Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

There is no rational principle stating that one can do whatever the hell one wants to do with one's own body and it is rational and moral. And some things do not require an elaborate philosophical proof, because they are obvious. For example, it is obvious that getting a hair cut does one no harm but cutting off one's left arm with a machete does do one harm. The rational principle is human health and well-being. Cutting off one's penis, if not for medical reasons like penile cancer, which can kill you, is doing harm to oneself, and ought not to be done.

I'm not sure what was meant by "biological determinism" in a previous post. I don't think you were referring to free will / determinism, but rather should one learn to live with whatever one's DNA code has dished out? It all depends, since you made no specific references. Insofar as a chromosome or a DNA sequence or a gene can be shown to have malfunctioned, leading to a less than healthy human being, then by the standard of human health, something ought to be done about it. For example, I don't think those who have autism ought to learn to live with it, and if a way to correct it can be found, then by all means, make the correction. Trouble is, all we can do today is provide special brain medications that helps them to focus their mind, but it doesn't really cure the problem. In other words, we can correct for the symptoms, which is beneficial, but we don't have the cure. Similarly, if one is born with conflicting sex chromosomes, getting a sex change might correct for a symptom, but it does not provide the cure. For example, in another thread, someone said that the latest James Bond Girl was actually born a man with XX/XY sex chromosomes, and later got a sex change. We can't do anything about the extra sex chromosomes at this time, but nature determined that with that combination of sex chromosomes that he would be born a male. I'm not aware of any health problems arising from this or lack of functionality sexually, so why change it? By what standard? I would say, ideally, a way ought to be found to get rid of the extra sex chromosome so he could be more fully a male; but we cannot do that at this time. And I'm not sure a sex change to female corrected any negative symptoms. She is certainly not fully female, as she wouldn't have a womb or ovaries or eggs, so if the choice is maybe not being fully male or definitely not being fully female, how does one make that decision to amputate one's penis? What was gained? But I am definitely against the idea that a sex change is just cosmetic, like changing one's hair color or getting a face lift. One's sex is integral to one's whole body, whereas hair color is not.

**** Split from elsewhere, and merged into an existing topic. - sN *** --- Mod Note: Split from previous topic --- Where do all of you smart asses come from, and why can't you understand cell biology in simple terms? Your chromosomes are what make you what you are qua living being, and are causative to the development of your body including your sex. Added on edit: Normally speaking, XX sex chromosomes leads to one being female, while XY sex chromosomes leads to one being male. However, these chromosomes can be damaged /mutated leading to a different outcome; or one can have multiple sets of X or Y chromosomes or even off chromosomes that can lead to mutations of crossed sexes or even being a hermaphrodite (having both a penis and a vagina). Now, how is this an application of philosophy? Thinking in terms of causality is a philosophical stance. It is this philosophical stance (starting with Aristotle) that leads to the special sciences. No, philosophy per se will not make one a molecular biologist, and no, Ayn Rand never said anything about molecular biology, but understanding the world in terms of causes *does* come from a rational philosophy.

Well, I've searched and asked around, here and on FaceBook, and no one seems to remember a Peikoff podcast on tattoos and body piercings. It must not have been asked directly in the question because only the words of the question are searchable. So, I have asked him the following question, though it will be a while before we get an answer: I thought you had done a podcast on tattoos and body piercing stating that both were a type of body mutilation and shouldn't be done, but I can't find it. I would think that these would be on a spectrum at the low end with a sex change on the greater end of body mutilations. Can you clarify?

Another example of this "other factor principle" is the orbit of Mercury. Newtonian gravitational mechanics is a simple principle relating the mass of an object and the square of the distance from the object. With this principle, one can predict orbits of planets quite accurately. However, the orbit of Mercury would not fit within the margin of error of measurements taken, even in Newton's time. Was he supposed to scrap the whole effort of understanding gravity, or state that something else might be involves, though he doesn't know what? Turns out it took nearly 300 years to find that other factor, and that came about with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which accounts for Mercury's orbit. So, it is not very efficient to hold off stating a principle that has identified the causes, and yet may not have covered all of them, since it might be quite some time before the other factor is identified. The point is that we have not yet identified all of the factors involved in the development of one's sex while in the womb, though one's chromosomes are the main causative factor. But because one's sex is integrated all the way down to the molecular level (chromosomes are molecules), then just changing the genitals will not actually change one's sex down to that level -- at least not yet.

I can't find specific podcasts using Google, oo.net, or other search engines, but from memory, he's not against ear piercing in moderation (small earrings) and not against inconspicuous tattoos (small ones). The principle is that one ought not to mutilate one's own body, that one's own body is oneself and that one ought not to do things that harm or mutilate oneself. Remember that man's life is the standard, not doing anything you feel like doing because you believe it is cool (which would be subjectivism).

