Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

BradN

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About BradN

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 08/08/1979

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Colorado
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I have always been an Objectivist but until reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I didn't have a name for it.
  • Occupation
    entrepreneur

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. BradN

    Ethical Banking

    The only immoral decision the bank could make is one that broke the contract WITHOUT booth parties in agreement. A possibly dumb decision is not immoral. Joe is the one acting immoral in your example. Asking another to sacrifice for his dumb decisions is immoral. Expecting another to sacrifice for his dumb decisions is EVIL. And yes banks do make more money off the foreclosure, Loans are set up to pay interest first. As long has Joe is paying, the bank is making money. When he forecloses, even in a quick sale, the bank can come out ahead.
  2. Yes, if you value and love life, taking someone else's is against your core principles. "The ends justifies the means" is a polar opposite to Objectivism. In this case you are stealing from whoever owns the cabin and has produced all the food YOU want to steal. By stealing you have abandons all attempts to sustain your own life, hunting, fishing, using the road that leads to the cabin, etc... Any mindless brute can steal from an empty cabin, you don't have to use your mind, thus "abandoning your mind". With the use of Objective thought you can react to any situation using reason. The ON
  3. No, only if he denies me the ability to trade with others. If you resort to force have you not abandon the mind? One must defend oneself, but NEVER throw the first punch. It is the person throwing the first punch that has abandoned the mind therefor negating it. I have no other proof, just this simple example.
  4. Acting in ones self interest, one would not have to choose between the two. I don't understand the notion that being selfish must negativity affect others. Acting in ones self interest, positively affect all parties involved. i.e. If a looter was starving and needed food he would resort to steeling (you see them on corners holding signs - Feed Me, I am LAZY). If I were were starving I would trade anything and everything that had with less value to me then the food, both parties benefit. If I were unable to trade for food, someone would have stolen my ability to trade, and force could be u
  5. It looks to me the debate is focused to much on "Self Interest" or "Selfishness". In Objectivism there is good and evil. Good: Life and knowing you are alive. Evil: Anything that is against life. Stealing bread to stay alive is taking life from someone else (Anything one has produced is apart of ones life). This is an act agents life, therefore evil and agents the primary principle of Objectivism. An Objectivist would never need to steel food, only take food back from a looter. Force may only be used after it has been used, and yes steeling is a force. So yes selfishn
×
×
  • Create New...