secondhander

A person should only take pride (or shame) in their own actions, not those of other people, including ancestors. In my view, knowledge of ancestral background only has one benefit: Appreciation of good things and hard work done by your ancestors that put you in a better starting place in your own life.  Note, that's appreciation, not pride. You cannot take pride from other people's actions. That's stealing pride, and false pride.
 
(Perhaps a second benefit is learning from the mistakes and successes of other people, but that's not confined to your ancestors. You can learn from anybody's mistakes or successes.)

A person should only take pride (or shame) in their own actions, not those of other people, including ancestors. In my view, knowledge of ancestral background only has one benefit: Appreciation of good things and hard work done by your ancestors that put you in a better starting place in your own life.  Note, that's appreciation, not pride. You cannot take pride from other people's actions. That's stealing pride, and false pride.
 
(Perhaps a second benefit is learning from the mistakes and successes of other people, but that's not confined to your ancestors. You can learn from anybody's mistakes or successes.)

Really??? You mean the only thing we've been debating for 3 pages is the word "the"??? Well, OK, this should be easy then.

So you would agree then that men have the right to own THE land that they improve and that no one can remove them from that land if they don't want to go, no matter how much more productive those others might be? And that the land owner can charge whatever rent he decides, while, of course, he can force no one to pay such rent? And, of course, since he owns the land, no one can force him to accept a rent lower than what he has decided to charge.
 
Problem solved.

Why are you even debating that question?
 
Defenses of abortion shouldn't be based on claiming a fetus is 'part of someone's body' because its merely inside someone's body.
 
Defend the right of bodily autonomy and argue against the notion of fetus rights.

I like this topic, and I was waiting to see other replies first, because I wasn't sure exactly what kinds of examples you were looking for.
 
I feel as though daily I have profound experiences that corroborate objectivism. Or I read examples of them in the news. But I guess it would cease being "profound" if it happens daily. I'll try to think of an experience that stands out and offer it. Give me some time to think.
 
I could offer some profound ideas that have affected me, which have translated into experiences.
 
For example, I realized, shortly after becoming an objectivist, that there is no morally neutral action or moment of time. Every action and moment of time has a moral component to it. Every action you take is either morally positive or morally negative. Even vacation time lying on the beach drinking a Miami Vice with an umbrella in it is morally good or bad depending on certain factors.
 
As a corollary to this truth, I realized that as a human I am always doing something. I never actually pause life or pause the action of life. Even when it comes to sleeping.
 
I used to think of sleeping as taking a break from the action of living. But I have realized that sleeping is not neutral, and it is not taking a break from life. Sleeping is doing something. Sleeping is recharging your body, and there's an optimal amount to get for your health.
 
I used to think of sleeping as either neutral, or even as negative. I used to wish that I didn't need to sleep, so that I could keep doing things. It seemed like such a wasted amount of time. But objectivism helped me to see that I am human qua human, and part of being human means that I biologically need a certain amount of sleep. It is a part of reality, and a part of the reality of being a human, so it shouldn't be viewed as a negative in and of itself.
 
From this, I realized that when I sleep, I am not taking a break from life. Rather, I am doing something -- getting the sleep that I need. This realization helped me to correct my previously horrid sleeping patterns. Now I willingly and gladly go to sleep, knowing that I am doing a good thing by getting my seven or so hours, so that I can be well rested and ready to go on to my other activities. And I realized that getting too much or too little sleep becomes a moral negative.

It's a false dichotomy to say you can either be nice and friendly, or you can create sexual tension. You can do both. You should be friendly to all people, because it's in your self interest to be a friendly kind of person by default. I've had and continue to have a lot of good fun with sexy play partners and have been nice to every one of them from the get-go. 
 
I don't think I'm saying anything different than you are, or disagreeing with you. I just wanted to emphasize that point.

There is no such a thing as pre-ethical decision. All decisions are choices and all choices are ethical. There is also no such a thing as a choice to live. Living is a precondition of all choices. Man can only choose to die and according to circumstances it could be moral or immoral choice. But in any case such a choice is within the realm of morality.

