Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

BNeptune

Regulars
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

BNeptune's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. BNeptune

    Wiretapping

    I've been having a hard time figuring out if wiretapping is ethical or not. I mean, yeah, it's an invasion of privacy, but I've got nothing to hide - and isn't it a good thing to catch criminals? Wiretapping as far as I can see isn't a hassle for the average American, either. It's not like it's a cavity search at the airport; the only time people realize they're being tapped is when the government shows up at their doorstep, so it's not like we'd even be trading comfort for security. So, could someone help me out and explain to me why they think wiretapping is ethical/unethical? Furthermore, I guess what I'm really wondering is: is privacy a real right? It seems to me it's just a perk of living in a productive society.
  2. Does anyone know where I can find objectivist material that talks about dealing ith the death of a loved one, or anything objectivist-related dealing with our own mortality?
  3. Just going to point out that taking hallucinogenic drug fantasies are not equivalent to any form of skepticism. If the gist of skepticism is "I do not believe it's really there!" and the gist of drug use is "Dude, that invisible pink unicorn is totally there, man!", then I don't see any correlation. The druggie jumped off that building because he actually thought he could fly, not because he didn't believe he couldn't.
  4. Step one in the conversation should be the question: Primacy of consciousness or existence? Otherwise, you two could very well be arguing different things. If she says that reality is subjective, then that doesn't *necessarily* entail that consciousness has primacy over existance. It could very well mean "Hey, there is only one reality, but human perception is flawed, so since all knowledge is ultimately perceptual, and everyone's perception is wrong, then the subject views the object and creates his own 'reality!'" The term subjective is a very loose word in the vernacular, and the term reality more often means "reality to YOU!" than "reality qua objectivist reality." Clear those things up before deciding exactly what you're arguing against.
  5. I'm sure it's all very inwardly consistent to you, but the fact of the matter is it's the product of which fact of reality?
  6. Adolf Hitler had an amazingly cushy childhood. The most traumatic thing was that his parents didn't want him to grow up to be an artist. He did extremely well in elementary school, but dropped out at 16 due to a lack of work ethic. His parents supported him as long as he wanted. All his racist tendencies came after the age of 18, when he went to Vienna. Does the book say something different?
  7. Little African starving Ethiopian eating what he can Tiny black people not eating a lot getting food and stuff Tada? I think the former only counts as poetry.
  8. I'm sorry, but I disagree with that. I find billions of "half an atom" in existence.
  9. There is such thing as half an atom. Are you telling me that you can have a whole atom without its left side? That's irrelevent. I answered the paradox correctly, so any objections you have to it are irrelevent. EDIT: If the atom is the smallest existing particle (which it isn't, but that doesn't matter), then nothing smaller than it exists. There is still space 1/2 its length and 1/2 of the atom still exists.
  10. So what you mean is, it's not always wrong to live off the efforts of others. If those others stole five dollars from you, it's perfectly okay to force them to produce five billion dollars for you.
  11. So then your answer is that zeno is wrong because the smallest unit of measurement is the length of an atom. Which isn't true, because I can concieve of 1/2 of the length of an atom. Are you trying to tell me that 1 atom-length exists, but 1/2 an atom length doesn't exist? That's a fallacy. 1/4 an atom length also exists, as does 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256, 1/512, 1/1024, etc. Whether or not we are able to measure it is completely irrelevent to its existing. 1=.5+.5=(.25+.25)+(.25+.25)=((.125+.125)+(.125+.125))+((.125+.125)+(.125+.125)), etc... If we can see its whole, how can you claim that any part of it doesn't exist? Because it's really small? You can't quantify infinity going away from 0. You CAN quanify it approaching 0 or well... 1, which is what Zeno is doing. It's called a limit! If we were to put it in a geometric sequence, it would be E n^2(1/(n^2)). Zeno's paradox isn't a contradiction, it's just not mentioning all the relevant information. If I'm an arrow, the distance between me and my target can be divided up infinitely. Except, I'm traveling at 200m/s. No matter how you divide up 200m/s, you're still traveling that far. 200m/s=100m/s+100m/s=50m/s+50m/s+50m/s+50m/s, etc. It's got the sum, and you can add up to that sum an infinite number of ways. Edit: Probably a more satisfactory answer: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52507.html
  12. Okay, I meant there shouldn't be subjective law. Killing is not murder. "Thou shalt not kill" is ridiculous because it means I can't kill in self defense (murder is killing unjustly). Something is only absolute in the context it is concieved, and as far as I can tell, "Thou shalt not murder" is a perfectly valid absolute. I mean... what's wrong with killing justly? As for too much context making the judicial system subjective... No. The more (relevant and valid) information you have, the more accurate your conclusion will be. The example you gave still made the stealing wrong. But should it be illigal for the government to steal Iraqi warheads planned to be fired on America? No. Now, would I have been able to pass correct judgment on America if all the context I had was "America stole from Iraq"? Or did I need more context? Would I have been able to pass an even more precise judgment had I known whether or not the choice had been a split decision, how many were stolen, how powerful the bombs were, what the consequences of the stealing (and of not stealing) were, etc? Subjectivism involves the absence or evasion of facts, of ignoring or extrapolating information. What context? You said that it's wrong for someone to live off the efforts of another, and that it's right for someone to enslave a man who stole five dollars. That is either hypocritical or contradictory or both.
