RationalEgoistSG

With all due respect, Richard_Halley, Vernunft's final response came after a long number of many other arbitrary accusations similar to that of BlackSabbath's original response. While Vernunft's final post was uncivl and a bit uncalled for, I sympathize with him greatly. If there is anything I hate more in philosophical conversations it is being dismissed out of hand for holding an unfavorable viewpoint. While everyone was quite justified in being cautiously suspicious about a person who professes agreement with Kant, that does not give one the ability to conclude that that person has the intention of harassing our forum members or that they are obviously evading. If, this guy had given us arguments for his beliefs, in which evasion or irrationality were noticed, that would have been grounds for condemning him in the respect that occurred here. However, this was certainly not the case. This guy mentioned that he is interested in Kant, and it was ASSUMED that therefore he must be irrational, evading, and has the intention of being a troll. That is EXACTLY the kind of dogmatism that Vernunft was afraid of, and certain members of this forum delivered exactly that. That WILL NOT be tolerated here. P.S. Thanks Matt, I try

Praxus, I have a problem with involuntary euthanasia (both active and passive). It deprives the individual of their life without having the ability to choose to do so. Because of the fact that it violates the ability for an individual to choose their own actions (as long as they do not violate the rights of others of course), I am against involuntary euthanasia (active and passive). Keep in mind however, that the category of involuntary euthanasia presupposes that the patient has the ability to make a choice. If the patient is incapacitated and does not have the ability to choose, that would fall under nonvoluntary euthanasia and would be a different matter.

As a philosophy major in an undergraduate university, I am quite disturbed by the reaction of some of you to a person genuinely interested in rational discussion and debate. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that Vernunft's intention was to anger and annoy the people in this forum, but rather, he was genuinely interested in learning more about Objectivism and the potential holes in his own knowledge of Kant. There are certainly a large number of reasons for disliking Kant's philosophy as well as disliking those people who claim to hold to any part of Kant's philosophy. However, the fact that one professes some agreement with a philosopher that is opposed to Rand is certainly not grounds to accuse that person of being a troll. Specifically, this charge by member Black Sabbath only after Vernunft's first post was totally out of line. I think that most of Vernunft's anger to this arbitrary accusation was quite justified. I agree with this completely: This kind of arbitrary dismissal of individuals that do not fully agree with Objectivism will NOT be tolerated on this forum. As an administrator, I will take action against any such arbitrary accusations and unjustified name-calling.

Tom, the instance you referred to would be non-voluntary active euthanasia. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia (both active and passive) the correct course of action is based on the existence of a living will or advanced directive, or in the case of there being no advances directives, the wishes of family members and loved ones. An advanced directive/living will is a means of establishing through a legally binding document (at least in some states anyway) what should be done if one were to be in such a situation as you described. If a person is in such a situation, and I am a doctor, I should follow the wishes of the person's advanced directive/living will. It would absolutely be wrong for me to pull the plug without reference to any of these things. If no such thing exists, that would be a more difficult question. I would suppose then that the choice of pulling the plug or not would either not be given to anyone, or deferred to a close relative (such as spouse, parent, or sibling).

Strictly speaking, there are six kinds of euthanasia: 1. Voluntary active euthanasia 2. Involuntary active euthanasia 3. Non-voluntary active euthanasia 4. Voluntary passive euthanasia 5. Involuntary passive euthanasia 6. Non-voluntary passive euthanasia The two important distinctions here are the distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary; and that between active and passive. Voluntary means that it is done with the permission of the individual involved, involuntary means that it is done against the will of the person involved, non-voluntary means that the person is unable to give or not give their permission (usually because they are not able to properly exercise their mind in making a judgment due to coma or being delirious). Active euthanasia entails the doctor actually killing the patient, whereas passive euthanasia involves letting the patient die. (This is a really fine line, some argue that there is really no distinction here). Typically, the judgments concerning involuntary active euthanasia and voluntary passive euthanasia are not controversial. Involuntary active euthanasia is the same as murder. Voluntary passive euthanasia is permitted by the AMA under certain conditions, for example, there is no way to save the patient (in such instances though doctors still try to make the patient as comfortable as possible in dying). Also, non-voluntary active and passive euthanasia are usually covered by advanced directives or a living will, in which an individual asks to be pulled from life support and allowed to die if in a coma for example. The two remaining kinds of euthanasia, #'s 1 and 5, voluntary active euthanasia and involuntary passive euthanasia, are usually the most debated when the topic of euthanasia is discussed. This is specifically true of the first one, voluntary active euthanasia. So Praxus, I am not sure which of these 6 kinds of euthanasia you were referring to with your question. Please elaborate.

