heizeus

I apologize that I am coming off as combative. My frustration at the communication gap is probably showing. I do think it's funny, however, that you all find this boring, and yet are motivated to keep responding to me. But this thread feels like it has reached the end, so I will say this final thing and then be done with it. So it seems to me that morality is a human idea that was created to keep society running smoothly. Guidelines to keep mankind from exterminating himself. I don't bestow it upon some supernatural deity or anything like that. And that seems to agree with Objectivism. Now, what I don't understand is how saying that man needs to consider his own survival necessarily means acting only in his own immediate self-interest. To me, there are two extremes: individualism and collectivism. When I use the terms in this context, I'm referring to one at the exclusion of the other. So "individualism" at the extreme is me, by myself, against the world. "Collectivism" at the other extreme is a hive mind. Neither seems positive to me. It makes more sense to find a balance between the two. We evolved into social animals because there was an increase in the survival rate when people stuck together. The more we "progress", the bigger the gap between people. Objectivism seems to believe that if everyone just acts in his own self-interest, it will all work out. What is the evidence that this is true? My intentions aren't as hostile as you think. I don't see it as a threat but as an intellectual challenge to figure out where you and I diverge in opinion and point of view. My basic disagreement is the either-or, us-vs.-them mentality I'm seeing. You are either extremely selfish, or a complete altruist who sacrifices his life for a complete stranger. If something causes you little or no harm, but would help someone else, then why not do it? I'm not advocating that you should be obligated to do it, but why wouldn't you want to? Then there's all this confusion or anger or something when I'm just trying to say that leaving the door open to the possibility that you may be wrong in your decisions, can be helpful. In my experience, when the door is closed, you can miss evidence that you are wrong because you won't see it. Scientists aren't 100% certain that evolution is true, but it's the best explanation they've found. And they are fine with that. Why not leave the door open to learn new stuff when it comes to philosophy and politics too? As for what my interest with Objectivism is: I'm of the opinion that an element of truth (in the context of my own life, therefore it is subjective from one person to the other) is in just about every philosophy and religion. I have seen people take Christianity to the extreme of wanting to be like Jesus and sacrifice themselves for the good of others, and therefore ending up miserable. Objectivism gives the counterbalance that it is important to watch out for number one. There was a time in my life when that was a revelation, and it did help me. But I moved past it, but kept the chunks of truth that applied to my life. It seems that many here on the message board don't believe you can take segments of a philosophy piecemeal, but that's what I'm doing. I'm creating my own personal philosophy by recycling the rest. That's what Ayn did as well. I can't see how morals can be anything but subjective, since we don't absolutely know what exact path or guidelines will have the best result for mankind. So I've said my piece and am done with this thread. Pick it apart, guys!

Yes, the context of philosophy is much broader, and therefore has more variables and unknowns. Here you are pointing out that "man" survives by using his mind. "Man" meaning "mankind" or the collective sum total of men. But you are also pointing out that the individual can survive by not thinking. So the what's good for the individual is not necessarily good for society in general? I agree. The Bush Administration initiated force against the civilians of Iraq to force them to have a different political system because they did not do it voluntarily (and lacked the tools to do so.) Correlation does not mean causation, although I agree with your conclusion. But just pointing out how this is sort of subjective. But there seem to be enough facts that support it. A man can survive by destruction. Mankind cannot, but an individual could (and many do). So saying that the world would run better if everyone acted selfishly might not solve the problem. So we need to make sure that no one can initiate force, since many people do so in their own self-interest. But then, someone comes along and defines a "yo momma" joke as an initiation of force. Then I can shoot that guy talking shit about my "momma." For the vast majority of man's existence, he's existed as a social animal. He's balanced the needs for his own survival with the survival of his "tribe." Altruism (in the form of caring about people because they are people, not in the extreme of sacrificing yourself for those around you) came about from social evolution. Those who gave a shit about people around them lived longer because it was reciprocated. I don't know of any time that Objectivist principles have ever been the foundation of a society, so there's really no proof that it would work. (If you know of such a time, I'd love to hear it).

