Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Maarten

Regulars
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Maarten

  1. They're axioms, and they underlie the basis of the concept of proof You have to accept them to have any meaningful discourse, and besides that you can point to reality and show that they are true that way. Axioms can't be proved in the normal sense, though...
  2. Maarten

    Animal rights

    You don't have to prove that no animals besides humans have the requisite attributes to have rights. If someone wants to make the case that a certain animal should have them, they are free to prove it. It's they who are making the positive claim, not the ones saying that humans have rights and other animals do not. It makes a lot more sense to hold that animals in general don't have rights, and then grant exceptions should they ever come up, than investigate every single one of the billions upon billions of species on this planet to see if they should be given rights...
  3. I don't see how this notion of the happiness of the person you love being tied to your own is incompatible with the Objectivist view on this. It is of great, selfish importance to me that such an important part of my life is happy, as it gives me greater enjoyment in turn, and in that way objectively improves the quality of my own life. Besides, there are a lot more things to a relationship than just the principles you share together. I think that a significant portion of the things you truly love about someone may be meaningless to most others; and furthermore the shared life you have together adds immeasurable value to the relationship (given that it's a very good relationship alread). Just because someone else may fit your notion of an ideal partner slightly better does not mean that you should immediately throw everything else away to pursue this new relationship. Having said that, I think when you talk about the more serious types of commitment it would be a big mistake if you pursue this with someone who is not very close to your ideal romantic partner. If this assumption holds I do not see much, if any, good reasons to ever leave your partner unless one of the two drastically changes their direction in life. Obviously if you start a relationship with someone who is good, but doesn't really match what you envision your ideal man or woman to be like, then the chances are much larger that you find a better candidate in the future. But this scenario is not a result from the standard Objectivist position, as far as I can discern.
  4. Have you actually read some parts of the Old Testament? I truly cannot even begin to imagine how someone could not hate a "God" like that... (Numbers xxxi. 13)*: "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive?" behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for Yourselves." If this is not utterly reprehensible, then I do not know what is. * (I quoted this from the second part of The Age of Reason, as I don't have a bible here at home)
  5. The main point is that Objectivism is against the initiation of force, not the retributive variant. However, we also understand that it would not be a good thing if everyone were to go out and play judge for himself; this is one of the reasons there should be a government. So yes, it would be good to kill a murderer, but it is not up to an individual person to do so. That is, unless there's an emergency situation and you need to defend yourself right there or die; but in general cases you should probably leave it to the police to catch the murderer, it's their job after all.
  6. I am not quite sure how you concluded from this part that I was talking about pragmatism... As far as I can tell I said explicitly that I was against pragmatism (i.e. the end does not justify the means). Just to make it clear, I am in no way in disagreement with Inspector on this issue; the main difference may be that he managed to word it more eloquently.
  7. I think an important thing to note here is that there is no conflict of interests between your (rational) self-interest and the non-violation of other people's rights. It's not as if we (as Objectivists) actually want to be completely selfish and sacrifice everyone to our own personal gain, but refrain from doing that because we consider it to be wrong. Instead, it is wrong because it doesn't serve our own self-interest in any way. It takes a while to fully understand why it is wrong to try and cheat reality in every case, as this is what all those irrational actions (among which are violating the rights of others) amount to when you reduce them to the fundamentals. To say it in a different manner, and to paraphrase Ayn Rand (I think, not sure exactly where I read this): Not only does the end not justify the means, but an improper means makes the end a non-value. It's the belief that things are a value to you regardless of what you do to get them that gives rise to these dilemmas, which are really not dilemmas at all.
  8. Maarten

