Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NewYorkRoark

  1. Hello, Brief Biography: My name is Casey. I'm 22 and live in New York City. I work for a real estate broker in Midtown and will also be working at the Central Park Zoo in the near future. I grew up in a small town in Maine, attended Colgate University and graduated with a degree in Philosophy and Geology. When I was in 8th grade I decided to build a farm on our family-owned 4 acres (I cleared trees, built a barn, put up fences, everything - it was a treehouse gone wild). The "farm" peaked when I was a junior in high school with 8 sheep, 3 geese, and 5 chickens. It wasn't very profitable, but I made enough to buy a car. At Colgate I was a member and business manager (for 2 years) of the Colgate 13 (a capella group), student senator, fraternity Vice President and rush chairman (lame) and eventually, Vice President of the student body. My favorite things in the world are: geology (specifically, the American Southwest), music, philosophy, soccer, and myself. Why Ayn Rand: About halfway through high school, I became a social sell-out (think Peter Keating). I stopped caring about the things I once cared about and started caring about the things others cared about. It seemed much easier at the time. One of the first things that went out the window was my desire for knowledge. I started caring only about knowledge as a means to an end (the grade / freedom NOT to know / ability to pass a class / something along those lines). The worst part was that I could get away with it. I got an A- on a 5-page essay I wrote during a 45 minute lunch break (only at a small-town-in-Maine-public-education). That was the norm, though. By sophomore year in college, however, my grades had dropped significantly and I was learning virtually nothing - but my social life was booming. I remember a biology professor took me aside one day and told me that I was perfect waste. I remember my response being something along the lines of, "I'm not interested in what you're interested in (knowledge), I'm interested in other things (social knowledge/ability)." The worst part was that I had no doubt that the two were of equal value. I remember thinking what a perfect waste of a personality the professor was. At that time, I was happy in the same way that a glutton is happy after eating a snickers bar. My social interests were based on a desire for instant gratification. It's not a hard trap to fall into, but I fell in up to my neck. Luckily, my father stepped in at the end of my sophomore year and wrote me a detailed letter. In it, he notified me that from that point on, I would be paying the remainder of my tuition (we had a little financial aid). Faced with real consequences for the first time, I spent the next summer getting my act in together. I started reading on my own, I started learning for my own benefit, I started accomplishing long term goals, I got in shape, etc. I was still happy but it was a different (and better) kind of happiness (the kind of happiness that comes after months of working out, when you feel that your body is reaching its true physical potential vs. the happiness (instant gratification) that comes from eating snickers bars). I became interested in architecture and eventually, The Fountainhead was recommended by a friend. I thoroughly enjoyed her social commentary (as it was my desrie for the approval of others that had left me intellectually comatose for the last few years of my life) and her ideas on ethics and capitalism. The Fountainhead lead to Atlas Shrugged to Philosophy: Who Needs It to The Virtue of Selfishness and it's still going. That being said, I'm not an Objectivist at this point, but I'm actively seeking true knowledge and Objectivism is as close as I think anyone has come (and perhaps I will be convinced in the future that Objectivism, in fact, is what I am seeking). I apologize for misunderstanding the rules of the forum in the majority of my earlier posts. Know that I agree with Ms. Rand on 90% of what I know of her philosophy and have questions on the other 10%. I have little tact and often ask questions by stating alternatives. I will try to ask questions strictly by asking questions and save my objections for the debate forum in the future. Casey
  2. Issue: I have a friend who's from a very wealthy family. He spends the majority of his time sitting on the couch, mindlessly watching television, and generally, doing nothing productive (or of value), but makes $xxx an hour (even while sleeping) off of his trust fund. Even in our current political-economic system, he could invest his money (which he did not earn), live and raise a family off of the interest, and never work a day in his life. Question: Is this a problem in Objectivism? Does investing like this represent a value for value exchange (investing in companies)? Will L-F capitalism exacerbate the problem (if it is a problem)? Although Ayn Rand held that receiving inheritance was neither good nor bad, it seems to me that an Objectivist would refuse the inheritance based on principle, due to the fact that it would not be a value for value exchange. I can't imagine Howard Roark accepting any kind of inheritance (in the same way that he refused commission if he had no architectural freedom). Would an Objectivist refuse inheritance based on principle (the principle being that they have provided no service to justify earning the inherited money)? Personally, inheritance seems like unnecessary charity...
