Dániel Boros
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dániel Boros
-
-
I have played Mass Effect one, but I don't remember being either renegade or paragon as having much impact on me or the story.
KOTOR 1 and 2 on the other hand had a rather strong impact. I usually played the light side. I tried to play the dark side as well, but I couldn't last long on that path. Probably because I always had light side Jedi in my group all the time, and they kept complaining about victims and greed and whatnot.
In The Elder Scrolls Oblivion I managed to play an evil character probably because of the lack of teammates and moral system. I have to admit it was quite fun to play a remorseless assasin from the Dark Brotherhood once I got used to it.
What strikes me about the Kotor type moral point systems is that the dark side isn't all that different from the good side. One is materialistic survival of the fittest the other is altruistic self sacrifice.
-
Thanks
Definitions of human nature in objectivist philosophy tend to be incredibly vague.
They emphasise the rational part and ignore the emotional.
My problem is that humans will feel certain things in certain situations and act rationally to gain the object of their love or lust, but there's nothing that ensure that what their feelings makes them wish for is good for them.
For example what if all man had anorexia? If your nature would be to not eat and act to achieve that, than you would die. If that is the case a person may do the wrong thing by not eating since such an action would not be in his own rational self interest.
Objectivism denies all forms of predestination, and that includes genetic predestination as well, right?
So what makes human nature good? Human nature is what it is and it isn't necessarily good.
Or is it
? -
By human nature I mean feelings, emotions and instincts.
Do hunger, lust and emotions help us in making decisions or are they an obstacle to rationality.
If they help, why?
Do I eat to survive or do I eat because I am hungry? Which is right and which is wrong?
-
Gamers should protest a law such as this.
All this will achieve is that people will go from legal servers to illegal ones. As if we didn't have enough of those already.
This is insane.
Seriously can't believe this.
-
No matter which country I go to policeman are never responsible for their actions. They always cleared of all charges and never punished. How could anything be worse than that?
-
Sorry I don't know that much. This is an example my law professor told me during class. Should be authentic.
The case happened in Hungary.
I will ask for more details when I can...
-
Ayn Rand: "Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has
to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean."
Yes but where do you draw the line between private and public, between markets and government?
Government can forcibly restrain any private police force. What more could you possibly need to keep them from biting each others tongue?
Government doesn't produce guns and all the stuff they need to operate, so why must they be the only service possible for the enforcement of the law?
-
I assume what happened was that the felony murder rule was applied (during the commission of a dangerous felony, any homicide, intentional or accidental, will be considered murder, and all the people charged with the felony will also be charged with murder).
So, even though the Police did determine who's gun fired the shot (which they could do if they recovered the bullet), both were charged with murder in the second degree?
Not sure if the charge would stick though. If the crime was a robbery or a kidnapping, then it would be cut and dried, but in this case it's not. So, it's possible that the prosecution instead decided to only charge the person who fired the bullet, and charge him only with manslaughter (which, if the felony murder rule doesn't apply - because reckless discharging of a firearm isn't considered a dangerous felony, is what the crime is).
Wrong.
Since the murderer could not be determined both of them were found innocent on the charges of murder.
They did get some punishment for illegal use of firearms though...
-
Two guys use a single rifle to shoot targets in their backyard. One of the bullets flies into the neighbours yard hits an old guy on the head and kills him.
The two guys don't notice anything and continue shooting until the police arrive. The two shooters can't possibly know which one shot the old guy, so who is/are responsible for the crime and why?
This story actually happened and I am aware of the outcome, but tell me what you guys think the verdict should be.
-
The thief might be blocking the view and if he moves the one behind might get shot.
Also bullets can easily rebound and hit anyone who was not targeted or even seen.
-
er/sie/es - he/she/?
by the way in Hungarian there's only "ő" no he or she and it can refer to both man and woman.
-
Your definition yes. Regardless of any definition I don't see many people calling others evil simply for making bad decisions...
Because sometimes the self-induced hurt is not commensurate to the damages inflicted the victim.
And? Why should the criminal pay for more than what he inflicted on himself?
If unselfishness is the only evil in crime than why should the criminal pay for the pain of someone else? Wouldn't that be forced charity i.e. altruism? I doubt the criminal likes the victim, so...
