Nigel

Looking at your first question, no one has mentioned the idea of concepts of consciousness. These concepts are concepts dealing with actions of consciousness. For example, love is a concept of consciousness. Yes, this concept can be applied to contextual situations, but the concept itself is independent of context. The concept of love can applied to a wife, a family member, a pet, and so on. Other concepts of consciousness are things relating to evaluation, knowledge, and values. As another example, your values are in the form of a conceptual hierarchy. These values are not dependent on context (at least they should not be), instead context is applied to your concept of values in order to make an evaluation on the value of something.

So I was thinking about this recently--before ever seeing this thread. My thoughts were that, by and large, selling your organs while living raises some ethical questions. The potential for future health complications versus the value of your life would have to be fully analyzed (the bone marrow example is far less severe than giving up a kidney for example). On the other hand, donating organs upon death is a whole different ball game. In my opinion, no doubt about it, if my organs are to be used after my death, I want my family to be compensated. Why should organs be free? To the recipient, a new organ is the gift of life, the value of that is, to many, unmeasurable however, I feel a monetary value can be placed on organs. Lets face it, hospitals potentially stand to make a fair sum of money on an organ transplant. If its my organ being transplanted, I (or my family/estate) should share in that money since with the transplant is not possible without the donor. Its like life insurance, but without a premium. For this reason, I will not donate my organs freely, my body should not be exploited as a means for others to make money. In regards to value, I am thinking on the order of tens of thousands per organ depending on the organ and the situation. Obviously a heart is worth more than a kidney, and the older you are and quality of health when you pass has some baring on value. The point is, I am 100% against the free exploitation of my organs after death.

I am a teacher. My new principal is having all the teachers do a book study on the Disney business model. Part of this will inevitably include a discussion of the idea that when you are in front of customers (in front of students) you are on stage. This would mean drawing some sort of line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors in front of students. Now, I strive to act ethically in my professional en devours (personal as well), but this includes acting with integrity. If a student asks me why the punishment for possessing crack is more severe than the punishment for possessing cocaine, I do not hesitate to agree that this is an example of racism. If a student asks me why he or she has to learn about the types of radioactive decay, I tell the student that it must be learned because the state says that students must learn this in order to graduate. On that same note, I will also explain the importance of learning a topic that is more valuable such as classifying living organisms (grouping and classifying anything into logical, functional groupings is an important skill that is modeled in several areas of science). In short, I believe that it is important to be honest and upfront with my students. My students are not kids. They are high school dropouts, most between the ages of 17 and 20. Therefore, I don't sugar coat things, I model integrity. But on controversial issues, I will explain conflicting viewpoints and allow students to form their own opinions, an example is my unwillingness to overtly express my views on abortion or same sex marriage. My question is (without addressing the obvious flaws in education), is it ethical for teachers to sugar coat things for students in an effort to produce a desired outcome. For example, many teachers act as if the subject matter that they teach carries extreme importance and benefit to students' futures. I teach science and willingly acknowledge that several topics are fairly useless in the greater scheme of things. I encourage students to google answers on assignments because I feel that finding answers to questions on one's own is a necessary skill. My philosophy on teaching high school dropouts is that getting through and graduating is far more important than learning the content, and I allow students to submit what would be considered below adequate work for credit. The reality is that most of my students will not go on to college or pursue careers requiring advanced levels of scientific knowledge, and, in my opinion, those who do pursue these more ambitious paths will have the drive and determination necessary to overcome any shortcomings in their high school education. Success in college is not so much a matter of prior knowledge as it is a matter of drive to get a degree (if student must take a remedial course to overcome gaps in previous learning, so be it). Is this ethical? I am clearly undervaluing what the state has identified as important (but my school has not and will not criticize my position, and I made sure that the school would not have a problem with this philosophy before overtly expressing it).