Alright. *cracks knuckles* Let's give this a try: Yes, this is true. But the same could be said for any political system. It may explain some situations, but not all. A perfect system has not yet been invented, or at least not implemented, since I haven't heard of a real Utopia. Could it exist? Ok, I'll grant you that, but within the context of "reality" which is what you said Objectivism is applicable, the realm is so wide (as wide as we are aware), theories cannot be accepted as 100% accurate. Newton was wrong in the enormous context of reality, and Einstein probably will be too. In their smaller contexts, they are accurate. The acquisition of new facts can cancel prior theories, which happens all the time, as in the above example. There were 2 theories that explained the same phenomena, but one of them does it better. It is more correct. Interesting anecdote. But if I were to believe now that malaria is caused by "bad air," I would be irrational. Right? There were several variables involved, and people were looking at the wrong one, but it just so happened that the real one was proportional to the "red herring." Before Einstein, Newtonian physics didn't explain current observations. So you are contradicting yourself here. In addition, the vast majority of scientists are in the global warming camp. I seriously doubt that's a matter of politics. More likely, the industry-funded scientists are trying are working backwards so that they can prove the theories they want to prove, as the "Creation Scientists" do.

I don't know what you guys are afraid of. I'm giving counter-arguments that you should be able to easily refute, since I'm a novice debater, at best. How can you be expected to hold your ground in the political and philosophical battleground of America if you can't hold down your own fortress against any desenting opinions? Why even have a forum for discussion if you don't want people to bring different ideas? There's nothing more boring than a room full of people who all agree everything. I am honestly interested in Objectivism, or I wouldn't be wasting so much time here discussing with you. I'm trying to see where you guys are coming from by poking at what I see as holes in your arguments. I was expecting you to show me how I'm looking at it wrong, and for the most part, that's true. But if you feel threatened by my very presence here, then I'm starting to wonder if you guys don't see the holes too. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged (working on it for the 2nd time now), The Virtue of Selfishness (half of it), Anthem, We the Living, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and For the New Intellectual. So it's not like I'm just some guy who's popping in for an argument. I haven't read Peikoff's book, and intend to do so, but sometimes the best way to learn something is through debate.

When the measure of morality is based on self-interest, then the morally right system is the one that works best for you individually. Besides, my argument about politics could easily be used for morality, in that you can keep asking why and how forever. At some point, you have to make a subjective decision. It may seem objectively true to you, but with more information, you might change your mind. (This is the general 'you'. I'm not putting you personally in the spotlight here.) I suppose that's what I've been doing, trying to understand it more thoroughly. I know there is something I'm missing.

I was racking my brain, trying to come up with a good example to illustrate my point. Then this one comes falling into my lap. Thank you. Ok, first off. Remember in elementary school where they gave us a list of statements and we had to label them either 'fact' or 'opinion'? The above statement would be labeled opinion. Opinions by definition are subjective. "What makes it subjective?" I hear you ask. Well, first we have to define 'correct' which requires some objective standards of what a correct political system is. So there would be measures of income and productivity, of course. Then maybe mental health would be an important measure, since a society of depressed people doesn't seem to have the correct system in place. Now you may consider the first one more important, and I would probably go with the latter. But we're still not done, since we have to decide on criteria to objectively measure income, productivity, and mental health. So, does the correct system have everyone with enough money to survive? I doubt you think so. But I do, because I think many social problems are solved by an equitable system. Subjectivity. But let's say that we can agree that the correct system has people getting the amount of pay they deserve for the work they do. Then we have to decide what jobs deserve what pay, I guess by rating their importance. More subjectivity. As for mental health, how do you measure whether someone is happy? There are various tests that claim to measure mental health, but which one is correct? Can we absolutely verify that? Every one of these questions can be boiled down to more 'why's and 'how's ad infinitum. In addition to that, there is the possibility that there is some variation of an existing political system that might work, or one that hasn't been thought up yet, that would work better than capitalism. Who knows? We know there are major flaws in dictatorships and they haven't work in the past. But both communism and anarchism have worked on a small scale in native tribes. But then, it depends on how you subjectively define "worked." I seriously doubt either one can work on a major scale, as has been shown over and over, but maybe it's more dependent on how many people there are and whether it's a democracy vs. a dictatorship. All the communist countries so far have been dictatorships, so it's sort of hard to separate the 2 variables. If I had to put my money down on one system, I'd go with small-scale capitalism. I think the big flaw is trying to run these huge governmental (and corporate) institutions. There's a reason why so few animals are as big as a whale. Too many people, too many variables. But that's just a subjective theory built upon the objective facts I know. So, in conclusion, I ask, how can you be certain that your statement is correct? You can have a good idea, but certainty doesn't seem possible to me without omniscience. How am I wrong? Iakeo: Word games is all we've been playing this whole time. Dogma is "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." A dogma that says that doesn't claim to be absolutely true is impossible. It's not dogma. That's like saying that a scientific theory is dogma.

