tjfields

Leonid, As I stated before, it appears that you did not fully read the original post. In the original post, the second paragraph of the scenario reads: "I think that a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep and that the ultimate value, that which is the final goal, or end, to which all lesser goals are the means and by which lesser goals are evaluated, is my life. Because my ultimate value is my life, that which furthers my life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys my life is the evil." I have not substituted, as you claim in post #33, a subjective value for an objective value. In the scenario I laid out what I value starting with my life as the ultimate value, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of the basic necessities that allow me to live, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of solitude, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of luxuries and means of entertainment. This is my hierarchy of values. While these may be just some of my values, I have determined that they are the most important to me. You claim that my values are subjective but you do not explain why they are subjective. Please provide an explanation.

StrictlyLogical, In post #32, you wrote, " I suspect that you have posed your question with a false premise (solitude is value) and which ignores the reality of the value a rational individual can have for another rational individual, in order to elicit an answer which you want to hear: killing someone is OK." I did not make the original post in order to hear any particular answer. I want to hear your answer and the answers of others. I would like to know why you state that 'solitude is value' is a false premise. Ayn Rand's definition of value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. If I act to gain and/or keep solitude, then by definition, it is a value. How is this a false premise? You also stated, "What you fail to realize is that according to Objectivism, killing someone is not the correct course of action to take in a vast majority of contexts and situations" and suggested that I ask direct open ended questions. So I will. Objectivists (at least some of them) claim that morality is objective because it is derived from the facts of reality. StrictlyLogical, is morality objective and derived from the facts of reality, and, if so, how? I posed a moral question, via the scenario, is it wrong to kill someone. An Objectivist who believes that morality is objective because it is derived from the facts of reality should be able to give an objective answer to that question and show how the answer is derived from the facts of reality. Your statement, "killing someone is not the correct course of action to take in a vast majority of contexts and situations" implies that Objectivist morality is not objective but it is subjective. If killing someone can be both moral and immoral, both right and wrong, how can it be objective? If killing someone is immoral in a vast majority of contexts and situations but it is moral in a minority of contexts and situations, does this not mean that it is subjective?

tadmjones, In post #31, you wrote, "You seem to want to suggest that another's existence is a provocation." I am not suggesting this at all. As stated in the original post, the presence of the man on the island means that I cannot continue to achieve my value of solitude and since achieving my value of solitude is good because it contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, not achieving my value of solitude is evil because it does not contribute to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life; rather it negates, opposes or destroys my life. The fact that the man exists is not an issue. Neither are any of the personality characteristics of the man, or any other aspects concerning the man. What is important for the scenario is the man's presence on the island at the particular moment. It is his presence on the island that is the evil. The man himself is not evil or good, he just is. To obtain my ultimate value I get rid of the evil that is preventing me from obtaining it, in this case the man's presence on the island at this time. As for your questions concerning solitude, I think that they are all very good questions. I think that these types of questions could be applied to just about everything in the realm of morals and ethics. For example, what constitutes 'unprovoked killing'? Is it a state that exists only if one intends to kill another? What about an accidental killing, is that not also unprovoked? Just because questions like these can be asked, and maybe in some cases need to be asked, does not mean that the scenario is flawed or the issues and questions raised by the scenario cannot be addressed. However, if you believe that the issues and questions raised by the scenario cannot be addressed due to presence of terms for which the definition is uncertain, you can provide your definitions of the terms in question and then address the issues raised by the scenario.

Leonid, In post #29 you wrote, "If your life is an ultimate value then you'd protect it by recognition of right to live. By committing murder you forfeit this right." I recognize that my life is my ultimate value and that I have to act to protect, further, and fulfill my ultimate value. Committing an act that allows me to fulfill my ultimate value is good. I do not forfeit my ultimate value by acting to fulfill it. You also wrote, " As for ownership question, you should explain how you use and dispose on the whole island single handed?" Since this seems to be a sticking point for you, I will add a line to the next version of the scenario that states something to the affect that the island is small. But I will also address the ownership issue now. Based on your previous comments, it seems that you think that it was wrong to kill the man on the beach because the man and I could have worked out an agreement to share the island, or come to some other arrangement. If this is not correct, please let me know. I will state that the ownership question is an irrelevant one when determining whether killing the man on the beach was right or wrong. When the man came upon the island it was not possible for me to fulfill my value of solitude and therefore my ultimate value. I acted to preserve and achieve my ultimate value. Because my action furthered my life, my ultimate value, it was good. The availability of alternative actions does not mean that the action I took was wrong, rather, it just means that there were alternatives. Maybe the man on the beach could have moved to the other side of the island, or built a raft and left, or done something else that would have allowed me to achieve my goal. Just because these alternatives may have been available, and even if one or more of these alternatives allowed me to achieve my goal, it still does not mean that the action I choose to take was wrong.

