop their rational faculties. Love of family needs to be a rational choice if it can be determined through development that such people are antithetical to one's own happiness. That comes in time.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you, speaking for Rand, were saying that our values were developed through reason. — T Clark

That's exactly what I said. Reason is where values come from, even if they've been passed on to you.

As I said, I disagree with this. If, instead, you were saying that we use our reason to express our values, I'll at least agree that it is one of the facilities we use to do so, not the only one and not the primary one. — T Clark

We do both, the two are not incompatible. And cognitively there is no evidence to suggest that our values are not abstractions we develop from recurrent neural networks of sensory data constantly being processed and vetted for interests and pursuits, and thereby the data that is accrued from those interests and pursuits.

"Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value— and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes."

Rand

This definition of Altruism has the ring of the ad hoc.

The dictionary says:

the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
"some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism"


No mention of evil in connection to what benefits oneself.

Why does Rand espouse this exaggerated notion of altruism?

Please use direct quotes from Rand whenever possible.

Please use direct quotes from Rand whenever possible. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Will try to from here on. Lot's of these questions have to be explained in modern terms, I've noticed, but yeah. No prob.

"The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases”and it is not applicable to the altruists’image of a “selfish”brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims. This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists”who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit."

Rand

Are not all persons in part motivated by "irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims"?

Dissappointed this thread was created. — Wayfarer

Know your enemy. :smile:

Are not all persons in part motivated by "irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims"? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. But, the idea is that it is immoral for you to predicate your actions on such, hence the "It is not a license “to do as he pleases”and it is not applicable to the altruists’image of a “selfish”brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims." That doesn't mean you aren't going to feel any of those things. They simple aren't a predicate for behavior.

Know your enemy. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

You'll find your ally instead. For example, how many Randians have been known to kill people, as opposed to christians, socialists, and statists? Something to put some thought to.

Why does Rand espouse this exaggerated notion of altruism? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, you're just delimiting the view of it, and how it has been used throughout history, and the actions of people and states that it has been used to justify. In other words, you've provided a reduction of the word, when historically it has been used in broad, sweeping ways that aren't contained in that one definiton. Particularly the manner she is highlighting.

If others are your standard for good, then you are in fact a sacrificail animal for the benefit for others. Either to be used by the state (Nazis, Red Russia, China, Khmer Rouge, etc.) who kills people for benefit of its chosen, the church (Christianity, Islam particularly) who extolls human sacrifice, or even by individuals who would have you forfeit your right to your own happiness for the sake of theirs, or those they claim to represent. The Altruistic principle is a two-way street used for the destruction of one, over another.

Altruism from Rand: The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

What you quoted from Rand was an explication of this definition. You'll see here that her definition from her lexicon is consistent both with your basic definition, and also how it has been enacted in history.

there are irresponsible people in this world. — RogueAI

Not my problem.

They have kids without planning for it. — RogueAI

Immoral behavior.

Sometimes their kids have problems. There are also tragedies that happen to parents who happen to have kids that need a lot of help. — RogueAI

I agree. Rand wasn't against you helping them and she's given her condolences for those situations, even. Rand wasn't a heartless brute. However, I will say in good faith, that this is quite genuinely one area that she did not cover in great depth. So, it is completely understandable to have some push back in this specific regard.

So we have this group of kids who, through no fault of their own, can't take care of themselves and also, through no fault of their own, have no one to provide for them. You think private charity is enough to care for this group. — RogueAI

Yes. There are thousands of people waiting in line to adopt children even in our current Dirigist economy. If people were free to accrue more money in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist system, more charity would be in the world for such people. Does that mean everyone will be taken care of? No. Will more people be taken care than now? Bet your ass. We would be able to have a system where I could directly contribute to societies of people built around solving just this very problem. Right now the state "takes care of it" mostly, and you do not want to hear about how they are doing so with these poor kids just in West Virginia alone, where I come from. I have a friend whose an executive for the main institution down there, it's a fucking nightmare.

But history has shown that, in times of severe hardship, charities get overwhelmed. — RogueAI

History has shown us that with statist/dirigist systems. You are describing the norm with states specifically. Laissez-Faire Economies have never existed. We only know what the markets have been capable of in Dirigist systems, and it has changed the world in 200 years. At least in Free Markets, we would be able to find an uninhibited market solution.

