Ifat Glassman

You seem to measure the "religious differences" by the amount of habits/ religious practices each of you does. But that is a very superficial way to measure things. Instead, you should look at the underlying principle: You use reason as your means to knowledge and decision making: What does she use as her guide? Do you think religion is the only area in her life where she concedes reason in favor of enslavement to faith? Think again. Something like that is fundamental, it is just a matter of time before something else (like Santa thing) comes up. And the worst thing is that there is no way to argue with someone who does not accept reason as their guide for knowledge. You might be as nice and thoughtful as you can, and bring the most persuading arguments, but those really worth nothing to someone who does not rely on reason. But: Since you are going to marry this woman, and seeing how you are an Objectivist (or thereabouts), she has to be logical to some degree. Perhaps you can point to her those areas in her life where she does use logic, and refuses to accept things without proof, and ask her why she does not apply it consistently. I would consider the fact that she believes something but does not follow it even worse. And like I said: measuring incompatibility on the basis of amount of practiced religious habits is a shallow measurement. Kevin: I have a single question for you: What do you mean by "Accept"? Obviously, if I think that relying on faith instead of reason is bad, I cannot convince myself otherwise, I do not have a choice about thinking "this is bad" when I see it. So does "accept" means to repress the disapproving thoughts, to not act on them, or what?

If people create only by the mercy and will of god than nobody can be better than him. And in fact, while god gave them the job of dealing with science, god put him in charge of showing the light to mankind. (you tell me who is more important?) This Haggard guy reminds me of a close relative of mine. It is scary to try to examine this guy's psychology. And though it might not be directly related to the topic of the thread, I am still interested in phrasing my understanding / observations of the man's psychology. His motivation, his source of self confidence, his methods of attracting others. I believe his type are motivated by the desire to believe in their own greatness. But since he does not accept "existence exists" nor reason as his guide, he becomes a second hander: people are his source of knowledge rather than whole of reality: for him objects are creations of the mind, subject to the will of man (by that I mean "if I wish it hard enough the traffic light would turn green faster"), and the only real thing is people's "souls". He realizes that for people to believe in his greatness he has to project confidence and superiority, but in order for them to stick around he has to offer them equality (between himself and them). He offers them complete acceptance, and equal status to his own (spiritually), if they surrender to his ideas. His self-confidence is based on the admiration of other people for him, of their trust in him, but mainly his self-confidence is generated by his desire to project it. It is like a circle: he knows that if he'll project it, a buyer will soon come who will "buy it" and allow him to believe it even more. His devotion to god serves a double purpose: 1) only a being like a god (which is the greatest consciousness) has the power to make him the Masayach (which is what he would like to believe that he is). And 2) showing his surrender to god, says to his followers and to people : "I am in the same status as you, we are all equal. I am not patronizing you, and nobody has the right to patronize". The last one was his method to attract people. Another one is by offering them acceptance, freedom from guilt. Dependant people are an easy pray for him. What makes him frightening is the fact that he is so calm, and looks self confident, yet he has no means of dealing with reality if he was stranded on a desert island. In fact I think that a desert island, or being alone in the long term are his worst enemies. He might want to be alone sometimes, because during those times it would allow him to think how great and independent he is, but if he knew that the charade has no purpose, that there are no people to impress tomorrow, he would quickly rot mentally. I don't think he would keep on praying to god anymore if he knew that there would be no more people around him, though in his everyday life he is probably sure that his belief in god is sincere. Here is something funny he said, that I believe also demonstrates my psychological analysis of him: (the "hahaha" thing was added by me)

I thought it was obvious from my post that I like it because of the humour I see in it, and because of the fighting spirit. As for the last thing: the fighting spirit is probably a fake, but seeing someone fight with everything they have is fun. I guess if the violence was real, if it was just cruelty, it would greatly deter me. But that sort of commercial violence is fun to watch (at least, I enjoyed it when I was 14). As for enjoying actual torture: I guess some sick people would enjoy it because for them, it would represent a natural state of a human. They might enjoy it as a metaphor that approves to them: "you're nothing, you're worth zero". Some people might enjoy it (along with disgust) because it would confront them with what they would call "real life". By "real life" I mean something that people don't usually have a daily contact with. I remember when I was younger I wanted to see a dead animal, because I was curious how death looks like, and I also wanted to confront it, to stare at it, to make it tangible. So maybe the state of unbearable pain is the same for some people, since people don't usually go through that type of pain in their lives. But then it would be experienced as satisfied curiosity more than enjoyment.

