Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Currence

Regulars
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Currence

  • Birthday 07/20/1987

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Philosophy, Economics, Cognitive Science/Psychology, Computer topics, Mathetmatics, Politics, Film, and Music.

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Website URL
    http://

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Currence
  • School or University
    University of Chicago
  • Occupation
    Student

Currence's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I'd like to use skap35's rough outline of how zoning laws work to prove how zoning laws are completely immoral. The government dictates to seller and buyer (well, either both or one individually, but it affects both ultimately) how certain land may be used. But there is an unanswered question: by what right? Did the "government" or the "people" or the "community" ever own the land? Absolutely not. The land has been owned by individuals and has been purchased by individuals*. At no point in time did any government or community or public official ever own the land and gain the right to dictate the terms of sale and purchase. So, zoning laws? No way, morally speaking. And to consider a closely related question: what if the actions of a property owner affect the value of another property owner? The answer requires an analysis of the context. If my neighbor paints his/her house pink, or allows his/her lawn to grow absurdly long, or something like that, have my rights been violated? In what way did my neighbor initiate force or fraud (assuming there was no contract expressly forbidding the actions my neighbor took)? There was no force or fraud, and as such, no rights' violation. If, however, my neighbor pollutes my lawn, or plays music at an absurdly high level, those things do affect myself and my property; that is, they leave his/her property and enter and harm myself and my property. Those are rights' violations. *There is one exception: government property. In a moral system government property would be used for moral government purposes; anyways, the issue of government property as such (police, court system, military) is irrelevant to a discussion on zoning laws on private property.
  2. Quick reply about the Ayn Rand shirt idea. I had that idea a year or so ago when one of my friends was into Communism (he has since gone to Libertarianism, and to Objectivism... I hope he stays!). I wanted it to have the same revolutionary flare as the Che shirt, and I was going to sell them on CafePress, but the ARI didn't want me to use their image of her face. Maybe someone else will have more luck than I do; I'd pay money for one, that's for sure.
  3. A few of the other Book-TV segments are up online, so maybe this one will be too. I knew it was an early show, and I just assumed it would be online. I hope it is! *crosses fingers*
  4. I remember hearing recently that some Chinese general said they could hit us with a nuke. That really is very unfortunate (to the point of saying, "That sucks") about our poor intelligence. I know our attention is focused on the middle east right now, but I don't think we should forget about our secular foes in the far east. Well, I'd still like to go to Taiwan or even Hong Kong, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'll have to go to Japan, heh.
  5. Currence

    US Torture

    I wholeheartedly support Burgess's opinion on this issue. Torture on terrorists? That's dandy, I'm all for justice and any means that can get us more information. Torture on suspected terrorists (that is, unconfirmed criminals)? Are you kidding me? Surely any supporter of torture on a human being who has not been proven under a rational system of inquiry to be a criminal is making an awfully unfunny and disgusting joke. As much as we loathe terrorists (the same with serial killers), we ought to demand a strict and rigorous standard of justice and investigation before using the option of torture. Torture should be treated as seriously as the death penalty. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the agency that is performing the torture (the US army or CIA or whichever it may be). That is to say, we ought to be no more willing to trust the man or woman wearing the American flag than the man or woman who is suspected of a crime if the American has not provided ample proof of the criminal's injust actions. I personally know a few "sadistic types" who have as a reason for entering the military the fact that they will be able to actually "shoot real people." I'm not letting this taint my view of American military men and women (because I am not justified in thinking it is generally representative of military men and women) just as much as I'm not willing to let a foreigner's foreign status taint my view of them. It's all about the evidence, and we ought to base our decisions of loyalty on reason and reality, not on which person is wearing which flag.
