BucketHead

Please see my response to Groovenstein. Please excuse my indulgence in this thread.....no insult was meant.

We have irreconcilable opinions on this matter and I no longer consider responding to you on this matter as worthwhile...having said that, I haven't written you off as a fool or anything like that, but if the above comment is reflective of your attitude, then I feel as though I've reached a barrier which I haven't a hope of overcoming. I have no problems discussing Objectivist epistemology with people, but I feel worlds apart on these issues{and perhaps I'm wrong}, but I think this is the wrong forum for expressing my views in what I call the truthstakes, it's moreso for examining Objectivism's epistemology. I expect that some might take offense at this, but none is intended.

Being that I consider destructive tendencies, immorality and irrationality to result from child abuse/neglect....then I would want a restructure of society whereby we define a fit parent, and allow those who pass psychiatric tests to have children. I hardly expect that this would ever be accepted as most people consider themselves as owners of children, whereas I consider it a privilege based on parental competency. Btw, from my POV, there is the truthstakes, ie, that which truthseekers can discuss, and that which is practical, given the widespread irrationality....my ideas aren't practical at this juncture, but may or may not be of interest to certain truthseekers.

Ok, I'm wrong about that. I use serial killing as a graphic manifestation of a failure to care for all members of society regardless of age or socio-economic status, however, psychatrist's usually estimate that 3-5% of Western pops are sociopathic.....how do you account for that estimate? I assume that many people who study philosophy/science are from middle-upper middle class backgrounds, that's all I meant. It sounds like you consider that intensity a badge of honour. IMO, there's a turning point{impossible to predict, must be infered}, and once beyond that point, people become sociopaths as medically defined. It was obviously a figure of speech.

Aren't you anti the death penalty? Of course, but that doesn't prevent the abuse in the first place, this is the societal indifference I refer to, in that despite you being a law abiding citizen, you don't advocate any preventative measures and this prevalent mentality guarantees more madman{ as the evidence indicates, I'm not guessing} Ok. My contention is that people's ethics are "largely" a result of treatment, this includes education, IOW, you'd generally expect that the more intelligent and knowledgeable a person is, the more secure any ethical system or code they develop would be.

Fromm's "concept of man" is a scientific construct, Fromm claimed that it's aim was to try and determine human nature as a theorectical construct, rather than be it's premiss, however, if one consistently notices a pattern between abuse and later response, then we can infer in a scientific{but not absolute sense*}, that abuse is the driver{major factor} and that the elimination of abuse will diminish if not eliminate the desire to serial kill or to develop a pyschological profile known as sociopath. We can infer that there is a dynamic productive/destructive aka love/hate in play based on later observations and aided by a concept of man, the alternative would seem to suggest that human nature is just an endless list of activities. *science only needs to be superior to guesswork, and it's twin hallmarks are explanation and prediction, it doesn't have to supply every possible answer, every possible piece of info. This just decribes their mentalities, it offers no explanation for their mentalities. If you have the iron clad evidence that would condemn someone to death, then you have the grounds for permanent incarceration, thus eliminating another unecessary kill.

I would have thought that the basis for sympathy is empathy, ie, relating your suffering to others.....of course if you've had a privileged life{which I suspect most scientists and philosophers have had }, then you need to extrapolate somewhat, but in all seriousness how can people look at Charles Manson's{for ex} yrs of beatings/homosexual rapes and general neglect and not have some sympathy? If the general membership of this forum recognizes that the average person and even the average intellectual suffers from varying degrees of irrationality, then what hope does someone habitually tortured have comparatively speaking, IOW, I'm not ruling out exceptions, but many of the famous killers have histories of abuse, usually disturbing in content and duration....that being the case, it would seem that the abuse coupled with overall neglect including the neglect of intellectual and ethical developement would be a reasonable explanation for why some people kill strangers. I would just like to mention that I value truth and that it's quite likely that I've got some ways to go before I can say that I truly understand Objectivism in totality, but Ayn Rand is a genius by all accounts, her epistemology is superb and I consider Objectivism as the Strongest Philosophy. Anyway chaps, that's all I have time for today and I'm usually busy over the weekend, so I'll respond to all the other posts ASAP but probably late Sunday.

I'm not suggesting that murders get off scott free, I'm merely expressing the reasons why I'm against the death penalty. If you choose to murder then you should be locked up and kept away from society. I'm just curious if people have a theory as to why people serial kill...it's almost as though you guys are saying, " well that's wrong, end of discussion".

Who said anything about not feeling sympathy for the current victim? And what about the fact that most madmen have been horrifically tortured? Exactly what would you say to appease them? Why is it ok for society{but specifically a handful of individuals} to abuse a child for years and then just expect that person to function ethically? What are your thoughts on preventing/mitigating the years of abuse that random children suffer? Have you ever been abused in an horrific fashion? You're demonizing the murderer, pretending that every other aspect of his life would be negative/immoral.....on what basis do you make this assessment? Based on my reading of ITOE and various other Objectivist material, I fully support Objectivists epistemology to the extent that I understand it. I accept man has free will, but what is YOUR explanation for those who serial kill?

I'm going to guess that "most" people have some form of sympathy or understanding when a domestic homicide occurs, not that the actions should be dismissed, but that the killer may have led an otherwise productive or non-violent life, so my focus is mainly on why people want to kill the savages, ie, Ted Bundy and co. IMO, these people are creations of society, IOW, between poor parenting and societal indifference, some members of society suffer years of varying forms of abuse*,.. this enrages them and leads to overwhelming destructive impulses which culminate in various hardcore crimes. I'm a supporter of Eric Fromm's "concept of man", which in essence says that just as a tree requires the right conditions for it's maturation and health, so does a human....IOW, human nature has a dynamic quality which fluctuates between two poles, one productive and one destructive.....and depending on many factors ,but primarily childhood, and specifically from birth to age 3, the seeds of destruction or production are sown. "If" we accept that our unwillingness to secure quality upbringings for all members of society regardless of age or socio-economic status is the cause of serial killers and so on, then it hardly seems appropriate that we kill the ones who go haywire on us. *the consistent theme of many true crime books is that of the killer having endured yrs of torture, often physical, sexual and psychological.

What if the convicted killer was prepared to accept permanent confinement? If killing is wrong in the first place, it's gotta be wrong the second time round.

Bobby. IMO, Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is a good start, especially as it's only 165 pages, which means you get a great overview{plus some hardcore explanations} which you could read over the weekend if you're keen enough. I've just ordered OPAR, 500 pages, so that should do the trick, IOW, once you've got the basic principles, you shouldn't really need endless examples, you should be able to duplicate many of the analogies/examples that Rand created herself. If you're a youngster, just ask your parents that you'd like them to buy you two popular philosophy books, I'm sure they won't object{hopefully, lol}.

"If you need firm and indisputable physical proofs of God's existence, that's too bad because you're not going to get them in this life" Here's what a theist said, LOL.

Madam, telling me that I have to ecologically qualify my statements amongst this forum would seem redundant to me. I said that our physiology is geared towards life, I didn't say anything about the intellectual quality of our life, ie, a child raised on a diet of food, exercise and minimal emotional/intellectual contact will still function physiologically, proving that we are geared towards living by virture of our physico/chemical properties. Objectivism will maximize the totality of one's life.

Can't say I entirely understand what you're saying here Bobby, but IMO the assignment of the right to life is a basic fundamental of any meaningful and automatically objective ethical system/doctrine, ie, once we've decided that humans have the right to life, we then have to decide the implications of that and cater to those implications{the right to freedom and productiveness}.