People have an exceptional interest in upholding human rights, therefore violation of these rights is not merely wrong but evil.
There may be no scale that could differentiate between evil and wrong, but they are in the end still different.
A scale with 5 pounds of gold on one side and 5 pounds of silver on the other would balance out, but they wouldn't be the same.
-
If "both" wrongs are one and the same why punish them differently?
If hurting others is wrong because it hurts the person who does it, than why punish that person?
-
Part of the firearms safety training I received while in the U.S. Navy was that there is no such thing as an accidental firearm mishap. Every single incident with a firearm is caused by a person violating a safety fundamental prior to the incident. (This principle might well generalize to all types of accidents,) An acceptable defense is that it was not the intent to shoot the bystander. The problem is that people have conflicting intents, and that while it is true it was not intended to shoot the bystander it is also true that they did not intend to pay adequate attention to the firearm or they would have done so (paying attention being the essence of one's free will). Intent to cause harm is what distinguishes criminal liability from civil liability,
You as shop owner and the armed robber should both be held accountable to harm inflicted on bystanders, but under different legal circumstances: the robber as a criminal and civil matter, the shop owner as a civil matter only, assuming no one had been killed. If the shop owner killed someone then he may have to fight a criminal manslaughter charge at trial. Even short of killing someone the circumstances might indicate criminal negligence or criminal recklessness on the part of the shop owner.
I think this is as specific an answer as can be given without fleshing out the scenario with the details needed by an actual prosecutor, judge and jury to decide a particular case.
So the robber will be charged with attempted theft or theft and the owner with manslaughter?
A drunk driver chooses to drive or at least to drink so I don't think if the driver kills a person he should be charged with the same felony as the shopkeeper. Doesn't seem fair.
Sure the shopkeeper choose to retaliate, but that is his right in case of an emergency. In the case of the car accident the drunk driver is the cause of the emergency.
One could blame the car for it, since the driver dis not directly hit anyone, but that would make no sense.
-
Here we go again...
It has been said that government must monopolize force and therefore cannot operate the same way the free market does, since that would lead to violence.
But is it really true that privatized enforcement of the law inevitably leads to violence between the private enforcers?
Even if that is so is there no way to prevent such a scenario without a absolute governmental monopoly?
Is there no way to limit the government even further so that they may not abuse their current position in which they and they alone may appoint the head of the police and courts.
I propose a constitutional republic in which government cannot come into contact directly with its citizens.
It would look like this:
Public sector
- Democratically elected government, that has the power to write laws
- State Guards, who protect state employees and buildings
- Military, to be deployed against foreign enemies and to protect government buildings, if the state guards aren't enough
They should have more fire-power than all the private security combined.
- Supreme court
- Secret Service
Private sector
- Private Police to enforce the law. Anyone could run a police business, but they would have to abide by govt. regulations and laws.
If the private police refuses to follow the law the supreme curt may issue a purge that would allow the state to make a contract with another police to capture or eliminate the lawbreakers.
If that doesn't work, the military should step in as a final solution.
- Private Curts, to handle dispute. They would be contracted to the police.
A person may contract and pay for the police, if he needs their service. Others such as charities or insurance companies may also pay the cost if applicable.
The government would put on a tax on the private courts and private police as payment for the laws and that would be the only source of funding for the government in peacetime.
The government may also hire the public police and courts if the government was damaged in some way.
The private police would have to deal with government and market laws which should increase the quality of the service.
This article is probably incomplete in many ways, but I think it has enough detail to it to start a conversation.
Is there any reason why the proposed system could not work?
- Democratically elected government, that has the power to write laws
-
I see... that makes sense.
Thanks
-
As far as I can tell those are the things objectivists regard evil and/or wrong, and since this is an objectivist forum I don't think I need to go into a detailed explanation of why they are regarded so.
-
Than evil is hurting yourself by hurting others and wrong is simply hurting yourself.
That actually explains why evil is wrong
-
If a robber threatens me with a gun and tries to steal my money in my own shop and I retaliate with my own gun but accidentally shoot one of my customers who should be blamed?
Me or the thief?
And if the thief is to be blamed, does that imply that voters share responsibility for the crimes the people they have voted for commit?