  3. Apologies, I meant to reply to the original question by tophat. My recommendation is to acquaint yourself with St. Augustine's philosophy of language, then Locke's Philosophy of Language, then Wittgenstein's philosophy of language (Tractatus then Philosophical Investigations, but if you only want to read one, read Philosophical Investigations). Here are the first 100 aphorisms of Philosophical Investigations (which will introduce you to St. Augustine as well): http://www.galilean-library.org/pi1.html
  4. This is just a momentary thing - and very specific. I really like the way Emily Haines (of Metric) moves in the video for "Combat Baby." www.ilovemetric.com -> Media -> "Combat Baby" on the bottom. It's certainly not Objectivist music, so don't pay attention to the lyrics (however the music (which I think is what music is about) is very well organized and progressive. I don't find her attractive normally, but I'd like to marry her in this video. I think it's the roaring 20's / retro dance moves.
  5. The classic example of evolution "in action" is that of the peppered moth ( Peppered Moth ). Unfortunately, the first few pages of my google search listed only .com websites partial to intelligent design. Peppered Moth Evolution (General) Chronology: 1. Peppered moth can be light or dark gray. 2. Industrialization increased pollution and turned tree bark darker. 3. Lighter gray moths were more visible. 4. Lighter gray moths became victims to predation more often. 5. Darker gray moth population increased. 6. Pollution reduced. 7. Tree bark color returns to normal. 8. Lighter gray moth population turns around.
  6. I'd like to not agitate anyone further, but to respond: I'd like to say: 1. Sexuality is not a metaphysical fact. (A heterosexual male is wrong to claim that it is his nature to be sexually aroused by women just as a homosexual male is wrong to claim the same about being sexually aroused by men.) 2. As far as neural plasticity is concerned, human beings cannot choose their sexuality; rather their sexuality is determined by their experiences during development. Neural plasticity describes the plasticity of the brain (especially during development). Their future sexuality will depend on what kind of associations they make regarding sexual arousal. This happens at such a young age that one cannot remember the cause of such associations and therefore, sexuality seems to be a metaphysical fact. 4. It is a social reality in that we often believe that our sexuality is a metaphysical fact or that we associate one gender with sexual arousal. In reality, perhaps there is a bit of "nature" involved - regarding ones chemical [and resulting hormonal] makeup - but maybe the more important factor is the "nurture" and our experiences during early development. To the extent that we can "choose" our sexuality, I'm not sure. It may be more appropriate to say that it's "chosen" for us. I really think neural plasticity (during childhood development) is a fascinating field (especially since we seem to have no episodic memory of our early development) and if anyone has any articles / extensive knowledge of the field, I'd be very grateful if you could send a link or something similar.
  7. You'll have to forgive me, I apologize. I really thought that the debate forum was for one on one discussions and not only for objections. Otherwise, I would not have taken up everyones time. I won't say anything else, until I'm in the debate forum. I respect and understand the fact that this forum is privately run and if you wish that I not question Objectivism on this forum, I will abide or take it to the debate forum. When I joined, it seemed that there had been a precedent set that allowed for objections in general topics, and I didn't realize how important it was that those rules be followed. It was not my intention to be this much of a problem.
  8. You'll have to forgive me, I apologize. I really thought that the debate forum was for one on one discussions and not only for objections. Otherwise, I would not have taken up everyones time. I won't say anything else, until I'm in the debate forum. I respect and understand the fact that this forum is privately run and if you wish that I not question Objectivism on this forum, I will abide or take it to the debate forum. When I joined, it seemed that there had been a precedent set that allowed for objections in general topics, and I didn't realize how important it was that those rules be followed. It was not my intention to be this much of a problem.
  9. Something that is self-evident is something that cannot be otherwise. In this case, you argue that volition is self-evident because you need volition in order to argue against it. And I see where you're coming from. I can understand your point. But I think there may be a possibility that volition is a social reality, and I'd like to explore that possibility (on this forum), but I can't because there's a law against it. A social reality: A perceived reality fundamentally based on interactions with other individuals (i.e. were it not for social interaction, that reality would not exist). I forgot to add books: The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Fountainhead, parts of Peikoff's introductory book and various essays. I don't think this is that important though, I don't consider myself a 100% bonafide Objectivist (therefore I cannot be an Objectivist), but I agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Let me restate, that I think that "reason must assume freedom as a condition of its existence in order to act, even if freedom was not actually a fact of its existence." Therefore, this is not a practical problem for Objectivism. It's just a matter of curiosity (and the possible reality of the situation).
