Matthew J

This is something that always bugged me about iRobot. In the movie, Will Smith accuses a robot (Sunny) of murder and wants it destroyed. The other characters assure him that robots don't have volition, so could not have committed a murder. the movie goes on to explain how "ghosts in the machine" could have possibly created a sentient and rational robot. The audience is left to assume that Sunny is one of these. Will Smith however does not want to treat Sunny like a rational volitional being. It is my understanding that this would qualify sunny for rights, but Will insists that the robot (though able to make choices like murder) cannot have a right to live, or any of the derivative rights like freedom of action, property or even a trial to investigate facts. my family just said i dont know how to enjoy a movie.

In my ethics course at my university, Ayn Rand and Objectivism are listed under Ethical consquentialism with the rest of the so called "ethical egoism". i rather thought that (after reading OPAR) O'ism was an instance of Virtue ethics. does anyone have any evidence for either case? Thank you

Thank you all for your replies. I see a little more context was needed, and I apologize. My question however, was answered very effectivly. The only question I should like to address is that the dichotomy was "apperant" because I know there is no difference between my rational mind and my desires, simply contradictions I choose to nurture. My apologies for not addressing your other questions and comments. Both were helpful and appreciated. Edit: I found and fixed the contradiction, and there was a happy ending

What does one do, when there appears to be a dichotomy between ones rational values and one's sexual desires? Is it possible that one can genuinely feel sexually attracted to women he finds morally repulsive? What should one do if this appears to be the case? How does one handle feelings of fear that he will treat women worthy of his respect with no honor, because he desires them sexually as well, and does not wish them to be "just another girl"? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Ifat: I tried something similar once, I think. If you think you are right, it does not matter, because most of us don't, and that includes that moderators it seems, and it is their forum. Thus, it is their perogative, and responsibility, to remove hostile posts or posters. I do not know if this is the case in this scenario, but I trust it will be handled correctly. Best wishes.

Welcome!

I very nearly caught myself asking "who will pay for the prisons in a free society", but then noticed the similarities to the question "who will take care of the poor in a free society". Instead, how would criminals be punished in a free society, and if prisons are necesary, who will build own and run them? Private parties or government?

Excellent story. Hear Hear!

I once tested for Mensa. It was shoddily organized and when I passed, I decided I didnt want to be a member after all. I decided that if they were really as smart as I had thought they were, they would have some actual marketable resources and decent organizational skills. Plus, my tester looked kinda like that guy in the middle lol

Thank you David. I was sure I had never read such nonsense in any works of Rand's. Such convoluted sentences or ideas would be out of place in any Objectivist work I believe. Am I wrong?

Tell me again why we are in Iraq?? It is very frustrating for me to read this kind of stuff.

a bit belated maybe, but I hadnt heard of John Galt in 2002, and certainly hadn't read this article, much less understood its philosophical portents. Theres only one thing I'd raise a question about. The question in Atlas Shrugged is not what would happen if "the productive forces laboring under a despotic government" went on strike, but the men of the mind. I too am interested too see what has happened since then. Is this guy dead yet?

*more than a little upset* My day is not getting better. Is the world getting more and more irrational, or am I simply becoming more aware of it? Sometimes I wonder if the world is in a better, or worse state than when Ayn Rand was alive and writing. *sigh*

Is it fair to say that it simply clashes with my life-view, and my initial emotional response was dismissal? I think my primary disagreement is with a) that hero-worship is the essence of a woman. maybe an important part, or less important in others, but still not a defining attribute. Aside from that, I just can't accept the idea that a woman could not be an ideal POTUS.

Won't these companies rather just stop selling their products in France? Am I being Naive?

Welcome to the forum. I sincerely hope you find the answers you are looking for. I have very little to add to what featherfall has said, but simply would like to point out that your system of anarchy would be great, right up to the first time someone decided to be immoral. No one could find joy in the society you described. Lastly, I second the recomendation of Capitalism: the uknown ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness.

I also hope they lose everything. Leave my google alone!

/me bursts out laughing Yes, I happen to agree. In any case, I appreciate Dondigitalia's comments in post #3 and Felix's not long after. I would just like to add that while Human Life is the standard of value, your own life is its purpose, meaning your own happiness. Rand often states those two ideas together, so I thought it appropriate to add it here. Oh and Happy St. Pattricks day!

Thank you Diana, that was a very enjoyable post. I look forward to future additions.

I've been to Zion and Arches. Utah really has some very beautiful country. Unfortunately, I live 500 miles northward in the desert of southern Idaho. Still some beautiful land in the valley, but not quite the same. Hope your trip goes well!

...Holy crap this isnt the way to welcome an investigator. I hope you find everything you're looking for friend. Put your feet up and take a breath of fresh air, because there's alot of good things going on here. Welcome!

All I have to add to this is a hearty "Hear Hear!" to RationalCop and David Odden. My personal sense of life is best represented by their arguments.

Except if one is a criminal (lawful evil, chaotic evil), which is viewed as simply a different, but valid way of life. Then one can ignore trading value for value and still progress their character. Killing people has more serious repercussions than "the guards wont like you". Denying individual rights is more than a loss of Favor or Faction. A game in which being evil is fun or rewarding in the long run is simply not based on reality, reason or rights.

B. Royce: That was one of the most perfect poems I've read in a very long while. Thank you.

Not objectivist. The game doesnt look terribly innovative, well designed or even very fun... but I've been wrong before. I think I'll miss this one.