Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Severinian

Regulars
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Severinian

  1. Let's say that you and your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse got a disease that is going to kill you. You made no moral mistakes in order to get this disease, you were just very unlucky. Now, let's say that there's a young girl you know who has superstrong kidneys, and with just one of those kidneys, you could "flush out" the disease. I don't know if this is realistic biologically, but just focus on the principles here. Let's say that you have the chance to kill this girl and take one kidney for each of you, and that there is no way you are gonna get caught. (Because you're really smart, and noone knows about your disease, she doesn't even have a social security number, etc) You also have to remove the kidneys while she's alive or else it won't work, so not only will you have to kill her, but agonizingly. Is this rationally selfish to do? I guess we would all answer no, since this would make you feel like a monster. Right? Okay, so why is it moral to kill innocents in a war, in order to defeat the enemy? "It's the enemy's responsibility" doesn't seem like a fullfilling answer to me. The innocents are still innocent, and have given them no sanction. Why doesn't this make you feel like a monster? Because if you don't defend yourself, a lot more people are going to die later? But isn't that utilitarianism, which is supposed to be irrelevant in objectivist ethics? Or is it in your self-interest because the sum of the value you put on people in your country is very big? But in that case, aren't you actually sacrificing others to yourselves, which you're supposed not to do? Would it be moral to kill 1 innocent person to cure a disease that affected the whole population? If their blood had the antidote and you would need a lot of it. I see no moral difference between that and killing innocents in a war, in order for you and your loved ones and neighbours and business-partners etc to survive.
  2. Oh, right. Yeah, I see that now. Thanks
  3. Well, yes, I know that, but what does the "except the final crash, when the roof comes down on their heads." part mean then?
  4. Ah, I see, so so Midas is sort of saying "You only need to watch out for her if she's there when the collapse comes?"
  5. Found it, it was Mulligan who said it, but John agreed: Page 804: '"You're not thinking of going back to that hell for another year, are you?" said Mulligan. "I am." "But good God, John! What for?" "I'll tell you, when I've decided." "But there's nothing left for you to do. We've got everyone we know of and everyone we could hope to know of. Our list is completed, except for Hank Rearden, and we will get him before the year is over, and Miss Taggart, if she chooses. That's all. Your job is done. There's nothing to look for out there - except the final crash, when the roof comes down on their heads." "I know it."
  6. Oh, you have it as an e-book? Hmmm, could you search for "When it happens", "When it falls apart" or maybe even "valley" unless that gives too many results? It might have been Francisco who said it btw, I'm not sure.
  7. It'll be hard to find again since the part where they're in Atlantis spans many chapters, but I'll give it a shot.
  8. One thing that bothered me was something Galt said in Atlantis, that they might leave the valley just to "watch the spectable when it happens" (paraphrasing), meaning, watching the outside world go into chaos at the breaking point. Isn't this a form of sadism? Obviously, people would die, including innocent people. I too despise the worst kind of people in this world, including smug intellectual socialists who have had a thousand chances to understand what misery they're inflicting on others, but choose to evade or just don't give a f* about that, and I wouldn't mind seeing them becoming victims of their own system that they want to force upon others, but if I saw the collapse of a welfare state for example, I would also feel pity for innocent people who were freezing and dying, etc. Thoughts?
  9. Ayn Rand, as we know, held that we have free will, and that virtue consists of focusing on reason, etc. How much does free will affect intelligence, according to this view? Ayn Rand was extremely rational and virtuous. If she was born into a family that had bad "IQ genes", and she was malnurished and beaten as a young child, would she still be as rational as she was? Could she have developed a high IQ? Is any of Ayn Rand's theories contradicted by modern neuroscience? I'm very curious about how all these things work together.