  10. If it is such a strict philosophy, then why is there so much difficulty in its application? Leonard Peikoff voted for Kerry. Did you? I did make a mistake, in capitalizing Objectivism. Or perhaps I shouldn't have even referred to it as objectivism. Perhaps I should have called it a philosophy for living on earth. Are you really interested in Objectivism as an end in itself or are you interested in living on earth / objective truth? Which is the priority? That's like saying I'd rather be a good Christian than do what's right. And if being a good Christian is what is right, then why not just do what is right?
  11. I stand corrected on #2, but I don't believe it effects the argument at all. If apes are not volitional, humans evolved from apes, and humans are volitional, somewhere along the line, humans must have acquired volition. How and when? I believe there are 3 possible answers: (A or B or C) A. Volition evolved along with humans. B. There was no acquisition. Subjective [human] experience presupposes objective reality. C. In some miraculous event, humans acquired volition. (By "volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity" I mean that we could not know of evolution (have an idea of evolution) without volition, and therefore, volition must presuppose our knowledge of evolution.) Option B: My abbreviated answer is as follows: (I believe) our knowledge of evolution does not presuppose evolution itself. This must true unless we assert that our subjective experiences (and the resulting knowledge of what we experience) presuppose the objective world we experience. In other words, it must be true unless this desk that I'm sitting at ceases to exist when I turn my back. If you want to use a conceptual example, dinosaurs did not exist until I read about them and trusted the subjective experiences of dinosaur authorities. But I assert that when I leave work, the desk is still here and that whether or not I learn or read about dinosaurs, they still existed. I may not have an idea of dinosaurs if I never learn about them, but I maintain that they existed nonetheless. Again, Objectivism holds that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Therefore, it doesn't seem to matter whether or not we know evolution happened or what evolution was - only that it did happen and it does exist (outside of our own experience). Therefore, option B does not seem to be feasible. Option C: This is irrational and raises a number of questions, specifically, how and when? If it is not B or C (I can think of no alternative options), then it is A. But something that is self-evident cannot evolve. It just is. If volition is self-evident, it must be either B or C. I already outlined what I believe to be the nature of volition (a social reality) in my last post. If this is the case, then (it would take more explanation) but option A would be feasible. I don't want to reitterate I posted last time - but you can apply my conclusions here. I think - at a fundamental level - Objectivism is about living on earth. And in order to live, one must understand the environment that they live in. I would argue that existence exists whether or not you know it. Like I said, the goal of Objectivism shouldn't be self-preservation. It should change as we learn about our environment. If I question the environment that I live in, I looking for truth, not to destroy Objectivism. This isn't propoganda. It's raising questions. If I'm not satisfied with the answer, I'll keep questioning until I am satisfied or I can't question anymore. As an Objectivist, I am surprised that you're using the "us" and "them" mentality. It should be "you and "I."
  12. I realize that my recent posts may be construed as attacks on Objectivism. However, that depends on how you define Objectivism. I define it first and foremost as a philosophy for living on earth. In this way, Objectivism isn't a rigid, unmoving philosophy, but one that mirrors the progress of human knowledge. As humans progress, I hope that Objectivism will progress with it - and the only way human knowledge can expand is by asking questions and demanding answers. Otherwise, the world would still be flat, yeah? Wasn't that self-evident at one point? My interest in this forum is due to the fact that I am deeply interested in the nature of the world around me and consequently, the manner in which I should live. I find that many members of this forum (and Ayn Rand) share that same desire. Ultimately, I am here to learn how to live and not here to learn about Objectivism as somebody else defines it. I think it's important to continue this discussion. If it is an attack on Objectivism, it should be defendable. Also, I realize that I don't usually defend Objectivism on this forum. This is largely due to the fact that I often agree with what is being said. If I agree then I'm satisfied, and I don't have any further questions. I apologize for sounding pathetically epic in the beginning, but hopefully, you'll understand my approach?
