Proverb

You're right in a sense, "Good" requires a standard by which to judge it, namely the values of the valuer. So, answer this: Do you value life? How do you explain the metaphysical fact that I am pursuing the furtherance of my own life? Again, death is a significant as the fact that the sky is blue or that the earth goes around the sun. You cannot base a system of choices and values on something that is unavoidable. It is simply because life isn't automatic that one must base a set of choices (ethics) on it that seeks to keep this primary value "Life."

Firstly If you're not willing to listen to "Objectivist Jargon" to use your words, I highly suggest you leave, or at least limit your activity to the debate forum. "To live" is the fundamental choice. It is in your nature, as a volitional animal to make this choice before any other. It is a simple choice to make, existence or non-existence, something or a zero, life or death. By choosing to use your mind, you have already implied an answer to that question. You have chosen "Life." However one has the ability to choose a course of action contrary to that end and pursue one's own destruction. This is against your nature as a human being. The human body is a living thing and to pursue a course of action against the reality of life is to deny it. "To Live" is not automatic, it still must be an end that must be be valued. As such, any given person may hold values that contradict life, or leads someones to destruction. It is also possible that these values, whatever they may be, may make them 'happy'. However, it is unavoidable that to value 'death,' as you do when using it as 'justification' is a blatant stand against reality. If you deny reality I can naught but ignore you. To ask a question such as above is to say that you, in fact, do not value your life, and to any person in such a miserable state I say, "End it." When you understand why "life" is the standard as opposed to the "inevitability of death" you will understand the first step in integrating rational ethics. By the way, I used the word 'integrating' as in reference to concept formation, not in reference to adding something to my life, as you said. You said you've read Ayn Rand's 'volumes' but if you had, and rationally integrated everything you, for one, would not have this quandary nor would you think that a few paragraphs on the internet have endowed you with functional understanding of an entire philosophy. I find that insulting.

My above post should read "... honest effort..." not "...honest error..."

Don't come to an Objectivist forum and say that the cursory explanations on the ARI website have brought you to a complete understanding of the philosophy when many of us have spent years integrating an understanding of the many facets of the philosophy. It is clear that you do not understand Objectivist ethics nor any rational basis of such for that matter. We are simply trying to explain how you are displaying a hedonistic approach to morality and why that is wrong. We have developed the thoughts to a useful point and I think that you have simply failed to understand. You would best be served by asking a specific question rather than sitting around and being short with anyone who has made an honest error to explain why you are mistaken when it comes to "happiness" as an end. "Everyone Dies" is not a justification for anything. What would be your evaluation if I were to pull a gun out and shoot you in the face and say "everyone dies" and shrug? (that's ignoring the fact that you would be dead)

I don't think he said he was a heroin addict Felix.

Your are right, happiness is psychological. The problem you are exhibiting is that you are treating happiness as an end in itself. Happiness is a response, a psychological response to an either rightly conscious or partly subconscious set of values. Whatever they may be, what makes a person happy clearly reveals what they hold as a value. It is true, you are free to choose any set of values you want. Yes it is true that any one person may hold anything as something that makes them happy. Objectivism holds that rational values that are in harmony with reality are the type of values that are proper to man qua man. But 'happiness' is and end to only the hedonist. To an Objectivist, happiness is simply icing on the cake. The end that an Objectivist pursues is life, a rich fulfilling life that takes reality by the horns in which happiness is the affirmation of that success.

They are one in the same. If you don't not understand why, you do not understand the nature of the Objectivist philosophy. Though none of us here have the time to write a short expose` on ethics (which is usually required to attain a basic understanding) your essential issues have been lucidly addressed. The fact that you may not be happy with the answers does not change their relationship to reality. It is often the case that well-meaning and self-confident individuals who are interested in Objectivism are set aback when someone tells them that they do not understand some concept when they thought they did. You, do not have a clear understanding of Objectivist ethics and I suggest you read, or re-read, The Virtue of Selfishness. I also suggest that you withhold judgement on these issues until you do better understand the concepts.

