mdegges

Here's my reasoning: Life is the standard of value. Making arrangements for your family so that they'll be taken care of after you die will give you some peace of mind while you're still alive. We can call this actively preparing for death. (I think we both agree that this can be a value.) However, in death, no values exist. For all intents and purposes, 'you' no longer exist. 'You' (body, mind, and soul) are completely gone. As such, death cannot be a value because it completely destroys 'you'. A person who wants to end his life early (for various reasons) no longer values life.. namely- his own life. Now I don't believe this is necessarily a bad thing- as mentioned above, when the terminally ill choose euthanasia, I respect that decision because there is no hope of recovery and very little to look forward to in the future. The quality of life can greatly diminish for these people, to a point where living causes more suffering than it's worth. I think for these people, life ceases to be the standard of value- it has become valueLESS.

I'm pretty sure a personality disorder cannot apply to a philosophical system.

I don't see what the contention is. Actively preparing for death is NOT the same as actively seeking death (or more specifically, making arrangements to end your own life, which is what euthanasia entails).

Aba- I've been sitting here for awhile trying to think of a way to explain when and why charity can be a positive act or a personal virtue. I've never had to describe it before- most people just take charity as a given and believe it's a great virtue no matter what the circumstances. I'm going to be using the broadest definition of charity here: the voluntary act of helping other people. I think charity can be a great virtue, if not done out of guilt or coercion.. but it's hard to explain why. Simply saying 'I like helping people' or 'I feel satisfied when I help people' doesn't really get at the why. One could just ask 'Why do you like helping people?' or 'Why do you feel satisfied when helping people?' and be met with the same confused stares. The closest thing to an explanation I've read comes from Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage: This matches up nicely with Rand's take on pleasure, which she defines as "the form in which man experiences the reality of his values." But note that this doesn't answer the main question, 'Why does charity make a person happy?' This can't be answered generally. We need to know what one values before we can understand why that pleases him. On my part this will take some more introspection to figure out.. 'What do I value that makes me want to other help people?' Edit: I had more to say in regards to your actual post, but I got a bit sidetracked as you can see.

I believe it's www.leadinglady.com

Just to add- life is not the standard here

Why is charity so often cast in a negative light? 'Charity' is not the same as 'altruism'

I think the most honest way to handle this is to discuss it with your partner at the beginning of the relationship. Simply saying something like, 'I'm open to dating multiple people at the same time' will let your partner know that you're open to the idea of having multiple sexual relationships. If your partner has a problem with this, he'll have time to either work through his issues, or leave the relationship without becoming too attached.

I agree. I assumed that Barbara and Frank did not want polygamous relationships, based on the fact that they themselves never had affairs with other people, and both were upset about their spouses hooking up. Honestly I think it was a pretty messed up situation. Note where Barbara says "...once we decided it was reasonable and it was something we should accept, then I don't think we quite let ourselves know how desperately we were suffering." I can easily see this happening.. and how sad is that. She let herself be conned into believing that she should share her husband with other women, that it was the right, rational thing to do- even though that's the exact opposite of what she was thinking and feeling. Makes me angry that her husband (and Frank's wife) would put them in that sort of situation in the first place.

I should have clarified: I was responding to your claim that there are 'only two options' when it comes to romance: 1) letting your lover enjoy other people, but if/when he finds someone better for him, break up, or 2) preventing your lover from meeting new people out of fear that he'll find someone better for him. I agree that if your lover is interested in pursuing a serious sexual relationship with another person, breaking up is the right thing to do. Now as for your assumption and mine, that's all they are: assumptions. Obviously none of us can say with certainty how Rand/Branden/their spouse's felt about the affair before and after it started. Actually, we do know how Ms. Branden felt- she has shared it multiple times.. most notably in her 1992 interview: I empathize.. I imagine I would feel the exact same way in that sort of situation. You can go on claiming that Rand was perfect in every way, that her affair was moral because she asked her husband to reluctantly sign off on it, that everyone was happy with the situation, no one got crushed, etc... but I really doubt it.

Of course. (And not for their sake, but for mine! I wouldn't want to be with someone who would rather build a relationship with another person than work on our own. That's the whole point.) Exactly. Wouldn't it seem cruel to string your spouse along while you build a relationship with someone else?

Fair enough. I'm just speculating here too. What makes me uneasy when I think about affairs isn't so much the sexual aspect. (Being sexually attracted to other people outside of a monogamous relationship is pretty common and perhaps even unavoidable.) I think what would hurt the most is the knowledge that your significant other is building a serious relationship with someone other than you.. that maybe you aren't enough for her anymore, or maybe you were never as important to her as you thought you were. Whether the significant other acts on these desires or not isn't important. Just knowing that s/he wants more from someone else would be.. devastating.

