HaloNoble6

Apparently I edited my post above just as you were writing back: notice the second quote of my post in your post above now includes an emphasis on the connection between thought and action. OK, when I say "rehabilitation," I'm thinking of a very narrow application of it, namely to criminals in jail. Yes I'm an advocate of rehabilitation in general, but not of state rehabilitation of criminals, nor of checking criminals, prior to their release, whether they are rehabilitated through their punishement. It makes sense to me, since punishement in the criminal court is meant to deter crime by making criminals feel pain nearly equivalent to the pain they've inflicted, to take into account a criminal's past, because if past punishement did not deter, something must be changed. If this amounts to what you're saying, then I agree.

But then now you seem to not be an advocate of rehabilitation. I didn't miss the point, I said threats must be objectively validated by pointing to acts, not thoughts, i.e. a bad thought does not constitute a threat. So now I'm confused, a "rehabilitated" person refers to a person who's mindset has changed from that of a criminal to that of a non-criminal. This is necessarily congnitive. Checking for rehabilitation, whether you wish the state to carry it out or not, means checking the mental content of a person, which can mean calling a bad thought a threat, if you wish to retain a criminal if he isn't "rehabilitated," or just extrapolating the cognitive content from actual actions of the ex-con. So what precisely are you advocating? I suppose it would help if you stated precisely what "rehabilitation" consists of and how propose to check for it. Tentatively, I'll say that, at most, a government should keep tabs on the actions of recently-freed criminals to ensure, on the basis of their actions, whether they are a threat to society. I do not, absolutely do not, advocate the idea of guilty until proven innocent, or of keeping past criminals away from society (in essence punishing them) until they prove they are not a threat to society.

No, I don't. I wish to uphold the principles of Objective Law, and these are: Laws should be clearly outlined pronouncements that specify what is forbidden, why it is forbidden (here connecting them with an objective view of individual rights), what constitutes a violation of these pronouncements, and what penalty will be incurred by someone, based on the principle of proportional punishment (where the criminal is subjected to punishment that is proportional to the harm he inflicted on his victim(s)), were they to violate these pronouncements. In light of this, once an individual has served his time for his crime, it would be unjust and non-objective to detain him further with release contingent upon psychological review for rehabilitation. To establish a judicial system where citizens don't clearly know what the punishment for a specific crime is, beforehand, is insane. The notion of keeping a criminal until he's rehabilitated--or worse, letting him off early because he's "rehabilitated--hands the government a weapon for keeping people it doesn't like longer than the time associated with the crime they committed--or for letting go of people it does like earlier than the time associated with the crime they committed. No, I'm not draconian, nor do I think that objectively validated threats to society should be left free to roam. There is a third alternative that I think you're missing. If I remember correctly, it wasn't (and shouldn't be) a crime to think about killing people, i.e. thinking "bad" thoughts does not consist of the initiation of force. As such, that a criminal serving time might be thinking about again committing crimes is not a crime and not grounds for keeping him longer for "rehabilitation." Threats of course must be validated by specific actions, such as the acquiring of specific resources that logically could be used for crime. Otherwise, searching and probing a man's head for his inclinations is madness and constitutes the initiation of force on the part of the government.

Do you not esteem yourself?

Such abstract posturing of such a simple problem, and then such vivid descriptions of what our options are on the matter. I like what Don said: just because pleasure isn't the standard of value doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a value. Further, it appears some would have us completely obliviate the physical aspects of the sexual mechanism, as if to take note of such things is to be beastly. The sexual pleasure derived from masturbation is drastically different than the sexual pleasure derived from intercourse with a partner: in the former the mind is free to fantasize, in the latter it isn't and fantasizing would be dishonest. So, let us focus on the former. First: What is the content of the fantasy while you are masturbating? Are you fantasizing about sex with Hillary Clinton? If so, what turns you on about her? What value would sex with her bring to your life? Second: Presuming you are deriving value from this act, are you doing it at the cost of some other greater value? It would seem that some here would have us think that masturbation costs a great deal of time and resources, presuming that time itself is a value. Here again I agree with Don: to discuss time as a value means to discuss the productive activity one could engage in during that time, i.e. the value one could be attaining with the time. Time, as such, is not a value in some absolute sense. Resources? What resources, are you kidding me? Anyway, as I said, don't confuse yourself with almost entirely irrelevant questions like "Am I thinking of my ideal?" as was stated here, just ask yourself: "What am I doing?," "Is this a value to me and how?," and "Am I doing this at the cost of some greater value?" I.e., keep the focus on how this act benefits you, and why. Edited for correction of conceptual error. - Felipe

So then who here is saying we all are morally guilty for the initiation of force (if we know driving our cars initiations force against others)?

So I release 10 moles of CO2 in Syracuse, it will reach Greenland and Chile? Where does the pollution in L.A. go, China? Perhaps pollution from China is what's in L.A.? I never meant to imply that pollution is always localized, my dear tree, so perhaps you are incorrect in presuming that I did. I don't think either of the following two claims is credible: 1.) pollution is always localized, 2.) pollution is never localized--I think the answer is contextual, and you're right, we don't have the technology to discover every context on every spot on the Earth. However, my 'solution' still holds in the context of a city where the pollution is obviously localized, like L.A. But perhaps I'm going out on a long, thin tree limb by making this claim?

