Richard_Halley

This is not suprising; this is a libertarian organization were talking about..

If I were you, I would seek employment in the private sector. But it wouldn't be immoral to work for government subsidized programs. It is like accepting government scholarships... they take it from you, you are merely getting it back.

You misunderstand my arugment Apprentice. I am saying that it shouldn't go there, not that it is not accurate that they put it there in the store he worked at. He said it was accurate to put Capitalism in the economics section, just inconvienent. However, it is not accurate, as the book is about the moral/philosophical implications of capitalism, not economics.

Nothing can be "imposed" on the minds of others. It should only be slander/libel if there is some kind of agreement that the things said are to be truthfull.

Craftsmanship is not an "artistic value." Read "The Romanitic Manifesto," it will set you straight.

Actually, that is not accurate. Capitalism was not about the economics of capitalism, but the moral implications. It should go in the philosphy section, which is where they put it at the B&N here. As for my favorites: The Fountainhead and The Romantic Manifesto.

Another, Pacific Northwest-er. Welcome to the forum, elle.

This is not the issue. The issue is: do these people have rights or not. They do not, because: with every bit of productive work they do, the support not only their own demise, but also weapons programs (which were outlawed), as well as terror attacts, etc... Again, it is a shame that they are put in a situation where their choice is: "Violate the rights of others or die," but it doesn't excuse that they are violating our rights. So long as they live in those conditions, their production is a danger to us, and we have a right to stop them.

AisA, there must be force initiated or there is no justification for damages. Slander/Libel may currently be what you describe it as, but it shouldn't be.

Young, you still haven't dealt with the fact that effect implies cause. You are evading...

He did say that, not in those exact words. Possible, but again, irrellivent. If his argument is not contrdictory, than it doesn't prove a god at all, only that somethings may move themselves, or that somethings not in motion may move something else (through gravity, for example).

But then the Cato Institute has its own problems, dosen't it.

Firstly, Aquinas' logic flows directly from the points which he negates in his conclusion. For example, his first proof goes like this: Things may not move themselves... Because things may not move themselves, all actions are effects... If all actions are effects, there would be no actions... Actions take place... There exists an entity which is a "first mover" which men call "god." If his conclusion had been that there must exist at least one entity which may move itself, than he would have been doing what you suggested. However, he keeps with his first premise when dealing with all objects other than his one first mover, so he is arguing the existance of something which breaks the laws of reality. You may argue that he is not doing that, but there is no reason to, since, either way, his argument does not prove the existance of god. It merely proves that some things may initiate actions or "movements". The same principles may be applied to his second proof.

Ahhh... but does it not also provide enough reason in itself to reject that regime. Good education is helpful but bad education is not an excuse for ignorance (although it probably was a factor, it does not dismiss someone from responsibility). This is quite irrelevant... It is the passive support of attacks/danger on America which is the discussion, not passive support of attacks on oneself (although surely a lack of freedom is attack enough). It is what one is/does that matters in this discussion, not how one got there. Now, I sympathize with the people who lived under Saddam, but if someone supports mass killings, they support mass killings. While it is surely a tragedy that they were deluded into doing so, delusion is not an excuse.

Daniel: This was originally stated by Augustine, but quoted by Aquinas in his reply to objection 1. Aquinas did say that god was omnipotent, that he is exempt from laws. If god may do anything, reason does not apply... in this way Aquinas is self-refuting. You are correct however, in saying that this self-refution does not apply directly to (all) his arguments. It does, however, manifest itself in some. In any case, I will go through his arguments one by one and refute or nullify them. Proof 1: This argument flows like so: Nothing may move itself. If nothing may move itself than nothing may move. Things move. So, there exists something which may move itself. The conclusion directly contradicts one of the premises. Proof 2: This argument flows like so: Nothing may be the efficient cause of itself, everything must be an effect. If nothing is a cause of itself than nothing may be caused. Things are caused. So, there exists something which may cause itself. The conclusion directly contradicts one of the premises. Proof 3: The conclusion of this argument is merely: "there must be things which have always existed." This implies no god, it is merely a statement that existence exists and always has. Quite true. Proof 4: This argument has a bad premise: "Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things." In fact, fire is not the cause of heat, but rather, heat is the cause of fire. Applying Aquinas' arguments to, for instance, televisions: 100" plasma TV's are the cause of all small black and white monitors. Clearly this is absurd, and is absurd about existents/beings as well. Proof 5: This argument also has a bad premise: "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result." As you can see, he offers two arguments to support his claim that non-intelligent bodies act for an end. The first, "acting always, or nearly always, in the same way" is easily explained by the concept of identity. The second is merely a restatement of his claim, not actually a supporting argument. So, Aquinas' argument that natural bodies must be guided by intelligent ones is unsupported. Any questions?

Living Student: Aquinas' proofs all flow something like this: X is impossible; we can observe X; there must be something exempt from laws of reality to make X happen. The entire concept of following reason to prove that there is something for which reason dosen't apply is absurd. correction: they actually flow like this: X is impossible; X is imparitive; there must be something exempt from the laws of reality to make X happen.

Quite right, feldblum.

If there is a contract stating "the following is true," than it would be fraud... otherwise it would not be.

Even besides checks on power, a draft is slavery...

I decided that there is no reason to answer Aquinas' proofs individually, since his claim is that there is an omnipotent being in a world which is bound by rules (the rules by which he deduces his proofs)... this in itself is contradictory. If you really want to talk about his proofs individually, you should start a thread in the metaphyisics forum.

I will develop a direct answer to each of Aquinas's proofs and post it, if the issue is not dealt with when I am done.

A rational person places a small general value on people in general, people whom he has no reason to particularly like or dislike. This is because humans are rational beings... the existance of rational beings is of some general benifit to every rational man. All else being equal (i.e. the time is not of any importance, and there is no danger to oneself) one should rescue anyone in such a situation. In reality, there is always some danger to oneself in making a rescue, and one must judge how much and whether it is worth the risk. For this reason, while one may be suspect of someone walking by the described situation, one may not morally condemn him for it, as it may have been or seemed more dangerous/uncomfortable to him than you percieve.

There must first be actions before there can be reactions, so if no action may be initiated as anything other than a reaction, than no actions may exist at all.

You are suggesting that I should place the lives of those who (albeit passively) make it possible for things like 9-11 to happen above my own. This is the most irrational thing I have heard in this forum for along time.

Feldblum: I find that you often state agreement without being clear that you intend to state agreement... so you sound like you think you disagree but don't state anything which actually disagrees. From now on, if you forget to say "I agree" at the beginning of a post and I don't see any contradiction, I will just assume you know you are agreeing.