Yes, in that podcast, he indicated that getting a tattoo and getting a body piercing would be immoral. Trouble is, his search engine is really bad and I tried to look up that podcast, but couldn't do it. Maybe using Google specific to Piekoff.com key word "tattoo" would do it, but I don't know how to do that.

Added an edit to my original essay due to someone stating that a principle must apply to all of the facts without exceptions: Since proper principles are integrations of facts, there is no principle stating that one's principles must cover all the facts without exceptions. Exceptions indicate that either one has not yet properly identified the primary cause or that there are other factors involved that account for the exceptions. Dr. Peikoff in one of his courses gives the example of compatibility of blood types. Normally speaking, the different blood types are compatible with one another (O and O, for example) but there are cases where it is fatal to receive a blood transfusion of the same blood type. Turns out there is something called the Rh factor that makes them incompatible. But since this is yet another factor involved, it does not invalidate the principle that the same blood type is compatible with the same blood type. Similarly, since it does seem possible that one can be born with XX chromosomes and a penis, then something else is involved in the development of one's sex, which may not yet have been identified. It still doesn't mean that a sex change is in order according to the principle that one ought not to mutilate one's own body, but rather that the other factor ought to be identified and perhaps corrected. But it all does depend on how well a sex change operation is performed and if they can connect up the appropriate nerve endings and so forth. http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/applications_of_philosophy.htm

Where do you come up with this stuff? who has been talking about collective action against groups and who has said anything at all about rounding up all the Muslims in the USA and relocating them to camps? Ain't been nary a word about that. What Objectivists advocate is morally evaluating the ideas that people accept and thinking it through and finding out if those ideas comply with the enemy's ideas and will they act on those ideas during a war against Muslims? One reason why this war is going on so long and is very ineffectual is that our political leadership (including Bush) refuse to do this -- they refuse to see the danger of Islam, especially in its political form of Theocracy, as any type of threat against the United States. When Cordoba House was first proposed, the leadership of the NYC Mosque was NOT advocating a return to reason as part of his message regarding what he would be preaching, but rather getting along with those who do not agree with Islam -- to **some** degree -- without advocating that one dismiss the idea that infidels ought to be killed. He also had a lot of associations with Muslims being watched by our government as associating with and possibly being Islamic terrorists. He was a bad guy...a really bad guy...and no, he should not have been permitted to run a mosque dedicated to Islamic Theocracy during a time of war against Muslims (even though our government is too cowardly to call it that).

I think we were talking about two different time periods. Granted, the Muslims were more civilized than the Christians during the 9th-11th centuries, but the big battle came with the Islamic philosophers I mentioned, who took on Islam qua Koran more directly and would have led to a more Western style Renaissance if not squelched by their religious leaders. Like I've said before, the only reason why Christianity (Catholicism) didn't squelch the rebirth of Aristotle is because Aquinas made far too many good arguments in favor of Aristotle (calling him "The Philosopher") which shifted the thinking from Platonism to Aristotelianism (more focused on the facts of reality rather than on ideals not based upon the facts). Otherwise, one is talking about floating abstractions not applicable to daily life and directing man's mind away from existence in favor of Heaven or some other version of the world of the Forms.

I don't fully trust Wikipedia, but according to them the Islamic Golden Age extended from 750 AD to 1257 AD. The problem is that if one is talking about a rational philosophy leading to a cultural renaissance of Aristotelianism, then one has to mean the influence of Avicenna (980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198). So given the fact that it takes a while for a philosophy to have influence on a culture, we'd have to say roughly 1100 - 1250, and I don't think these Islamic philosophers had quite the same impact as Aquinas, who brought about the Renaissance leading to The Age of Enlightenment (and the eventual founding of America). The reason is that these Islamic philosophers did not re-integrate Aristotle as thoroughly as Aquinas, and that there was a backlash from Islamic Imams who reverted the culture back to the Koran and Islam, and it never recovered from that standing. Now, if there are Imams or Islamic intellectuals who seek to return to the teachings of Aristotle and form a cultural revolution, I am certainly all for that, but I don't think "Cordoba House" in commemoration of 911 was all for that. Given recent riots in the Islamic world over things like "Draw Mohamed Day" and the potential of burning Korans in protest and the accidental burning of a Koran in Kabul, and these leading to very large groups of Muslims wanting to kill Westerners, it would be a very long time before something like The Golden Age could return in the Middle East. By the way, my previous post about someone named Ibn was mistaken. Ibn is part of a title for son of so and so, like my name would be Ibn Thomas Miovas.