theestevearnold, Thank you for your response. In post #27 you wrote, "It is best for man to live in a way that best suits his nature". What does this mean? Can you provide an objective definition of "best"? In the scenario, I choose my actions, values and goals in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy the ultimate value, that is my life. Does this not best suit my nature and is it not the best way for me to live? Just because you do not value the same things that I value, and do not agree that my values would be "best" for you, does not mean that those things that I value are not the "best" for me. You also wrote, "...reduce the amount of [life]time spent on the more mundane aspects of existence, giving him more [life}time to spend on better pursuits." What is the objective definition of "mundane" and "better" as you use them here? If I spend my time, even all of my time, pursing and obtaining the basic necessities of life, e.g. water, food, and shelter, how is this "mundane"? Perhaps I enjoy the challenge of achieving this value and I do not find it "mundane". Further, since pursing and obtaining the basic necessities of life is a requirement, due to the nature of human beings, of furthering and fulfilling the ultimate value which is my life, how is it not the "best" or "better" pursuit? Just because you may find something "mundane", or difficult, or any other adjective that you may choose to use to describe it, does not mean that I, or anyone else, agrees with you and, more importantly, has to agree with you.

tadmjones, Thank you for your response. In post #22, you wrote, "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?" The scenario is designed to help me learn and better understand some Objectivists principals so it could be used for both of the purposes you mentioned. I think that the question of whether values are subjective or objective is the more important question.

Harrison Danneskjold, In post #21 you wrote, " On that final point you've arranged for a philosophical Kobayashi Maru, in which the stranger's very existence threatens your own happiness (because you value solitude). When this has been pointed out you've ignored the question repeatedly. What I think you fail to realize is how close this comes to a description of moral insanity." I do not understand what question you think that I have ignored repeatedly. Can you explain? I answered the questions and/or addressed the points you raised in post #8 and post #14. You also wrote (in post #21), " If you mean what you've said of the learning curve then please explain how you discovered the universal law of gravitation. Did you even look at the empirical evidence? If so then elaborate. Else concede the point." I do not understand your point. In post #8, you wrote, " Alone on a desert island, you must come up with all of your own ideas, by yourself, which takes time from the ultimate value." I responded that regardless of where I am I must come up with my own ideas. Now I took this to mean that you were referring to ideas that further my ultimate value not necessarily the sum total of human knowledge. I agree with you that if I attempted to come up with the sum total of human knowledge by myself it would take time away from my ultimate value. But I am not attempting to gain the sum total of human knowledge; I am attempting to pursue and obtain my values that lead to the fulfillment of my ultimate value. As for your example of knowledge of the universal law of gravitation, this knowledge does not further or fulfill my ultimate value. In the scenario I laid out what I value starting with my life as the ultimate value, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of the basic necessities that allow me to live, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of solitude, followed by the pursuit and obtainment of luxuries and means of entertainment. While these may be just some of my values, I have determined that they are the most important to me. If acquiring and having knowledge of the universal law of gravitation is a value to me, it is further down the list and is not as important as my other values. Spending my time pursuing my values that are important to me, is not a waste of time and it is not purposeless. I agree with you that lifelong goals are crucial to thriving. That is why I spend my time pursuing my goals, because the achievement of my goals allows me to thrive. Now if you value knowledge about the universal law of gravitation, and you feel that that knowledge will further and fulfill your ultimate value, which is your life, then you should seek to obtain and keep your value.

Leonid, In post #17 you wrote, " In your particular case the premise that solitude is an ultimate value is wrong." It appears that you did either did not read or did not thoroughly read the original post. In the original post I clearly state that the ultimate value is my life. I state this many times. Solitude is a value I pursue because solitude contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, the ultimate value. You also wrote, "You alone cannot occupy and use the whole island, unless it's a very small one." This seems to be a statement of fact however, in the scenario I do occupy and use the whole island so either it is a very small island or your statement is not statement of fact. If you meant this statement as some kind of universal or fundamental law that 'one person cannot occupy and use a whole island' then please explain, in objective terms, how this statement is derived and why it is correct.