Clarifications: 1. Morality is "a code of of value to guide man's choices and actions." "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and your life." (ARL). Moreover (and what you are trying to get at), is that morality depends on rational reasoning. This does not mean that we as individuals are experts on everything (that is unrealistic). It simply means that we use objective facts to make moral decisions. Typically, the objective facts needed to make regular, personal moral decisions are not 'scientific' in nature. For example, I got a letter in the mail saying that I failed to renew my dog's license. I chose to discard this letter. This is an example of moral decision making in daily life, and it did not require any scientific knowledge. Most moral decisions are not a matter of science, but a matter of philosophy. 2. Science, although presumably objective, is not Objectivism. In order for science to exist, a philosophical belief in objectivity must exist. It is metaphysically and epistemologically objective beliefs that allow for science to happen, it is not the other way around. Take Galileo for example. Galileo took a scientific position that could have potentially resulted in his execution because he believed in an objectively definable existence (I am ignoring his choice to recant his findings because it has no barring on this argument). Without his metaphysical beliefs, Galileo would not have been able to advance scientific understanding. The point here is that it is an objective philosophy and not science that is fundamentally important. 3. To act moral is to act rational. Acting rationally means that you make an informed decision. It does not mean that you know everything off hand. Simply, you learn the pertinent information before making a decision or professing moral judgement. Your level of prior knowledge is irrelevant. 4. On the talk of Rand's level of scientific knowledge, the ability to THINK rationally is far more important than the simple accumulation of factual knowledge. Recently, I have been comparing O epistemology to recent developments in neuroscience. O epistemology is consistent with present research on brain physiology. In fact, the conclusions drawn in some of the research almost mirrors what Rand wrote many years prior. Rand did not have all the technologies we have to today that help us understand how we conceptualize knowledge, but rationality alone allowed her to materialize ideas that are now being corroborated by science.

Why is this even a matter of discussion. This is not a case of hard science, but a case of the media distorting science. The truth is this: The earth may be getting warmer by fractions of degrees. This is not a cataclysmic Armageddon however. Sea levels may rise slightly. Hence, I am intelligent enough not to invest in ocean front property. The bottom line is, humans survived a very rapid climate change 12,000 years ago. Resent evidence that I read last week suggests that this ice age 12,000 years ago came on in a matter of years (not tens of years or hundreds of years like global warming extremists warn about). And guess what happened, MAN SURVIVED. Not only did humans survive, but they adapted to cope with the changes and agriculture started to develop. Its not hard to imagine that humans, at least those willing to use their brains, could survive another rapid climate change. Those who fear climate change doubt man's ability to succeed in the face of adversity. The truth of the matter is that we can survive a change in climate and so can most organisms. Furthermore, there are practical solutions proposed that can intrusively alter earth's atmosphere and control climactic conditions. Thus worrying about climate change is entirely irrational. Just think rationally and there is no problem. However, on the other hand, Rebuilding a city like New Orleans, which is below sea level, surrounded by water, and prone to hurricanes and Mississippi flood waters, is entirely irrational and indicative of why thus discussion is even occurring. In a rational world, global warming is no threat. On a side note, the stuff on global warming has reached the level of pure absurdity. I think it was the NY Times, but I am not 100% sure on this, published an article last week about highly speculative inconclusive research that stated that global warming was effecting tectonic plate movements. I don't even no where to start with how absurd this is, its just an example of fear mongering liberals. The forces that drive plate movement come from the earth's extreme interior heat (up to 4000 degrees Celsius in the mantle) where plate movement is driven. To say that a temperature increase of 1 degree C on the surface could in any way alter plate movement is a stretch, to say the least. Anyways, most lemmings who express their concerns over global warming are not scientists. Fortunately, I have a degree in biology and can read the evidence for myself (from the primary sources, not some piecemeal propaganda that was cited earlier in this thread). Go to the library and see what the journals really say. Sorry for my bluntness, but global warming alarmism bugs the hell out of me. EDIT: I am willing to bet that a news story within the next few weeks states that global warming is destroying our satellites. NASA's URAS satellite is going to crash sooner than expected due to atmospheric phenomena, though the atmospheric conditions are in no way related to earth's temperature. But you can see the easy extrapolation made possible for big brother Gore.