  13. While researching volition [as a social reality], I came across a few articles that also included sexuality as a social reality. Here is a more comprehensive article of what I found: Sexual Response Hypothesis: Sexuality is a social reality. I consider myself a straight male. Moreover, I cannot imagine being attracted to the same sex. To me it seems to be a self-evident fact. I am sexually attracted to women. But after further thought, I don't think that I'm "naturally" straight anymore. In fact, I don't think ANYONE is "naturally" straight, nor do I think anyone is "naturally" homosexual. I think I'm SOCIALLY straight. To my knowledge, there's only been one study that showed any kind of chemical/neurological difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but that data was taken from very few individuals and could easily explained by neural plasticity (how the sensory environment affects the development of a brain). A friend of mine recently claimed that he was straight and that sexuality is self-evident. First I asked him whether it's natural for a heterosexual male to be sexually aroused by a naked woman. His answer was "Yes." I then asked him, if that was so, why aren't Yanomami tribesmen walking around with erections all day long? He had no answer. I then asked him, if he liked to see naked women, why? If he liked to see breasts, why? He reverted again to self-evidence. I realize that volition and sexuality are not exactly the same, but I thought that if one might be convinced that sexuality is a social reality, one might be convinced that volition is a social reality. Conversely, I thought that if I might be convinced that sexuality is self-evident, that I might be convinced that volition is self evident. So my question is: Do you think sexuality is a social reality or do you think it is self-evident or something else? Why?
  14. We use a shure sm57 for instruments ($80-90) and a shure sm58 ($80-90) for vocals (now we've upgraded to a low-end compressor microphone, which is much, much better - I highly recommend compressor microphones for vocals, at least). For recording, editing, effects, and production we use ProTools and the basic plug-ins that come with it. For drums, we listen to a variety of music (mostly electronic/rap - Ghostface Killah is good) and find isolated drum beats, record the individual hit into ProTools, crop the area around the drum beat, save it, and then upload and paste it over and over when and wherever we want to use that kind of drum in a song. No traditional samples or loops. For a good selection and good service: Sweetwater We don't have any concerts scheduled yet as we 1.) have very demanding, professional jobs and 2.) haven't completed our demo yet / finished our rough drafts but by the summer we should be out and about on weekends / Thursday nights.
  15. 1. Apes aren't volitional. 2. Humans were once apes. 3. Humans are volitional. Therefore, at some point (or over time), humans must have acquired volition. The answer seems to be: Volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity. By that logic, the idea of evolution can't exist without volition - fine. But it doesn't matter because the universe still exists independently of you (as an individual) and your thoughts. If you die, I'll still be alive. If we all die, the earth will still orbit the sun. Your idea of the earth orbiting the sun won't exist, but what that idea represents will. Ayn Rand: As for an explanation of man's acquisition of volition (in the context of evolution), I will try as best as I can. This is a working hypothesis, based on some research I've been doing: First of all, it seems that we're talking [generally] about conciousness, and [specifically] about two seperate ideas: 1. Awareness of the sensory world (Self-Awareness). 2. Volition (The voluntary control of thoughts and actions). Hypothesis: Both 1) and 2) are products of perceived social realities, fundamentally rooted in neurobiological mechanics. Here we go: We perceive ourselves as agents that are endowed with the freedom to decide and control (by will) processes in the brain. In order to perceive ourselves as such agents, we must be able to 1.) sense (see, hear, smell, feel, etc) and 2.) differentiate our individual sensory data from the data of others. In order for me to have an idea of my "self" I need to realize that my perceptions are not your perceptions. Therefore, we need social interaction in order to develop a sense of self. It is this sense of self that leads to the perception that one has a choice - because you could be doing what somebody else is doing - or an action that someone else has done. However, their actions are based on their stored and immediate sensory data. Your awareness of their sensory data means that there's a difference between your actions and theirs, not that your actions could be theirs. Such social interaction (communication) begins when we interact with other individuals after birth. In this way, early social interactions begin laying the foundation for your future self-awarness (differentiating between "my thoughts" and "your thoughts"). Consequently, the idea of individualism and of responsibility are products of social interactions during early development. These ideas eventually develop into the ideas of self-awareness and volition. However, in [objective] reality, conciousness has the ontological status of a social reality but not an objective reality. This is why conciousness seems to transcend neurobiological explanation (but in actuality, does not). Unfortunately, due to the immaturity of episodic memory during development, we are unable to remember such events taking place. Thus the evolution of self-perception is lost during our early childhood. What this means regarding man's acquisition of volition? Man never acquired it. It evolved along with his brain. Socially-based "volition" evolved as the human ability to store sensory data (memory) became more and more advanced. The more sound-object associations we were able to store, the more we were able to communicate. The more we were able to communicate, the more we were able to differentiate between our actions/ideas and those of other communicators. Ultimately, the more we differentiated, the more "aware" we became of our own identity (that our actions weren't the actions of others). Because we had no episodic memory of the evolution of socially-based self-awareness, it seemed (and seems) that volition is self-evident. It would also follow that animals (including humans) simply have different levels of volition - not that volition is solely a human phenomenon. Chimps are more self-aware than mice because their brains are more advanced on a neurbiological level. This enables them to communicate at a more advanced level than mice and thus develop more complex social structures. In conclusion: 1. Apes are volitional. 