Applications of Philosophy -- Objectivism in Daily Life

[Leonid]

Where do you come up with this stuff? who has been talking about collective action against groups and who has said anything at all about rounding up all the Muslims in the USA and relocating them to camps? Ain't been nary a word about that. What Objectivists advocate is morally evaluating the ideas that people accept and thinking it through and finding out if those ideas comply with the enemy's ideas and will they act on those ideas during a war against Muslims? One reason why this war is going on so long and is very ineffectual is that our political leadership (including Bush) refuse to do this -- they refuse to see the danger of Islam, especially in its political form of Theocracy, as any type of threat against the United States. When Cordoba House was first proposed, the leadership of the NYC Mosque was NOT advocating a return to reason as part of his message regarding what he would be preaching, but rather getting along with those who do not agree with Islam -- to **some** degree -- without advocating that one dismiss the idea that infidels ought to be killed. He also had a lot of associations with Muslims being watched by our government as associating with and possibly being Islamic terrorists. He was a bad guy...a really bad guy...and no, he should not have been permitted to run a mosque dedicated to Islamic Theocracy during a time of war against Muslims (even though our government is too cowardly to call it that).

Obama recently signed the law which allows unlimited detention of American citizens without trial and charge. As for Cordoba initiative-they have open website and everybody can learn what they stay for.

http://www.cordobain...tive.org/about/

Or consider this statement :

"My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society."

http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.449917

Now, I don't claim that we have to take this kind of statements as a face value. The proof of pudding in the eating of pudding. Let's them have their mosque and let's watch them.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Leonid

[Leonid]

There is no rational principle stating that one can do whatever the hell one wants to do with one's own body and it is rational and moral. And some things do not require an elaborate philosophical proof, because they are obvious. For example, it is obvious that getting a hair cut does one no harm but cutting off one's left arm with a machete does do one harm. The rational principle is human health and well-being. Cutting off one's penis, if not for medical reasons like penile cancer, which can kill you, is doing harm to oneself, and ought not to be done.

And what about cutting and selling a kidney or donating it? And what happened to the basic principle of medical ethics-the autonomy, which means an ownership on one own body? Gender is not only biological but also psychological condition. Some people who are genetically men, have inherent conditions which cause the poor sexual differentiation. They could be raised as females and man's sexual organ causes to them severe psychological discomfort. In many cases their sexual organs are not or improperly functional. Would transgender surgery also be immoral in such a case? .And what should happen to the people who for different psychological and physiological reasons don't have defined sexual identity? Why to have sexual identity by conscious rational choice and not as result of the natural chance is inconsistent with Objectivist morality, especially if this choice promotes one's happiness and wellbeing?

Edited May 8, 2012 by Leonid

[softwareNerd]

Now, I don't claim that we have to take this kind of statements as a face value. The proof of pudding in the eating of pudding. Let's them have their mosque and let's watch them.

Good idea. Also, we should realize that the Muslim renaissance will probably not come clothed in atheism nor with some radical jump to rationality and modernity. The most likely source for a Muslim renaissance will be Muslim priests who pick the right lessons from their history, and reject the wrong ones.

The oil-based ascendancy of the Saudis has set Islam back. The complication of Israel has not helped. However, if one looks before this, to the earlier part of the 1900's one will see a nascent modernization of Islam. One will find Islamic scholars who were learning about the modern world -- often from their colonial masters -- and re-interpreting their religion. So, one will find Islamic scholars who were arguing that calls for violent Jihad have to be viewed in a historical context where the prophet was also a political leader rallyng his people to battle. You will find scholars using the Martin Luther methodology of saying that the Koran is special, whereas hadiths must be taken with a pinch of salt -- thus enabling them to begin the rejection of tradition. Similarly, in the 1900's one saw Ataturk drag his country -- often kicking and screaming -- into a more modern form of Islam. One also saw a similar modernity among the elites in Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. (the Saudis are the exception, but money talks).

That is how the Muslim renaissance might well arrive: via priests who reduce the immutable core back to the Koran alone, who then re-interpret part of it as being relevant to a particular context, who reinforce the idea that there is no compulsion in religion, and who put forth the best of times from Islamic history -- times of libraries, and rationality -- as the political ideal.

