Ragnar69

I still do, but the past few years I'm starting to not see the point. Why celebrate someone else's holiday? I don't need stuff from relatives, I'm perfectly capable of buying what I want for myself. And shopping for other people just seems to be a nuisance. Has anyone stopped celebrating the holidays? If so, how did you explain to your relatives that you no longer wish to exchange gifts?

Okay, obviously I wasn't considering terminal illness. My statement stands, with the added caveat of "in a physically healthy person." Suicide was not the most rational course of action for that monk to achieve his own self-interest or to try to end the war, if that was his goal.

Also in Rand's words, but perhaps more simply stated, Objectivism "is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Yes, I know it's an old post, but I did a search for "Buddhism" because I am planning to start a thread on it. Since I haven't been reading this forum long, I wanted to see if my question had been raised already. I wanted to comment on this because I disagree very strongly with this position. I don't think suicide can ever be Objectively ethical. It is not a way of going on strike, because a strike usually serves your self-interest in the long-term. Suicide can never serve your self-interest because you won't be around to gain anything. Keep in mind that suicide and refusing to yield to someone who will certainly kill you (Tianamen Square, for instance) are not the same things. Of course, in that specific case, there were still probably more rational courses of action than laying down in front of a tank.

I should have brought this up earlier, but I thought it would have been apparent given the context, and that we all consider ourselves Objectivists. If a person is considering exacting retribution on a person who he knows is a killer, who escaped the justice of the courts, one consideration would have to be that the person believes there is a risk that the killer will kill him or someone he cares about. A specific example would be (and this isn't really a hypothetical if it has actually happened) every time a suspect is brought to trial the witnesses keep getting killed, even though they are sometimes under witness protection. If someone is a witness for the next trial, then there is a real risk that he would be killed before the trial. It would be in his rational self-interest to get the murderer killed before the murderer has a chance to kill him.

Since we started talking about Frank Miller, check out this quote from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1697-CelebRandFans.aspx: I knew there was a reason I liked him so much

The key phrase here is "In a rational society..." Do you think we live in a rational society? Ever walk around Harlem or South Central LA at 2 a.m.? Neither have I. Granted, things are better now than they were ten years ago, but they are far from ideal. And we DO have gang wars and Mob rule. It's not as extensive as it was, but it still exists in places. Again, it is only when the justice system fails to prosecute a repeat violent offender that I am advocating vigilante justice.

There can be exceptions. The judge may be corrupt. The jury may be corrupt. But other than that, if for example a criminal walks because the prosecutor screwed up, or because the criminal had a very good attorney, you just ahve to learn to live with the result. I guess I simply disagree with this, and I still think my position is justified under Objectivism. If the law is unable to touch, for whatever reason, a high profile, repeat violent offender - say, a high ranking member of the mafia - then I think someone would be perfectly justified in the rational use of force to remove this person from society. Not only is it justified, but it would save the taxpayers money on continuously prosecuting someone who never does any real time. One problem with vigilantism is accountability. Courts are subject to review and trial records are open to anyone at all. If a court sentences you unjustly to death, there is a chance for an appeal (or many). What if a vigilante kills the wrong person, or even an innocent person he thought was guilty? More important, by what right does a vigilante get to decide whom he kills? I'm not talking about armed thugs roaming about the streets killing people on whim. I am only saying vigilante killing would be justified in rare and extreme circumstances, and only when the would-be vigilante is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE that someone is a repeat violent offender, and that they will continue to commit crimes. In the case of a mobster or a well-known gang member, everyone knows the person is guilty. If the courts are unable to prosecute because of a lack of evidence or because witnesses mysteriously disappear, vigilante force is perfectly justified.

She could have hit him over the head with her gun or shot to wound. For the record, I see nothing wrong with killing him, either. I also see nothing wrong with vigilante killing when the police and justice system do not do their job properly. Agreed, but law enforcement does not do its job one hundred percent of the time. There is too much crime and too much bureaucracy. As a New Yorker, I think Bernie Goetz is a hero. I think we largely agree, except for a matter of degree.

The government of Atlas Shrugged wasn't so much different than the U.S. government right now. The government in comic books is usually much worse than both. If you can justify killing someone who simply refuses to make a decision - and that's really all it was, Dagny could have disabled the man easily without killing him - then how is killing someone who you know will get out of prison in a few years, or who might not get caught at all, and kill again any less moral? I'm not talking about killing a suspect, or someone who has made one bad mistake. I'm talking about someone who has no regard for life or property and murders at will. Since Objectivism doesn't hold to that "Then we'll be as bad as the killers" nonsense, how would it be immoral to kill such a person? It is an act of self defense for the killer's future victims. It's an either-or proposition. Either you kill the person now, or he will kill an innocent person later. Those are the choices. I think NOT killing such a person would be immoral.

What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing? Doesn't the quote in my signature from "Atlas Shrugged" indicate that Rand believed killing is justified in certain circumstances? That's why I think Wolverine is more of an Objectivist than Batman. He struggles to overcome his irrational emotions, he usually acts in his own self-interest (or in the interests of those few that he cares about), and he doesn't hesitate to kill those who deserve to be killed. He is also the self-proclaimed "best there is at what he does." All of these are objectivist principles.

