Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ragnar

Regulars
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ragnar

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Ok, I checked it again. It is Chocolat. Thanks
  2. Hi This was a Ford Hall forum lecture on his DIM hypothesis in 2001 (available here http://www.peikoff.com/fordhall.htm). Regards n. Unbelong.
  3. Hi In the Q/A of the "One in The Many" lecture in ford hall forum, Dr. Peikoff mentions a movie he says he really liked. I couldn't catch the name because of poor audio quality. Anyone here knows what that movie was ? Thanks n. Unbelong.
  4. Hello people What, if any, is the difference or leaving that, relation between the following terms: 1. Existence and Reality 2. Ontological and Ontical 3. A Generalisation and an Abstraction (both as nouns). Thanks
  5. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    This is about what marym and foerf11 wrote: I asked you if this whole thing is not tangential to the issue anyway The reason I asked was this: I was not primarily concerned with the factual data on whether animals suffer or not, but with the philosophical, speicifically moral, question of whether we can inflict pain or suffering on another sentient being or not. This has been the main question I've asked here. Is life of any value or not. And some of the responses I've received on this have been helpful. From the paper I'd linked, I didn't use the cruelty argument as in cruelty of farming animals, but cruelty as in the very act of eating meat, when healthy vegetarian alternatives are available. And just to make it clear, I no longer find the argument viable. Best premises
  6. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    Did you download and read the paper I had linked ? And aren't you excluding the conditions in which they are raised. And isn't all this a bit tangential to the issue anyway ?
  7. I know a few Sikhs but have never found any particluar pro reason approach in them. In my experience, Sikhism is just another religion. But perhaps you know something I don't, being a Sikh yourself. Just what are the pro reason element in Sikh "Philosophy" ? Here's what Matt Ludin (ARI) wrote to me: "The response I get from India has been surprisingly great compared to any other foreign country."
  8. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    Actually, dogs are eaten as a delicacy in the north-eastern (mostly tribal) parts of India. I met a herpetologist once who had done research in that area and said that dog meat is really tasty. Carnivore meat, it seems, is salty and this adds to its taste. The point for the vegetarians, however, is that one wouldn't eat one's own pet because one considers it as a companion, not because it has any rights.
  9. The point is not that Eddie was an avearge, the point is that he never wanted to be greater than that. IIRC, his last words to Dagny were of the sort, "You could start a railroad anywhere you go, I couldn't." The truck driver didn't always want to remain a truck driver. And therein lies the difference. Instead of being a contradiction, this is one of the starkest examples of the pitiless justice of Galt. He is a man who doesn't fake reality in any manner whatsoever. Taking Eddie in would have been one. He was an avearge man, he wasn't a prime mover.
  10. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    Consider the following 2 cases: 1> I enter a room full of crockery and indiscriminately break it. 2> I enter a field full of cows, and kill all of them. Would you say that in both the cases I am immoral because I am indulging in non-productive actions ? Only that ? Nothing else ? If your answer is that in the second case, there is a hint of a fixation for suffering and death, then does it not lead to the idea that life itself has a value, on which grounds we can morally condemn the shooter ? In a nutshell, doesn't a living thing have a higher value than a non-living thing ? Why ? Just to make it clear, I am playing the devil's advocate here. I would welcome a collosal tearing apart of my arguments
  11. This is a very good article on the discussion at hand.
  12. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    How would you answer the latter ?
  13. Would you say that a sexual relationship between consensual, related adults is immoral ? Is incest immoral even if adults who genuinely like each other indulge in it, of their mutual consent ? Specifically, I am not talking about children.
  14. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    The aporia that I see is this: The standard of good/bad is man's life, then if one protests against cruelty to animals, it has to be from man's life as the standard. That means that life as such is not a value ? I know this sounds smacks of intincism, but shouldn't life be a value in itself ? I need a formulation to ground this value within the objectivist hierarchy of values. As for the other reply regarding cruelty being the only unpalatable reason, the context in which I put the question was different. What i wanted was an answer to the following 'syllogism': p1. A world with less suffering is better than a world with more suffering. p2. Animals suffer while being butchered for meat. p3. A 'rational' man takes reasonable steps to make the world better. p1 ^ p2 ^ p3 -> A rational man should not eat meat. I know there is something wrong somewhere, i just can't put my finger on it. ---- Thanks & Regards
  15. Ragnar

    Animal rights

    [Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN] Hello Among the various claims of vegetarians, the only one that I find viable is one of cruelty. If, as the vegetarians say, there is no 'need' of eating meat today - in that healthy vegetarian alternatives are available - then killing animals would constitute 'unnecessary cruelty'. An argument is made that animals being amoral, the concept of rights does not apply to them. Thats true. But the point is about 'unnecessarily' infliciting pain and suffering on these creatures. Is that not bad ? I wonder if any of you have read this: http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burg...ckson/engel.pdf Its called "Immorality of eating meat". How would you answer the author ? The document is approx. 3Mb, 36 pages (best read if printed) ---- Regards & Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...