  6. Does anyone know the true nuclear capabilities/range that China has? I'm all for defending Taiwan (I really wanted to visit the place sometime during or after college, I hope I still can), but I really, really dislike the idea of a nuke hitting Los Angeles. Also, as I am a bit rusty (read: completely ignorant, heh) on our military operations, is it known if we have any espionage and/or secret CIA ops going on in China? I suppose a CIA operation would be less effective in a country as large and well-established as China than it is for tin-pot South and Central American dictatorships.
  7. I know this thread is becoming dense (and off the topic of pornography, specifically), so I may end up creating a thread that deals with specifically some of my concerns. But for now, I shall go on. Ever the fan of attacking arguments on their very first premises, I shall begin how I should have began at the, uh, beginning. Lets define some things. Because I plan to be perfectly rational and cut through all the crap that comes with other people's definitions, mistaken definitions, culturally charged words, and everything else obstructive to rational thought, I will create my own (for the purpose of this discussion ONLY; I'm not a fan of arbitrary neologisms, either, and I don't need to see what Rand thinks about them... heh, because I know). If anyone else would like to discuss this specific topic (on the explicit meaning of sex, and all it entails), let me know, I think starting another thread would probably be appropriate and necessary to get a rigorous treatment of the subject. DEFINITIONS The act of putting one's penis into another person's vagina/anus or having another person's penis put into one's own vagina/anus (depending on one's sexual orientation) ought to be represented by one word. Because it is highly descriptive the word PENETRATION can be used to define this act. Note that this act implies no intention on behalf of the actors, that is, there need not be any emotional or intellectual connection (rational or irrational) for PENETRATION to occur. It is just one chunk of flesh in another. (Note: I know, by using 'penetration', I've given short shrift to lesbians, and this is not my intent, on a personal or philosophical level. It's just that penetration was far too descriptive and inclusive of most (2/3 to be exact: man-woman and man-man) of nature's sexual relations for me not to use it. Possibly INTERCOURSE is a better term, I'd have to think about it.) Then there is SEX-1, as defined by the Lexicon: "Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind--by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem--a celebration of himself and of existence." I assume that the referent of "physical capacity" is PENETRATION. SEX-1, practiced by a rational men and women (according to the Objectivist canon, as represented by the Lexicon), is PENETRATION accompanied by the celebration of a rational set of values, etc. etc. Finally, there is SEX-N. By this I mean all that is included in the Lexicon definition except for the association of the "expression of self-esteem" with PENETRATION. More simply, SEX-N is the physical expression of one's self-esteem with one or more other individuals. I created this definition because I do not believe there is a sound argument for why PENETRATION is the proper physical expression, and why the notion of celebration of one's life must be limited to one other person (is the human mind constructed so as to only, rationally, allow monogamy? If you think so, you have a tough psychological and philosophical case to make, and I'm interested in your evidence!). ARGUMENT, VIA QUESTIONING Aside from the fact that "it's always occurred" (AKA, "it's always been that way", AKA "tradition/the past says that's how it is"; which is also a completely unphilosophical argument), I see absolutely no reason why PENETRATION has to be the physical capacity, as discussed in the Lexicon. Moreover, even if I assume that for some reason (which has not yet been given) a rational person ought to want to connect his or her intellectual pleasure to a physical activity, for what reason must this physical activity be PENETRATION? This is to say, even if I grant that rational men and women should connect their values to the physical world via some sensory experience (for what reason must this be the case? blank out), by what path of conscious reflection will one conclude that the proper senso-physical activity is PENETRATION? I posit that there is nothing about human nature that necessitates a connection between the "celebration of life's greatest values between two individuals", on one hand, and the successful combination of penises, vaginas, and/or anuses, on the other. I think it is far more likely (along with being more plausible and defensible) that the role of those physical organs in reproduction is the true reason they have been singled out, traditionally, to represent the the physical extensions of SEX-N. I also strongly believe that if one approaches the subject without any of the cultural, traditional, and historical baggage that so often accompanies it, it would be apparent that the coupling of "PENETRATION between only two individuals" and "the celebration of one's life and values" is as arbitrary as "blue for boys" and "pink for girls"; nothing about human nature, inherently (or in proper context), proves that there cannot be some other physical expression of one's self-esteem with one or more other individuals. We (Objectivists and rational thinkers) have made great headway on the subject of homosexuality* and I think there are similarly large steps to be made on the subject of sexuality in general. *I am assuming rational people recognize that any specific sexual orientation is not inherently right or wrong, that it must be judged (depending on the scientific research) either as a biologically determined fact or an individually made choice, and if the latter, it must be evaluated on the personal basis. It will be no surprise that I find anti-homosexuality to be an utterly absurd position, but of course my emotions are irrelevant to the discussion, and I'll proudly back them up with rational argument.