So, in the Ayn Randian society, when times are tough and charities are struggling...sucks to be you? — RogueAI

No. It's "I don't even think of you, and you shouldn't think of me because you aught to be thinking of yourself." That's the general disposition. In a Randian society, again, there would be numerous institutons that were committed to this that could be paid for through voluntary subscriptions, that all of us would be inclined to pay for as a means of disaster mitigation associated with children growing up without their families (lot's of crime), who are the parties you should be mad at, or cast any blame onto before you turn to ANYBODY that wasn't involved.

History has shown us that with statist/dirigist systems. You are describing the norm with states specifically. Laissez-Faire Economies have never existed. We only know what the markets have been capable of in Dirigist systems, and it has changed the world in 200 years. At least in Free Markets, we would be able to find an uninhibited market solution. — Garrett Travers

That's true, but to implement your system, and hope that charities can take up the slack, is quite a gamble. We have a system now that takes money from the richest and provides somewhat of a safety net for the worst off. It's not perfect, but your system is too much of a gamble. Are you familiar with John Rawl's veil of ignorance?

That's true, but to implement your system, and hope that charities can take up the slack, is quite a gamble. — RogueAI

Yes, but don't you undertand that if I live in a society that values me enough to respect my basic right to pursue my own ends rationally, that I'm MORE willing to ensure that same thing for everyone else because humans are valuable to me and I to them for the same reason? That I don't want to live in a world where children are so irresponsibly and irrationally created and left to the dust? You underestimate the power of this view my friend.

We have a system now that takes money from the richest and provides somewhat of a safety net for the worst off. — RogueAI

They do take money. Money that could be going to creating and funding more charities that they'd be willing to pay for if they had the freedom. You saw what Musk did for Ukraine on fly, didn't you? Imagine if more people could be counted amongst the wealthy to act just like that in love for the rational mind that could be potentially wasted through such circumstances. But no, these safety nets do nothing for people. I know, I've seen the statistics, and I grew up as one of the people accessing the nets. Most people with access to them are the crudest kind of self-indulgent, drug addicted, child abusing people I've ever come across. I would consider that I'm telling you something that's true, I genuinely mean to say what I'm saying to you here.

Are you familiar with John Rawl's veil of ignorance? — RogueAI

I am, and I think John Rawls mistakes his analysis for phenomena that is a by-product of exactly the saftey-nets he proposed, and that have been in existence for years that allow people to turn a blind eye and say "that's the governments job, I already pay taxes for it." It's ad hoc, in other words. However, what did you want to elaborate on about Rawls?

This first premise is simply untrue. Humans have the capability of using logic and rationality, but often times choose not to do so, or simply make logical and rational mistakes.
— Philosophim

So, what part is untrue? Not employing reason, does not negate the fact that we exist through natural processes, and have developed reason, as opposed to fangs, to survive. — Garrett Travers

Everything exists through natural processes, that's irrelevant. We have reason that we can use to survive, but we don't always use reason. Her other premises are built on the idea that we are all reasonable human being who will always do what is reasonable. We're not. Not everyone uses reason to survive in every day to day case.

P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty

Simplifying this, you've stated, "It is only through reason that we can live our lives with values we have developed through reason."

Meaning if you don't act reasonably, you cannot obtain those values you've concluded with reason. Since many people are not reasonable, or do not always reason on every decision, many decisions by people do not meet these values. Further, I will note again, that someone can conclude values with reason that would require the murder, theft, or other harmful things to other people.

C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals[/quote]

1. If people do not always act reasonably, then the free pursuit of what they want (not necessarily values) will not be rational, and not be able to meet their values. Should people be free to do irrational things, like murder someone in anger?

2. If we go by the fact that we assume everyone is free to rationally pursue the values they have concluded from their rationality, it still leaves the problem that I can define my own values, and I can create values that are immoral and harmful to other people.

Everything exists through natural processes, that's irrelevant. We have reason that we can use to survive, but we don't always use reason. — Philosophim

Truth is the only thing that is relevant to any proposition, and whether or not one chooses to not use reason is itself a non sequitur. The premise must be addressed from the point of truth, or non-truth. You are choosing to not do so.

