Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Aethereal

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Aethereal

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. I think I've come to two possible errors in my reasoning, and you two may have just touched on one of them. 1) I am expecting the initiation of force to be intrinsically wrong, to be wrong regardless of the consequences, and this is what I am asking to be proved. This is a manner of thinking I thought I had dropped years ago. I remember back in a high school ethics class, I said that it was wrong to lie, regardless of the consequences. That if someone with an axe showed up at my door and asked if my wife was home, I should tell the truth. I view that as insane now, but that is basically
  2. This is the core of what I am failing to grasp. Could you (or someone else) go into more detail on this? I wonder if I may just been looking for too simple of a solution where non exists.
  3. He doesn't care about their survival, or their use of reason. He is perfectly happy to substitute his reason for their own. And in doing so, he lived a long, happy, prosperous life. Perhaps the slave owner recognizes that he too could be enslaved and would have no moral argument to make in response, but he is white in 18th century American, so this is very unlikely. And he doesn't care if his slaves live qua man. To be clear, I agree that the slave owner should want to live in a world without slavery. He should vote to abolish slavery. But since it is legal, and he can't chan
  4. I don't think anyone here would say that it is impossible to commit a crime with no external consequences, or rather, no counter-force applied. And because it is not impossible, that argument can't prove that initiation of force is inherently wrong. However, I think many people here do claim that initiation of force results in, as you say, "the destruction of one's own integrity as a rational being". If this is true, it is destroying man's means of survival, and therefor certainly not in his interest, regardless of rewards, and is therefor wrong. Here is what I am missing, and I suppos
  5. Thanks for the replies, everybody. The page linked by Eiuol is 36 pages, I am on page 8. It will take me some time to get through it all. Most arguments, such as the one linked by Marc K, suggest that it is wrong because you might get caught, or fear getting caught, or have some other social difficulties due to your crime. While this is true in 99% of cases, it isn't hard to imagine a situation where the crime was so perfect, you are going to get away with it and have nothing to fear. Maybe you are even in a non extradition country where you can admit your crime openly, and have no trou
  6. Why can't I use force to obtain the things that will make me happy? Lets say I want to steal some money. I won't say I know I won't get caught; to do so would be asking you to speculate on the morality of an omniscient being. Let's say I'm 99.99% sure I can steal a million dollars and not get caught, and that that number is accurate. This money would aid my survival. Why shouldn't I do it? I can't find a good moral justification for this anywhere. I understand why, at a government level, force should be banned. A society where we can't use force is good for everyone, even the would b
×
×
  • Create New...