FeatherFall

The problem lies in applying the proper definition of property... I seem to have misplaced my favorite reference, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, so I might have some trouble with this one. If I remember correctly, property is a physical value that one has acted to gain. Technically speaking, one usually only owns the air that is in one's lungs. But one can own air. People use oxygen tanks for industrial, medical and recreational purposes. In the strictest sense, air is only protected as one's property if it has been contained. Please recognize that you not only have certain rights to your property; you have responsibilities. Thus, if you leave your poisonous gas to drift, and someone else breathed it in not knowing it was there, you should be held liable for whatever damages it causes. There is really no conflict here with how Objectivists view income tax versus air pollution. My money is a monetary value that I have acted to gain. Air is a chemical value that is so abundant I can obtain it by simply breathing, so I rarely bottle it up in compressed tanks. But if I did contain it, and someone stole it or corrupted it with a poisonous chemical, they would have violated my rights. Nobody should act to undercut my life by taking my property or income, and nobody should neglect the responsibility they have to ensure their own property does not damage me. Whether we're talking guns, gas or animals, the principles remain the same. -edit for clarity. Also, I believe the worst kind of air pollution is indoor air pollution.

Objectivist ethics are derived from epistemology, not politics. The derivation of the philosophy from its base to politics is as follows: Metaphysics leads to epistemology Epistemology leads to ethics Ethics leads to politics. Objectivism holds that only an individual entity can value, thus there are no collective values. A person must first survive to reproduce, so survival as a value comes before reproduction. Which of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works have you read?

Interesting article, but it doesn't persuade me to change my point. I should, however, clarify my point. I did not intend to argue the premise from which you claimed I had. Your reply shows me that I didn't present my thoughts clearly. My intention was not to assert that conceptual thought begins after birth (although this is what I had inadvertently indicated). In an effort to keep my post concise, I threw out too much of what was essential to the ideas I was trying to convey. I should have written: conceptual thought as an independent being begins at birth. I think Thermopylaen's response was great. Rights can only pertain to creatures that engage in rational goal directed action to sustain themselves. A fetus is not only a parasite, but does not even take the action that sustains it; all of its sustenance is force fed by the mother. A baby, by contrast does things such as eating and breathing by itself, albeit with help from its guardian. The concept "man" indicates many things, including a requirement for the fetal stages of development. However, the thing that makes man different than other animals (rationality) gives man rights only after birth, because that is the point when the being becomes capable of volitional goal directed action. This is why birth is the point where the parental obligation begins. A volitional, rational, independent being did not exist before the moment of birth. Also, this creature came into being through no action of its own, so the responsibility for its care lies with those who chose to create it. edit for grammar and clarity

To my knowledge, Objectivism does use a physiological event, or "landmark." However, a claim that a fetus has rights can be shown to be in conflict with Objectivism without reference to this event. I'll reply to a few examples, and then make an attempt to tailor my conclusion to fit the subject of this thread. Obviously, this fails; a potential is not an actual. Brain activity is certainly required for a human to live, but many things have brain activity that are not human. And if something is human, you can't rightfully kill it even if it's death wouldn't invonvenience it. But again, if this refers to a fetus, a potential is not an actual. This has been addressed many times in the parent thread. I will not rehash this outside of the debate sub-forum. In addition to leaving the womb and breathing it's own air, it also eats food through it's mouth and takes in the sensory stimulous outside of the womb -- thus starting the cognitive process of concept formation. Therefore, birth is the moment when the being becomes independent, thereby gaining rights. Again, my suggestion is to take it to the debate forum if you want to contest this assertion. Aside from the above distinction, there is another, non-physiological distinction, one that I have brought up twice before: Giving birth presents pain and medical risk to the potential mother; denying her right to avoid that pain and risk presents a conflict of rights. Because there can be no conflicts between men, and rights only apply to man, this shows the assertion that a fetus has rights to be in conflict with Objectivism. I think this post begs the question, "what is the difference between the burden of childbirth and the burden of childcare?" 1) A newborn has rights, a fetus does not. 2) There is risk at childbirth that is absent during childcare (this difference is not essential to the discussion). 3)Because of the above, childbirth is not an obligation at any stage of gestation. Childcare is an obligation, one generated by the willful creation of a new rights-bearing entity (the culmination of this act of creation being childbirth). To my knowledge, some of the above ideas have not been presented in the body of Objectivism. I am interested if anyone believes they are consistent, or in conflict, with Objectivism.

