Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tobyk100

Regulars
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About tobyk100

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    High School Student
  1. I think the idea probably is that there could be someone in the building or that the fire could get way out of hand and kill many. But lets speak hypothetically and say we knew it wasn't going to kill anyone. First: What is the justification for punishing someone for commiting a crime? If they pay you the monetary damages then what right to you have to lock them up? I assume it is the fact that they endager the rights of others therefore it is just to suspend their rights until you think they will again honor the rights of others. Therefore when you see someone about to infringe upon the rig
  2. I'm currently applying for college and I'm filling out all the forms and essays. I was wondering if you think that talking about Objectivism or Ayn Rand's novels (possibly a response to the essay question about a fictional character) would be a negative when the college reads my application. It could make me look educated and thoughtful but then again what if they are vehementaly opposed to Rand's views, as I assume most liberal educators are. Your thoughts? Thanks.
  3. The point about beliefs was to complete the anology. Just like person A no longer is acting to end B's life, the Japanese person is no longer actin to end the Americans life. The point of this post is not "Should A act to end B's life," it was assumed by the author that it was right for A to save himself. The question is "How should B feel towards A if they meet later in life?" The example of the war veterans show how it might be possible for two people, who once where acting to take the others life, to be friends later on in life, after the conflic has been resolved.
  4. I disagree. They were not working to murder each other, and I asume that if there was room for 2 people on the raft that A and B would have agreed to share the raft. They were fighting to maintain their own lives. Here is a similar real life example: An american veteran of WW2 meeting a japanese veteran of WW2. Lets say that the japanese person was drafted and believed in freedom and not the emperor (so our 2 vets are of the same morale beliefs). Is the American justified in hating the Japanese person because at one point that Japanese person tried to end his life? I don't believe so. I thi
  5. I am not sure where you can find Ayn Rand talking about courage explicitly (implicitly try pretty much all her books, they all have characters who have the courage to do what is right.) But in my understanding courage is being able to do something thatmight scare or embarrass yet in the end will make you happier. Like the courage to apologize, the courage to quit your job and start your own business. Basically weighing risk vers reward and if the reward outways the risk, having the courage to do it.
  6. Just wondering if anyone on these forums has ever gone to one, and if it is worth it?
  7. If this person beats his animal for no other reason than to gain pleasure from the animal's pain, or to relief his own mental pain by transferring it onto the animal, you are dealing with someone who has serious mental problems. You should try talking to this person, and if that doesn't work avoid contact, and alert your neighbors to his actions. That doesn't mean you have the right to take away his property. A dog has no more meaning than a punching bag. You wouldn't call the cops on a guy beating up his punching bag, would you?
  8. Hey I live in the Bay Area. East Bay. By the way, my girlfriend is part of that facebook group.
  9. Let me clarify. I didn't find pleasure in the fact that it was harmless, I took pleasure in the fact that I could shoot it (it happened to be harmless). I put harmless in there to make the point that there was no justification (as in danger, food, ect.) beside the pride of being able to shoot it. I felt good about my aim/skill. So I think I have (with your help) answered the question for myself. It is moral because I took pleasure in my ability to properly utilize this particular instrument.
  10. Thanks for all the replies and disscussion. I might as well tell you all the truth: My family got an air gun to shoot racoons and possum, who were eating our chickens (nothing morally wrong with that I suppose). I was thinking about killing the raccoons, realizing I would have to be up late at night and have good aim. So I decided to do some target practice. I got a tenis ball and started to shoot at it. Surprisingly I could hit it from a good distance, I guess it is easier to shoot a rifle than it looks. After a while I decided to do some live target practice. I started walking around my y
  11. What is the morality of me going into my back yard and shooting a squirrel? Obviously if I were going to eat the squirrel then it would be fine, but I am wondering what if I just shoot it and leave it dead? Basically: Is it okay to kill animals for sport, and not for survival?
  12. I agree with the original poster. When I am working through Objectivism in my head I always have trouble with this one: Why is life a right? Once you assume that life is a right, then you can build on that about values, but why is it a right? I'll try to answer: As a human being you have volition. An animal does not choose to live, but a human chooses to live. By actively contributing to your survival (getting food, shelter ect.) you are choosing to live. Does an animal have the right to life? No. So what is the difference between a human and an animal? Although both humans and anima
  13. Wow! The guys says "Who would give their lives to Jesus?" and all the kids jump up and shout. Is the evangelical movement made more popular by the fact that people see it as a way to beat terrorists, on a moral front, because if so it would help them greatly to realize that the opposite of radical Islam is not radical Christianity, but reason.
  14. I understand that Objectivism is not a political party, but a "closed" philosophy. If there are minor disagreements in the philosophy, at what point do you call someone an Objectivist. If someone believes that existence exists, and that A is A, and that man is an end in himself, does that make him an Objectivist? Or does he need to accept more? I was just wondering how different the other factions are? I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong, this forum accepts the "Ayn Rand Institute" as the intellectual heir of Objectivism. If you take a step back are the differences really that big, an
×
×
  • Create New...