Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eamon Arasbard

Regulars
  • Content Count

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Eamon Arasbard last won the day on May 30 2015

Eamon Arasbard had the most liked content!

About Eamon Arasbard

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  1. How exactly does Mexico devaluing their currency negatively impact the United States? And if it does, wouldn't that mean that we have the right to ban trade involving pesos? (Since inflation is a form of fraud, making a law against the use of pesos self-defense.) If that's the case, then the decision should be made based on whether or not such a policy is prudent, as well as whether or not it's consistent with the Constitution.
  2. I think I agree with this basic sentiment. I think that with Trump's election and the influence Steve Bannon appears to have over him (Bannon was directly responsible for legal immigrants green cards almost being deported under Trump's executive order, which Trump signed without reading) we have evidence that the Alt-Right poses a serious threat. But I also agree that promoting better philosophical ideas is the way to defeat them. I actually think that the shifting political environment is a great opportunity for Objectivists and individualists to win support, and shows that there's a better a
  3. I would say that Michael Moore's claims dismissing the evidence are highly dubious. This is a leaked cable from a foreign embassy in Cuba from an organization which has long track record of honest reporting. Claiming that this is some sort of evil plot by politicians to discredit the film makes no sense whatsoever.
  4. Question: Imagine the situation were reversed, and the woman you love was forced to cut ties with you in order to protect someone else she cared about. Would you have a desire to continue the relationship at that point?
  5. I think my position is pretty much in line with the opinions everyone else on here has expressed. I would not consider it moral to interfere if someone wants to eat their dead cat, but I would consider that action to be profoundly immoral. An animal that someone has an emotional attachment is one of that person's values, and disrespecting the dead animal by eating it "just out of curiosity" is not consistent with upholding one's own values by any stretch of the imagination.
  6. It would be immoral if we accept moral absolutism as a standard for how to wage a war. I do agree with you that collateral damage is different from intentional or avoidable killing of innocents, and that it not the moral fault of the party defending itself. What I meant by the statement you quoted is that if we reject the non-aggression principle (Or non-initiation of force) as an absolute constraint on the actions of people fighting a dictatorship, then the best moral principle to follow is utilitarianism, which in this case means minimization of harm. (Though maybe utilitarianism isn't t
  7. Would you agree that the good of the people being liberated should be the moral goal of any tactic pursued? I don't think you need anyone's consent to take action in that situation, if we're talking about nuclear weapons. This is true, obviously. 5000 people do not have the right to violate the rights of one person. And if we're talking about civilian casualties, then I'd also agree that this adds another dimension. I don't think it makes sense to hold 5000 people who support a dictatorship as innocent, and if their deaths are the only way to secure freedom for those who want
  8. Is there a section on this site for discussing history? I wouldn't mind starting a thread somewhere else to discuss some of the history behind U.S. foreign policy.
  9. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/retaliatory_force.html This is what the non-aggression principle. Not pacifism.
  10. Utilitarianism is the belief that happiness should be maximized by sacrificing the good of a few to the good of the majority. The reason it's generally immoral is because it holds the sacrifice of some people to others as virtuous. But in the situation we're talking about, it's impossible to act without sacrificing some people, so I think in a situation like that it's best to take whatever course of action will lead to the least amount of suffering. If we reject utilitarianism in this situation, then we have to follow the same moral principle that we would follow under normal circumstances
  11. What I view as playing God is deciding that we have a right to look at a situation in another country, and judge that the lives of some people can be sacrificed for a greater good (Liberating the country from a dictator) and then start a war which will lead to innocent casualties. I'll admit that I'm still working out my position on this (Which is why I originally started this thread), but I think I've come to a position which is a bit more exact. The issue of a nation's sovereignty, and the right to life of the people living there, are two entirely separate issues. If we declare a preempt
  12. I think that if you're going to wage war and kill many of the same people you're fighting on behalf of, you need consent from at least as many people as will die as collateral damage in the attack. I don't think we have a right to make that decision on behalf of other people. I agree, if there's reason to think your own rights are in danger. Do you think there is any legitimate reason for someone to turn against you if you kill their family as collateral damage in a war to liberate their country?
  13. I think that equating corporations with human beings is absurd, and writing that into the law as justification for the contractual rights of private individuals discredits capitalism. I also think it's immoral for the government to force non-consenting third parties to submit to liability limitation agreements. And if a corporation does something that violates another person's rights, then everyone within the corporation who is responsible for this action needs to be held accountable. While regulations should be abolished, it is appropriate to have laws against fraud and infringements on p
  14. I agree with you on Hitler, because he posed a threat to the rest of Europe and the free world. What I disagree with is the position that we have a right to assume the role of savior and attack other countries, killing innocents in the process, because we think it's better for the people living there. I think I agree with that to the extent that the aggressor's ability to get away with their crimes poses a threat to the freedom of others. National sovereignty doesn't create that barrier. The non-aggression principle does, because of the innocents who will die in the process o
  15. I don't have time to do a full response right now, but I do want to clarify one point: I don't think isolationism was the right policy toward Hitler, and I agree with you that any free nation which he posed a threat to at that point had a right to take him out. In general I think isolationism is the ideal policy to follow, but I agree with Rand that we have a right to take out any dictator if it serves our own national interest.
×
×
  • Create New...