  8. Sex is not a concept of consciousness. Sex is a physical and mental activity that provides a certain amount of pleasure. My statement was misleading, I said the evidence must be of a scientific nature, but I should have said the evidence must be a result of reason applied to one's physical experience, that is, the pleasure of sex must be determined through a rational process; it does NOT automatically occupy the "top spot". I'm saying that one must determine how much pleasure sex provides through the use of reason and their experiences. I addressed this issue in my first post. I will quote myself, with more emphasis this time: "Again, it is *not* patently obvious that it is different, therefore it is not enough to respond "if you do not see how it is different, then something is wrong with the way you see it" or something to that effect. "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who do not, no explanation is possible" (or something to that effect) is not a valid argument; the role of sex in the hierarchy of human values must be evaluated using evidence and reason." This is the heart of the issue. Until an argument is provided for WHY sex must occupy the top spot on the hierarchy (being the "utmost pleasure") then the notion is completely unsupported: the emperor wears no clothes (quite appropriate, given the subject ). What is wrong, or more accurately, what is *inferior* about connecting my pleasure by mental means (read: having the knowledge that I am greatly productive and have finished a difficult project, for example) as opposed to physical means (sex)? And are you implying that when someone labors over a task he/she does not feel a physical connection with his/her work? To answer your direct questions: no, I do not necessarily have a desire to experience my pleasure directly through sensory perception all the time. Sex is of great value, I will not deny that at all. I'm just saying that the pleasure I receive from, say, finishing a thesis paper in a very difficult college class and then being rewarded with a great grade is more intense (for me) and more enjoyable than the pleasure I receive from sex. I see no reason why similar things could not provide other rational people with pleasure greater than that which they receive from sex. I understood that you implied rational people, I think that for the purpose of this discussion we ought to assume we are discussing about rational people as it will cut to the principle of the matter. The argument on your side right now boils down to: rational people will realize sex is the utmost pleasure by the process of introspection. I'm asking, what about introspection necessitates one to arrive at the conclusion that sex ought to occupy the top spot on his/her value hierarchy? Knowledge is not automatic, there must be a process of 'internal debate' (read: reasoning), one does not just reflect upon their thoughts and realize, "Ah, yes, I was so foolish, why didn't I see before that sex is the utmost pleasure." It should be more like, "Is sex the greatest pleasure? Well, let me define it properly... Okay, let me compare this to productive work... Let me compare the physical and mental aspects of both... Is there something about them, contextually, that determines their value to me, a rational person?" etc. etc.
