epistemologue

I would think the issue is more *why* rather than *how*... logical consistency is more of a Western and Christian characteristic. You would only believe logical consistency is worthwhile if you have certain metaphysical premises.

A1. The difference between ethics and meta-ethics: Morality, or ethics, is defined by Ayn Rand in The Objectivist Ethics: "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness The philosophy of ethics necessarily rests on top of a philosophy of epistemology. Given a rational epistemology as a prior starting point, we first need to justify when and why morality applies to us as necessitated by these epistemological principles, before we get into looking to human nature to identify all of the specific details of what morality prescribes. That is to say, we are first concerned with what we can call metaethics - that is, the definition and justification of moral ideas and principles, and terms such as "ought", "duty", "good", "evil", "right", and "wrong", on the basis of a rational epistemology. A2. Is "good" defined solely by ethics? No. Morally right action is good. But the rational, the beautiful, the pleasurable, the just - these are all good also. The sheer state of conscious awareness is good. And most importantly, existence itself is good. A2.5. Does ethics deal with anything other than man's actions? I don't know if I fully understand the question, but the definition of ethics given above is that it's a code of values to guide man's choices and actions, so I think not. A3. What does a metaethics define? See A1. A4. Can you answer why a standard of "ethical good" is ultimately "good" within a given philosophical framework? Yes. The ethical meaning of "good", in terms of right action, can be judged epistemologically, as to whether the ethical meaning of good is either consistent with or contradictory to reality. A5. Can metaethics be objective? Yes, as explained in A4. A6. What is the relationship between consequentialism and the subjective "choice to live" that precedes ethics? Since consequentialism is purely hypothetical (if you want X then you ought to do Y), its metaethical premises are necessarily subjective (in the sense of being unjustified). Only a deontological ethical system can be objective, by justifying one's metaethical premises according to the more basic epistemological standards of non-contradiction (this is as against Tara Smith, who says the only reason to be rational is because it has good consequences).

Someone asked: "is determinism (or causation, I may be mixing the two up if they're different) not the way all logic and science works when talking about anything? ... studies that seem to indicate that free will may be more of an illusion" The reductionist materialism of the "scientific worldview", does embrace determinism and the idea that free will is an illusion. Logic does not dictate this, though, actually the reductionist worldview is incoherent. Without free will, morality or ethics would be a meaningless science, people will act strictly according to prior causes, and can't change their behavior based on a morality. So there would be no "good" or "bad", no right or wrong, no justice, nothing. These terms would be essentially meaningless. If behavior is determined, then what people do, just *is* what they do, there's no alternative to compare it against, it wasn't right or wrong, or better or worse, it just *happened*. Worse than that, if reductionism is true, then all that exists in a metaphysically basic sense are millions of identical particles, behaving according to simple mathematical rules, a la Conway's game of life. There is no real line you can draw around one group of particles and think of it as a person, that would be a purely subjective choice that doesn't actually mean anything in reality. The things that you think you see around you aren't real. There are no men or women, there isn't even a self. Furthermore, statements or propositions you make don't have any meaning in the sense of true or false either since the concepts that make them up don't mean anything, and therefore neither does logic hold. So in this materialist worldview there is no justice, no morality, no truth or reason or logic, or even self. These concepts are all contradicted by the nature of reality. They are essentially meaningless and impossible. Yet despite all of this, they will still continue to speak as if these were true. They will talk about what you ought to do for your well-being, how you should be rational, use reason, seek truth, be logical, and speak as if people are real, that things around them are real, that they matter, and that there is meaning in life. All of this is contradicted by their own philosophy, and so they are being incoherent, and engaging wholesale in the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Heat death is wild, theoretical speculation, and it's a ridiculously malevolent assumption to make about the universe. It is a theory, it is not a known conclusion, it is not "knowledge about reality". There is no "understanding" that the entire universe is doomed. That is an absurdity, and so it's quite meaningless as a theory.

@StrictlyLogical That is not a reasonable "understanding" of the universe.

This claim is unproven and completely uncertain. It is absurd to assume that one's self and the universe as a whole are headed toward inevitable doom and eternal oblivion, there's no justification for making a malevolent assumption of this nature.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/31/locked-in-patients-tell-doctors-happy-computer-reads-thoughts/

Louie, I've never heard of "renouncing your property" because you are renouncing citizenship. Also this is a nonsensical argument, that you've agreed to the constitution but not to the immigration laws - the constitution is the agreement which defines how laws are created, interpreted, and enforced, that's the whole point of it. softwareNerd, perhaps you can explain why you believe I've made assertions that are false. My argument is that citizenship is voluntary in the United States, and therefore so are things like taxation and immigration policy, and so this idea that immigration laws are an initiation of force is wrong. This is a sound argument as far as I know; the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows.

... you can't possibly be serious

Immigration policy, like taxation, is not an initiation of force. If you are a citizen, then you are agreeing to follow the laws as they are written, including following the immigration policy, or paying your taxes. This is a consensual agreement. If you no longer consent, then you can renounce your citizenship. Complaining that taxation is theft is like complaining that Netflix keeps charging your credit card every month. Just declaring "I don't consent!" doesn't mean you aren't consenting for Netflix to take your money. You have to actually unsubscribe in order to revoke your consent. The same goes with immigration policy. This is the law, and as citizens we are bound, by a voluntary contract, to follow it. There is no initiation of force involved.

Communism is a criminal conspiracy. After her testimony before the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) Committee in 1947, Ayn Rand writes in her journal (pp. 381–382), http://www.ronpisaturo.com/blog/2015/12/29/it-is-the-submission-that-causes-the-violence/

Yes, there is. As citizens, we are all voluntarily a part of this particular governmental system, which decides these matters according to the rules we agreed on in the constitution.