Yes, Oldsalt is right. Kant is certainly not for beginners. His writing is some of the most ridiculous nonsense that has ever been written, and it is really hard to decipher. I was able to get through many parts of it because of one of my philosophy professors who helped me out with it. I think only Hegel comes even close to reaching the level of philosophical nonsense that Kant does.

For anyone interested in reading Kant I would suggest picking up Critique of Pure Reason written by him. I personally have the version in which the translators are Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, but I have no means of comparison. However, it is the edition that one of my philosophy professors (a good one at that) recommends. It is in the Critique of Pure Reason that he sets the metaphysical and epistemological base for his philosophy. He has two other main works, Critique of Practical Reason and unfortunately I forget the name of the third. I have not read all of Critique of Pure Reason, but what I have read was painful. Check out my essays in the essays section on the main site, I have a few essays that include some information about Kant for those of you that are interested. Keep in mind though that I in no way endorse Kant.

It looks like one of the other admins already did while I was off at class.

Welcome to the Forum, Erika. Nice screen name.

Yes, I can do it for you. Just let me know what screen name you would like.

Matt, I agree with the majority of what you are saying. The one sticking point I have is whether or not this forum should be a place where we essentially teach Objectivism to people relatively unfamiliar with the philosophy. I agree with what CapFor stated in that in order to have the best discussion on most of the topics we discuss here, one needs to have read a sizable amount of Objectivist literature. Now of course this does not mean that we should discourage individuals who do not know much about Objectivism by insulting them and calling them evaders. I completely agree that such an accusation is made way too often on this forum. However, in my personal experience, I have found that much of the misunderstandings about the philosophy have come from a person not properly understanding the essentials. In particular, the difference between objectivity and intrinsicism is almost always a major cause for the misunderstanding of the philosophy in my personal experience with other people on the subject. My belief then is that we should point such people in the right direction by telling them where to go for more information, and by discussing essentials. If however, we have an individual who comes in here and asks us for an honest criticism of communism for example, I believe that that is something that we should not pursue in-depth for the necessary refutation of communism lies ultimately not only in political principles but also their foundation in the other branches of philosophy.

I would really like to spend the time to answer your question fully, but I just came upon it and I have to leave for class in 5 minutes. The concept of objectivity applies ONLY to concepts, not to sense perception. I believe this is outlined in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff in the Objectivity chapter. I wish I could answer your question further, but for now I have to leave for class. I hope this at least pointed you in the right direction, because I too face such irritating comments from classmates. By the way, it's nice you have you posting here again.

Old Geezer, I have to disagree with what you said about the value of irrational debaters. I myself am an undergraduate student majoring in philosophy and minoring in history and classical studies (mainly Greek). I'm also the VP of the philosophical society here in which we discuss certain issues. From first-hand experience, irrational debaters provide absolutely no benefit, and in fact, they really just lead to a lot of frustration. There is one individual who sometimes comes to the philosophical society meetings for example who is an extreme skeptic. The result is that virtually no civilized or rational argument is possible with him. If you present any sort of positive argument for anything, his immediate response is something along the lines of, how do you know? Whatever evidence you put forth, the same response is how do you know? There is absolutely NO benefit from discussing anything with such people. The only meaningful discussion/debate with another person can come when there is at least some sort of shared epistemological base (even if it be for the sake of argument).

I think the major problem with that argument is a misunderstading of the concept of value. The fact that life is an ultimate value is derived from our human nature, not the material benefits of living in a rational society. What we value can certainly contribute to our lives cumulatively (and in fact that best way to live is that all that one values contributes to one's life). But the fact that our life is the ultimate value never changes (unless under certain conditions). The other major problem with the argument is the idea that a group can exist independently of the individuals that make up that group. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand criticizes political scientists for creating their science around a collective base. They say absolutely nothing about individual man but rather how resources are allocated in a given society. As she puts it, it is like studying astronomy without paying attention to any individual star. The benefits that exist in a rational society in which there is a divison of labor to mutual benefit is no doubt beneficial. But is is beneficial to each individual person, not this non-entity referred to as a group. I hope that helped.

