Robin Craig

I would go about Zeno's paradox in a somewhat different way. While Achilles never reaches the tortoise in the scenario, neither does time ever get past the limit. And in fact if you wanted to put in the work, you can calculate how long it takes Achilles to catch the tortoise (in reality) by the limiting series of distances. So I would put it as Zeno's paradox is true in the relative context of finite time defined by the limits. In terms of physics, the wave nature of quanta means you can't keep subdividing distance down to infinitesimals.

I don't think Objectivism says there is no influence of genes and environment, but rather that whatever influence they have does not determine what we are but merely influences us.

You must be careful with modern psychology and read between the lines for what their data show and how they're interpreting it. For example, in The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker "shows" that (from memory) half the variability in personality etc comes from genes and environment and the other half he assigns to "peer group influence." He leaves out the mind entirely. As peer groups are chosen, it is at least equally valid from the data to say "the other half comes from choice." And further, most people do not really think: they just drift with their culture (as shown by the prevalence, and "heritability", of religion).

You also have to beware of other sweeping conclusions. For example, social scientists will find a correlation between genes etc and voting patterns. But my interpretation of that is simply that (rather obviously, I'd say) your genes and environment influence such traits as risk taking vs conformity - and such broad personality traits in turn influence other things like how you vote.

The key thing philosophically is that any psychological or social science research that does not consider the role of the mind and its thinking cannot be taken at face value - because they have left out the fundamental part of being human. And related to that, except in the case of psychosis or severe neurosis, you are always free to think and choose your values. That might be made harder by your psychology: but "normal" people always have the option to think, to act on their thinking - and seek help, if necessary.

On the general topic of how free will is derived from having a thinking mind, you might be interested in what I have written here:
http://www.monoreali...s/freewill.html

I think there is another layer to that: it is not rational to do something just because you find subjective personal value in it - your values need to be rational too.

There are subtleties in the Objectivist ethics because of such layers - which fundamentally arise because the "objective" derives from the relation between reality and your mind, and you are not infallible. I think the simplest way to put it is like the above with the rider that: and make very sure that your values are in fact rational. However while you do believe those values are rational, and if acting on them doesn't violate the actual basis of morality, then it is moral to act to achieve them (indeed, can be immoral not to). For example, I recall Harry Binswanger once telling someone that if they had "green" values they should act on that: but they should examine their premises. However no Objectivist would say that kind of thing to a Nazi setting out to kill people, because it doesn't matter how sincere their belief is, it violates fundamental morality about the initiation of physical force.

Ayn Rand's view on this particular topic might be best summed up by here comment: "The question is not whether I give a dime to a beggar; it is whether I have a right to exist if I don't." There is nothing wrong with giving dimes to beggars or setting up a foundation to do so: as long as it is entirely voluntary, and I would add: runs on the principle of justice not mercy. (Note that justice does not exclude giving someone the benefit of the doubt).

In many ways I think it is like life in general. While civility is an admirable goal, it can take two to be civil. But It think the best response to feeling one's blood start boiling is just the same as in real life: don't punch the other person, just walk away, with as simple and neutral parting statement as you can muster.

Of course it is much easier to be civil when everyone is being honest (which one would hope for on a forum like this!), and giving people the benefit of the doubt ("this person is not an idiot/evader/troll - this is an honest disagreement between two people both seeking an objective truth") always helps. But if you can no longer give the benefit of the doubt - give enough benefit to just walk away.

In many ways I think it is like life in general. While civility is an admirable goal, it can take two to be civil. But It think the best response to feeling one's blood start boiling is just the same as in real life: don't punch the other person, just walk away, with as simple and neutral parting statement as you can muster.

Of course it is much easier to be civil when everyone is being honest (which one would hope for on a forum like this!), and giving people the benefit of the doubt ("this person is not an idiot/evader/troll - this is an honest disagreement between two people both seeking an objective truth") always helps. But if you can no longer give the benefit of the doubt - give enough benefit to just walk away.

I want to throw this out there because I'm interested in comments.

If the thinking mind is the origin of rights, then an infant has no more rights than a foetus.
However unlike a foetus, an infant is partially independent: it breathes for itself, eats for itself, interacts with the world, etc. It is still dependent on others for its survival: but unlike a foetus it is not absolutely dependent on any one person, just "some person", and just some (much) of the time.
To honour its nature, then, you don't have a right to actively kill it. More specifically, if you yourself don't want to look after it, you divest yourself of all interests in the matter, and have no right to stop someone else who does want to look after it.
The rights of the newborn, then, are not the same as the rights of an adult. In a sense it has the same right - the right to be "let alone". While being literally let alone would be fatal to it, that right does mean that it has the right to be looked after by someone else (who is willing).

There may however be circumstances (kinds of severe deformity) where the child has no hope of leading anything but a short miserable life: in which case I think the parents may well have the right to put it out of its misery.