Does Rand say this anywhere, that Frank was not her 'intellectual equal'? I've seen that spouted about on here, but I would like a reference to see if that's what Rand actually believed. More benefits for whom?? Sure, maybe Rand and Branden got something nice out of it while it lasted. But what about Rand's husband and Branden's wife? What did they get? From all that I've read, these actions were selfish in the dictionary definition of the term: "concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others [or at the detriment of others]"

Yeah- I was going to comment, but I've only seen the movie. The storyline started off pretty interesting, but turned sour quick.

Of course diabetic people can eat whatever they want - I'm not saying they should be banned from buying pixie sticks or anything. My point is just that there are facts of reality we can't ignore. If I'm allergic to cats, I'm not going to buy one (no matter how happy the idea of one might make me). If I'm diabetic, I'm not going to consume large amounts of sugar (because I understand that sugar is like poison to diabetics). If I have celiacs disease, I'm going to avoid gluten like the plague (because I understand that eating gluten literally makes it harder for my body to absorb the nutrients that I need in order to stay alive). The only way to have or maintain any values at all is to literally keep your heart beating. As an observer, would you say that decision is objective? Of course not. The diabetic person in question is evading the fact that sugar = poison in his body. Values are not supposed to diminish your body or shorten your lifespan.. that is the very opposite of 'value'. Like Vik said above, there must be some objective standard for determining what a value is. If 'life' is the standard, then anything that doesn't promote life cannot be a value.

Harrison- Many of the things you mentioned above are context dependent. For example, getting a tattoo is not universally bad- it's only bad IF your tattoo artist uses a dirty needle. What I'm referring to is things that are universally bad and not context dependent. I mentioned smoking because it's physically bad for everyone's health: the smoker, the people he smokes around, etc. Smoking and secondhand smoke is linked to all kinds of cancer, heart disease, COPD... the list goes on forever. Smoking cigarettes can never be good for your health- just as eating sugar as a diabetic can never be good for your health. If you have diabetes, your body literally can't convert sugar into energy, so it all goes into your blood stream. If your blood sugar gets high enough, you'll stroke out. (However, people without diabetes can eat sugar and be fine- so I wouldn't say that 'eating sugar is universally bad' because it depends on the individual and his/her medical conditions. But I would say that 'eating sugar as a diabetic is universally bad' because it is, regardless of the diabetic person in question.) Edit: I tried to find the thread on here about moral absolutes, but couldn't find it. Edit: Found it. Nicky says: "Subjective doesn't mean dependent on context. It means dependent on the subject (meaning that if you and me are in the same exact situation, I consider it moral for me to do something, because I'm me, but immoral for you to do it, because you're not me)." So applying this to the example above, eating sugar as a diabetic is (universally or) absolutely wrong if we agree that life is the standard of value. That's my reasoning, anyway.

Actually no, that example does not validate the concept. An odor might be unpleasant, but it will not negatively affect your health. Further, odors are not things that we can (usually) make a conscious decision to avoid. As for the proof-text, it's actually a run-down of positions from this thread. The rationalization there is that 1. 'survival does not merely mean physical survival.' and 2. it's okay to physically harm yourself if those acts make you a little happier or make your life a little more bearable. (For instance, a lot of people cut their arms or inner thighs to release psychological pain. If it helps an individual through a rough time, why shouldn't he do it? It's obviously a value to him, so there's no reason to send him off to a psych ward, right?) I maintain that regardless of your personal, subjective value-judgements, certain things cannot be values.

Aren't there universal 'anti-values' that everyone should avoid, regardless of the person/his feelings/context? For example, smoking cigarettes is bad for a person's health. I've seen it argued that 'smoking has nice short term benefits, so each person should decide whether those small perks make the long term troubles worth it.' Makes sense.. But if we're being objective about smoking, that 10 minute rush is nothing compared to all the health problems you'll end up with if it turns into a habit. The cons outweigh the pros; smoking is an anti-value.

I just read an article that said the death penalty is much more expensive than life imprisonment (in California). Seems my previous statement was wrong. @Nicky: a. In 2010, the US rate of incarceration was 500 prisoners per 100,000 residents, or 1.6 million total prisoners. In the same year, 46 executions took place and 3,261 people remained on death row. Cumulatively from 1976-2010, there were a total of 1,234 executions. (So is your point that the number of dangerous killers is extremely low, but that they are too dangerous to be kept alive in prison?)

