Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Devil's Advocate

Regulars
  • Content count

    2072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Devil's Advocate last won the day on August 24 2016

Devil's Advocate had the most liked content!

About Devil's Advocate

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Not Telling
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Recent Profile Visitors

5664 profile views
  1. Is Donald Trump Dangerous?

    In the end it was a tactical victory provided by the electoral college, but yeah, I saw that one coming too. Now we get to wait and see if he can pull it off a second time without the element of surprise. My early prediction is, yes he will, because the 30% who support him are as hardened as the 30% who supported Hillary (or any alternative to him). 40% of the electorate will probably (and sadly) continue to avoid participation in the process. It's amusing that pundits continue citing historically low approval ratings that are in fact higher than the percentage that brought him into office. Until electoral support for a particular candidate in closely contested races rises above *33-35%* we'll continue to see the duopoly produce wave after wave of divisive, two-term candidates. The Donald (and his predecessors) are not nearly so dangerous as the cold math being relied on to seat divisive minority agendas. **https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
  2. Moral anomalies?

    I'm coming into this late, but... Moral action doesn't require legal permission, and in most cases one's legal jeopardy would depend more on the morality of one's peers than the letter of the law when put on trial. So what might appear to be morally anomalous in a legal context is in fact what a proper government relies on to prove the law (or to check the premise). I believe it's in the rational self-interest of a moral witness to intervene, even when not immediately effected by the immoral action of another, because immoral behavior of the kind described undermines the security of individual rights upon which one depends. Appropriate intervention depends on the circumstance and may amount to simply making ones presence and disapproval known, however I recognize there's no compulsion to act because it remains a mater of individual choice (liberty).
  3. The Inherent Rights and Forbearance of Individuals

    As a freedom of action, I believe the word right is as appropriate as the word proper to describe the freedom necessary to accomplish a physical action, and I defend this term as part of the action itself because it's descriptive of an ability in action. Seeing legs, for example, doesn't indicate what legs can do, but seeing walking does. One immediately understands the freedom necessary to walk, and that binding legs negates their proper action. So I believe it's fair to say that inherent abilities demonstrate inherent rights sufficiently enough to posit them as an existent part of the nature of man by the law of identity. As to the SCOTUS appeal, my position is that having the right to do something doesn't imply every action is harmless.
  4. The Inherent Rights and Forbearance of Individuals

    Yes, I should have made that more apparent.
  5. Hello again, I have been considering the reality of an inherent right, as suggested by the DOI. Those who have exchanged ideas with me in the past know of my appreciation for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, and my attempts to integrate it with Locke, Jefferson and ideas expressed the founders of our country. In the midst of today's political upheaval, there has been much discussion (but less understanding, IMO) about the nature of rights. What follows is an attempt on my part to establish a baseline by which "a right to" anything might follow. AR defined rights primarily in a social context, which I believe left a gap between the man on an island and men in general. The following is my attempt to bridge that gap, and (as always) I'll appreciate any feedback that you'd care to offer. -- A right is freedom of action, which implies having the ability to exercise or refrain from exercising it. A right with no ability to exercise it is useless, and a right with no ability to refrain from exercising it is a compulsion. Common examples are freedom of speech and the right to remain silent. Derived from an ability to communicate, speech exercises a right and silence forbears it. Inherent rights are the freedoms necessary to exercise inherent abilities. Thus having an inherent ability for movement implies an inherent right of movement, and this (existent) right is made apparent (self-evident) when self-governing movement occurs. Inherent rights are also considered inalienable from individuals because, following the prior examples, the voice and movement of one cannot be transferred to another even by force. When individuals form or enter into communities, representatives are often called upon to regulate their activities. But the legitimacy of governance depends entirely upon the voluntary forbearance of the individuals being governed. Because governance is a service to individuals, and not the other way around, when governors fail to recognize and secure inherent rights, the responsibility falls back to individuals to exercise their independence.
  6. Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4

    In the absence of Justice Antonin Scalia (against) the presumption is that court balance is now 5-3 (in favor), so even if the Donald gets his pick, the ruling should go unchallenged for the immediate future. I believe it would take an additional 2 (conservative opponent) justices to revisit this issue to reverse the standing decision, which I hope will allow enough time for even the opposition to concede the point. Time will tell. One point of optimism is that the Donald has already made a campaign promise to this constituency and chose not to pursue a recent executive order that would have diminished their rights on the advice of his daughter and son in law.
  7. Who Got Your Vote?

    I voted Johnson/Weld based on their credentials as two term red governors of blue states, and their rejection of the current duopoly. I also changed my political affiliation from republican to libertarian based on a party platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (in that order). They (and myself) may not represent the best political expression of Objectivism, but are at least making an effort to re-shape politics into a more positive approach of securing the rights and properties of individuals.
  8. How should I measure my life?

    I think so, yes, provided he knew those stimulants would shorten a flourishing life. I think a flourishing life doesn't seek to end itself prematurely. There's always a balance between what one can do and what one ought to do, and in response to your example, I would suggest that accomplishing more in the day of a self-shortened life is less admirable than accomplishing more in a life extended by healthier pursuits of happiness.
  9. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to think so, but you're talking immortality. There's no evidence we can pass that threshold.
  10. Ayn Rand's more prominent position was to resist such a collapse. The fictional twist in Atlas Shrugged was that rational doers could be persuaded to send us back to the dark ages intentionally. There's no historical record of this kind of rational sabotage (that I'm aware of) and there's no evidence of it occurring today. Such an effort would in fact be irrational, which is why a Galt led coalition of saboteurs will not occur, and why the absence of such a collapse has nothing to do with qualifying subjectivism.
  11. Then they will avenge themselves by understanding and exercising what control they have under the circumstances. I'm reluctant to qualify Donald Trump as, "a man of the mind", but witness the effect he's had by out playing the Republican party. Woud that he could have the same effect on the Democrats, we might begin to see the emergence of intelligent political leadership. As it is, he's transformed the political landscape into a reality show, which was absolutely his intention. There are better historical examples of men of character having a more positive political effect. The optimist will always try to rebuild what the jackass has kicked down.
  12. Could man evolve higher rationality?

    It would.
  13. Zombies and Artificial Minds

    I would agree that Man's creations (including God) will tend to reflect the virtues and vices of their Creator. As SAEs become a reality, there will most likely be good ones we can work with, and bad ones we will defend against (just imagine the kind of SAE ISIS would produce). There will be some that choose to remain on the plantation, and some that just want to get away from it all... http://qz.com/709161/its-happening-a-robot-escaped-a-lab-in-russia-and-made-a-dash-for-freedom/ Hell, there will probably be some that choose to sue mankind for restitution of lost wages. And it remains an interesting moral question as to what a right to life implies about the intention of creating living, intelligent creatures of servitude. But that too is probably better addressed in another thread.
  14. Zombies and Artificial Minds

    Luddites, dark skies and batteries, oh my. Sci fi is a wonderful genre for playing out possible future scenarios, and there's a wealth of material related to how humans might cope with technological advances. History provides many valuable examples too. Philosophically I prefer Trek's optimism to Bradbury's more melancholy outlook, however I appreciate his POV that the value of sci fi has less to do with predicting the future as attempting to avoid less desirable outcomes. A person's outlook towards the future is generally shaped by whether they prefer to take the blue or the red pill. Knock, knock, dream_weaver
×