    Animal rights

    Tsuru: I don't see how it follows that if certain animals are raised in ways you consider to be wrong, you should therefore not eat any meat... This is like not interacting with any humans just because you don't like some of them... It would be far better to look for companies that do treat the animals more kindly if you feel like this. But still, if it wasn't for the mass production of meat in this ways it would probably be nigh-unaffordable for the majority of people to eat on a regular basis. Raising animals in a more friendly manner, like you seem to prefer, is much less efficient than the alternative that is used commonly today. But I don't really see where the undue suffering comes in... You said yourself that it would be absurd to hold other animals responsible for harming their prey, yet for some reason humans are exempt to this? Why? Because we should know better and not hurt the poor animals' feelings? I sincerely doubt that most people who raise animals in ways you consider to be improper do it because they enjoy torturing animals needlessly. And yes, I consider human life to be worth far more than the extra suffering of animals, so if the first requires the second then it is completely moral.
  9. Sounds about right, I know that bioethanol is viable around the prices he mentioned there
  10. I see that you occasionally bring up the Bible in your arguments to give certain examples... However, if there is any book one would not want to use as a basis for a good argument then it's the Bible, so I am quite mystified at this. That book is full of internal contradictions, and therefore useless as a historical document. One very interesting criticism of the Bible I've read a while ago is part 2 of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I assume you might already know of this book, though. In any case, could you explain why you consider the Bible to be of any worth whatsoever as a basis for (some of) your arguments?
  11. Hmm, some additional things I thought of... I don't think it would be wrong for me to put the songs from a cd I own on my computer, and normally I think you can do anything you want with your cd (unless it breaks the rights of the real copyright owner, but I do not think that is the case here), so it would also be legal to lend it to my friend. Do you guys think that this would be a proper usage of the cd, or would it be wrong? This could not repeat ad infinitum, because my friend doesn't own the cd, so he has no right to put it on his computer. Do you think it's okay if you limit it to just one step away from the main owner of the license to use? Edited for clarification.
  12. I think it is Philosophy: Who Needs It. There is also a part in OPAR devoted to this issue.
  13. That's not a valid distinction, because most students haven't really had that amount of money stolen from them at that point. Rather, it will be stolen from them in the future. I doubt many 20 year olds have worked enough to pay for their own education, as that can be quite a lot depending on what you study. I don't really see the difference between an American student and a foreign-born one, unless the reason it is moral is that the parents paid taxes.
  14. A&A is a very, very good game I totally forgot about that one. It's more fun with more than 2 people, though, but even just playing together can be very interesting. There are so many options in that game it's amazing I second aequalsa's recommendation. Heh, but it takes a long time to play, I have to add that. If you think turns through they can take almost an hour per piece
  15. Because if you're going to cheat on your husband, you should at least not mess up the other guy's property?
  16. Hmm, I would hope that most people that are in a monogamous relationship chose to do so... It's viciously wrong to prefer polygamy but remain in a relationship with just one person because it "wouldn't be fair" to them otherwise. Same goes for the opposite, but I don't think that occurs very often. Altruism and romantic relationships are so not meant for eachother
  17. Poor algae... Why does no one consider their feelings here?
  18. Well, I would say that if your country is really in grave danger then almost everyone who could defend it would be willing to do so. Well, perhaps that is a little overexaggerated, but I do not think that in a real war you'd have lack of recruits in a free country. This of course only works if the people in their country truly value living there, something which may be missing these days because most have forgotten the values the US stands for..
  19. I guess for them freedom is also tyranny I wouldn't be surprised if one of these minds could even accept something as silly as that, if you're good at ignoring the meaning of words and context you may be able to justify it to yourself without too much trouble.
  20. This should have read: I cannot understand how someone can value the life on an animal they do not know over the life of a human being they do not know, and I don't think someone who thinks such can claim a love of (human) life. I did not say (in the first paragraph) that preventing an act of animal cruelty is equating an animal's life with a human's life. I only said that if one gave an animal's life the same value (in general) as a human's life that it would be wrong, in the sense that this would NOT be a good solution to animal cruelty. I think the sentence is clear enough as it stands... Sorry for the type, though, in the later part
  21. I think an important point that was discussed here earlier is that although many of us would greatly dislike someone hurting animals like that, it is a far greater monstrosity to equate the life of an (innocent) animal with that of an (innocent) human being, and treat them equally. (this is not directed towards the last few posts, as you have not said as much). I cannot understand how someone can value the life on an animal they do not know over the life of a human being they do now know, and I don't think someone who thinks such can claim a love of (human) life. Of course, the situation becomes wholly different when the person in question is enormously evil, and the animal in question is of great value to you, but that is a whole different ballpark
  22. Vote for someone who opposes it is the main avenue open to you then. And writing letters to the editor, I suppose
  23. I am having trouble creating the mental image of that! I agree that it would make more sense when you use your correction, DamnGirl. I hadn't even noticed it at first when I read it
  24. [Merged with earlier thread - softwareNerd] I've been mulling this over in my mind since I had a discussion on this subject earlier today. My understanding of this is that obligations of this matter (in morality) are conditional, in the sense that if you want to lead a succesful life, you should act in a rationally selfish way, for example. The thing I am not sure about is where to properly draw the line between this type of obligation and the following: If I, for example, value the life of my fellow human beings a certain amount and I see someone beating up another person, am I obligated to act to keep that value by intervening? (assuming that the situation would not put your life in grave danger, I know that it would be obviously wrong to do it in a suicidal manner) And in a more general sense, would you consider someone who did not act in those circumstances morally reprehensible in any way? And a related question: Like most people in the discussion about animal cruelty, I would agree that it is immoral to torture animals for no reason. But should you step in when you see someone torturing an animal before your eyes, or is it something that is completely optional?
×
×
  • Create New...