Iatan Petru

Well I was just giving an example, I wasn't talking about love and sex exclusively. For the lack of a better example I'll say the exact situation I was in. I am at a martial arts gym and I'm the best there. I mean, by far the best, so I'm sort of the dominant presence there, and obviously I like it. But then there comes this cocky 5 ft 7 guy with an attitude and starts playing boss with everybody around, including myself. I didn't like it so I challenged him to sparring and I kind of schooled him, so he didn't have anything to say anymore. Of course, in this case I was lucky because I was better than him at what we were doing, but if not for that sparring match, he would've still been an arrogant prick, so I was wondering whether or not in such cases the right attitude can fix the problem. Like, when someone tries to play the big boss around you, how should you act to establish the role of the better man?

So I've noticed that Objectivism has changed my life for the better during the few months since when I got into it. Always pursuing my rational self-interest has been very beneficial for me from many points of view. Socially speaking, I've made a lot more friends and became more confident. There's one aspect I can't seem to be able to get around though. How do I act in a subtly competitive social scenario? For example, when you're with your buddies and some hot girls are around and all of you wanna be that manly dominant guy who bosses the others around. Or generally speaking when you compete with others in a subtle way for being the most alpha person in that situation. I say 'subtle' because you're not really in a position of adversity towards the other people so you can't start a fight, you just gotta know what attitude to have and kinda talk your way to the top. I already appear to be an outgoing person, but I want to be the 'leader', as cheesy as that may sound. So what's the way to do that and what would Objectivism have to say about the mental state you should adopt in these situations?

Well I think the case here is pretty straight forward. If someone makes a negative statement about you which is objectively wrong, then it is defamation. But if the negative statement about you is true, then he's got every right to make it. What if there's no way to check it? What if I told people I saw you rape and kill a little girl in an alley late at night when nobody else was around? Read this : http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/1456/can-slander-and-libel-laws-harmonize-with-objectivist-politics

We're talking whether or not it is morally justified. If you hypothethically knew you had ONLY the following two options : shooting your aggressor or letting him punch you, which action is moral (and would be legal under a proper Government) : -an act of self defense -letting that person violate your rights I think the answer is obvious, from an Objectivist perspective at least

I agree with most of what you're saying but not with this. You are morally entitled to do anything to prevent the violation of your rights, so long as you don't violate the rights of innocents (unless you're in an emergency situation). If someone says they're going to punch you and they start running towards you and you have a gun, you can shoot it. It's on them. However, shooting them once they've punched you, assuming you know they won't do it again, is not justified, because it would be an act of revenge rather than self defense.

Well, rights are derived from our ability to reason. Kids have some sort of rights because they have clear potential of becoming men with reason. But when there's no reason or potential for reason, how can there be rights? It's kind of a different topic but it's apparently a case where Objectivists disagree with each other. https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4075-more-on-animal-rights?highlight=WyJhbmltYWxzIiwiYW5pbWFscyciXQ== "As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are." Again, I am aware this is a completely different subject.

The public disturbance aspect of them are crimes, not the suicide attemt/animals torture in themselves. So the way I understand it, if someone tortures an animal or a person without rights or the potential to having rights in the future, or tries to kill themselves, assuming these horrible acts happen in the privacy of his house, then the authorities can't do anything to stop him. Furthermore, for people to try and stop those acts would be immoral. I get it, and it makes sense.

I understand now, thanks for taking your time to explain

Well seeing innocents suffering from monstruous acts, knowing you wouldn't be able to intervene is psychological torture, but cruelty acts in public would clearly be banned because they'd fall under public disturbance. As for self interest, I'd say it's in the self interest of individuals to keep dangerous people away from them, since 73% of animals abusers also abuse their wives and kids, according to a study made by PETA. And let's just assume they would be no danger to other humans, I already said that it is a crime to torture animals, since it's an immoral act which creates victims. Cutting down trees, or killing animals for food and so on is not immoral because it's not irrational and it's beneficial for humans.