Permit me to think out loud here. I'm having difficulty with establishing a direct causal link between the production of a few mole of pollutants and any possible harm brought to an individual by way of the penetration of these few moles of pollutants into his person and/or property. It seems to me that the fact that harm comes almost always at the hands of a high concentration of these pollutants ads a level of vaguery to the matter. Furthermore, I'm not completely convinced that the grape analogy here holds: while taking value, any amount of value, from an individual, by force, is wrong, what value has directly been taken by the penetration of the few moles of pollutants into Jane and/or her property released by John Doe? Ie., where are the facts of reality pointing to the idea that the penetration of a few moles of pollutants, say X, produced and released by John Doe, constitute the taking of value? Wait a moment; perhaps I'm framing the question wrong. The law should guard against the initiation of force, that is the primary, not the taking of value, which may or may not be a consequence. OK, so, is the basic claim here that the penetration of X moles of blah into Jane Doe, produced by John Doe, consists of the use of force, because Jane never sanctioned or approved of this penetration? Perhaps the solution is: by choosing to live in such and such area, you are very likely to have the penetration of X moles of blah into you and/or your property, so act accordingly. This begs the question: is it at all sane to demand that such-and-such man-made, airborne substance not penetrate my person and/or property? I mean, would it be proper to demand that no man-made sounds penetrate one's person and/or property if one chooses to live in a big city?

I wrote a blog post on children's rights a while back, perhaps you guys would be interested in it. Any comments would be appreciated. Post

I guess I disagree with you guys. I see no role for government in rehabilitation whatsoever. The government's job is to defend the rights of its citizens when under attack or under threat of attack. I don't see rehabilitation is a direct response to either the use of force or the threat of the use of force. When a criminal breaks the law, the law's job is to outline the punishment for breaking such a law, in the criminal courts, and the civil courts should determine the nature of the value lost that ought to be returned, if at all possible, to the victims of the law-breaker. Rehabilitation has no place in any of this. Unless, of course, you loosely call punishment rehabilitation, but that's rather sketchy, since the point of punishment is not rehabilitation, it's justice.

I have extensive experience with the matter. Answer the following: -Do you enjoy, or do you see yourself enjoying the idea of, discovering new concepts in science? -Do you enjoy, or do you see yourself enjoying the idea of, discovering new ways to apply the spectacular amount of scientific concepts that already exist? -Which of the above two do you think you would enjoy more? Would you enjoy both? Would one not be acceptable at all? The practice of engineering, generally, is concept application. That is, it's applied physics. The study of physics is, generally, concept formation. So, basically, all engineers need a strong background in physics, but if you think you'll get bored with finding new applications for physics, and would rather find new physics, act accordingly. The pure physics track, however, is very long, and highly academic. Academia comes with a set of baggage, so you probably should also take this into account. Just some thoughts.

Sadly, no. In an auditorium that could easily fit 200, I would say about 30 people showed up. However, I don't know what was expected, nor what Colgate's student body's philosophical leanings are.

Hey everyone, just thought David's idea of a local forum was good and thought it would be good to start one for my area. Yesterday I went to Andrew Bernstein's talk at Colgate in Hamilton, NY, one hour southeast of Syracuse. The talk was titled "Religion vs. Morality" and was pretty good. I purchased a copy of Cap Man and got it autographed, lol. Anyway, who else but one strange tree lives in this area?

I appreciate any and all pokes in the right direction.

Well, passing a course is not what I had in mind. I guess I had a very good trig teacher in high school that explained the concepts well. Though the mathematics is more complex than in this new approach, I don't think the concepts in classical trig are necessarily difficult. I at least have certainly found no difficulty with classical trig and its concepts, and I've taken several high level math courses beyond calculus. At first glance I think this new approach will be more helpful to new-comers to mathematics, since it's meant to make the mechanics of mathematics easier.

Very interesting. I wonder, however, of what use this would be for those of us who have already mastered "classical trigonometry."

See, rehabilitation is a slippery slope. First, the mind can't be forced. It is contra man's identity to be forced. Second, now you're placing the control of the concept "rehabilitated" in government hands, which is an agent of force. So, you have the government trying to force it's own notion of what "rehabilitated" means onto the minds of men. I say the government is an agent of force, and should stick to forcing punishment (in criminal courts) and forcing retribution (in civil courts). Placing the control of "molding the minds of criminals to be fit for society" in government hands is also not part of the defense of rights. How does rehabilitation consist of a defense of rights? I say the government retaliates against the use or threat of force, not preempts by molding the minds of proven initiators of force.

(Split from another thread) So Dave, are you saying that the penal system should try and rehabilitate criminals? If so, how do you justify this, given an understanding of the proper role of government?

The porpuse of the criminal court is to punish the criminal, the porpuse of the civil court is to return value to the criminal's victim. This is exactly how it should work, because there are two aspects to how government should deal with the initiation of force: punishing the criminal and returning as much value to the victim as possible.