I got hired to work for my hero, Peter Schiff.

Yes, it can be courteous. But we're talking about a different thing, here. When I walk through a door, if someone is behind me I will hold the door open for them. If I am behind them, they may hold the door open for me. It doesn't matter whom it is, or what gender they are (or what age, or anything else). It's just a small, courteous thing.
 
But what Kevin is talking about specifically concerns dating and courtship conventions. He thinks that the man must always open the door for the woman, and not vice versa. And if a man doesn't do that, he fails in some degree to be a "leading man" or a "professional" or a gentleman, or whatever. 
 
What he seems to not properly consider is how things like a man insisting on opening a door for a woman communicates at least two very negative things. One, it communicates to the woman that you view her as being on a different level than you are as a man; often it comes across as though she's on an inferior level (i.e., "You're to be taken care of, as though you are unable take care of yourself even with little things like opening a door."). Of course, what the man is trying to communicate is that he views her on a higher level, as though she's a treasure and should be treated as such, so "let me put my coat over the puddle so you can walk over it," or "Let me pick you up, and drive you, and pull out the chair, and pay for your mean," because she's the "treasure." 
 
But you know, it still comes across as belittling, and if it's not belittling to her, then it's belittling to you. And that's the second negative thing: By trying to put her on a higher level and treat her like a treasure (some stranger whom you hardly know, keep in mind), you actually make yourself less attractive as a person, and for good reason. You become the silly little peasant bowing down to the princess, trying to win her favor. Well, she may (and rightly so) let you pay for her meal, and if she's of weak character she may even enjoy the princess treatment for a night, or at least aspects of it. "Hey, pretty girls get dumb guys to pay for their meals, maybe I can get that to happen for me too sometimes." But it grows tiresome, and you will turn her on about as much as a coat lying in the mud.
 
And in truth, it IS belittling, even if you think you're trying to treat her like a precious treasure. Because she's not in a different category than a regular human. She's a regular human. And she can actually open that door for herself, thank-you-very-much.
 
But even if you do encounter that rare woman who insists on traditional courtship conventions, I ask you honestly, how can you live with yourself by entertaining them? By being a little bit sub-human, and a little bit of a clown, in order to treat her as a little bit superior-human?
 
This does not mean you should treat her, or any person, rudely. Be a nice person. It's a good thing to do. But I view a woman as distinctly a woman, but also still a human just like me, on the same level. If she want's to be a princess, and expects me to be a pauper, and refuses to get out of the car until I run around and open it for her, then I hope she enjoys sitting inside my car and watching me eat in the restaurant through the window. I'm looking for a human, who views herself as an equal person to me. If we develop a deep romantic love after begin together for a long time and growing in love together, then I'll treat her like a princess sometimes in my own special ways. But that's something different, and something specific to people's specific relationships, and happens after you've been together for a while and grown in love with each other. 
 
 
Yeah, but that's true of anybody. A woman dominating the conversation is boorish. Conversation is about give and take, and enjoying the exchange. That goes for any two people talking to each other for any occasion. But on Kevin's dates, he is not really having a real conversation, and not really enjoying himself in a natural way, and not really connecting with the people he spends time with (if that person is a woman and he's on a "date"), it seems, because he's too preoccupied trying to make sure he gets to the door first before she does, make sure he says "let's sit over here" before she can get a chance, or opportunity, to suggest a table, and too preoccupied trying to eat at just the right, slow speed, while looking up at her and letting her talk mostly, keeping himself from talking "too much." 
 
That just sounds like an awful time, particularly for his date. And there exists in all that ridiculous courtship-keeping ritual zero opportunity for an actual, real connection between two people without any pretense. And that's one of the main problems with Kevin's philosophy. In all his trying to be a "leading man," he has forgotten how to be a "real person." Not to mention that his philosophy at it's core wallows in sexism in the worst of ways.
 