[Leonid]

That is right. For the further evaluation of this tendency I'd recommend to read the book " No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam " by Reza Aslan.

[Spiral Architect]

Good idea. Also, we should realize that the Muslim renaissance will probably not come clothed in atheism nor with some radical jump to rationality and modernity. The most likely source for a Muslim renaissance will be Muslim priests who pick the right lessons from their history, and reject the wrong ones.

The oil-based ascendancy of the Saudis has set Islam back. The complication of Israel has not helped. However, if one looks before this, to the earlier part of the 1900's one will see a nascent modernization of Islam. One will find Islamic scholars who were learning about the modern world -- often from their colonial masters -- and re-interpreting their religion. So, one will find Islamic scholars who were arguing that calls for violent Jihad have to be viewed in a historical context where the prophet was also a political leader rallyng his people to battle. You will find scholars using the Martin Luther methodology of saying that the Koran is special, whereas hadiths must be taken with a pinch of salt -- thus enabling them to begin the rejection of tradition. Similarly, in the 1900's one saw Ataturk drag his country -- often kicking and screaming -- into a more modern form of Islam. One also saw a similar modernity among the elites in Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. (the Saudis are the exception, but money talks).

That is how the Muslim renaissance might well arrive: via priests who reduce the immutable core back to the Koran alone, who then re-interpret part of it as being relevant to a particular context, who reinforce the idea that there is no compulsion in religion, and who put forth the best of times from Islamic history -- times of libraries, and rationality -- as the political ideal.

I really liked how you laid that out.

In affect, I believe you are saying that Islam will need to have the same internal renaissance that Christianity went through to move from a Dark Age religion to a modern religion. While not ideal by Objectivist standards it is the logical if not historical course it would go through.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Or consider this statement :

"My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society."

Sure, and they have been awfully quiet on that front. I have not heard a single Muslim condemn the acts of those savages in Afghanistan who wanted to kill every Westerner in the country because someone accidentally burned a Koran at our military base in Kabul. Did you? Yes, they will give lip service to being against terrorism, and some actually mean it, but I haven't heard them condemn other Muslims for their acts and desires to kill Westerners -- especially Christians. Have you? Do they have a page up on that websites speaking clearly against wanton acts of violence against non-believers and morally condemning them for such acts? Didn't think so.

[Leonid]

Sure, and they have been awfully quiet on that front. I have not heard a single Muslim condemn the acts of those savages in Afghanistan who wanted to kill every Westerner in the country because someone accidentally burned a Koran at our military base in Kabul. Did you? Yes, they will give lip service to being against terrorism, and some actually mean it, but I haven't heard them condemn other Muslims for their acts and desires to kill Westerners -- especially Christians. Have you? Do they have a page up on that websites speaking clearly against wanton acts of violence against non-believers and morally condemning them for such acts? Didn't think so.

Not so quiet.

"The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism.

The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The existence of Islamic terrorists is the existence of threats to democracy. There is no room for terrorism in the modern world and the United States should take a no-tolerance stance on terrorism in order to avoid another tragedy, along the lines of 9-11. With the added threat of biochemical weapons, the call to defeat terrorism has never been so urgent."

http://www.freemusli...s/terrorism.php

"Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam. Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends."

BBC News, 11 July, 2003

""Who has the greatest duty to stop violence committed by Muslims against innocent non-Muslims in the name of Islam? The answer, obviously, is Muslims."

Ingrid Mattson, Vice President, Islamic Society of North America

"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."

Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."

King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in the Middle East Times, September 28, 2001.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Leonid

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I have to agree with the previous poster who said that sexual re-assignment surgery seems like a way to fake reality. I mean, I could understand if it were an actual sex organ transplant (though I'd still be against it), which is what I thought we were talking about, though it looks like I had the facts wrong. But turning the penis inside-out (or outside-in in this case) doesn't make a vagina, and pulling out the clitoris doesn't make it a penis. And the whole rest of the opposite sex sex organs are missing and not surgically attached, from what I can gather (although this has been tried, unsuccessfully). And I'm kinda curious about how any of this changes anything with regard to how one feels about one's sex organs. I mean, the same nerve endings are there, if they do it right, apparently, so wouldn't it still feel like a penis and wouldn't it still feel like a vagina?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

