tadmjones
-
Posts
2044 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
Murder is the unprovoked killing of another human.
You seem to want to suggest that another's existence is a provocation.
In the scenario 'solitude' is supposed to be understood as a rational value. Values are ultimately subjective , every value held by every individual is in reality a unique instance. While one may place value on 'solitude' , the objective reality of attaining it has yet to be demonstrated. What constitutes solitude? Physical separartion only? A state of mind that can only exist if one is physically separated from all other individuals? When is solitude achieved ? Can it begin and end? Or is the attainment predicated on an unbroken continuous state? Is provocation merely the presence of another that would disturb this state of mind, what of memory of past associations? or overflights of aircraft? Wouldn't that remind one of others and be seen as intrusion , perhaps the scenario should include surface to air missile capabilities to morally discourage future intrusions.
Inventing an imaginary scenario detached from objective reality to consider or test a principle based on objectivity is futile. I will say with refinements you may be getting close, but there really is no 'there' to get to.
-
Looking at countries that successfully implement socialism's concept you can see that they have to have "something" to nationalize,yes? What happens when they run out things to take and sell to capitalists?
-
One similarity, perhaps the only one, is that 'they' both agree that capitalism produces wealth. Marx wanted capitalists for society(as an organic entity, that capitlaism would produce the wealth 'it needed), Rand thought that society should be a bunch of free capitalists.
-
Fiction is great. This is an interesting question to play with, my first reaction was "no way, mind/body integrated single entity, no dichotomy ' coupled with the idea that an attribute can't be separate from or other than the entity of which it is an attribute. But then I started thinking perhaps it cold be possible if all memories were held intact, on the idea that our operating consciousness must have access to all prior integrations that are our individual knowledge/experiences. Though it does seem that if there is no strict mind body dichotomy ( aside from organ transplants, even multiple transplants) there can't be a mind/brain dichotomy, right?
-
As said I think Rand's essay "Philosophy Who Needs It" describes the purpose of philosophy and why it is important to man's life on earth.
As to my personal use of this forum , it could probably be described as an intellectual voyeurism.
-
Tjfields
Are you using this scenario to explore if murder could ever be considered ethical by o'ist standards or principles ?
Or whether values are exclusively either subjective or objective?
-
A single recognized legal language is at least appropriate , if not necessary. Cultural aspects of different languages , I don't really see as a problem especially given technology, instead of Chinatowns, perhaps they will just be referred to as the place with all the Chinese food.
On the other hand, some say for want of a common tongue we could have had a space ladder, like a real long time ago.
-
Devil's Advocate
heh , well not sure exactly the phrasing I used , and I can not reconstruct it. But I used Google Translate english-->latin with what I think was "meaning, is the proper part" or some such
-
I would think that governmental and legalistic documentation should be in one language on an official basis to thwart ambiguity.
quod proprie est rei quam significat
-
A single slap between lovers is not an example of a violation of the NIF principle in the O'ist sense. The morality of the use of force, or an instance of physical contact is to be judged contextually. In the context of the interactions between the individuals invovled.
A slap may be acting on emotion or whim and therefore an irrational action , which according to O'ism is immoral. But it can also be an example of not inapproriate contact given the nature of the type of interaction(s) between lovers. The context of a lovers' relationship is based on emotion,responding to and generating emotive responses from and to each individual in the relationship. It may be irrational(contextually) and therefore perhaps immoral , but it is not a violation of the use of force in the sense , or for the 'same reasons' , as randomly slapping strangers on the street.
I do not see that equating the two examples is anything other than an out of context, rationalistic approach to viewing a particular example of physical contact, notwithstanding the indentification of the specific people involved. Meaning my argument is not meant or formulated as a defense of AR, I think as the OP stated using this incident is at the very least problematic , given the personalities it invovles , making it less than hypthectical.
-
Hey Steve
Which card level are you? I hear seventh level one is now stainless steel ,and I think they're skimping because it's real thin.
I'm new ,so I don't know how to prove animal rights don't exist,yet (fingers crossed tho!) somebody will probably post soon and tell you.
-
A single slap is not a violation of the NIF principle , it's a demonstration of the BBC law.
-
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.
-
The issue still remains that of a rational, non-contradictory definition of political rights. And by such a definition, you don't have the right to dictate what a woman should do with anything inside her body.
Well I for one would like to make one , admittedly small, clarification here...
Integrating Objectivism and Marxism
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
What makes Marx wrong is the way in which he speaks about 'society'. In his meaning it is an organic whole, an extistential entity comprimised(somehow) of individuals, He ascribed it characteristics, attributes and actions. 'Society' is not a thing, it is a concept that refers to the idea of speaking of a group of individuals. Only individuals exist, society is descriptive of them as a group. A society is usually used to refer to a group of indviduals that live in geographic proximity and share/practice similar laws and culture. It is not an entity, you can not 'do' anything to it apart from 'doing' something to each individual that comprises it. The mistaken use of that one floating abstraction produced volumes of mistakes.