tadmjones

read the comment section, obama may be able to pull off a bloomberg

The article uses the example of a business owner refusing service and treats the refusal as wrong on the face of it. I would support his right to operate his business, even if he refused myself or people like me. The refusal of services is not a rights violation. Equality before the law should be a fundamental principle in a civilised society. When the article speaks to equality I wholeheartedly agree, but service refusal is being smuggled in as a rights violation, those who argue on principles of recognising and protecting individual rights have my full support and agreement but this article blurs that distinction. I doubt the author sees the distinction but blurs in nonetheless. I didn't read it but on the top of the page the link directs you to is an article about a florist being sued for a similar sounding action.

I guess the shortest answer would be an epistemology based on metaphysics which holds existence as primary.

Is the question how does one derive ethical principles out of 'these' facts(a particular set of facts), or is the question how does one derive ethical principles from fact(s)?

How can you call yourself a pastafarian ?? Blasphemer from a jar?

I think that is what Ayn Rand did, she deified self, manworship

Please tell me you do not use Ragu on the euchrust

I love the word/title . I was amazed watching a toddler relative get his hands on an unattended Ipad , and get it to do what he wanted it to do. And hour later have to explain to my wife that perhaps the Ipad is not malfunctioning, it could be the user just doesn't get it.

I said the fact that man exists as individuals is an aspect of man' nature. There are others, one is the type of consciousness that man possess, the fact that man has volition means that he is not infallible. In order to live man must make choices, the first choice man must make is to think. By nature mans means of survival is reason.

It seems in pre scientific human history , gods or supernatural beings were concepts developed to explain causality.

Explain how it is society shouldn't just punish the bullet, or perhaps the tissue that failed to resist the effects of the interia of the bullet, the hitman may have fired the gun but it was really the bullet that killed him.

There is a distinction between morality and legality, also.

In the context of an essay on O'ist ethics , the phrase man qua man means ' man as is appropriate to be man, or man as per his nature'. Would you dispute the fact the men exist as separate entities? If not, then when deriving a set of principles to guide man's actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man'. You ask if a man ,existing as man qua man, can then sacrifice another without violating a principle that reflects man's nature. I am not sure how to answer this. If you mean to ask why can't a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual , I would say he can. Would that be moral, is what I would ask you.

Sacrificing violates the non dependency principle. It seems your line of argument is more about trying to find in Rand's writing a semantic/linguistic trap , as opposed to not actually understanding the concepts involved, just a feeling.

umm yeah what Marc K said too

Given the context of an essay on the O'ist ethics, 'can' would mean is physically(existentially?) possible, and 'must' means is necessary, required. If an objective moral code can be derived by man and choosing to follow those ethics will lead to an individual's happiness then one must follow the ethics, or it is necessary to follow the ethics in order to achieve happiness. If desired goal x is attained only by actions y, then one must perform y to attain x.

Part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities. The existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. This fact does not mean that there could be no benefit or advantage gained by men living in society. Ethics to be objective, demands that the principles on which they are based reflect the fact of man's individuality. So the statement "a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." is stating an ethical principle in a negative form reflecting the fact that part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities.

so therefore a living human is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

Isn't that just stating a principle of dependence in the negative form? I take it as saying that there is no derivable principle of dependence between man qua man, so therefore...

Philosophy Who Needs It, is a collection of essays about in general and O'ism in particular. The title essay is a speech Ayn Rand gave to the graduating class of the Naval Academy.

the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come. Isn't it a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals. If it is possible for a man to exist in isolation(metaphysically) how could any principle of dependence be derived from the nature of being that can exist as a single entity.

Well Jack Bauer only did it for the right reasons, so I would let Jack do it , and if I ever needed to do it or have it done for me I'd ask Jack.

The statement at least implicitly is framed within a societal context. Man can be the means to the ends of other living things. A tiger in the jungle will not not eat you because you are not the means to the ends of another man. Predators eat prey ,it is a part of their nature, those actions sustain their lives.

I mean yeh ok with Friday, but what about Lazarus c'mon

As to your working definition of sex, that's what Bill C said.Personally I think the definition of sex has to include the idea of stimulation of the sex organs with the intent of acheiving orgasm. It seems also you are trying to stay with the is/ought argument as it applies to your use of the terms normal and natural. How would 'normal' behaviour be understood without accepting the notion of innate ideas?