Capleton

I remember once that I considered myself to be a Secular Humanist or rather I used to claim to be one because I thought it was a respectable atheistic philosophy. Now I can hardly stand to read the writings of Secular Humanists (most not all) because they tend to advocate the egalitarianism, support the U.N. and a host of other noxious and unjust ideals. Here is just a sample of the mess I detests from the foremost Humanist philosopher: The Free Market with a Human Face Editorial Speaking Personally by Paul Kurtz http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_24_2.htm Comments?

Closed_Pockets)))) A morality that professes the belief that the values of the spirit are more precious than matter, a morality that teaches you to scorn a whore who gives her body indiscriminately to all men -- the same morality demands that you surrender your soul in promiscuous love for all comers. --Ayn Rand You had been thought that loving one's enemies was the ideal thing to do. But since you could not in good conscience love those who did not share your values or who were unworthy of your love in general you felt guilty for not living up to the ideal (the god approved ideal). Then when you became acquainted with Rand's writings it was demonstrated to you that it is immoral to sanction evil or give to those who were not deserving of your time or money. I doubt that it is the case now that you care for no one. I think that now you care only for those people that you value as opposed to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Am I correct?. I recommend you read books that focus on atheism primarily (by author such as George H. Smith, Michael Martin, et al). In this way you can be "assured" that the existence of a god is far from evident. I must say that it is good that you found Objectivism because instead of being some (future) nihilistic or subjectivist atheist you would be a man who holds reason as his only absolute. In any event, religion has been pounded into your mind since you were born (I assume) and it would not take a day for you to get rid of your mystic inclinations. At times you would find yourself holding contradictory views but once you work to correct the errors in your thinking then you are on the right course. If however, you willfully reject reason and the task of correcting contradictory views then you will be hopelessly lost trying to juggle mysticism while you are under the pretense of being a rational individual.

I must say that most of the libertarians that I have met subscribe to moral subjectivism and relativism. For example, I once knew this Pragmatist who claimed to be a libertarian but who declared that he was in no position to claim that a certain position was rational as opposed to being irrational (he was something akin to a moral agnostic). This has lead me to wonder how in the world are they going to argue that it is immoral to initiate force against an individual if there is no absolute standard of morality. If a loud-mouthed libertarian denounces a serial killer all the said killer would have to do is state in no uncertain terms that his morals say that killing is fine and dandy. The killer could further point out that the libertarian view is only one opinion amongst others that are "equally" valid. What's more, since I am a radical for capitalism many have "accused" me of being a libertarian but I made it clear to them that that appellation does not fit me at all. I am an Objectivist who knows that a free society cannot be advocated by using whims as a justification. A free society is to be based on absolute moral principles, which can only be found in the Objectivist philosophy.

It puzzles me as to why Andrew Bernstein advertises books on his site that are non-existent (The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire, Objectivism in One Lesson) as far as I know.. http://andrewbernstein.net/books/

I think Roy corrected himself on this one: Anarchist Illusions by Roy A. Childs, Jr http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/AnarchistIllusions.asp As for a reply by an "Objectivist" I came across the following: The Contradiction in Anarchism by Robert J. Bidinotto http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/Rob...nAnarchism.html Do note that I think all forms of anarchism are flawed.

If you say that you "agree with much of" Objectivism then I think that you hold life as the standard of value. I am assuming too that you hold happiness to be the moral purpose of your life. In that regard you would not think that you live in a malevolent universe (i.e., one where man's happiness were not possible). The art produced would reflect your view that reality is knowable, that happiness is the purpose of life and that man is a heroic being. Art in this framework ought to represent the artists' sense of life (assuming he holds the right values). The art produced would be a representation of things as they should and ought to be. Note: If I said something wrong I would love to be corrected.

