prosperity
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by prosperity
-
-
Note: Please familiarize yourself with the Objectivist position on abortion before participating on this thread. A good starting point is the Abortion article on the Objectivism Wiki. - GC
I find the views of certain members of The ARI, such as Peikoff and Brook, on the topic of absortion to not be rational. I will brefly here present my pro-life, objectivist standpoint and invite anyone who cares to to try and find a contradiction in my arguement.
The views of Peikoff, and likely many other objectivists, is that people are only endowned withe rights of a human beings after they are born. Before conception, it takes an act of will to create a fetus. A fetus will develop into a rational human being unless another act of will is responcible for the termination of that fetus. The fact that the life exists within the body of another is irrelevant. In the near future we will be able to allow a fetus to develop entirely outside of a human body, this does not mean that person is not human because they where never actually born in the traditional sense. As a correlary it is also clear that very little is different about a fetus/human being in the moments before it is born and those immediately afterwards.
I say then that assigning a fetus the human right to life only 'after it is born' is being arbitary, and hense, not rational.
As there is no objective measure for consiousness aside from human/non-human I say that stating any cutoff between when a fetus is endowned with the rights of a human other than conception is unreasonable.
When you are able to choose your values, morality applies to you. So the question is: can the fetus choose to live or die - i.e. to be born?
That will answer the question as to whether a fetus has any rights.
-
I don't believe there is actually a "psychological altruism" any kind of altruism is done in order to get benifit from at a later time or in the long run. the only other kind of "altruism" that your professor might cal psychological is not really even altruism at all. for example the daughter that feeds her retarded mother might be doing it simply because she loves her. Love not something altruistic. the daughter values her mother for whatever reason (its her own business as to why) and therefore she provides her with food. nothing altruistic; theres no such thing as "psychological altruism", only biological.
I would add that real altruism is the sacrificing of a value for a lesser or non value. The task then is just to consider a hierarchy of values. For example, let's say that you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread. You are not "sacrificing" your hard-earned money for that bread, you are trading for it. The bread is more valuable than the money in your pocket.
On the flip side, let's say that you give your money to a stranger who is a crackhead on the street so that they can go get wasted and meanwhile your child goes without a new pair of shoes because of it. That's a sacrifice.
-
Now, to answer the bulk of your post, I'd like to first correct an error. According to Objectivism, man has rights not because he is conscious (Unless I'm misunderstanding the term), per-say, but because he has a rational faculty...
That's pretty close. The way Miss Rand put it (and I am paraphrasing, I think): The concept of life necessitates the concept of value(s). As such, only living entities can possess values. The fact that man chooses his values - the fact that man possesses volition or free will - necessitates the concept of morality, and thus "rights".
-
In the movie Fearless, they made the contestants sign "Death Wavers" in order to fight, because it is so dangerous. While death was not the intended outcome, it was certainly a possibility. I am not sure, but I think they actually did make them sign Death Wavers in order to fight in China up until relatively recently.
Also, in the show Metalocalypse, the fans must sign Death Wavers before attempting to go to a Dethklok concert, for fear that they might have boiling oil poured upon them or have their fingers cut off and thrown up on stage, only to have the Bass Guitarist, William Murderface, smoke them like cigarettes.
Now, this should be politically legal if all parties have signed a contract, similar to a Death Waver, although the question comes to the moral and ethical level. In other words, why the HELL would you want to put yourself in that kind of risk unnecessarily? I can understand the fighting more than the dueling, being that the fighting, death is not an intended outcome. Would I do it? Probably not.
I believe the old Ultimate Fighter used to do this also. When I was in highschool (over 10 years ago), a few of my friends used to beg their parents to buy the pay-per view events. You would see some of these guys 5' 120lbs taking on 500lb+ sumo wrestlers. They did it for money, but geez, there has to be an easier way to make a living
-
Some people seem to think that whatever a market is doing -- i.e. the stock market -- has already taken everything into account, and to fully accept that idea, one would have to believe that all parties to the transaction have all the information and will act on it rationally. However, not only isn't this always the case, but also rational people can have different understandings of the available facts, even if they all had the exact same data and it was all of the data available. For example, do you think the "bail-out" plan with all of its manipulations of the markets bode well for the long-term future or not? There seems to be a lot of hesitancy in an answer to this question, which is one reason markets all over the world are so volatile. They all know the "bail-outs" will go into effect, but differ on what that means to the various economies.