Bearster, You are right with what you said about the flaw of democracy. When I used the term I was referring to the establishment of a free nation, but I used the term incorrectly. Do you think we should wipe out these countries with nuclear weapons? Is that what you meant with your statement?

Skywalker, 1. Not only does Pakistan have nuclear weapons now, but they have recently been revealed to be at the center of a ring of countries bent on proflieration of WMD's. They have been implicated in the programs of countires such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea. I'd say it's best to take out the source of nuclear proliferation before the countries only in the development phase. Even if one were to accept not attacking Pakistan immediately, we should at the very least be coming down very hard on them for their actions here, yet we have done nothing. 2. I don't think that the PA is a threat to American security per se at this point, but I believe all of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups to be a threat to our security. I absolutely believe that we could use Israel's help in dismantling them. In fact, I would argue for a strong alliance between The United States and Israel in taking out these terrorist states. But of course, our government does not want to make this war look like a war of Christianity and Judiasm vs. Islam, so that will not happen any time soon. 3. First of all, I am not advocating that we not give any support to pro-American forces in these countries. Monetary, military, and constitutional support seem reasonable. Second, the idea that we should pattern our war strategy based on the feelings of our enemies is absurd. Any resentment felt by the people of that country would be far beaten by the advantage of being able to eliminate all of the other imminent threats against us.

Recently I have been thinking about whether or not it is to our benefit to be occupying Iraq and trying to install a particular form of government. Why not invade the country, bomb the crap out of it, despose of the government, and then springboard over to Iran, Syria, the PA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., and do the same thing? Militarily speaking, the U.S. alone has the military strength to eliminate the governments of all of these countries, the terrorists that receive support from them, and all potential and existing weapons of mass destruction programs in a very quick period of time. Two exceptions would be North Korea and Pakistan in which more time and care would be required to ensure that there would be no problems involved with currently existing wmd's. If however, for each of these operations, we tried to install a government like we are doing now in Iraq, the time needed to eliminate these threats would take a much longer period of time; thus increasing the risk to our security while we wait. I argue therefore that we should not be concerned with establishing a new government in these countries, but rather, eliminating the imminent threat of that government (meaning they could probably not reinstitute that threat for a number of years), handing them a copy of the U.S. Constitution, and then move on to the next. The major possible objection against this argument would be that if we install democratic governments in these countries, we will prevent their being future threats to us. I think there are a number of flaws with this argument. The biggest flaw I mentioned above in that the time we spend occupying a country and trying to install a government will be spent by our enemies increasing their strength. Another flaw is that most of the held philosophy of people in the Middle East explicitly contradicts the principles of a free nation (i.e. Islamic law in the State). Finally, one of the major points of the argument is that we could eliminate the need to wipe out these threats again in the future. However, if we really do a good job militarily, not only will we delay such occurrences, but we could also just easily wipe out the new threat when it arises. Clearly, if it got to the point where one dictatorship was just replacing the next in these places, it would get to the point where the people were fed up and realized that perhaps dictatorship isn't the best way to go. Therefore, I argue that we should hand off the U.S Constitution to the Iraqi's and move on to another target immediately (I would argue Pakistan and North Korea, but that is another story). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Edit: I just wanted to clarify that I am not against military occupation of a defeated opponent per se, in fact, I think it is beneficial. I am saying however that because of the fact that we face a large number of other threats, military occupation of Iraq right now is not beneficial.

In my senior year of high school I was exposed to Ayn Rand's philosophy when I was assigned to read The Fountainhead for my English AP class. Before that I was not very analytical, and I did not have any knowledge of what philosophy was. While I considered myself to be intelligent, I was the kind of person whose beliefs were merely based on what I absorbed from the environment around me. However, there was one major belief that I had that resonated very well with Objectivism, and that is the idea that evasion is a major evil. I strongly believed that a major problem in the world was people ignoring problems and being content with mediocrity instead of facing their problems head on and striving for the highest excellence possible. It was the strong emphasis on individual achievement, virtue, and egoism that specifically attracted me to Objectivism, even though my beliefs in just about all of the other areas were not very strong. The summer after my senior year I bought all the Rand books I could find and read a lot of great books including Atlas Shrugged as well as the majority of her non-fiction. So unlike what most people seem to be saying here, I was not like an Objectivist at all for most of my life, however, I did resonate strongly with some of Rand's core principles once I came to learn them. I've since come to agree with all of them that I am aware of.

