Nicky

I don't see where the fraud is. Alan Greenspan, to this day, is openly admitting that a free banking system based on gold is the moral and practical ideal. However, a long time ago, he decided that that's not an achievable goal, so he gave up on trying to achieve it. As it turns out, he was right.

It was mainly caused by heavy borrowing (specifically short term, foreign borrowing). http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2004/102504.htm That borrowing (which continued for several more years) was ill-advised. The reason why it was done anyway is that the model the Icelandic financial system is built on is fundamentally flawed. Not because, as socialists would tell you, the market can't regulate itself, but because the market can't regulate a government run financial system. And Iceland's financial system is, and has been all along, government run. The government prints the currency, sets interest rates, is the de facto insurer of banks if they were to fail, has regulatory power over everything, etc. That's not a free market. Not even if the government chose to neglect to watch over what happens with the money they are printing and backing.

So Guru Barack is going to turn America into the happiest commune on Planet Earth, and evil Mitt is trying to spoil his plans? Is that the gist of this?

In Objectivism, one's hierarchy of values is not the primary moral principle. And yet, you are treating it as such, and declaring that the moral is defined by where it sits on one's tree of values. While it is true that sacrifices are immoral and choosing higher values is moral, that statement is not sufficient for fully explaining the issue. A more fundamental issue is the source of one's values: if that source is the selfish pursuit of life qua our nature, then that person's system of values is proper. If that source of values is pleasure, or knowledge, or anything else, then that system of values is wrong. If you use "because it's pleasurable" as the ultimate justification for a choice, you are a Hedonist. Even if an Objectivist would've made the same exact choice, because it also happens to be the rational choice to make.

Just reiterating the above question, in case you missed it (because I neglected to address it to you, so I'm hoping you'll find it this time).

Again: why would I need to establish that it is destructive, before you establish (using an Objectivist standard, not a hedonistic one) that it is useful? Pleasure is the result of making rational decisions, not the source of those decisions. I dislike decisions motivated by pleasure instead of an objective standard of values, yes. Our values are hierarchical. When we refer to our values, we refer to our highest values above all other values. Not considering our highest values is the logical equivalent of not considering our values.

That is a hedonist's justification. This is true in this case, as it is in general: If we choose hedonism, we choose it at the expense of our values. I'll explain how it is true in this case, I'll leave justifying the more general statement for another time: The inter-connectedness of values and sexual desires isn't a choice. It is a fact of nature. If we treat sex as if it stands in a vacuum, and have sex with no concern for our highest values, that is a costly mistake. Those values will be corrupted by that choice. By getting into the habit of having "mutual masturbation", we sacrifice something of greater value: the enjoyment of real sex. This insight has to come with experience, I guess, but the fact is we can't enjoy both at the same time. A man for instance can't be wildly attracted to both superficial, promiscuous partners he has no regard for, and the woman he loves (assuming that the woman he loves is not superficial and promiscuous, of course). That is not how human sexuality works. It has to be one or the other.

What is the scientific literature?

Why would the other side need to prove why you shouldn't do something, before you give some compelling reasons on why it should be done? What is this mutual masturbation? How is it different from sex that involves feelings and values? Where does it come from? What is achieved by it?

Of course we do. Do you eat wood? We only eat what we can chew, because of the nature of our teeth. Insulting to whom? I didn't call you silly, I called a statement silly. It wasn't even a statement you made, it was one I made. It's silly to try to explain sex without relying on biology, especially evolution. I stand by that. Final response on this issue, because we're not getting anywhere: You are arguing a straw man. I am not telling you that you shouldn't have casual sex because of its evolutionary purpose. I am telling how sex works, and I am telling you that it works that way because of evolution. 1. Sex is a physiological response to our values. 2. Similarly, your body is the way it is because of saber-tooth tigers (you have your muscles the way you have them because of evolution). The ethical implications of that are that: 1. you shouldn't have sex in a way that goes against a rational hierarchy of values 2. similarly, when you go jogging, you shouldn't be running backwards. You should be running in the direction your face is pointed. Why, you ask? Well, indirectly, the direction you should be running in has to do precisely with saber tooth tigers an big ass bears chasing people around the savanna. And the way you should be having sex, also indirectly and for the same reasons, has to do with the evolutionary rationale for sexuality.

Well if you disagree that we should act according to our nature, then it becomes a moral argument. I just assumed no one would disagree with that part. The argument is scientific, because it aims to establish what our nature is: we are, by nature, driven by our values. Including when it comes to sex. Just like all the other animals. The only difference between us and other animals, in that regard, is that other animals' values are automatic, ours aren't. We shouldn't ignore that fact (that we are driven by our values), and create a false dichotomy between values and sex, by pretending that some values are irrelevant to sex, and instead we should follow Ayn Rand's advice and rely on our full hierarchy of values in our choice of sexual partners. And, more importantly, if our values are flawed, we should consciously choose to act in a way that helps shape them. P.S. The reason why I am limiting my argument to evolution is because I don't have access to empirical data, and sharing personal experiences would be anecdotal. But I do know for a fact that my sexual preferences are a direct result of my values. Reality -all of it- is the basis of ethical claims. Evolution is real. Sex is the result of evolution. If you want to create the Ethics of Sex without understanding evolution first, that's just silly. What others claim doesn't concern this debate. I don't agree with any of those claims, and my claims are in no way like theirs.