I am curious what Kevin's actual love life is like, and how his "leading man" philosophy goes over for him. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, I'm just honestly curious. I have no doubt that he may find, or maybe has already found, a woman who loves him for all his "leading man" goofiness. There are all types. But for me, the women I like are the ones who know they can open a door for themselves, and don't even flinch when you let them. (Because I don't even think about it either. It's whoever gets to the door first, obviously.)
 
Taking this back to objectivism, I'd have to ask Kevin how his dating principles fit into the objectivist ethic. In other words, answer the "why" questions for me. You think that it's wrong for a guy to let a woman on a date open the door for you? Why? You think it's wrong for her to have input on where she might want to sit? Why? You think it's wrong to touch a woman in public? Why? You are presenting value statements (it is good to do this; it is bad to do this), but I'd like to know where those values derive their value. Explain the connection, in your view, of the principles you believe in to the objective value foundation that they rest upon.
 
I want to say more, but I don't have time at the moment. There is a much, much better way to understand and approach human relationships (including romantic relationships), where you can maintain your status as "real person" with proper self esteem, engaging in real connections with other real people. There is a way to avoid the oh-so-very-unattractive persona of being a relationship-fraudster; who tries to put on a facade or caricature of what he thinks he ought to be in order to impress someone; who (out of an extreme lack of self-esteem) treats himself as though he is either a higher being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a ass), or as a lower being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a needy weakling).
 
I really, sincerely want to help you, Kevin, from the personal and social pitfalls that you unknowingly, warmly embrace, and to help other people who are confused and think that your advice is good advice. It isn't.

You mean, someone who rubs your neck and is polite enough to consider your preference?  Nah.

If I had to choose, I'd take that other guy at the restaurant every time over somebody following what Kevin says.

I agree with the previous two answers. Well said both of you.
 
One additional item I would like to raise is the implicit context within which Sartre's statements should likely be viewed.
 
Before Rand (and correct me if I am wrong), "Ethics" and "Morality", "Good" and "Evil" were concepts which had the status of existents, "out there" in reality, having an independent existence from Man or any man's mind, whether existing in the supernatural (religious), platonic (realm of forms), or otherwise mystical realm(consciousness of a collective).  As such these were holus bolus Mystical in nature, whether edicts, duties, imperatives, commandments, they simply WERE, and "should" be discovered and followed.  As a philosopher considering Ethics and morality, you either believed in them (and embraced them or rejected them) or disbelieved in them i.e. repudiated their existence entirely, and there was no alternative.  Either mystical moral truths EXIST (out there) or they moral truths (of any kind) do not exist AT ALL (complete subjectivism).
 
A person like Sartre (and I am guessing as to motives) speaking of "Ethics" as subjective is primarily denying the existence of mystical moral truths etc. that require mysticism, BUT going too far because he saw no alternative.  In some sense when he says you can't say what is "better" is correct, if "better" (morally speaking) is defined as having meaning only in the context of a mystical realm.  He falls back on a subjective standard for "better" - i.e. short range "what you feel like" subjective whims, because at least that IS real.
 
I think Objectivist Ethics and morality is difficult for non-Objectivists to understand because it does not really fall within what the normally mystical definitions of Ethics and Morality are based upon.  In some sense many of the problems, ruminations, conundrums of ethical and moral philosophy, which inherently are based on these mystical concepts, are simply not addressed by Objectivism which rejects mysticism (and rightly so).
 
It is ironic that Objectivism solves the "problems" of Ethics and morality by providing an alternative to the common conceptualizations of Ethics and morality.  In some sense it does not solve the previously erroneously posed problems other than by pointing out they are ill-posed questions whose premises are based on non-existents.

I'd argue that casual intercourse between consenting adults is moral or immoral depending on objectivist ethics. In other words, just as the concept of "value" presupposes an answer to the questions "to whom" and "for what," and it also presupposes an alternative option. The fundamental moral value for a living being, then, is life, and the alternative is death. So, the "to whom" is yourself; the "for what" is to live (and live well); and the alternative is to die (whether totally or by a matter of degree).
 
