LovesLife

No, it's not the disease that's a choice. It's how you prepare for the possibility of disease that's a choice. Every rational person knows that disease is possible for them, right?

Tym, Very well crafted correspondence. I think you're onto an really good idea and approach -- not just for Muslims, but Christians and other religionists too. The problem I often encounter when trying to talk with religionists about the way I see the world is that they often end up being irrational, which makes any sort of reasoning a very difficult proposition. I can see how coming at them using their own lingo and belief system could be much more effective.

The goal is **life** The concept of intention requires a will, which in turn implies free choice. When the body sends antibodies to fight diseases, it is not willful; there is no choice. It's automatic -- so it's not intention. Nature doesn't "intend," it just "does."

What you've described sounds arbitrary. Government shouldn't be arbitrary. The main purpose of government should be to protect your rights, which in turn requires the use of objective laws. Governments (or government-like agencies) must use compulsion (force), but only in retaliation, not as an initiator. This is true for them for the same reasons it's true for you as an individual. If you act violently toward me, then I have the right to use compulsion to make you stop. A proper government should be voluntarily funded. One of many problems with government-like agencies is how would you resolve conflicts between them? What if they disagree on some very basic premise? Another problem is that in order for the multiple agency approach to work, you're assuming that people are basically good. But what if a gang forms? Then it's the most violent group that wins, not the one determined by the market. Here's a link to a more detailed Objectivist argument against anarchy: http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

It sounds like you have a different understanding of minarchy than I do. For me, minarchy means cutting government back to its absolute minimum: police, courts and the military. What do you mean by "organizations"? Competing governments, or government-like agencies? To see the Objectivist view more clearly, it might help to walk through a concrete example.

Some interesting questions in this thread. I would have answered slightly differently than my fellow O-ists on a few... It's not an adult/child distinction; it's parent/child. A parent has a moral obligation to help their child until they can care for themselves, even if the child becomes sick or disabled. If someone gets sick after they become independent from their parents, they might have resources of their own that would cover the cost of their care. If not, they might have insurance. If not, they might need to rely on the voluntary charity of family, friends, or charitable organizations. If all of those alternatives fail, then yes, they might die. But no one is "leaving anyone to die," any more than you are "letting someone risk their life" by driving a car or crossing the street. If death comes, it would be a natural consequence of the choices made by that person. If you're sick and can't care for yourself, I do not have a moral obligation to help you. If you don't value your life enough to provide for the case where something might go wrong, why should I? If you tried and failed, why should I take the blame, when I don't even know you? As far as being morally OK to help people: that's always OK, as long as the help is wanted and it's voluntary. It's when the help is forced or coerced, or when it comes from a sense of duty or obligation that it becomes immoral.

Wouldn't it depend a lot on what your path through life is? I don't think getting older by itself causes any philosophical changes. A proper set of morals (values and virtues) seems like a big one to me.

Interesting and insightful response. I'll have to mull that over. Thanks.

That's exactly how rationalism works; floating abstractions are a hallmark feature.

First, when I say "location," I mean a specific place in space. I would describe it not in terms of separability, but location. Parts have a location; attributes do not. Everything around us has properties, attributes. Where an object comes from, its name, its measurements, etc. From Objectivism's primacy of existence, we know those attributes exist independent of consciousness (an object has attributes even if they are not known or observed by anyone). But clearly those attributes can't be in the objects themselves. I'm not denying that consciousness has identity; I'm denying that it has a location. Many things that exist do not have a location. Are you familiar with Binswanger or Peikoff's work in this area? It's consistent with Objectivism's rejection of Materialism. Consciousness is an irreducible primary; it can't be reduced to matter. My view is that the mind does not have a location. It's not in space at all (nor in a "null dimension" nor on some mystical plane), because it's an attribute.

You're talking about Tax Havens -- places like the Cayman Islands. Here's a link to a page with a list of them: http://www.zyra.org.uk/taxhaven.htm However, keep in mind that if you are a US citizen, you are still required to pay US taxes on your worldwide income, regardless of where you live. There are certain deductions and credits, but you still need to file a return and pay, along with disclosing your bank account numbers and the maximum balance over the previous year.

That's what courts and trials are for. You can't be 100% sure, but sure "beyond a reasonable doubt." I've always viewed the concept of retaliatory force as including police action to bring someone suspected of a crime in for trial, and detaining them afterwards if they are found guilty, as a form of punishment. Forced detention might also act as a deterrent, but that seems like it would be a secondary function (particularly since that type of deterrence usually isn't very effective).

Even if you could be sure that someone wouldn't use coercion / force in the future, wouldn't you still detain them if they had already used it against someone? That's the foundation for retaliatory force, right? The standard isn't future intent, it's past actions. Otherwise, I think there's a slippery slope in there somewhere. Also, does detention of criminals only protect rational, moral people? Doesn't it protect irrational, immoral people too? The latter may not want such protection, but that's a different issue.

That's rational self-interest. What does it mean for something to "matter"? It means that it rationally supports your life in some way. If someone doesn't want to live, then they are being irrational, in which case nothing can matter to them. Being rational is much more than just "making sense." The irrational "makes sense" to many people. It is morally wrong for a child to put piece A into piece C if that action involves a use of force or fraud against others, for example. What that child believes has no bearing on it. The only way to "deserve" life is to act rationally. Well, it's not active denial -- reality just is. But if you deny reality, you won't survive long -- just try it on a busy street, or even on a desert island.