Since "reality" is a fairly all-encompassing context, that is practically contextless. Most everything is assumed to be "within reality." And this has been my point all along about knowledge in general. For more individual theories like politics, the preamble is "Based on everything I know at present..." As for all the other stuff about a paradigm shift making the initiation of force right, I agree with you. I'm not advocating the initiation of force being right, and in fact, this whole conversation was started because I was saying that the initiation of force is flat wrong, even when you can use a logical slight of hand to say that a possible threat is equivalent to the initation of force.

No, because it isn't dogma. It's a theory. A hypothesis that hasn't been proven wrong. But there are situations where absolutely certainty wouldn't be possible without absolute accuracy. Politics, in particular. I'm curious what you mean by this "phase."

AisA: It's getting tedious to quote and respond. So let me take a step back for a second. First of all, I agree with the Objectivist assertion that reality exists independent of our perceptions. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. This is a conclusion that I've come to by compiling many facts together and finding a common thread. This is the way it always happens. You observe data, see how it fits together, and draw conclusions. I have no reason to doubt the data and won't until someone shows me sufficient evidence that I should. The fitting together of the pieces and drawing conclusions are the more creative, interpretive steps of the process. How much data I have, and what data it is, will change how I interpret it. This is how scientists always do it. Suppose I'm in the school of Newtonian physics, and then Einstein comes along with his crazy theories. Suddenly, a new conclusion has been drawn that explains parts that weren't understood before. I would be irrational to refuse to accept the new theory. It would also have been false to say that Newton had found the objective truth. He had drawn a conclusion with the data he had and it made sense at the time. Then when conflicting data came about, the theory had to be re-evaluated (because contradictions don't exist, right?) Now, the conclusion I am drawing is that this is a trend that will continue with the progress of technology. I see no evidence that we will eventually know everything as a race. If someone can prove it to me within a decent margin of error, I'll change my mind. You seem to think that without being certain of my conclusions, I am paralyzed in life. But not at all. I am more flexible because I keep an open mind, and don't get stuck in dogma shit. All that said, there are different levels of certainty, based on how much evidence there is. The theories of gravity and evolution, for instance, are much more solid than sociology, psychology, and politics. If I believe that I will survive without food, based on little or no evidence, then I am acting irrationally. But political, economic, and sociological theories are much less developed. To say that one path is the objectively correct one is essentially saying that you know this to be true now and forever. I can't see how that is possible, given that paradigm shifts occur regularly in history. I don't see how my conclusions are self-contradictory, since I'm not stating that they are objectively true. I have no problem accepting that I may be wrong about a great many things. I don't even expect to change your opinions on anything. But I'm just letting you know that it is possible to live a happy life without being objectively certain. Live and learn. On the otherhand, if I did manage to change your mind, that would be AWESOME! But I'm not holding my breath.

