drewfactor

This is a moral impasse. Craig Biddle tends to these questions in his book Loving Life. In his book he states that these questions do not contain a should and therefore are outside of the realm of morality. He also states that a professor's attempt to promulgate moral skepticism, however, does not stand outside the realm of morality.

On embracing Objectivism, I find the idea of reconciling environmental "protection" with unbridled capitalism difficult to conceptualize. However, upon more reading I am understanding that it is always important to remember one principle: The value of the environment is only valuable to the degree that it is valuable to man. Since the ultimate standard of value is life (ie. man's life - not the public good, not the environment etc...), it is only logical that a healthy environment which is conducive to promoting life, would be of value. The primary is man's life, and consequence is a healthy environment. Understanding this also requires one to understand the nature of property rights and that private property rights are the only means to allow individuals to hold a stake in the environment (ie. since it becomes their property and it is in their self-interest to maintain it). I love camping and hiking and observing the tranquility of untouched nature, unscathed by industry, unpolluted by cars etc... But upon thinking beyond the range-of-the-moment (ie. "me here now, lovely trees and singing birds") while I enjoy nature's beauty, I realize that I can enjoy nature only because I had a car to drive me to the nature trail (produced by industry), I have warm clothes and a nylon tent (produced by industry), I have a warm house heated by fossil fuels to return to, and the list goes on and on. So, to separate the environment from the needs of man becomes irrational because it requires you to think of nature as having some "intrinsic value" independant of man as the valuer. This is the very essence and mystical quality of the environmentalist movement. So what about those that really want to preserve portions of nature untouched by man? There's certainly a lot of people who hold that value. In a free market where all property is privately owned, those people could pool their money together and purchase those lands (ie. such as State and National parks) for that very purpose of leaving it alone. One more thing. For some empirical evidence of the worst environmental catastophes that have ever occured in human history, observe the environamental record of collectivist states vs. capitalist ones. Soviet Russia anyone? I rest my case.

I was visiting my local book store recently which is stocked full of leftist literature (hence I have to orde- in all my Objectivist and pro-capitalist books), and I browsed through some books by a guy named John Ralston Saul. This guy has much "Tooheyesque" qualities. I couldn't count how many times he mentioned the phrase "public good" along with his continued chiding of capitalism. Another person that is rife with "Tooheyism" is Noam Chomsky. He gave a lecture at my University and people were lined up down the street to get tickets, yet no one seemed to know anything about who he was. Everyone seemed to be going to see him because everyone seemed to be going to see him. Upon reflection, I realize what a bunch of second-handers many of those students were. Granted, there were certainly those who went to see him for intellectual reasons, but many more simply went because "they heard he's good." No doubt because he's an American bashing collectivist. To many of us Canadians, we like those who bash America, it makes us "feel good."

I just wanted to add after noticing an above post that Lewis does use a tremendous amount of subjectivism in his defence of Christianity. Come to think of it, his material sounds very Kantian. I wonder if he was influenced by him. After reading Ayn Rand, Lewis sounds so very convoluted. I wonder now if I believed his stuff to be true because I wanted it to be true, and not because I could fully understand his premises and their implications.

Prior to discovering Ayn Rand, I probably considered C.S. Lewis one of my most influencial thinkers. I've read volumes of his writings, both fiction and non-fiction, and it gave me much insight into an understanding of Christianity from a pro-reason perspective, yet I think his reason was more of the "rationalist" kind. I think C.S. Lewis makes a decent attempt at arguing for theology considering he was a vehement athiest turned Christian (and a devout one too). His previous atheism apparently forced him "kicking and screaming" as he became a religionist. The problem is that Lewis (like all religionists) must still try and convince you of something that you cannot fully grasp with reason. So, in the end, you still face the same dichotomy: faith or reason. I chose the latter after realizing that I could no longer hold the contradiction that "faith and reason can coexist." I strongly encourage you to see the documentary "The Question of God: Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis." It's done by Dr. Armand Nicholi whom is a professor at Harvard. It will provide you with much interesting material if you care to learn more about C.S. Lewis (and Freud for that matter).