A communist ban would be good, too. And "refugees" could easily be terrorists trying to sneak in to another country under a pretense. They've done this before. There is no such right. If we as country say they aren't allowed, it would be an initiation of force for them to come here against our will.

Can someone explain to me how you justify the level of hysteria in this thread? War with Mexico is an absurdity. Does that not bother you? Or has absurdity become such a norm in your life that you don't even notice anymore?

Build a wall.

I usually recommend the book Philosophy: Who Needs It? first, and then The Virtue of Selfishness and The Romantic Manifesto. There's also Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, if that's more your area of interest. I very strongly recommend you read Rand herself, and not some third-party. That's the best way to get value out of her philosophy.

Privatization doesn't "abolish" the schools or roads. You're talking like you want to burn the buildings down and rebuild something new. That's not Objectivism. Objectivism is not "radical".

I really don't agree with this characterization of Rand or her philosophy as "radical". Objectivism is true, and for that reason it is naturally intuitive, common sensical, and normal.

@KyaryPamyu, so what is your take on the original questions of the thread exactly? You don't think that death gives life meaning, or that struggle/suffering is necessary for happiness, because happiness and the meaning of life is about more than bare survival?

I agree completely with this. Aesthetics is a much more fundamental branch of philosophy than it normally gets credit for. I think hierarchically it should follow directly from metaphysics, and actually has implications in epistemology and ethics. In the same sense that everyone has to be a philosopher to some extent, since man by nature must be guided by a comprehensive view of life, do you think in a sense everyone has to be an artist to some extent, since aesthetic principles also perform a necessary function in the guidance of life (when it comes to metaphysical value judgments and sense of life)?

I completely agree with your post here. I like this concept you have of a "Leading Man". It's too bad your blog is down, I wish I could read more of your thoughts about that concept. Definitely agree that sexual differences are an enormously good thing and ought to be specifically appreciated / positively stressed and celebrated. I think guys who aren't comfortable or aware of these differences, whether they are being respectful or modern or merely too narrowly intellectual in their interests, not only end up with friendships at best instead of romantic relationships, but... there are fundamental human values possible to men and women in romantic relationships that come from the masculine/feminine polarity. The value of a healthy masculine/feminine romantic relationship is nearly as fundamental a value to man as that of his life or of his rational mind. In an ideal romantic relationship, there is an extreme connection of profound significance between a man and a woman. Physically and psychologically man and woman are complementary, and in a deep sense, a completion of their respective identities. I'm curious how you would describe "the challenge that her femininity poses to you". I'd agree there is a kind of "challenge" which is important and valuable - though not in the sense that it is a struggle. I'm not very comfortable with the level of struggle with which Ayn Rand portrays romantic relationships in her fiction. Whether it's Dominique/Roark or Dagny/Galt or other examples from her early fiction, the portrayal of men and women as enemies with their whole romance defined by their struggle against each other doesn't really demonstrate the values involved. I don't know of a single case where Rand portrayed two people actually being together in an ideal relationship, the story always ends right after they finally get together.

I don't think such a thing is literally inconceivable, though I agree that it's a high standard that is difficult to imagine. Well life is a metabolic process, there's certainly some energy being burned to make the thing go, and it does require taking in energy in order to maintain it. I don't know how much "effort" is strictly necessary, let alone "struggle". A plant for example puts forth basically no effort to maintain its life, it simply takes in energy from the sun. But it's not the effort required to maintain one's life that gives rise to all values. There are still choices that need to be made in the face of alternatives, and there are types of enjoyment that we can appreciate, that are not directly related to our survival. If you imagine an immortal person that doesn't need to make any effort or go through any struggle to survive, you can still imagine that person facing alternatives that they need to choose between and enjoying values (whether it's watching a sunrise, eating a meal, playing a game, contemplating a work of art, or whatever). There's even still a standard of morality involved, one can fail to achieve the fullest values they are capable of (e.g. if someone is sitting and staring at a blank wall vs. another person who goes around looking at art, to make a simple comparison). I agree that values that don't directly contribute to survival can still be instrumentally useful towards that end, for example how art is an emotional fuel for a man and can help inspire him to work harder. Yet it's also true that, for example, art is an end in itself, and a pleasure to contemplate for its own sake. Its value doesn't depend on its being useful toward the end of survival.

Why do you say that? I can imagine a thousand productive lines of work that don't pertain directly to the issue of survival, and would still be valuable if that problem were solved - any form of art for instance.

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness? I've heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive. This position is incomprehensible and very disturbing to me. I love my life and I'm happy to exist despite the struggle to survive - if we were immortal and survival weren't a struggle that would be a load off of my back, I could settle into just pursuing the things that make me happy, without needing to worry about this survival problem.

That's not a moral reason to avoid pain - to avoid pain just because it hurts, for its own sake, is to place the avoidance of pain on the level of an ultimate end! The cause of the pain can be something you ought to avoid, for example if your hand is burning because you accidentally placed it on a hot stove, you ought to avoid burning your hand because of its value to you. Since the nature of pain is to indicate that there is something wrong, some struggle or damage or a threat of damage, thinking you ought to avoid it is a natural inference to make, but it's not always the case. Sometimes pain simply comes from a struggle and there is no damage, or there is damage but it's recoverable (think of muscle soreness from working out). There are many pains you ought to endure because you have some positive goal you are pursuing. If instead your hand is burning because you're being tested with gom jabber (the Bene Gesserit torture test from the book Dune, for which the penalty of failure is death), you had better not avoid the pain just because it hurts. That's exactly the moral failure for which the test is designed. Pain, by itself, is not a morally valid reason or motivation to stop. If your ultimate end is the pursuit of happiness and your ultimate standard of morality is life, then the moral reason to avoid pain is as a means to these ultimate ends, not as an end in itself.