tadmjones

Euthanasia and murder are different, but a slap from a lover and unprovoked strike from a stranger on the street are not? Btw , this whole discussion would have been avoided if O'ism had explicitly stated how to evaluate a slap from a lover.

The NIF principle is not a blanket statement on the use of force in any and all human interaction , that would make participation in most sports immoral. It is immoral to initiate force to deprive someone of their use of reason to gain or keep values. A slap from a scorned lover is at most an amoral action. A single knife thrust would be a different animal, but this particular example is that of an apparent single slap in response to emotional turmoil.

DA Rex Context Slapping someone is obviously an example of the use of force. How , in the context of the particular example, is that an example of a violation of the NIF principle?

Context is king. How is striking someone a violation of the 'noninitiation of force' principle? In what way is the slappee being denied their use of reason to gain and or keep values?

DA Would you agree that ethical reciprocity is a principle of politics, but not the foundation of moral politics? Because this is the idea I was trying to point to prior. The 'golden rule' is consistent with a political philosophy based on ratinal egoism but not the foundation of a moral politics. Morality precedes politics. No?

Do unto others... Can be consistent with an individualistic morality, but it isn't one.

In my pessimistic , conspiracy theorist worst mood, I can only see the praetorian guard, made of the entrenched legislatures working with the media, through the two party system as routinely offering up their 'best 13' or so out of 330+ million each election cycle to whittle down to two alternatives. It is over simplified , but not too cynical a view. The are myriad factors that swirl around the cultural rot and the current game of politics, so anyway. One does have to admit that other than the two party's, the others are candidates in name only.

So barring any significant change in the current mechanics of the 'two party' system voting for a candidate not in either of the two parties , isn't 'really' voting for a candidate. I doubt I will see a change in the 'two party' system as long as I continue to vote.

It just seems that 'do unto others..' and 'practice what you preach..' while consistent with rational self interest , has a different locus when framed in the light of 'reciprocity'.

Does Mr Johnson's party receive any electoral college votes?

I would like, though I doubt will have the opportunity , to vote for a presidential candidate as opposed against one.

Well I for one would like to make one , admittedly small, clarification here...

I apologize by me and the quote feature, just dont see eye to I repairment Your comment seems like an odd sentiment ' lepetitcadien welcome to the forum , as a suggestion I recommend Ayn Rand's essay 'Philosophy Who Needs It' as an introduction.

The simple answer is that some people steal. Defining stealing and the assigning of normative estimations of people and their actions starts to make it more complicated. Force by itself is amoral. Property rights and other claims are principles applied to the disposition of physical objects.

hmm I still seem to have a problem with the quote function so excuse the cut and paste. Given o'ist ethics: Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Yes. Assuming the money in the wallet was was the owner's. The person taking possession of it would be morally wrong to appropriate something they were certain was not 'their's'. The same answer applies to the television for the same reason, regardless practical circumstances. Regarding practical circumstances re govt and taxes, the funds expended to ensure civility in a society should , in my opinion, not be seen as anything other than voluntarily contributed. Engineering and instituting a fully equitable scheme is a whole other ballgame. Ethics suggest it could and should be done on principle, how to accomplish that particular holy grail falls to a rational philosophy of law and governence.

Going back to the OP, by what standard are they 'good things' and 'bad people' ? If you mean how can some people enjoy undeserved material wealth, I think the answer is by force with all its variants and the sanction of victim principle though not necessarily both in every occurence.

In a way a hope I haven't found it yet. Perhaps I'm not discerning enough ,but my favorite is usually the one I am currently planning to finish. I especially enjoy series , there is nothing like knowing there is more to come. Reading the Sparrowhawk series by Ed Cline as they were being published was an exhausting exercise in patience. Great thread for finding promising future favorites. Just add to the naval fiction fans Forrester's Horatio Hornblower series was very enjoyable.

Repairman I am having an issue with the quote feature, so I apologize if that creates/ed any confusion. My last comment was in response to what I thought was an accusation of me being a diluter. My comment stands though , and yes objective reality is a standard of a lot of things.

Repairman Atheism is not a core tenet of O'ism, it is a refutation of the supernatural. It is a consequence of applying rationality to an idea that itself is a product of using faith to gain knowledge. The obliteration of the use of faith in gaining knowledge , I would say, is a core tenet of O'ism. Atheism or the denial of the concept of god is philosophically as significant as the refutation of the idea that 2+2 could at sometime in someway equal 5.

Athe'ism' is culturally/socially important , philosophically not so much. Given the cultural climate in the US at least, I like the Darwin Fish thingys, not as a derogatory statement toward a symbol that is attached to anyone's idea of eternal salvation, but for its "pro"evolution/science stance. Just a lucky coincidence they picked a fish to begin with.

'two' is not a property or attribute of any'thing' , it is an abstraction that denotes a certain quantity of entities(quantity being another abstraction).

I was responding to the idea of viewing history as a great struggle between mind and baser elements be they genes or instincts. It is a view of man as a being of warring halves. Or at least a being comprised of separate 'humors' and not an integrated and 'whole' being. The idea of original sin 'puts' an imperfection into man that he must overcome and can not escape. The implication being that would be a different being without it, man was once a more perfect being and something other than what constitutes man is present. Eastern ideas seem to share a similar view that man is perfectible if something within is removed or overcome. Both seem to imply that man is a being ,or that the concept refers to a being other than existential humans. Unfortunately I hd to ruh this,guest approaching hopefully I will be able to expand and correct

How is different from the idea of original sin? Baser instincts? Sadly?