Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RSalar

  1. Laws are man-made and not always rational. The issue is how to determine which party is retaliating (and morally right). It is impossible to know which party is retaliating unless you are able to identify the initiator. Two individuals, (two families, two tribes, two countries, or two planets–it matters not) – each party to the feud believes he is retaliating (because the feud survives long after the first initiators and first retaliators are dead. The initiator is wrong; the retaliator is right—but no one is able to determine which is which. The feud could go on indefinitely each party retali
  2. So what does the fact that men generally are turned on by physically attractive bodies say about their philosophies (in general)?
  3. I am. The difference is that we HAVE to eat. We do not have to ride motorcycles. "I suspect ..." As in "surmise?" meaning: To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence. ??? Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
  4. So ownership is a subjective concept? It is based on the way one "views" it? Come back to reality! I need to know what you have read before I can continue this. I thought you understood the basis of objective concept formation. Have you read, and do you understand, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"?
  5. When you say, "My personal observations ..." without reference to specific statements, you demonstrate the subjective nature of your analysis. Can you supply the actual language used by these Libertarians that you are using to form you “personal observations”? Where did you come up with the concept you call the, “Libertarian fallacy of imperfection?” Did you just make it up?
  6. Yes, if we are to assume that it is in fact possible to determine a man's philosophy from his sexual desires ... and no, if we assume that it is not. Do you think you are able to determine a man's philosophy from his sexual desires?
  7. Why do you want to make this a race issue? Europe is made up of many races--so what? Stay on topic. As far as land not being owned by the Indians—you can only say that because the Europeans killed them. If the Indians were successful in their efforts to defend themselves (if they had had the might) you would not be able to claim that you own the little piece of ground that you now say you own. Let’s discuss what it means to own something. What gives a person (or a country) the right to say they own something? What is ownership in metaphysical terms? The point is that land and coun
  8. Exactly! I have long held that since there is no limit on the legal tax rate it is possible for the government to set it so high as to make it impossible for the “owner” to pay. The same goes for income tax rates—no legal limit—could go to 100%. We not only have no property rights, we have no right to earn a living. Without these rights we have no rights. And thus the US is not a government that protects citizens rights—except by the whim of the current law makers.
  9. A quick response to the above three posts: 1) If I am jabbing anyone—it is myself. Let’s not be so sensitive that we are unable to look at our own actions and judge them objectively. 2) Risk is a relative thing—some things are in fact more risky than others. Risk also should be measured against the reward one gets by taking the risk. The risk of choking on solid food is real—we could get the same nutritional value from pureed food—so the risk of eating solid food must be worth the value of the feeling we get from chewing and savoring the texture/flavor. Didn’t your Grandmother tell you to chew
  10. It was RB's suggestion that her book might help clear up the issue for me. (It did—but not in the way he thought it would.) You are correct that I believe that we should pursue the things that we enjoy doing (even when they may be risking our health). And yes, I was asking about Objectivist Ethics and how "dangerous" activities are viewed. The way I read the Objectivist pro-life standard, a person (if they want to enjoy objective values) must protect his own life first and foremost. That means eating right, exercising regularly, getting check-ups, going to the dentist, wearing a seat belt,
  11. Perhaps you can tell me who is the agressor and who is the defender from the folowing list of events (excerpted from: http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm) About 61 B.C., Roman troops under Pompei invaded Judea and sacked Jerusalem in support of King Herod. Judea had become a client state of Rome. Initially it was ruled by the client Herodian dynasty. The land was divided into districts of Judea, Galilee, Peraea and a small trans-Jordanian section, each of which eventually came under direct Roman control. During the seventh century (A.D. 600's), Muslim Arab armies moved north from
  12. Wrong. Your land deed is filed and protected by law. And law is enforced by and through the use of force. It is a fact that Native Americans originally occupied the land that is now controlled by the United States. Before we controlled it, it had been "claimed" by Europeans. We then fought the revolutionary war and took the land from them by force. The land you now claim you own is yours only to the extent that you (through your government and it’s guns) can defend it from the attacks and claims of others. If for example the US were to be taken over by a foreign power the new government would
  13. The theory that libertarians believe what DavidOdden says they believe is new to me. My understanding of why Ayn Rand rejected their philosophy was because it was based on “freedom.” Meaning that the philosophy was wrong because “freedom” quo freedom has no limit. Meaning that free people should be free to do whatever they want. This is a contradiction because one person’s freedom would necessarily impede upon another person freedom. In reality no person has the right to unlimited freedom because no one can have the right to violate another person’s rights. Each person’s freedom therefore is l