CF: Just because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina they can be said to compliment each other only biologically (i.e., in the context of procreation). On a mental level it takes more than "biological compatibility" for the development of romantic love. When a male is growing up (and even in adulthood) his closest circle of friends are males and as such men seem to compliment each other also. Humans compliment humans, pure and simple. I don't think that you have a right to use the evasion bit because your "logic" isn't potent enough to warrant it. As I recall level 1 concerns: "the automatic responses of your body to sense perceptions." From the quote it is evident that you did not say if the "responses" were good or bad all that could be ascertained is that the responses were not volitional (if you are to be believed). Are we to believe that a man being attracted to another man is not volitional at this level? If so, how does this validate your previous claims? The only superiority that heterosexuality has is in a social context (homosexuality is taboo) and in the realm of procreation. Fear of what: "unknown"? Blank out. Do gay men have automatic information about the men that they date? Don't they have to go through all the drama in getting to know another human being? How then can they be afraid of the "unknown" when one human cannot read the mind of another (regardless of sex)? Since reading "Fact & Value" I have been wary of such "arguments" as presented above. Note: I do consider Peikoff to be thoughtful fellow but he is not infallible and he has said some pretty silly things. Anyhow, I am done with this forum I am quite frankly bored by such ill-conceived arguments.

CF: Ideal for who? It is your contention that humans are born asexual but you have not rendered anything that leads me to believe that heterosexuality is the grandest orientation. First you stated the "is" but your method of getting to the "ought" seems to be arbitrary to me. Are you saying that ethics is a social convention in that heterosexuality is accepted as the standard by most societies? I do not think that Objectivist principles give any validity to claim the homosexuality is immoral. If someone were to ask you what Objectivism says about homosexuality (i.e., its application to this matter) what would you tell them?

I just had to add my part to this discussion... I submit that you have yet to enlighten us as to why the choice to be with someone of the same sex is immoral. To say that humans need romance by their very nature is to suggest that they can find romance with other humans beings (i.e., people of either sex). The above is certainly true but the analogy really does not address the issue at hand. A human being can survive without being in love or a romantic relationship (e.g., a monk). A human can also survive by repressing their sexual desires so in that case one may argue that such abnegation is irrational but one can't say that it is life threatening (without much explanation). The concept of romantic love is a fairly new one. Before romantic love developed in the West people used to have their spouses chosen for them by their parents, tribe or society. I think in some respects romantic love (both an emotional and sexual love, as opposed to Platonic love) is being limited by the idea that society or the tribe must dictate what relationships are allowed or ideal (in the case of heterosexuality and homosexuality). In essence one's choice of a spouse must be approved by society and not by what one finds sexually attractive and values as such. What if I am attracted to a man physically and also by his sense of life? What makes a romantic relationship the "best possible"? It seems to me that the individuals who are in a relationship are the only people who can say what is best for their relationship. One's choice of partners much reflect one's real needs in life and as such a man who is attracted to and desires another man ought to seek a relationship along those lines (provided that the relationship is based on mutual esteem and values). At this point you may object by saying that it was not your contention that values are not involved but that the wrong values are invloved. From what you have wrote so far I gather than you think that a homosexual relationship is deficient in many regards. How are the values wrong (if that is indeed your contention)?

Do forgive my error above. It was not intentional at all. I have been taunted for being an Objectivist by atheists of different philosophical persuasions by their intentional use of made up words in the past (words suggesting Objectivism is a cult with Rand as the founder). When I saw that I wrote "AynRyan" (by mistake) I nearly slapped myself.

AynRyan: If one discusses homosexuality then the lifestyle of homosexuals is to be examined. In any event, homosexuality is a lifestyle (manner of living that reflects the person's values and attitudes) and any discussion of homosexuality cannot evade lifestyle trends. In the above you seem to be saying that I brought up irrelevant material but at this time I do not have a clue as to what they may be. If one drops the context of my arguments then one would conclude that I am bringing in irrelevant material. I was responding to CF's discussion of homosexuals and heterosexuals relationships. If anyone were to read CF's post it would be apparent that he included in his arguments the behavior of heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It follows that in order for me to have effectively critiqued his position I had to raise counter examples along the same lines. Again, CF was alluding to gender roles and I tried to show that his view of gender roles is inaccurate. I was not "insulted" by this simple disagreement between you and I. I reckon my writing style led you to believe that this was the case but I assure you that I do not take it personally. It is just that if someone publicly objects to my views I would like to know why (if circumstances permit). Clearly your moral position on this matter is not as firm (by your own confession) as mine is. In that regard it would be unreasonable of you to think that I might be moved by you initial reply to me. It is easy to render rhetoric but it does not absolve one of the responsibility of validating ones claims. I am yet to be moved by your posts. At this moment I am not obliged to take your above comments seriously. I am not a feminist so your uttering of slogans and platitudes only make me chuckle. PS: I tend to write in a forceful manner so do not assume that I am overly sentimental or resentful. To avoid unnecessary mud-slinging I would not reply to your rhetorical offerings in the future where this issue is concerned (I will however entertain arguments).

