Eamon Arasbard

I think you're morally justified in taking a government-funded job if that's the only option. (Though of course that wouldn't be a problem in a free market.) However, you do have an obligation to switch jobs as soon as it is feasible to do so.

That first article is really horrible. For one thing, it describes Ray Rice's claim that his wife attacked him first as an "excuse" when it's actually a legitimate justification that he was acting in self-defense. And it completely invalidates any distinction between punishing a murderer, and terrorists staging suicide bombings.

I remember reading Anthem when I was seventeen. (I'm twenty-one now.) I remember finding the message of finding freedom, even alone in the midst of a totalitarian state, very inspiring. Then I read Atlas Shrugged a year ago, and became an Objectivist after reading it.

Not all libertarians believe that it should be legal to abandon a child, or even all anarcho-capitalists. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I don't agree with that position, and I've also gotten into arguments with Ancaps who do.

http://www.tomliberman.com/book/the-broken-throne This sounds like a good read. Will I be able to buy a paper copy at some point?

Yeah, I've actually talked to folks in the BDSM community, and they think 50 Shades of Grey is ridiculous. It may give some understanding of what women want, or at least what Aleph_1's wife wants. But this only relates to basic biological drives, and does not have any moral value beyond its usefulness in pleasing your wife and helping the relationship. I think this does actually have some merit. I think that our current culture has taught men to be submissive to women, and that to have any romantic standards (Like not being overweight) or wanting anything from women other than to have sex occasionally is sexist. And even wanting sex is sexist because it's "objectifying" women. So men end up crawling on their hands and knees to please women, and this turns women off because no one wants to be with someone like that.

Yeah, I've seen this article before. It's horrible. There is literally no grounds on which to negotiate with people like this. There are no words that can refute this argument in a way that can reach these people. The only response is to condemn them as evil. I mean, I'll talk to a progressive, but something like this is so far beyond the pale, there's no point.

I think that the distinction between metaphysical and epistemological probability makes sense. In the case of the bag of marbles, metaphyisical probability applies to the consequences of one's future actions, specifically reaching into the bag and grabbing a particular marble. I also think that making this distinction can help to resolve the conflict between quantum mechanics and Objectivism, as well as people on the other side who try to use QM to jusitify primacy of consciousness. The position and velocity of a particle is a matter of metaphyisical probability, which is determined when the particle is "measured" -- in other words, when it interacts with other particles. This measurement will be the same, regardless of whether there is any consciousness present to observe it, so there is no conflict with primacy of existence.

I agree that this should be treated as consensual. They're married, which creates a reasonable assumption that she would want to have sex with him if she were lucid, so there's no basis for considering it immoral in any way. I don't see how. She was conscious, she said yes, and there's no reason she would not have said yes if she was fully lucid. Definitely. No one would consider this rape if it was a man with dementia consenting to having sex with his wife. I think this is just another part of the feminist agenda of demonizing male sexuality, treating women as weak children who are unable to make their own choices, and using that as justification to launch witch hunts. Just because a man has an erection doesn't necessarily mean that he wants it. Arousal is an automatic reflex, which can happen in a variety of moods. I think that when women consent to anything with a man, sexual or otherwise, there tends to be a presumption that it's a sacrifice to accommodate him, and I think that the combination of this and ignoring women's sexual agency (And responsibility for their choices) is what leads to these types of double standards.

What I can't figure out is how melting sea ice is supposed to cause sea levels to rise. Ice is less dense than water, so the amount of water displaced by the ice should be greater than the volume of water added by the ice melting. Isn't that going to cause sea levels to go down? Plus the general intellectual dishonesty of warmists is enough for me to dismiss all of their claims. Meaning there's probably not much to worry about.

I would definitely opt out in that case, because I don't want to harm others, even a stranger. Harming the owner of the restaurant would be undermining the general ability of human beings to cooperate, and harming my own interest in living in a peaceful and benevolent society. Also, the owner might not want me to come back to that restaurant, I might end up going to jail if it's a criminal action, and even if it's not, I'll still feel ashamed when I find myself in the company of more rational individuals (Or even a friend who owns a business and had someone do something equally damaging to him) and feel the need to hide having been part of this prank. And that, if nothing else, would make me feel uncomfortable around that person, because I have to hide that part of myself and that makes the relationship feel less intimate and wholesome.

