Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Copyright
  • Occupation
    High School Student

tobyk100's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  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 rights of someone (set a fire) you are just in attempting to stop them. So the question becomes how far can you go to stop them? To this I can not answer seeing as how I am not very good at thinking that deeply or philosophically, so at this point I will stray from my logic and philosophy and just turn to hyperbole by saying that I don't think you should be able to kill someone who is about to cause monetary harm. But this now raises another philosophical point, if it is unjust to kill someone over monetary matters, what happens when the monetary value becomes large (like blowing up billions of dollars in infrastructure) and lets say we foresee that the loss of this infrastructure will possibly be a factor in the death of someone (like a starving African village that can't get medicine now because the cost is to great). Then is it right to kill them?
  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 think that a rational person would say that the two should respect each other (and I'm pretty sure that meetings of the veterans from both countries has occured).
  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 yard looking for a squirrel and when I saw one I went down on one knee, clicked the saftey off and hit the squirrel right in the neck. I'm not going to lie; I felt pretty good about my aim, but I also felt/feel bad. I don't feel bad for the squirrel or its family, I just feel bad because I had no reason to shoot it. I guess it was for personal entertainment, which is a reason and that makes me think there is nothing immoral. So the question comes down to this: Is it wrong to feel pleasure at shooting a harmless animal? NOT: Is it wrong to shoot a harmless animal? My answer to the second question is "no." But what about the first question? Your thoughts?
  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 animals can live, as well as be killed, only a human can CHOOSE to die. So, if you accept that a being has volition (humans) then they have the right to life, because it is the fundamental choice of that being. Without the choice the being should not be considered human. Why does a baby have rights? That is tough, maybe because they will grow into a being that can choose life? But then why is it acceptable to kill a fetus? Summary Humans have the right to life, because to be a human you must answer the question "to be or not to be." No one else can answer, therefore the right to life (the most basic right) is in the individual. Non Sequitor: Once you accept the right to life you build the other rights. If someone has the right to life then they have the right to promote their own life, by using their labor produtivly and using the outputs of their labor. I hope that answered more questions than it raised... I appreciate feedback from everyone.
  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, and if so, what are these differences (not rhetorical, I am truly ignorant on this subject)?
  • Create New...