Anuj

Disagree with the above said. I think the concept of evil, does not depend on the concept of good; rather both the concepts, depend on -- the standard of life. I understand when you say there is no such "thing" as nothing. But there are indeed fraudsters, thieves, plunderers, murders, dictators. The concept of "evil" has referents in reality. The concept of "nothing" -- does not.

(Quite hesitant to say but) "Selfishness" ? At an Individual's level, a person may think only of his own immediate profit. Why should he worry about resource depletion, when he has all he needs to make money. What if every other person and every other industry thinks like that ?

First, me and my company may not want to think about rationality involved in irreparably destroying resources. What if we just care about earning immediate money ? Second, how so ? How does property rights get destroyed when you wipe clean a complete grassland not owned by anybody? How does property rights get destroyed when you hunt down all elephants for Ivory ?

No, I haven't yet. Will look into it. The problem is that people don't plan and plant much as it is a freely occurring yet depleting resource; people are generally short sighted and most of the time do not care much about the long term consequences. The area of forest has always been in a decreasing trend, despite the government : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Industrial_era So, I guess companies will be fined and/or prohibited to let out toxic waste into the rivers and lakes that were/are being used by other people. Okay.

Tragedy of the Commons : "A situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource." Common resource being : atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, energy.. Objectivism upholds "Freedom". But does it come with a huge price tag ? 1) Deforestation : Sensing more profitability, companies if need be may wipe out a whole forest region. Every company would be free to do so, unless the forest is owned by somebody. 2) Toxic Industrial Pollution : Would there be no restrictions on letting out pollutants or chemical hazards into the environment : the seas,the oceans and the atmosphere ? 3) Endangered Animals : Would there be no laws prohibiting hunting of certain endangered animals like Bengal Tiger, Whales, Asian and African Elephants for Ivory ? Hunting animals can be of value to humans. And unless governed, I don't see why individual will not want to gain such a value. There can be instances where such animals would go extinct. Above are certain cases where going against the principle of "freedom" and enforcing restrictions, may actually benefit the society in the long run.

I've come across at-least two Objectivists who had argued to support such a ban. Reasons being that they can as a group exert a "force" on the business owners; that politicians would play vote bank politics using labor unions; that they are a collective group. But a "ban" is usage of force, be it on an Individual or a Group. So wouldn't it be morally wrong to ban it ?

I like this quote : “Anyone who fights for the future, LIVES in it today.”, Ayn Rand

The need for transparency arises when there is a possibility of unfair treatment. I don't think transparency would be required if everything went on in a just and objective manner. If the objective of this forum is to maintain very high standards relating to communication/forum etiquette, then am not sure to what extent individuals making their own judgement in choosing whom they should or should not exchange ideas, will contribute. But what will contribute is moderators enforcing strict forum rules in a just manner. And there justification for moderation should be the laid-out "forum rules" itself, that should be quoted when ever questioned for unfairness. And even ban repeat offenders. But by neither having 1.transparency nor 2.strict moderation with respect to adherence of forum rules nor 3.people themselves indulging to discuss in a civilized manners, goes to shows that this forum only wishes to maintain reasonable standards.

An interesting point. This is not related but.. Just a couple of days back, the Government of Maharashtra (India) imposed ban on beef. So as per your logic this would only decrease population of Cows, apart from the income lost by those citizens who rely on meat for trade.

I erred. Yes, that's true. Yet, I don't think "atheism" that is divorced from rationality or morality would have done any good to the world. Though not completely an atheistic movement, I was surprised to learn about Hippie culture and sexual revolution of 1960s, which tried to transcend the limitations of religion. Though they could have manifested some cultural changes but my personal evaluation of them is nothing less than that of unthinking animals.

