tadmjones
-
Posts
2047 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
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...
-
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.
-
lepetitcadien: welcome to the forum. The short answer is: yes, your former roommate misrepresented Objectivism. But then, it's not for everyone. You are very welcome to examine the works of Ayn Rand and judge for yourself.
-
Then the answer to the original question is pretty simple: Good things happen to bad people when good people make property or other rights claims that they are unable (or unwilling) to enforce. Bad people simply take advantage of the unrealisitic claims made by good people. I think Rand addresses the unwilling part of this with her concept of the sanction of the victim but not the unable part.
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.
-
Obviously I was being loose with terms but I think you get the right idea. One cannot address the question without also addresing the question of desert and power.
Let me try to address this with a few examples. Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Or someone who left their doors unlocked deserved the flatscreen tv in their living room? Is not the failure to safeguard one's possessions a form of sanctioning the thief?
When, then, is taking by force, or the threat of force, immoral?
Clearly there are those who enjoy the fruits of force. We might agree that society is poorer overall for their choice but I think it's not reasonable to say that those who use force to enrich themselves are never the better for it. In the most innocuous example, a starving man who steals a loaf of bread lives another day.
The reality is that we are all quite vulnerable to thievery of various forms. That is the human condition. In a crude sense, government represents the most honest thief. To the extent that paying taxes is voluntary (choke, choke) it is because the alternative would be worse. The makers tolerate the theirvery of the takers because they must.
One of the most interesting scenes in Atlas Shrugged was when Rearden was confronted by Jim Tagger and his political gang and he realized that they were counting on him to work in spite their openly professed intention to nationalize his enterprise. In his case, it was a pretty easy choice to opt out given the obvious ruin he faced but in real life we are all better off to just grit our teeth and pay our taxes.
-
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?Yes, only that the quest for the immortal is not Medieval, it is hardwired. Our genes and instinct drive us to procreate and the mind rationalizes that as living forever, but the sentiment is much more biological. It makes sense. Many atheists have children as to give continuity to their lives. Others write great novels. Some do both.
History can be seen as a great struggle between the mind and the genes, or the individual's volition and its baser instincts.
But instincts have been there before the Medieval Age! And sadly remain afterwards
-
oops did it again, or tried to
-
Apparently a failed attempt at ironic humor. I was buttressing your point about ethnicity and it being a human quality and not separable. EG could one define the whiteness as it applies to man, and could it be the same just cause most swans are too. Tried to be too cheeky adding a fallacious humor too
-
What about most swans, they are white
-
Noble Vision by Gen Lagreca is good novel about the difficulties medical practioners face when going up against state and corporate controls.
-
Things can always change, but.. most people think healthcare is either an ID card or a policy number. Market mechanics has been effectively divorced from the industry for so long now, that the impression of most is that the problems are with distribution alone. As the problems snowball , I fear the political will will be to seek a fairer and simpler solution. In the press I rarely if ever see doctor or hospital groups interviewed, and it seems the insurance companies have been promised a 'bailout' to offset profit loss due to implimentation of the ACA.
-
I do not know for certain particulars, but my impressions from the coverage I have seen(so based on the 'media', without fact finding on my part)is that he was duly elected by a large majority , served one(?) of five years, worked to make sure that racism wasn't used as a catalyst for violence against whites. And that he and his government and supporters are from the left.
-
I think the only route to the rational utopia you envision is a deterministic one.
-
I remember when asking, "Are you on facebook?", would have been a nonsensical question.
At that time I think the idea that people would want to 'share' every moment of the lives with potentially the whole world would have been a ridiculous notion, what happened? And who is surprised when things like this occur?
-
It's Kate Beckinsale.
Just googled her, ok, but I would still like to see her lap time in the Astra
Choosing the Least Evil: a Compromise With Evil?
in Ethics
Posted
Does Mr Johnson's party receive any electoral college votes?