Her other premises are built on the idea that we are all reasonable human being who will always do what is reasonable. — Philosophim

No it isn't, you're making that up. The premise states that humans developed reason through natural processes, and that reason is the human's means of survival. It is not a categorical proposition that describes what some, or all humans do with that reason. Continue evaluating the proposition.

Meaning if you don't act reasonably, you cannot obtain those values you've concluded with reason. Since many people are not reasonable, or do not always reason on every decision, many decisions by people do not meet these values. Further, I will note again, that someone can conclude values with reason that would require the murder, theft, or other harmful things to other people. — Philosophim

You aren't following the argument, go back. It doesn't have anything to do with "some people" doing or not doing anything. And, again, until you can grasp the proposition, we're not moving to murder, theft, or other harmful things. Continue evaluating.

The word "selfish" comes with a baggage that makes it unsuitable for use in an Ayn Randian sense which I believe is about being independent, able to stand on one's own two feet; self-reliant is another word that captures the Randian spirit of being capable of looking after oneself with the minimum of help/assistance/aid from others. I'm all for that interpretation of Ayn Rand's "selfishness". If we only learn to be self-supporting like many engineering marvels of the 20th century, I'm sure altruism will become as outmoded as top hats are these days.

The word "selfish" comes with a baggage that makes it unsuitable for use in an Ayn Randian sense which I believe is about being independent, able to stand on one's own two feet; self-reliant is another word that captures the Randian spirit of being capable of looking after oneself with the minimum of — Agent Smith

Agreed, in essence, but let's be honest here: she clearly delineates from selfishness and rational selfishness. Meaning, if this is a discussion about Rand, that needs to be the exclusive usage for the term. Same way if we were talking about Marx, we would discuss Capitalism from precisely his view, even the definitions are no longer the same today. Right?

Everything exists through natural processes, that's irrelevant. We have reason that we can use to survive, but we don't always use reason.
— Philosophim

Truth is the only thing that is relevant to any proposition, and whether or not one chooses to not use reason is itself a non sequitur. The premise must be addressed from the point of truth, or non-truth. You are choosing to not do so. — Garrett Travers

This told me nothing. Is it true that we don't always use reason in our day to day actions? Of course it is.

The premise states that humans developed reason through natural processes, and that reason is the human's means of survival. It is not a categorical proposition that describes what some, or all humans do with that reason. — Garrett Travers

Remove natural processes, because its irrelevant, and you have, "Reason is the human's means of survival." No, no it is not. Plenty of people are not reasonable in many day to day actions of their lives. People overeat. Don't get vaccinated. React in anger or other emotions. Rationalize behavior. Reason, or rational thinking, is one aspect of humanity that it does not use exclusively.

And no, she is not saying what people who use reason, necessarily do with it. That's fine. I'm simply pointing out that because she does not say what people must necessarily conclude with reason, that I can see situations in which reason would conclude in evil being committed against another person.

So again:

A. People do not use reason in all of their decisions.
B. Even if people use reason in a decision, the conclusion of that reason may result in evil.

Therefore the final premise: The only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals,

fails because people will often times do irrational things, which can result in immoral actions, or conclude values that are immoral to others in society. You're going to really have to rebuff what is stated here. No more statements about "What I'm not doing". If you want to play, its time to get in there and demonstrate why the above reasoning is wrong.

This told me nothing. Is it true that we don't always use reason in our day to day actions? Of course it is. — Philosophim

Hey man, if you're not going to address the proposition, then take a hike. I'm not going around with you. This is not a categorical proposition describing behavior. That's the last time I'm addressing this before dismissing your arguments entirely. Either address the truth values of the propositions, or find another thing to discuss.

No, no it is not. Plenty of people are not reasonable in many day to day actions of their lives. — Philosophim

Nobody performs actions that extenuate their lives that are unreasonable at base value. You'll actually have to provide an example of one for this assertion to be true.

Don't get vaccinated. — Philosophim

That's a conclusion drawn through the application of reason.

People overeat — Philosophim

Eating is reasonable, overeating is damaging. The proposition is about how people survive. You're making my case for me.

React in anger or other emotions. — Philosophim

This is not reason, this is the opposite.

Reason, or rational thinking, is one aspect of humanity that it does not use exclusively. — Philosophim

Humans must use it to survive. Again, not a categorical proposition.