That too...good point
-
I recently learned about the Efficient Market Hypothesis in my Micro-economics course. When I first heard about it from my professor, i was kind of shocked that such an idea exists. Anyway, I did some research, and now it makes even less sense! According to EMH, the market right now reflects all predictable current and future trends for the different investment possibilities, so it is impossible to predict what stocks will do well.
My problems is that there are deviations, and not just the statistical kind. If there was a plumber or someone that made a fortune like Warren Buffet, I would believe because that would mean that it really is just random. But all of these people are extremely well educated.
What do more knowledgeable people here think though.
The problem with the academic version of the EMH is what they think an efficient market means. They want the market to be efficient without any real reason.
But since nothing happens instantaneously, there is not going to be a situation where all information is reflected in a stock's price at any given moment. There is a lag, however long or short, before information affects stock prices...and new information is constantly coming to the market.
I would say that efficiency would show the best possible information that is available at any given time perhaps, but not all information.
-
http://investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...2/REG/310139971
http://genxfinance.com/2008/10/16/did-you-...your-401k-plan/
Partial excerpt from first article:
He thinks that not paying taxes now (but having to pay them later) constitutes a subsidy, so he wants to take taht way and replace it with a different subsidy coupled with mandatory purchase of gov't savings bonds...
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
As is, I can count on 1 finger the times where a 401(k) makes sense to invest in for the long-term. The problem is that you can't invest in them for the short-term effectively either. If you take away the tax break on the front end, it becomes a total piece of crap.
I know this shouldn't come as a surprise to those on this board, but treat Government sponsored anything with an extremely high dose of skepticism as to whether it will do what it is allegedly supposed to do.
-
But causality is not. Determinism as you are referring to it deals with the issue of free will. It is certainly possible for you to have biological characteristics that will put you at greater risk for cancer, and that these characteristics are (among other things) genetic in nature. That doesn't violate any aspect of causality.
The place Determinism and causality split is on the issue of will.
In regards to Downs Syndrome and it is likely the same with cancer (or similar), there are probably environmental factors that set these things in motion. I was thinking that the extra chromosome 21 would be more of a cause and effect thing. Especially when I read some of the causes:
For parents of a child with Down syndrome due to translocation trisomy 21, there may be an increased likelihood of Down syndrome in future pregnancies. This is because one of the two parents may be a balanced carrier of the translocation. The translocation occurs when a piece of chromosome 21 becomes attached to another chromosome, often number 14, during cell division. If the resulting sperm or ovum receives a chromosome 14 (or another chromosome), with a piece of chromosome 21 attached and retains the chromosome 21 that lost a section due to translocation, then the reproductive cells contain the normal or balanced amount of chromosome 21. While there will be no Down syndrome associated characteristics exhibited, the individual who develops from this fertilized egg will be a carrier of Down syndrome. Genetic counseling can be sought to find the origin of the translocation. - Source: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/birthdefect..._syn_causes.htm -
Here is an article regarding Alan Greenspan's take on the problem and how to resolve it. Since he doesn't mention deregulation, I think it can put to rest any idea that he is somehow an Objectivist who got into the government and kept things lined out.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Thursday he is "shocked" at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and that he expects the unemployment rate to jump.
Later: At the heart of the breakdown of credit markets was the securitization system that stimulated appetite for loans made to borrowers with spotty credit histories, Greenspan said.
Sure, don't mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act and other regulations distorting the free market.
I suppose this whole mess does show what happens if one tried to use volatile commodities as a basis for exchange; when that market comes down, those backed securities become nearly worthless or at least so uncertain that no one wants them; which is why gold or some other difficult to find commodity needs to be used to back money.
Recently, I had someone tell me that there was no proof that the Government intervention caused the problem, or had anything to do with it. I chock it up to lack of knowledge, but they went on to say that there is no way to "prove" the Government is distorting anything.
That's a lot of blanking out.