I see what you mean, but I didn't mean it that way. It's just the manner that I know that I am conscious. If I weren't, then I wouldn't be able to think about whether I'm conscious or not. I'm not advocating that we create reality with our perceptions. They exist, but they lack the mental capacities (as far as we know) to think about that existence. But of course, they exist. But you wouldn't know it. You would just do whatever instinctive things animals do and some basic thinking. Although I can't be sure, I doubt dogs sit around and think about existence. The idea I've been arguing against that to conclude that since obtaining knowledge is possible, that implies that omniscience is possible. Although it's never been said that way by anyone, that is what is being stated in other words. Absolute accuracy requires absolute knowledge. Yeah, I accept reality is real. Just as I accept evolution is real. All the evidence I've seen points in those directions. If, however, I wake up tomorrow with a VR helmet on, I'll have to re-evaluate. I'm not making those conclusions now because there's no reason to, but my mind is open to possibilities. Oh, and I've read a book that has a scientific theory that we actually live in a "multi-verse" which would really still be the universe, just a different point of view for it. Interesting stuff. I don't see the connection between thinking that it's only a possibility, and it causing anxiety. It's just a fun mental exercise. I'm not betting on these possibilities, but there's no harm in curiousity, is there? Objectivists just don't want to take on that particular anxiety ridden irrational assumption. And once again, I'm not saying that. You guys are the ones saying that my ideas lead to the silly conclusion that reality isn't real. No matter what wacky theories I've thrown around, I still think existence exists. It just makes sense that we don't have all the facts yet.

The intel is used so that other soldiers are better able to fight the enemy, which means kill them. Morale is to make happier soldiers so they can be better soldiers when it comes to war. War is about killing the other side. I don't see what is so contraversial about what I'm saying. If there were no wars, we would have little need for the military. Not every soldier is directly responsible for killing people, but the organization as a whole exists for that purpose, and every soldier serves different purposes towards that end. I think this has been shown historically to not be as effective, so soldier have a lot more information than in a Soviet military. I'm not saying that the soldiers are mindless zombies. I think the various connotations of the term "brainwashing" is the hangup here. I'm not talking "The Manchurian Candidate" here. I'm saying that it's a hierarchical-structured system where obedience to those above is required. That's "conditioned" into the soldiers via the haircuts, mantras, uniform, etc. to get rid of as much individuality as possible. No talking back. Do what you're told. All that stuff. Now I don't know what it's like after boot camp, but I expect that there's more freedom after that. I've even seen quotes from drill sergeants that say stuff like "We break them down so we can build them back up." That's conditioning, which is the soft term for brainwashing. I don't know. It seems to me that it wouldn't do anything to avoid racism or stereotypes, since haircuts and clothes don't do much to hide those kinds of clues. Besides, don't the drill sergeants insult the individuals in various ways? Or is just something in the movies? I'm sure when coming up with insults, he would steer away from race and stereotypes when doing so, right? Somehow I doubt that. Treating people like crap breaks down their self-esteem as an individual so that it can be built back up as part of the team.

I am, therefore I think? But you wouldn't know that you "are" unless you could think. You exist as a baby, but probably don't have much knowledge of that existence. "I think, therefore I am" if I remember correctly, is an answer to the question of "how do you know you exist?" Yes. No, not at all. That's the kind of "all or nothing" thinking I'm trying to argue against. I'm saying that we need to accept that there are margins of error and to take those into consideration. As do I. That's my point. If I come to a conclusion based on the facts I have on hand, and my personal experiences in life, I need to know that they may not be objectively true. I might be wrong. I don't think I am, but it's a possibility.