Another integration on this general topic Re Peikoff: * Man’s knowledge works by means of differentiation (from a background) and integration (of the items considered), focusing on a particular set of facts that are first set apart due to their difference from all other things considered. In this regard, Dr. Peikoff places a sex change under bodily mutilation. In other podcasts, he has talked about the spectrum of bodily mutilations including tattoos and body piercings, so a sex change would be in that category on the extreme end of the spectrum. There may be exceptions to this principle, such as if one is born with XX chromosomes and a penis or XY chromosomes and born with a vagina, but these would be exceptions of the idea that a sex change would be bodily mutilation, and therefore immoral, as man’s life is the standard of a rational morality.

I'd have to confirm the 250 year time period. As far as I know, the Islamic renaissance was caused by three Islamic philosophers: Averroes, Avicenna, and I think someone named Ibn (though I'm not sure). But it was killed by the Islamics re-asserting religion the way the Christians re-asserted religion (Augustine versus Aquinas), only Aquinas had made too many very good arguments in favor of Aristotle integrated with Christianity to kill it off.

I know you are trying to be a smart ass, but, yes, the principle applies to all of the above -- it applies to all those people who have been greatly beneficial to you, such as teaching you a new rational philosophy. Even though Objectivists would disagree with Aristotle's account of the Unmoved Mover, since it is rationalistic and very Platonist, it would be improper to use ad hominem against him for this mistake due to the greater value of logic and an objective method. Similarly, even if Dr. Peikoff was wrong on a particular topic (say in his podcasts), one would be dropping the context if one doesn't keep in mind that he further clarified many of the principles of Objectivism. Like I've emphasized in this whole conflict, if you disagree with him, what are the facts and what is your mind doing with them? are you being objective? or are you simply not accepting something that ought to make sense to you? if he is wrong, can you show why by reference to integrated facts? etc.

Added a paragraph to my original essay to further clarify the day to day applications of Objectivism and keeping it tied in with how to handle disagreements and valuing someone as important as Dr. Peikoff: Some other examples of applied philosophy are using broad principles to guide on in one’s daily life, such as getting up and going to work due to the fact that productiveness is a virtue – even if one is having a bad morning and don’t feel like getting up. Also, if you have a disagreement with someone, then go to the facts in an integrated manner – the principle of rationality – rather than just going by rules or procedures or traditions. For the virtue of honesty, I think it would be important not to use a discredited method of ad hominem to tear down a co-worker or a friend just because that is the typical thing guys do these days. Honesty is the recognition that the unreal is unreal, and that ad hominem means that your comeback is unreal in terms of showing the other person is of value to you. http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/applications_of_philosophy.htm

I think you are dropping the context. Yes, once upon a time ago there was a minor renaissance due to the influence of Islam, which had accepted some of the teachings of Aristotle. It didn't last very long because the religious Imam killed it and re-asserted the primacy of the Koran and Islam. So, no, I do not accept the idea that Cordoba House was intended to represent the minor renaissance of Islam -- something they abandoned many hundreds of years ago in favor of Islamic theocracy.

I gave the moral argument: They attacked us on 911 and celebrated the fact and supported the terrorist attacks then and since, so it is moral to act in self-defense and to destroy those countries. The moral argument for killing "innocents" is that their death is not our responsibility -- it is the responsibility of the country that attacked us, and the truly innocent who are morally against Theocracy would welcome the attack on their country to overthrow their government. Ayn Rand has said similar things about the USA going to war with the Soviet Union -- she would have welcomed it, even at the risk to her own life because the USSR was destroying her life anyhow. I do agree with the several previous posts who said if we are to do it then we need to do it right and to stop apologizing every time we kill a "civilian" (in quotes because their standing army is not the one attacking us, and all the terrorists are "civilian" in that sense). The outright moral cowardice displayed by Bush and then Obama in fighting this war is why it is stretching on for so long. WWII against formidable armies and navies only lasted about four years, and the Islamics have nothing anywhere near the magnitude of Germany and Japan. We are not winning because we don't have the moral fortitude to win.

Right, and in a free society -- one that respect individual rights -- the police are well controlled in favor of innocent until proven guilty, individual to individual. It would actually be illegal for the police to get a couple of tanks and mow down a neighborhood. But that is, in part, because it is localized; and has to be dealt with in a localized manner. For something like all-out war, it is impossible to go door to door and weed out those who support Islamic Terrorism; and insofar as that terrorism is supported morally and legally and funded by the Islamic State, then that Islamic State must go. Which means destroying as much as can be destroyed until those left agree to never attack us again. Besides, many people don't seem to get the idea that you get the type of government you deserve -- in the long run -- and that we got socialism to various degrees because that is what the majority wants. Likewise, it is not as if some small minority of Islamic radicals took over Iran and created a theocracy by forcing others to give in to it -- no, it came about because they take Islam seriously -- including the passage that says wage every type of war and stratagem against the infidel. When a whole country is infected like that, the whole country must be attacked to defend the freedom of Americans.