  13. You're not thinking infinitely. If something runs off into infinity, just because we haven't defined a number for X yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Existence is independent of consciousness; if I don't think of a measurement of something, that doesn't mean it's immeasurable. The "foot" didn't exist in 200BC. Does that mean nothing was a foot long? NO. So why, then, must something ONLY be a "yadayada" short? Because we haven't defined anything further? If we accept that the shortest measurement possible is "yadayada" then we cannot define anything shorter. If we can (we can), then your statement is moot anyway. My new measurement is equal to 1/4*yadayada. I'll call it the metricyada.
  14. But there is an objective way for the government to determine the price of FedEx's stock; there just isn't a precise way. The government looks at all the relevent, latest data and comes up with the most educated figure. The government does not look at Wallmart's stock and decide that FedEx should be two points down. If I were to determine a prison sentence, some thing's I'd look for are: what did he do, why did he do it, what was the degree of the infraction, what punishment would fit the crime? Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I do *not* do is assign judicial absolutes (Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not mow thine lawn on thursdays) and couple them with absolute punishments (If you kill, you must die; if you steal, your fingers must get cut off). That would be ignoring the context of the situation and thus wrong. I also don't leave it up to a commitee of judges to decide with the express belief that "there are no objective laws". If it's not objective, and it's not intrinsic, then what must law be? There is no such thing as subjective law. Period. If you say "there was no objective way for the government to determine prison sentences", then under your system there can be no objective law. Being objective requires being able to take the context of the situation (the facts, all of them available; not a choice few; the entirety of your knowledge) and thus apply it to whatever judgments, abstractions, principles you wish. If it is impossible to look at reality and thus reach a judgment, then you have successfully severed thought from reality (dispense your righteous justice now!). Just because something is objective doesn't mean it's infallible. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it's not objective. If something is wrong in the light of new evidence and is not changed, then it is not objective. If my context is too small, then I should say it's too small. If my context gives me a definite answer, then I should agree with that definite answer. If my context is later expanded or altered in such a way that my previous answer is wrong, then I should alter my conclusion. I think the government is perfectly capable (as everyone else is) of being objective. The truth-value of facts (assuming that they're even accepted) does not necessarily alter my objectivity. That's called an error, not an evasion. Everyone is at least capable of error, the government not excluded. Just because the government is not omnipotent doesn't make it not objective. Your argument basically comes down to this... "There is no way to properly rectify the wrong committed." therefore: "There is no way to properly indentify to what degree a criminal should be punished based upon his crime." therefore: "All that proper criminal justice can be oriented towards is the security of a crime-free future." Your entire argument spawns from the false assumption that there is no way to recify a wrong commited. If Bill Gates stole five bucks from me and I caught up with him two days later, and he thus gave me three billion dollars, I'd consider myself rectified for having been out 5 dollars for two days. In fact, I'd feel horrible, guilty, etc for having taken 3 billion dollars to "rectify" his crime. In this case, the recompensation exceeds the requirements on an exponential level, so if I had forced him to give me that money (or even if I hadn't, really), I certainly wouldn't feel uncompensated; I'd feel like a thief myself and thus give him all (except maybe $50 or something) back. Just because a government forces him to give me a huge sum of money for the pointless little crime, doesn't make it right or necessarily make me feel better. The same applies here. If all proper criminal justice must be oriented towards is the security of a crime-free future, then I should just kill Bill Gates. Because humans are volitional, they can always make the choice to steal again (there is no certainty that he has been rehabilitated). The only options I have for a secure society is 1) kill him 2) imprison him 3) rehabilitate him. Fining someone is recompensation, which does NOT directly benefit my security. It only acts as a deterent to crimes (which falls under rehabilitation). Sending anyone to prison can serve only three purposes: 1) getting him out of society 2) recompensating the victims 3) rehabilitating him so he can return to society. If it fails to do any of these or any other positive effects, why do it? The same goes for killing and rehabilitation. If it serves no one's interest, why? Because you FEEL like it? Because of arbitrary WHIM? Because you want the safety of being able to apply a moral absolute? Your "theory" also accomplishes three things: subjective law (because law is neither intrinsic nor objective here), slavery, and murder (killing someone without sufficient/valid reason). After all, murder isn't defined by government.
×
×
  • Create New...