moralist
-
Posts
665 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by moralist
-
-
What if it were that rational men instituted the idea of government due to a recognition of human nature, to keep those who couldn't govern themselves at arms length or at a minimum. It's a little less malevolent universie
Of course that is the process. Note that is is the recognition of the fact that people fail to govern their own behavior which creates the need for government to exist. And today the size of government indicates catastrophic personal failure.
-
We model ourselves after other animals. Our teachers, our parents and our heroes.
That's admirable... just as long as we don't model our behavior after monkeys.
-
Always am. But my god is of course not the imaginary one you pray to. My god the lord of Spaghetti, the master of Pasta, the seer of everything, His Noodliness who's name shall not be uttered.Same thing happened to me. But it's because I stopped wearing yellow hats. Blue hats stop the flu. His Noodliness works in mysterious ways.
...and don't forget to get your flu shots.
-
and people who adhere to reason are rational animals. We are animals whether or not we use reason and logic. That is a biological fact following from the biological definition of animal.
It's fine to regard ourselves as rational animals as long as we know better than to use animals as models for our behavior.
-
Just as transcendents seem useful to you in mathematics, keep in mind, they they may only seem useful to you in life as well.
Since that is true... I'll rely on the reality of the consequences of my own actions to be the judge that always renders an objective verdict.
-
Regardless, a right is not self-evident, as it depends on moral principles, which themselves are not self-evident.
I see that from a slightly different location...
In my view, rights are self evident... however, the enjoyment of those rights depends upon living a moral life deserving of those rights.
Anarchy would work just fine, but only if everyone governed themselves. It is those who fail to govern themselves who draw government into existence to do it for them.
-
That is likely part of the basis, however, that Rand recognises the fact that if man abandons reason as the means for dealing with one another, force is the only alternative.
Yes... because when people abandon reason you are dealing with animals.
-
The fact that life is better than non-life for Bob holds true even if he murdered my wife.
Of course Bob will continue to believe that his life is better than his non-life regardless of his immoral actions. However, reality is the difference between what Bob believes and what is.
However, Bob can be punished by a legal system that makes judgments based on the objective nature of the world and the objective truth that he committed an evil against my wife. That way force used against Bob as punishment corresponds to an objective morality, and is not force used against him based on subjective whim.
My "Bob" analogy speaks to the general case. You are now trying to introduce new scenarios to the story, which would of course change things. I've already covered this above when I said, " ... therefore it is an objectively immoral act to destroy a real life unless there is an overriding moral reason to destroy that life."
Another overriding moral reason to destroy a life is to kill as a means of self-defense against someone who is intent on murdering you. Of course, this is the difference between murder and a just killing.
Your point is well taken.
-
As a draftsman, pi is used in many of the linear, area and volume calculations by the computer program utilized. The square root of minus one has its use in electronics and perhaps some other fields.
The infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, one and two, etc., is precisely where Aristotle notes that the concept of infinity first arises. This is also where infitity as a 'concept of method' has its roots.
What is clear is that from the counting numbers to calculus are man-made constructs. Given that man is capable of error which gives rise to the need of epistemology, math as a man-made science is capable of harboring error that could elude detection examined under faulty epistemological examination.
If you consider the allowances made for the transcendents wise and desire to extrapolate them to other areas of your life, as you are fond of stating, the choice is yours.
Thanks, weaver.
That's purely an individual preference I relish. Just as transcendents are useful in mathematics, I find that they are also useful in life.
-
It is objectively an evil act for you to murder Bob.
Why?
Because for Bob, life is better than non-life.
While that is relatively true, the question needs to be asked: Life as what is better than non-life? Does this hold true for Bob if he has murdered your wife?
The answer is that non-life becomes better than life for Bob in the instant that he forfeits his right to life by his own immoral actions.
-
Productivity isn't really a commandment to build and make in the tangible sense.
That's true. Producing a useful service can be just as wealth producing as producing a product... but it is impossible to secure economic independence without producing something of value to others.
-
I think the morality of eating meat comes from the fact that eating meat is directly beneficial to mans life and health.
Sometimes it depends on the person... Some engines run on gas while others run on diesel. I tried going vegetarian as an experiment, because I noticed that I regularly came down with the flu around the holidays when there was traditionally a lot of heavy meat eating. I did it gradually over a period of a few years to make the change easy. And once the process was complete in 1980 I never got the flu again.
-
Oh, thank God. For a second, I thought you were going for the "abused as kids" punchline again.
It's "molested as kids"... and it's beneficial for us to be grateful to God.
-
If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.
Do you think that it would be more likely for life to be fine tuned by the universe?