  9. While, admittedly, I haven't been following this entire discussion, I'd like to point out that this statement requires evidence of a scientific nature. The burden of proof for making the statement "sex is the utmost pleasure available to humans" rests on the shoulders of those making the statement. It is *not* apparent, through reflection or experience, that sex is the utmost pleasure. Although I love my girlfriend very much, and value her higher than most everything, I do not agree whatsoever that sex is the utmost pleasure. For me, some of the things that I would classify as being most (rationally) pleasurable do not include sex, or even other people at all (many of my most pleasurable activities involve my own achievement), yet I am distinctly a human being. Basically, what physical evidence coupled with what logical proof supports the notion of sex being the utmost pleasure? I am particularly interested because this is an issue many people seem to take for granted (this is a feeling I get); it is a personal issue to be sure, and possibly even a cultural one: I will gladly concede that for many, even most, people sex is the highest pleasure. But this says *nothing* about WHY it is the utmost pleasure for those individual people. Another corollary to my question would be, what makes sex different, philosophically, from other actions? Again, it is *not* patently obvious that it is different, therefore it is not enough to respond "if you do not see how it is different, then something is wrong with the way you see it" or something to that effect. "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who do not, no explanation is possible" (or something to that effect) is not a valid argument; the role of sex in the hierarchy of human values must be evaluated using evidence and reason. My own opinion is that sex, like many things, can rationally occupy any number of different positions in the value hierarchy; that is to say, the role of sex in the value hierarchy does *not* follow from a mere analysis of human nature in general, instead one must take every individual's context into account. It is an important topic but it must be addressed with the utmost philosophic rigor. [Edited for spelling.]
  10. JMeganSnow: Insofar that the chief goal of such PD problems is to analyze the actual process of decision making, rather than the specific nature of the decisions themselves, there is no context dropping. The PD is merely a conceptual tool (when used properly) that can be useful in analyses; similar to a proper thought experiment, where the details insignificant to the subject under analysis are dropped and only the essentials remain. Hal is right, similar PD situations are used when discussing free-rider and "commons" scenario. Most fresh in my mind are the questions concerning a cost-benefit analysis of environmental pollution. Of course, in that case, the proper solution is to eliminate the commons (public property) and any purported dilemma dissolves.
  11. Within the context of a moral legal system, citizens should decide things like this. In terms of whether it actually is the rational decision, I think Free Capitalist also gives a few good reasons. It is more interesting when a similar issue is considered from the perspective of an immoral system (the U.S., or any other that exists): at what point does it become immoral to harm an officer of the law, insofar that officer represents an immoral system and has sworn to protect against any changes to that system brought about by illegal means. At what point do you draw the line between officer-as-"protection from rights violators" and officer-as-"storm trooping statist thug"; offhand, I would say it depends on the context of an officer's actions. This, however, is a bit off topic, so if anyone is interested I'm sure it would be more appropriate to start a different thread. I just find interesting the many issues that arise concerning hypothetical moral and legal questions within an immoral system.
  12. Thank you for clarifying (pointing out my interpretative error). I apologize for misconstruing your position. I agree with you that mass disobedience is immoral if the rights of others are violated (I hope everyone here agrees with that one too!).
  13. @ JMeganSnow: Civil disobedience (CD) is not defined by "sit ins." They were merely an example of CD. Insofar as *any* action violates the rights of others it is immoral, e.g. people sitting in a private businessperson's property when he or she tells them to leave. In defense of my argument that CD does not require actions similar to those taken in the civil rights movement, I offer Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." In it, he tells of when he refused to pay a tax, plain and simple, and no one's rights were violated. Please provide an argument as to why the definition of CD necessarily includes violating the rights of others. @ advocates of the "rule of law" position: Questions that should clarify this position (if there be any generally agreed upon one): CD, insofar