-
Ayn Rand said something to this effect. I don't have the reference at hand, but it was along the lines of "How do you survive in an irrational society?" SPEAK. Don't sit silently while others spout nonsense. You're under no obligation to speak if there is a threat of force against you, but if you are free to speak you must (morally) at least say "I disagree". This avoids what others have mentioned about tacit approval.
(BTW, "you" here is the generic pronoun and applies to me as well; I'm not picking on anyone personally.)
Well, his comment was a bit off topic as we had been there 3 days and I just wanted it to be over.
Actually, the whole situation was quite hostile. Every other juror was yelling at me because I wouldn't find the man guilty. Under the circumstances, there was no evidence of his guilt. It was one person's word against the other. The judge wanted us to rule based on character because there were not enough facts to analyze and that the facts surrounding the incident could not prove anything.
The jurors were also arguing about what the term "reasonable doubt" meant. It was ridiculous. So there was more than just the "you can't be certain of anything" comment.
Since the man had been arrested for drug possession a year or two ago, this was apparently all that was necessary for most people to find him guilty of an unrelated crime he was accused of.
In the end, it was a hung jury, and I let each and every one of those jurors know that there were holes in the prosecution's case and that without a motive or any rational reason why this individual would commit this particular crime, I was not going to convict.
What really bothered me was one of the female jurors saying that "the defense hasn't proven himself innocent" - which I DID NOT stay silent for. I still cannot believe that EVERY other juror agreed with her.
I let her know that THAT was a perversion of justice and that HE didn't have to prove his innocence. That in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. The only response I got was, and I am paraphrasing, "well, it's a nice thought but when my kids do something wrong, they never fess up...I know you are supposed to assume they didn't do it, but the reality of the situation is they are guilty. So sometimes you have to assume they are guilty and punish them until they do fess up". I told her I felt sorry for her children. I was called every name in the book, and nearly everyone told me I was "too idealistic". I didn't budge. I didn't have to.
They were, well, irritated to say the least. I thought it was a victory for O'ism. I hope I left an impression on them.
The real problem, I discovered, is that in a court of law you are not asked to analyze whether the situation makes sense or whether the law makes sense. In short, you told not to think. The law is the law, and you are supposed to just make a determination as to whether the individual broke the law or not.
-
Well from a molecular biologist’s point of view:
There are some genetic mutations/diseases which clearly and consistently produce physiological or mental impairments. Having an extra copy of chromosome 21, for example, will result in an individual having down's syndrome. So I suppose that would be determinism. Genes do control an awful lot in our body and the fact is there are some things which willpower, reason, strength of character, etc. simply cannot overcome. I would lump cancers in this area as well. Cancer quit literally is due to some form of genetic mutation.
Things become more complex with diseases which may have a genetic factor. A great example that you brought up is alcoholism. The problem with these “diseases” is that when the media reports scientific information they oversimplify so a result like, "there appears to be genetic factors which make an individual more prone to alcoholism" gets shortened to, "Scientists find alcoholism gene!" In this regard I think it is carelessness on behalf of the media or people in general who are misrepresenting a scientific finding. The truncated statement seems to claim that a genetic factor is solely responsible for a behavior. Here we now have a case for biological determinism which is invalid because it was not demonstrated experimentally.
I'm sure there are people out there who intentionally contort scientific findings (scientists or otherwise) to attempt to present evidence for biological determinism where none exists.
The best way to figure out if something was true or not would be to read the original paper published by a scientist. First, what did the scientist claim compared to what you heard? The next step would be to understand how the scientist came to his conclusion. Looking at the data do you reach the same conclusion? Finally you'd want to read other papers by other scientist in the field. Have they studied the same gene? Did they find a similar result? Clearly this kind of analysis is impossible for all genes. I would advise using a more common sense approach:
From what I’ve observed and been taught, I think some actions may be influenced, not determined, by genetic factors. So when a researcher can locate a genetic element like a gene and show that the presence of a mutation in this gene appears to correlate with a certain behavior I am unsurprised. (This is not to minimize the importance of the discovery) Were someone to claim that they had identified a mutation in a gene which almost always leads to alcoholism I would be highly skeptical because I would find that highly surprising. Assuming the second finding was true, children with two alcoholic parents would have, at minimum, a 75% chance to be an alcoholic and from what I’ve seen that simply isn’t true.