I'm currently finished my undergraduate degree and have been working for a couple years now. Upon reflection of my academic career, I am horrified to think of the level of intellectual corruption that I faced during my four years at University (and in my high school years). This corruption is specifically the blatant indoctrination of young minds into a specific world-view that is held by our University professors and the legions of campus groups and organizations. These people all seem to be dominated by a single sentiment: anti-reason. Unfortunately, I discovered Ayn Rand after I left University, so I severly lacked the intellectual amunition to defend myself from the anti-reason mentality that dominates the campus crowd (including my professors). For those of you who studied (or are studying) in the Maths and Sciences, you're luckily spared from much of what I'm referring too. A brief anecdote: I studied Nursing, in which a fourth year problem-based learning/small group course required an analysis of "systemic issues" (ie. population health, health care politics etc..) in health care. I decided to investigate the high rates of health problems (ie. diabetes, depression, suicide, addictions, high poverty rates) that exist among our Native Canadian (First Nations) population. I wanted to investigate some of the economic factors, such as the massive tax-funded subsidies that are poured into "native reserves" yet the continued abysmal state of the native population. I presented the reality that, despite the bottomless welfare pit that is the state of "native affairs," rates of many health-related problems among natives are much higher than the Canadian average. I thought that this might be an opportunity to investigate how some alternatives to government welfare spending such as free market alternatives (beginning with property rights for reserve natives) could help the native population. Lo and behold, I was taken aside after class and told that my topic contained too much "eurocentrism" and that I needed to change my topic to "Culturally Competent Care." That's right, a watered down multiculturalist version of my original topic. At the time, I just wanted to get the mark and get out of the class. Today, with a bit more knowledge and maturity, I don't think I would have tolerated such BS

I agree completely. I just got back from a trip in the US back to Canada in which I listed to people like Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage rant on about this very issue. I felt really let down because I usually enjoy these shows, but the sheer lack of reason and appeal to religious sentiment seemed to skew their perspectives so dramatically.

I find it hard to believe that someone (such as Ayn Rand) could smoke for many decades without explicit knowledge of the dangers of smoking, yet still not notice the pernicious physical consequences that smoking has. Perhaps because I work in health care (at a repiratory specialty hospital), I am fully aware of the tremendous damage smoking has on one's life. Just as smoking has significant physical consequences, drugs have significant physical and mental consequences; both hinder your productive capacity. The occasional marijuana smoker, just as the occasional drinker enjoys a buzz on a Friday night, I don't think deserves any more moral condemnation than someone who decides to pollute their lungs and predispose them to lung disease for the "habit" of smoking.

This is an excellent post. As a student of Objectivism whom has found this philosophy to provide me with a rational basis for abandoning my desire to "escape reality" by using marijuana, I agree with your points. Although you condemn this discussion on this forum, and you've made your case, I do think it has some value for people like myself whom want to gain insight and motivation to continue on a path towards a "drug-free" existence.

Hmm..As far as I understand it, the legal guardianship rests on the spouse. Even though you didn't make the explicit agreement with your spouse, if you ended up on life support tomorrow, when doctors ask what "your wishes would be," she is the one who speaks on your behalf. Now, let's say your wife says: "He wouldn't want to be on life support, pull the plug now" but the doctors are convinced of a chance of recovery, it's not like they'll be obligated to pull the plug. Let's say your parents (as in the case of Terri) demand otherwise and the dispute is not settled, then it goes to court I guess.

Right. A person's wishes are not subject to approval by a spouse, however, in this context the husband is legally the one who holds the "decision making power" in determining what she would have wanted (given that she is currently unable to state her wishes). If Terri stated that she didn't want to live as a vegetable, her husband could override that wish given that she doesn't have that written down (or vice versa) - hence the current debate. When one gets married, part of the contractual agreement is that in these situations, the spouse takes over legal guardianship. As an aside, this is partly what is driving the gay-marriage debate.

Regarding braindeath: exactly as I discussed in detail in my above post. The issue of your son in comparison is incongruous because it is a different situation. I understand your concern because the question becomes: "If we can pull a feeding tube from a disabled person, what does that mean for all the other disabled people? What precedent does it set ? Can we arbitrarily decide to euthanize people deemed to be a burden by parents, society etc..?" The problem here is the slippery slope fallacy and a case of context dropping. The context being Terri was a fully functioning adult before the accident, and the legal implications due to the contractual agreement that is marriage (in which the husband has the say in determining what her wishes).