as it does not violate the rights of another man or woman, is acceptable because one does it while actively proclaiming to a legal representative of some form and/or intending to be caught, and therefore one is not "faking reality" that the law exists? Breaking the law, as differentiated from CD, is attempting to break a law without intending to be caught? For proper conceptual analysis, I propose we treat all instances of "breaking the law", in our theoretical discussion, as those that would not also violate someone else's rights or be opposed to one's self interest (not counting the argument that breaking the law is against one's interests); the rational members of this forum can agree that any action violating the rights of another is immoral, and in this discussion we are particularly interested in the morality of actions that, if a law did not prohibit them, would not be immoral. My position: Moral actions are those taken in one's self-interest. I judge any action as moral to the extent that it furthers the actor's self-interest, given the context. An easy example to use is taxation. If I did not judge the net negative consequences of getting caught not paying taxes multiplied by the probability of actually getting caught as being greater than the net benefits received from not paying taxes, I would not pay taxes. More simply: [Cost of getting caught (audit, etc.)][Probability of getting caught] > [Value of taxes][Probability of not getting caught] When/If this equation ever becomes an equality or the inequality changes, I will not pay my taxes. Obviously I take a completely economic view on this issue, and I feel that is the only rational position, because one is dealing with an immoral law. There is no such thing as a law that is both "objective" and "immoral", thus any immoral law is, by definition, subjective; it is subject to the fancy and whim of the lawmaker. While I can (and do!) speak against such immoral laws, I do not observe their right to exist, and I do not believe that the preservation of one right* (speech) obligates me to follow other immoral laws. I have two arguments against the "anarchy argument" as well. 1. For those of us attempting to achieve anything even close to philosophic rigor, this argument is frankly baseless and without rational defense. Exactly how would my resistance to taxation and other immoral laws result in complete lack of respect of all laws? I respect property rights because they are moral, not because of what the government has deemed "acceptable." Likewise, I respect all moral laws because of their philosophic value: they are moral. What "Uncle Sam" says about anything is of absolutely no concern to me, and yet, I'm a moral, and mostly-law abiding person (I've used firecrackers!). Please defend this transition from breaking immoral laws to absolute anarchy. 2. In an attempt to defeat an irrational argument that may be used to defend the "anarchy" thesis, I will take some pre-emptive action. One cannot rationally say that because one individual chose to not pay taxes (or not follow any immoral law) that *all* individuals would also chose similarly. Nor can one say that all individuals *should* choose similarly. To predict that one person's tax evasion will result in anarchy is historical naïveté: millions of people will not do something even if a few people do it and it is moral. To say, "Well, if it's right for you not to pay taxes, than none of us should, ergo anarchy" is (aside from being undefended, as I said above) also false. I believe one should break an immoral law only if it is in his or her self-interests, contextually speaking. Right now my "taxation inequality" is not favorable, so I would be acting irrationally to evade taxes. But whether any single individual should do something is completely an individual case. To impose upon all the moral choices of one person, disregarding the context in which the choices were made, is nothing short of an adaptation of Kant's Imperative. As for the violent revolution, let me just say this. I am principled, and I will not allow a contradiction; I do not respect immoral law in small instances, nor do I respect it in large. When the benefits of revolution outweigh the benefits of peaceful persuasion (as long as it exists), then we must revolt. The greatest killer of human life in our history has been government (beats religion!), and I'll point out that I trust my fellow friends more than my congressional representatives. *If anyone would care to debate this, I'd argue that our right to free speech is not even properly enforced in this country in two ways. One, as long as we lack a consistently defined legal system *no* law can be properly defended by any government official, and as such there is *no* guarantee that the right the law is supposed to uphold will be protected. Second, more practically, there are many, many instances where mere words (aside from "Fire!" or threats) have resulted in fines or prison sentences. Free speech is not as protected as many would like to think.