I would really like some clarification on your use of "determinism". Because, if you are saying that Determinism is a valid concept, then we have a problem. If there are "cancer causing genes", is calling this "Determinism" mislabeling?
The reason I ask is because the theory of Determinism, as I know it, is a contradiction in terms.
-
I wanted to know, from those who may be more familiar with the hard science of biology, whether or not a "genetic" predisposition is more or less a form of biological determinism.
For example, I keep hearing on the news and reading in newspapers - in regards to "medical discoveries" - that _________ (you fill in the blank, there are so many "diseases" and "disorders" that go in there) is genetic.
Example: "Cancer is genetic", or "alcoholism is genetic", "there is a gene that controls ________ (any disorder, disease, or undesirable trait)?
I was wondering if this wasn't just Determinism in disguise?
Yes? No? Maybe in certain circumstances? How would one go about discerning truth from falsehood in this area?
-
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_...void_aging.html
Another good TED lecture that brings up interesting points as always about avoiding aging. I seriously hope this type of research gets funded and developed, I'd like to live for a few hundred years!
The good news is that it already is being funded, in part by the life extension foundation.
Dr. Michael West of Advance Cell Technology (who also heads up Geron), and had done extensive work with BioTime Inc. (a company specifically geared towards regenerative medicine) has been instrumental in helping to develop non-cancerous immortal cells in a lab setting. The work he's done with the "telomere clock" theory is pretty amazing. By continuing to "reset" our cell's inner "clock", theoretically, we should be able to regenerate any specific body part or group of parts we choose.
In the interview I read, Dr. West specifically mentions that President Bush's anti-stem cell attitude and initiatives have delayed progress in development of this type of regenerative medicine.
The good news is that Dr. West believes that within ONE year, the scientific community will have documentation of the first reversal of aging of a human cell. That, to me, is incredible. He goes on to say that commercialization (of certain disease-specific medicine) of stem cell therapy is, barring any government intervention, just around the corner (i.e. viable within most people's lifetime).
I have actually seen a skin cream that uses stem-cell therapy to reduce the signs of aging...so perhaps this is already in use in some limited fashion.
-
Is that a joke? Spiders a deadly threat?
Maybe not the common house spider. The venom from a sydney funnel web spider can kill you in about 15 minutes.
In the U.S., while not many die from black widows or brown recluses, it does happen.
-
I can say something personally about this. I came out because of objectivism. Before I discovered it, I dated a girl. I didn't want to but I did because I thought that it was immoral to be gay (catholic upbringing). I figured if I stayed with her long enough it could make me straight. That ended in disaster. Only after discovering Rand did I realize that I was faking reality. I didn't want a woman, any woman. I don't know why. I can assure you it has nothing to do with the way I was raised. I have an excellent relationship with both of my parents. I take issue with calling homosexuality a cowards way out. Coming out takes an extraordinary amount of courage.
First, I want to say that I haven't quite made up my mind on the "homo vs. hetero debate" - or rather whether or not homosexuality is immoral.
I will say this, this poster (above in quotes - original post on the 5th page) did bring up a good point and something that a few posters had brought up initially I'd like to continue to discuss.
I have bold and underlined what I think is a key statement that is reoccurring with homosexuals. I have often found that in defense of homosexuality, the homosexual often says "I don't know why I'm this way" (that or it is reduced to some type of biological deterministic argument i.e. "I was born this way, I can't help it")...underlying the entire defense is a complete lack of understanding of why they are the way they are.
I would guess that most heterosexuals don't know why they are the way they are either...but it might be meaningful to "chew" on the "why" (something brought up in post #1219 of this thread). Because as far as emotions go, there is nothing one can do about them except inquire as to why one is feeling them.
Introspection would provide an answer and help to determine what, in reality, is causing those feelings. Then, I think, you could judge whether those homosexual actions were moral or immoral or a rational or irrational basis.
Yes? No?