I am well aware that you are quite fond of dismissing arguments you don't agree with without much elaboration. I detect some equivocation on your part. There are really no such things as "sexual roles" (unless you are talking about role playing in the sex act). Gender roles are assumed by "society" by the sex of individuals. The question as whether or not someone is submissive in a relationship has traditionally been determined by his or her sex. In essence my point was that there are no immutable (or universal) gender roles that are assigned by sex. For anyone to claim that just because a gay man assumes the submissive role in a relationship it is because he is trying to mimic a female is incorrect. What about men who are submissive in the bedroom in a heterosexual relationship are they acting like a female? I think not! For the record I never said that CF gave the examples I gave. I was just making that case that gender roles are not universal and any argument that asserts that much is moot. Again here is what CF said: What is the role of a man or a woman for that matter? Blank out. There is no objective basis to make the case as to whether someone is acting like a male or not. Clearly he was referring to gender "roles" above. He was essentially saying that gay men and women have a certain role in a relationship (he did not mention what exactly the role(s) were) but he seemed to suggest that the roles mimic those of heterosexual relationships. The fact is that heterosexual relationships differ in many regards, i.e., the role of the man and the woman are not static or universal in all such relationships. In that regard, it is incorrect to assert that gay men try to mimic female behavior when female behavior cannot be defined in a rational manner. All that CF has done is assume that men and women have static roles in relationships (he is wrong). I must conclude that using "stereotypical" gender roles to try to argue against homosexuality being moral is absurd. Definitions: Sex: the distinction between male and female, found in most species of animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the individual or the category into which the individual fits on the basis of that criterion. Gender: distinction between the socially-constructed expectations associated with masculinity and femininity and the biological categories of male and female. Gender role: gender role, the public expression of gender; the image projected by a person that identifies their maleness or femaleness, which need not correspond to their gender identity. Gender identity: gender identity, a person's concept of himself as being male and masculine or female and feminine, or ambivalent, usually based on physical characteristics, parental attitudes and expectations, and psychological and social pressures. It is the private experience of gender role.

CF said: Objection! This is a non sequitur! Your contention above is hopelessly sexist. Are we to believe that in all societies women are the submissive sex? I think not. Must a man always make more money than his wife, must a woman never be the head of the family, must the woman always be the home engineer or can a man also take that role. Women and men have no immutable roles at all so I say that your point is moot. It is some sort of Victorian and mystic notion of gender roles that you appeal to in your ill-fated attempt to prove that homosexuality is immoral. Besides just because one partner is submissive that does not imply that they are trying to be feminine; all it demonstrates is that one partner assumed the submissive role (that’s the way life is). It is heterosexuals and gays who have been influenced by the norms of “society” that apply certain terms to act and circumstances that they are familiar to. It is something like using the words “slave” and “master” in computer jargon. It is metaphors at work. It is like saying that all relationships must be 50/50 when this is clearly impossible. One partner would be smarter, fitter, make more money, be more outgoing, be more hornier, be (more) bossy or have the dominant personality and be able to handle problems better.