Just to tie loose ends, Inspector, were you or were you not saying that every sexual relationship must have marriage as a potential, for the relationship to be moral?

It appears that what you are handing out is advice, not moral guidelines, correct? In essence, you are saying that waiting for a partner that is at or close to your ideal makes the attainment of this person better? I'm tending to agree with you there, though I would say that I'm not sure to what extent it makes the attainment better. There are many common examples of how waiting for something until it's just right makes it a little more special. Like with roller coasters. When I first rode one, I waited until I could ride the fastest one in the park, rather than building up to it with the smaller ones. Again, I think this is just advice, not a moral guideline. As for Dagny/Hank, I think they deserved each other at that point, since they both had not figured out the secret of the destroyer, and they both had worked slavishly to get the Galt line built. I don't think that at that point, nor at any time in her future, was her decision to sleep with him destructive.

Hell yeah, Phil.

I was writing that post to Hunter as you were writing your first response to me, but you finished before me. I was not advocating whim-worship, if that's what you're asking. What I'm saying is that while marriage is a lifetime contract, non-marital sexual relationships clearly aren't. Are you implying that we have to have marriage in mind before we enter any sexual relationship at all? See, if I go ahead and a priori set marriage as the morally proper goal of every sexual relationship, I can then say that any sexual relationship absent this goal is immoral. It appears that you require, for the situation to be moral, at minimum, that people in a sexual relationship not disqualify each other as potential marriage partners. Is that the case? If so, I ask where does the premise come from? Why are sexual relationships absent serious marriage considerations necessarily destructive to one's life in the long run? Basically, why must enjoyment of a rationally-based source of happiness require that the potential for enjoying it for the rest of one's life be present? I mean, for example, I just bought a new truck. I have dogs, they are messy, I drive hard, I move every two years or so, etc.; I need a tough vehicle. I don't have the time to meticulously take care of every single little thing that goes wrong or gets dirty, so I fully expect to outlive my truck. So, I don't approach buying a car as "it must last me forever, else the exchange is contra my life." However, there are people who have the time and the resources to take care of their car so they, on the other hand, do approach buying a vehicle this way and it actually does out-live them. Does that mean that I'm acting whimsically, without my full life in mind? No, I don't think so. Both they and I are acting on our value-hierarchy, hence we are moral. Now, what is it about sexual relationships as such that require that one have marriage in mind? Why are short-term sexual relationships, based on important values, self-destructive if the parties involved are not considering being together for the rest of their lives? My view is that while of course one must consider the long-term effects of engaging in a short-term sexual relationship, just as one does with any decision in life, but that this is different than ensuring the existence of at least the potential for a lifelong relationship, much different than saying that every relationship must have the potential of lasting a lifetime. Suppose our culture had this institution called "farriage" that was a step up from friendship, a sort of contract between friends that wanted to live together for a period of time and share stuff; a step up from a normal friendship, formalized by contract. Would I then have to make sure that every friend of mine be a potential partner for farriage for the friendship to be moral? I don't think so. Marriage is another thing entirerly, and I don't see anything necessarily destructive about having a sexual relationship without considering marriage. Lastly, I know people living perfectly productive, rational lives that have marriage very low on their value hierarchy. Does that mean that they can't ever engage in a sexual relationship? Are they to remain celibate because they don't have the time or desire for marriage like others do? Perhaps you think something is wrong with someone that doesn't value marriage highly?

OK, good, then this criticism isn't directed at you. It appears we are in agreement on the matter, then, and the only thing left to consider is determining when and how flaws are such that costs outweigh benefits. As I said, I think one has to look at the nature of the flaw. This thread apparently was started from a discussion on the flaw of being religious. "Being religious" is quite vague, and I'd think one would have to take it on a case-by-case basis. As to Hank/Dagny, so you think she makes an error by sleeping with Hank? So, while you don't think she acted immorally, you think she acted against her best interests? Perhaps you can elaborate. Why is her decision to sleep with him harmful to her?

You make some good sense, Hunter. Picking a marriage partner definately involves a higher standard. To me marriage is like a calculated prediction, it's basically saying that "I'm not at all likely to find someone that will bring me nearly as much happiness as this person, where the degree of happiness they bring me is based on my life and on the fulfillment of my requirements for a partner." And, since we are not omniscient, we can very much er in this decision (as many bigtime O'ists have, like Dr. Peikoff, who's been divorced). I'm not sure I'd be quick to condemn Dagny had she decided to marry Hank or Francisco, prior to knowing that a man like Galt existed. I would had she decided to marry them rather than Galt. I agree with you that marraige should be with one's ideal, but it is in a different sense that I speak of ideal than most, and I think you see this my way. Ideal doesn't mean some vague conception of "perfect" or "flawless," it means, for me, the full meeting of one's introspection-based standards for a partner. Non-marital sexual relationships, on the other hand, though they should also be based on high values, can very much be isolated and short-term in nature, and don't involve life-long considerations like marriage does.