  10. Thanks for all the great answers guys, it's really helpful to me.
  11. I've recently began reading Ayn Rand, and she's blowing my mind. I don't know if I can properly call myself an Objectivist yet, but I don't need to "fight" her ideas, they seem to make perfect sense to me, and I'm starting to get the whole philosophy, and see life in a very different way. That being said, I'm wondering about Objectivism's view on art. As far as I understand, the Objectivist position is that art which presents nihilism, malevolent universe, surrealism, etc is bad, because you are promoting these bad ideas to people, which might mess them up, and other people might also think you're messed up, etc. But can't art just be a portray of something that exists in society? A mirror image? Maybe it can even help people cope with the darkness inside them (think of despairing teens "escaping" through horror movies and dark poetry instead of cutting or killing themselves, etc). Maybe it can get some people interested in philosophy, because they get this "shock" and start thinking questions, you know what I mean? Like when you see an absolute horrifying horror movie? I'll use Tom Araya from Slayer as another example, he's a devout Catholic, yet he sings lyrics that are about serial killers, war, hatred of his own religion, etc. He says that it's all cool, because it's about portraying certain people of society, not about spreading his personal opinions. I used to be a religious person, and later, a new ager/occult kind of person. I don't believe in any of that any longer, but I wrote a lot of great poetry and music during this period which was obviously affected by my beliefs. A lot of it includes things like determinism, malevolent universe, and supernatural stuff. I still want to share these songs and poems, because I worked hard on them, and the people who've heard/seen them think they're really cool. Even though I probably won't write anything as "dark" as that again (because it's not the person I am anymore), I want to share my work, and I even find mysticism to have a certain kind of appeal, even though I will never stop thinking rationally now that I'm getting that habit. (Which, again, does make me appreciate life in a unique, new way) I also think that some art promoting "bad" ideas can be masterpieces, such as many horror movies. Think of the Saw movies, which were quite original and extremely disturbing when they came out. Or the game Bioshock, which, despite criticizing Objectivism, is an incredible game. Don't you agree? Can't you enjoy that? What do you think all this says about me? What should I do with my art, and why? I could: 1. Discard all my "dark" music and poetry and never use it again. 2. Make something like a double album, and a blog with the poems in a chronological order, so that I can show them off, and yet have the "transformation" near the end towards more rational, positive art. 3. Just continue releasing and sharing my stuff sporadically regardless of their underlying meaning, and maybe even make something similar in the future if I'm in the mood for it, because I'm over-analyzing all of this? And obviously, we also need the why here, as we're all about philosophy. Cheers, and thanks in advance for all the answers!
  12. Actually, I was thinking about a hypothetical objectivist government, but your answer makes sense.
  13. The objectivist position is that coercion and the initiation of force is immoral, right? But let's say that you have done nothing wrong and the police detains you because you are a suspect, haven't they initiated force? Don't they need to use coercion to make people meet up in courts, both the accused, the jury and the witnesses? What about immigrants who want to cross the nation's borders, if they will have to be detained for a period to see if they have diseases or criminal backgrounds, then the government has initiated force. What is the justification of this? Is it because the moral is the practical? Taxes and drafts are immoral because they aren't necessary, but a government detaining people and coercing people to courts is necessary for stability, therefore moral? But that would mean coercion and the initation of force isn't always wrong after all... Some anarcho-capitalists, like Stefan Molyneux, have resolved this dilemma by a model of society where there will be no coercion or initation of force, just people (in the future, when people are more rational and peaceful) agreeing on a system of conflict-resolution companies who need to fully cooperate in order to have customers. And if someone is not a member of these organisations, they will be boycotted by everyone, because that's part of the contract with the companies... Something like that, I haven't studied it in detail, but it's interesting.