Hey, sorry I've been away from this thread for a while. I got distracted, then I was busy with school and work. Rereading this thread, I think my understanding of both passages is much clearer. Work is the central purpose of one's life, but this is not the same thing as the ultimate purpose. It basically just means that work has to be one's main priority, while one's ultimate purpose is happiness. And as for the difference between self-sustaining and self-generated action, self-sustaining means that you can continue to do it consistently, and it will facilitate your survival. Self-generated means generated by one's own will in pursuit of one's happiness. Now, to answer SoftwareNerd's last post: Yes. So "life" really means "life in a manner natural to the specific organism in question." (Which I think is part of what Rand was discussing in her essay.) So for a lion, this means roaming the savannah hunting down prey to feed itself. Happiness (Broadly described, to include animals) is the degree to which an animal is able to live its life to fullest extent of its natural capacity. That seems pretty straightforward. If man's means of survival is his mind, then curiosity enhances human survival by driving man to engage his mind to the fullest extent of his ability. I also think that humans have greater emotional needs because our emotions are driven by the knowledge that we've integrated with our minds, and satisfying our emotions means increasing the health of our minds and increasing our chances at survival. I think that biologists explain this through the human instinct toward the preservation of the species -- or, if you want to follow the "selfish gene" model, then the individual is seeking to spread his own genes, and this can be done more efficiently through socialization, in other words developing the instinct to seek cooperation with others. I actually watched a documentary recently by Richard Dawkins explaining how, due to the way game theory works, genes which are oriented toward cooperation are more likely to survive. In fact, the most successful strategy for survival is to cooperate with other individuals at the start, and, going forward, to seek either cooperation or conflict based on the other individual's actions, and traits like empathy and the desire for cooperation are a result of evolution to favor this strategy. Which is interesting, because that's exactly what Objectivism says it is moral for individuals to do -- act benevolently at the start, then treat the other person as they deserve to be treated going forward, all in accordance with one's rational self-interest. So humans are actually biologically predisposed to practice Objectivist ethics. Relating this to the Peace Corp, you feel good after volunteering because you are acting in a manner consistent with your nature as a cooperative being.

Thank you.

If you acknowledged the legitimate grievances which are related to wealth inequality -- namely, the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply to give money to politically connected bankers -- you'd at least have a chance. Ron Paul did that in 2012, and I think he probably would have won if the Republicans had picked him.

My bad. Yeah, she used the word purpose. Just that there can be purposes other than work, which do not relate to work, but are ends in themselves. I guess what she might have meant by saying work is the central purpose is that you have to determine where your other day-to-day goals fit in by comparing them to work -- so if what you live for is snowboarding, you make plans to go snowboarding on the weekend. And ultimately, the reason you go to work is so you can make money to finance your hobby and provide for other daily necessities. Yes, I think there is. If nothing else, then because if I have a purpose that can make me happier than sitting around looking at random pictures of kittens on the Internet, then it's in my self-interest to choose that over looking at pictures of kittens.

The South wasn't violating the rights of people in the North by seceding. They were violating the rights of blacks by maintaining slavery. Of course, several northern states were also slave states, the U.S. government had actively worked to uphold slavery prior to secession, and Abraham Lincoln's plan was to forcibly deport all black people to the west. So the moral case for the invasion of the South was pretty much non-existent, and the Civil War was a moral atrocity given the brutal actions taken by the North against the civilian population of the South. (Such as Sherman's March.) However, given that both the North and the South were denying individual rights to blacks, any fully free nation would have had a right to invade them given sufficient moral justification. However, this would only be a moral action if the actions of one side or the other posed a threat to the sovereignty of the other nation.