So how does that apply to sex? Just like any other action in your life, and any other relationship in your life, sex must not be "cut off from your code of values." Since you value life, you should be aware of STIs and practice safe sex. It would be unwise to have sex with some person with low value, like a moocher, or thief, or violent person, or mentally unstable person. Just like you might refrain from forming close friendships with those sorts of people, even more so should you refrain from sexual relationships from those sorts of people, because they may very well bring death to you, even if by matter of degree.
 
You should apply rationality to your relationships, sexual or otherwise. In the same way that you should practice safe sex, and utilize your rationality to know which methods of safe sex are best, you should also manage pregnancy (using the technology available) so that you do not become or get someone pregnant without meaning to. You may also decide not to have sex with someone who is anti-abortion, if you are in favor of abortion, just in case an accidental pregnancy happens. 
 
These are not strict rules. But the principles should be heeded: Seek good life for yourself, and use your brain.

No. That's not actually what women want. In fact, it sucks for women that men who would otherwise have been good friends can't seem to get over the denial of their advances, and then tuck their tail between their legs and severe bridges and are never seen from again. 
 
Yes. If you can't seem to get over your "love" for the girl, then it's probably best to not be a creeper and to stay away from her. But here's a better suggestion: Don't, for cripes' sake, fall in love so easily, for people who you don't know very well to begin with. Just be friends -- actual, real friends. If real love is there, then it will be mutual and you both will know it and grow into it. But it's really sad that guys destroy good friendships because they "fall" into love, get denied, and end the relationship. All it demonstrates is that your "friendship" wasn't real in the first place. It was a ruse. It was contingent on some hope that she would be attracted to you, and when you finally accept that she's not, your true colors are shown -- your friendship was a facade.
 
That's what women hate. And if that's what's really going on, then sure, do women a favor an stay away from them.
 
Then you steam and fume over those mean girls, when in reality you should do some work on yourself.

It is objectively an evil act for you to murder Bob. 
 
Why?
 
Because for Bob, life is better than non-life. That's clear. It is an a priori truth. So to end Bob's life is objectively an evil act done to Bob.
 
Now, you might say, "Yes, but am I morally bound to live according to that since it's Bob's life and not mine? Isn't my own life the only really objective value I have, not other people's lives?"
 
The answer, I think, is that whether you choose to respect Bob's life or not, it is still an objective truth that for Bob, life is better than non-life, and if you end his life it is an objective evil done to him. Even though this objective truth is applied individually instead of collectively, it is still objectively true, not subjectively true. You cannot say that, "Well Bob's life isn't really an objective value of any sort." Incorrect. It is an objective value, indeed. Whether Bob chooses to acknowledge his own life as a value or not, it is still objectively better for Bob's life that Bob's life is in existence rather than not being in existence. 
 
I think the confusion is that this objective truth is applied individually, and yet is no less an objective truth. Even though it is applied individually, it is still true for every individual with no exceptions, and it is not dependent on the whim or opinion of any person. If I tell you that China is an objective reality, and you say to me, "I don't live in China, so it's not real to my world," I would say that it doesn't matter whether you live in it or not, it still objectively exists. Likewise, you don't live inside Bob's body and mind, and yet he exists objectively, the fact that life is better than non-life is an objective truth for both you and him, and therefore it is an objectively immoral act to destroy a real life unless there is an overriding moral reason to destroy that life.
 
Therefore as a society we are correct to agree to a system of law that rests upon the truth that destruction of life (in part or in whole) is an objectively evil act to the person it is committed upon, and as a society law should rest on objective reality, not subjective whims or opinions of those who wield the most power.
 
You cannot murder someone and say, "Well, I don't think it was really evil or wrong. It's all subjective." Wrong. Reality is objective, and truth of reality does not rest on your subjective thoughts. You can convince yourself all you want that there is no wall in front of you, but when you try to walk through it, the objective nature of reality will smack you in your face. Likewise, the fact that life is better than non-life for Bob is a truth statement tied to the objective reality of the world and the logic of the real world. All your self-convincing cannot make it any less of an evil act for Bob. So a justice code that punishes you for the killing of Bob is based on the objective nature of reality and is valid.

