Eamon Arasbard

This article is just one example of an orthodox Objectivist using complicity to justify killing civilians, but there are others: http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/self-defense-and-free-trade/Innocents-in-War#filter-bar Earlier in the article, the author argues:

Okay, fair enough. It is of course rational to act in ways which penalize those who are responsible for harming oneself. But I would still maintain that the Golden Rule is an acceptable standard among rational individuals. This is a position which I think is reasonable. I would say that a factory which is producing weapons for the enemy is a legitimate target, because they are supporting their government's acts of aggression by overt actions. I would also say that someone who is making propaganda supporting a war of aggression is inciting violence. This can get a bit hazy (For instance someone in Germany might post a rant online calling for the German government to attack the U.S., which I would say falls under freedom of speech) but if there is an ongoing war of aggression, then anyone who publishes propaganda supporting is, in my view, responsible for their government's actions. I believe that Rand wrote at one point that if there was ever a war with Russia, then she hoped that Russian civilians were harmed, because they were morally responsible for Communism. I have also heard the argument made by people from the ARI that civilian casualties in Islamist countries are acceptable because the civilian populations of those countries are complicit in support fundamentalist Islam. This would be a separate argument, which would require a different answer. I do not believe that this could be addressed solely on the basis of the Golden Rule. But it would require a much higher standard for what level threat would justify war.

This is something I've been thinking about lately, and I'm wondering what other people think of my reasoning here. So, to start with, I think that the statement "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not only consistent with Objectivism, but required by it. The way I want others to treat me is my own rational evaluation of the way I should be treated as a human being. Logically speaking, this means that it is the same way that every human being should be treated. So by violating this principle, I am acting in a way which is inherently irrational. This would also provide the basis for the existence of rights. We want to be free to choose how to conduct our own lives, so we respect that right for others, and expect the political system to do the same. We want people to respect our right to practice Objectivism, even if they disagree with it, so we respect the rights of Christians to practice Christianity, even though we disagree with it. We want the right topublicly express Objectivist ideas, so we expect society to respect freedom of speech. We want the right to due process, so we defend it even when we suspect someone of having genuinely committed a crime. This principle also exists even in the absense of a likelihood of reciprocity. For instance, there might be a certain group of leftists who are lobbying the government to outlaw Objectivism as "hate speech." A proper adherence to Objectivist principles would require us to respect their right to express their views, even though they want to take away our right to do the same. Individual rights are absolute, even for those who do not respect them. I believe that this would also provide a basis for resolving a key disagreement between Objectivism and libertarianism -- specifically, each philosophy's differing position on the issue of civilian casualties in war. Objectivism holds that civilian casualties are acceptable, because civilians on the enemy side are responsible the actions of their government. Libertarianism holds that killing a bystander while waging war on an aggressor is an act of aggression. Based on my reasoning above, I would say that the libertarian position is correct, and that in the course of self-defense we only have the right to harm individuals directly engaged in acts of aggression against us.

There are a few possible examples. For instance, we would say that if two people sign a contract under which one will be a "slave" to the other, be whipped daily, and be forced to obey the other out of fear of punishment, without knowing any context, we would probably say that this is immoral. But I do not believe that even extreme forms of BDSM are immoral if both consent out of a desire to experience rational values. Same with the fish guts example. Two people might like sodomizing each other with fish guts because they hate both themselves and each other, in which case it would clearly be immoral. But it's equally likely that two people might genuinely have a fetish for fish guts, and wish to engage in that activity out of self-love.

I don't think I even agree with this, and I want to retract my statement saying the same thing. She came into his room after he suggested they have coffee together. That's not a sign that she wanted sex. It's a sign that she wanted coffee. In general, I think even if she'd consented, his actions leading up to this point were morally abhorrent. He invited her into his room under false pretenses so that he could have sex with her. Also, from the sound of it, she was drunk out of her mind while he was at least sober enough to have it together. Note that I do NOT believe that this alone constitutes rape, but he was still exercizing undue influence by taking advantage of her inebriated state, and I believe that this should be regarded as a form of abuse and condemned by all rational people.