Thanks for clarifying. You are right. We need to make the distinction between consciously purposeful activity and simply the biological consequences. One way to determine this could also be with an electroencephalogram (EEG) which observes brain waves. Regarding the patient I discussed in my previous post, his EEG showed changes in his brain waves as a response to noises in the room, voices, clapping, lights shined in his eyes etc... To what degree even these responses indicated awareness are difficult to discern even by an "top dog" neurologist. So the question posed to the wife was simply: "Would he want to live this way?" She said "NO." Simple as that. This should have been Terri's fate 15 years ago. Upon further reflection, I've been thinking about the morality of altruism, and the way that patient's families who are religious are the strongest advocates of keeping people alive in vegetative states. The irony is that religious people necessarily reject reason to varying degrees (in order to have faith), yet it is only because of reason that the life sustaining medical technology exists. On the one hand they denounce (to varying degrees) genetic engineering, medically necessary abortions, and technology to help women get pregnant as "playing God." On the other hand they shrill at the thought of removing life support from an 82 year old with no quality of life to begin with. The contradictions go on and on. TO most of you, this is preaching to the choir, I know. What I have begun to realize through my own experience, is that the ultimate values this mentality upholds are those of suffering and sacrifice. In Terri's context, you can't even raise the question as to whether she has a quality of life - for her, a subhuman existence rotting in a bed must entail suffering, therefore (according to moral conservatives) it must be sustained. You can't ask the question whether keeping her alive places a burden on taxpayers, insurance companies, health care resources, or family members. Sacrifice for the duty to keep Terri alive at all costs seems to be the moral standard in this debate. Does anyone else see this? Or am I way off the mark?

Wow! Your reading pattern is almost identical to mine. I bought Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal first but then decided to read Virtue of Selfishness in order to have a better grasp on the ethics of Objectivism before delving into the politics of Objectivism. Understanding this hierarchy has had a profound benefit on my integration of the philosophy from an early start.

Since I am a registered nurse whom is currently employed in a Critical Care setting, I think that I can speak with some authority on this issue. The issue of withdrawal of treatment and/or life support, in reality, is something that happens on a day to day basis. In fact, I'm astounded that this case has reached such high profile and I agree with a previous poster who alluded to the fact that poor Terri has become a political football for (religious) moral conservatives in congress. I'm so happy to read some intelligent and well thought out opinions on this forum after being inundated with all the nonsensical rhetoric I've been hearing in the media. Most notably, the constant referral to the removal of Terri's feeding tube as murder. I realize that there's a lot of dubious "facts" surrounding this case regarding the husband, his intentions, and the specifics about Terri's actual condition etc... However, we cannot evade the reality of her situation. First off, if she is brain-dead according to the medical definition, the grounds for removal of all life sustaining intervention (ie. feeding tube) would be indisputable. Brain death is death. It is the cessation of all brain functions, including the brain stem (which controls your primitive and basic functions such as breathing). At this point, a person can be kept alive in a physiological sense, but (hence the term), their brain is dead. From what I gather, this is not Terri's situation. However, if she has significant brain damage, especially in the higher parts of the cerebral cortex, it is doubtful whether her consciousness remains intact even in the most primitive sense. This sounds like Terri's situation. In this situation, a person can respond randomly to physical stimuli, but it is NOT considered purposefeful , therefore not a valid criteria for determining consciousness or any level of awareness. I have to explain this to patients' families all the time when they say, "look he opened his eyes, look he squeezed my hand." A doctor or a nurse observing this objectively understands this, but a patient's loved one, due to their emotional state, wants to see their loved one respond purposefully and therefore believes it to be true. I think this is the situation of Terri's parents. Recently I had a patient who suffered a massive heart attack at 40 years of age. Due to lack of oxygen to his brain, he was severely brain damaged but was fully stable off life support (including breathing on his own). Thankfully his wife was rational and did not engage in the fantasies about miracles that her religious family members did, and agreed to "let nature take it's course" and let him die, whether it was starving, getting pneumonia, or choking on his own secretions. If there's concern about discomfort, start a morphine drip. We do it all the time. Trust me, in the real world, the line between treatment withdrawal and euthanasia gets pretty blurred - provided the directives are in place for treatment withdrawal. Providing comfort during the dying process (even if it speeds it up) is not immoral...I know it's what I want.

