Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Guruite

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/10/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Ian Anthony
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
    University of Utah
  • Occupation
    Undergrad, Philosophy and Chemistry

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
  1. Responding to a previous post by themadkat, I don't think it is fair to call Singer a Utilitarian. Utilitarians believe in maximizing pleasure overall. Singer is more of an egalitarian, he does not really care how bad things are - just that everyone experiences them equally. He advocates redistribution of wealth to the point at which the giver is just as poor as the receiver. Utilitarians (as nutty as I believe they are) at least shoot for the "good" (maximizing hedons or pleasure units or something similar). Singer wants to diminish "the bad" he does not really care about "the good." I hav
  2. Thanks, this comment especially helped. I thought one was morally obligated to act in the interests of a loved one. I guess my knowledge was in error.. I'm going to need to read OPAR again. Edit: By "interests of a loved one" I did not mean for their sake. I meant you are morally obligated to act to gain and/or keep a loved one as a loved one, which would include acting in the loved one's interests.
  3. I understand that needs do not grant rights. However, "mortgage on life" may be interpreted differently. Obviously there should be no legal requirement that one helps another (even, say, someone you love dearly). As I understand it, One has an obligation to help loved ones. If one values someone else, then that one has certain moral obligations to the loved one. This does not mean that the loved one can collect on any "mortgage" on the lover's life (indeed to attempt such a claim would most likely invalidate their love). I guess my response is that one can have an obligation to help another
  4. Thank you very much for the quick replies. I now realize that my real question was incorrectly stated. The whole business of impossible hypothetical scenarios was how the question was posed to me, so I attempted to recreate the question in that form. My actual question is on the exact reason that there is no moral obligation to help others. Is there no obligation because such an obligation would incur costs on the helper. Or is there no obligation because the potential good of a stranger is of enough consideration to be honest in dealing with that stranger, but not enough to render aid.
  5. I recently attended a philosophy class where the question was raised: If there is no cost to yourself, do you have a moral obligation to help strangers? My initial reaction was that one has no obligation to help others (excluding those one values) regardless of the lack of cost for that help. Later I started thinking and changed my opinion. My reasoning revolves around two premises. The first is that one should be honest with others because one presumes that others are morally good (I believe I read this in OPAR, on the subsection on the virtue of honesty). The second is that one sh
  6. Okay, Well I have a question that fits with this thread (even though it has been dead for a while). Why didn't Darken Rahl sense Richard when Richard went back to his log cabin? Gifted people can sense others around them, why didn't Darken Rahl sense Richard if he was waiting for him?
  7. This seems to be a consequentialist argument - I will do X because I want Y. (I will lie to protect another's life). Yeah, I have never heard of this. It does seem a little counter intuitive (although I think most of Kant is that way). Edit: Thank you for the reference
  8. As I understand it, this is getting way too specific for the C.I. In another example, Kant said something about the immorality of taking out a loan if you knew it would be impossible to repay. However, if you take in to account a very specific context (you really really need the money... for something) then you may be able to universalize the action in regards to that very specific context (everyone should be able to lie on a loan if they need it X badly). I don't believe that the C.I. allows you to say "in this very specific context, I could rationally will to do X, but in a slightly differe
  9. Guruite


    I'm not exactly sure how this city qualifies as war (I am not arguing.. I just don't remember how it would be considered war). Also, . However, aside from these two points... I don't know how just a country could be if it insisted on quarantining each and everyone of its citizens... It just seems to be very unjust. Maybe ill need to think on this more.
  10. Guruite


    I just finished Bioshock about 10 days ago, I actually bought it because I had heard some connections with Ayn Rand, and GameInformer (a magazine I subscribe to) gave it a really high rating (like 10/10 if I remember correctly) From what I have heard since from interviews (some may have been linked to here) it seemed that the game was actually focused on a self contained universe. Both Bioshock and System shock had no access to the outside world (I assume this as I have never played SS) Galt's Gulch was what the designers modeled the city after, in order to get this self contained feelin
  11. I am very close to completing my ethics 1120 class. If I misrepresent Kant (or any other philosopher), please let me know. As we learned about Kant, one hypothetical situation popped into my head. What if there were some maniac that was going to press a button - detonating nuclear weapons and causing destruction on a global scale. However, by lying to this maniac, disaster could be averted - he would press the wrong button. By a Kantian standard, lying to this maniac would be a sin - letting him push the button would not. This is the nature of his deontological system. I would say that this
  12. I honestly do not know how reliable the IMDB is... Jamie Clay is still listed (as of now) as John Galt - as is Brad Pitt (rumored). Angelina Jolie is now (Rumored) to play Dagny Taggart. It certianly would be an interesting movie if one minute John Galt was Pitt and in another he was Clay.
  13. Ahh, I see. Well, this just means that Rand's eventual triumph will be all the more magnificent!!
  14. It swings back in Miss Rand's favour if it is "Rand" and "Kant." Here
  15. Yes, as far as state run 'tests'. But I was meaning more of a license that would let shopkeepers know that they are selling their potentially dangerous goods to an 'adult'. For instance, a person who sells fireworks and does not want to sell them to a minor would require some sort of license for the person to buy the service/ good. (if they are below a certain age - after that, they would not require any license)
  • Create New...