Since Objectivism is not a cult and Ayn Rand would not have wanted me to refer to myself as a "RANDIAN" then I must say that the quote above is only rhetoric. Where are the arguments to support her view apart from her personal feelings. I think this is one of the only or most absurd thing Rand ever said. Remember Rand said that one cannot be a dogmatic Objectivist because when attempting to make the philosophy a dogma one has to esentially renounce it. Rand said: Here is a reading that I enjoyed: Homosexuality and Individual Identity http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html? http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html Does anyone have a quote from Dr. Peikoff explaining why or if homosexuality is immoral? For more on my view on this matter follow the link below: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st=0entry2652

AbsoluteKeenan Wrote: I am afraid that you have yet to state in a coherent and persuasive manner why you deem homosexuality to be immoral and/or not rational. All that you have rendered so far is rhetoric that baffles me. Of course, you are making a hasty generalization (to state a supposed general truth about something on the basis of limited or incomplete evidence). This is because you have not put forth arguments as to why homosexuality is immoral according to the application of Objectivist principles. What thinking needs correcting? You admit that a person can be attracted to a person of the same sex but you still think that by them seeking a gay relationship something is wrong with their thinking. Everyone ought to seek romance with the individual that they are attracted to (provided that they are not related). To do otherwise would be an instance of faking reality. In some text or rather in a page linked above you scoffed at the idea that man can be a genetic robot so to speak. How then can one claim that all humans are born to be heterosexual and thus it is right to be one (in all cases)? Can't an individual genuinely fall in love with a person of the same sex? Is it immoral to love (romantically) someone although one cannot have a biological child with that person? Is it wrong to go through life without having children? If memory serves me right Ayn Rand chose not to have children for personal reasons is she then immoral for not having children? In closing, I will now submit a quote concerning the Objectivist view of love which is provided by Ayn Rand: My life can be enriched by forming a relationship with anyone who share my values and who values me regardless of their sex.

What nonsensical and fascist drivel is this? Who determines what is deviant behavior in a society? As an Objectivist I designate the government as the agent that protects me from the physical force of my fellows. The government’s concern must be to secure individual rights, i.e., to prevent and punish the violation of individual rights. My rights are not being violated when gay men meet to have sex; my rights are not violated when a bum smokes crack or a rapper smokes weed. Are we to leave the decision as to what is deviant behavior up to the whims of some beurocrat or are we to support an objective system of law? Keep in mind that living as if there were no god can be considered deviant behavior, advocating laisse-faire capitalism can be considered deviant behavior and so too the advocation of (rational) egoism. The role of government is to protect me from physical force and the like. To say that the government must stamp out deviant behavior is to suggest that the government must use physical force against those who did not initiate it. As Ayn Rand said, “The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." How then do you support the government legislating morality and seeking to force people to be moral?

GreedyCapitalist opined: How could it ever be immoral for an Objectivist to uphold and advocate individual rights consistently? A gay couple is made up of two individuals and so is a straight couple are we to believe that the straight individuals have more rights than the gay ones (whereas being able to enter into a contract is concerned)? If anyone answers "yes" then he or she has renounced Objectivism for some perverted and contradictory dogma. Besides as an Objectivist I do not see any reason for the government being in control of marriages. Marriage is a contract between two individuals and the only thing that makes it "sanctified" is if the both parties appreciate the implications of marriage and have undertaken the act of their own free will. Marriage and romantic love are private matters and the government cannot legislate romance so to speak. Why is homosexuality immoral? It is immoral to act against ones own interest and to consciously seek to sabotage ones long term happiness by faking reality. In that regard it would certainly be immoral for a gay person to sacrifice his or her happiness to the family, the tribe or the nation just because said groups disagree with same sex relationships. If one is attracted to the same sex then one ought to seek after a relationship with a person of the same sex, pure and simple. Homosexuality bad for health of individuals! Care to concretize this point? For the record I do not support your proposed solution to this "problem". I disagree! Are we to believe that you favor such irrational discrimination? All the firms have to do is insist that they only give benefits to heterosexual couples. On the other hand since we live in a mixed economy the firm would not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in any instance. In a society where there is a total separation between state and economy then an employer can discriminate to his hearts desire. I do not see how making marriage something for all individuals to indulge in is going to cause a problem in this case. I also think that it is superfluous to even suggest that gay marriages be given some arbitrary distinction from that of "traditional" marriages. Your argument is a hopeless non sequitur. This is because being married does not preclude one from being discriminated against and neither does it conceal ones sexual orientation (I would like to think that it would make it rather obvious). What is a marriage? Marriage: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners. It really does not matter whether the individuals are gay or straight all that matters is that they both are considered to be legally married.

