Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


human_murda last won the day on July 4

human_murda had the most liked content!


About human_murda

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1260 profile views
  1. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    The nature of an entity are all the characteristics that constitute an entity (in definite measures).
  2. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    You only gave me three options and I picked one. I don't know what more you want from me.
  3. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    They all have the same natures qua humans but as murderers, rapists specifically, no, they don't all have the same nature. So, for example, 6 and 7 have the same nature as positive integers (they're both multiples of one). But as specific numbers, they don't have the same natures (6 is divisible by 3 but 7 isn't). All I'm saying is: a thief is a thief. A thief cannot - NOT - steal. A thief cannot be a non-thief. That is their nature. Why is this so controversial? I'm not saying that morality does not apply to a thief, only that they do not get moral sanction from morality (despite having the physical capacity of reason. Having the physical capacity of reason or being human does not give them a right to steal). (Unless your claim is that a thief, as a human, not as a thief, doesn't "need" to steal and therefore has no right to steal and lion "needs" to kill and therefore can kill. You're replacing egoism with need and need as the basis of rights. Then we're back to the same question: is need a sanction to violate rights?) Also, what are you even talking about? Humans and turtles are living beings. Qua living beings, they have the same natures. But humans aren't turtles and humans don't have the same natures as turtles. Same applies to thieves and entrepreneurs. I said that if you're a thief, the end/goal which you actually achieve cannot be survival because the two aren't consistent. Their conscious goal may be different and they don't have any automatic knowledge.
  4. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    I'm talking about thieves specifically, so I'm definitely not talking about (iii), so probably (i).
  5. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    Oh, no. If your goal is survival, you can't be a thief. Thieves require the same range of actions as anybody else, if their goal is survival. But their goal cannot be survival. If you are a thief, ending up in jail, destruction and death is the purpose that is consistent with your nature. I'm not saying that different people have different rights. Only that rights cannot be defined for purposes other than survival (and if your nature is only consistent with goals other than survival, then your nature cannot be used to justify rights). I essentially agree with Ayn Rand: If life is your purpose, you have a right to live as a rational being. If death is your purpose, your nature as a thief is consistent with that. But it cannot be used to justify rights. Yes., but only with reference to a goal. If you're a human and your goal is suicide, what you ought to do will be different. But this idea is so tangential.
  6. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    Okay, I missed this point
  7. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    My point is that he won't be a thief if he doesn't. I don't think he would die if he doesn't, just that his "nature" is no longer that of a thief. You're talking in terms of purpose, not natures. You're talking about requirements of survival based on your nature, not requirements of nature. Living beings need not survive (it is not a requirement of their nature. A deer can be killed by a lion and that is fully consistent with its nature). And based on his nature, a thief needs to steal. A thief only needs to steal in order to be consistent with his nature. A thief doesn't need to be an industrialist to be consistent with his nature, for example. Stealing is the only thing they imperatively need to do as far as the law of identity is concerned (everything else is a choice). If you're talking in terms of purpose, of course the answer would be different, but based on nature alone, no. If you say somebody shouldn't be a thief, you can't justify it based on the law of identity ("requirements of nature") alone. Law of identity does not say you shouldn't be a thief.
  8. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    You cannot defend rights purely on the basis of a physical capacity. You need a moral principle (that moral principle is egoism, but it's not really relevant here).
  9. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    How are these kinds of needs a "foundation to rights"? A thief needs to steal. That is what his nature (as a thief) requires. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a thief. Do you think a thief violates the law of identity? The reason a thief is different is because he/she has a choice. The concept of (violation of) rights applies explicitly because he has a choice. Also, saying that humans have rights because we possess the capacity to reason skips a lot of steps in logic. Rights are a moral sanction (not governmental sanction) to dispose of your own life as you please. Only actions that are based on abstract moral principles can be sanctioned be morality (abstract principles) and be a basis for rights. You need to have the capacity of reason to follow abstract principles. Animals cannot base their actions on an abstract moral code, their actions cannot be given moral sanction/validation and have no rights. ( A government only enforces rights. Neither a government nor a physical human faculty, by itself, can sanction rights. Rights are a moral sanction. Humans have rights because of moral reasons, not because "that's our nature". The former depends on the latter, but the latter does not fully justify the former) A right in general means moral sanction: suppose you say "I have a right to make my voice heard". It means that morality sanctions your actions/ attempts to make your voice heard. Even VO proved my point in the first post itself: Actions of animals are amoral and they don't have rights. Some humans need to kill: murderers need to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn't be murderers. Non-vegetarians need to kill animals. This is fully consistent with the "requirements of their nature" (and does not contradict the law of identity). However, human beings have a choice: we can change our natures (or at least: we have a lot of potential natures). We needn't be a murderer (unlike what some science reporters might say). (Also: even thieves/murderers must use reason. You won't be a serial killer for long if you're stupid)
  10. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    And need is a sanction to violate others' rights?
  11. human_murda

    Just Shut Up and Think

    A polynomial fit, as used here, is a method for interpolation. It cannot be used to predict numbers outside the data range. For that, you need to know beforehand what "law" the numbers are following.
  12. human_murda

    A theory of "theory"

    If you close your eyes, you stop seeing the sun. Your lack of comprehension is absurd. Is retrocausality a theory of causality?
  13. human_murda

    Socially competitive subtleties

    I heard that when a lion takes over a pride, it kills the cubs of the previous leader. You could try it sometime. Very Alpha 👌. The behaviour of tribals and animals are, of course, quite exemplary.
  14. human_murda

    A theory of "theory"

    Oh, it definitely does. It simply doesn't observe locality.
  15. human_murda

    A theory of "theory"

    Anyway, the original statement of Newton's second law is: This describes the effect after the cause (impulse).