Harrison Danneskjold, Thank you for your response. First let me state that the scenario in the original post is hypothetical. This is a scenario designed to help me learn and understand some of the principles of Objectivism. The scenario and my comments are written in the first person for ease of reading only. While I am surprised I need to state this, I nevertheless will: I do not live alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. I have never been alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. I never met a man on the beach of an island that I was never on. I did not kill a man that I never met on the island that I was never on. Again, this scenario is hypothetical. As for your post (post #8), you wrote, " Since knowledge is good and wasting time is evil, whatever can enhance this learning process is profoundly good." Please define "wasting time". As stated in the original post, I use my time to achieve my values. How is this wasting time? You wrote, " Alone on a desert island, you must come up with all of your own ideas, by yourself, which takes time from the ultimate value." Ayn Rand wrote (in the essay "The Objectivist Ethics'), "Everything a man needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him, by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind." I agree with this statement. Whether I am alone on an island, or in the middle of the most crowded city on the planet, I still have to come up with all of my own ideas. Coming up with my own ideas is not a waste of time nor am I flushing my life time down the toilet by coming up with my own ideas, rather, coming up with my own ideas is a requirement for my life. In post #14 you wrote, "With that statement, "his presence on the beach prevented me from achieving my ultimate value" you didn't just assume the legitimacy of that value; you slipped into an implicit "men are evil". Please explain how I slipped into an implicit "men are evil". I do not think, nor did I state, that "men are evil" and I never implied it. That which negates, opposes or destroys my life is the evil. The presence of the man on the island negates, opposes or destroys my ultimate value therefore it is evil.

Spiral Architect, Thank you for your response. I will to happy to address your statements and questions, however, I find your post difficult to read. It may just be my misunderstanding and I apologize if it is but I do not want to read and respond to your post one way when you meant to convey something different. My confusions arise from (from post #6): " The fact that you’re asking it means you know it's wrong; you’re just not able to come to the conclusion." I do not know what "it" refers to. " First you need to expand on the nature of man and the need of principles before deciding why you value then expand your context to include politics since your applying ethics to a social situation." Do you mean "your" or "you're"? "What are the principles with dealing with others?" I do not know what this means. Is it the same a 'What are the principles for dealing with others?" "Does kill in the name of my value to prevent there’s a part of that?" I do not know what this means. Again, if this is my problem, I apologize and will renew my effort to understand, but I do not want provide answers that do not fit your meaning.

Leonid, Thank you for your response. In post #5, you wrote, " In fact you claim an ownership rights on the whole island. I don't think that you have a basis for such a claim." Why do you state that I have no basis for a claim of ownership on the whole island? What is the basis for your claim that I have no basis for a claim? You also wrote, " Even small island can accommodate two and more people." The presence of the man on the island prevents me from achieving my value of solitude. The fact that I see the man demonstrates that my value is not being achieved. Since I cannot achieve my value, I cannot achieve my ultimate value, which is my life. That which furthers my life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys my life is the evil. The man's presence on the island negates my ultimate value and is therefore evil. There can be no agreement, simple or otherwise, between good and evil.

Devil's Advocate, Thank you for your response. In post #4, you wrote, "Why is it necessary to kill to achieve solitude? Without knowing your visitor's intentions, how did you arrive at the conclusion that your solitude was in jeopardy??" The man's presence on the island prevents me from achieving solitude. The fact that I see the man demonstrates that I do not have the solitude that I value.

abott1776, Thank you for your answer. In post #3, you wrote, "Just as him committing force upon you would have disrupted your rational thought and action in living your life, so vice a versa. To say that the same requirements don't apply to him, whilst they do to you, is total evasion, and will ultimately psychologically destroy you if you are claiming that this hypothetical individual is a rational egoist in the objectivist sense of the term." I do not understand this statement or how it is used to determine if the action of killing the man on the island was wrong. In the scenario, I never stated anything to the affect that the requirements of life apply to me but do not apply to another. I acknowledge that the ultimate value of the man on the beach is his own life. I acknowledge that the man on the beach must choose his actions, values and goals in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy the ultimate value which is his own life. I acknowledge that, because his ultimate value is his life, that which furthers his life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys his life is the evil. I further acknowledge that since my action destroyed his ultimate value, from his point of view that action was evil. But so what? The ultimate value of the man on the beach is his life and the ultimate value to me is my life. His presence on the island prevented me from achieving my ultimate value therefore, from my point of view, it was evil and my act, an act which allows me to achieve my ultimate value, was good. Can you explain further why it was wrong to kill him?