-
Hurting others is evil.
Indoctrinating a child with regards to how to practice altruism is hurting the child.
Because they are a child, the parent is allowed to hurt them in this manner and it is not evil.
I think you've appropriately titled your thread.
If indoctrinating your children was evil, than the state would have a legit reason to intervene and state founded schools would be the only "good" schools.
Does the parent have the right to select what his or her children will be thought, even if that something teaches something immoral? Yes of course, who else could have that right if not the parent?
I am not saying that it is not wrong to teach altruism. I am merely suggesting that it is not evil.
Altruism by it very nature doesn't recognize rights. Comte, the father of Altruism, says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste, that:
"The social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
So altruism is evil because it eliminates the concept of individual rights altogether.
Yes but that doesn't mean an altruist won't have rights in a free society, or that an altruist will eventually take away someone's rights.
In addition to these other comments that make a lot of sense, I would also add that as Rand pointed out, almost all evil done in human history has been under the guise of altruism. So, although you're right that on a personal level it's more of a mistake than evil, the concept of altruism is the cornerstone of much evil.
Altruism is the public face of power hungry people. The lust for power over people is the real culprit. Some people are addicted to taking away people's rights, which is by my definition evil.
It's a crime toward yourself. Self sacrifice really is the worst thing you can do to yourself.
Indeed but it is still not a crime. Is using drugs a crime? Crime has to do something with some sort of legal system I believe.
Using the word "crime" outside of any implied legal framework is wrong.
Self sacrafice and other self harming wrongs aren't crimes because to make them crimes would be criminal (and altruistic) in itself, it doesn't make it any less wrong.
A thief and a nun are both equally sad people in my mind,.
Yes but the nun only hurts herself and not someone else as well.
Daniel, according to your semantics, Kant was merely wrong. Self-sacrifice and the violation of other people's rights are both just catagories of self-destruction.
Yes of course
That is why both self sacrifice and crimes are "wrong".
-
Hurting of course, but not all rights apply to children, therefore it is not evil, since you cannot violate a right that does not exist.
The right of free choice is limited to the extent of the parent's wishes.
-
In an interview Ayn Rand said that she regards alturism evil. While I don't disagree what she meant by that I do disagree about semantics.
As far as I can tell there are two kinds of wrongdoings: Self sacrifice and the unjustifiable violation of someone else's rights.
I believe that these two are not equally bad even though both of them are wrong. Self sacrifice is more of a mistake than a crime.
That is why the government protects us against criminals and not against mistakes. At least not mistakes inflicted upon ourselves (there is no such thing as a victimless crime right?).
On the other hand government trying to protect people from themselves is more than a mistake. It is a violation of fundamental human rights.
Therefore I believe that since there are two kinds of incorrect behaviour of man we should label their moral worthiness differently.
So...
- Self sacrifice is wrong (or bad)
- Hurting others is evil (i.e. violating someone's rights)
Of course everything that is evil is also wrong (or bad), but not everything that is wrong is evil.
I also think this is why we have two separate words to describe the same thing. Almost the same...
Therefore in my opinion Rand was a bit harsh in the interview.
Because neither altruism nor the peaceful indoctrination of children to believe in altruism violates human rights.
Peace
- Self sacrifice is wrong (or bad)
-
-
Same as the other topic only with different criteria:
- must have been funded exclusively by the government
- must be expensive
- must be a waste of money or at least unprofitable
- must have been funded exclusively by the government
Anarchy and Objectivism
in Political Philosophy
Posted
The problem is not with the innitation of force but with question how and who chooses governemt.
Every member of society has a right to vote even if the have no right to innitiate force on their own behalf.
Democratic elections supposedly give that right to everyone, but in reality they don't.
Sure democracy is better than dictatorship, but
I have the right to choose my lawyer, but I can't choose the policeman who will look for my stolen bike.
I have no way of knowing whether police did anything at all when I reported the theft.
I have almost no alternative to the police.
If I could choose from a number of services they would have to compete against each other.
They would develop technics for finding lost property so that competition won't drive them out of business.
More effective methods would mean less crime.
In reality my right to choose my government is violated by the democratic system and...
"You cannot uphold a principle by violating it."