2. Humans were once apes. 3. Humans are more volitional than apes. 4. Volition is based on the ability of the brain to store data (and thus communicate with other brains). Therefore, the ability of the human brain to store data is more advanced than the ability of the ape brain's data storage capacity, making humans more "volitional" than apes because they're brains are ultimately more advanced. 1. Awareness of the sensory world (Self-Awareness). This is (in objective reality), a social phenomenon that describes the manner in which I acknowledge that you act differently than I do. 2. Volition (The voluntary control of thoughts and actions). This becomes the false belief that because your action is different than my action, and I am aware of my action, I can be doing what you're doing. In actuality, I cannot, because your action is based on your own (immediate and stored) sensory data, and my action is based on my own (immediate and stored) sensory data. So if there is a neurobiological explanation, what is it? Well, it's obviously extremely complex. It's the sum of a measurable but overwhelming amount of different interacting parts. I apologize for being so long-winded.
  16. From a geology major... He's right and he's wrong and then he's very wrong. First of all, in relatively stagnant water (think an ocean basin, lake basin, pool basin in a river, etc.) sediment IS laid down exactly like pancakes: ============ ============ ============ ... and so on and so forth. However, if the sediment is deposited in a river/stream/even beach/tidal area bed, the flow of water alters the sediment arrangement. I'm not sure if you're brother meant that the books are arranged like this: ||||||| or like this \\\\\\\ or //////. The correct answer is that the sediments are layed diagonally with the diagonal pointing upward towards the direction of flow: \\\\\\\\\\\\ <---- Water flow You can actually figure out the flow of any ancient stream/river in seconds by simply observing the arrangement of sediments. But his logic is terrible. This doesn't stop layers from accumulating. It's just means that the sediments within each layer are arranged diagonally instead of horizontally. It doesn't stop layers from forming... For instance: \\\\\\\\\\ <----- Water Flow \\\\\\\\\\ <----- Water Flow \\\\\\\\\\ instead of ====== - Stagnant - ====== - Stagnant - ====== And still, there's sediment deposited in stagnant water, which does accumulate like stacks of pancakes. And even still, there's carbon dating... If you don't mind me saying so, both arguments are rediculous. The intelligence argument has already been sufficiently refuted.
  17. In the context of evolution, when did man acquire volition, and how? I can't imagine that some thousand years ago an ape was simply born with volition and now here we are today. Musn't there have been some kind of evolution of volition? If so, how would that work? If not, how was it simply acquired? Did God give the apes volition (I'm joking - but you see my point)? I took out all of my assertions (or lack thereof). I'm just asking a question now. It's almost more of a history question than a philosophical question. When did man acquire volition?
  18. Please see the note. I'm saying that I do not have enough confidence in either option to commit to one or the other. However, for the sake of living on earth as I know it, I agree that "reason must assume freedom as a condition of its existence in order to act, even if freedom was not actually a fact of its existence." I don't think it's impossible to act on an assumption while at the same time investigating whether or not that assumption is fact or fiction. But I don't want to go in this direction, I'd rather have an answer to my question, which was:
  19. http://paincenter.stanford.edu/research/rtfmristudy.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4524138.stm At this point, I am neither for or against self-evident volition. This study seems to suggest that volition does exist. However, I believe that most neuroscientists (those that I've either talked to or read about) would argue that volition is simply a result of neural mechanics. It seems that if something is self-evident, there is no need to ask "Why?" and there is now need to ask "How?" However, I can't help but pose the following question: In the context of evolution, when did man acquire volition, and how? I can't imagine that some thousand years ago an ape was simply born with volition and now here we are today. Musn't there have been some kind of evolution of volition? If so, how would that work? If not, how was it simply acquired? Did God give the apes volition (I'm joking - but you see my point)? Note: Although I'm neither for or against volition, I do think that - at this point - accepting volition as a self-evident fact is the best way for "living on earth." I can't see how accepting any alternative would be more or as productive. Like donnywithana said,
  20. At the moment, I'm reading Anthem, I've read 3 Ayn Rand books/compilations (I'm still very much a rookie) and a bunch of individual essays. I find that sometimes I wish that I had read a certain book or essay first. If you were to introduce someone to Objectivism (Christmas season has me thinking), in what order would you recommend they read her books/compilations/essays? I don't want it to seem like a pyramid scheme, but I think I've found that, for instance, Philosophy: Who Needs It is more fundamental than The Romantic Manifesto. I'd prefer to hear from those who've read nearly everything. So the question is: If someone decided they wanted to learn about Objectivism and were set on reading every work of Rand, in what order would you recommend they read her works? You may introduce Leonard Peikoff at some point as well (if you like).