With regard to Muslims speaking out against terrorism, the more the better, of course, so I'm not against that. There just doesn't seem like enough effort is put into right-minded Muslims seeking to disown terrorist-minded Muslims, or even disowning those Muslims who go around killing Christians in the Middle East. I'm not saying every Muslim is responsible for every other Muslim, but if some Objectivist went out and committed acts of terror or killed a bunch of people in the name of Objectivist, you can bet we would be very vocally against them and would condemn them and would seek to preserve the good name of reason and Objectivism. Heck, we disown those who misrepresent Objectivism, let alone those killing in the name of Objectivism!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Someone asked if it was objective to think about oneself all the way down to one's DNA. Well, your DNA is what made you the type of living being that you are (including chromosomes and genes), so it is not something that ought to be ignored. I don't know my genome, though I'd be curious about it to see what illnesses I might get in the future, but I do recognize that it was my DNA that gave me the capacities that I have, including the capacity to reason. An individual is everything that he is, including his DNA; just as a man is everything that he is, including his two arms and five fingers on each hand. One's DNA does not control one's mind due to the fact that we have free will and have to choose to think, but one's DNA gave one the capacity to have free will and to think -- it made you what you are metaphysically.

[whYNOT]

Yes, I asked if the metaphysical nature of Man extends down to his DNA.

Thinking about what is given, is not the same as thinking about what to do

with it - for instance, I may consider my legs and their usefulness and capability,

but that won't tell me where to walk to.

Like my legs - biology, chromosomes etc., are the *physical* given, it seems self-evident.

The Nature of Man is immutable (no matter what future biological discoveries), and is

his *metaphysical* given.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

OK, I've thought about the issue of a "sex change" more thoroughly, given the new facts I looked up, and I have to fully agree with Dr. Peikoff's stance that it would be immoral to mutilate one's own body in that fashion. He was wrong about the potential to enjoy sex, but just the idea of turning one's penis inside out and pulling one's clitoris to the outside of the body is mutilation at its worse. I say "at its worse" because the article I read says that by doing this, the body tends to want to reject it continuously as an open wound. This is what is meant by saying it is against man's metaphysical nature to do that to oneself. It is against one's physical nature to have that type of operation. And while I agree that choice is an aspect of human nature and that one's ideas and one's consciousness are not givens beyond what is perceptually self-evident, turning against oneself -- mind and body in this case -- is immoral. The only types of exceptions would be for dire medical needs solving a deeper medical problem, and I'm not sure I buy into the idea that a deeply held aversion to one's own sex organs is a medical need other than very intense psycho-therapy. However, since psychology is at such a primitive state at this time, in some cases, I would say it is like homosexuality. Not much can be done about it, and maybe in that sense it is not open to direct choice, and so cannot be assessed as immoral to act on it; but this would be very rare and certainly does not account for those who do it out of direct choice without the deeply held psychological problems.

[Leonid]

With regard to Muslims speaking out against terrorism, the more the better, of course, so I'm not against that. There just doesn't seem like enough effort is put into right-minded Muslims seeking to disown terrorist-minded Muslims, or even disowning those Muslims who go around killing Christians in the Middle East. I'm not saying every Muslim is responsible for every other Muslim, but if some Objectivist went out and committed acts of terror or killed a bunch of people in the name of Objectivist, you can bet we would be very vocally against them and would condemn them and would seek to preserve the good name of reason and Objectivism. Heck, we disown those who misrepresent Objectivism, let alone those killing in the name of Objectivism!

Well, you cannot compare Objectivism with Islam, cannot you? These two systems are light years apart. No amount of efforts could change Islamist mind set overnight. This is very slow and tedious process.Compare it with the Christian Reformation which took about 100 years and desolated Europe in the process.