StrictlyLogical, Thank you for your answer in post #2. While I do not understand your last paragraph, outside of some attempt to insult me, I will make an assumption that since you both took the time to read my post and to craft a response, rather than it ignore it, that you desire a discussion. I have a question about what you wrote but if the last paragraph of your response was actually a statement that you do not desire to discuss this topic further I will not be offended and respect your decision. You wrote, "Solitude is an absence of people not a value." Can you explain this statement? According to Ayn Rand (in the essay 'The Objectivist Ethics') a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. If solitude is something that I act to gain and/or keep then, according to the definition, it is a value to me.

I posted a scenario and question regarding right and wrong awhile ago. You can read the scenario, question, and the responses here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=26166 I have revised the scenerio a little in the hopes of revitalizing the conversation and getting a more clear answer to the question. I would appreciate responses from people who identify as Objectivists. If you are not an Objectivist I still welcome your responses but my goal is to learn and understand Objectivist thinking from Objectivists. Please consider the following scenario: I live completely alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. I think that a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep and that the ultimate value, that which is the final goal, or end, to which all lesser goals are the means and by which lesser goals are evaluated, is my life. Because my ultimate value is my life, that which furthers my life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys my life is the evil. Since I am a human and by my nature I have no automatic code of survival, no automatic course of action and no automatic set of values, everything I need or desire has to be learned, discovered and produced by me, by my own choice, by my own effort, and by my own mind. I must choose my actions, values and goals in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy the ultimate value, the end in itself, which is my own life. And I do. The island and the ocean immediately around the island provide a wide variety of resources. I value the basic necessities that allow a human to live. Obtaining the basic necessities that allow a human to live are a value and goal that I have chosen because obtaining the basic necessities contribute to the furthering and fulfillment of my life. I use my reason and my ability to think and I devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those basic necessities, e.g. I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I make tools for growing, gathering and/or hunting food, I discover or construct shelter. Since achieving my value of obtaining the basic necessities allows me to further and fulfill my ultimate value, it is good. The island also provides the means of achieving solitude. I value solitude. Solitude is a value and goal that I have chosen because solitude contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, the ultimate value. Since achieving solitude contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, it is good. Since I am able to use the resources available to me to achieve the goal of obtaining the basic necessities, and I am able to use the island to achieve the goal of solitude, I am able to spend time devising ways to use the resources available to me to achieve lesser goals that contribute to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment. When I examine my life on the island, I realize I am achieving my values and living for my own sake. Since happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's own values, and to live for one's own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is a man's highest moral purpose, I conclude that I am happy because I am achieving my values, and since I am achieving happiness by achieving my values, I am reaching my highest moral purpose. One day, a man comes up on the beach. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. I do not know from where the man came or how exactly he arrived on the island as there is no physical evidence to on which to make a determination e.g. no boat, floatation devices, aircraft, wreckage, etc. The presence of this man on the island means that I cannot continue to achieve my value of solitude. Since achieving my value of solitude is good because it contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, not achieving my value of solitude is evil because it does not contribute to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life; rather it negates, opposes and destroys my life. Since my ultimate value is being opposed by the presence of this man, I kill him. After the man is dead, I am able to once again achieve my value of solitude which is good because it contributes to the fulfillment and enjoyment of my life, the ultimate value. Given the above scenario, do you agree that killing the man on the beach was right? If not, why was it not right?