What do you mean by "larger violations"? I have tried asking about the question how can something be more evil than something else, if morality is binary on another thread, somewhat related, but I was told that there is no explicit Objectivist literature discussing the principle of quantity ("more/less good/evil"). Also, "egregious" translates for me into "shameful". How is disgrace a measurement of a crime severity? Shameful for whom? In the eyes of whom?

Donating money can be a value if the money is not needed to gain/keep another (higher) value. There are some things that there is a value to be gained by donating money to them, as I see it: Scientific researches that are expected to bring improvement to man's life within the lifetime of the donator. In a country with an ideal government, there is a value to be gained by giving charity to organizations that educate orphans, The value is that this reduces the crime rates (which would be the positive result of uneducated youth), it can possibly give some good minds the means to develop products that will eventually make the donator's life better. Donate to organizations that give shelter for disabled people, and people who are unable to work at that time of their life (or at all). Not having rotting corpses in the streets would undoubtedly improve life and reduce diseases. There are probably more, but those are all I could think of. As for myself: I don't give to charity organizations because at this point of my life most of the money I use is not mine (parents pay for my education). I give money and help to people who are in trouble because of something out of their control. For example: a kid that lost his wallet and needs money to take the bus home, or needs to make a phone-call home from my cellular, or someone who got injured on the street and needs some medical help (my part would be calling someone who can give it). I consider those things to be charity as well. In the future, I am going to give to charity, but only after I have everything that I want, and still have extra money.

I'm a native Hebrew speaker, and even though I think in Hebrew, I often use English for more precision. Hebrew has a pretty poor vocabulary, with not a lot of resolution for words. For example: Guardian, shield, protector, defender are all just one word in Hebrew. Often some words in English simply have no translation for Hebrew, so a person might spend half a minute explaining what they are trying to say instead of just using a single word in English. Hebrew is annoying, and not useful for people who require accuracy in conversations. However, I do like the intonation of it. "So what will you do now" sounds a lot stronger, dramatic, clear in Hebrew than in English. Hebrew is sharper, English is "rounder". So I can understand why you would rather think of that question in Hebrew. I often switch to English automatically (in my thoughts) when I am surprised or very amused. A year ago I stayed a month and a half in California. I barley talked to anyone at home when I was there, and when I came back, it was very difficult to talk in Hebrew. That was the strangest thing... a language I have been using my entire life, suddenly felt erased from my mind. I even had a slight American accent. Brain adaptation gets deeper as time goes by. The subject of language representation in the brain has been studied. Check this out. And just one question: why, or how come, you know so many languages?

Still have 2 pages of posts to catch up on, but just to throw something into the discussion in the meanwhile: When one is in a state of having no food and no source of food, and one knows that one will eventually starve, it would be moral to commit suicide. On the spiritual level of human life, enjoyment/pleasure is like food to the soul. If one knows that one cannot ever have it (like if one is in jail for life or in captivity going through tortures), one would be moral in committing suicide as well. I don't know how to justify it yet, though. (and I don't mean the "Duh" explanation of "because you would be in pain so better kill yourself now"). For me, there are still a lot of big question unanswered. I'm taking my time with this subject now, but in the words of Schwarzenegger: I will be back!

First I would like to say, that your post, sNerd, was the best one I ever read on the forum. You said that a "well done" from a friend is a value: well, well done! (no need to reply and all) Do you have a central purpose in your life? I mean like a career you are aiming at, and becoming more and more good at it? From my experience, the happiness you are looking for, derived from yourself alone, can be achieved through such a devotion to a career you love. Do you have any field of interest that you pursue in a professional way? Now, I don't say that after you have happiness with yourself you loose the craving to meet someone you can admire and enjoy their company. Actually, the need for such a value becomes worse . But it becomes easier to wait for it as well.

We fall in love with a combination of our highest values, embodied in someone. The love is romantic when the person is of the right gender for you, and indeed shows their masculinity/femininity in a spiritual/psychological way as well. Single, isolated traits and achievements do not automatically result in falling in love. But once someone has all your highest values, all those virtues which you value the most, then you fall in love. Sexual desire should be experienced as well if the person's masculinity/femininity is visible to you. To use Atlas Shrugged as an example: Dagny should have still felt sexual desire for Reardan, and sexual desire for Francisco, even after she met Galt (and in fact she did). Since none of them changed, there is no reason why her emotions for X be affected by Y. I don't understand what green light you are talking about. Maybe the opposite is true: that one does feel sexual desire automatically (as a response to values in the way I described), but might choose to repress it. Sophia, you said something earlier about explaining something about monogamy to me in our correspondence. I don't know what you are referring to. Please make it public.