-
I don't have rights because they are good (this reasoning would apply to animals); I have rights because they establish what is objectively required to exist in a social context, which happens to be a good thing.
What of the rights required to exist when the social context happens to be an Islamist terrorist state under Sharia law, or a cannibal tribe where consuming human flesh is considered to be a virtue? Surely there must be a finer standard than the social context of whatever the popular collective consensus happens to be?
-
Pat Corvini did a series entitled "Two, Three, Four and All That", as well as "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel", which draws into question the approach to irrational number, the postulational system as well as Cantor's Theory of Infinite sets. All I can do here is indicate the series. I am not well enough versed to explain it myself. On the basis of what I have understood of it, it is the approach which needs to be questioned, not applied to other things.
At this time, only the first is available at the e-store.
It is the sequel that deals with the specifics mentioned. The former deals more with the objectivity of number.
Does that mean that you question the approach of computing using the irrational number pi? Or advocate that the imaginary square root of minus one be banned from being used in equations? What about the logic defying fact of there being an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one? Is this also to be branded as heresy? Clearly, mathematics wisely makes allowances for the transcendent. And that same allowance can also be usefully applied to other areas of life.
-
I think the morality of eating meat comes from the fact that eating meat is directly beneficial to mans life and health.
Queue science: http://robbwolf.com/ (I'm not here to plug the paleo solution, please don't hate me)
Furthermore in as much as it is impossible to deal with animals by reason it is moral to deal with them by force, as we would have to in nature. And because evolutionary biology is on my our side here it should be restated that : Because eating meat furthers mans life, via his health, it is morally proper to eat meat. If one chooses to not eat meat out of principle then that principle should be stated.
That principle is: Mans inferiority to nature, and his subsequent lack of a right to use it for the furtherance of his values.
Animals deal with each other by force and not reason, although that is not a justification for how humans should deal with other humans. But it is a reason for humans to deal with animals the way animals deal with animals. So there is nothing morally wrong with eating animals... and I'm a vegetarian, but only for health reasons and not moral ones.
Hey, do you know the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan?
Vegetarians don't eat meat... while vegans don't want anyone else to eat meat.
-
Not everything logical is factual. There are internally consistent systems which do not align with the facts of the world.
There are. Mathematicians have ways to logically compute irrational and imaginary numbers. There's no reason this same approach can't apply to other things.
-
This, like pretty much everything you post, is unrelated to the philosophy of Objectivism.
What an odd response... when the quote in my post was Ayn Rand's words.
You need to at least mention that you're a Christian fundamentalist, not an Objectivist, before answering questions people rightfully assume will be answered from an Objectivist perspective.
You are correct to add that context, Nicky, and I'm glad you posted the reminder so that no one becomes confused. I am not an Objectivist. I only literally applied the writings of Ayn Rand to secure my own financial independence as a Capitalist. Being more of a doer than a thinker, the ideas of Ayn Rand are not an intellectual exercise for me. They are a specific literal plan of action.
As long as intentions remain unrealized by actions, they are irrelevant.
-
Rights are moral principles,
Yes... and so are responsibilities. For no one who fails to live a life deserving of rights will ever enjoy them.
For example:
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
There is a responsibility to moral actions inherent to the right to property.
-
What is happening to the people who try to produce in society " determined by the political majority who happen to be parasites" and endorsed by the coercive " friendly" government has been amply demonstrated by Ayn Rand in " Atlas Shrugged" via characters of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden.
The real question to ask yourself is... How did Hank and Dagny resolve the situation? ...and then to do what they did. That's what I did by taking Ayn Rand's precience literally...
...and acting on it.
-
Its not so much that Rand's definition is unsatisfying, I just wanted to understand the concept of rights in a context different from a social one.
To be more specific i wanted a definition of individual rights which was a positive, rather than a negative. But which did so without specifically enumerating them. However, if rights only apply to the interactions between free individuals then this discussion is superfluous.
If I understand you... you're looking for a description of the affirmative principle upon which all individual rights rest. That's a worthy endeavor.
-
That's odd... In my mind, the "question" of God's existence never comes up!
Then you have already made your choice.
-
Why is this choice a special one?
It's not special. It's universal. Everyone has the same opportunity to freely choose.
I could easily say by these principles that "My choice to believe in reincarnation is a personal one and we can harvest what we planted".
Yes, you most certainly can. For every truth is double edged and cuts both ways. No matter what we choose... everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of their choice.
The Anthropic principle
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
"Tuning" can also indicate a simple physical chain of causation. That we are alive in this particular form does fit the specific prexisting physical condition of liquid water extremely well.