Not Lawliet

I have had people tell me I don't care about feelings before. I don't accept that by saying, "You're right, I don't care about feelings." I tell them I do, but it has nothing to do with facts or reality.

I disagree. It's true that many people confuse emotions as tools of cognition as equal of merit as reason. We reject the dichotomy of emotions and logic; logic is a tool of cognition while emotions are still a legitimate experience of the world worth respecting. People don't think of it this way, and so the accusation of sociopathic refers to those who are so attached to Rationalism that emotions have no value to them at all. The character House is a person who thought this way through most of the show. Is it a result of confusion and misunderstanding? Definitely. But we can still recognize what they mean even if they don't fully understand it themselves, and I take the accusations of not caring about anything as insulting.

Objectivism rejects the is-ought issue as a false dichotomy. Even folks like Sam Harris have done this. Objectivism holds human life as the only rational standard of moral values. If we accept this for discussion, since it's a large topic for another topic thread, the facts of reality are not disconnected or conflicted with morality. They are as Sam Harris puts it, as relevant to morality as medical facts are to health. Nobody denies that Objectivism is a radical philosophy; it claims selfishness is a virtue and promotes free market capitalism. But the consensus of world cultures and American society is not an argument. It used to be religious belief was taken for granted, and lack of any of it was inconceivable. And Objectivism doesn't dismiss identifying with a group as immoral or irrational. Afterall, Objectivists identify as Objectivists. What we do dismiss as irrational, is identifying with groups based on physiological traits that have no relevance to character (race), or by accepting a culture's values based on the mere location of one's birth (nationalism). For example: There is an undeniable pattern of children growing up to share the same religion and political views as the home they grew up in. This is pattern exists, it has for a long time, but individuals must think for themselves, and choosing not to question one's upbringing or parents' ideas at all is unreasonable.

You consider the unfeeling and sociopathic accusations as a compliment?

Sexual preferences really boil down to whether it is a result of conscious evaluations or biological instincts, and nothing outside conscious judgements can be regarded as racist.

No, nationalism and collectivist mentalities are conceptual ideologies people use to view the world. They are no more intrinsic in human nature than religion is. People can make choices, people can think, and people can choose to be rational.

Being diplomatic or tactful is not Peikoff's strength. It's as if he assumes that the viewers are both emotionally primed and Objectivists, that he's preaching to the choir. He should take notes from Brook when he takes calls on his show.

Well said.

Modern artists.

I think VW potentially can be right in rebelling against regulations, if that rebellion isn't reckless and worth the risk. But VW deceived their consumers, and I think that's wrong.

I think most promises constitute a verbal contract, even if not dependable in court, and so breaking them is a violation of rights. Of course there's circumstances that justify breaking contracts, even if others involved don't approve, but they're exceptions. Of course your ultimate or fundamental responsibility is to yourself, but real responsibilities exist among individuals who choose them. You have a responsibility to eat healthy, but there's times where it's fine to deviate because one's fundamental "responsibility" is to one's happiness. I actually don't think that is the most important reason to be honest (in the Objectivist meaning). It is certainly important to maintain one's trust with the people you deal with, but I think the most important or the primary reason that honesty is a virtue is to live by reality. Being dishonest means committing to a false reality you convince others of believing, and compromises your ability to be rational and reality-oriented. Being honest to others, in principle, is about maintaining a society operating on reality; you're not committed to falsehoods, and the people around you are not hindered by misinformation. I think that is why people have a right not to be defrauded, and is why courts have proper authority over fraud situations.

I know he was on Bill O'Reilly's show, and Yaron Brook has been on a few shows. That's all I know of.

What? I didn't know this existed.

Non Objectivists who don't dismiss all Objectivists as Randroids will tend to focus on people who don't appear to argue beyond citing Atlas Shrugged quotes, or those calling everyone "nihilists" the way Alt Right activists use the word "cuck". Objectivists will then see these people called Randroids and recognize them as people who cite Atlas Shrugged, but don't really understand the philosophy beyond a few slogans and soundbites.

I skipped more than half of the last season because I really wanted to see the last episode. In the last episode, he says to someone during a flashback (like done in previous episodes), "Nobody cared about the medicine," after skipping over details. The medicine has always been like a background to let personal conflicts have good content.

Sexual discrimination is evil - by social justice standards. Sexually discriminating against fat people is a microaggresion, and an attack against an entire class of people. You didn't just reject an individual; you denied an entire collective of their right to sex and happiness.