Does that mean you don't agree that there's a difference between the attributes or properties of an object and the object itself? As another example, does the price of something have a location? I'm talking about the difference between an attribute and the object itself, not quantum physics. It's being a part of something as opposed to being a property of something. For example, a price doesn't take up space. Does this mean that you don't think attributes like price exist? Do you think the mental exists?

Yes, for some people it's not a choice, just as spinach tasting terrible to you isn't a choice. Your quote makes my point: "... a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature."

Your life must come first, but that's not arrogance, it's recognizing reality. In fact, I would characterize the Objectivist view as being one that recognizes and respects truth (also called honesty), and that allows you to feel good about your accomplishments (pride and self-esteem). A false sense of pride or self-esteem would be dishonest, and therefore immoral. That's different than saying you are the "end-all, be-all in the universe," which to me implies that you therefore might want to sacrifice others to you. No. Others have value to you, too, in many ways. Human life is the standard, it's just that you have to put yourself first in line in order to survive and be happy.

Thanks for the info. I recall hearing the story was inconsistent, but I didn't realize just how inconsistent. I also found the following page with more details: http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes01.htm The amount of deception and evasion is crazy.

I suggest that "distributed over the volume of the brain, and in general the entire nervous system" is not a location. It's like saying that a person's size is spread over the volume of the body. I agree. I'm not suggesting anything about causality, only that consciousness is an attribute, and as such, it's not physical.

That argument, of course, is a very good reason why such a society should never have imposed slavery in the first place. However, assuming philosophical enlightenment came late, then the next thing they need to understand is that by continuing to enslave people, they risk rebellion, destruction and death. Plenty of past history of slave revolts. So, the problem is that they have risk whichever path they choose. The value of a proper morality is that it helps shed light on the correct path. If the society were to reject slavery as an institution, and to welcome the formerly enslaved into their culture as (potential) equals, that might help offset the risk, by encouraging the formerly enslaved to reject slavery themselves. But there's no way to eliminate the risk all together, which is why they should have avoided going down that road.

I dunno. If I were you, it would be difficult to get too excited about confessing and making reparations as a way of expunging my guilt. The problem is that it can easily backfire. You think you're trying to help someone, and instead they get upset and want to hurt you, or the police get involved and make a mess of it, or it becomes difficult to get or keep a job or insurance, etc, etc (something along these lines happened to me once). The current social and political climate is just too messed up. Plus, losses may have already been reimbursed by insurance companies. Regarding your background check: usually, your employer just gets the report, and that's it, so you aren't deceiving anyone. Technically, they are screening for people who got caught committing a crime. If questioned, I wouldn't lie, but I also wouldn't feel compelled to "over disclosure." Were you ever arrested for a DUI? No. Have you ever driven while intoxicated without being caught? Yes, but it was a long time ago, and it will never happen again. One of the damaging aspects of lying is the continued lying that's often needed to cover up the old lies. So just stop that part. I'm not big on confession -- I think that's more of a Catholic thing than an Objectivist thing. If someone came to me today and confessed to stealing something of mine 10 years ago and offered to repay me for it, I'm not sure how I'd act. I'd probably call the police, out of fear that the person might be irrational and therefore dangerous. For me, the first step in clearing away old guilt would be to be honest with myself about those past transgressions. Do you understand why your actions were immoral, and how they either did or could have damaged you? Will those actions ever happen again? Once you're clear about that, go on to live a happy life. The key is be honest with yourself and others as you move ahead. The purpose of Objectivist morality is not to feel guilty and suffer; it's to live and be happy!

I'm an Objectivist. One of my sons is gay. I don't view him as being immoral, first because it was never a choice for him. Morality is based on the chosen, not some arbitrary attribute. Second, even if he did choose his sexual preferences, as long as no one is forced or coerced, it's a free choice, and as such if it makes him happy, then it's still moral. Having said that, I think some Objectivists don't care for homosexuality, and may even by repulsed by it. I don't think that's immoral, either, as long as they don't end up using force as a result of that view. In fact, in my son's case, he finds women to be sexually repulsive. So what? Really.

The reason to avoid lying is because it can damage you and those you care about; it has nothing to do with liberties. Imagine being on a desert island, and lying to yourself that sand is food or that seawater is safe to drink. Denying reality even on a much more subtle level is still damaging. You don't have to force them to care; reality will do that for you. People can only pretend for so long, before reality catches up with them, either in life or happiness or both. You also can't force your morality on others. Proper morals are chosen, not commanded.

A quote from Rand: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." That's the short answer; the reason we need a moral code is to help us live and be happy. Not happy in a short-term, whim-of-the-moment sense, but in a rational, long-term sense. The core Objectivist values are: Reason Purpose Self-esteem The core virtues are: Rationality Productiveness Pride Independence Integrity Honesty Justice Reason is the source, the precondition of productive work. Productive work is the purpose of a rational person's life. Pride is the result.

We acquire knowledge either through observation (perception) or by applying reason to observations. Knowledge is objective when the associated observations are anchored in objective reality. This contrasts with subjective or arbitrary "knowledge," which is where you just make something up and then start applying "reason" to that.