Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

bell jar

Regulars
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bell jar

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  1. I define armed force, police, court, administrative agency and suchlike as "coercive instruments". To many people who accept ideologies that support freedom, "coercive instruments" constitute the "fatal difference" between the political and the ethical. "Coercive instruments" or lack thereof become a determinative of the way people regard a thing. For the same norm, if implemented by government, it is a coercion and unacceptable; if spontaneously implemented by ordinary people without any government's agitation, it is not a coercion and "acceptable". But if a bad effect can be rendered
  2. No. After 50 years under communism, most people have been domesticated. Most of them don't want change because they have been trained to believe their government and system is best. This is a kind of religious emotion resulted from classical conditioning. Only a few clear-minded people discern the evil and want to change. If you look at oversea Chinese, you will find most of them love the CPC and defend it automatically, though they live in a capitalist state.
  3. If ethics can only be applied to humans, why Ayn Rand wrote this?
  4. If you are a construction worker, the restriction of your dressing is to protect your safety, that's a rational ristriction. So is with a firefighter or a diver. But if you work in an office where you just sit on a chair and type before a computer, I can't see the necessity to restrict your dressing. This is a groundless accuse. If I didn't see the fact that there are dress code, why do I come up with my unsatisfaction with dress code? Only blind obedience constitutes the identification of reality? If so a doctor who tries to eradicate poliomyelitis is also evading reality. This
  5. Maybe this is your ethics that is founded upon the "facts of reality". When we have intercourses with others, theoretically "seeking an intersection of both parties' interests" is more important or "non-initiation of force" is more important when other people's interests include restricting your harmless action? People usually think if the whole society disagree with your conduct in a situation then no matter whether you have infringed on others you have to change your courses of action to those that people satisfy with. It seems that even you also think that questioning whether a social conv
  6. This is exactly what I resent. I like dress freely because I think what I wear is absolutely my own business. It infringes upon no one. But sadly the whole world doesn't respect the freedom of dressing. Though I think this phenomenon has the biological basis of sexual selection, yet it is inhuman and violate people's rights. Besides blind obedience, could it be a rational choice to launch a "freedom of dressing movement"? That means you are succumb to other's irrational ethics. In this situation I probably also choose to restrict my own rational freedom but it is hard to say that "it'
  7. According to my observation, ethical codes usually have these three features: * It is a norm or a bunch of norms which tell you to do something or not to do something. (They usually take the form of permission: they permit you to do something or don't permit you to do something.) * You have the ability to do the things which those norms prohibit you doing or not to do the things which the norms permit or require you to do. * In the circumstances where these norms are in practice, if you use your very ability other people will discriminate you, boycott you or even punish you, which ma
  8. I want to know what are your definitions of "morality", "ethics" , "normativity", "ought", "should". What is the scope ethics focuses? When mentioning suicide you just dismiss it as something outside the realm of morality. Even if it is not in the realm of morality it is still in the realm of normativity. Does ethics only research morality and dismiss other normativity? Which discipline study other normativity? Your logic seems that: 1. To live is a morality; to die involves no morality therefore it should be dismissed. 2. In order to live, people must take some course of action to
  9. I accept that life is the necessary condition of a purpose. But a living man can set verious purposes for himself. He can even set a purpose to sacrifice for others before he dies. And this is what Objectivism opposes. If an "ought" is founded upon an "is" in this way, then why Objectivist ethics has its unique content that is different from other ethics? I am also confused with the fact that to live is optional. If a conclusion can be logically deduced from a premise, it is a necessary process. I mean, as long as the premise is true, the conclusion must be true too. For example, if the p
  10. It seems that Objectivism doesn't deduce an "ought' from an "is" either. The first reply clearly told me that there is an extra premise "Do you want to live?". Only when you answer "yes" then can we talk about morality or ethics. Otherwise we must stop here. I think "ought to live" is the forth axiom which is parallel to your other three axioms, and it cannot be reduced to the other three axioms. Then, Objectivist ethics is founded upon the ethical axiom "ought to live", rether than the fact of reality. If people choose the "ought to live" option, then they ought to maintain and furth
  11. I heard that Objectivism is dissatisfied with is/ought dichotomy. It maintains that "ought" can be deduced from "is". I wonder what kind of "is" can be the basis of "ought". Because I see one kind of "is" cannot be the basis of any "ought". In our society, many people usually think "whatever is so ought to be so" or "whatever is not so ought not to be so". They take a thing's existence (or nonexistence) itself as the justification of its rationality to exist (or not exist). They take a "default" course of events as a moral code. This is an example that deduces an "ought" from an "is". Natu
×
×
  • Create New...