I also feel that I do suffer from second-handedness in some aspects of my psycho-epistemology. I can only hope that a further understanding and fuller integration of Objectivism into my life can bring me to that goal. I suppose it's making that full realization of living as you "could and ought to be." Hence, I by no means consider myself anywhere near the status of someone like Roark with regard to integrity (as much as I'm trying to attain that status). On the other hand, I do see the "Keating syndrome" in someone I've known well for years. The parallels between him and Keating are incredible: He never did any work for himself in University (he just mooched off the others in his group); he's profoundly dishonest in romantic relationships; he parasitically mooched off of the welfare system for longer than he needed to (after having surgery); his life and happiness are constantly defined by "escaping reality" through "partying." I know through some reading that (according to Objectivism) since our emotions are a product of our ideas, those that are considered "depressed" possibly need to readjust or adopt new ideas. I've been thinking about this in relation to Keeting's progressively depressed emotional state and the individual I'm referring to in this post (whom is actually diagnosed with depression). Especially after reading The Fountainhead, I'm convinced that happiness is a product of living a life of integrity (ie. having principles), and unhappiness (hence the so-called "high rates of depression" in our modern and technologically advanced capitalistic society that people love to denounce and label as the cause of the depression) comes from living a life devoid principles, of second-handedness.

Upon recently finishing The Fountainhead for the first time, I must say that it's been a long time since I've felt such a poignant response from the way a fictional character is portrayed. What I felt to be a visceral emotional response from the character of Peter Keating was definitely a product of the way in which Rand brilliantly portrays him in contrast to Howard Roark. With a little introspection, I've come to the conclusion that the reason I felt so "moved" by the portrayal of Peter Keating was due to the fact that our world is dominated by the "Peter Keating mentality." It's that sudden realization that my professional life, the world of politics, my academic career, and many of my so-called friends etc.. are all reflected or concretized in Rand's characterization of Peter Keating. What I mean is - so many of us live our lives by the guidance of using "others" as our standard of value. In Keating's case, it was the approval of his mother, Francon and Heyer, the Architectural Guild, and so on. In some instances it seemed to be simply his whims which drove him. I couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy and wasn't sure whether to look at him as a victim, or the architect of his own destruction. Two poignant scenes to me are when he visits Roark to ask for assistance in designing the government housing project, and when Toohey visits him in his place. It was when Toohey visited him and gave that long diatribe in which I saw Keating as a victim of the "Toohey's of this world." Anyone share similar thoughts or feelings? I'm about to start Atlas Shrugged. Funnily enough, I've read most of Rand's non-fiction (such as VoS, ITOE, Capitalism, Philosophy: Who needs it) before delving into her two masterpieces. Anthem was my introduction Rand's fictional works. I really find that I'm gaining much value from having read her non-fiction first - especially in regard to gaining philosophical insights into the stories. I'm curious in others thoughts on this.

I'm currently shedding my last skins of deism. Basically, I'm baptised as a Catholic and have spent most of my life desperately trying to understand Christian faith. I've never let up trying to defend faith with reason based on many of the writings of people like Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, and C.S. Lewis (whom was an atheist but became a devout Christian). Finally I gave in to the contradiction that I was holding, that is: "defending faith with reason." Such a profound contradiction cannot exist, no matter what anyone says (especially C.S. Lewis whom I still somewhat admire). You finally have to make the choice: Faith or Reason. It's one or the other. You choose to uphold faith, or you choose never to subordinate reason to faith. I chose the latter, and it's having a very positive psychological effect on me. I recently watched the PBS documentary: "The Question of God: Sigmund Freud vs. C.S. Lewis." My recent watching of this was the final nail in the coffin of my former theism. Basically, I came to the realization that a belief in God is ultimately a form of subjectivism. Everyone in the documentary who believed in God placed ultimate authority on their "feelings." As much as I disagree with Freud on many things, I think he was correct in saying that "religion as the universal neurosis of mankind" is a product of "wishful thinking." I also recently read an article by Dr. Hurd called a "secular view of death" in which he echoes a similar sentiment in that a belief in heaven is a product of "wishful thinking" and reflects the human desire to "want something for nothing.' This means that we want to die and live in eternity without having to endure the effort that existence requires.

Aw, c'mon. You're not saying that you make a collective judgement about all Canadians, and you don't judge each individual based on their character, are you? Just like so many Canadians think Americans are gun-wielding, pickup-driving, racist, rednecks?