I have a couple of question and am hoping you could help me with what's Objectivism's view about it. Resources occur naturally. Its is up-to man to make their use in order to survive or make wealth. Therefore any land is up for grabs unless anybody has already claimed it. Same goes with all other natural resources including animals, minerals, oils, woods, etc. Now, If there is total freedom; no restriction on usages of resources by a government like entity, wouldn't some resource become extinct ? Examples for restrictions, I can think of are preserved wildlife sanctuaries, tiger hunting (only ~1000 left in India), elephant killing for Ivory, deforestation, etc. And shouldn't there be a restriction on how much property a person can establish his claim upon ? And if so how ? For example : Let's say there is 20,000 hectares forest area abundant with trees. So can I just walk up there put boards stating private property all around and restrict anybody from using it ?

Check out Luddite Fallacy - "The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn't destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy."

Also known as Conviction or Self-Confidence. "Self-esteem is the dual conviction that one is able to live and worthy of happiness. Its two components, self-confidence and self-respect, are objective requirements of human life and happiness. If a person does not develop self-confidence, he will not be able to live successfully, because he will have no psychological motivation to put forth the necessary effort. Why should he try if he cannot succeed? And if a person does not develop self-respect, he will not be able to achieve happiness, because he will lack the positive personal evaluation that is the essence of happiness. How can he be happy if he thinks he is no good?" -- Craig Biddle, Loving Life, Page. 69

Inserting a few missing wrords... ....all the power of both steel and flesh come from one's beliefs. in himself and resolute dedication to the objective."

I was perhaps wrong in my previous post. I guess they would eventually know when they do or commit that which they falsely think is a "crime". What they should know is : "A life without contradictions exists!"

The "masses" are people who have double standards. And the sad part is most of them don't know that. They do not understand what is meant by "emotions". They don't know what they "value". Their thoughts, their emotions, their actions are not in sync. Its all haywire under their skull. And is religion the answer to their problem ? Hell No! Religion does not understand them any better either. Take up any religion; Scriptures tell you that self-sacrifice is the virtue; that desires are sin. Some very exceptional "Mother-Theresa-like-people" may attain complete self-sacrifice. But most simply don't because they just can't. Dopa-mine in your brain does not allow that. It is the most basic need of man to fulfill his desires and be happy. Honestly, how many Mother Theresas; devoutly religious people who adhere to each and every word of the divine scriptures do you know of ? EDIT - And I don't think that there is much truth to the statement that the religious are immune to uncomfortable feelings or emotional vacuums any more than the atheists.

It been 105 days since I quit smoking. I had been tracking this using ever-note app on my phone. Below is how I did it motivating myself every now and then. ------ 02-03-2015 Its 105 days. And I am glad to share this up on Objectivismonline. 18-02-2015 93 days. 08-02-2015 83 days. 27-01-2015 71 days. 6 months is still far away. 18-01-2015 62 days. 02-01-2015 A New year ! Awesome. 46 days without smoke. Great control ! Keep going you cannot lose. Next big thing is 6 months to qualify as non smoker and then forever ! 19-12-2014 Great going. It's 33 days now ! Over a month !! But remember its 6 months to qualify as a non-smoker. Also remember the reason why you started this. 11-12-2014 3 more days now and its 25. Always Remember why you started this. Remember to slow down and step back when you make hasty decisions. One tends to act quickly or hastily to escape from thinking. You don't want to regret later. There will be no point anyway but what you will then face is a net loss of something that you reasoned to keep or maintain. Don't evade thinking. Be strong. It will take you 6 months or 180 days to qualify as Non smoker. 08-12-2014 22 days now.. Shortly.. It will be a month.. 03-12-2014 17 days. Good. But not good enough. Remember, good enough is entire life. You never want to put the number back to zero. 23-11-2014 Its been a week, since I have stopped. Which is good. But not good enough. Good enough will only be till end of life.!! This is just a remainder that if started again 7 days would mean to nothing. The number would then start again from 0. 16-11-2014 I quit today.