  14. Thanks. I've talked to her now, she was hurt, but I think she took it okay, and we still talk in a civil way. I also payed her some of the money for the plane ticket. I'm glad it ended well, and I guess we'll both learn a thing or two from it.
  15. I know, but trust me, it's worse than you think. Today, I also found out she's been lying about something else, and from other things she's telling me, she's obviously a very very fragile person. I'm not going down a path with her, it would be devastating for the both of us, and I'll tell her that very soon now, in a nice way of course. Thanks for the answers guys.
  16. Nicky, she doesn't have a webcam, she always said she would send me video messages, but she kept procrastinating it until after I told her she could visit. And yes, it was stupid of me, I should have seen her first. Harrison, that's a good advice. Thanks
  17. I didn't say she was rotten to the core, that's an exaggeration. I'm not hurt by this, I'm just afraid of hurting her, that's what this is about. Because I can't go on with this when she's not the one I thought she was. Yes, she might have insecurities, but it's not fair for either her or myself to go pretending that I like her a lot more than I do. I won't go into how I found out how old the pictures were, but I did find it out.
  18. She told me her age in the beginning, but I said it didn't matter to me since she looked so much younger in the pictures. She only said she was relieved and never told me that the pictures were many many years old. Anyway, thanks for the answers guys, I still don't know what I'll say to her and when, but sooner or later, I'll have to put a stop to it.
  19. I'm in a sort of moral dilemma now. Let me explain the situation first. I started talking to a woman on facebook, we have quite a lot in common and we've had many great conversations, I really like her as a person. After a while, she said she's gotten feelings for me, and she wants to visit me and possibly get into a really serious relationship if I also like her. (She lives in another country) I've seen photos of her, and also an old video, and she was really good looking in those, and with a great gravitas and charm in her eye. But lately, I've come to realize that all these photos she showed me of her were very old, which she never told me. I got that confirmed when she sent me a video message. She looks different now, much older, and more tired (she uses lots of drugs (legal) too), not nearly as beautiful and charming as in those old pictures and videos. Now I feel really awful. I've already promised her that she can stay with me, she's ordered her plane ticket and she's been talking about having sex and everything. Also how a future could look like if we got together. I still like her quite a lot as a person, but not so much physically, even though she's not directly ugly or anything. To be honest, I wish that she wouldn't visit me now, not only because of her appearance but also since I feel a bit fooled, after all, she never told me all these pictures were at least 8 years old, or more, which they most likely are (when comparing some pictures, she almost looks like a different person), and she didn't send me video messages until after I told her she could order the tickets. Still, telling her that she can't visit me after all would break my heart, she's very emotionally invested in me now and want to talk to me all the time, and maybe she's even paid for the plane ticket even though the trip isn't until November. (Is that common to do?) I'm very afraid of hurting girls, because it tears a lot on my conscience. What do you think I should do? I guess most people would condescend and shame me for even asking this, as we're not supposed to care too much about looks and so on. (Although I suspect everyone does, and people who try to be moral in this way are just self-delusional hypocrites) But I'd imagine Objectivists might have a different viewpoint, maybe.. What do you think I should do, and why?
  20. Severinian