Tuesday, I was going over my student's test scores from the state tests last spring (I am a teacher). When looking over the scores, I noticed a problem with the test, there was a question on the test that I took issue with. So being me, I decided to email the state department of education to get some clarification on the problematic aspects of the test question. I emailed from my personal email address, did not use any credentials, but simply signed my name at the end. Well today, I got a response from the department of education sent to my work email address, which was not included or mentioned in my original email. Somehow, the state looked up my work email address to email me there. (as a side note, I do not work in a public school, I am employed by a private company) So, I want to keep pushing the issue on the test question. Now its just a matter of principle, I don't really care about the test results. I want to email them back and ask how to file a petition to have 5 tests re-scored because of the question (I had 5 kids fail by 1 point). It makes absolutely no difference to me if those students passed or not, but the invasion into my life bothers me and makes me want to fight. Is this a really bad idea?

Well said! It took me years to find a psychiatrist that liked. And even then, as my life changed, that psychiatrist no longer fit my needs, leading me on long search to find a new psychiatrist.

This debate has little to do with evolution, and more to do with 'what is a scientific theory and what is a good theory.' All science, at least that which is interesting, is theoretical. If science were solely what is observable fact, then we would not have or need scientists. Science requires hypothesizing, whether it be a small testable experiment or a large universal theory that will takes year and new technological advancements to test, science does not work with observation alone. This being said, there are logical ways to test a theory's strength. The philosophy of science provides a framework for this. If you are seriously interested, check out "Reading the Book of Nature: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" by Peter Kosso. It explains logical ways to determine the plausibility of a theory. Most importantly, the book points out that almost all major advancements in science began as theories. To argue that theories are simply predictions that carry no merit is an attack on the foundations of scientific reasoning. Ask your opponent to define science and explain its value. Using this answer, decide whether or not the debate is worth your time. No sense in arguing with a fundamentalist who will not change their mind regardless.

I strongly disagree. While Dewey's alterations allowed more 'freedom', this is an illusion. Examining Dewey's work, Dewey wants the teacher to be less overbearing, but that is only so students can work in groups. Dewey advocates this as a way to enforce social structures and teach individuals to submit to the ideas of their peers. Dewey's ideas were a means of teaching collectivism. In doing so, Dewey says outright that the content is secondary this "social" learning. Dewey's ideas were intended to accomplish the same thing as the German approach, just redirected to submit to society rather than a dictator. In both cases, learning is subordinated to teaching people to be submissive. Which is worse? I argue Dewey. The dictator can be dethroned, but subordinating to society is much more difficult to correct.

After thinking about this, this is a stupid question. I considered the question solely from a parental view. In reality, if children are raised to value objective ideals, the children themselves would pursue independence. Therefore, it is the child who gradually strains for greater and greater independence.

Israel requires all citizens to serve in the armed forces. Arguably, maintaining a strong army is absolutely essential for the continued existence of the nation. Furthermore the accomplishments Israelis are numerous. Israelis have built a highly successful economy, and have made significant efforts to improve the land to make it more habitable and useable for agriculture. Rand said--I don't recall where she said this--that Israelis' have a better claim to the land of Israel than Palestinians because of their efforts in making the land productive and habitable. The legal requirement of serving in the military certainly is not consistent with Objectivist ethics. However, I have 2 questions that relate to this nation's unique situation. 1) Is it ethical to avoid military service if living in a nation that unarguably needs to maintain a strong military to preserve its existence? Given the knowledge that you are able to productively pursue business ventures under the current government, but most likely would not be free to pursue these activities under a different government. Furthermore, is this required service simply an exchange of working short-term to preserve liberty for a lifetime. This question is not about forced service, but the ethics of dodging service (Israelis can be exempt from military service for various reasons). 2) If military service was not mandated, what would be the Objectivist view on willingly serving? If Israel was a nation of Objectivists and not Jews, would it be able to maintain the ability to protect itself from its neighbors if serving in the military were not mandated?

I think most of interpreted your question to refer to a stock market in general, not a specific stock exchange since you did not list one (i.e. The New York Stock Exchange). In theory, a stock exchange is useful component of capitalism that allows for businesses to grow and productivity to increase. In practice, here in the United States, problems arise due to government interventions. *I was going to name government policies that negatively impact the stock market. But as soon after I started, I realized that there are too many to list.

The consensus earlier is that parents must care for their children. Go see the other thread if you want arguments for this assertion. My question is, when does that responsibility end? When is a child an adult and when should that adult be responsible for caring for his or her self?

