Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Not Lawliet

Regulars
  • Content count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Not Lawliet

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Oregon
  • Relationship status Single
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism I was introduced to Objectivism by a church elder ironically, with the intent to encourage critical thinking since I liked theology so much. It ended up making me an atheist - go figure. I embraced Objectivism as my philosophy shortly after that, at age 17. Now I'm 19, and here's a list of books I've read:

    Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand | Atlas Shrugged
    The Fountainhead | Induction in Physics

    Others I've only partially gone through.
  1. It makes sense that when a criminal commits an evil act, like an evasion, alone they would suffer as a direct consequence. But in a society, evil can survive, or even flourish, as second-handedness. By merely ignoring evil and choosing to be neutral, you act as a sanction and allow that form of evil sustain itself on the efforts of society, of other people. So, an act of justice in the form of punishment is ensuring that an evil person faces the consequences of their actions that occur naturally in isolation, and can be sustained indirectly by feeding on society.
  2. Well, social norms, or personal preferences that may be socially normal or not, but you're right that it probably wouldn't be a psychological difference. If body privacy is a value primarily for benefiting sexual gratification in a relationship, as I suggested or implied it would be for most, then it makes sense why nakedness is less important around those not in one's pool of romantic prospects, while for a hetero male or hetero female nakedness in front of the opposite sex is important.
  3. Also I think it's worth noting that even if it seems like a victim doesn't gain a benefit from the punishment itself of their assailant, such a view is very short-range. The victim benefits from the principle, once enforced and practiced, that necessitates that criminals pay consequences, even if a victim doesn't perceive a direct personal benefit of their assailant placed in prison if they aren't going to harm again them again.
  4. Well in Letters of Ayn Rand she talked about punishment being a means to "retribution, not reform". Now, I went and read what Peikoff wrote about the virtue of Justice, and I found it enlightening personally. This is my understanding of it now: Justice as a virtue is primarily a principle of rational judgement of other men. Justice in the form of action, the act of justice, is to grant the response to others as they deserve; there ought to be an emphasis on rewarding virtue, and of secondary importance punishing vice. As an abstract principle, justice demands that, without undermining one's own self-interest (like with vengeance), one should promote the success of others that are virtuous, and assist in ensuring that people in society do not benefit from evil. Punishment is a means to deterring evil, but in the long-term, not short-term, as part of the abstract principle of justice. The function of criminal punishment in law then is to, once a crime is committed, prevent a criminal from standing to benefit from their rights violation. This is done by forcing a criminal to face consequences equal to the harm done on others. It's not retribution for the sake of retribution (which Peikoff called subjectivist) and not short-range pragmatism like utilitarianism (which Peikoff called intrinsicist). An objective form of justice would be deterring evil, but, by means of long-range, abstract principles. I suppose any proposition for utilitarian forms of justice would find critical responses from each of Peikoffs discussions of principles and pragmatism.
  5. I personally don't have a friend who is gay, so here is where I ask. Please forgive the length of the question. I don't know of any conventional term for this, so I'm calling the value of keeping parts of one's body visually private, "body privacy", and it's commonly valued for reserving that privilege to be earned by a selected romantic partner. It used to be not long ago that heterosexuality was the only socially accepted orientation. I think locker rooms and bathrooms were separated by gender (biological sense - the biology "sex" and activity "sex" get confused in the same context) for this reason. Most people don't have a problem being naked in front of others of the same gender. The intuitive reason would be that most men are sexually interested in women, and most women are sexually interested in men. With this social custom very firmly established, do homosexuals care at all about who sees them naked, specifically in regards to gender? For a man, if a straight or gay woman isn't a potential sexual partner, and straight men and gay men are gathered in the same locker rooms, is body privacy important for them? If you are personally gay, or know one who is, do you have any insight to offer?
  6. As an example, with deterrence and rehabilitation as the prime motives, a thief could be given a surveillance device or restricted to certain activities in society so as to easily eliminate the chances of him stealing again, at a fraction of the cost of prison. It wouldn't be that much of a punishment, especially if the crime was significant. And that individual can be brought in twice a week for therapy and counseling.