Carla, welcome to the board.

Welcome to the forum Jane!

Welcome to the forum Jason.

AshRyan, That is the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you very much.

RadCap, I believe this situation is being blown out of proportion. I do not hold any hostility towards you. The reason why I spent only one paragraph discussing the actual issue at hand (monopolies), was because of the fact that your post answered my question. The second issue was your presentation of your viewpoint (at least as it was perceived by me). This issue had not yet been solved, and therefore required more space. First I would like to point out that there is a major difference (at least for me) between being really angry with someone, and just disliking some minor issue. Your presentation of your viewpoint represented the second, not the first. The main reason why I reacted the way that I did is because of the fact that the presentation of your arguments, on pure face value, appears to be extremely hostile. This is mainly because of your use of capital letters and other such minor forms of your presentation. Your content however, was accurate. I continue to suggest that in your discussions with others on this forum you should avoid the extravagant use of capital letters; especially for those people who have not talked with you before. I know that I certainly do not want to give the impression that Objectivists are overtly emotional and angry towards any person who makes any mistake whatsoever or who does not have knowledge of a particular item. I know that this is not your intent for the use of capital letters, but it sure does come off that way. I want you to understand that I am not angry with you, this is not an issue for me, and to move on. Thank you for providing an answer to my original question, and I apologize for any perceived hostility on my part.

I understand the point that you are making now. I was not making any claim whatsoever about the "economic efficiency or inefficiency" of capitalism, but rather, wondering how to respond to such an argument from someone else. I realize the faulty premise behind such a question now, thank you. (As a side note, I was not angry with you in my earlier post). However, you could have gone about pointing this problem out to me in a much more civilized way. Instead of calmly explaining my error (after which I would have thanked you kindly), you treated me as though I were a moron that needed to be screamed at in order to learn something (through your constant use of capital letters and your putting me down because I did not understand your claim right away). I understand that your primary concern is in getting across your point as clearly as possible, and you did do that with your post. However, you could easily do the same without being so (seemingly) hostile towards everyone you disagree with. I understand a natural hostility towards skeptics, Kantians, communists, and the like (I have it very much as well), but the majority of us here accept Objectivism and are merely trying to clearly identify our premises as well as elaborate on our own views. (Although, there have been people posting here that do deserve such treatment: trolls, irrationalists, etc.) I have no desire to enter into some personal argument with you RadCap. You corrected the error in my premises and I thank you for doing so. Also, your insights in a number of other issues have been quite helpful. However, I think you should entertain the thought of being more civil in your responses. Thanks.

RadCap, That was not my implication. When I have stated to people that it is only the coercive monopoly backed by political force that is dangerous, and not the non-coercive monopolies that may come out of capitalism, the typical response has been: well, that will destroy the efficiency of the market. I am in no way making the claim that if something is economically inefficient, then the government should step in order to benefit society. I agree that the economic results of capitalism do not eliminate the fact that every man has a right to his own life. However, it has been argued by Rand that capitalism is not only the most moral political system but also the best economically as well. I am very familiar with Rand's moral arguments, but I am not familiar with very specific economic arguments besides the basics of Adam Smith and such. Particularly, I am not familiar with economic arguments against the feasbility of monopolies in a capitalist system or against the idea that such non-coercive monopolies cause harm. Therefore, I am merely inquiring as to whether or not it can be said, in purely economic terms, that monopolies are not ECONOMICALLY harmful in a given market (or not economically feasible, etc). RadCap, as a personal note, you should try not to always assume the worst when people make a particular statement that can be interpretted in a number of ways. I had absolutely no intention of claiming that any economic problems arising from capitalism should then be fixed through the government. In fact, I clearly stated as such in the second statement I made in which I said that I am AGAINST antitrust law.