Why do all (or at least many) of your relationship advice posts seem like you're preoccupied with trying to do whatever you can do to tell guys to try to impress women?
 
 
But ARE you her fantasy man? You ... the true you, the way you are, right now? Are you exciting, unusual, different (in a good way) for her? Or are you trying to act like it?
 
 
 
Ok. Fine enough, if that's your sense of humor and way of being fun and lighthearted naturally. No problems there. But the way you're suggesting these things, it sounds like try-hard-ism and gimmickry. If that silly, offbeat sense of humor isn't really you, naturally, then please, please save yourself the embarrassment and don't try to fake it.
 
 
 
But are you? If you are, then why does someone have to tell you to "demonstrate" it to her?
 
 
"Thinking outside the box" sounds like another way to say "try to be something you're actually not." Sounds like a recipe for fakery and a general regret later, on her part, for being fooled into thinking you're all these things you had portrayed yourself to be, but when she got to know you better, you didn't have a quirky and offbeat personality, you didn't think outside of the box, and you weren't her fantasy man, and all you did was waste her time, and yours as well.
 
I think you're better off telling guys to find out whom they are and what they believe in, and  giving themselves full self-approval to be that unapologetically and unfearfully, rather than trying to tell guys to "think outside the box" and try to be some woman's "fantasy man."

Secondhander, from a woman's point of view, this guy wouldn't get through any smart woman's front door.  He's living in his own little fantasy world where he's a leading man.  Let's not disillusion him.

Thanks!
 
In my earlier years, when I was a good seminary student and graduate, I gave a lot of thought to predestination (in terms of Reformed Theology) and how a person could be predestined and yet still have moral culpability for their actions. Long story short, I'm no longer religious but some of those same questions and thoughts have helped me in my understanding of this same issue in terms of natural predestination (if you will) and personal culpability. 

Where did I come up with it?  I just don't know.  Your own words:
"I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore  it behooves me to believe that it does not in fact exist."
"I have no actual evidence that X exists, therefore I'll keep an open mind about it until I'm in a context that requires that I consider the matter further. Until such time, my conclusions about such an assertion shall be 'I just don't know.'"
 
Are Vulcans real?  Does the planet Krypton exist?  (bear in mind you've never been there)  Does the stock market fluctuate according to the orbit of the Jovan moon, Europa?  (do you know the specifics of Europa's orbit?)  Is Johnny Depp a member of the Illuminati?
There must be many things you just don't know.  (hence the universe is unknowable)  At this very moment, is there a Dragon slumbering beneath your home?  Are your internal organs arranged properly?  Do you have a tumor?
Taken to its logical conclusion, "I just don't know if Oxygen will still be necessary tomorrow."  Have you been to tomorrow, yet?  No?  Then don't bother taking Oxygen into space with you; we don't actually know if you'll need it.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this is a death sentence.  Which is how I know you don't actually believe it, yourself; you're still alive and talking on this forum. (And after all, how do you know we're not aliens who eat Christians for fun?  Wouldn't that prevent you from typing here?  Aren't you making an arbitrary assumption?)
And that's the kicker, there.
 
When you deny any form of objective knowledge, you are demanding that we live on assumptions.
"I don't know if all of the food in the world is poison, but I'll assume not."
"I don't know if Vulcans exist or not, but I'll assume not."
"I just don't know if God exists or not, but I'll assume He does."
 
That's your underlying premise and that's your agenda.  You don't want actual scrutiny of anything (or else you would feel perfectly comfortable examining your own beliefs); what you want is the moral justification to be irrational.
This idea is the means you use to achieve it; every child's mind which it destroys is simply collateral damage.
 
 
 
I urge you, for your own selfish sake, to stop and consider this before you reply.

Tell that to everyone who's ever been murdered in the name of God by some fanatical SOB like YOU.
 