Skylab72, Thank you for your answer. It is very interesting but I would like some more information to make it clear. You state in post #300: "I find that when the thinking ones and I share a goal like staying alive, and cooperate, the goal is more readily achieved." In regards to the original post, my goal of staying alive is already being achieved before the man washes up on the beach, and my life does not end because I killed the man. So why is it immoral to kill the man who washes up on the beach when my goal of staying alive is being achieved? What does "readily achieved" mean in this context? My goal of staying alive was being achieved on the island. Are you suggesting that that the goal was not being "readily" achieved therefore it was immoral to kill the man who washed up on the beach? Who decides, and by what standard is it decided, whether or not something is being "readily achieved"? What does "cooperate" mean in this context? Cooperate how? Since the man who washed up on the beach was unconscious and did not do anything, he did not cooperate with me in achieving my goal. Does this mean that it was not immoral to kill him? What would it mean if the man woke up and did not cooperate with me? Would it be moral to kill the man if that was the case? You then state, "I value life, all life, my own is simply the instance of it most valuable to me. If you disagree expect mortal animus." Please clarify. When you state that your own life is the instance of life that is most valuable to you, does this mean that you do not value all instances of life equally? If you do not deem all instances of life equally valuable, is that how you justify destroying some instances of life in order to further your own, like when you eat something? How do you determine the value that you assign to a particular instance of life? How do you then know that the value that you have assigned to a particular instance of life is the correct value? What if there is disagreement between you and another instance of life as to the value that should be assigned to a particular instance of life? How does this get resolved? In regards to the original post, my life is the instance of life that is the most valuable to me, therefore the instance of life that is the man who washed up on the beach is less valuable than my life. Since I destroy instances of life that are not as valuable as my life all of the time, every time I eat for example, why is destroying another instance of life that is less valuable than my life immoral? You go on to state, "I find consistency promotes my value. I find awareness promotes my values. I therefore value the trustworthy and knowledgeable among the sentients. If you disagree you gain potential threat points." Please clarify: "Consistency" with what? and "Awareness" of what? Please define "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" as used in this context. Do you judge whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or knowledgeable? If so, by what standard do you make that judgment and how do you know that your judgment is correct? Once you have made your judgement, if you do so, is everyone required to agree with your judgement? Does your statement mean that if someone does not meet your definition of trustworthy and/or knowledgeable you do not value that person or you value that person less? Would it then become moral to kill someone who you judge not to be trustworthy and/or knowledgeable? If I judged the man who washed up on the beach to not be trustworthy or knowledgeable would it then be moral to kill him? Who or what decided that "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" are the traits to value? Are there any other traits to value or are we limited to "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable"? Why is this correct? What are "threat points"? How do "threat points" work? What are the consequences of gaining "threat points"? Who decides what the consequences, if any, are and who carries out those consequences? Is it moral or immoral to inflict the consequences, if any, of gaining threat points on someone? Why? In regard to the original post, how do "threat points" work on the island? You then state, "In order to promote these values and my life to the maximum I can, I logically must consistently behave in a manner supportive of their logic." Please define "maximum." Does your definition of "maximum" apply only to you or does it apply to everyone? What if my definition of "maximum" is different than your definition? Who is right? In regard to the original post, if I define what it means to promote my life to the maximum I can, and my definition includes killing anyone and everyone who washes up on the beach and I carry this out consistently, does this mean that it is not immoral, in fact it is moral, to kill the man who washed up on the beach? You then state, "Your desert island is simply an attempt to resurrect the brain-a-vat argument, and it consistently breaks down as much more difficult to support logically than admitting that reality exists." Please show me where in the original post, or any other place, that I do not admit, or that I deny that, reality exists? To my knowledge, I have never denied that reality exists. You then state, "Believing that it is O.K. to kill anyone without a very good reason to kill them, is to me, adequate reason enough to kill you." What constitutes a "very good reason" to kill someone? Who decides if a reason to kill someone is "very good" or "good" or "somewhat good" or any other description? How do they make that decision, how do they know that it is correct, and why do they get to make the decision? Does this statement mean that you believe that it is moral to kill someone because of his or her beliefs? I have not stated that it is my belief that it is O.K. to kill anyone. Nor have I actually killed anyone. But even if I did believe that it was O.K. to kill someone without a "very good reason" and did not actually kill anyone, do you believe that it is moral to kill me? If a person has different beliefs than you is that a "very good reason" for killing him or her? Additionally, if you believe that someone's belief that it is it is O.K. to kill someone without a very good reason is an "adequate reason" to kill that person, then is it then O.K. to kill you because it is your belief that it is O.K. to kill someone with only an "adequate reason" and not a "very good reason"? On a side note and purely to help me better understand human behavior, what was the purpose of the statement, "Pardon me son, but I'm gonna cut you off at the pass"? Why did you use the word "son"? I am not your son, so you were not making a statement of fact. It appears that your use of the word "son" is some kind of attempt to belittle me or cast me in an unfavorable light or to imply that I am a child therefore anything that I write should be taken as childish. Is this, or something like it, what you intended to do? If so why? If not, then why did you use the phrase, "Pardon me son..."?