WWF. Lovin it. At least, I used to love it. Somehow, the guys at WWF made fighting seem like a great source of fun. I can't pinpoint what I liked about that show so much, but I can describe certain things I liked about it: 1) The sight of the face of the guy on the floor, with the huge shade of Yukozuna hovering on his face, when Yukozuna is standing high on the ropes, with all his tons of fat ready to land on the guy's stomach. It was just amusing, watching that fat ass climb up there, ready to land on the poor creature below... 2) When heartbreaker would, after suffering severe beating, muster strength and punch the fejesus out of his competitor... Alright! Go get him, heartbreaker! 3) The amusing monologues where fighters would try to scare off their competitors, making threats in the level of 3rd graders, with the angry faces and all! GRRR!!! I'm gonna turn him into butter! His own mama wouldn't recognize him! I guess there was little in that show beyond violence, but damn it! It was fun!

Felix: I found a very interesting post made by Betsy Speicher on another thread. I believe it explains well the possible damage of doing something on daily basis which one does not enjoy doing: In the case of studying despite one's emotion of dislike, and lack of enjoyment can lead to the destruction of one's ability to connect values with pleasure. (Booha! I'm scared!). So constantly setting aside negative emotions to engage in an activity that is suppose to be good for one's future may come at a higher price than what one would actually be willing to pay. Just an important point I wanted to stress.

The problem in my understanding was of the concept "life", or "existence". The problem was back there in #1. Or to say it in a way that relates to Dave Odden's words: Life DO mean "something fancy". I think that there is no internal contradiction once one realizes that "existence" or "life" do not mean merely something physical. Not for animals, and not for humans. "Existence means both physical existence and spiritual one, to the extent the organism experiences anything "spiritual". For some animals it is just sensations, for others it's sensations+percepts, and for humans sensations+percepts+concepts. And "The existence" of an animal does not merely mean it's state of having active bodily processes, but also to have active spiritual experiences. I should give credit to Felix who recognized the root of the problem back on page 2 (or so), and to Seeker (and possibly Kendall, I'm not sure) who showed that the spiritual existence is part of what "existence" means for all organisms (not just humans). Now that raises a few new crucial questions: What is the relation between an animals "spiritual experience" and it's "life" (according to Rand's definition")? In what way is a spiritual experience part of a "process of self-sustaining action"? And still, what is "man's life"? Can anyone give a precise definition for this sub-abstraction, or to describe the concept (pithily as possible please). What is the relation between happiness and life? Is happiness part of "life" or a result of living, or "fulfilment of "life""? After we finish with this part I'm going to go back to the old problems I raised at the beginning of this thread. And BTW, if anyone needs a devil's advocate for hire... I'm now accepting offers , and I consider this thread my business card/commercial.

Don't know if that is your main concern now... But chatroom is not working for me. I get a message of: Error: the chat cannot be loaded! two possibilities: your browser doesn't support javascript or you didn't setup correctly the server directories rights - don't hesitate to ask some help on the forum www.phpfreechat.net/forumwww.phpfreechat.net/forum I got this error using IE6.

That's not true. Some people might have enough time to have two relationships. Say your job does not take up most of your time. It is possible to have enough time* for each relationship. One does have limited resources, so having 4 relationships will probably result in having not enough time for each relationship. Just because a certain amount for a certain individual is not practical, does not mean that this must be the case for everyone. Time Maker has already pointed to this but you did not provide an explanation to answer his suggested problem with your argument. * What is the standard of "enough time"? Basically, one must have enough time to get to know the other person. Beyond this, "enough time" depends on the lives of the two people involved, their individual psychological needs and lifestyle. sNerd: I've been thinking about your question for me. The answer is that being directly involved with some of the romantic aspects of their relationship would bother me: because I would feel like I am sticking my nose where it doesn't belong: relationships need privacy (but not necessarily exclusivity - it's not the same). If I am romantically involved with someone I would not want to express that in public. I would rather express it when we are alone, where there is no other consciousness neither of us has to think about or perceive except for each others. Full enjoyment from one another is enabled when our focus is capable of being directed at each other. If we are on a busy street, for example, with people pushing us from each side, looking each other in the eyes and having a conversation would be seriously disrupted: the flow of information will be disrupted, and the enjoyment diminished. But if I know he just came back home from a date with her... I guess that would be okay. (I told you already, I don't know how I would feel, I get a blank when I try to think about it). It is easier for me to think of polygamy when thinking about it from my point of view: Suppose I have a lover. And suppose I know another man, which I admire and love as well: and one day the other man shows me some achievement he has accomplished: would I want him sexually, or not? Well the answer is: yes I will. So why not have it? Can't think of a darn good reason why not. So there is my answer.