Writing is helpful. You get the chance to fully explain your thoughts and try to correct yourself when you make mistakes. It's a bit easier than talking, since you have all the time in the world to get out exactly what you want to say instead of fumbling around for the right words. Communicating with other people is also helpful: you'll be able to get feedback on your ideas, and listen to other people's ideas & provide feedback that way. I find that forums are a good place for this.

Isn't that the same as saying, 'It's really just the victims fault...' ?

To add on to the previous responses, you might want to take a look at Man's Rights by Rand and OA answers to the question, "What constitutes an initiation of force and what constitutes appropriate retaliation?" Eric Maughan explains why the intiation of force is morally wrong- (it "negates or paralyzes man's rational faculty"):

1) Yes. Assuming that disabled kids use their own school buses, go to separate schools, have different friends, socialize differently, etc.. then where are kids going to learn about them? In college, maybe? At work, when they are forced to communicate with a disabled person? (Wouldn't it be better to expose your child to this at an early age so that they can learn to understand it?) 2) I would not say that one kid is more valuable to have in a classroom than another. The purpose of class is to be taught a subject, expose children to peers around their own age, and get them to learn how to develop friendships (ie: communicate and play well with others). As long as the kids are more-or-less on the same page, it doesn't matter what particular kid is in the class. As long as their grades continue to be maintained, they should be fine. Maybe you'll have a 10yr old kid with downsyndrome in a class with younger kids- but if that's the mental level he's at, what's wrong with putting him there? The downsyndrome kid, his teacher, and his peers will adapt to his presence. (My point is, we don't have classes just for 'mexican kids' because they're 'mexican' or just for kids with 'ADD' because they have 'ADD.' We just have classes, and whoever meets the reqs and/or test levels to place into a certain grade, should not be denied entrance- unless all the classes in that grade level are literally filled up- then the parents will have to take their kid to a different school.) 3) Some kids are born with mental defects. Some are born with physical defects. Some develop either (or both) later in life. Being exposed to this is a part of life. For example, I went to walmart the other day and the greeter had some sort of mental illness. If that was my first time ever seeing a mentally ill person, I would probably have asked 'what's wrong with that guy? why is he like that?' sort of like when you see a vet in a wheelchair with 2 stubs. Being exposed to that early on makes you realize 'Hey. these people exist. I have to communicate with them sometimes. And when I do, I see that they're not that much different than I am. They're still human- they should be treated that way.'

"...frankly I think it'd be best if they grabbed the gun and turned the whole situation inside-out." As you say here, it's optimistic to think that a victim of a crime will get the chance to escape or turn the cards in his favor. It's something to think about and try to prepare for to the best of your ability, of course.. but it's just not realistic in every situation. I think it's accurate to say that 'pointing a gun at someone's head and ordering them to do something' is a life or death situation. The crux of the issue is: as a victim, you have to assume that the person holding the gun (or knife or whatever) will use it. The only hope you have is that if you comply and do what's asked of you, your life will be spared. That's where this "immutable dichomoty" comes from- the belief that an attacker will take your life if you disobey him. However, I do agree that there sometimes are (context dependent) options available to victims- we've all heard stories where victims are able to escape, or call 911 and get rescued by the police. (But if you're a victim and don't get any opportunities like this (or maybe you did, but were too afraid to act on them), the fault is not yours.)

"Does integrating disabled children into 'normal' schools provide any benefits?" Of course it does! In regards to 'normal' children: 1) On a super basic level, children will learn that mentally/physically disabled people exist. (Hiding away disabled children in special schools doesn't change that fact. They exist, and they require the same things that normal kids do: friends, teachers, tutors, etc.) 2) On a social level, children will learn how to communicate with disabled people. (This is an important part of growing up- being able to interact with a wide variety of people. It will also be less of a shock to see disabled people as children grow up. It will become 'normal' or just another part of life.) 3) On a deeper level, children will wonder why certain people are disabled while others are not. What's the cause of physical/mental disabilites? (This is another important part of growing up- realizing that some things are out of our control.) In regards to disabled children: 1) "Disabled children do not want to be eternally infantalised, or to be objects of pity. They don’t want to be objects of charity or do-goodery, nor do they want to be in society to provide ‘inspiration’. They simply want to be themselves and to be accepted for what they are. They want to live and to be educated together with their non-disabled peers." -B. Drayne 2) "...Results showed that not only did those in the experimental group improve but that those who stayed in the special school declined in comparison to their own previous scores." -Copeland 3) According to this study about inclusion for students with down syndrome, inclusion helps teachers, students, and disabled children in multiple ways.