Veritas

How does an Objectivst look at land ownership? With the debate of Indians and native land owners. What gives a person the right to any specific land? Di they have a right to land by virtue of simply existing on it first or is there another principle involved?

Thanks for the reply, what I am wondering though is about the morality of the issue. Tara Smith says, "...a value is the which advances a persons objective well being and because only that which exists can carry positive effects on a person's well being. Only that which is real can be valuable to a person". (Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The VIrtous Egoist) How would this act affect my objective well being? Does it hinder the advancement of an objective well being?

Ok, so would it be immoral for someone to have thoughts of another woman while having sex with ones spouse? To me the answer would be yes on grounds that one would be commiting fraud against ones partner and oneslef in a sense. If I was thinking only about another person while having sex with my wife yet not discosing this with her and leaving the pretense that I was thinking of her then this would be a lie. I would be lying to myself first of all because I am faking the reality that I am with another woman and not my wife and I would be lying to my spouse secondly by making her believe that I am exclusively thinking of her. This seems like this would go against the objectivist value of honesty since I would be faking reality in a sense in order to maintin a proper value of sexual fulfillmet with a partner in whom I am suposed to be in love with. What do you all think about this? I have tried to search podcasts from Leonard Peikoff and have done some searching through some Objectivist books but I can only come up with an answer that I think in principle addresses this question.

I don't understand. The claim for a theist would be the God is one out of many. Why would him being something distinct from everything else make him not God? Also, how do you justify the claim that God can't be defined? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you simply don't know how he can be defined instead of the assertion that He can't be defined?

Does the Law of Identity contradict the existence of God?

Does anyone know where I could find a good study guide for ITOE?

I figured it would be as easy as sticking to a primarily fruit and vegetable (raw as possible) with the no more than 2 servings of meat if necessary. This has been the latest medically popular trend anyway.

Since Objectivist use life as the standard of value shouldn't what we eat reflect that life is indeed the standard of value (or ultimate value)? Can there be such a thing as a rational diet? Wouldn't the rational diet be eating only those things that promote Loire and rejecting the things things that cause death?

*** Mod's note: merged with an existing topic. - sN *** Why don't Objectivists like Ron Paul?

I don't understand the justice restored part. I wouldn't be able to undo the past. What part of reality is restored.

Let's say that I have been a bank robber for several years and have never been caught. Someone loaned me a book on "The Virtue of Selfishness" and I noticed that what I was doing has been immoral this whole time. What should I do? Do I turn myself in? Do I forgive myself for that action and start living a productive life? Should I try to give tha money back? What should I do?

Thank you! All of these comments and suggestions have been extremely helpful.

I have a brother in law who loves doing drugs. He currently is 31 years old (jobless), married (she makes the money in the house), has a 2 year old, and they both live with his parents because they cannot afford to get a house. His family wants him to stop doing drugs because they think,for religious purposes, that that is immoral. He argues that there is nothing immoral about doing drugs. They go in circles about this and get nowhere. He says that drugs allow him to enjoy life and make thinking about life easier. I have an argument that I would like to be analyzed for its cogency that I think addresses the real issue at hand. 1. He must be honest (accept reality as a fact) 2. He must be productive (we need to create to survive) 3. By simply "enjoying life" at the exclusion of being productive one is not being honest about reality. Reality dictates that we must be productive first in order to enjoy life" To reverse the order is to evade reality by suggesting that they efect (enjoying life) is possible before the cause (being productive). 4. By living off of the income of parents, in their house, and using the money that his wife gives him on drugs to enjoy life he is not being honest (evading reality) and not being productive ("translating thought into physical form" Tara Smith) Thanks

In terms of knowledge how does a person from the age of say 3 come to understand distance? Let's specifically say 1 mile. What would the process be in developing the concept of 1 mile?

This is just a philosophical question. Don't think I am wanting to live this out. I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped? Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

Thanks for for the response 1. Why is this false? 4. The evidence for this conclusion would be if a person has a family and they get arrested it could have negative psychological effect on the family members, specifically the children, or let's say that if a person has to pay a fine and the result is that they are unable to pay a utility bill and that utility gets shut off. If the higher value for that person is his family then that family was affected negatively unnecessarily and it was an unnecessary sacrifice of values. 6. I had in mind a family man and the value that a person has in having a family against the value of breaking an arbitrary law for the sake of self gratification. For the sake of argument, assume that they chances of getting arrested are likely.

Ok, so here is an argument. Can you please evaluate? 1. There is nothing immoral about smoking weed per se in moderation for sake of self pleasure. (in a vacuum) 2. Possession of weed is illieagal 3. There are risks associated with smoking weed that involve getting arrested or paying a fine 4. Getting arrested of paying a hefty fine could have a negative effect on one's higher values. 5. It is immoral to sacrifice a lower value to a higher value 6. Smoking weed is a lower value 7. Higher values could be affected by smoking weed. 8. If higher values are affected then smoking weed was immoral

I think there is a difference between what one knows and what they do. For example, I can know that eating mcdonalds is not the best option for optimum health, but I do it anyway and I evade my knowledge for a few minutes to satisfy my physical desires. I like that Objectivism gives principles for living but how can one start living those principles. In other words what does it take to actually put the knowledge into practice? To "just do it" is difficult wether it is for psychological reasons or something else. How can a person minimalize evasion of rational and moral thought?

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN *** Can being a stripper be a producer?What is the value in being a stripper or going to a strip club?

I have been looking everywhere online to verify this. How did you come to this conclusion?

I have heard it said that Wal-mart makes deals with third world countries that are communistic and they in turn force people to work in the sweat shops so that the people do not even have a say in the matter. Can anyone confirm or deny this claim?

I think that the error in my thinking is that I have made the idea of harming others to simple. If the fact of existence is to continue existing then to harm another person for an irrational reasons contradicts that fact that I exist. Therefore, there is only a benefit in harming another in as much as there is value in it (i am gaining something from it). This would include self defense. There is no value in harming a person for no good reason. I do not truly gain anything. I would would only lose something. I would lose my liberty if i got caught and if I didn't get caught there is still the fact that it is irrational because it contradicts the fact of existence. I also like what Greebo says, If I chose to live rationally then I must accept the terms or else suffer the consequences of the alternative.

Thanks that was helpful. In regards to units Ayn Rand says, "The ability to regards entities as units is man's distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow" (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology p. 6) I must be thinink about this incorrectly, but a dog can distinguish between a shoe and water for its nourishment. Isn't that regarding the entity, shoes, as a unit separate from water?

Here is what I read, "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition" Ok what does this mean? What are units? What is a process of abstraction? What does it look like when it is united by a defintion? What does she mean by definition? Thanks!

Thanks, all of these replies have been extremely helpful. I see where the error is now in my thinking.