Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


VECT last won the day on October 15 2014

VECT had the most liked content!

About VECT

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  1. Objectivism Ethics

    Say if you are trying to convince someone to a more healthier lifestyle. I had a friend who regularly smokes. He knows the risks and all the potential health problems associated with smoking, down the to exact statistics figure (he actually works in stats). But this guy consciously choose to trade health for the pleasure of a cigarette/cigar. You simply can't reason people out of decisions like that. I certainly tried. This is just one example. There are people out there who pursues (within the confine of their rights) uncounted variations of what would be considered immoral values by Objectivism standard. You can say, given the objective nature of an individual's psychology, the anti-values they pursue will not lead them to the kind happiness that a proper Objectivist life would. Be that as it may, but how do you objectively compare the happiness gained from a proper-Obj life to say the pleasure gain from drug usage? It's like comparing vanilla vs chocolate. And that's why I said I wish it was different. Because if it was, then reason would have the power to convince another to change the ultimate end goal they pursue. As it stands, it only have the power to convince others that certain values they are pursuing is counter-productive toward their end goal.
  2. Objectivism Ethics

    I see, I thought as much then. Though I wish it were different. Within the confine of rights, what ultimate purpose an individual chooses to pursue is wholly subjective.
  3. Objectivism Ethics

    @Eiuol At the moment my understanding of Objectivism ethics extend back from politics to only as far as individual rights. If an individual is acting within his/her right, then my current reasoning is telling me that all acts are okay. But obviously I get the sense that's not the case with Objectvism Ethics. Take the example of a drug addict. Now if this individual chooses to pursue an ultimate goal of independent-sustainable life, then obviously drug addiction would be immoral because it is counter-productive towards that goal. But if this individual chooses pleasure from drugs as his ultimate goal, and his life as a means to that end, then how exactly does Objectivism Ethics tells him that he shouldn't do that?
  4. Objectivism Ethics

    I'll think on what's been said so far and reply later.
  5. Objectivism Ethics

    @Nicky I do like to argue, but that's only on topics I am confident my knowledge in. It's my belief that debate/argument is the only way to test the solidity of my concepts and completeness of my knowledge. If I lose an argument, which did happen a few times on this forum, then I learn something new. If you are not interested in entering an argument with me, I understand, but there's no point taking it personal. However, this is one of those topics I am not confident with my knowledge at the moment. So I'm looking for pointers. Either I'll be fortunate enough to read someone's enlightening post, or I'll find what I need on Google in time.
  6. Objectivism Ethics

    So, an independent and indefinite sustainable lifestyle? But why shouldn't someone choose an dependent and/or non-sustainable lifestyle? That's the hurdle I'm tripping on right now. Because while lesser values can be judged objectively as moral/immoral by whether or not they contribute to an ultimate goal, how do an individual judge what ultimate goal to choose? At the moment it seems the choosing of the ultimate goal is purely subjective to me.
  7. Objectivism Ethics

    Thanks, I'll try finding the lectures. You got a link in the mean time? It's not so much as I think happiness have to be the ultimate goal (I just so happen thought it was, but was mistaken, as you just pointed out). It's that something have to be the ultimate goal/purpose/standard/value/objective. While reason comes into play with judging whether or not lesser objectives/values actually contributes toward that ultimate goal, how do you judge, by what standard do you judge, what ultimate goal you should choose?
  8. Objectivism Ethics

    After some thought, the other way I can see it is: -If one wants to achieve happiness -If one wants to live -To preserve/further one's life, a volitional organism must choose to utilize its proper means of survival as defined by its nature (in the case of human, reason) In which case pursuit of happiness wouldn't enter the equation. If it just so happens the psychological mechanism that triggers happiness is tripped upon an individual pursuing/achieving rational values that furthers it's life, great. Would this line of thought be more correct?
  9. Objectivism Ethics