I actually thought that was a pretty good answer. I think it sums it up pretty well. If I am experiencing and thinking, then I have to start with that premise or nothing else makes any sense. The nature of that existence is a little less solid. From everything I've seen, learned, and experienced, I have an idea of what existence is like. But if I "woke up" from it like Neo and realized I've been living in the Matrix, I'd have to re-evaluate. Not that I expect that to happen, but 100% accuracy doesn't seem possible. Yes, and I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but it's the best I've found so far. If I see facts that contradict it, then I'll rethink my premises. Yes, that is correct. I don't see why there's a problem with that. It's like knowing there is a margin of error in my conclusions of + or - some value. I just have to keep an open mind and re-assess my point of view regularly. They are only contradictions if you can't accept that you conclusions may be wrong. There's a lot of evidence to support that conclusion, and I'd have to say you are right. Unless of course, you have some previously unknown genetic mutation that allows you to survive off of static electricity in the air. You'd never know it was possible unless you tried. Not that I think that's likely, but there will always be facts that are unknown. Anyway, the discussion that we were branching this off from is that of politics and morality, both of which are so vast and full of data that it's hard to come up with solid, fool-proof conclusions and theories. We don't know whether the domino theory was correct or not, but we could pull up facts that both support or oppose it, and then decide which seems stronger by dismissing or supporting some facts over others. That requires personal interpretation (and extrapolation) from our personal experiences and knowledge bases to make these conclusions.

But it was also justified from those above that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply in this situation (and I've heard at least one person on these forums who agrees with that assessment). Then it comes down to a soldier possibly being reassurred that what he's doing falls within the boundaries of legal conduct when it actually is not. I'm not saying they aren't responsible, but they weren't exactly the only ones who should be held accountable. To use the Nuremberg trials example, who should get the bigger punishment: Hitler (I know, not alive for trial, but such a dramatic example) or a foot soldier? Hitler didn't actually kill anyone, he just gave the orders.

I think, therefore I am. Everything I say (or anyone else says, for that matter), could be prefaced with "I think..." or "In my opinion..." From what I've seen, life and morality are much too complicated to be painted in black and white. If I get some piece of information that contradicts that theory, I'll adjust it and will then throw away all the colored paints. I'm not doubting that the world exists objectively independent of my senses or that reason is the best tool for analyzing it. I'm doubting the accuracy of theories or conclusions. It's like when you measure something to be 1.253355654 meters long. You have to cut it off at some number of decimal places based on the precision of your instruments. Binary code is true or false, but if you use only 2 bits, your precision is almost non-existent. No matter how many bits you use, you could always have 1 more, like with decimal places. So based on limitations in human brainsize and perception (we can't see all frequencies of the light spectrum, for instance) we must be missing some information at all times. In addition, we all have different experiences and knowledge, so the conclusions we come to will be different because of these different snapshots. Why does the idea that man can possess knowledge require the knowledge to be with 100% certainty? In response to your claim that I left no room for doubt in my statements, I always leave room for doubt and search to expand my knowledge by disproving previous misconceptions and forming new theories to fix them. That's part of the reason why I'm here, trying to discuss this and see things from your point of view. Scientists accept that their measurements aren't 100% correct, and that they never can be, without hugging their knees in the corner and whimpering.

I just noticed my warning level. Don't you guys thinks it's a little petty for you to "warn" me for engaging in a serious discussion? I was warned for "propaganda" when I'm not trying to indoctrinate anyone, just trying to debate and better understand where you are coming from. I don't see how coming from an opposing point than you is worthy of being warned. I feel like arguing with someone is the best way to reinforce and better define your own position.

Besides my facetious purple elephant/tree example, what have I said that can be just brushed aside instead of refuting? I know that you don't believe morality to be a matter of majority consensus, or you wouldn't be an Objectivist. I also don't believe in the majority ruling in that arena. So, humor me, and rip my thinking apart. Apparently I need it.