Simply, take responsibility for you actions.

This is not a valid argument. Many private companies are exploring space travel. This includes the creation and launch of both satellites and spacecraft. There are huge profits to be made in space. Tourism can potentially produce huge returns on investments. In addition, there is good reason to believe that mining operations on the lunar surface could be highly profitable. Space exploration can occur without government help. Finally, the initial intention of the space program was not so much science as it was an investment in national security.

I find the questions asked on online dating sites so absurd, and the answers even worse. Taking them seriously seems impossible. When I look at these sites, I often think to myself, would I date anyone who bothers to to try to answer these questions. Questions and my answers: Q: If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be? A: If I wanted to change something about myself, I would have changed it. Q: What sign are you? A: Umm, I don't speak sign language. Q: What languages do you speak? A: Last I checked, I speak English fairly fluently and since we live in America, I guess that is a good thing. If you want to speak in broken high school french or spanish, I am cool with that. Q: What is you ideal first date? A: I thought I was here to find a person, not a place. I can go to my favorite restaurant in little italy anytime, who cares about where, the bigger question is with who. As long as I am not an idiot and take you to Uncle Joe's Chicken Farm where you can slaughter your own bird and then pluck the feathers right there, what does it matter. Q: Who has been the most influential person in your life? A: I am pretty sure myself. You see, I work to buy myself the things that I want. I also by myself food and then eat it to keep myself alive. In addition, I make all my choices for myself and decide what I do. Finally, I also chose what to do with my free time to increase my happiness. You see, if it were not for me, I would be homeless, dead, unable to make choices, and much less happy. Therefore, I think I have been more influential in my life than grandma Easter who passed away when I was eight. Q: If you could meet any person (alive or dead) who would it be? A: I am sorry, I have been too busy living my life to sit down and think about this. Surely, I need to schedule time to consider impracticalities and unfulfillable desires. Q: How would your friends describe you? A: The same way that I described me, this is called integrity. Q: What is your occupation? A: I am confused, does it matter what one does as long as they value their work? Am I trying to date a person or a doctor? True story, when I was younger, I was probably in high school, I was told that it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich person as a poor person--this was a woman in her late 30s working as a waitress who told me this. Honestly, I am having enough trouble finding just one person to actually truly love. Q: How do you spend your leisure time? A: One of my favorite things to do on Friday nights is work, seriously. Its often quite quiet on Friday night and everything from the week is still fresh in my mind. I find that I get some of my best work accomplished on Friday nights. As a side note, I am yet to see any females jump at this response, but answered honestly. Q: What pets do you have? A: I have a dog, if you are cat person, please move along to the next profile. Hairballs gross me out, and both my dog and I detest cats. However, if you are a dog person, my dog is very cute and also single if your interested. I know that all good relationships are based on types of pets, I am very thankful that I paid $30 a month to answer this question. Q: Do you want kids? How many? A: Well, seeing as I am in my 20s and the economy ain't too great, having kids is a matter of economics. You see, if I have kids, I want them to have the best life possible, Frankly, I want to be able to afford that before considering having them. As to the second part of the question, three an a half is my favorite number. Does that work for you? Q: Do you have kids? A: I am still waiting to read the answer that says: "yes, I made a poor choice, but don't worry I collect an ample amount in child support." Lets be honest, if you have a kid and are working your way through school, you are not exactly responsible. You cannot provide the attention that a chid deserves if you are working full time and taking classes on the side. Yeah daycare may be great, but its not a substitute. Q: What type of relationship are you looking for? A: I thought this was a dating site? If not, I will take a prostitute for $50 an hour. My favorite aspect of dating sites is the ready made matches when they try to point you in the "right direction". A real example: Blank sparked your interest! Like you, she's a dog lover. You both enjoy watching a good sports game. Like you, she's never been married. Wow, this is dream girl. We both like dogs and watch sports (though I rarely actually watch sports for more than 5 minutes before becoming bored). And to put the icing on the cake, we have both never been married. Thank you website for coming up with such valuable similarities to make this evaluation. Surely with shared interests like these a marriage is looming. Sorry for my rant, but is it really that hard to include something meaningful on these sites? *I apologize for my sarcasm, but most of the time I am being serious.

