Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dániel Boros

  1. Selfishness can never be altruistic. If you give money to the poor because of compassion and not because of altruism than you are still selfish. My quote is from the book titled: The Virtue of Selfishness.
  2. How you justify your actions not necessarily justify your actions. If the USA wants to promote altruism and democracy why didn't they go to the Congo when 6 million people died there in a bloody civil war? Or why didn't they intervened in 56 when the Hungarians started their revolution? Spreading democracy is just government propaganda especially if you are giving money to dictators at the same time.
  3. Please don't make this a Christianity VS Secularism debate and hate fest. I defined my terms very clearly so that none could do that. Maybe Christians use churches for charity because Christianity is an altruistic philosophy and not just because it is a religion. What's wrong with adults bringing children to churches to learn morality? Is morality not important? Are parents the best moral teachers ever (even when they work)? What's the difference between learning math and learning morality that causes this divide? Is morality and math both based on objective reality? Isn't it the content what really matters and not necessarily how it is being thought?
  4. No I am more thinking of a franchise like McDonald or Christianity A franchise institution if you will with one center, but many schools in many cities. I am guessing karate schools would be a good example, but not intellectuals.
  5. First you would have to determine the role of government in international relationships. ->To protect the rights of its people same as the domestic Than you would have to determine what methods are available to do that ->Voluntary: diplomacy, contracts, international law, trade ->Force: sending the military Than you need to restrict how force can be used and in what cases just like in domestic affairs. If the decision to go to war was made the military is obliged to go through wit it. Naturally in a conflict you would need allies and in the end your enemies determine your allies. Athens and Sparta allied even though they hated each other. After the conflict is over the military alliance should be over as well. After WWII the USA and the Soviets became enemies, Italy was the enemy of Germany in WWI but not in WWII etc... Athens allies benefited from their alliance, but after the war they all became the slaves of Athens unjust taxes. The lesson of history is that all Alliances fail sooner or later. (Although the conflict in the Middle East was never meant to end) The US foreign policy in a way follows the "Might is Right" principle and a "Altruistic" principle as well. Alturistic in that they sacrifice their man for the well being of their allies. Might is Right because they start war knowing no one has the means to oppose them. Just because you have bigger guns doesn't mean you can do anything... well maybe it does.... I was satirical which means I was right. Sorry I merely wanted to point out how much the Israelis love this alliance of the US that is forced on them. Maybe one day you will even have to occupy them to keep them your allies lol That's what Athens did...
  6. Is there any role of Religion in Society? By religion I mean an institution that teaches moral standards to people and curtain practices to keep those standards alive in the minds of the people. Like teaching math, but with more repetition so you will never forget it. (And yes you did forget math) There are many religions with different teachings and beliefs. I would argue that defining religion based on its content is impossible, at least more than I already had. So when I say religion don't think of a bunch of people who are opposite to whatever you believe in because that's not what I'm talking about. If a government can be good or bad maybe a church or religion can be good or bad as well. Share your thoughts!
  7. Gluttony perhaps? Sorry I forget you could not use that word in English as one could in Hungarian... English ****s Anyway greed doesn't sound right in that context as much as it should Yes that's exactly how I defined it. I wasn't thinking of using this definition of greed in everyday life. More like in a debate where the objectivist/libertarian is attacked by an alturist saying that in a free society with selfish people everyone would cut each others throat over money. One could argue that that is not seelfishness because it is not in the best rational interest of the individual to violate human rights and that such a thing should be called greed instead. Assuming you had a chance of defining the term, I think it is an important distinction that can make things more practical for the debater.
  8. Why not give foreign aid to Germany than or Japan? Oh wait you do... you have soldiers there By the way if you have to pay for every single war Israel should fight I'm not sure this alliance will worth it. Well they did at least conserve science long enough for the west to rediscover them. Other than that they did not do much.
  9. So what should we put under objectivism? Any suggestions? Has anyone here edited a wiki page before?
  10. softwareNerd we have better words to describe such actions. Can you think of any instance where that isn't true? I think greed should somehow be connected to money and gain. Whenever I hear greed I think of gold...mmm. my precious... To Friedman greed is essentially the same as selfishness and self interest. By the way greed is one of the deadly sins. Are you sure we want to affiliate something like that with self interest? I know nobody cares, but still... Maybe that is why I think it should be redefined in a way or perhaps the only way that can actually make it negative and make sense. As I said I would redefine greed the way I did because it would be more useful. A word without meaning is not useful. Many people believe that greed is evil and leads to crime and only with my definition can that be true. I am glad I am not the only one to see inconsistency in it's current definition.
  11. If that is the case... what makes greed any different from desire or selfishness?
  12. First take a look at these two wiki pages: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Selfishness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism I noticed a long time ago that wikipedia has a mainstream bias, but even taking that into account doesn't the article on selfishness a bit lacking? I mean look at the other page. Full of quotes and even a picture. I think the following sentences or some others should be included under the subtitle of objectivism:
  13. Is reality necessarily objective, if you're brain is in a vat? If the vat is reality and the laws of the vat are the laws of reality, than influencing the vat from the outside would make reality subjective for the brain in the vat. Or laws of reality aren't really law's of reality at all.