I have to say that the topic of your post JASKN should be the "Validity of Intrinsicism." The reason I say that is that you concentrate on the concept of 'being happy as a standard.' In respect to Objectivism that's like saying, "I'm going to measure the length of a ruler with a tape measure." "Happiness" is an emotional response to the fulfilling of a value. This is true in every person. The heroin addict is 'happy' when he shoots up because consciously or not consciously he holds that experience as a value to his life. Objectivism comes in and says that your set of values should be based on the rational furtherance of your life qua man. Addiction to heroin is not a value to life qua man because it is demonstrably destructive to the human body and is wholly irrational (as in against the nature of reality) to hold it as such. Rational values are the things that drive an Objectivist's life. That's not to say that there is a list somewhere that say "Objectivist Values" on the top that every rational person should have. This is because the element of choice is part of human nature and thus 'the realm of rational values', as it were, is unique to each individual. I am a musician because the very personal representation of my values through my music is an immense value to me. I am a handyman at my local library because I appreciate the use of my rational mind to some physical end. I am a computer enthusiast because I am able to talk to people with like minds across the span of continents, which has brought me to the level of rational precision and objective understanding that I hold today. These are values that fuel my life and they are not finite in there scope because my life continues and they bring me an exhaltant happiness that stems from the fact that I am the master of my life.

You should look up the 'Mind-body Dichotomy' and how it is falsified. You are representing an aspect of this false dichotomy by saying that thought ('subjective reality' to use your words) is apart and distinctly different from objective reality. This is false. Consciousness is such because it is conscious of something, that being objective reality. To say that this relationship or this functioning of the mind is separate from objective reality is to deny the real connection between them. Which, without, we would be lost in a sea of existential nothingness. To attain any useful function a consciousness must accept the nature of reality and integrate its perception of such in accordance with it. However, because of the nature of the mind, one has the choice to act and think in contradiction to reality. This is the nature of 'subjective' thought. When someone considers something as totally independent of the nature of reality such as saying that 'morality is what you make it' or 'there is no good or evil' or 'you see a different reality than I do, therefor you're wrong'; besides being an act of evasion, these are subjective premises. They are, though derived from concepts in it, totally disjunct from reality and subject to the thought of consciousness purporting them.

I might be there. Total travel from Las Vegas and registration is going to be a big chunk however.

I was repulsed at first glance. However, depending on how it's treated (I understand it a comedy?) it actually might be entertaining.

"The Line" as it were would be drawn by statutory law. I'm not an expert on that subject so I do not know what the content of the law would be. It is clear however that a nuclear power plant, depending on size, has the capacity to render inhabitable a large area, and as such a ticking-time-bomb power plant falls under the realm of criminal negligence

You are subverting any attempt at rational argument by seriously submitting to the idea of a 'subjective fact' which is clearly a contradiction. That's not derived from the horrible definition of 'subjective' that you provided but from the actual meaning. Something that is subjective is 'subject' to something. In this context any person's thought is subject to the volition of their mind, meaning any concept or thought process at any given point could have been otherwise. It's the actual process that one uses that determines if something is subjective or not. If a thought process or concept is directly related to and in accordance with reality it is objective. Otherwise it was subject to some whim, irrationality, or arbitration and is subjective and disjunct from reality. A fact is a metaphysical truth and is not subject to anything, it just is. Granted, the recognition of such is subject to a consciousness choosing to think in accordance with reality or not. 'Subjective fact,' if said in any seriousness is a clear example of a misunderstanding of both terms. I think this is a bit off topic with this thread but if you'd like I'll be glad to answer any questions in a PM or another thread. By the way, are you a determinist?

I must say, very well written. That smoothed some rough edges for me in that topic. Thanks.

Any meaning in this statement is reliant on a call for omnisence.

Be careful not to fall into the hole that is epistemological skepticism. One can be 100% certain of something. Certainty is an aspect of knowledge which in and of itself is inseparable from a specific context. When I say I'm a certain of something I am saying, "In the context of my current level of knowledge I know this to be true." Whether the context is drastically limited or encompasses the whole of existence the level of 'certainty' does not change. Certainty is not a measure of the applicability of a statement, nor is it an inverse statement of the 'possibility' of error. Certainty is the measure of the truth of a statement and it's relation to reality, within a specific context.