A. People do not use reason in all of their decisions.
B. Even if people use reason in a decision, the conclusion of that reason may result in evil.

Therefore the final premise: The only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals,

fails because people will often times do irrational things, which can result in immoral actions, or conclude values that are immoral to others in society. You're going to really have to rebuff what is stated here. No more statements about "What I'm not doing". If you want to play, its time to get in there and demonstrate why the above reasoning is wrong. — Philosophim

This a group of non sequiturs. Defer to above explanation and conitnue evaluating the original proposition.

Don't get vaccinated. — Philosophim

That's a conclusion drawn through the application of reason. — Garrett Travers

There's a ton of emotion in the COVID anti-vaxxer movement. Further, you might say irrationalism manifests in confirmation bias vis-a-vis Facebook disinformation. Reason might play a small role.

I think Rawls has the right approach: if I was going to be placed in a society, and didn't know what my place will be in that society, I would like a certain amount of resources (say 10% of my income to start with, going up to 50% if I'm insanely rich) to go towards the military, police protection, science projects, and a basic safety net in case I'm a disadvantaged member of society who needs some basic help.

There's a ton of emotion in the COVID anti-vaxxer movement. Further, you might say irrationalism manifests in confirmation bias vis-a-vis Facebook disinformation. Reason might play a small role. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure, but, to the degree one makes an emotional decision, one makes a harmful decision that goes against one furthering their life. Which is exactly what the pro-vaxxers say the anti-vaxxers are doing. So, we're still agreeing with Rand any way you're looking at it.

if I was going to be placed in a society, and didn't know what my place will be in that society, I would like a certain amount of resources (say 10% of my income to start with, going up to 50% if I'm insanely rich) to go towards the military, police protection, science projects, and a basic safety net in case I'm a disadvantaged member of society who needs some basic help. — RogueAI

Which is fine. Rand was an advocate of a voluntary system of contribution to basic needs being developed. In which case, if a government goes overboard in their actions, we the people maintain a democratic fiscal veto power over their resources. She wasn't against safety nets, she was against the forced ones we have had for almost a hundreds years, which can hardly be shown to have been a net positive.

How would large-scale science projects be funded? Say, the moon launch or Hubble Telescope or LHC. There is no realistic profit-motive for these projects, but they are a net-positive, so how would they come about in a Randian society?

Yes, evolution. We evolved to produce reason as our means of survival, rather than fangs or claws. We create concepts and frameworks of behavior through reason. To negate such an assertion, evidence will have to be provided that opposes this as a deductive conclusion, and evidence for some other processes will also have to be presented. — Garrett Travers

Thanks for clarifying. Reason does seem to separate us from the other animals but it's not as if reason has been very popular with people - politics, advertising, religion, art would not have such a massive and irrational influence on human behaviour if we used reason the way you think is right. Maybe your point is simply that reason is used? I would agree that humans have the capacity to use reason effectively - but it is just a part of how we think and act.

P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty — Garrett Travers

I struggle with this one. Is this circular? Only through reason we can we live by reason? Or are you saying that only through reason can we develop values that are based on reason? Same thing, kind of. Or are you saying that only reason can allow us to live according to the values we construct? For me we come back to the problem that humans use reasoning, certainly, but the quality of the reasoning is not clear - it often amounts to emotion directed choices or reasons that 'make sense' to the person.

Hey man, if you're not going to address the proposition, then take a hike. I'm not going around with you. This is not a categorical proposition describing behavior. That's the last time I'm addressing this before dismissing your arguments entirel. Either address the truth values of the propositions, or find another thing to discuss.[/quote]

I addressed your proposition clearly. Show me how I am wrong. Have you read your proposition clearly? Don't get mad at me. If I'm wrong, easily point out where I am misunderstanding the first proposition. You said humans use reason for their survival. I clearly pointed out they do not always use reason for their survival. They can use reason for survival, but they also don't have to. Where am I wrong? I can have a hammer, yet use a screwdriver to bang on a nail. Its not very effective, but I can. Do you understand?

If your first premise is simply, "Humans can reason," then my same arguments apply. This isn't hard to understand. I'm clearly addressing your points, stop avoiding them.