Of course. I'm fully aware of that. And as I said, the responsibility is on both parties to ensure consent. But this does not mean that we should go to the other extreme and defend someone who continued to sexually violate someone after she explicitly denied consent. She is also not responsible for him recieving "false signals." He made an inference about what she wanted based on the way she was acting, which turned out to be wrong. He alone is responsible for this.

I thought this article was making some good points up until this point: I didn't get the impression that the woman was sending mixed messages from this story -- or at least, if she was, it was only because he was pressuring her. It does sound like their encounter could legitimately be described as a date, and he may have briefly been justified in thinking she wanted sex when she sat down on his bed, but I don't think there is anything inherent in that is explicitly demonstrating a desire for sex, and he is responsible for any mistaken impressions he had. I believe that his initial actions could have been interpreted as an honest misinterpretation of her intentions, if he had stopped when she said no. But he continued, even over her explicit objections. When it comes to consent, both parties are responsible for their part. If someone initiates sex with you, and you don't want it, it is your responsibility to say no. But it is the responsibility of the other person to respect your lack of consent, and to make an effort to ensure your consent in the first place. And if someone thinks the object of his or her affections is saying "yes" through actions as ambiguous as those of the woman in this article, then they alone are responsible for this assumption.

I don't think this position is advocated by any actual physicist, or ever has been, although I'm sure there are a few New Age mystics who would make that claim. What the "collapsing wavefunction" model would mean is that a particle has an indeterminate wavefunction until it interacts with another object in the macroscopic world. This would not, strictly speaking, be a human consciousness under any plausible circumstance. It would be the piece of computer equipment used to measure the position and velocity of a particle. A wave/particle does also have definite properties before it is "observed" -- namely, a range of probability of where it might be, and how fast it might be going, defined by a specific set of mathematical equations which are equivalent to a wave function. Once it has interacted with the measuring equipment, the mathematical equations change to something more similar to a particle, but it is probable that, once the equations involved are properly understood, they will resolve into something which the human mind can interpret more easily. At least that's my understanding of it. It's been a while since I've picked up a physics book.

I definitely agree, and this is an issue which I have become increasingly aware of, especially over the last few months. Feminists are using irrational emotional appeals to whip people into hysteria, silence dissent, and advance an agenda which involves basically abolishing due process for men accused of rape, and regulating sex, disgustingly enough using consent as their pretext. I would like to address this part: It's not women as a group who are responsible for this morally abhorrent agenda. It's a small minority of feminist activists who want to regulate sex, and who I believe have equal contempt for male and female sexual freedom, and are hijacking the suffering of actual rape victims to advance a totalitarian agenda. This is important because it's not really fair to blame all women for the immorality of a few, and it's also against men's self-interest to condemn all women, since this creates a psychological inhibition toward finding a mate. I don't have the time right now, but if anyone is interested, I can dig up some links relating to this topic.

Yes, I do attend church regularly. Yes, as long as I can consistently filter out the religious dogma, and focus on the values which are consistent with my own rational beliefs. I think the main thing is a positive view of the world. Christians tend to see a lot of the beauty in the world that many people ignore in the process of dealing with the struggles of everyday life. Objectivism does also share Christianity's belief in benevolence, even if we regard the basis of this belief as fallacious and reject the morality of self-sacrifice. And I have tended to find that approaching the world -- or at least people who are deserving of goodwill -- with an attitude of generosity is very rewarding as well. As long as I'm not neglecting my own self-interest, I do see value in participating in a community of people who are generally warm and friendly and care about each other, and showing the same kind of goodwill in return.

Here's a question (Or maybe a way of rephrasing my previous question). Do you think it's irrational to attend church in order to experience a sense of life, without adopting the church's belief system?