What I've been aiming at mostly is the idea of objective ethics: the idea that morality is either black or white. Life and morality are much too complicated and rich in nuances to be nailed down to black and white rules. That's one of the reasons the legal system is full of so many laws: it's been refined repeatedly to try to cover every possible situation, and it's impossible. If we had the ability to see the results of our actions with better accuracy, objective morality would be possible. But let's imagine that there is an objective Truth, i.e. The One and Only Truth. We can all strive for that Truth, but we can never know when we've found it. We can all come up with our own personal, ie subjective interpretations of what the Truth may be. Since absolute omniscience is impossible, you can never know enough to see the full picture. You get a few photos, and form a theory based on what you've seen. The idea that subjectivity is "arbitrary, irrational, and blindly emotional" is ridiculous. Here's one definition from dictionary.com: "Existing only within the experiencer's mind." That's true for every philosophical theory or any other abstract concept that can't exist in a concrete form. Ideas are subjective. Here are 2 more: 1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. 2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience. A rational concept that cannot be proven absolutely would still be considered subjective, since you can't know that it is objectively true. Really, it seems to be consent of the majority that determines what is objectively true, like "That tree is over there." The schizophrenic might see a purple elephant. If 2 of them have the same hallucination, but no one else sees it, what's objectively true? Most people would say the tree because more people see it. Now I'm not advocating that the Truth is whatever the majority says...oh no. Maybe the schizophrenic sees the world correctly and the rest of us don't. But I don't know what I'm getting at here. I'm just sort of letting my thoughts pour onto the page. Ask me some questions to clarify if I haven't made my thoughts clear.

Yes, it is certainly subjective. The facts that I've seen are objective (the ones that are most likely true, at least) but the conclusions I draw from them (and which facts I know or accept as true) are subjective. Same as you guys. Same as everyone. It's like in science. Right now, the evolutionary theory is the best one that fits all the facts that we have. But it's possible that there are facts missing that will turn up later and we will throw Darwin's theory out, like how quantum theory did in physics. Actually, I believe that the threat of the Soviet Union was vastly over-estimated. You could say that nothing really bad came from it because we fought the good fight. I could say it was because it was a big bluff-off between both superpowers. If we hadn't been so propagandistic (is that a word?) about the threat, maybe we could have settled the issue without going into massive debt buying nukes. I didn't change the subject. Saudi is a haven for terrorists. Most of the people in a terrorist organization are the poor people at the bottom. Saudi has a rich oligarchy at the top but mostly poor people. Of course, the money comes from the guys at the top, but it's the guys at the bottom that do the dirty work. I'm not sure about this, but I would be surprised if the actual hijackers were the guys with the money. They were the poor, ignorant, desperate followers who bought into the bullshit. Here's what happens: there are a lot of pissed off people somewhere. A guy sees the potential to gain power by leading this mass of people. So he finds a way to aim them in a certain direction and uses his money and other resources to do so. That's what Hitler did. And by the way, WWII was a backlash of WWI because of all the discontented Germans who were poor after that first war (because of the raw deal they got in the Treaty of Versailles.) No, your misinterpretation of my position says that. My position is the wrong use of the US military will create terrorist havens. As much as you try to stretch it, Iraq isn't WWII Germany, and Saddam isn't Hitler. He probably doesn't even stand out in the top 10 worst dictators of the world, but we know more about him because we've had the spotlight on the oil-rich country for more than a decade now. Also, Japan isn't a country we liberated. We fought them for revenge, but left the Emperor in charge because the people saw him as a deity. If we had done a regime change, I suspect Japan may have become a bigger threat later on than they did. The money that we gave them to rebuild didn't hurt matters either. Afghanistan we left decimated. $150 million a year isn't really that much, especially when there's a totalitarian regime running the show. It's a lot for an individual. Not too much for a country. Regardless, the fact that the Taliban was in power there was because we propped them up so they could fight the Ruskies. Good choice. Depends on which facts you take into account to form your theories. Read some Chomsky. The man has facts. Decide what you will about his interpretations, but he's got plenty of facts. You are correct in this. It is caused by war, bad philosophies, and/or dictatorial regimes, among other things. But it is possible to help a country back up, as Japan illustrates. Let's just say it wasn't proven for me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'll look up what Scott Ritter said again about the weapons. He refuted the claims pretty well. I believe there were some weapons, but nothing too serious. If the weapons inspections were allowed to continue, that would have solved it. And to answer your other question, every jury verdict is subjective. Studies have shown that people of different races will be given different punishments for the same crime with the same evidence. The reason we have the whole "shadow of a doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" ideas is we'd rather let guilty people go than have innocent people jailed or executed. And yet, there are always innocent people let go from not only prison but death row. Bush fits that criteria as well, with the exception of "his neighbors" being changed to "a country far enough away that they weren't a real threat." Oh c'mon. Our "leader" calls for the destruction of many countries, including Venezuela because of their democratically elected Chavez. That doesn't mean they have the legitimate right to attack us. Words are words. Need more proof than that. I'm not saying to trust Iran, but we just don't have enough guns to fight all the people who say "America is bad." And if we did, more of those people would pop up as a consequence of those actions. That's not what I'm saying. I was pointing out that your examples are easy to see because Hitler is obviously worse than Canada. But if you are advocating an Objective view of the world, we should be able to sort out some ethical grays with it, since there would technically be no gray, right? So where do we draw the line, even if it has to be approximately? When is it Objectively "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