  14. Here is one of the goals of the FairTax: "It replaces federal income taxes including, personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes." First of all, how am I to be sure that this will happen? If (this is a big IF) I have assumed that a natl. sales tax (NST) is preferable to an income tax (IT), how can I be certain that the preexisting IT will be completely swapped with the NST? More clearly, even if I start with the assumption that the NST will create a simpler, more transparent, and more consistent tax system, and then if I assume these three things are beneficial, there would have to be a detailed and consistently implemented plan to ensure that the NST completely replaced the IT. Given the history of plans and their implementation in this government, especially those related to monetary and fiscal policy, I highly doubt this complete replacement would occur swiftly, if at all. The first assumption seems plausible in theory, but there have been far too many tax reform proposals in the past that have had similar goals, but when implemented (on national or state levels) certainly have not achieved their intended goals. The second assumption is also sketchy. We face a bureaucratic behemoth (our government) that requires taxed money as its lifesource. According to the website, the FairTax attempts to erase many of the inefficiencies present in the current tax system. Out of context, the three aforementioned attributes are generally good, but in the case of allowing a more easy, a more efficient, and a more powerful method of allowing this behemoth to continue to feed itself, these attributes are in direct conflict with what the desired goal is (replacing the behemoth itself). While I understand completely why this proposal would receive praise, I feel it is made out of context, and that the new plan is similar to the results that the discovery of the Laffer curve had on economic policy: it superficially aids the lower taxes/no taxes agenda, but ultimately will have no consequence in affecting the existence of an involuntary tax structure. At the very worst, a plan veiled as a "FairTax" system only provides further support for the idea that *any* tax can be fair, and could ultimately destroy any plans for true "tax reform" (tax abolishment). Edit: I use tax in the general coercive sense. When I say tax abolishment, I do not mean there is no means of supporting a rational government; I mean the abolition of coercive contribution system.
  15. I agree with Free Capitalist and Inspector insofar that they are skeptical of certain conclusions drawn by modern scientists, but I disagree with them, and agree with Stephen Speicher, on the type of scientific conclusions Stephen was referencing. The conclusions Stephen posted were not of a conceptual nature. They were precisely related to the "H-Y antigen effects during fetal differentiation of the brain." I am not a biologist or neurophysiologist, but I do know the difference between a scientific argument based strictly on facts and one based on the scientists faulty conceptual reasoning. This issue is perfectly summed up at the end of Stephen's post. "Until all the scientific evidence is in, I think it is utterly foolish to write off biology in favor of choice..." The simple question of the origins of homosexuality is a biological question. Because of this, I believe it is proper to refrain from judging homosexuality, unless you are scientifically qualified to do so. On a side note, I find it interesting and psychologically revealing to witness those who are very determined to find something wrong with homosexuality (this, is a passing reference, directed at some comments on this forum, but mostly at those I know of in my own life; who happen to largely be conservative christians). For anyone not well-educated in advanced fields of human biology, an opinion on the morality of homosexuality (in general, not individual cases) is utterly speculative and, as there is no conclusive evidence for anyone's opinion (as far as I can tell, hardly anyone has been citing scientific papers or journals, save Stephen), any opinion is also not rational. The best any of us can say is: If homosexuality is found to be biologically determined, then... -and- if homosexuality is found to not be biologically determined, then... (though it still may be developed, or learned at a very young age), -and- if homosexuality is found to be a choice (there would have to be a huge amount of scientific evidence for this before I could foresee this argument), then... Anything other than simple "If, then" statements, given our current context of information regarding homosexuality, is completely baseless and merely an indication of the arguer's own psychological state and already-chosen irrational beliefs on the subject; a foundationless inquisition or witch-hunt, so to speak. This is an interesting question. If there was a procedure to allow me to completely invert the way I perceive the color spectrum (e.g. each instance of red is replaced with violet), what would be the moral standing of the procedure? I do think there is a bit more to this question though. It deals with the fundamental nature of someone's sexuality. If a baby is born with a penis, can we assume that this baby is a male? Rather, how are we determining sexuality; by physical components (sexual organs) or by mental components (psychological reactions and feelings), or both? To conclude that every human being with a vagina ought to have feelings we would normally conclude correspond with a vagina (feelings of 'being a woman') is merely to display one's already-accepted (and most popular in modern society) opinion: the physical expressions of one's sex should reflect the psychological expressions, and vice versa. In many cases, however, this does not happen. There are people who do not feel like the sex for which they have the corresponding organs. In those cases, I think either a psychological change or a physical change would be most beneficial, and given that it is far easier to change sexual organs than to go through therapy and convince yourself that you are of a different sex, the process highlighted by jedymastyr could be a moral one.
×
×
  • Create New...