Irrational, hates men, thinks she's entitled to childish emotional outbursts whenever anything doesn't go her way -- unfortunately, there are a lot of women who share these traits. And the fact that the media portrays these as representative of women in general, and a sign of female "empowerment" doesn't help. Well, just that women are individuals, who are capable of making their own decisions, just like men are. Plus most women have probably encountered men who disrespected them. I think a lot of the way women act has to do with false premises which a lot of people accept related to gender. But women have as much reason to overcome these false ideas as men have. The efforts to overcome these notions have been skewed somewhat by an excessive focus on the female side of the coin, but this does not mean that individual women act with an intention of screwing men over, and there is no logical reason to make this assumption. In addition, it is unjust to judge individual women based on the actions of other women. Instead, women who act immorally should be condemned, while women who act morally should be treated with respect and, if they reflect our ideals in the right way, considered as sexual partners. I agree, but it can help make it more manageable. Yes! Exactly! That, and men are also encouraged to develop an attachment to sex which is unhealthy, and judge themselves based on whether or not they can get laid. (This actually reminds me of Francisco's speech to Rearden about sex in AS.)

My comment regarding the crazies may have been unnecessarily negative. Although I have found in my own case that fear of encountering "crazy" women is a factor in my reluctance to hit on members of the fairer sex. I do not know if Stryker_A has a similar problem, and I believe I have constructed a rational basis for overcoming this limitation. I will share more if it will add to the discussion. On your other points -- I find that masturbation, combined with building platonic relationships with women, has been satsifactory when I've been successful at it. And I definitely support having multiple partners if you're in love with multiple people. I would at minimum regard a long-term relationship as having more meaning that a short-term relationship, but I guess a short-term relationship could have value as well. This is an area where I am working on figuring out my own beliefs. What I despise is people who combine short-term relatiomships with discarding their partners entirely from their life after the relationship ends. I think that if someone is a part of one's life, and they have not done anything to forfeit that, then it is both irrational and unnecessarily cruel not to count them as a friend. And if you knew a sexual relationship was going to end, then it's dumb to blame the other person when it does end. I also think that a lot of the distress men feel after the end of a relationship is caused by being completely cut out from the life of someone they're still in love with.

Why not? I'm also in a similar situation to Stryker_A. I'm twenty years old at the moment, and there is not anyone available at the moment who I would want to have sex with. I think the only thing you can really do is hold on, get used to jacking off, and try to meet more women. (Although this last point means dealing with all the crazies you will encounter on the way to finding someone you love.) I suppose short-term dating relationships are an option as well. I do have some aversion to this idea, because I like to think of love as something permanent. But I can see the argument for considering it as an option as long as there is at least a likelihood of remaining friends in the long term.

Then it does not seem to be irrational or immoral to practice religion as a psychological exercize, and participate in religious ceremonies for the purpose of exchanging psychological benefits, and acceptance of the values that a rational person should share with them. I also think a lot of religious dogma (Including New Age spirituality) is a result of people trying to substitute concepts which provide psychological benefit for reality. For instance, a lot of "spiritual" people tend to preach universal love and automatic forgiveness, as well as the idea that being attached to the things we value is bad. Forgiveness, intimacy with others, and being able to adapt to change are all healthy things, but religious types will place them before reality, which leads to them sacrificing their objective values. And of course there's the basic idea of a benevolent mystical being who controls the universe, which allows people to believe that the world is on their side. It's when this sort of thing becomes people's literal beliefs that it stops being healthy.

But would we conclude that these paintings, music, or architecture are totally without value just because they we inspired by religion?

I mean something analogous to the legends told about John Galt, with recognition that they are not literally true, but that they reflect things that are true, and reflect them in a way which appeals to the subconscious as well as the rational consciousness.