  7. The problem I see with this is that confinement or removal of an individual with or from a society can be done without punishing a criminal, or with any negative consequence to them at all. Such would be the case where a criminal, no matter how harsh the crime, is simply relocated or put in a prison that's comfortable so as to be "humane" ("after all, what purpose would it serve to punish them or make it uncomfortable?") And the problem with rehabilitation or restoration or "moral training", is that it can feasibly be done more efficiently and productively without punishment. An individual could entirely reform their thinking, even become an Objectivist, sincerely wish not to harm another again - all without being punished. And punishment is not necessary for deterrence of future crimes. A mother who believes parents are responsible to kill their children, and only their own children, if they rebel against them, won't murder another child again if they're too old to have children again. Simply knowing in any given situation that the odds of an individual committing a crime again after doing it once is unlikely, could justify simply letting them go. And if it were deemed that punishment of a certain crime had no effect on deterring other crimes of that nature, under this purpose the punishment would be unnecessary. Retribution is only form of punishment that considers what a criminal deserves as relevant. All other forms are more concerned with future crimes, or reforming the criminal, than giving them what they deserve.
  8. I think of humor, such as sarcasm and satire, as the best and proper method to derive joy from evil or a bad situation. So humor can serve to convince others by showcasing the absurdity of their views, but since that can be done without humor, I think the primary purpose of satire and sarcasm is for enjoyment.
  9. I've got to remember that line. It's excellent. I don't think so. Feel free to protest outside their event, but it would be wrong to use equipment to be so loud as to interfere with their ability to speak to anyone 4 ft from them. I suppose your use of the word "disrupt" is just too vague for my taste. I disagree. There hasn't been successful attempts at removing political freedom of speech, but the movements silencing "hate speech" on campuses are motivated by a specific ideology that won't hesitate to advance further after succeed with colleges, news sites, and social networks. I've seen a people sign a petition at college to remove the 1st Amendment.
  10. You make a fair point. I suppose my example would be more to the purpose of amusing myself than to make persuasive progress. A lot of people would suggest that if a person demonstrated they were unreasonable that I should walk away, but it would be such a missed opportunity for amusement.
  11. Objectivism includes a retributive theory of justice, in that the purpose of punishment is essentially to prevent criminals from standing to benefit from the crime, to ensure that those who violate rights face consequences equal to that of their victims. Objectivists, such as Leonard Peikoff and Diana Brickell, have given satisfying refutations of deterrence, incarceration, and rehabilitation as justifying purposes of punishment. However, I have yet to find an explanation of how retribution in justice is moral, that criminals ought to be punished. I haven't heard a good case for how punishing criminals is in the self-interest of the victims, which I think is the necessary premise needed to justify and also demand punishment of crimes. So, does anybody here have a good explanation to offer me?
  12. In the case that you are told that what you are saying is "offensive", and that you should therefore stop speaking, what would be your response? I haven't quite had that experience yet myself, but witnessed it around me. My response would have to be replying that such a criticism of what I have said is offensive. I would go on to be sarcastic, saying that I feel attacked and marginalized.
  13. I would have to say that it's not a definite no, but that we can't know for sure yet. It's like if someone asked if a person's philosophy could be derived from what clothes they wore. What amounts to no clothes at all could be considered bad attire, but other than that there's no philosophical implications of wearing leather jackets - that we can identify with the methods available to us. What I would say is that enjoyment can't be morally judged, but rather it's a reflection of what may or may not be good values that they have chosen. A person can possibly enjoy pain, and while that enjoyment in itself is not immoral, the conscious valuation of that pain is. However as far as sensational pleasure goes (opposed to emotion), it may be entirely out of their control. haha - well, based on your response I can assure you that the possibility of you being Kira is roughly 1%.
  14. Sure, I just haven't seen any reason to suspect he has. His public interactions have been evidence of the contrary.
  15. Yes it was meant as a rare exception, and an exception to what Rand stated. I'm pretty sure that excluding sounds that don't even fit the definition of music is just an unstated assumption.