From a rational moral / political standpoint, the enemy must be destroyed after attacking us, both intellectually and physically. Done rationally, we would not have engaged in war with them and claiming that "Islam means peace" when it clearly doesn't. They would have to be demoralized -- i.e. Islam is evil, which it is -- and their centers of Islamic theocracy would have to be annihilated -- no holds barred. And if we did it right and engaged both a physical war and a moralizing war, then they would be disarmed in all senses. As to going into a neighborhood that has a gang located in it, yes, some of the responsibility is on those who live there to co-operate with the police and to call in crimes, which they often do not do -- implicitly giving moral support to the gangs. That's not to say that the police can go in there guns blazing and killing anyone in the neighborhood, but they could set up screening posts and check out who is who to destroy the gangs. Often, people who live in those neighborhoods do not want the police in their neighborhood, so what is law enforcement supposed to do when the locals do not co-operate? I think they could go in there and question anyone and get the bad guys. If you cannot see the difference between a local gang and a whole country with an ideology dedicated to destroying the West, then you've got some integrating to do.

This particular Mosque would have been built specifically in reference to the atrocities of 911. Many Americans see it as an affront to the death and destruction engaged in by Muslims on 911,and even the Imam who was going to run it was saying it would be specifically built to commemorate 911 -- they claim as a memorial, since many Muslims also died. But their original name for it -- Cordoba House -- was in reference to the mosque built to commemorate the take-over of Spain by Muslims at Cordoba, Spain. So, everything taken into account, no, they cannot be permitted to raise a monument of conquest on US soil in commemoration of 911.

My overall point regarding innocents in war is that since one cannot identify them and seek to omit them while destroying an evil regime, then one cannot go into a war thinking that one is killing innocents. It has to be all-out destruction of the regime, no holds barred, and if that means killing millions of civilians like WWII, then so be it. They declared war on us, and given recent events like the accidental burning of a Koran and those savages wanting to kill all of our service members in Kabul, then their innocence is far overrated.

Sure, there are some who know the the right reasons for the government being evil and cannot do much about it. However, one cannot take that into account during a war -- that there might be some people who are friends with you, unless they have an organized resistance, like the French Resistance and can help you win the war. Otherwise, there is no way to identify them, but these types of people, like Ayn Rand in the Soviet Union, would welcome an attack by a free nation, even at the risk of their own life, because they know the worse evil is not death, but slow strangulation of the spirit.

The people of a nation are responsible for the policies of that nation. If they are against the policies -- especially irrational policies of a theocracy -- then they should overthrow that government and institute something better and more rational. The German people actively supported Nazi Germany prior to the war, and deserved to be beaten down for that support. Similarly, due to Islam, the people of Iran support the Islamic State and deserve to be beaten down for their threats to the United States and to Israel. They cannot morally take the position that they didn't do it, when they actively support those policies. As to the truly innocent, like babies and children, their deaths are not the fault of those fighting against Islamic Caliphate, but rather rests in the hands of those initializing force via theocracy and caliphate. As to the earlier comment that if I don't know the proper military strategy then I ought not to be giving advise, it is the role of philosophy to set the terms of justice and recompense due to the atrocities committed against the United States. It is not just a military matter -- it is a moral / political matter. A rational philosophy aims the weapons, but the military must use them to defend the United States on the proper terms given by a rational philosophy. And a rational philosophy -- Objectivism -- is completely against coddling our enemy and trying to make nice with them so they don't attack us.

There is no moral argument against self-defense, and there are no innocents during a full-scale war. The people of Iran, for example, support their government and are responsible for it, despite the facts that they do have a few protesters against theocracy. Those Muslims are supporting an Islamic Theocracy that seeks to destroy Israel and the united States and ought to be wiped out post haste.

Thanks Armaroq. I've been posting to oo.net for a long time, so I know how it goes. Though I do sometimes wonder if it is worth the effort. Some take me seriously, some don't, and some are not worth discussing anything with. You are right about the case where Obama is accused of fraud Re his birth certificate, in that case, he would be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. However, at root, he is the one who has to prove that he is a natural born citizen, while his lawyer tried to say the onus was on the Tea Party for claiming otherwise. As to going to war, no,it is not something that should be done lightly and Bush wouldn't know a proper type of government if he were the President of one, let alone trying to set up a proper government after a major war with our enemies. However, it wouldn't be an issue of trying to get them to change a thousand years of tradition, it would be more like creaming them to the point where they would refuse to say anything or do anything against us for the next thousand years after being beaten back to the stone ages.