yesindeed

I first used the orgy example on this thread as I wanted an extreme example, one which I thought everyone would think has intrinsic immorality. However it seems that I was not extreme enough, thus my new example; zoophilia. My position is obviously that zoophilia is intrinsically immoral. What do you guys think?

Sophia said: This is the same as what I said before: My point here is that just because something is the right course of action, doesn't mean you should feel good about doing it as it is still immoral. Obviously you should feel good about saving the child, but can you imagine how dirty you would feel within yourself after the orgy; this would be a normal reaction and would be caused by the fact that what you have done is wrong. RationalCop said: If thats what you believe then that is up to you, I don't think it's my place to judge you or your friends. However, consider that all people are not identical and therefore each of your friends would have a "best" partner, ie if forced to make a choice that would mean only one of them lived and the rest died, then every person in the group would be able to make that choice without hesitation. It therefore follows that when engaged in "swapping", feelings of jealousy will inevitably arise. These would be quite extreme feelings considering that the love of your life is being penetrated by another man. These kinds of feelings would be extremely self destructive.

In response to JMeganSnow about lying to save your child: Lying is still intrinsically bad, but in a situation in which you can only choose evil or evil, choosing the lesser evil is the moral course. Similarly if you are forced into an orgy, then you cannot be blamed, but you should still feel revulsion after the event because an orgy is wrong. Therefore what Inspector says is key:

It is anti-life because each individual does not care about any other individual there, only about satisfying his or her lust. There are no emotional connections made and the whole act becomes a physical one, which is degrading to all involved. If the person did care about any individual involved then they would pursue a monogamous relationship with that person.

If I understood correctly, you are saying that capitalism is not a value but the social system that makes values possible. Is that right? What about a sex orgy that is entered into by all parties willingly? Is this not an example of something that is intrinsically bad?

(Mod's note: Split from earlier thread. - sNerd) I don't understand how this sentence fits into Objectivism. For example if the social system of capitalism is not intrinsically good, then how can you argue against socialists? They could just counter any argument you give by saying that, from your viewpoint you may be right, but from the viewpoint of the poor, you are wrong. You are then reduced to defending capitalism by justifying it in the eyes of every possible observer, ie your main argument would be that capitalism produces the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore it is good. Only by saying that capitalism is intrinsically good, that it prevents the initiation of force which is intrinsically bad, can you argue that capitalism does not have to be justified by references to the greatest good to the greatest number.

LOL! The difference between a nude scene in a movie and stripping is that the movie hopefully contains intellectual content and the stripping does not.

As a Christian I believe that stripping is inherently immoral because it produces lust in the eyes of the audience which is wrong and because the stripper is selling her body which is wrong. These things are wrong because God says they are wrong. Sure enough, empirical evidence from other forum members have backed God up on this one, saying that stripping is not done in an atmosphere of respect, and is therefore degrading (to all involved). However even from an Objectivist viewpoint, can i not argue that it is inherently immoral? The stripper is selling her body. What could be more valuable to a beautiful girl than her body? To sell it for a few dollars indicates that she is making a sacrifice, ie she is trading her body (infinite value) for a few dollars. She comes out with a net loss and therefore stripping is immoral.

Interesting, but should not athletic ability, grace of movement, etc be more aptly demonstrated in a sport such as gymnastics? A beautiful naked body should be shown off in the bedroom not in a strip club. Just my opinion.

I don't think stripping for money qualifies as being a skill that is productive. Yes both parties gain a value (money on the one hand, visual pleasure on the other), but it can hardly be called productive as the girl is selling her body, something that should be worth more than a few dollars. Again I am no Objectivist but this seems obvious.

In terms of production, the professional poker player can be viewed as producing entertainment. Casinos actually rely on professionals sitting at their tables for long periods of time, so that the tables always have people playing. Some casinos will even pay professionals per hour to sit at their table. With chess (as with poker), the rules may be arbitary but they are fun! To become a professional is an achievement, not an escape from reality! It is exactly the same as the "arbitrary" rules of football, basketball, soccer, etc. It is fun! The professional is the producer of entertainment and this is a value to people. That my above 2 paragraphs are not immediately obvious to people here, pretty much summarises why I am not an Objectivist. That Rand's comments on chess are taken seriously astounds me. This article astounds me further: <link removed> Unbelievable.