  14. It does not A greedy person by definition does not recognize that. That is why he would be okay with stealing and cheating. That would make greed subjective. Who decides how much is "too much"? For A person B person is greedy, but for C person B person is not greedy won't work.
  15. At least you're honest about it. Attacking Iran would result in innocent people dying. That would lead to radicalism and terrorism... in other words blowback... and the circle of endless hate will continue.
  16. If selfishness is concern with one's own interest than what is greed? If Ayn Rand redefined selfishness shouldn't we redefine greed as well? Greed, wiki definition "As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves." I would argue that until the last word the definition of greed is in fact the same as the definition of selfishness. Desire in this context means the same as the word concern and how much one needs is a subjective assertion based on one's values. How much one deserves from the amount he or she desires however is not necessarily subjective. If the person used force to obtain his wealth, than he would definitely not deserve what he has even if he desired it. Therefore I would define greed as: concern with one's own interest without respect for the rights of others. I believe the word greed defined this way is accurate and useful. Any thoughts on this? P.S.: Greed is not Good
  17. I said threaten them with blowing the stuff up... not necessarily blow it up Past grievances should not be maintained forever. Under the law even crimes such as stealing can become forfeited. (20 years or so) If you get robbed you can retaliate or do nothing, but don't come back after 20 years to stab the robbers child if you did not take any action. If we would do this blowback thing in Europe WWII would be still going on... By the WWII was blowback for WWI... so I guess it was okay...
  18. It isn't necessarily true that a business is owned by citizens from the same country as the business. The shareholders may be from several countries. If someones try to take over your oil production facilities I would argue that destroying these facilities or threatening to destroy them would be a logical choice... Guess who's gonna rebuild them!? A full scare war is a bit much in my opinion.
  19. Yes when I meant a "law that creates natural laws" I wasn't actually referring to any law, but to an entity which could create the existence that could be described by man with laws. I am still right that they should not be called "laws of nature" though laws of physics seem appropriate
  20. Ok got it,,, my bad for not being well informed of the basics On the other hand though, if the supernatural does not exist than objectivists rejection of God has nothing to do with claims regarding the supernatural... It's just that anyone who claims that God is supernatural is using the wrong terms, just like I did. I mean if God was supernatural than Theism would be nonsense and Atheism would be the claim that someone does not believe in nonsense...which would be stupid, true but stupid. I don't think that the idea that some intelligent agent has created a specific part of the Universe is far fetched enough to be complete philosophical nonsense. False sure, but nonsense? Or am I wrong? So than what is the basis of rejection (which I think is perfectly normal and basic, but whatever) ? Presumption of Atheism perhaps?
  21. Ok so I realized this actually would not be supernatural even if it were true since the supernatural is within the realm of philopsophy and not in the realm of science... so sorry Anyway I guess it goes down to the story of the brain in the vat. And I am okay with saying that if nothing unnusual, contradictoy, abnormal happens than its okay to think you're not in the vat... but if the World goes insane around you than shouldn't there be a way to justifie to believe that we are in fact in a vat? Is this where logic fails? End of story?
  22. No I mean this is all hypothetical I am not actually suggesting that we are in a virtual reality.... this is just for fun... like the brain in the vat... My premise was that it was actually something that should have not existed and I am convinced based on reason and science that it should not exist. (hypothetically) So what you're saying that even if I am right... I have actually made the wrong conclusion? I mean... it's not a coincidence that I am right... and it's not like I have any better alternatives....so....yeah..... Yes but whatever that somebody says won't matter because we can always deny it based on lack of knowladge... its just a trick... we just haven't figured it out yet...etc.. Yes but which part of the story am I missing and how can I prove it? How do you define "glitches"? How do you know something is a glitch and not a trick? I mean you're saying that I can argue for being in a virtual world based on glitches... but that's not really true, right?
  23. I've read and listened to the stuff on the homepage of the Ayn Rand Institue, but I guess I did not listen to the methaphysical stuff all that much. So if I find a substance that can exist but cannot be created (e.g.: because you need more energy to create it than the Universe can possibly contain) than it is alright to suggest that something is not right, and whatever is not right is not science but the Universe (or rather our virtual reality), and until it isn't proven that the science is wrong that is the position one should (or could) take. No wait this doesn't make sense... You can't realize something is impossible by looking at it... you can only realize that by thinking about it... because it is impossible to find something that cannot exist. I kind of think that I'm right... but I kind of think that I am wrong...is that a contradiction? If that is how you define nature I would argue that "natural laws" or "laws of nature" is a misleading combination of words... What we call nature by necessity is nature, but what we call laws of nature aren't necesarely the laws of nature, they might be the laws of a virtual world or something.
  24. I thought you call that a bribe I was trying to suggest that trivialiseing the life of soldiers is not a good thing.
  • Create New...