No, no it is not. Plenty of people are not reasonable in many day to day actions of their lives.
— Philosophim

Nobody performs actions that extenuate their lives that are unreasonable at base value. You'll actually have to provide an example of one for this assertion to be true. — Garrett Travers

Wrong. A grenade lands at your feet with 20 good people nearby. You have just enough time to cover your body over it and save the 19 other people around you. Or, you could quickly jump behind another person who is close by that did not notice the grenade, save yourself, and the grenade goes off killing almost everyone else. Isn't it reasonable to save the other 19 people? Saving my life would be unreasonable in this situation would it not? If it is not, then what value am I holding? That the deaths of 19 other people are worth my life?

Don't get vaccinated.
— Philosophim

That's a conclusion drawn through the application of reason. — Garrett Travers

While it could be, it can be made through ignorance and fear. My point again, not every decision is made through reason.

People overeat
— Philosophim

Eating is reasonable, overeating is damaging. The proposition is about how people survive. You're making my case for me. — Garrett Travers

No, I used this as an example to show you that people do not always make reasonable choices. You can have the capability to reason, but not use it.

React in anger or other emotions.
— Philosophim

This is not reason, this is the opposite. — Garrett Travers

That is my point. I think you understand my point now.

Reason, or rational thinking, is one aspect of humanity that it does not use exclusively.
— Philosophim

Humans must use it to survive. Again, not a categorical proposition. — Garrett Travers

100% incorrect. Do animals need reason to survive? Of course not. We are animals. We can survive through unreasonable, less effective, and sometimes outright dumb means. My point has been "we MUST reason" is incorrect. Demonstrate to me how we cannot survive in any way shape or form if we do not use reason.

Is it true that we ought to encourage humankind to be more selfish — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don’t think we need to encourage people to be more selfish It is impossible to produce any action, to think any thought or feeling, to have any simple perception without these being ‘for the sake of a self’ But self isn’t a little honunculus lurking inside one’s body that stands in opposition to an outside world. It is a relation to the world. The contents of the self are the contents of the world as seen from a point of view. What we think of as a subject, self, ego, the ‘I’ is the ongoing coherence and self-similarity of the flow of expereince that makes up the contents of events for each person. The self is really a self-consistency to this flow of experience, a way in which events are organized so that each is not just encountered but assimilated. Thus, what people call altruism isnt the abandonment of this assimilatory process. It is merely an expansion and enrichment of the self as assimilatory process. We are altruistic towards those we can relate to in some fashion. Improving their lives improves our lives because we are able to assimilate their values and thinking. Helping them
expands our self.

Ayn Randian notions of selfishness are based on the need to protect the self from those we cannot relate to , whose behavior and thinking is too different from our own to assimlate, embrace, relate to. Randian selfishness isn’t actually protecting some inner homincular entity ( set of rational processes) in our body, although that is what she believes it is doing; it is instead protecting our assimilative, relational processes from disruption by actions of people that we cannot relate to. If I am deeply i love, my identification with my beloved is so
close that the boundaries between my self and their self are almost non-existent. If I identify strongly with my family or community, then the distinctions between our various ‘selves’ are porous and ambiguous. In these cases, ‘ selfishness’ involves the gap of alienation between myself, my loved ones and community on the one side , and a strange or threatening individual
or community on the other side.

Rand formulated selfishness in terms of the solitary individual because too much of the world around her appeared alienating and threatening. Because of her brittle notion of rationality, she didnt have faith that one could turn the alien into the relatable and thereby embrace and assimilate it into the self. Much of the world outside her was simply wrong, irrational, or evil, so she argues that one needed to retreat to a safe, constricted space within whose bounds a hermetically sealed machine-like rationality could function to assimilate at least a limited range of features
of the world.

Sure, but, to the degree one makes an emotional decision, one makes a harmful decision that goes against one furthering their life. — Garrett Travers

Reason and emotion (positive and negative emotion) work together in the decision-making process. A completely rational (emotion-free) person is a kind of monster. Sociopaths tend not to have a vibrant emotional life.

Positive emotions play a role in making life-, self- and other-affirming decisions.

Reason and emotion (positive and negative emotion) work together in the decision-making process. A completely rational (emotion-free) person is a kind of monster. Sociopaths tend not to have a vibrant emotional life. — ZzzoneiroCosm

They not only work together , they are inseparable. The idea of affect-free reason is incoherent. Sociopaths are just as affectively driven as the rest of us.