One thing that I take issue with his book is his view that Rand was wrong to use the word "selfish" in the manner that she did. I disagree with him of course. David King's "book" is the kind of stuff I need to fuel the fire in my fireplace. The word selfish does not necessarily imply that one would a parasite or a second-hander. It simply means that one would act in one's own self-interest and according to Objectivism one would do so in a rational manner.

I would like to get some comments on the article that is linked below. In my view Mark drops the context in his desperate effort to form an effective critique (he failed!). The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html

DonGalt utter the following nonsense: Ayn Rand the founder of Objectivism says: If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government - of a proper government - its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control - i.e., under objectively defined laws. -- Ayn Rand, "The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand said that a society without a government would be a criminals paradise so to speak. How are we to take you seriously when you utter such perverse things. Oh! So now you want to change Objectivism to suit you whims?

? Have Libertarians claimed that, "they receive their correctness from divine inspiration or the consensus of society"? In my case I hardly ever debate theists because they have surely renounced reason. I agree with what you say here but how can this be squared with the fact that Ayn Book Store sells tapes of debates between Peikoff and Socialist? There are even debates between Objectivist and anti-human animal rights activists. I mean a Socialist is most often quite resigned to his ideology, which is of course divorced form reason. I would rather chitchat with a Libertarian like David Boaz than with a Socialist like Marx. Who is more rational? Is it the ARI members are a bunch of hypocrites? Or have they repented of their "evil" ways. http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...aitem=2&mitem=9 http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...aitem=7&mitem=9

I share your sentiments about Libertarians who do not have a respectable or coherent foundation for their supposed love of "liberty". . Have you read these essays: Facts, Values and Moral Sanctions: An Open Letter To Objectivists http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/Rob...lSanctions.html Understanding Peikoff http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/Rob...ingPeikoff.html Rand Vs. Peikoff http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/Rob...dVsPeikoff.html

Whose money is the government giving away! Objectivism eschews the redistribution of wealth, pure and simple. If a private citizen or business wants to partner with a school of higher learning by providing funds for financial aid then it’s all right. The government ought not use our money for projects in social engineering.

RationalEgoistSG Wrote: It certainly depends on what kind of product is in question. Is it a product that is a human luxury as opposed to a pertinent need? If the product is one that is not a "luxury product" then consumers can choose whether or not to purchase the product. In that regard, the revenues of the company would fall which would make said company want to revise its business practices. What's more, I see nothing that would preclude another individual or company coming unto the market in order to slowly but surely built a customer base that would enable it to become a viable competitor within time. It must also be noted that most (robust) monopolies are owned in whole or part by either the Federal Government or individual states. I think N. Branden said is best with what follows: One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics - propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen - is the notion that the development of monopolies in an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible. Can anyone point to a privately own company that has a monopoly or used to have in North America? An efficient market is one comprised of individuals and businesses doing consensual trading. A market that is controlled by the government is the most inefficient because the government uses coercion in order to bestow blessings on some by taking from others (or restricting the legal activities of others). As Thomas Jefferson said: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." My question is how such a company would make itself into an "economic power" possessing a monopoly? By the way, I am not an economist but as far as I know a monopoly that is not the product of a government can only be achieved (theoretically) by selling quality (& in demand) products at affordable prices. But although I have a fertile imagination I can’t see how this monopoly could arise or be maintained (practically) in a society where there is a seperation between state and economy.

Is it worth knowing that I have read virtually everything on ARI’s Web site prior to this date I especially like the Op-Eds that they have periodically. I also visit the Capitalism.org Website, which is one of my favorites. I have read a lot of Objectivism online but I have not actually read any of Rand's books (due to lack of finances in the past). I did however read some of her essays including "The Roots of War", "The Cult of Moral Grayness", "Faith and Force" along with others. I also read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. That is not to say that I am not familiar with the philosophy but reading her works is vital to me nonetheless. In a couple of days I would be starting "Atlas Shrugged" while I wait for my order of most of her books to arrive at my residence. Anyhow, thanks for the welcome and I do hope that I have answered your questions satisfactorily. I think I will stick with TOC! Edit: I am not explicitly supporting any organization at this time. I do however remain an Objectivist. To date I have read 80% percent of Rand's writings.