    I disagree that you disagree. See? I can do it too. Seriously, if you have no intention of correcting what I wrote and giving critical feedbacks to what I could be entirely wrong about (which is the very reason why I made this thread). Why post?
  10. Objectivism Ethics

    @Jon Excuse me if I don't trust your logic/integrity at the moment given our last exchange (and your latest attempts at promoting Georgian economic rent in other threads despite failing to justify it's existence in your own thread). While I consider myself knowledgeable with politics/rights, I'm far less so in ethics. This here is an important topic that I'd like to get sorted out for myself. I am not interested in a debate with you like last time if you don't mind. @Eiuol I was reading this when the thought occurred to me: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/ Specifically the parts around, ["Happiness,” observed Rand, “can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard."] Can you define the "life" you used in your post? Are we talking about "physically-not-dead" or something else?
  11. Objectivism Ethics

    This just occurred to me: The whole of Objectivism Ethics is based on the ultimate conditional: "If one wants to achieve happiness". -If one wants to achieve happiness -Then one must hold life as his/her ultimate value -To preserve/further one's life, an organism must utilize its proper means of survival as defined by its nature (in the case human, reason) -....etc. (correct me if I'm mistaken somewhere in my above logic) No where does it say that an individual should choose the pursuit of happiness as his/her ultimate goal. So with this line of thought, while what an individual should do to achieve happiness in this world is objective and can only be discovered through reason. But wouldn't the choosing of the ultimate goal, happiness (or some Duty), be a subjective choice impermeable to reason?
  12. Resources = (naturally-occurring-items) + (technology) A lot of things we do not consider to be resources now can be resources in the future when new technologies emerges, just as a lot of things we consider to be resources now were not considered resources in past ages due to lack of technology (e.g. fossil fuel). Also, if all the metals on earth gets mined out, that just means the increased metal price will give huge incentive to interstellar mining of metals from other planets. The universe is an infinite place. As long as humans are willing to think, potential resources are nearly infinite.
  13. Owning Land?

    Haha. Now who's purposefully misinterpreting who? Did I claim a law DIDN'T exist concerning welfare or your economic rent? Or did I claim the mere existence of such laws doesn't justify rationally the existence of the right of one individual to the income of another, just as it doesn't justify the existence of your economic rent, as you would suggest. My changing the wording of your last post is to demonstrate the futility of this new line of argument you are undertaking. If laws can somehow justify whatever they declare, then as long as I can get a bill to okay slavery to pass, then slavery would be justified. You failed to defend the existence of your economic rent on rational ground, so as a last resort you turned to argue that since there is a law presupposing economic rent exist, it must exist. To borrow your own word Jon, you are at the end of your line grasping at straws.
  14. Owning Land?

    @Jon Hahahahaha. Let me change a few words here: VECT, how do you say the poor doesn't have a right to the income of the rich when there is a income tax in America, which assesses and taxes precisely that? How inconvenient of you. Yes, because all current laws are perfect embodiments of rational principles right Jon?
  15. Owning Land?

    That's the thing. It doesn't. My latest post shows how point_1 and point_2 are not connected, that even if I concur all of Jon's standard on what constitutes as "earned", his economic rent still wouldn't exist. The only way, assuming I concur with his standard of what constitutes as "earned", for his economic rent of land to exist, is if he was planning on building a subterranean complex beneath his landlords' apartment, and his landlord charges Jon here a rent for using the land beneath his apartment. Now, given Jon's standard of what's earned, THAT rent would be his economic rent. But if his landlord is charging Jon a rent for living INSIDE the landlord's apartment, no portion of that is economic rent for unearned land. And point_2 also doesn't connect with point_3. Since I stated, and Jon here concurred, that even though it's called "land value", community improvement doesn't inject bonus value into the dirt beneath a building, but rather to the building itself. It's the proximity/location of the building in relation to the other community improvement. All three are separate points. By no means am I giving him point_1. But if I see a critical argument that can put down his #2 and #3, I'm going to take it. Those two are his end game after all. I can always go back to #1 later.