-
I'm trying to figure out what advantages or disadvantages these bailouts will have when compared with normal Chapter 11 filings. As you well know, if the companies file they will continue to operate. Is there something I don't know about the insurance industry that would have caused AIG to stop writing policies if they were in Chapter 11? Even if this happened, it seems that competitors would pick up the business. Perhaps there's some greater level of customer confidence one could exepct to be associated with the government bail-outs vis a vis a Chapter 11 filing.
I'm also thinking about my original statement and trying to decide what's wrong with it. It makes me a bit uneasy as well.
AIGs life insurance, annuity, and P&C business was actually stable. It was their non-insurance business that was causing problems. AIG made the same mistake that GM did. They moved away from their core competency.
I suspect that their insurance business would have continued or would have been sold off quickly - being that it is in good shape. In any case, it is likely they will have to sell off a lot of their insurance business anyway to raise money.
-
Eventually, you here very smart students begin to vehemently attack man, declare that nothing is absolute, and to here them reiterate mindless bromides that are - to them, as it was to their teachers before them - unchallengeable absolutes (hey, if nothing is absolute, then that statement isn't absolute, so you can create absolutes because they don't exist).
That reminds me of the time that I was serving on a jury. One of the jurors had said to me, in reference to my demanding the truth of the case, that "heck nothing is truly knowable - it's impossible to be certain of anything".
Of course, I just smiled. I wanted to say, "...I guess that would include you not being certain of your position that nothing can be certain".
...but I'm not sure he really even understood what he said, so that is a battle I didn't get into.
-
As I was reading the introduction to the site, I thought "Hmm... seems like an Objectivist wrote this, judging by the way he criticizes the Viros..." and sure enough, at the bottom, the first link was to ARI lol
I love that an Objectivist bought the rights to that domain name. That has to be a huge piece of salt in the wound for those new-age hippies.
-
We have Congress demanding that corporate executives put their entire careers on the line every time they sign financial documents - documents which make no sense, but which Congress nevertheless forced on them.
The Fed, the SEC, the DOJ, and congress have failed. Not the free market.
Perhaps you could expand on that a bit?
-
Isn't that sweet, you know how to read.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Rand separates producers from non-producers, not the wealthy from the poor.
If I had a nickel for every time someone told me "yeah, I read such and such by Ayn Rand, and she's wrong and here's why..." I'd be....well...you know.
...and then of course, they go on to either misquote Rand, or they embarrass themselves by exposing their poor comprehension skills.
-
Okay, I'll just say what I meant to say. I think the professor is right that you need to clarify what you're defining as "logical". It is logically valid to start with two false premises, apply correct logic, and arrive at a false conclusion. However, it is not logically sound. Whether or not it is "logical" is really a bit vague/unclear. By "logical" do you mean "logically sound"?
I was actually wondering if there was a syllogism that would prove the first proposition made in the professor's "god proof". The problem is that his first proposition does not use universals.
For example, if I said "All men are mortal". We can prove that that statement is true. However, we will get into a discussion of universals (which is a good reason to understand ITOE).
The first proposition that the professor made is an arbitrary statement. Also, I'm not sure that starting your proposition with "If" is a proper format. I'm not a professional in this area, so I don't know for certain. I was under the assumption that you started these things with "All" or "No", "Some", or some kind of definitive statement.
-
OMG. The instructor finally got involved in this discussion but attacked ME:
As a side topic, in another post at the same time, this conversation took place involving the instructor:
ME:
INSTRUCTOR:
To which I responded:
He then replied with:
He also challenged my previous argument with:
I don't care too much about responding to his criticism of my argument, but I really don't want to let his condemnation of Rand pass by. Especially since some students have responded to this post being interested and curious where the axiom come from. I don't want the instructor's predjudice to potentially deter potential future Objectivists.
Demonstrate that the axioms are self-evident. This is where many critics of Objectivism "trap" well meaning Objectivists by demanding proof of the axioms. The axioms cannot be proven, so the critic believes they have won. They assert that everything must be proven or taken on faith. And you don't want to fall into the latter. It's a choice of false alternatives - another clever fallacy.
The axioms are self-evident. By trying to deny them, you must accept them. You can evade them, but you cannot avoid them.