I have nothing to add to the scientific aspects of this discussion, but I would like to add something regarding causality: Causality is the identity of process.

I do not know what sparked this thread, so I do not claim that the following comments pertain to any situation that anyone on this forum is going through. While there is usually reason for hope, some situations are hopeless. It is important that people are able to identify the difference. There is no reason to pursue life if all expectation for value achievement is lost. There may be reason to end it if continued existence is an anti-value.

Right on, Filipe, particularly the first paragraph. I brought up a similar point in the "children's rights" thread, but didn't make it that explicit: A fetus can claim no rights; in order for it to live independently of the mother requires a physically damaging and painful situation to occur -- childbirth. Nobody can reserve the right to force a potential mother to go through that, even on a child's behalf. To paraphrase what you said, either human rights are inviolable, or their not.

I don't know how an employer would view it. Either they would think it is a bonus but non-essential, or they just wouldn't care. Personally, I wouldn't care. I've read the Mensa newsletters; there are a lot of vocal mensans who seem borderline crazy. Ghosts, UFOs and the like.

Styles2112, you've been asked quite a few questions since your last post, so I won't ask any. But I will respond to some points: It isn't colonialism that you are referring to, it is occupation. Germany and Japan were both occupied by America, and neither is a colony. The US had a tough time forcing Germany to submit, but look at it now. The situation in both of these countries is not WORSE; on the contrary, it is vastly improved. If we properly occupied Iraq, we wouldn't have a middle eastern colony in 20 years, we would have another middle eastern ally. Countries do not lose esteem in their allies when their allies defend themselves. Sure, some countries in Europe might hate America more if America properly defended itself, but others (such as Israel) would have more esteem in America and more trust that we wouldn't hang them out to dry. I'll take stronger allies over less belligerent non-allies any day. All of Europe, even moreso, probably would not have the inclination to start military conflict after a restructuring of the middle east, nor would it likely have the military capability to be an existential threat. If America can't defend itself at what is possibly the zenith of it's power, then it is only a matter of time before it is destroyed. -edited for clarity/spelling

The newspaper articles rarely say the rioters are Muslims. What they do say is that they are immigrants from Arab and North African nations; nations where Islam is vastly predominant. I don't think that most of the youths are actively trying to promote Islam. I do think that they come from a culture that condones this kind of violence against infidels -- a term that could be used to apply to anyone, even other Muslims. The fact that they haven't been assimilated into French culture just means that this mentality was allowed to fester. Oh, and I don't think that it is the influence of radical Islam. Just plain Islam. As I have stated before in previous posts, the Muslims who don't condone violence are the radicals.

I don't think that America is in a financial situation that makes it incapable of unilaterally bringing war to its enemies.

You're right. There is nothing that separates the brain functions of the later stages of a fetus with that of a newborn. The important difference comes in the act of making the child an independant entity. Again, this does not change the brain functions of the child (apart from flooding it's senses with additional sensory input, which is not essential). The mother must still take significant action at some point to give birth. This is something that is medically dangerous and physically painful nomatter which method is chosen. No being can claim to have a right to invoke this kind of pain or damage. Until the mother chooses to go through with this and completes that action, the child does not have rights.

NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. And I would also be interested to find a quote from a Libertarian source that supports this organization. I have, in the past, heard claims that Libertarianism supports pedophilia. This is a claim I have yet to verify. While I do not support Libertarianism, I did grow up in a household that supported it, and I have yet to hear a Libertarian advocate or condone pedophilia. If I remember correctly, the ACLU once offered to provide an attourney for a member of NAMBLA. If this is the only thing that "links" Libertarians to NAMBLA, then the Democrats are linked to NAMBLA in the same fashion. -edited for spelling

Wow. Some of these posts are low blows. And they are hilarious. On a more serious note, the more I read news articles, the more I see some characteristic of French culture I can't quite identify. Maybe it is multiculturalism, but it could just be plain cowardice. Chirac didn't say anything for 10 days. Here is a quote from the mayor of a Paris suburb, "Last night, Japanese television and Turkish television were in my city hall telling me what should be done. That hurts me." This was some of the least pathetic whining from French officials and media. I don't take part in schadenfreude, but I understand the media frenzy the rest of the world is having. Nicholas Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister, was the only French official I know of who spoke out strongly against the rioters. He used the word, "Scum." Since nobody here is from France and this is a little off topic, this might be a poor question, but what does everybody think of him? He seems to have great chances to win the 2007 presidential election if he runs. He seems to have a more "American" sense of life.

Interesting. How many nations need to give permission before the US takes military action to defend itself? More to the point, why do we need to ask permission? Is this about consensus being a principle useful in guiding foreign policy, or is it aboug strategy? If it's about strategy, why do you think the opinions of other countries are relevant? -edited for clarity

That is something I almost addressed, and is one of the reasons I think the US should have taken out Syria along with Iraq. I am still not certain Saddam abandoned his chemical weapons program. He was given several months to ditch the weaponry.

Good point. When people use "extremist" to connote negativity, they are really just showing how the principle being taken to the extreme is bad.

I am familiar with many Objectivist opinions about the war, and when they disagree it is usually about strategy. They agree that the US government has an obligation to retaliate against foreign agressors, and that we are not at war with "terrorism" but with some form of Islam. In other words, they agree on the principles involved. Personally, I would not call it "Extremist Islam." The evidence I have seen points to a historical pattern of mainstream Muslims supporting genocidal conquest. That's what Mohammed did, so why shouldn't his modern followers? I would say we are at war with simple, old fashioned Islam. I'd call the peace loving Muslims radicals. As Iraq is part of that war. Iraq was nominally secular, but remember, Saddam did write "God is Great" on the Iraqi flag. This is a regional and ideological conflict, and America dropped the ball when it stopped the war at Iraq's borders. I, like others, agree that Iran and Saudi Arabia should be the primary targets.

D20 Modern

Soldiers (including medics), Firemen and other emergency responders might have something in common: They might value a benevolent universe, or, more simply put, benevolence. Having the power to turn a malevolent situation into a benevolent one and exercising that power could offer great emotional rewards. Malevolent situations are inherently dangerous, but these people are willing to put up with that danger to do what they love. Hence, their actions can be selfish.

I'm glad this thread was re-opened. I was bummed when it was terminated and I can't quite remember why... I think I was going to post a reply, but I like where the recent posts are going, so I'll just lurk for a while.

Let's check some premises. Atlas Shrugged was a novel. If it is going to be put on film, it needs to be changed to fit the new medium. Whether it is a movie, a movie with a sequel, a trilogy or a television series, a three hour lecture by Galt wont fly. I think the scene should be a montage, that gives the impression of a really long lecture, but focuses on the different characters and different aspects of culture at crucial points in the lecture. People might be able to sit through a half hour of this.

