Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iatan Petru

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Iatan Petru

  1. 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
  2. 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 com
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. I understand now, thanks for taking your time to explain
  9. 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 vict
  10. 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 t
  11. 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
  12. 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 c
  13. 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 abou
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. What I mean is that an act can only be considered a crime if there's a victim. Smoking marijuana is not a moral crime, according to Objectivism, so under a proper Government it shouldn't be considered one. Well the way I thought about it is : If I attack a person then only that person has the right to self-defense (in this context, to fight back). If a third party, for example another civilian, intervenes in something which doesn't concern him and initiates force against me, I could take legal action against him for having attacked me, despite the fact that he did it to save the
  17. Way I heard it, Objectivism subscribes to the "No victim, no crime" principle. So if there's a victim then there's a crime and people can step in to help the victim, even if they're not authorities, do I understand this correctly?
  18. Is it immoral and/or should it be considered illegal if I acted to stop a crime that doesn't involve me? ~~~according to Objectivism of course~~~ If, for example, I see a person beating another person and I initiate force against the aggressor in order to stop him, would a proper Government sanction me for that? I know that the current Law system states that if you initiate force in order to stop an illegal action, then you're good.
  19. That is the issue I am curious about. Should it be considered moral, and should it be made legal, to dictate others on how to use, after all, their freedom of speech? If implementations of ideas can be controlled, then if we go down the slippery slope like that, what makes A.C.T.A. not okay? It's definteley sth that greatly limits the freedoms of others. However, if we go to the other extreme, and have no Patents and Copyrights at all, then of course, we'd have plenty of "unachieved greatness" cases, as Ayn Rand puts it. So what's the objective pattern to determine which is the correct middl
  20. So I was wondering about the actual stance of Objectivism on IP rights. I have to say from the start, I looked it up just a little bit, and I found out some interesting ideas, like the difference between rights over an invention and rights over a discovery. I also know that all property is, in a way, intellectual property. One aspect remains unclear to me. There's no doubt that if you make a discovery or invent something, you can give it a physical form and claim ownership over that physical object which embodies it. A story can be written in a book, a film can be put on a DVD, a video game ca
  21. And like I said, if a man is druk or under drug influence in public spaces, even though it doesn't automatically mean they are a threat to others, it highly suggests so. You can't wait for a crime to take place, you can also prevent it when it's justified to believe it will happen. Leonard Peikoff suggested we should be free to live without potentially harmful people among us, an admin here said the same thing (posted the link in an earler comment), I don't see how it contradicts Objectivist principles. Humans have a right to not live in fear, when that fear is objectively justified. Maybe pot
  22. Let's take another very famous example : The Dnepopetrovsk Maniacs. They tortured and killed countless dogs before moving on to human torture and murder. If you are familiar with the "Three guys one hammer" viral human torture video you'll know what I am talking about. Do some research on those guys and you'll find pictures of them standing near mutilated dog corpses, just days before moving on to a human target. And it is the perfect example of how psychopaths move on from animals to people. I have to say I am not talking about children here. Kids do stupid stuff, they torture weaker ani
  23. Proud Father, that is why I said that Psychology should have a say in this. "If someone is dangerously psychotic where they're having hallucinations and can act dangerously toward others, the law allows them to be held -- and, if the kinks could be removed from the system, it is fine in principle to do so. " Like I said in the original post, that is one case and I didn't question it that it's imperative we should take action against them. I was trying to say that we should also be able to make a case against people who aren't uncontrollable, but purely evil. To make it simple, s
  24. I can see that in two instances here the reason that contributes to your disagreement with my idea is the semantics. By 'debt' I mean what Ayn Rand meant in her approach to punishment. Again, the matter has already been adressed and there are enough materials on the internet regarding the Objectivist stance on punishment. If I violate your rights then I create a 'debt' towards you without your consent. It is therefore objectively justified by the Government to collect that debt from me without my consent. In the case of murder (the victim no longer exists so there's no debt to pay to him), the
  25. Hello. Before proceeding to the matter itself, I would like to specify that I am new to Objectivism and that the ideas and arguments I am about to bring forward come from the research I've done thus far and from how I've personally come to look at the issue of Government intervention regarding animal abuse from an Objectivist standpoint. Also I've just made an account on this website and I have no previous experience with it, so I apologise if this topic should've fallen under a different category other than the one I have selected. Alright, I shall get right into it. I would sa
  • Create New...