  14. What constitutes retaliation? Some countries have been warring for centuries. Which one drew first blood? Which one is defending; which is the aggressor? Does it even matter? Which one is right; which one is wrong? It’s like the Hatfield-McCoy feud—when and how does this cycle of violence stop? Is this a simple case of might is right—with the current nation in power in the right—or does the beaten nation have the right to fight to reclaim it’s nation? This issue is not just about rules of international warfare—it’s about individual rights and the rights of groups (if they even have rights). Fo
  15. I was asked to start a new thread to help me understand why the libertarian fallacy of imperfection is a fallacy. I tried doing a search on this site and a complete Internet search using Google to no avail. I didn't even know there was such a thing, never mind why the fallacy is a fallacy. Could someone please A:) tell me what the libertarian fallacy of imperfection is, B:) why it is a fallacy, and C:) what this fallacy has to do with individual rights and/or the right of one nation to protect itself against foreign threats. Thank-you, RSalar
  16. Since all rights depend on property rights, by saying property rights are irrelevant you are saying that all rights are irrelevant. Since anarchy results from the absence of a cohesive principle (which in this case is the principle of individual rights) and since you say property rights are irrelevant, it is you who is arguing for anarchy. The last time I checked Objectivists ethics did not advocate the government's taking of property by force. So how am I rejecting Objectivist ethics by arguing against the US Government's initiation of force against its citizens? I'm not saying a nation
  17. Perhaps I think you are being a bit too restrictive when you say that "a rights-respecting nation," has this right to... I read that to mean that as an exclusive right that these particular kinds nations have. I disagree with this because 1) the concept is very vague—does the nation have to respect all rights or just some rights? – Does it have to be a “nation” – why? What about other organized groups? What is so special about nations that you single them out? What nation on the planet respects all rights of all individuals? 2) Nations are made up of individual people. You must start at the in
  18. Yes, I think you should wait until you are annihilated before defending yourself. What did you eat some spoiled food or something? You say: “Yes: if you know of an example where you are legally allowed to use force to defend yourself against the legal application of force, do please give us the citation.” Dictators can pass any law they want. They can say (and make it law) that it is illegal for another country to resist their invasion. When your country resists invasion you are breaking their law--but not your laws. Any person, any country, any group of people can make laws—laws, per se, sa
  19. I think that rooting for the home team regardless of their virtues (not saying that you are) is like loving your parents regardless of what kind of people they are. There is no objectivity in that decision. You should be able to identify the qualities that you admire and those qualities should be objectively good qualities. (According to Objectivist ethics as I understand it.)
  20. It's an objective fact that some people enjoy doing dangerous things--that does not make those things objective values. What if a person said to you that they love the taste of rat poison? They sprinkle some on their eggnog because it makes it taste better. That's an objective fact—but so what? Noting the objective facts about what you enjoy does not automatically lead you to seek objective values. If your goal is to live long and prosper then you should enjoy only those things that are objectively pro-life.
  21. The choices of what types of food we eat definitely effects our survival chances and are therefore important ethical considerations. Being overweight and out of shape is not pro-life. RB gave you the statistics of the relative danger on riding motorcycles verses driving automobiles. I thinks it’s absurd to try to argue that riding a bike is as safe as driving a car—it’s like saying that downhill skiing is as safe as walking. If this is the only way of defending the activity as being an objective value I think the argument is lost at the outset. You have to do as RB attempted—show that the v
  22. Maybe I missed something ... I thought we were discussing Objectivism.
  23. Based on this observed difference what does it say about the difference in the philosophies held by males compared to the philosophies held by females? What can you tell me about his philosophy of life based on the fact that he finds physical features important? “Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life”?
  24. What if you remove the word "intrinsically" and just said, "motorcycle riding, because of the risk of bodily harm, regardless of how much joy one gets, is not pro-life"? That seems to be a true statement. The only argument that one could raise (and RB has) is that “life” is more than just survival. I have addressed this aspect of the, “motor-cycle riding is pro-life because it makes my life worth living” argument by pointing out that the things that make life worth living must also be pro-survival if they are in fact real authentic values. (A value can not be an authentic value if it is harmin
  25. I think that the things we decide will allow us to flourish (achieve happiness) must be objectively chosen. It can't be a matter of "it feels good" because that is the basic premise behind hedonism and just because an activity provides an "emotional recharge" does not make that activity an objective value for the same reason. There has to be a real value, an objective value, a measurable value that can be proved. It seems to me that you are directing your argument towards the issue of what constitutes an objective value—this is what I want to discuss. Thank-you. Tara Smith, in her book "Viable
  • Create New...