-
I actually got into an argument today about the existence of a deity (the Christian God):
Me: Do you believe that existence exists, and what is outside of existence indeed does not exist?
Them: Yes, that makes sense.
Me: So in order for God to create existence, he must have been outside of existence. Therefore, he does not exist.
Them: It's a matter of faith.
Dead end.
Me: What makes you think that a God exists?
Them: I just feel it. I know it in my gut.
Me: So you think that you believing it automatically makes it so?
Them: Yes, it does for millions of people.
That was one of my "What the Fuck!" moments.
Me: Can God do anything?
Them: Of course, He's God.
Me: Can He create a mathematical equation so complicated that he cannot even solve it?
Them: No, because he can solve anything. He's God.
Me: So you're saying that he cannot create that sort of equation?
Them: It's a matter of faith.
AGAIN falls back into their 'faith'.
Me: [repeats "Outside of existence" explanation]
Them: If it's such a big breakthrough, why hasn't anybody thought of it before?
Me: They have. Many times. They choose not to think about it because they don't like the idea of atheism.
Them: Isn't the happiness in the idea of God more important?
Me: The reality of the situation is beautiful. Knowing in certainty has created a happiness I could have never imagined as a Christian.
Them: Well, if that works for you.
Falling into Subjectivism.
So you see, there's no way to argue with them. You cannot change their mind, because they don't regard facts as proof. Their "gut feelings" are much more important to them.
I grew up in a Catholic family. I've tried.
Here is where you run into the problem of not being able to reason with matters of faith. This is why Objectivism holds that reason and faith are incompatible. You apply one by sacrificing the other.
-
Whether luck is a major factor depends on how many hands you play. Play 10,000 hands and luck pretty much has evened out for everyone, and the one with the most skill leaves with the money.
At the base of poker is your cards. ("I have a good hand. I'm all in.")
The next level is the math with a little psychology ("I have a draw to a flush and I think he has me beat, but I have the right odds to call.") ("I have only two opponents in this hand, and neither of them bet just now. Odds are if I bet, I can steal the pot...even though I have nothing")
The next level gets into more complex psychology. It's not just deception--it's also paying close attention to other peoples' actions, learning their patterns and their psychology, and basing your actions on that. ("The last time I put out a bet with nothing, this guy raised me, so I shouldn't try bluffing him anymore.") ("I've been playing really tight, not bluffing at all or being in many pots, so I can probably get away with a bluff here.")
It can get pretty complex, and the following is a real-life example.
("This guy has put all his money in with crap several times. If I raise him too much he'll back off, but if I let him do the betting, when I have a great hand, he'll do all the work for me. Now I have JJ, and that's a really good hand preflop. Not usually an all in hand against decent players, but if I can isolate this guy I stand to do very well. I saw him reraise preflop when someone had made the minimum raise...and he had a total junk hand. So I'll minraise, and...yep, there he reraises. I could just call now, or I could reraise a bit and see if he'll escalate, which is pretty likely. ...Yep, he reraised again. I'm all in. [he calls] ...haha, yep, he's got 9-10 offsuit, and I have better than a 4-in-5 chance of winning this hand. [the jacks hold up] Sweet. I hope he reloads.")
[edit] In the highest levels of poker, you base your actions on OTHER people. It seems fundamentally second-handed in a way. The other person, and what he's thinking, are the primary considerations in good strategy. If you can tell what another person is thinking at the table, the cards don't matter that much. At its best, it's a game of psychology, using your opponents' minds against them, thwarting them every chance you can, deceiving them about your intentions while trying to ascertain theirs, etc. It's about as non-"Objectivist hero" as it gets, in that sense. It's all about the other person.
P.S. My avatar isn't an accident, hahaha...but I don't play poker heavily anymore.
I was just going to "say", yeah...poker is more or less a game of skill over the long-term. I think it's the fact that you can bluff in that game that erases the luck factor if you play long enough.
Health Care
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by prosperity
This is the most succinct explanation I've seen so far of why the system is so screwed up today:
This also addresses some pretty good myths that are often regurgitated by lefties:
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/...p_Ten_Myths.pdf