Peikoff said that genius is an extraordinary ability to handle abstractions.

Why do you think that is?

They don't assume anything about the reason to have sex. I'm not talking about the reasons why you would have sex. I'm talking about the reason why sex, in general, exists, in the context of evolution. That reason is reproduction, not pleasure. You are both missing my point. I am not talking about the reason why you would have sex, I am talking about the evolutionary justification for sex, and the implications of that fact for human biology and psychology. I am not making a moral argument. What sex is, and how it works, has nothing to do with Ethics. It's Biology and Psychology. The survival of human offspring has been dependent on a lot more than just picking good genes, for quite a while now (and not just humans: primates, and even other highly social mammals, too). More than enough to matter. Having a child with Stalin is not a good plan, for anyone involved, in any context (including in the context of a primitive tribe living in a cave).

Are you looking for an answer in the realm of Ethics? I don't think that's where the answer lies. The Ethics answer is easy: we must act in accordance with our nature. Go against our nature, and there will be negative consequences. What our nature is is the tough question. We need to establish what sex is. What evolutionary, physiological and psychological purpose it serves? (we need to establish its evolutionary purpose, because from it we can draw insights into the physiology and psychology of sex as well). Here's my argument in defense of that statement by Rand, succinctly and perhaps a bit oversimplified: If our hierarchy of values is geared towards choosing "that which enables us to live according to our nature - the only way to live, in the long run, really", and if a species survives by its members choosing sexual partners most fit to survive, how could a species which is geared towards choosing sexual partners based on something other than its highest values, survive? It can't. Therefor, our sexual urges, as a rule, mirror our hierarchy of values. If a man likes to sleep with supermodel Stalin, that means he values looks over character. It doesn't mean that he likes looks over character for the purpose of sex, but other than that his values are fine. At least not as a rule (exceptions are possible, I suppose), because if that was a rule that applied to most men, then the human race would not have survived in nature all this time.

I will say that the thread title is wrong: death is not inevitable. Death is plenty evitable. Just because we won't live forever, that doesn't mean we don't need to act to avoid death tomorrow, or a year from now, or 20 years into the future. You should try acting as if living or dying isn't your concern, for a while. See what happens.

That's a clever little exchange. Allow me to ruin all the fun by explaining: Mr. Thompson is pretending to be engaging in trade, but in reality he's engaging in extortion. Galt points out the difference between the two. That is the meaning of that conversation. It has nothing to do with whether rights are intrinsic or not.

Right, but what are those criteria? Ok, so you're against rape because it's the initialization of force. That's great. But now we have the same exact problem: Why are you against the initialization of force? Specifically, why are you against someone using force against you? Why are you against someone killing you, for that matter? You must have a reason. What is it? And don't just say "because I want to live", because then I'll just have to ask "Why do you want to live?". That is my final question, actually: Would you rather live or die, and why? [edit] I know what you're gonna answer: because you have some goals, or curiosity, etc., and you'd like to see them through. So that's not my final question, because now I have to ask why on that too. I'm gonna ask why over and over again, until you run out of rationalistic answers or decide to concede the point that some things are right and others are wrong because of the way reality is, not because people say so.

Why does it have to be made wrong? What thinking, beliefs, moral code, etc. do you have, that you are basing your decision to make it wrong on? Is there a reason why, out of all the things you could've chosen to make wrong, you picked rape? Why not, instead, make consensual sex wrong, and rape right?

What criteria do you use to make things right or wrong?

Is self defense right? If not, why do you want to make self defense right? Why not? Is there something wrong with being raped?

Oh, literal Boris!

I didn't miss that point, I disagree with it. I disagree with the notion that good character and morality are in any way incongruent with each other. The way one cultivates good character is by behaving morally. And the way good character manifests itself is through moral actions. The moral and the behavior of someone with good character are one and the same. Ok, so would you have sex with someone you utterly despise, if she was attractive? Would you have sex with Stalin, if he looked like a supermodel? Or rather, could you, knowing what the person you are intimate with has done? Wouldn't you find it distasteful?

What about having sex with someone you find both physically and mentally revolting? Do you see the immorality in that? The immorality is the same in all forms of sex divorced from values, just not quite as blatant. Ayn Rand's position was that you shouldn't divorce body and soul, they are an integrated whole. Sexual desires aren't independent of one's values, and that fact shouldn't be ignored. The immorality isn't in the lack of intention. It is in the (plausible) reason for that lack of intention: you don't value that person. On the other hand, if you are in a foreign land, meet a great person but you're not planning to have a relationship with them because you're leaving soon, it is perfectly moral to have sex with them anyway (provided you're both aware of the plan, of course).

Why? Why do you want to make something that isn't wrong, wrong?