We are scientifically unable to explain the link between the deterministic nature of matter and the process of volition, at this juncture. The deterministic nature of inanimate objects is a fact. The volitional aspect of the human mind is a fact. The specific relationship between these two facts is the realm of science. These facts, however are easily demonstrable.

"Practical" subsumes that there is something to 'practice.' To ask 'how practical' is to asses to what degree something satisfies some end. By 'Philosophy of Law' what do you mean? And what would one seek to practice with it?

It makes me wonder if it will take the slaughter of a 'pop' star to make people realize the nature of the radicals.

Why don't you start a "Business Practice" subforum Nerd?

Replace the word 'murder' with 'theft' and ask the same question. Morally, the case for reporting it is significantly less, however there is still no legal obligation. When trying to answer these types of questions it is useful to keep separate the concept of 'legal' from 'moral.' Certainly you cannot punish someone for being immoral unless it violates the rights of another person which, in the case of simply not reporting crucial information, it does not. Though I think this matter changes as soon as someone seeks this crucial information from you. If it is found that you consciously did not divulge crucial information then I think a civil/criminal actioin may be justified at that juncture. I would venture to say that simply having this crucial information, even if privilaged or sought after, in and of itself is not incriminating. Even though the situation may become a moral black mark.

So then 'information' as intangable is unownable. But the nature of its use is dependant upon who's property on which it lies or by the nature of a legal contract.

There is no essential difference between information on your hard drive that you create or store and your address or other 'public' information. The only real difference there is the amount of control that one has the ability to exercise on said information. Consequently I don't think the 'level of control' has any bearing on wether or not it's property. Copyright is an explicit example of how one may claim usage on creative types of 'information' and is a way to exercise control. I don't think there is a way to 'copyright' incidental data. Not that that would actually be copyrighting. hmmm... I'm a bit confused here. I want to ask: If I inadvertently release sensitive information, do I have any claim on its use? I think the answer is no, but then the issue of copyright makes me wonder.

This issue relies heavily in deciding whether or not 'information' is property. All thought on that question has led me to think that 'information' (strictly) is not property. No one is questioning the right to one's property. Whether or not these situations are analogous to my statement about internet encryption relies on 'information' being considered 'property.' If this is what you think, I would be very interested in learning why you do. This is a little different, but along the same lines. A David and myself have said, the only way to truly claim a 'right to privacy' in terms of phone conversations or the internet is to secure contracts that protect the information from point A to point B. Which actually subsumes the property that transmits this information being privately controlled. Again I feel the major point here is understanding whether or not 'information' is property. I think I'm pretty clear on the idea that it is not, however I am (as I'm sure others are) gaining much insight by bringing up various situations.

Yes indeed, if you break into someone's home and splice into wires on someone's property to gain access to a private and closed network then yes it would be illegal. Over the internet. Breaking encryption on the internet to gain information is not a violation of rights. The internet is widely understood as mutually interconnected so there is no guarantee of the safety of anything traveling over it. It's like saying that it would be wrong to attempt to understand someones conversation in some obscure language that you overhear in a common area like a beach or something. Again, the use of whatever information you acquire is up for moral scrutiny but the simple act of attaining it under non-violating means is not. The word 'privacy' in your quote is used as a metaphor. Or at least not in a way that relates to the kind of 'privacy' that we are discussing here. In terms of 'sensitive' information, there is always an inherent risk in actualizing it in any physical way. My take on this issue has changed dramatically after some reflection and time in the chat room. "Information" is not property. I cannot own the information about my shoe size for example, because it is simply a fact. When an individual actualizes, physically, verbally, digitally, or otherwise a piece of information it becomes an aspect of realty observable to anyone. Barring of course legal contract or a necessity of property ownership to view (in a house or safe or private network). Does anyone think I'm totally off track here?