Joe takes out an adjustable rate mortgage. Joe had planned on refinancing the home before the interest rate become excessively high. Due to an economic downturn, Joe can no longer refinance and cannot afford his mortgage payments at their current 10% interest rate. Joe, knowing his situation, goes to the bank and explains his financial situation. He tells the bank that he could afford his payments if the interest rate were 5% (the initial interest rate on the loan was 4%). Joe states that if the interest rate is not lowered the home will most likely be foreclosed on since he cannot afford the current payments. Joe also brings relevant financial documents to show his situation to the bank. The bank denies Joe's request and eventually the house is foreclosed. The bank knew in advance that by foreclosing on Joe's home would most likely result in the bank not being able to fully recover the amount owed on the mortgage. Despite this impending loss, the bank denies Joe's request and eats the loss. The reality of this transaction is that the loss will be passed on to other bank costumers who will be charged higher fees and receive less money on investments. Joe is requesting that a contract be broken, the bank will not void the contract since it is a valid contract. Is the bank's decision moral? While Joe's intentions in signing the mortgage, planning to refinance are questionable; does the bank's choice to offer Joe this adjustable rate mortgage mitigate these questionable intentions since the bank knows that the vast majority of adjustable rate mortgages will be refinanced as interest rates increase? Both Joe and the bank were aware of the possible outcomes when signing this mortgage.

It depends on the contract and the nature of the punishment. For example homeowners who were underwater and walked away from mortgages did receive consequences, poor credit score and/or bankruptcy resulting in difficulty getting future loans. In terms of this example, the contract states that ones credit score will be impacted, but that in no way compensates the bank for its losses. This example would be immoral, it is an exploitation. On the other hand, if someone were to break an employment contract that stipulates that the employee is liable for cost of replacing and and hiring a new person to the position, this could be arguably acceptable. In this case, the employer is presumably adequately compensated for the hardship. This is a rough generalization though and it does not factor in the cost of training a new employee and other job related factors. A concrete situation would be needed for a true assessment. In short, if the contract is written in a fashion that the violater must fully compensate the other party for the hardships endured, it would seem ethical. In this case, I would conclude that this is not a consequence, all though termed so, but rather an agreement to provide reasonable compensation in return for the choice to void the contract. Therefore, if it is an agreement on conditions to nullify the contract, the violater, in accepting his responsibility, is in fact fulfilling the contract and in not acting in an immoral manner.

When you go to the doctor, DO NOT insinuate that you think that you may be bipolar. That is an easy route to quackery. I am not saying that bipolar does not exist or anything like that. But ADD is diagnosable, bipolar is not. There are tests for ADD, the tests for bipolar are experimenting with drugs and becoming a guinea pig. Make sure you get tested for the diagnosis that is diagnosable before resorting the latter.

