Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

mordecai's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. So.. any extremesport is immoral by you logic? If someone finds pleasure in risky thrillseeking, I will not condemn them. Most people live safe lives, and need the thrills to get the rush of adrenaline to feel alive. I see nothing wrong with that.
  2. I was surprised to discover a band from the country of Ragnar Danneskjold, and also my homecountry, Norway who seem to be heavily influenced by Objectivism. Their lyrics convey a specific objectivist message and they even make numerous references to Ayn Rands litterature. The bands name is Spiral Architect Here is a excerpt from their homepage: "Spiral Architect is about continual development, idealism, and intensity. Spiral Architect is controlled anarchy. The aim is to make music that challenges the listener, as well as pushes the abilities of the musicians and man. " They even made a song called "Fountainhead": Fountainhead [Music: Norberg, Gornitzka, Gundersen, Mickelson] [Lyrics: Gornitzka] Crave for no more, nor the self that would Not even that which always is there Needy of naught, but to be constrained From any care and want of a selfish urge What is needed save strengthened will of man Fulfilment of all that is latent within What is to fear, what do they hate? How can they even bear to look at themselves Those who love to crawl? Near breaking point From the bows you've made Towards the constructed Deity's power Reverence due, not to unseen mights nor lack of clarity, but to the well-known, familiar ever present miracle of the I, Fountainhead of... progress How can anyone with serious integrity abandon all that's left for me and still be free to seek what's real? Where's the logic thought, the one thing that should be guide our way throughout this solitary state that we call life? Where's the I, Fountainhead of progress? Truly inspiring lyrics. Here is a link to their homepage where you can also hear some soundclips from their album A Sceptic's Universe http://www.spiralarchitect.com/ To read their lyrics you can go here: http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/spiralarc...csuniverse.html
  3. Without courage, Hank Rearden would never had made Rearden metal. Without courage, Dagny Taggart would never had made the John Galt line. Courage is the ability to dare risks, and to be true to your convictions.
  4. ...cheat on your taxes? The way I see it, obstructing the looters can in no way be immoral. If I don't say to the mugger that I have a gold watch too after he's taken my wallet, am I an immoral liar? I think not. ...fraud the government in order to receive welfare? When the police and justice system isn't capable of obtaining my rightful propery, I take it upon myself to do so. If my car gets stolen, and I find it parked outside a house, and the police will do nothing, am I not within my rights to steal it back?
  5. It was not called for. What you are saying is that we should go about calling everyone that isn't an Objectivist a thug. While it in many ways may be true, it is not a smart method to use if you wish to enlighten people about objectivism and rationality. Are you saying that if I think you're stupid, I will be lying if I don't call you a moron? This is poor logic. Did he have to call him anything? How about refuting his arguements in a friendly way? Is that concept impossible to you?
  6. Why the agressive tone? This is exactly the kind of thing that deters people from Objectivism - so many of it's advcates are unable to keep a friendly tone in debates. Why is this? The only error the original poster made was to use a false premise? What language would you apply towards a worshipper of altruism and socialism? In AS, it is clearly demonstrated that remaining civil in debates is considered a virtue. Why are so many Objectivists so hot headed?
  7. Is there a moral basis for a law that makes buying stolen goods punishable? The idea behind such laws is of course to make it harder for criminals to profit from their crimes. So one could conclude that the intentions are noble. But how would you go about to morally defend these laws? Who's rights am I violating by buying these goods? The way I see it, I can in no way violate anyones rights by buying stolen goods - the responsibility of violating the original owners property right rests solely on the shoulders of the thief. Also, proving that I had, or should have, knowledge that the goods were stolen will be highly speculative and arbitrary. Is there a difference if: - I don't know they are stolen, but have suspicions about their origin? - If I know for sure they are stolen? - I don't have suspicions, but I should have had? Please help me untangle this. Am I missing something vital? (Remember that I fully understand that buying stolen goods is immoral, I ask if there is basis for a law banning it)
  8. Rights are a concept. An invention of man. They don't exist per default. For a right to exist it requires a conscious choice. However, the notion of Lockean rights occur naturally when applying rational thought. (The string of logic used for this is well described by Ayn Rand and other) The only right that can exist by its own virtue in correlation to mans nature as a rational being is the right to live. Once again, by applying rational thought you realize that no right to life can exist without the right of property. Taking another mans means to survive by the threat of force is a violation of his right to live. (Stealing another mans property can kill him, ie burning his harvest so he starves to death.) This means that the right to property is naturally derived from the right to live.