[Leonid]

OK, I've thought about the issue of a "sex change" more thoroughly, given the new facts I looked up, and I have to fully agree with Dr. Peikoff's stance that it would be immoral to mutilate one's own body in that fashion. He was wrong about the potential to enjoy sex, but just the idea of turning one's penis inside out and pulling one's clitoris to the outside of the body is mutilation at its worse. I say "at its worse" because the article I read says that by doing this, the body tends to want to reject it continuously as an open wound. This is what is meant by saying it is against man's metaphysical nature to do that to oneself. It is against one's physical nature to have that type of operation. And while I agree that choice is an aspect of human nature and that one's ideas and one's consciousness are not givens beyond what is perceptually self-evident, turning against oneself -- mind and body in this case -- is immoral. The only types of exceptions would be for dire medical needs solving a deeper medical problem, and I'm not sure I buy into the idea that a deeply held aversion to one's own sex organs is a medical need other than very intense psycho-therapy. However, since psychology is at such a primitive state at this time, in some cases, I would say it is like homosexuality. Not much can be done about it, and maybe in that sense it is not open to direct choice, and so cannot be assessed as immoral to act on it; but this would be very rare and certainly does not account for those who do it out of direct choice without the deeply held psychological problems.

According to this any cosmetic surgery is also immoral. It's done for aesthetic, not medical reasons and some times involves the great deal of mutilation. So, in your view, why the reshaping of nose, eyes, breasts, buttocks or stomach is justified and reshaping of the sexual organs is not? Why cosmetic surgery is not criticized in Objectivism as a metaphysical assault? Evidently, that this side of asylum people do transgender surgery in order to achieve certain values, that is-firm sexual identity in order to enjoy their life in full. The medical problem connected with the penal inversion could be easily resolved by the removal of penis.

People live by adjusting nature to their own needs and man is also part of this nature. There is nothing morally wrong in adjusting the human body to the one's needs. Suppose, in the future people could transplant or grow gilts in order to live at the bottom of the sea, because it would make them incredibly rich and happy. Would you also call such a procedure a metaphysical assault?

Edited May 12, 2012 by Leonid

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've gotten some flack on FB and here regarding my claim that such sexual reassignment surgery is treated like an open wound for quite some time after the operation, which is one reason I am against them. Here is a website by a surgeon who does the operations, stating those facts.

Dr. Peikoff covered the issue or regular plastic / cosmetic surgery in a recent podcast, and the primary difference is that plastic surgery is generally done to restore a youthful look and is not done to contradict one's physical nature (like sex changes without modifying the sex chromosomes). There is a difference between a mutilation and surgery to restore a healthy looking body.

And I gave this Reductio ad absurdum to counter-act the claim that a big burly man may feel like a woman inside, and therefore it is moral to perform an operation on him to turn his penis inside out: What if someone had a weird psycho-self-image and thought he was a worm instead of a man? Would it be moral to cut off his arms and legs to make him happy so he could wiggle around in the dirt?

And I've already acknowledge, here and elsewhere, that if there is absolutely nothing else medical science can do to correct for bad chromosomes or a deeply-held negative psycho-sexuality, then maybe it is all that can be done. But it would be like cutting off one's arm because you had gangrene. Not recommended, and not moral under normal circumstances.

[Eiuol]

And I gave this Reductio ad absurdum to counter-act the claim that a big burly man may feel like a woman inside, and therefore it is moral to perform an operation on him to turn his penis inside out: What if someone had a weird psycho-self-image and thought he was a worm instead of a man? Would it be moral to cut off his arms and legs to make him happy so he could wiggle around in the dirt?

Depends on why. Reduction ad absurdum, sure, but it's also not applicable because I doubt anyone would have a *reason* to want to become a worm, while there are reasons to have sex reassignment surgery. Of course, that isn't to say there aren't bad reasons. You'd have to demonstrate what in fact would be *harmful* as a result.

[Dante]

Dr. Peikoff covered the issue or regular plastic / cosmetic surgery in a recent podcast, and the primary difference is that plastic surgery is generally done to restore a youthful look and is not done to contradict one's physical nature (like sex changes without modifying the sex chromosomes). There is a difference between a mutilation and surgery to restore a healthy looking body.

Yeah, getting old is unnatural. It only happens to everyone ever.

Face it. If your argument is 'don't touch what's coded for in your genes,' there's a whole more than gender reassignment surgery that's off the table.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I realized that I didn't answer the question about getting surgical gills so that one could live under water, like mining the bottom of the ocean. No, this would absolutely be immoral, as man's mind makes it possible for him to adapt his environment to himself, instead of adapting his body to his environment, and this is his glory -- the glory of being rational.