I'm not "assaulting" reason. I'm assaulting abusing reason to justify actions that are irrational, i.e. the standard Objectivist foreign policy. I am of course saying that at some point, we must accept that our choices may be wrong and be open to re-evaluate our thinking, as scientists do whenever evidence is found to contradict existing theories. It just seems like Objectivism is a little too open to personal interpretation as a philosophy. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but it's not really objective either. I'm not even sure any philosophy can be absolutely objective. And that's ok, but let's call it what it is. I'm still figuring that out. That's part of the reason that I'm hanging out here. I used to call myself an Objectivist, but that doesn't really fit completely anymore. I'll admit that I don't know enough about philosophy to answer this question. If I could answer that question, I'm not sure I'd want to. Maybe I don't want to be pigeon-holed by showing you my hand. (And mixing my metaphors) I don't particularly care for labels, since they are too restrictive. It gives a person a chance to stop thinking about a concept by dismissing someone as a "____-ist" or whatever.

What if it actually was an order given from above? We don't know that it wasn't, and considering certain documents between Gonzalez and Bush, I'd say it's very possible. So what does a soldier do in such a situation? Follow orders or do what's moral? What's the punishment for not following bad orders?

I wanted to add something. I just learned that Ayn Rand testified at the House Unamerican Activities Committee. There is an example of people turning free speech on its head and saying that thought crimes are dangerous and a threat to America. This is what I was talking about how there is some subjectivity in determining what a threat might be. We both agreed earlier that speaking out against a war is not a threat and shouldn't be punished. Well, isn't speaking about a different political ideal, no matter how stupid or naive, the same kind of bird?