Not quite. She says: Existence or non-existence is a constant choice for all living things. To exist is the good, to perish is the bad, for all living things: this is the standard of good/evil for all organisms. All animals act toward preserving their life: life is an end in itself: such is the nature of life. Plants and animals perform the motions required for their survival automatically; man does not. Man has a choice. Therefor: Man has to live qua man and to plan for the long term (including taking risks in the short term) to preserve his life in the long term, if he wishes to survive. The only way to survive is by being man: therefor rationality, productiveness, etc' are good and necessary. And then: The standard of good for man is man's life, or the survival of man qua man. There is a switch between the standard of good for all living things, and the standard of good for man.

Seeker: I think your last post was just genius. The best, most coherent explanation I have ever read. But I believe I have challenged it by showing what the principle of "surviving qua an organism's nature" is self contradictory, because in fact it assums two ultimate values instead of one. BUT... I think that if we adjust the definition of "life" or the use of the word in the statement "That which furthers an organism's life is the standard of good", we can, perhaps, solve the problem. Can you define what is "man's life" then? Tell me what AB is, explicitly. And what is "life" for a lion. Identify AL, please. And explain to me why B and L are a part of an organism's "life" rather than any other characteristic of a man or a lion in these examples.

Bahhh!! no no! of course not! No, I don't think that this is Rand's view of ethics. This is not the problem I am pointing at. I think that to begin with, Rand made a statement about all living things: not about most, or some. Man IS included in the initial statement about the standard of good for all organisms. Just to make where I am coming from clear: I am not saying that the standard of good/evil for man should be physical survival. I think that the purpose of man's life should be happiness, and that a good man is a heroic being, using his's mind to it's full capacity. I'm just saying: something is wrong in the reasoning that leads to the formulation of ethics in Objectivism (in this article). Again, the problem here is that you are assuming that Rand means MOST animals in the statement "The standard of good is that which furthers an organism's life" (when life is physical existence, like she defined and demonstrated throughout the article). But she did not mean MOST animals, she meant ALL: this was a general statement which is true for all living things, not for most. Edit: fixed my answer to match your question.

Rand explains well what is the standard of ethics for man. It is not the survival as a mimicking animal, or a thug, but of a rational, productive man. No problem here. The problem is on what she bases ethics. Why is survival as a mimicking animal bad? why is the attempt to survive in the way animals do bad? (bold emphasis mine) The reason why survival qua man is good, is that this is the only way possible for man to stay alive. Man must survive qua man not because that is the good, but because there is no other choice if man wants to stay alive. This is what Ayn Rand is showing: that in order to stay alive, man must become what it is. If I understand you Kendall, you say that "life" was always meant as "life of a certain organism". So when Rand said "that which furthers life is the standard of good" she actually meant "that which furthers life of the organism qua it's nature is the standard of good". And when she talked about how plants, animals and man must achieve their food, she was only doing that because she described something that was true for all organisms. That just ain't true. She always talked about how an organism's nature serves it's physical survival. Never about how an organism's nature serves it's survival qua itself. Read the quotes about what is the only way man can survive: the end result is always the physical state of existence: She never attempts to show that being rational is the good because rational is man's nature. Rather, she shows that being rational is good because this is man's means of survival. You say that the standard of good is the survival of an organism qua it's nature, and that this has been intended all along. That the good is surviving while being what the organism is. But observe what happens when you apply this principle: Being what it is, is good automatically: if a man is born without a leg, it is automatically the good to be what nature designed for it to be. That is the logical conclusion from saying that the good is automatically surviving qua what you were born as. It also means, that since the standard of good is survival qua what you were born as, that man would be immoral in attempting to upgrade their brain. I mean, sure, it will improve their ability to survive: but too bad that they will no longer be human. The consequence of your principle: a contradiction between one's two ultimate values: being itself and surviving, because not always is an organism's nature designed to keep it alive, or to do so in the best way possible. To sum up Rand's reasoning: The good is that which furthers man's survival, which can only be done by being a man (which has to be achieved by choice). Then, she comes up with this: I see no logical link between the first half of the article and this statement. The last one statement is not based. She first establishes that rationality (or living by man's nature) is good because it is man's means of survival. Then she upgrades rationality a bit to make is the standard of good and evil. ???