StrictlyLogical, Since you are either unable, or unwilling to define what morality is, I will not ask you anymore questions. Thank you for your answers.

StricklyLogical, I still do not understand. I asked in the original post if it was wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach. You answered in post #8, “Yes.” Over several more posts you attempt to explain your answer in response to my questions. You then began to ask me questions because, as you state in post #283, “Your questions and answers reveal a certain way of thinking which... if we identify as revealing of the way you think actually can help us to help you to understand.” In post #288, I responded to your questions. Instead of helping me to understand, you responded in post #290 with, “It is no wonder you cannot see how "correctness" is related to morality” and “Someone here needs to define for you: what morality according to Objectivism IS (not just what it is like... ).” If you cannot define what morality according to Objectivism is, how did you answer the question from the original post? If you cannot define what morality is, but you still definitely answered a question on a moral basis (see post #8), doesn’t this mean that you are basing your answer on a concept of morality that is, at least to you, some combination of “unknowable… arbitrary, subjective, supernatural, mystical (religious commandments), intrinsic, irrational (having no basis in reality or reason, but edicts that simply ARE)”?

StricklyLogical, From post #287, “Why do you feel you can deal with questions of correctness and facts but you cannot deal with questions re moral action (even re. a poison ivy or sumack!)” Here is the post (#220) you quoted: “The answer to this question depends on what you are asking. Are you asking is it right to consume the poisonous fruit or mushroom with “right” meaning correct or “right” meaning moral? If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the correct action to take, then the answer would depend on what you were trying to accomplish given the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. For example, if you are trying to accomplish living for another day, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would not be the correct action to take because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not live for another day. If you are trying to accomplish your death then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom would be the correct action because eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom will kill you and you will not be alive. If you are asking is eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom the moral action to take, then I cannot answer your question because I do not know. All I know is the fact that the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill me.” As I stated, the poisonous fruit or mushroom, if eaten, will kill you. This is a fact of reality. Whether eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom is the correct or incorrect action to take will depend on what you want to accomplish. You asked, “Your words clearly show you DO treat these types of questions differently. Why?” I treat them differently because I do not understand how one equates a correct action with a moral action which is what it appears that you, and others, are doing. I do not understand how these two statements are, as it appears to be suggested, the same thing: “If you choose to live, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom is the incorrect action to take because if you eat the poisonous fruit or mushroom you will not live” “If you choose to live, then eating the poisonous fruit or mushroom is the immoral action to take because if you eat the poisonous fruit or mushroom you will not live” If this is simply a matter of definitions, e.g. you have defined correct action as moral action, then I understand your position. However, no one has stated (that I have seen) that it is a matter of definitions. I have asked for an explanation of why and/or how one equates a correct action with a moral action and the answers I receive, when I receive them, just lead to more questions. So I do not “feel” that I can deal with questions of correctness and facts and I do not “feel” that I cannot deal with questions regarding moral action. What I do not understand is how you, and others, equate correct action with moral action.

dream_weaver, From post #284, “There is an online Ayn Rand Lexicon in which one topic dealing with ethics is morality. At the end of the article is a link to the conceptual index for ethics. The marker on the page is at this time not directly pointing to Philosophy: Ethics, but if you scroll down the page there will be about 90 links related to ethical related issues. Many of these look at morality as it applies to specific applications, but the main principle that runs throughout looks at reason as it applies to action and values. A code of values is a code of morality. Virtue, which includes the activitiy [sic] of reasoning, deals with the actualization of values. Perhaps something in the Lexicon entries may help flesh out what additionally need be asked.” I will look at the links you provided. Since you are referring me to someone other than yourself to explain your answers and positions, I will not ask you anymore questions and thank you for the answers that you have provided.