I've been trying so hard to find that lynchpin on which hangs our disagreement. So elusive! A country that is a haven for terrorists is a greater threat to America than Iraq was. Now, of course, Iraq is yet another haven for terrorists. That's why the red states are typically poorer than the blues. But it's a cycle that feeds on itself, sort of like the chicken and egg. It doesn't really matter which came first, because the cycle keeps repeating from that point on. You wouldn't have heard much about bin Laden if he didn't have millions of followers. The leaders of just about anything are always the rich guys. It's the masses you have to worry about, and they are a lot harder to fight. I notice that you are only mentioning Clinton-era crap. I'm not a big fan of the guy, so that's not going to do much for me. You are giving too much credit to the guy in charge when those things were happening. (Or blame, I suppose). This stuff builds up over time and isn't too predictable. A lot of greviances being expressed go back to Reagan and further. If you were to see the way other's see America in the world, you wouldn't have the view that we are too soft. It's quite the opposite. Before WWII, we didn't intervene much at all in other countries affairs, and the founders wanted it that way. Yeah, I'm sure bin Laden would never lie to get us to lower our defenses. "al Qaeda" means "the base" and is a database of those who were involved in that conflict. We then trained them because we refused to see past that conflict. We also didn't care that they were fundamentalist crazies, because "my enemy's enemy is my friend." And then, when the dust settled, we left them in their wartorn country without much aid or reward for fighting the good fight and the country has remained in that state since. Our noses were welcome in France and NATO, and belonged in Japan since they attacked us. As far as Afghanistan, 2001 was the result of a previous backlash from 20 years previous. It might be another 20 before we see the backlash of this one. As for Panama and Granada, the only backlash I know of is a tainting of the American image (and legitimacy) in the eyes of the rest of the world. All those little insignicant times that we do things that others see as bullying or empirical amount to a nasty picture. Maybe I was over-stating it when I said every time. Here's a good article on the idea of "blowback": http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1 I was thinking more of turning a "non-threat" into a "threat" with the right criteria. What I'm trying to get at is an objective standard as to what is a threat. It may be obvious when you use 2 extremes, but as you move towards the center it becomes a little hazy. Subjective. I know you aren't claiming to have some special intuition that makes it obvious when a threat is near. So what is it? Since we knew that Iraq didn't have weapons (and we did), all the other points were moot. Nor are the civilians in Iraq. If you have to sort the validity and rationality of different facts, then there is a subjective element to it. You have to say, "well, if we leave Saddam alone, he'll do this," but you can't know what will happen in the future. As I've shown here, different premises lead to different conclusions. All my premises (although completely different from yours for the most part) are based on facts and personal experience, as are yours. Hitler is too easy a target, especially when compared to Canada, since the gulf is really wide. But at some point a line has to be drawn in that gray in-between area. I'm also not saying "completely arbitrary" because that is too extreme as well. It's like how a scientist knows that there is a factor of error in his measurements because absolute precision is impossible. But the factor of error in interpersonal (and by extension international) relations is huge because our instruments aren't precise at all. It's too chaotic. Once again:

Fair enough. I was starting to tire of this as well. It's like The winners write history. To think that it's objectively correct as it's written is naive at best. Sadly, like most things, we can never be absolutely sure what the Truth is because there aren't enough facts.

I have to say, this is wearing me down a bit. So much typing. When rationality=morality, as said in Objectivism, my claim that your tactics are irrational is not changing the subject. That's the whole point. Afghanistan had no economic infrastructure to speak of and they were a haven for terrorists. Most of the poorest countries in the world are also the ones that are the birthplaces of terrorists. Economic factors are a big reason why such philosphies can take hold at all. The Klan mostly exists in the poorest parts of the poorest states in the country (those red Southern states). That message: "you better do what we say or else." People don't respect that. That's the message we've been sending all over the world for the entire post-WWII era. It hasn't worked too well yet, has it? There's a big difference between respect and fear. It doesn't disprove the theory. It just proves that it doesn't always happen. There isn't enough data at the time to extrapolate. But the fact remains that much of terrorism that exists now is from backlash. We use the Afghanis to fight the Soviets and give them CIA training and weapons. Al qaeda. We leave military bases all over the world because we can. We support Saddam Hussein because he was the lesser evil of the month. Every time we stick our noses where they don't belong, backlash occurs. At least with Japan, we were retaliating. There are so many factors that go into what the consequences of our actions will be. There's some debate about whether they would have surrendered after Hiroshima. Check this article out: http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm "Threat" is so vague. You could make it mean anything. 2 things: 1)how much proof is required. Sounds kind of subjective. 2) Even Ayn Rand said the end can't justify the means. Ahh, something we can agree on. The case has been made by some that speaking against the war adds to the morale of the enemy and takes it from our soldiers, which leads to their physical harm. With that (erroneous) logic, it would be considered criminal to speak out. So what's the Objective difference? Since those were provided by the US, does that mean that the Kurds would be morally correct if they chose to attack us? Or Iran? Isn't that aiding them enemy a lot more than those who just happened to live under Saddam's repressive foot? Due to thinking such as yours, everyone (except for us) deserves to be attacked. Everyone is a potential threat. It's arbitary where you draw the line on what is a threat and what isn't. It's subjective. If the gun isn't held to your head, but is in the dresser drawer, and the guy once said negative things about you, do you have the moral right to shoot him without the draw of his gun?