If a concrete has a feature that contradicts the abstraction describing it - it cannot belong in that group. Rand defines life as a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action. From the context in which she uses this word, it is made clear that she means the physical existence of an organism, or that state in which his process of self-generated action is active: Or how about this: She is using the word "life" in the biological sense. It is made clear from the first quote I gave. So now, if man is a concrete under the abstraction "organism", then ethics should apply to man the same way it applies to every organism. "The good is that which furthers the organism's life". If ethics as defined for all organisms contradicts ethics that apply to men, then either man is not an organism, or there is an error in one set of ethics. As for survival of man: It is made perfectly clear that by "survival" she means physical state of existence. It is made clear by her use of the word "survival" to describe the state of men who attempt to live (and survive) by reducing themselves to animals, by mimicking others or stealing: Survival does not mean anything fancy, it simply mean the state of not being dead. Those men succeed at keeping their body operating. They may do that by acting like humans or not, but the word "survive" is used in the biological sense. Yet, When it comes to man, Ayn rand starts by defining ethics in a way that (eventually) contradicts the definition for all organisms. It is the second definition, the definition of ethics for man that I have been always using. She start by saying: Where is the logical link between the two, you ask? well here is the really bad part: the connection is that life (process of self...) is still the standard of value, but since man can only survive (exist physically) as man, ethics become that which is contributes to the survival of a rational animal. This is a tricky one: The survival of man qua man is the good only because there is no other way for man to survive. THAT, is the link. And there lies the problem. Because she starts from something and eventually reaches a conclusion that contradicts it. There is a difference between "The survival of man as an animal that can practice reason, experience enjoyment and achieve happiness is the standard of good/evil" and "The survival of man is the standard of good/evil, and having reason, ability to enjoy etc' are good because they are required for his survival". HUGE difference. The problem is that Ayn Rand builds ethics in the later way, not the former one.

You are missing a nuance. Ayn Rand starts by making a general statement about all living things, about good and evil for all living things. The nature of every animal determines the specific values for it. If a lion is a perceptual being, then sense organs are a value for it. If it eats meat, then rabbits are a value to it. If an animal is conceptual, then reason is a value for it. The standard of value for all creatures, however, is their physical existence. It is never survival of all the aspects of the organism, rather it is: survival of the aspects of the organism are required for it to survive physically. The standard of value for a lion is not: survival of perceptual faculty, survival of legs, teeth, and feel-good-chemical mechanism. The standard of value for it is not "life qua lion" but rather: life (physical state). This is the same for all organisms. The nature of the animal is the thing that needs to be obeyed in order for it to survive physically. Not "the survival of all the aspects of the animal is the good". If a lion looses a leg it is bad because it hinders it's physical existence, not because the existence of it's leg is the standard of good for it. Did I get the nuance clear, or should I explain further? Seeker: my answer to sNerd applies directly to you: Rand builds ethics from this starting point. "The good is that which furthers life (physical state)". And not "The good is that which furthers the survival of all the aspects of an organism's nature". So you did not provide the logical link, probably because you did not see clearly the gap I was pointing at. So here it is, I hope you see it now. Edit: Just want to make clearer why the devil's advocate does not point at the direction of the flaw that I see: Your lion example, sNerd, seems to go in the direction of showing that Rand always meant "life" to be "that which is experienced by the animal, to the best of it's capacity". So "life" for an Amoeba and plant would be a mental blank, life for an animal would be pleasure/pain, and life for a human would be happiness/sadness (or something in that direction). So your next step would be to show that in fact "happy life" was always behind the scenes when she said "life", but only when humans are discussed. But I think this was never meant by Rand: she always meant "life" as physical existence.