Here is the story. I am a teacher and recently got a job at a charter school. I had previously worked at charter school, and was not bound by a contract at that school. I was offered a job and given initial new hire paper work to fill out prior to starting (no contract was included). I started the job on Wednesday, the school goes year round. On Friday afternoon, the principal came into my room to bring me a contract to sign. Now this surprised me as there had never been any prior talk of a contract. I read the contract, I am in a tough spot. First, I should mention that this is a charter school meaning that there is no teachers union (this is relevant). In Ohio, if a teacher breaks a contract by leaving before the end of the school year, their teaching license can be suspended for one year. The threat of suspension for leaving during the school year is reiterated in the contract. The contract also states that employees may be terminated "at any tome for any reason or no reason." Now this bothers me because of the intent of law regarding breaking contracts assumes that a union would protect an employee against wrongful termination. Thus, the charter school is exploiting a law by using it an unintended manner, giving full protection to the school and putting the employee in a compromising position. There is no equal obligation between the employer and employee in this case, as there would be under the conditions that the law was intended. Now this becomes more problematic in that the pay is not great and the benefits are terrible. I took the job under the assumption that I would immediately seize a better opportunity given the chance. Its not that I don't care for the job, I really like the job; its working with high school dropouts, so its an interesting and unique opportunity. But the terrible benefits and the desire to receive better pay pay and benefits at a public school is enticing. Moreover, I would get greater freedom and autonomy in my classroom at a public school, allowing me to modify my teaching and make the greatest use of my abilities. This last part, the freedom to teach as I believe teaching should been done, is extremely valuable to me. In short, I find the contract manipulative in that I would sign an obligation with no obligation in return (except for compensation). In my opinion, leaving my desire to teach aside, the low wages received by teachers are reasonably mitigated by 1. great retirement benefits, 2. job security, 3. good benefits. In this case, I get the retirement package, but the benefits are terrible and the there is a significant lack of job security. The lack of job security stems not only from the contract, but also from litigation in which the school is involved. Therefore, it is hard for me to see this as very good situation. On the flip side, finding another job offer will be difficult. I have not seen many jobs posted lately, although I am still waiting to hear back from an interview I had last week. I have been looking everywhere in Ohio (I am kind of stuck in Ohio right now due to my license). If I fail to find a job, I would end up filing for unemployment from my previous employer. Finally, the interview last week, that I am waiting to hear from, is my absolute dream job. Signing this contract could prevent me from getting that job. So my options are, as I see it: 1. suck it up and deal with the job for a year and hope for the best, 2. explain to the principal on qualms on Monday (and then hear him tell me that he must call some H.R. person in the corporate office) and run the risk of losing the job. I am a little stuck on this decision. I see merit in both options and I am not sure if it was just the manner in which the contract was presented that rubbed me the wrong way.

Go to the doctor and ask, that would be my advice. When I was about 20 I started taking meds for ADD, it made an amazing difference in my ability to focus. I went from getting Cs and Ds in college to getting a 3.7 the very next semester. I would suggest having it looked it. The only real way to diagnose ADD is by getting tested. They make you perform tasks and check your ability to focus while performing these tasks (I know this sounds vague, I have never actually been formally diagnosed). Anyways your doctor will probably refer you to a specialist, a psychiatrist, for an evaluation. ADD, undiagnosed, can cause depression. Its definitely worth getting looked at. Also, on a similar note, before my doctor suggested I had ADD, my parents thought of me as lazy. I am certainly not like that now, and I am very productive. The point is, go to the doctor if you feel this way.

I did not say that they were publicly in favor of these legislations. I simply saying that they have a huge lobby, the initial legislation was enacted under a republican president, and there were huge profits made by portions the financial industry. These facts do not add up.

O.K. let me set this straight. My father is a realtor and he does this same work for banks, and then he gets to list the properties. First off, before a house is foreclosed, the the inhabitant usually is warned for months prior to the bank seizing possession. When the bank does take possession, it is because an individual failed to uphold a contractual agreement. This is problematic in itself, but what is more problematic is the number of people that have simply walked away from their homes allowed them to be foreclosed even though they could afford to keep this contractual agreement. Anyways, when the bank takes possession, then my father, or your friend, goes and changes the locks. At this point, the person has been told and warned that the bank will take possession of the property. They have also been told to get out with their belongings. I am not sure if it is a matter of law or part of the contractual agreement, but the possessions in the property become the property of the bank. As far as your friend and my father taking items, this is acceptable. My father has even been given permission from the banks to do this. At first, he was not quite sure about this practice when his friends in the business told him that it was alright, so he actually asked the bank. They told him that he could take what he wants. In actuality, the things that he has really taken are some cool neon beer signs from foreclosed bars, but the point is that taking property is not necessarily wrong. At least in my fathers case it is not since he asked for permission. All banks are different and the banks that your friend works for may view this differently. Technically, it is the banks property until the bank decides to dispose of it. Even if the bank will just throw it in the trash, it is their right to chose to do so with their property. Also this being said, there may still be a question of ownership. I stated that typically a person is warned well in advance before a foreclosure and at the time that the bank takes possession, the person has missed, usually, many months worth of payments. However, there have been instances of clerical errors in which banks have wrongly seized houses without notice or have seized houses of individuals who are current on their mortgages. These instances are few and far between, but they have happened and have led to destruction of personal property. But with these few exceptions, the banks don't wrongly change the locks prior to legally being allowed to seize a property. If anything, they typically end up waiting longer than necessary to seize a property.