I don't know if it's "racist", but it's silly, and irrational. There's no reason for Hispanics or African Americans to be proud of their race, or even their heritage. They share a similar genetic makeup, nothing more. When I look around me at fellow Caucasians, I do not feel closer to them than people with black skin. It's been said by others before, but I don't see color. It has been said - most absurdly but not surprisingly - that refusing to see color is denying another's identity. No. Those who identify themselves by their ancestors or their race is collectivist, and desires an identity or achievement that they didn't earn. I'm no better or worse a person for being a decedent of a race of people who owned slaves at one time and who led the Industrial Revolution. Original Sin is nonsense, and so is racial pride. Considering that "racist" means, " having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another," yes, if we allow for superiority to be acknowledged in subjective and objective meanings. e.g. "White people look better with that hair cut - to me." This makes "racism" a messy concept to even use. It includes aesthetic judgements, except racial preference in aesthetic judgements is innocent. Black suits give a measurable impression on individuals that is different than that of grey suits, just as red and blue ties do. We generally instinctively value similarities in people. Short people potentially can value the company of other short people than the company of taller people. It means nothing. I'm not attracted to black women - usually; there's exceptions. I value black, blonde, and red hair more than brown hair or no hair at all. Don't put stock in this matters emotionally, for your own sake. The trend in social justice has reached its peak of absurdity, and is receiving its own backlash. There are those who are outraged that businesses discriminate based on intelligent and against "neurodivergent individuals" (unintelligent). There are those outraged at discrimination based on any detail, because its is the inevitable consequence of the philosophical meaning of egalitarianism. All are equal; discrimination by any standard is wrong by this notion.

Please cite this information next time it comes up. The word "man" derives from the old usage referring to humans. In Old English male humans were referred to as wer man and females as wif man. By the 13 century, the term "wer" simply began to fade out as words often do, and males were just simply referred to as man. If we were to speculate on the significance of evolution of language, it can be speculated that keeping the term "wif", later being "wo", was more respectful toward women, considering the deserved special recognition. The word "man" is derived from Old English as person. It's usage as also meaning males is amounts to laziness, not conspiracy. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man>

I think I'd phrase it that a person's only moral purpose is to fulfill their own happiness, and say that there are "no unchosen obligations". You could promise to do something or sign a contract and then have a responsibility towards someone else.

^ Yup, that's it. Pages 662 and 663 for my copy. "Wealth, Dagny? What greater wealth is there than to own your life and to spend it on growing?" - Ellis Wyatt

Oh I know what you're referring to. The oil producer (forget his name) in Atlas Shrugged says that time is a currency best spent on growing one's life, and he says it to Dagny in Galt's Gultch when she questions why he's working in the Gultch and not back at his old factory. I'll try to look it up here in a sec.

I never actually got tired of House and Wilson's relationship. That never got boring. Taub never grew on me; I found it hard to like him given he did stupid things and couldn't even meet his own standards.

I guess I came in late to this thread. Thought I'd throw my two cents in. I think it would be great for *us* if major Objectivists participated in forums, but it would be a waste of their talents, and not in their own interests. They've likely got their own circle of Objectivist friends without forums, and they can better propagate Objectivism through public debates and visits to colleges.

Oh - another brief mention of things like "environmental responsibility". Issues like this can very often be spun to a perspective of egoism. Why would it benefit a company, in the long run, to destroy their local environment? Consumer bases suffer, potentially hurting sales. Shareholders and business managers are humans too and can suffer from air pollution. The public will be outraged if you were to dump toxic waste in the nearby lake. Other actions by a company can also be deemed as blatant violations of individual rights, like destroying private property. Mr. Burns from the Simpsons doesn't exist, and for good reason.

Oh these essays are always so much fun! I studied business for a couple years until I decided on a new career in psychology. Most courses in business ethics will provide space to form your own opinions on how a business should behave. Sure the language they use indicates an obvious bias towards altruism, utilitarianism, etc. but if you present your ideas strongly, they stand a fair chance of being taken seriously. I can't speak for all professors though. I can offer some tips that may help you actually enjoy these types of essays. With a question like this, you will want to describe ways that businesses being involved in community projects can benefit the company. Your imagination is useful here, but maybe you can stumble across a news article. You can describe how a business's own success benefits society as a whole. You don't have to accept it's their obligation by doing this. Then once you've established that you can recognize their point of view fairly. Define what "social responsibility" means, and provide your position. Explain that you think that a business should be primarily concerned with its own success. This will necessitate satisfying the needs of consumers in a given society, and while that is not their primary goal, it is important to them. Establish that what people call "social responsibility" is an incomplete perspective of business ethics. Businesses must be sociable, but that's not their primary goal. "corporate social responsibility" is an ethical model depicting the proper ways a business should behave. Business ethics is the study of how businesses should behave and what business models are morally good or bad. Social responsibility is a part of business ethics. bluecherry made a great point. It's not a very useful concept, but the Wikipedia article here does a fine job of listing who they may be identified as by conventional standards: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)> Your course material may also have specific references of what your class wants your to recognize as "stakeholders". Simply comply with their definition of the term, and describe their importance to companies. Hope this helped.