Objectivism starts by saying that the good is that which furthers the life of an organism. Then it goes on to discuss different types of Organisms, their nature, and their sets of values. The standard of morality remains the same. Ayn Rand builds man's ethics from this. This is where she starts: this is how she defines the good, for any living entity, man being a sub-case. Based on this, she proceeds to say that the only way man can survive is by living according to his nature, and that the only way to survive is by investing in the long term, since always focusing on the short term will lead to quick annihilation, and to destruction of his life in the near future. Then, somehow, all of a sudden, when it comes to man, a sub-case of an organism, the standard of morality changes. "Life" is not longer a "self-sustaining, self-generated action", but it is "success in business, enjoying children, having happiness, and more". This is what y'all are saying. Where is the logical link between the two? From what I've read, the starting point of morality for man is the same good/evil as it is for all organisms. It is like David Odden said: Life (as in physical existence) is the standard of good/evil. but in order to achieve it, man has to live according to his nature, which means to be rational. From this the rest follows: he must have a productive work, must invest in the long-term, etc'. But the starting point remains the same. Then, from "man must live qua man to survive" she adds "the natural state of man is to experience happiness" and then "if man cannot have happiness, death is a good choice". Well, if this isn't a 0=1 I don't know what is. Unless the starting point of morality is not "furthers life (physical state) is the good", there is a contradiction here. And from what I have read it is the starting point for all life forms. I am going to quote From the article later, and establish what I said here with quotes.

It is not my interpretation. It is stated explicitly by Ayn Rand. I have quoted her. What she means by "life" and by "survival" was very clear. It is you who is inventing things as if the meaning of words can be replaced at whim. It is you who is ignoring the definition Rand supplied, and instead leaning on your own interpretation, which you supported with no quotes. It is you who proves that you have not read/understood the article by giving a ridiculous interpretations to words that were defined in the very article. (bold emphasis mine) Man might have a lot of aspects of existence open to his choice, man might have a lot of terms, conditions and sub-goals through which he can achieve survival. It does not change the meaning of survival. Man might be a rational being. If he to survive, he must recognize his nature. This does not mean that Survival is not what it is. Words are not rubber. Read the article: survival and life are defined.

mrocktor, I do think that such a thing as a full satisfaction in the short term exists. Perhaps people here should clarify what is the time span which they are talking about when using the word "satisfied". Second thing: I would not use the words "a soul mate", but I do think it is possible for two people to be perfect for each other, in the sense that each of them has every trait that they admire. They share their individual values completely. As for intimacy: I find that other friends that I had tended to close up when they felt that I preferred someone else over them. That, however, was never the case for me, unless I thought I was preferred because of flawed hierarchy of values/flawed judgement. I once had a friend I loved: she had another best friend, but I didn't mind. I wanted to tell her things about me, the most personal thoughts I had. It gave me pleasure to be psychologically visible to her, I didn't care that at the time I wasn't her best friend (and even if it stayed that way I wouldn't mind as well). For me the ability to develop intimacy with someone depend primarily on their character, and not on past experiences or the amount of people the other person is sharing personal information with (as long as they are all worthy). I don't think that having intimacy with one person diminished the level of intimacy with another person. At least for me.

Nice try, wrong argument. Read "The Objectivist Ethics" in VoS to see the definition of life which Ayn Rand is using as the foundation of morality: "A process of self-sustaining, self-generated action". She makes it very clear that by "life" she basically means "the state of not being dead". While the problem might be solved by saying that man's life means a happy life, this is not the way it is phrased nor meant in Objectivism. I'm not saying that the problem can't be solved, I'm just saying that there is a contradiction in Objectivism. Of course, contradictions can't exist (metaphysically) so it is possible to solve it. But not without acknowledging first that there is an error. Thank you for pointing that out to me. why, I was just about ready to bark, when you came in and posted this brilliant observation.

I just discovered 2 days ago that Objectivism has a fundamental contradiction. I don't have a new theory yet. Objectivism is what I have been relying on for years. Ask me again in a few years, I'll have an answer then. Everything in what you said is wrong. Good and evil are not generated once a man makes a choice. Good and evil (what they are) do not depend in any way on man's choice. The choice does not create the standard. The good according to Objectivism is that which furthers man's life, regardless of what any specific man might chose. If you try to base the foundation of good and evil on that which serves a man's choice, you get all kind of freakish things. For example: I choose to live like a dog: therefor the good is that which serves my purpose. See? it just can't work. Either morality is Objective, or it depends on people's whims. I am deeply shocked, but I honestly think there is a fundamental contradiction in Objectivism. I don't know how to solve it yet, but it is crystal clear that it exists and there is no way around it. And it is not just on this suicide example, but there are many more. Objectivism treats pleasurable life as an ultimate value, and not life as an ultimate value. It does so implicitly though, like a thief in the night, unnoticed. Well I see you thief!