This is a moral reason to avoid war wherever possible without jeopardizing our own sovereignty. (For instance, if another country is harboring terrorists or is likely to invade, other means such as sanctions are not effective, and the threat they pose is imminent.) But the only time we are justified in going to war is when there is absolutely no other option that will be effective at neutralizing the threat.

It's on page 27 of The Virtue of Selfishness.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-campaign-income-20150205-story.html#page=1 According to the article, Democrats want to solve this inequality by imposing a tax on inheritances to give everyone else "wage supplements." It sounds like Republicans are advocating more reasonable policies, but are not directly challenging the premise that income inequality is bad.

I would like to clarify one point here -- yes, it is true that murdering an innocent person would make you feel horrible, and this would be the immediately percievable reason not to do it. However, this does not establish why it is rational to feel empathy -- ignoring this point means assuming that psychopaths are more rational than the general population. The reason why empathy is rational is because human cooperation is metaphysically necessary for survival, and this means recognizing and respecting the inherent humanity of others. In the scenario you described, you would be violating the conditions under which humans can be guaranteed peaceful coexistence, and this would be a breach of social ethics for this reason. It is also worth noting that this situation would be extremely unlikely to occur, but if it were, then you could be the one whose kidneys had to be stolen next time, so you would be lending moral sanction to your own murder. If the universe worked that way, then everyone would basically be screwed anyway, so moral principles wouldn't carry much weight. In our universe, you would always have a chance of someone finding out what you would have done, and would have to take action to prevent that from ever happening. You and your partner would have to spend the rest of your lives in fear of being caught, and this would affect your ability to live your lives the way you would want to. (And if you were the types of people who COULD live your lives that way, then you would have to prevent others from finding out, which would take considerable effort, and prevent you from engaging in positive pursuits because you would be living in fear of reprisal from those around you -- or other people would find out, and take the necessary actions to force to pay the consequences.) As for how this relates to war, my position is that we are endangering our own survival by sanctioning the murder of civilians in other countries. I might accept the premise that it is better to die than to live under a dictatorship, but someone who is a Muslim might also believe that someone is better off dead than not knowing Allah. So if one accepts the argument that we're justified in killing innocents in Muslim fundamentalist countries because they're living under a dictatorship, then a Muslim could just as easily claim that the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were justified because their victims were not benefitting from Allah's good graces. We would of course be right that being free is a necessary condition for living well, while Islamists are wrong in thinking that following Islam is necessary. But the fact that our position is correct does not grant the right to initiate force. The one counterargument which I do agree with is that it's better for victims of an Islamist regime to die than for residents of a free country to be enslaved. However, this only applies if there is a danger of losing a war which can be averted by military actions which will result in collateral damage.

It does of course make sense that you need to work in order to survive. Work achieves survival, but (As we've just discussed) it isn't necessarily sufficient to achieve happiness. I don't think Rand specifically said that work is the purpose of life, but she did say that work is the ultimate standard of value. So the argument is that all other values should be prioritized according to work, because work is necessary to survive. Which, I think, does make sense. Of course you have to plan your life around work. However, when work is not a necessary limitation on one's pursuit of values (For instance, the choice of whether to watch TV or do the dishes), then I think the standard of happiness would be one's enjoyment of life.

