curious

I suppose I should clarify... even on SOME of the posts I generally agreed with SOME of the explanations contained therein seemed to me to be incredibly worded bs. That's a subjective opinion of mine. Meant to be more of a comment than a statement. That's why I didn't bother quoting anything. I certainly never intended to imply the entire debate was bs, why would I bother posting if it was Brule, your latter statements did however make me evaluate what is meant by morality. In my nonobjectivist-educated psyche morality holds more of a meaning of goodness, or fairness, or "do unto others" golden rule like. In the past day of reading here and further I've come to understand this isn't necessarrily the same for the true Objectivist. This quote from Rand would surely back up your statement about the morality in selfishness, and apathy towards other members of your species I consider myself informed and thank you for taking issue with me there True to my name I would like to ask a question about "objectivist morality." Well maybe a few questions. 1.How does an objectivist accept laws which put limits on the extent to which they can truly achieve their own self-happines? ("highest moral purpose of his life" -rand) 2.Would Hitlers actions have been considered "moral" according to his pursuit of his own self-happiness? 3. One of the Objectivist Ethical Virtues is "Integrity" or the honesty of ones actions, Since many of the actions to promote "settlement" were very dishonest wouldn't that make the actions not ethical and thus not moral? Or would you just say something moral was done in an immoral way? (many would argue the entire process was dishonest thus not ethical or moral) -adam

I have read some incredibly intelligently worded BS in this thread. And amongst all those words the actual root of the issue was completely muddled and lost. Q: Was it moral to use force to claim or conquer North America from it's natives? A: Of course it was NOT moral, it was extremely advantageous and conceited. Does anyone disagree the "settlers" main motivation was self-promotion and profit? Does anyone disagree the "natives" had very distinct concepts of property/ownership? - regarding land it just differed greatly from the settlers, they felt the land owned them(afaik) So not only did the natives have a concept of property/ownership, they were also the established inhabitants of the land. They had every right to use force to protect their "way of life" even if what they wanted to protect wasn't measured in acres. Our way of life was not congruent with theirs and we used force to replace their way with ours because we didn't feel like we had to adapt. This isn't the first time in human civilization this has happened, I've just never seen it called "moral" Big fish eats little fish, was he hungry or just trying to "do the right thing"... COME ON!!

This thread intrigues me, and the question of why land should be owned in the eyes of an "objectivist." After some thought, the only answer I have is existance. The only mental/physical effort that is required to enjoy nature and the your natural world is the struggle of remaining alive. FYI: I don't claim to be anything but ignorant on objectivism, that's why I'm here.