    Animal rights

    Hmmm, interesting post Spiral, I must admit that I still don't understand why it proves free will, but maybe it's just me who don't get it yet.. I'll re-read your post a few times and meditate on it. Thanks for the great answers, both you and the rest of you.
  21. Severinian

    Animal rights

    Thanks for the great answers guys, it's really interesting. Spiral Architect, hmmm, could you elaborate more on your point about free will? Why can't we know that we don't have free will if we don't?
  22. Severinian

    Animal rights

    Thanks for the answer. Again, I still can't get the animal rights thing. If you are torturing an animal or a mentally unstable/undeveloped person, then you are initiating force. Great answers so far. Any answers for 3 and 6 though?
  23. Severinian

    Animal rights

    Thanks for the answers. 8. When it comes to God and life after death, I've heard that Rand was even critical of agnosticism, which is why I was wondering about this. We have no idea if the universe was caused by an intelligence or not, and we have no idea how sentience works, so why is it intellectually dishonest to even consider the possibility of God and an afterlife? Believing that we end up in a meatgrinder after death is a very specific believe, and miles away from the probability of God and the afterlife, if you ask me. 1. I would like more clarification on the issue of animal rights. Sure, they don't understand ethical principles, but why should that be a good reason for why they have no right not to be tortured? Do all objectivists think this way? Surely, if objectivism as a philosophical foundation is gonna spread, people will have problems with this. And rightfully so. How can it be moral to avoid jailing someone who tortures animals in horrible ways? Or mentally challenged people or schizophrenic people who don't understand these ideas either?? 2. Why would it be irrational and unnecessary with competing objectivist governments, even if they had exactly the same laws regarding the grey zones? They would have incentives to get better, just like any other business, and you could have chosen. And regarding the grey zones, I'm pretty sure that could be solved, European countries and states in the US have different age of consent laws, but they don't go to war against each other if there is a legal dilemma, they solve it peacefully. And yes, I also think abortion should be legal, but to what point? 12 weeks, 16, 20, 28, up until birth? If it's up until birth, why can't she kill it after birth as well? You may say there's an implicit contract, but you could just as rightfully say that about pregnancy. So we need a limit, right? 7. So if I understand you correctly, Rand did not believe in true free will?
  24. Severinian

    Animal rights

    Ah, I see. Thanks for your answer. What is Rand's reasoning for IP law though? These things of course are even more relevant today than ever. I'm curious to hear other points of view than the most popular one, which seems to be that it doesn't hurt anyone or their property, etc.
  25. Severinian

    Animal rights

    [Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN] Hey everyone I've recently discovered Ayn Rand, and she seems like a really brilliant philosopher. I haven't had time to read Atlas Shrugged yet, but I'm still very curious about her philosophy and objectivism as a political system. I apologize if these questions are stupid or if they are carefully answered in her works, but again, I haven't had the time to read them yet, I'd be thankful for good answers. 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are objectivism against animal rights because they don't and will not have the ability to reason and create? Does that mean mentally challenged people shouldn't have any rights either? I understand the need for killing animals for food and skins (although in modern society that might not be necessary), but shouldn't animals at least have the right not to suffer? Shouldn't we have the chance to put people who torture animals in prison? 2. Ayn Rand was against anarchy, or multiple governments/court systems, because it could easily lead to governments or courts with really bad moral standpoints to rule, such as sharia courts, extreme animal right groups who would put you in jail for having an aquarium and so on, that's understandable. But competing objectivist governments/courts would be okay? What if they had slightly different stances on the age of consent, the length of patents and copyrights, at how many weeks you can have an abortion, etc? 3. When Hong Kong became a very free country, lots of people moved there, as far as I understand, this has led Hong Kong to be the most crammed place on earth in terms of population. Isn't there a concern that if a country becomes fully objectivist, people from all over the world would want to move there, and forests would diminish more and more to make more room for housing? And if a forest has a very sentimental value to people nearby, what, if anything, can prevent corporations from turning the forest into a mall or a football stadium? 4. What is the objectivist stance on immigration and borders? Could an objectivist government refuse people whose identities they didn't know to enter the country, or would immigration be basically free and open? 5. Patents and copyrights obviously motivate people to create great new inventions and pieces of art, so if objectivism advocates intellectual property, is it a form of pragmatism? Many libertarians are against intellectual property rights because you're not hurting anyone or their property by making yourself a copy, or building the same invention, two people could even have the same idea independently of each other. I think this argument makes a lot of sense, but it would also be a great pragmatic standpoint to uphold these laws to allow more innovation. 6. I've heard Yaron Brook talk about rational egoism, which is very interesting. But what about sociopaths? Lying, cheating and so on doesn't cause them guilt or stress, so is it morally right for them to do these things then? Another example, what if you are about to die, and you could have sex with another person other than your spouse before death, you wouldn't be alive to feel the guilt of it afterwards. Wouldn't that be morally wrong? You would still cheat on and hurt your spouse. Is the entire objectivist moral set based around rational egoism, and no consideration of others, or is that simply a perspective that objectivists try to inspire others with to remove stigmas about selfishness? 7. Did Ayn Rand really believe that we have free will, or was it simply a way of describing our exceptional minds and it's ability to reason? Free will is not supported by science. 8. If I believe that there could possibly be a god or a life after death, but without the mysticism element (If God and life after death are real, I don't think we as humans can acquire proof of that), would that be compatible with objectivism?
×
×
  • Create New...