Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sergius89

Regulars
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sergius89

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Louisiana
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Human sexuality and the creation of life

    JASKN - Thanks for your input and clearing up that life is only valuable to the one living the life. I was raised a Roman Catholic so I think that is where I was getting the all life is valuable thing from. Sergius89
  2. In my understanding of Objectivism two ideas seem to conflict. Please let me know what you think. When it comes to human sexuality it seems to me that if an individual has the opportunity to have sex and enjoys sexual activity and it makes them happy, they should have sex. Unto itself this seems a simple line of reasoning. Here's my issue. It is also my understanding that when an individual decides to have a child it is because they would value a child or be happy with the parenting experience. That being said just because a person has sex does not mean they want to have a child but a child can occur due to the sexual act. I know that the first two thoughts concerning this are 1. Birth control 2. Have an Abortion For the issue of birth control my only counter point is that no birth control is 100% effective short of the more permanent sterilization techniques. The problem with these is if the person does not want to have children now and may change their mind in the future. In this instance it would seem that the individual must determine what they value more, the temporary enjoyment of sex or not have children until they are ready. Concerning abortion my question lies in the value of human life. I know that life is the ultimate value we as human beings have. Without life nothing else has value. It seems to me that if life is the ultimate value then creating new life would require great consideration since it is of such value. I know the problem with this is that in no way are we required to value other people, only those that we derive value from. What ever your thoughts are the input would be useful. Thanks
  3. Against a Living Wage? You don't care.

    Aside from the obvious problems with the "living wage" concept there is one item that is never brought up. Maybe jobs that pay minimum wage such as Wal-Mart or McDonald's are not supposed to become careers. Don't get me wrong. I know that in the current economy we have a shortage of jobs and in certain instances these are the only jobs to be had. Putting aside the corporate tax structure that is limiting the number of jobs being created in this country, what I am saying is maybe the person at the job should try to better themselves through education or training to find a higher paying job. If a person wants to make more money they are free to put their job skills and education on the market and try to find a job that pays a wage better suited to living the life they wish to live. As I said previously I acknowledge the economy is bad and times are tough but to say that the employer should pay more for the same amount of work (beyond any inflation factor) seems ridiculus. If a person is doing everything in their power to find a higher paying job then they have my sympathy. If a person is simply working their job and doing nothing to better themselves or find a higher paying job then I have no sympathy for their complaint that they are paid to little.
  4. Valuing other people

    I would like to know if I am understanding this concept correctly. When it comes to objectivism it is my understanding that when determining how to deal with or interact with people you must first determine how much or to what extent you value said person. From my perspective I value my own life as well as my wife and my son's lives the most, followed by my parents, my wife's parents, friends, extended family members, people I know on down to strangers as having the least value to me. If two people ask me to do something that would occur at the same time and one is my mother and one is a friend I will help my mother because I value her more than the friend. If I can save my wife or a stranger then I will save my wife. Following this rubric I should feel no compunction about not helping or saving the person I value least. Don't get me wrong I feel all people have value as a default and through their actions either increase or decrease their value. If I am correct, however, when I make a decision concerning who to help or how to treat someone it is based upon my opinion of that person's value to me. Please let me know if I am correct, moving in the right direction or completely wrong. Thanks.
  5. It is my understanding of Objectivism that the way people can be viewed is according to the value that the individual places on a given person. Obviously the people we value more are the people that we choose to spend time with and the people we value less we spend less time with. I have a friend who I speak to every six to eight months. I went to school with him and we live in the same town. As we have gotten older we have less in common and personally I have come to value him less and less. I know that he chooses to spend time with many other people before he chooses to spend time with me. I am required to believe that he also values me less as time goes on. Is this a pointless friendship? Is the mere fact that I know someone but derive no value from them a reason to continue a friendship? Any thoughts would be helpful. Thanks, Sergius
  6. I am somewhat new to objectivism and would like to get some feed back on whether or not I am understanding something. In my reading of Rand, Peikoff and Biddle, I have come across the concept of the Heirarchy of Value. This is how the individual values the world around them and establishes the import of said things. My heirarchy of value is as follows: 1. Life 2. Freedom 3. Wealth 4. Happiness Obviously life relates to my own life and the lives of those I value. The same can be said for freedom and wealth. Happiness is a catch-all. Is this heirarchy to vague? I know that by saying "Happiness" the whole category is vague but am I heading in the right direction. Any feed back would be appreciated. Sergius
  7. Family vs. Public

    This is a first time post so please bear with me. I know that Ayn Rand stated that there was no such entity as "the public", only a collection of individuals. I agree with this stand point. My question is would the concept of "the family" also be only a collection of individuals. I am new to objectivism and have been trying to determine what I value in life. The idea of family emerged but I felt it was to broad a concept so I tried to refine my definition. Obviously there is a genetic connection among a family and if it were not for your parents you would not exist. But other than a starting point for an individuals life it seems to me that family has the ability to take on a positive or negative context based on the relationships that the individual experiences. Blind loyalty to someone who has a negative impact on your life seems irrational to me. Due to the fact that family has the ability to be negative, much like Ms. Rand's idea of "the public" and "the public interest", that potentially the idea of family, while valid from a genetic standpoint, is invalid or does not exist from the standpoint of merely being a grouping of people. The once again we need to determine who we value based upon the actions of the individuals and not on a random association of people. Please let me know what you think.
×