Guruite

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 have been reading OPAR again and I am at least confident enough to contradict the statement made by aequalsa that "You are not required to act in any way for another persons interest." Leonard Peikoff states that "a man must certainly act to help a person in trouble whom he loves, even to the point of risking his own life in case of danger" (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand 238). Also, while obviously not addressing the exact circumstances of my impossible scenario, Peikoff claims that ". . . if no sacrifice is involved on the helper's part . . . [e]xtending help to others in such a context is an act of generosity, not an obligation" (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand 239). Peikoff is addressing emergency circumstances, but I think that the same moral status of the action (a generosity, not an obligation) could be applied to non-emergency circumstances. Oh, and if my quotations from OPAR are in any way against forum policy, please know that I understand and will remove them (or understand that they will be removed). I attempted to cite the information correctly.

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.

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 one without mortgaging one's life out.

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. Thank you very much Dante, I think you saw through the weird way I phrased the question. Your answer has cleared things up for me. I understand that hypothetical scenarios are not very good ways of understanding moral problems. (I believe Rand answered hypothetical questions about emergencies by first discussing that morality is for living life and that emergencies could not be the norm or life could not exist.) At the time of posting that was the only way I had really thought of to phrase the question.

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 should denounce any vice or morally corrupt person one comes in contact with. One should also praise any virtue or morally good person one finds. Failure to do the first amounts to sanction. Failure to do the second is similarly important. One is morally obligated to do both. So my tenuous conclusion is that: based upon the presumption of goodness and the requirement that one rewards the good, one is obligated to help strangers when such help will not cost the helper anything. I am still emotionally attached to my initial reaction, and would prefer to be wrong (it makes more "gut" sense to me). I could be wrong about the two premises (there might not be a presumption of goodness or a moral obligation to reward the good, or the presumption of goodness could be weak enough to not require any obligation apaert from honesty). This is an almost useless question because there are never any circumstances where one can benefit others with no cost to one's self. The answer to this question will just help pinpoint the reason why people are not required to help strangers (it could be that the fact that others' existence is not enough to produce any moral obligation of help, or that there is no moral obligation because any help carries with it a cost). The reason I am asking this is because the great majority (as far as I know, all) of Objectivism does not clash with either my emotions or reason, this question appears to do so, and I would like to reconcile them. Thank you for your thoughts. Edit: Just to clarifiy, I am asking the same question to you that was asked in my philosophy class. I also am asking if I misunderstood (or forgot, or misremembered) any part of the Objectivist philosophy.

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?

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

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 different one I could not do X" I don't remember ever hearing about the rationality of a murderer being of any importance to the C.I. If you could provide some sort of reference it would be most helpful. Just from what I know (albeit very little) this seems to a very large loophole, if indeed it exists. For instance, this would mean that not only should a follower of the C.I. ignore the consequences, but also should ignore the duty of (insert duty here) if the agent affected is not rational, and potentially harmful. This would leave the door open to any action including murder(if the person who is not rational is going to steal my candy bar, it does not matter if I kill him). I guess that this also fits into the 'specific context' mentioned above (I could rationally will to live in a world where irrational and potentially harmful people were killed). I chose that thought experiment because I heard something about Kant confirming it himself. I personally think that the best way to combat Kant's ethics is to start with the basics of a correct epistemology/metaphysical system and build an ethical system from there (as I believe Rand did).

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.

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 feeling. I think that this was the main pull from A.S. (not the philosophy so much as the setting) The developers then took some of the philosophical background.

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 places an imaginary world above one that actually exists. By the C.I. : By lying to this maniac, you would be using him as a means to an end (the protection of the world) No one could rationally will to live in a society where people always lied to others. I believe that Kant even confirmed a version of this story with a criminal breaking into a home and asking for the location of some victim. He said you should tell the truth, and allow the criminal to hurt the person he was after. (If you need me to, I think I could find the source) One of the main problems I see with the C.I. (or any deontological ethical system) is that it places imagined universal consequences above real world consequences. Kant's ethics really had no real-world application (except to make a set of absolute rules that, taken litterally, mean that we must live as zombies). On the plus side (this is a joke) Kant's system does not require a person to think. It allows Kant to dictate the actual rules (or do the thinking) and all you must do is to always follow those rules; exactly like a secular list of commandments. (except getting to heaven doesn't matter to Kant's ethics) I may have misunderstood some aspect of Kant - I have not read more than 20 or so pages in my textbook on his ethical system.

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.

Ahh, I see. Well, this just means that Rand's eventual triumph will be all the more magnificent!!

It swings back in Miss Rand's favour if it is "Rand" and "Kant." Here

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)

Thank you for clearing that up, Qwertz

I think that the test would only be between two (arbitrary... yes) ages. After that, people would be considered an adult (or perhaps mentally incompetent, as some people are not mentally 'adults' ever) These are not fully thought-out, just some alternatives to a legal age.

Do I remember correctly that there have not been any nuclear power plants built for like 30 years? (I mean in the U.S.) What about Geothermal? I thought that was okay as far as it goes (but I don't know much about this stuff). Edit: answered my first question on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Atomic Static Electricity from a miracle motor! (or something like that)

This is a suggestion - what about a psychological evaluation? For instance, when a person is between some age and another, they may be psychologically evaluated to see if they are rationally an adult. There could be a private licensing system, that people could take a test in, that would provide some license that would be accepted as proof of adulthood. I think it would be wrong to ban a firecracker because people should have the freedom to buy potentially dangerous things - car wrecks are more deadly than firework accidents. If they misuse them, they should be punished/made to pay restitution, but owning them should be legal. Edit: The above post was added while I was composing this one

I was actually reading up on the Kelly/Peikoff split and I read This (I believe it was from another source) I think that that may be what you were thinking of. Oh, and I would have given the link to the source at nathanielbranden.net but It didn't work as a link.

I don't remember much (I was 11) what I do remember was that I went to school, and after waiting outside my classroom for 5 minutes with all of the other students I knew something was really wrong. I would have assumed that my teacher was sick or something but none of the teachers were there. I also heard kids talking about what some of their parents had told them, so I had sorta had a vague idea of what had happened. Our teacher came as well as the others (They must have been having a meeting or something...) and turned on the T.V. and we watched the news for the rest of the day. I can remember riding the bus home and feeling sort of numb. However, I can't remember the rest of that day.

Now the second one is sorta true (there are quite a lot of Mormon farmers/ranchers in my community) But If you think that I have lied I would like to know where and why. (Honesty, I do... I am pretty sure I won't be changing my mind on the church... but I do not want to spread lies)

I think He claimed to be able to 'divine' water as well as find buried treasure with a seer stone. Eventually, when the 116 pages were taken from him, he would stick his head into a hat with his seer stone (I don't think that this seer stone was the Urim or Thumim) and the words would magically come to him. I didn't know that it was mentioned in Sherlock Holmes, ill have to read some more. (I never got into them and only read 1 or 2 short stories)

I think (again I could be wrong) the whole 'God is an Alien with superman powers' comes from the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the Pearl of Great Price "6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; 7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. 8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim." (D&C 130 6-8) The Urim and Thummim were the stones that you mentioned above. (I do not remember it being mentioned in the Book of Mormon)