  9. For those who live by Objectivist ethics, and advocate rational selfishness. Because it's embarrasing to witness people who allegedly share the same ideals try to pervert them into fitting their own prejudice views. There is only ONE valid arguement, and that is: "Homosexuality isn't determined by genetical disposition, it is rather the result of a conscious choice." There are no scientifical evidence for this being true. You cannot base your arguement on false premises and wishful thinking. And even if this was proven right, the intellectual entanglement that it entails is complicated and would not give us a clear answer to the moral implications involved without a lengthy discussion - a discussions that should find place then. Not now, when there is no premise. If you seek irrational and unfounded gayhating, I advice you to discard objectivism. It is not for you.
  10. Ayn Rand did speak ill of homosexuals on one occasion, but she exressed herself differently on several occasions. Her brother-in-law was an open homosexual and so were some of her "inner circle" friends. Seeing how she adviced to judge what is immoral according to her essay "How to live a rational life in an irrational society" I very much doubt she found homosexuality immoral. So the founder of the philosophy you supposedly follow does not think homosexuality is immoral. Can this discussion end? It's embarrasing.
  11. thank you for your quick reply, allthough I was hoping for somewhat more detailed answers. Care to elaborate?
  12. How does Objectivism regard insider trading? What effect does it have on the economy? Posistive? Negative? If negative : Could one call insider trading fraud and by such ban it by law? If insider trading is negative but there is no moral basis to ban it, will it not criple the economic system as it is today? Would trade decrease as a result of less trust in eachothers? Are there any moral implications?
  13. I fully unterstand your views, but there are some confusion here. What is the value of life? Life for me? Life for you? Life for my wife? Life for a stranger? Life for an animal? Universal life? These are all different values and shouldn't be mixed into one category. By the grace of nature we are equipped with certain instincts that are essential to our survival. First and foremost, our instinct of survival. If we had no desire to survive then we wouldn't value life as high as we do. Ergo, the process of assigning value is guided by both reason and the nature of man. There are of course some extreme cases of people who do not value life at all, neither his own nor others'. This tells us that life isn't the ultimate value for all humans, yet the claim is still valid because you cannot take such extreme cases in consideration. This is not true. By observing the nature of human beeings, we can observe that humans possess a strong will to live. We observe that humans will go to extremes to stay alive. By the use of reason we realize that this is an intricate part of our nature. Without this latent will to outlive, we would perish. From there we can by the use of reason determine that life is our most important value (except for the aforementioned extreme cases of psykopaths) That is a logical and rational conslusion of why life is our most important value. Values are not exclusively determined by choice. Most of our values are determined subconsciously. You cannot for instance choose not to value your wife anymore, nor can you choose to stop to value life. However, some values require some level of choice. "Do I choose to believe this person? What are my senses telling me?". And by the use of reason you can also discover irrational values. However, the act of self-sacrifice almost never occurs naturally. It is promoted by altruism, but even with altruism as the ethics of the last millennia, taxes are collected at gunpoint. Because altruism is not compatible with the nature of humans. Many acts that are considered noble and virtuous, and even selfless, are acts of self interest. If ou save a drowning man, many would call it a selfless act. Yet this is a quite horrendous claim, as it implies that other men have noe value to you. This is the fallacy of altruism. Life is the ultimate goal, but it's not necessarily your own life. If you love your wife highly enough to say you would die for her, you value her higher. This is not opposed by objectivist ethics. However, if you value other persons higher than yourself, it's relative to the value of your own life - if your wife dies you would find your own life unbearable and worthless, so by valuing your wife higher than yourself, you try to avoid the situation of losing her, and becoming depressed and possibly commit suicide. This is of course not your conscious reason for valuing her. I hope this cleared up some of the confusion.
  14. Chien, you should read the essay "Emergency Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. You seem to have the miscomprehension that objectivist ethics prohibits care for strangers and/or the disadvantaged. As all values stem from the value of life, to all rational men life is a value in it's own. Therfore the preservation of the life of others is in the interest of a rational man. Should you save a drowning man who is a stranger to you? This depends on the risk there is of losing your most important value, yourself. If the risk is non-existant, then yes, unless you are a psychopath who doesn't value life at all, you're morally obligated to save him in order not to act against your own interest. If the risk is high, it can not be expected that you value life in general more than your own life, and thus you should not take the risk. If the person who is drowning is your wife, you can by objectivist ethics willing risk your own life for her sake. Because you value your wife higher than yourself. So your belief that Objectivist ethics precludes solidarity is false. This is a common fallacy, as altruists only believe solidarity can be achieved by force, and not by the goodness of man.
  • Create New...