I'm a huge fan of all things Bat-related, and I do think he displays many qualities of an objectivist. However, his unwillingness to kill is taken to irrational extremes at times. He has, on more than one occasion, saved the lives of many mass murderers, even from the police. Wouldn't it be immoral by objectivist standards to prevent the police from killing a known sociopath?

Sorry for the necro-post, but I just joined and I wanted to respond to this: For someone so concerned with the comics, you seem to be very unfamiliar with much of what has been done with Batman in graphic novels. You must be a new fan. Frank Miller originated the idea of the bat transmitter in his "Batman - Year One." The writers of the movie were clearly influenced a great deal by Miller. Aside from that, in both the movie and in other comics, hundreds of bats terrified the young Bruce Wayne when he first fell into the cave, so they obviously lived there. Batman would have had ample opportunity to test out such a device in the seclusion of the cave. Bats, as you must know, have an acute sense of hearing, so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that such a device would reach as far as the cave from the city. Besides, it's a really cool scene. Uhh, no, the movie does not overlook this fact. There's a reason it's called "Batman BEGINS." Again, refer to the work of Frank Miller, especially "Year One." It's a learning process, he's just starting out. He's not yet the master detective you know and love. That's the whole flipping point. If I recall correctly, Morgan Freeman's character is Lucius Fox, who is in the comic books. There is also a mechanic in the comics who works on the vehicles and Batman's other gear, and it is implied that Batman/Bruce Wayne learned a lot from both of these characters. The movie combined the two characters for convenience. In "Year One," Bruce returns to the mansion from training against criminals before he becomes Batman, fatally wounded. He sits slumped in a chair in his father's study, bleeding out, ready to give up and die before he has begun. Suddenly a giant bat crashes through the window. Bruce says, "Yes father, I shall become a bat," and rings a bell to summon Alfred. The point is, he's making it up as he goes. In the comics you seem to be familiar with, Batman is an established character. He's been doing this for years. In Miller's story and in this movie, he doesn't know what he's doing yet. What comics have you been reading? In comics continuity Batman trained abroad since his parents' death until he took up the mantle of the Bat, so obviously someone else would have had to have been running his company. In the comics, Lucius Fox always ran the company when Bruce Wayne was away. Ever hear of a little something called the Justice League? Batman was away quite often. I thought the movie put a nice twist on this, with the whole hostile takeover subplot. Bruce Wayne trained primarily in Asia. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that he came across Ra's and the League of Shadows during this time. I may be mistaken, but even in the cartoon that you mention you watch, Bruce knows who Ra's is the first time he encounters him as Batman. I'll grant the movie Ra's is vastly different - which one you like more is merely opinion. I agree that Talia would have made a nice addition. Maybe if you were more familiar with some of the non-mainstream graphic novels, you would have appreciated the movie more. If you haven't read Miller's "Year One," go out and buy it immediately. It is without a doubt the best Batman graphic novel ever written. All of Miller's other Bat-titles are also excellent. Also very well done is "Arkham - A serious house on serious Earth," (I think that's the title) by Grant Morrison. Some wicked psychological insights to the Batman, Joker, Two-Face, and others.

I agree completely. Nevermind Azrael, though, how about this - The Roc as Bane?

Hmm, I might have asked the wrong questions. Aside from whether or not Halliburton started the war, and for the moment I'll accept that they didn't, my problem with them is really that there seems to me to be one of two likely scenarios - one is that the Bush administration actually cares about the people of Iraq. This I find laughably implausible. The second possibility is that people in power are making money off of the war, and there's no other good reason for us to still have troops there. So, in effect, there are American soldiers dying so their superiors can make money. They are there under the guise of "safeguarding freedom," or whatever the spin doctors are calling it, which is a load of bull. If that is what is really going on, then that is what I would find unethical.

I think the current statutory rape laws are absurd. I agree with whoever said "Consent is consent is consent." You have to take biology into some account. Obviously, when a person reaches puberty they are physically capable of conceiving children, so it is natural to be attracted to adolescents. If some are not "mature" enough for sex, I think that is largely a societal issue, not really a moral or ethical one. I know if an attractive teacher had pursued me when I was 14 or 15, hell, even when I was 12, I would have been ecstatic. I have a slightly different question. Do you think pre-pubescent children should be allowed to sexually explore each other? On a personal level, I remember becoming interested in my own body and the bodies of girls my age from as early as 5, 6, or 7 years old. On more than one occasion a female friend and I would take each other's clothes off and explore each other. We were both raised Christian, and she became convinced at some point that what we were doing was the work of the devil, told our parents, and our parents scolded us and told us what we were doing was wrong. So that rather enjoyable activity was henceforth denied me until a much later age. I think if there was any psychological trauma to be had, it was from the absurd Christian upbringing and the subsequent scolding. The play itself was pleasurable, and I didn't think it seemed wrong in any way. I guess I was not so easily indoctrinated as my playmate, even at that young age

Two-part question: One, do you think Haliburton was able to influence the U.S. administration to start the war/fighting in Iraq to make a profit? Second, if you answered yes to the above question, is this ethical under Objectivist principles? If you answered no to the above question, is it ethical for Haliburton to use the existing military conflict to make a profit?