StricklyLogical, From post #283, “Your questions and answers reveal a certain way of thinking which... if we identify as revealing of the way you think actually can help us to help you to understand... which is your goal. I realize you aren't trying to make a point or tell us your opinion... we are eliciting it in order to figure out how best to ensure you understand the answers you seek. As for your question re #261, I am seeing a clear pattern that you accept as possible knowledge of certain kinds, your ability to reason in regards to certain things and your ability to decide, determine answers to things... e.g. facts, and things you deem as falling within the category of correctness. I'm also seeing that you are stating some "kinds" of things you cannot answer, or do not (read cannot?) know answers to i.e. questions of morality and "right" and "wrong". These two types of things must differ in a fundamental way for you to treat them so differently, I will guess it is as though there is a gulf between them. Understanding what it is you think causes you to treat them as fundamentally different, why there seems to be a gulf, is an important step in answering your question. So what is it about these two types of things which makes them different for your ability to know and analyse?” As for any gulf or fundamental differences that you guess, and in answer to your question, I will state that there is no difference for me. I ask questions based on your posts, not because I do not understand my thinking or my ability to know and analyze but because I do not understand your position or your thinking. I am trying to learn what other people think and my goal is to understand other people’s answers, including your answers, to the questions asked in the original post.

dream_weaver, You are not missing anything here. I am missing something, hence my questions. As far as I can tell, your attempts to explain how morality is tied to the facts of reality are contained in posts #260, #266, and #273. You stated in post #266 that morality is in essence the answer to the question of what would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living. I stated that consuming water is a fact of reality that pertains to living and I made the statement that if you want to live, consuming water is the correct action to take in order to achieve your choice. While the statement was later modified to read, if you choose to live, then you have to acquire the knowledge to ensure that water is potable, and then you have to use that knowledge to ensure that the water is potable, and then you have to consume the water (let's call this entire process 'consuming water' for sake of simplicity), you did not disagree that consuming water is a fact of reality that pertains to living. Since consuming water is an answer to the question "What would you call the facts of reality that pertain to living" this should be the essence of morality according to post #266. Additionally, in response to a nearly identical statement from my post #259, you stated in post #260, "Your [sic] pretty much explained how morality ties into it right here.” In post #270, you state, in reference to my statement about consuming water, "As to how it relates to morality, they (though not exhaustively) would be the type of concretes subsumed under the concept of morality.” So, would you re-write the statement to be: if a human chooses to live, then the consumption of water is the moral action to take to achieve that choice? How do we go from an action being correct to an action being moral? Is this just a matter of definitions? Are you saying the definition of "correct" in this context means "moral" therefore it is moral? If so, going back to the original post, would your answer to the question be: if you choose to live, then the killing of the man who washed up on the beach would be an immoral action to take in order to achieve your choice?

StricklyLogical, From post #278: The Hypothetical person states: "You have stated that many things and people (including yourself) tell you how you should live your life i.e. what actions you should take in life and I take this to mean only something in reality (as against the Nothing, i.e. that which does not exist) can be a source for determining how to live your life. From all the suggestions/choices (some intrinsic/dogmatic, some subjective, others something else...) how do you decide how to live your life? i.e. Assuming you do act how do you decide what to do?" I do not understand the point of your questions or what they have to do with the original post. I will rephrase what I wrote to you in post #250, I am not putting forth a view point of my own. My questions are not an attempt to push my own view or disprove anyone else’s view; I ask questions because I am trying to learn. Additionally, I still do not understand what you meant when you wrote in post #261: “I think the answers to help you understand lie in the difference (perceived) you have between the questions you feel you can answer (correctness) and those which you feel you cannot answer (morality, right and wrong). “ Can you explain what you meant?

tadmjones, From post #277, “I remember the OP, my point is that an act of killing can be either moral or immoral, but the morality is not based on the physical killing, it based on the reason for killing. Eg if you knew the person to be an aggressor intent on your destruction killing would be a moral action on your part. Are you suggesting that killing , or the reasons for killing, are amoral?” I am not suggesting anything. I was asking if you were answering the questions in the original post. Since there was no “reason” given in the original post and you say, “an act of killing can be either moral or immoral, but the morality is not based on the physical killing, it based on the reason for killing,” then I will take that for your answer and thank you for it.

tadmjones, From post #275, “You seem to treat the action of killing as having been 'choiceless'. Morality is a guide to action, thought precedes action. Why choose to kill?( in this situation), the reason for killing is either moral or not.” Do you have an answer to the questions asked in the original post? Based on the above, it appears that you cannot answer the questions because you do not know the reason why I killed the man who washed up on the beach? Is this the case?