My intolerance stems from my hatred for lies and hypocrisy.  It's enhanced exponentially by my passionate loathing for murderous scum, which LONG predates the first time I EVER even HEARD about Rand.
But part of it is fear; yes.  Fear that the dark ages could happen again, someday.
 
This is why I have no respect for and no tolerance for you.  Your ideas are what have the potential to put people like me on the pyre and I will not sit here and pretend that you're just some harmless moron who should be treated politely.
 
And honestly, at this point, the role Objectivism plays in this pointless spectacle is that it's taking place on their website.

Red wanderer, in your heart lies the premise that the universe is unknowable, ineffable and unfathomable; that the human mind is simply impotent to grasp the truly important things.  Try, just once, to reverse that.
Assuming that God exists, what if people could understand Him?  What if the human mind COULD understand His mysteries and figure out exactly how He relates to reality?  Wouldn't you want to know why He is?
 
At the end of that road you'll find atheism.
Until and unless you do that, the ideological pollution you're spreading is the same one that killed Rome, started the Dark Ages, has killed and will kill anyone who truly and fully accepts it as an absolute.  It is poison.
You're asking for a sanction; for someone to tell you "it's okay; I really don't know either."  You won't find that here.
 
And I don't speak for Objectivists with this, but you won't get the slightest shred of tolerance from me.

So let me get this right. You are genuinely interested in learning what Rand's position was, but you are unwilling to to read what she wrote, but you are willing to read a bunch of strangers' summaries of her philosophy?
 
If money is an issue, you can find her writings online for free. You could start here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
 
Or, here's a better format, and you get the whole (short) book. http://www.e-reading-lib.org/bookreader.php/137212/Rand_-_The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf
 
(The Objectivist Ethics is not terribly long, maybe a chapter's length, if you are legitimately and honestly trying to understand her).

The issue isn't "what mothers should be allowed to do", or "given leeway to do", the issue is "what the government should be allowed / be given leeway to do".

If you get rid of the Objectivist idea that the government should be allowed to defend individual rights and nothing more, the entire concept of Capitalism falls apart.

Case and point: this woman was sent to prison because she bought some pills with her own money, put them in her own mouth, and swallowed them into her own stomach. You want to give them the power to do that in the name of defending who's rights again? Certainly not an individual's: no individual would be harmed by this woman swallowing poison.

If we don't have a right to our own bodies, what rights do we have exactly?

Oh cool. So I can pay someone to murder my hypothetical wife, and if someone tells the police on me, I don't have to worry about getting arrested, AND if someone does murder her, I STILL don't have to worry about getting arrested. Awesome.

Here's the problem with your argument, Jonathan13:
When she adjusted her views to state that it was immoral she qualified it with *why* it was immoral. Rand, like anyone, had to some extent to rely on what was "known" at the time. Most respected psychiatrists, psychologists and medical doctors at the time were in agreement that homosexuality was a mental disorder. When Rand made this statement homosexuality had recently, as a whole, been labelled as such by the DSM-II in 1968. (It was also listed as a deviation in DSM I). Rand, not being omnipotent was relying on the widely accepted science of her time. This science claimed (somewhat contradictory) that homosexuality was not only a mental disorder but also a choice.

From Atlas Shrugged " "a sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality" (938)".

Rand always maintained that morality presupposed choice. It was only reasonable and consistent for her to change her view to call homosexuality immoral given what data she had to work with.

That she viewed homosexuality as disgusting I take no issue with. Most people find something someone else does sexually offputting or disgusting. That is a matter of taste.

As to her finding it immoral based on what was known at the time I have no issue with either. We can only conjecture what she would have said if presented with what we know now about human sexuality. If one believes that Rand was most often internally consistent and rational one would tend to think that she would probably still find the idea offputting but- by her own definition of morality- change her mind on the morality issue. If one believes that Rand was often contradictory and inconsistent you'll probably choose to believe the worst.

Edited to add: that said, as far as "choice" comes in to play. One would have to also define what is being discussed. How do we know for sure if she was talking about homosexuality-as far as a person's innate tendencies or homosexuality-the physical acts? To me, the distinction would seem of some importance.