Well, I guess you'd have to examine the nature of the benefits I get from it. I suppose the biggest one would be my participation in a community of people who are generally friendly and welcoming. This can in turn be evaluated based on the actual values being exchanged, which I would say would be manifestation of the aspects of Christianity which are consistent with and required by rational philosophy. I also think that spirituality serves a purpose by communicating rational values to the parts of the brain which are more instinctive and less rational, and that this provides a sense of life which is difficult to establish through reason alone. I also think that this is enhanced by sharing the experience with others, and provides a mutual psychological benefit to everyone present. Granted, Christian values, even the ones which are rational, are not the kind which Rand emphasized. But I think this is more because Rand was attempting to correct the excesses of these values (Which lead to altruism, self-sacrifice, and self-condemnation) than because they inherently contradict Objectivism.

I would definitely agree with that. But based on this it would not seem to be immoral to go to church and pray for the psychological benefit.

This brings me to my next question -- wouldn't this argument mean that if parts of a religion have a message which conveys a truth which can be established through reason, that the religion would be partially real in that sense?

This is a passage from AS that I've been mulling over. It's on page 710, and it's when Dagny first crash-lands in Galt's Gulch. She's asking John Galt about the legends about him, having to do with him finding Atlantis and such. What does it mean for something to be non-concretely real, and can a non-concrete reality have value?

I don't entirely agree with this. If a prostitute is willingly choosing to offer her body for money, then you aren't disregarding her as a person, because you are engaging in a trade which she has chosen to participate in for her own reasons. I do, however, feel revulsion toward both prostitution and casual sex. For me, sex is something that I want to have with someone who I'm in a committed relationship with -- not necessarily married, but in a romantic relationship which is intended to be long-term. The chain of reasoning I've used to justify this is that sex is something which is biologically connected to romantic love, which, I agree with Rand, proceeds from someone else's representation of one's highest ideal. And if two people have this kind of relationship, and their identities remain the same, then it rational to expect that the relationship will last long-term. I am also completely open to having multiple sexual partners.

My biggest disagreements with Rand have to do with politics. I am an anarchist, rather than a minarchist, although I am fine with others choosing voluntary minarchism. (I give my reasons why on this thread, and I can elaborate on them here if anyone is interested.) I also disagree with Rand's position on civilian casualties during a war, and believe that the death of any person on the enemy side who has not initiated force is a violation of individual rights. And while she was absolutely right to condemn state socialism and Marxism, I believe that some forms of classical socialism (Particularly mutualism) are compatible with Objectivist ethics, as long as everyone is participating willingly in pursuit of their own self-interest. To elaborate more on the last point, I think that the following arrangements are compatible with Objectivism: 1. Businesses owned by one person, for ventures where a large labor force is not necessary. 2. Multiple individuals owning a business through a partnership. 3. Voluntary labor unions (This is even depicted in AS with the union at Rearden's company). 4. (By extension of 2 and 3) workers themselves owning a company by voluntary contract. 5. Workers acting as independent contractors who negotiate on equal terms with business owners. As a result of this, it would be possible for an economy to develop where all production would either be done by small shopkeepers, by freelance engineers, maintenance crews, etc. contracting with small shopkeepers, or by workers' federations. I'm not saying that this would happen, or that there is anything morally wrong with capitalism, but it would be a possible way for a market to function. With regard to her ethics, I'm pretty much in complete agreement. Everyone's primary focus should pursuit of their own personal values, for the purpose of enhancing their own life. No one should sacrifice for anyone else. This does need to be balanced against the rights of others, but rights are themselves are a rational value, as they are necessary for a civilized society to exist, which is in turn to each person's rational self-interest. Cooperation among individuals is only appropriate to the extent that it benefits all involved. I do rank charity somewhat higher as a virtue than Rand did. The lives of others are of value, because it is rational to prefer seeing others living happy and virtuous lives than to see them living miserable lives. And, to the extent that one does value the lives of others, and to the extent that one can help them without sacrificing greater values, it is more rational not to take action on their behalf than not to.

Unless the article is lying outright, I think this pretty clearly establishes the nature of the decision.

I would agree that someone's fundamental morality or immorality ultimately stems from their personal values. But it is extremely difficult to judge that for someone else, and it is much easier to determine this based on the external effects of what they believe -- which is also what ends up playing a role in a relationship with them.