Speak for yourself. Your answer is not an absolute with every person alive. You think like that; you value supernaturalism, therefore you say "No!". I and probably many others in this forum will argue otherwise; that whatever satisfaction you receive from faith in God, can be replaced (not by the belief that no God exists but) by far better values: Productive work, Human relationships, Romantic love, Art, etc. Values that are rational and more importantly real.

DA, Your post #113 is quite difficult to agree or argue with, because much of it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Yet I will give it a shot. Your point is people need to believe in something. And that's why Rand put the God back into Man; To make him heroic; Something more realistic to believe. By saying that Rand put the God back into man, you are suggesting that she held some form of pantheism (?). And further sounds like God who existed in some form, was wrapped up and shoved into Man, by which Man became heroic. God exists as a notion; An idea. But not as something metaphysically real. So no, I don't think Rand shoved anything into Man. What she did do was project how an ideal man should be. What values an ideal man should hold. She further went on to describe those values; Those which are grounded on reality and necessary in order to happily survive and flourish. Further she did not force or proclaim that John Galt is your God; Somebody whom Objectivists should "believe in" or literally "worship". Believing in John Galt is not going to get anybody anywhere; holding rational objective values will. This is an aside, but allow me to also point out something which I think is negative. Man's Identity depends on the values he holds. And man can change over time depending on the values he adopts. Eddie Willers was not the best of characters in TAS. So to the people who identified themselves as the Eddies Willers of world, I would suggest not to limit yourself and to hold better values.

Heroic beings are derived from Gods ? Having a desire and striving towards perfection: 'A heroic being' is much closer to reality than believing in Gods. Most religions are based on the supposedly unquestionable scriptures and principles : Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. For the religious, the "truth" is primarily in these books. I'm not really sure that the concept of 'a heroic being' as described by Ayn Rand, would ever be appended to such books.

See. I knew it ! You are not the Devil's Advocate but the Devil himself.

Please do tell what the better approaches are and what it responds to.

Emotional Vacuums ? Objectivism is more about filling yourself with 'Happiness' than any religion ever was or could ever be.

I don't think an 'Objectivist' would ever use such words. Statements made above reeks with the stench of 'weakness', a total lack of 'Pride' and a general deficit in 'Self-Esteem'. Precisely opposite of how an ideal Man should be.

Yes! It is worth considering. It is important to understand the psychology of religion before attacking it; before asking the question "what is the need ?" Following are some of the reasons, I found over net as to "Why religion still exists and why people still follow it?" as opposed to the original question "is there a need in the current century ?" Man is/was pleasure-seeking, weak and seeks forgiveness - Man seeks pleasure. Desires led men to fight against each-other. Religion preached altruism; that every-other man is one's brother. "Freud regards God as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure; religion, necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favor of reason and science." "Freud adds the explanation that the adoption of religion is a reversion to childish patterns of thought in response to feelings of helplessness and guilt. We feel a need for security and forgiveness, and so invent a source of security and forgiveness: God." Religion answers questions, is pro-society and morality : Norenzayan says : “Religion is one of the big ways that human societies have hit on us a solution to induce unrelated individuals to be nice to each other. As the saying goes, "watched people are nice people." It follows that people play nice when they think Gods are watching them, even when no one else is". "Religion, in a sense, outsources social monitoring to a supernatural agent,” says Norenzayan. “If you believe in a monitoring God, even if no one is watching you, you still have to be pro-social because God is watching you.” Besides Man needed a method; a guide to life; Religion held the role of answering questions : Who am I and why am I here? How shall I live? What happens after death ? Also as religiosity was highly respected, religious individuals had higher self-esteem thinking of themselves as noble men. Agent Detection : "Agent detection is the inclination for animals and humans to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one." "In cases of ordinary agency, we are able to correct our initial attributions: we hear rustling in the grass and turn around expecting to be met by an agent, but when we fail to see an agent and instead observe wind moving the grass around, we typically correct our initial over-attribution. In contrast, it seems that attributions of supernatural agents are highly resilient and rarely corrected".