Sadly, stories like yours are all too common. My point is that, amongst all the complaining about "lack of funding" (ie. government funding), nobody seems to ask where the funding comes from in the first place, namely: out of our pockets. Just observing the profound waste of money that is our health care system is a discrace and an insult to us as taxpayers. I firmly believe that via free-market forces, if individuals could actually see where their money was going, health care costs would be under control and we wouldn't have the resource scarcity that we have. As you pointed out, any reform within our "public funded health care" is met with stiff opposition (especially from Unions). There's cries from various groups and lobbyists that there will be inequality, and that health care would be too expensive for poor people to afford. Little do they realize that the exorbinant costs of health care are caused by the government monopoly! They look to the US and say, "look, see, they have private health care and look how exensive it is!!" Little do they realize that the US has tremendous health care regulation and government monopoly. In fact, the US had medicare/medicaid coverage before our public health care was even conceived! One of the comments I hear from opponents of free market health care is that the costs are too high due to increases in technology and the poor people can't afford it without government mandated coverage. This is bunk because, in a free market, costs of technology goes down over time, not up (as in the health care trend). For example, the proportion of very low income people in Canada and US who have TVs, DVD players, Microwaves, cars, cell phones, home PCs, etc.. is actually quite high. This is because (due to a free market) these technologies have come down in price over time and have become more and more accessible to a greater amount of people (including people in the lowest end of the socio-economic ladder).

Hi everybody. I'm new to the forum and this is my first post in the discussion forums. I am a registered nurse who currently works in our government-run health care system up here in Canada. For those of you who are living in America, and those of you from countries that still have private health care , it should be your aim as advocates of individual rights, freedom, and capitalism, to not allow the complete socialization of your health care system. My experience within a government-run health care system has allowed me to observe striking similarities between the eventual decline and collapse of the Soviet Union and the steady deterioration (and eventual collapse) of a socialized health care system. It is not that they are "good ideas that just don't work in practice," they are bad ideas to begin with. I won't go into depth with the economic factors of why socialism doesn't work, and more fundamentally, why it is immoral (this should be self-evident to all adherents to objectivist principles). However, the greatest frustration I have found among my colleagues whom constantly complain about the "system" (ie. long waiting lists, poor working conditions, outdated technology, etc...), is their inablity to look beyond the consequences and try to discover the causes. To most people, whether it's an emergency room doctor, to a janitor, all the way up to our politicians, the only problem is that: "there's not enough funding." The stifling of free market forces in a health care system is no different than the stifling of free market forces in any industry. Nobody seems to realize that health care (ie. all the technology, all the therapies, all the drugs etc..) are a product of the rational mind. The only way they will continue to be produced effectively and efficiently is if the atmosphere of freedom exists.

Yes! And we need more pro-capitalists in this country as we are on a downward slope towards dehumanizing collectivism. Multiculturalism as government policy, an entrenched Liberal party, Quebec separist appeasement (read: adscam), the list goes on. This country is a disgrace with regard to diversity in the realm of ideas. Just observe our CBC or the seething anti-capitalist mentality in our Universities. Is it any wonder our intellectuals and producers go to America? I thought it was interesting to find out that Leonard Peikoff is a Canadian himself. I am definately a minority where I work. Probably the only pro-capitalist working within our Socialized health care system.

I see that you're from Toronto. Are you aware of any Objectivist clubs or lectures that occur in this area? I think UofT has an Objectivist club, but I'm sure it's for students of that school.

Hello all! I'm very glad I found this forum. I've been lurking on this forum for a while now and figured I should join because I know I have plenty to offer to discussion and have many questions for other students of Objectivism. I'm 24 years old, a University grad, and I'm currently practicing as a registered nurse in Critical Care. I live in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. An interesting tidbit on my knowledge of Ayn Rand and Objectivism and how it has influenced my life pertains to how it has affected my romantic life. You see, I have (in the past) always adhered to conservatism and my girlfriend was a definite liberal. We always had a wonderful relationship since we were both passionate about ideas, both adventurous, and shared many of the same interests, but we always "butted heads" when it came to some fundamental questions about our personal philosophical convictions. It seem that upon our mutual discovery of Ayn Rand and continual learning about Objectivism and it's applications, this deep seated conflict has resolved, and consequently our love lives have grown immensely. Essentially, before I embraced Objectivism I adhered to conservatism because I believed in Moral absolutism - but I could not defend this rationally because I relied on the notion of God. My girlfriend was a liberal because she rejected the religious basis of conservatism - however she was an ethical subjectivist and also could not defend her position (ie. that killing is evil, regardless of your culture or personal feelings). Thankfully, Objectivism has solved this conflict. Morality IS absolute (it's based on reality), and the only morality compatible with my (former) religious convictions is altruism.