[CrowEpistemologist]

I realized that I didn't answer the question about getting surgical gills so that one could live under water, like mining the bottom of the ocean. No, this would absolutely be immoral, as man's mind makes it possible for him to adapt his environment to himself, instead of adapting his body to his environment, and this is his glory -- the glory of being rational.

Sorry, you seem to have the wrong philosophy--you want the Amish philosophers down the hall.

Meanwhile, me and my transplanted heart (immoral as it may be) are doing fine...

[JASKN]

I realized that I didn't answer the question about getting surgical gills so that one could live under water, like mining the bottom of the ocean. No, this would absolutely be immoral, as man's mind makes it possible for him to adapt his environment to himself, instead of adapting his body to his environment, and this is his glory -- the glory of being rational.

This is just flat-out rationalism. Man can't get gills for some good purpose like mining the ocean? Though this is a hypothetical, why not? It would be to his benefit (assuming this kind of modification doesn't hinder an otherwise healthy life). In this case, you could consider the man's body his "environment," if you want to look at it that way. Either way, he's doing something to make his life better.

There's really nothing wrong with any kind of body modification, or mind modification for that matter, as long as there is nothing wrong with it. You have to look at the facts -- look at your life, the possibilities available to you, your limits, your goals, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, this "sanctity of the body" crap is just that -- crap. You need to consider the broadest picture.

[whYNOT]

Crow's heart is a perfect case in point. When was that first heart-transplant,

50 years ago? Now, commonplace. Though I'm aware of the difference between a

life-saving operation, and gender-reassignment, the essential purpose in both is men's

happiness.

Who knows what will be available in future, and become routine? If it can be done,

it will be done. Objectivism as Movement should look ahead and encompass all and any

advances as moral, instead of fighting a rear-guard action, each time.

[softwareNerd]

I realized that I didn't answer the question about getting surgical gills so that one could live under water, like mining the bottom of the ocean. No, this would absolutely be immoral, as man's mind makes it possible for him to adapt his environment to himself, instead of adapting his body to his environment, and this is his glory -- the glory of being rational.

I assume if man could invent a device that was like a gill, but could be used like SCUBA equipment -- i.e. without permanent bodily modification -- you would think that fine with that?

[Leonid]

The modern biological science made possible to regard man's body as his environment and not as some holy untouchable entity. We shape and re-shape our bodies in accordance to our needs. Any man with pacemaker, artificial limb and transplanted organ has not metaphysically given but man-made body. Any body modification including gills, which promotes and betters man's life is moral. Sexual identity defined not only by the pair of sexual chromosomes ( a genotype), but mostly by expression of these genes. ( a phenotype), and by many psychological factors. There are women with the level of testosterone which is higher than that of the average man. They do bodybuilding and have muscles that many men wouldn't even dream to have. Would you also call this a metaphysical assault? In regard to cosmetic surgery-it is simply wrong to assume that its purpose to look younger. What is breast reduction or enlargement has to do with the age? Your example of the large masculine man who suddenly decided to be a woman doesn't apply. Such a patient would be referred for psychological evaluation by any surgeon.

http://images.search...ing competition

Edited May 16, 2012 by Leonid

[Leonid]

I assume if man could invent a device that was like a gill, but could be used like SCUBA equipment -- i.e. without permanent bodily modification -- you would think that fine with that?

I assume that man, who lives most of the time under water, doesn't really need a removable mechanical device like SCUBA. it would be much more convenient and thousands time more safer for him to have such a device as a natural biologically integrated part of his body.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Leonid

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The proper standard of making any type of modifications to the human body are human health and well-being, which I have stated, which means that Crow is full of it to suggest that I would have said anything whatsoever against his heart transplant. For the most part, any medical procedure to correct for a bodily malfunction would be proper and moral -- like correcting a cleft pallet, or separating Siamese Twins, or limb transplants, or in the future, gene splicing to correct for genetic defects. Even getting bionic implants, like artificial ears or eyes, would be moral, since deafness or blindness is not according to proper standards of human health and functionality. However, I think the line has to be drawn at modifying the human body to make it no longer human. Getting a set of gills is making you no longer human, and besides, we do have SCUBA and submarines and underwater habitats, so why modify man when we can modify the environment -- including terraforming in the far future? Man does not adapt to his environment, he modifies his environment to suit his needs. Adapting to the environment is something animals do because they cannot do anything else about it and do not possess reason.