Human beings have empathy, and they can relate to humans and animals to the point of resemblance. You see someone beating a puppy. Pushing that person away so that the puppy can escape is entirely moral because : 1. You acted to stop a crime. Like I said, it is an immoral act which creates a victim (even if that victim has no rights), so it is a crime. 2. It is, after all, human nature to want to intervene when an innocent is tortured by a psychopath. I mean, we can all say that animal cruelty is no philosophical issue and all that, because Rand hasn't clearly pronounced herself on this topic, but let's be 100% honest here. Is there a sane person who would not intervene, in my given example? And if we would all intervene, would the Police come for all of us? No proper philosophy would say it is immoral to do it, Objectivism just hasn't come up with an official verdict, yet.

https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4075-more-on-animal-rights?highlight=WyJhbmltYWxzIiwiYW5pbWFscyciXQ== "As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are." I said that in my example, the mental condition is not curable, so that person has no rights. As for the others, what I said was that acting to stop them would not be possibly considered an immoral action. What the two of you told me is that under a proper legal system, it is illegal. But what I asked is how can an action be both moral and illegal. Most of us would act to save those people/animal without feeling guilt about what we did, maybe out of human empathy or because we're stopping a moral crime (it's an immoral act which creates a victim, so it's a crime). So how is it possible that a proper Government may sanction a very moral action?

So I posted these hypothethical scenarios on different topics, as comments, but I decided to make one about them because I am really curious about the Objectivist approach. There are some hypothethical situations I thought about. So imagine the following : -a friend tries to kill himself because his ex broke up with him (or some other irrational reason) -you see a man torturing his dog (for example, keeping it chained and taking its eyes out) -you see a stranger cutting himself -you see someone beating up a mentally handicapped person (let's assume the handicap isn't curable nor potentially curable) I was trying to bring examples that are emotionally disturbing because I want to make a point about the moral actions you're entitled to here. Of course, most of us would initiate force to stop those people from doing what they're doing, wouldn't we? I mean, let's be really honest here, it is the right thing to do, clearly. But according to Objectivism, should those people we initiated force against take legal action against us, we would be the guilty party. After all, you have the right to kill or harm yourself, and animals who can't use reason (dogs and mentally handicapped people, in this case) have no rights. So maybe I see things in a wrong way, but here are cases where you can do something which is both moral and illegal. How can that be, under a proper Government? I mean, should the Government sanction initiating force in order to stop those actions? Can something be both moral and illegal? And if not, why wouldn't people be able to pay the authorities to also provide services of animal protection, protection for people without rights, irrational suicide prevention etc., which would, however, clearly violate the NAP in such cases?

Well that is what Objectivism claims. https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/what-are-rights/foundations-archive/3637-individual-rights-the-objectivist-view And as for giving an example, imagine the following scenario : Torturing a puppy is definetely immoral, even if that puppy is your property. For me to try and stop a person from torturing his puppy is clearly moral. But it would be illegal for me to do it because animals have no rights, so you can torture an animal but I can't lay my hands on you to stop you. There's the moral anomaly I was talking about, if we are to view things from the pov of rights. I do something moral, but still it's illegal. Since the legal system has to be moral, then something cannot be illegal unless it is immoral. And thus we have a contradiction. That's where I wanted to get btw, I seem fixated on the whole animal cruelty topic. So, if I act to save an animal from abuse, why should it be illegal? It is, after all, very moral to do so.

Not really, but if we are to view things from the point of view of rights, instead of what's moral, then we can get to some moral anomalies. Rights are moral principles, so that would make those contradictions even more evident.

If you attack a person you violate the NAP. If that person fights back, he does so because he is in an extreme situation, which can be seen as an 'emergency' under moral principles, so it's okay for him to defend himself at all costs, even by harming you. But if a stranger attacks you to save he victim, then he also violates the NAP because he attacked someone he didn't *need* to. It's clear to me that it is moral to defend someone, even by initiating force against the attacker, what I am trying to get is an Objectivist explanation as to 'how' and 'why'. Of course, if you harm someone without reason, then you cannot possibly have the pretention others shouldn't harm you, I get what you're saying. But what entitles the third party to intervene without facing legal consequences for NAP violation?