I think there are good reasons to stick to accepted terminology. If I was playing with Objectivists, I would prefer my system. But I have really only role played with two Objectivists, and they live in a different time zone now. When playing with other people, it is probably better to stick with terms that they are familiar with. Most of them wouldn't take kindly to an entirely new alignment system that they might see as arbitrary. I used to play games like Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. If you've got the miniatures and the time, it is really fun and transfers well into an epic RPG. I like White Wolf's World of Darkness because they have rules for contacts and influence. But sometimes narration is best. I'll try to check out the "Lords of Battle" thing. Most RPGs do oversaturate. The best marketing research is done with actual sales. So they spend extra money on potentially useless books to see if they make a hit. If something hits big, they spend extra time on it during the next edition. Rules often matter, but like I said earlier, sometimes narration is best. A lot of people get caught up in the "How Many Dots Are On My Sheet?" game, so publishers cater to them. If the GM/DM/ST is good, they will be able to get away with a more role playing and less roll playing.

Is your game set for epic level adventure? And I don't simply mean 20+ character levels, but world-shaking PC driven action? Or, is it more geared toward the traditional heroics? I've found D20 has difficulty supporting the epic stuff - it doesn't have many mechanics for political influence and such.

While the original alignment system was a guide to both morals (Good/Evil) and patterns of behavior (Law/Chaos), I think alignments are best used as representations of a character's moral standards only, which in turn offer a rough guide for action. This seems logical to me. Every nuance of each character's potential actions (out of a possibly unlimited number of characters) can't be jammed into a simple x/y matrix. It seems appropriate for allignments to be moral codes because they serve to manage unlimited concrete actions. An axis that describes allegiance to metaphysical laws steps on the Wisdom attribute's toes. It makes a chaotic person seem to have a low Wisdom score, and a Lawful person a High Wisdom score (maybe I am missing something?). My personal preference is to flesh out character behavior outside of the alignment system, and have a two-axis morality system. Alignments seem more important to the antagonists that are made "on the spot" that might get a chance to evolve into larger story elements. A PC's or important NPC's motives should be clearly fleshed out before hand. But they can be useful, so... I am fond of D10 systems (probably due to the ease of statistical analysis), so I would put either 5 or 10 points on each axis. But 3 would do in a pinch, and would be more consistent in a D20 system. The first axis would be the “values axis” of Self-Interest/Altruism, the second would be the “force axis” of Benevolence/Malevolence (good/evil). If this were put in the traditional D20 style, the seven possibilities become: Selfish Benevolent (SB) Benevolent B Altruist Benevolent (AB) Morally Neutral (MN) Pragmatist? Chaotic? Ethically Vacuous? Selfish Malevolent (SM) Malevolent (M) Altruist Malevolent (AM) SB: These characters hold their lives as the supreme value and will not violate the rights of another intelligent being. These characters are the cream of the moral crop. Not the best place for Paladins, Clerics and Rogues, but still possible. B: Non-valuers that would not initiate force against another intelligent being. Caravan guards that spend their money on gambling and drinking would fit here. AB: This type of character holds some other being, idea or group as their highest value, but would never initiate force in pursuit of that value. Paladins and Clerics of good deities are usually placed in this category. A Fighter who swore allegiance to a good king might fight here. Rogues would have a hard time. MN: This encompasses a large number of different character types. Characters that hold no value in high regard and may only be interested in base survival fit here. For this reason they will usually simply coast through life via the easiest rout, while not pissing in other people’s cheerios, doing good if it will help them get by. However, when their wellbeing is threatened they will commit malevolent acts to ensure survival. This alignment can also be used to describe people who will act in malevolent ways but will not take it to the extreme, like a noble who protects his people but is willing to force them off of their homes to mine the ore underneath. Monks that vow complete neutrality would fit here also, but might be better as B or (M) if they have sworn to uphold some other principles as well. While not typically great for Clerics and Paladins, most other classes fit here. SM: These characters hold themselves as their highest value and are willing to take actions to better themselves at the expense of others. Any character class could take this alignment, but Paladins and Clerics are rare. M: Non-valuers who will take malevolent action to pursue their range-of the moment goals. Brigands or scoundrels who spend their money gambling and drinking would fit here. AM: These characters devote themselves to a group or cause and will initiate force to achieve their goals. Evil characters of all types fit here.