That's a good point. It might be good to include some definitions of what makes someone good or bad in the ideas behind the movement. For the left, collectivism, nihilism, and the socioeconomic balkanization of society through notions like privilege. For the right, religious fundamentalism and nationalism. But what I see as immoral isn't just their choice of beliefs. I can respect the opinion of someone who sincerely believes that socialism is to the benefit of society, even if I don't agree. The problem is when people start forming factions, blindly clinging to the beliefs of their particular faction, and tearing down anyone who disagrees. This leads to the package-dealing of certain rational beliefs with irrational beliefs (Such as support for a free market being lumped in with religious mysticism under the banner of conservatism) and people being pitted against each other, with rational viewpoints within each faction being silenced. In addition, there are evil policies which have bipartisan support, but which the majority of people who are intelligent enough to be involved in politics are strongly opposed to. These include the Federal Reserve (For those who understand its role in inflating the money supply and redistributing wealth into the hands of crony corporations), government bailouts to unproductive firms, government policies which favor corporations (Which Objectivists and libertarians understand as distinct from maintaining a free market without favors to anyone), and violations of civil liberties. What a movement for "radical justice" would be about, in this respect, would be to replace the party system with a civil discussion among everyone who is willing to be intellectually honest and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, with the goal of finding the most rational political philosophy, and creating a more moral political system. Yes, if it addressed the moral problems with existing fora, and provided a basis for organizing in favor of a rational society. I don't think that ideology is necessarily bad. What I'm against is forming ideology based on the prevailing opinion within a particular group, then demonizing every idea that comes from outside without examining its rational basis. (That being said, I think that there are some ideas which should be rejected out of hand, and that also means ostracizing the groups which espouse them; but this should be done within the context of a rational understanding of what is morally right, which can't be establish if you have groups imposing their own preconcieved notions on the individual, and dismissing any idea which comes from outside the group.) That's actually a good idea. This group would focus specifically on social morality, meaning the question of what is morally correct within the context of interactions among individuals. Since I would want this to be ideologically neutral beyond the reconciliation of justice with benevolence, it would not address the question of individualism versus collectivism, but only how social morality should be constructed within the scope of society. (And of course individualism should be promoted over collectivism, but that would not be the purpose of this group.)

So basically, support the preservation of the more advanced society, and the assimilation of the less advanced society, while condemning atrocities committed by both sides? I agree with that. That is an acceptable position, as long as it's based on an analysis of the actual actions taken by both sides.

The problem is that all things aren't equal in a war. At least one side is an aggressor, and in that context I'd say you should support the side which is defending itself. It's true that there may be cases in which there's ambiguity on both sides, but this still can't happen without the more advanced society bearing some responsibility for the situation, and any support in that case should be conditioned on them committing to conducting themselves in a just manner going forward.

Before I post this, let me give a general description of the ideas which led to it. I've had an interest recently in transpartisan politics, since both political parties and corrupt and based on immoral beliefs, and I would like to create a space for people to get together, discuss ideas, and engage in activism based on rational principles developed through dialogue among everyone who has something to offer. I was also thinking of something else a couple weeks ago related to an issue which Objectivism addresses -- namely, the proper relationship between benevolence and justice. The position of most Objectivists, as I understand it, is that human relationships are based on the attainment of mutual goals (More specifically an exchange of values which benefits both parties), and that benevolence serves the purpose of seeking out worthy associates and enabling cooperation, while justice serves the purpose of evaluating the character of others to decide if they are worthy of friendship and goodwill. These two are not opposed to each other, because someone who is inherently immoral has nothing to offer in any relationship, but holding a grudge over every petty conflict is detrimental to cooperation and makes it harder to achieve shared goals. What I realized, thinking about this problem is that a failure by good men to understand the proper relationship between justice and benevolence is responsible for the power that evil holds in our world. Trying to be just without being benevolent leads to a hostile outlook toward others, which leads to unnecessary conflict and undermines cooperation, and is a critical step which often leads well-intentioned people down the road to evil. On the other hand, trying to be benevolent without being just leads to mercy, and appeasing evil in an attempt to avoid conflict, and hands evil a victory which it could not have won on its own. So basically, I came up with an idea for a political movement which would be devoted to transpartisanism which would be based on a central philosophical principle, which would be the Objectivism approach to benevolence/justice. (Which I've identified as reciprocity -- doing unto others as you want done unto you, with expectation of recieving the same treatment.) The goal of this movement would not be to implement a particular political ideology, but to undermine the party system and make way for a rational political philosophy to be implemented. It would be open to anyone who was willing to be civil and to act with integrity, and they would be united around establishing the standard of reciprocity as the basis for justice in all human associations. What I'm posting here is a list of principles which the movement (Whose cause I've identified as "radical justice" -- using radical in the classical definition of "fundamental") would be based on: I'm looking for any suggestions anyone has for revision -- I'm looking specifically for any errors I've made in identifying the principles involved, and ways to make them more consistent.