  21. Play, Music Creation, Mix, Sing in that order. My friend Sings, Lyric Creation, Music Creation, Plays and Mixes in that order.
  22. Below is a link to my band's myspace website: CITIES So far, we've opened up for The Walkmen and Bling Kong. These are all drafts and very much unfinished. We have a lot more songs but all of them are generally mid-production like these. Enjoy.
  23. I also enjoy TV on The Radio. Although, I don't think they have given themselves much room to expand musically (if they want to remain within the same framework).
  24. I believe the best band at the moment is Interpol. Interpol has nearly perfected a variety of artistic elements. I've heard many claim that they're ripping off Echo and The Bunnymen, Joy Division, R.E.M. and a variety of other 80's/90's bands, but there are some major differences that I'd like to point out (for the record). 1. Dynamics: Interpol has almost perfected the art of musical dynamics. They alter the mood of their songs largely by subtle synth changes (usually background high-frequency sounds). 2. Production: Obviously, Interpol has the advantage recording and producing at this day in age. Regardless, they're above and beyond many in the field today. Also, I realize that the production is a producers job, but nearly all bands have input during the production process and should be given credit. 3. Performance/Image: The black/red color scheme works perfectly with the tone of the music and the performance is a ghastly/intense/epic experience that one might expect after really listening intently. The light show is awesome as well. Other bands that are close to the top: - M83 - Out Hud - !!! - Hum - Failure - Junior Boys - Ratatat - Boards of Canada - The Magnetic Fields - Neil Young (Harvest Moon - Admittedly, it's more the prairie nostalgia than the music) - The Smiths - Royksopp - The Beatles - Elliot Smith - Jimmy Eat World (Clarity) - Weezer (Minus their latest album) - The Arcade Fire - Stars - Metric - Death From Above 1979 - Kenna - Death Cab for Cutie - Elliott Smith - Jason Forrest - Broken Social Scene
  25. Ignore the first post. The second post was a clarification and an addition - a more concrete example of physical initiation (for better) upon another individual. I apologize for being unclear. However, I didn't have calling the cops in mind, nor did I say that. The bribe can be prevented a number of ways. Perhaps the friend locked him in the bathroom or what have you. I guess another example of what I'm thinking is this: Should I have the right to go as fast as I'd like on the highway? Is it immoral for me to go as fast as I'd like? Is it immoral to interfere with my speed, regardless of whether or not it's irrational? Is it unrightful to interfere? Is it only moral then, to interfere with my speed once I physically initiate force upon another individual (hit another individual's car)? What if instead of producing cars that were capable of speeds of 150mph, automobile manufacturers were only allowed to produce cars that were capable of speeds of 80mph? Would that be unrightful? Would that have moral worth? It seems that the Objectivist response would say, "The government shouldn't regulate how fast cars can go. I can drive as fast as I'd like - so long as I don't physically harm anyone else. It is morally corrupt to punish the innocent." However, I'd like to think that there's some kind of moral gradient. I would say, "In a perfect world, the government wouldn't regulate how fast I can go, but in a perfect world, other individuals wouldn't risk my life for their desire to drive a speeding vehicle. I will sacrifice my innocence in this scenario, because it's not THAT much of a big deal. It's not THAT devastating to my individual rights. It's a small sacrifice that I'm willing to make for the general benefit of the public, and therefore, myself." This sounds rather Utilitarian (I presume it's not)... might you care to elaborate?
  • Create New...