coirecfox

Recently found this site: www.libertydollar.org I am excited to use them. Thought I would share this with everyone here. Enjoy!

Thanks again for all the input. The reason I asked is we were having a discussion on this topic at a club meeting, and the presenter made the point that life is the standard of a rational man's ethics. Someone asked the question, "If that is so, why did John Galt say that he would commit suicide if the looters tried to torture Dagny?" I replied that he could not find value in a world where Dagny's torture was possible, that in such a world, values would be unattainable because Dagny represents for him all that is good in the world. Someone retorted that he would still be ending his life and that in any circumstance is a life-denying action. He was very attached to a few ideas that a good number of the group found fallacious. Firstly, he believed that possessing a life gave man infinite possibilities, and thus, value could never truly be unattainable. Secondly, he argued on the idea that the life-denying or life-affirming quality of an action could be evaluated on a purely biological standard(he did not argue this point explicitly, but his arguement held this implication). He gave no consideration to the philosophical/psycological state of a man, ie quality of life on a rational standard of value. He merely asserted that any action that ended biological life was life-denying. We even asked him if he thought if it was life-affirming if one had a terminal disease, and he replied that, because the possiblity exists that a cure could be found before one dies, that ending ones life was life-denying. To me, it seemed like his argument is a case of the potential vs. the actual. He thought that the sum of all good possibilties outweighed the suffering of the actual. Additionally he seemed very anti-philosophical, which is probably why he was a libertarian. Needless to say, I haven't argued with him since.

Thanks for your thoughts. I will post a little later--am very busy now.

What does everyone here think of the idea that, in some contexts, suicide is life-affirming?

I could most certainly see Denzel as Mulligan and Connery as Akston, given their previous movie roles. I always saw Dagny as very implicitly sexual, as in she never did anything to be sexual, she just always was by her extreme femininity.

Nice repsonse McGroarty. I like that very much.

I'm not sure how much people here know about this topic, but Mitch Daniels is the current Republican candidate for governor in Indiana. A few years back there was an "insider trading" scandal at the Indianapolis Power and Light Company. For more details go to http://www.ipalcofacts.com/about_ipalco.html My quesiton: Can Boards of Directors be responsible for employees losing money in stocks if, before a takeover, they encourage people to buy into them and tell them that it is safe, and then sell all of their stocks in the company? Could this be considered fraud on the part of the BOD? I would encourage anyone wanting to respond to this to read a little bit of the article. My question is not phrased entirely well and you would better understand my meaning if you understood some of the facts behind the case.

I think there is an implicit contract upon which people who choose to live in a society agree--to be rational honest adults. I know I would not choose to live in a society that said you can say anything you want with no possibilty of accountability. If this were the case, I believe the society would rapidly descend into a distrust of every person and of all knowledge in general. You may believe on person is lying, but where would you go to get contrary information? To the other person that is lying?

Godless Caplitalist-- I disagree. Slander and libel involve making defamatory statements that the speaker knows to be untrue. By your definition I could be punished for telling the truth. Say John works at a store that has expressly stated they will not hire communists. I find out John is a communist and publish it in the local newpaper, which I happen to own. John would presumably lose his job over this, causing him and his reputation harm. I am not the responsible party for telling the truth, John is the responsible party for committing fraud against his employer. It seems as though people are using fraud and libel & slander almost interchangably in this thread. Fraud is the direct use of force(ie lying to obtain a value or withholding a product that has been paid for), whereas libel and slander involve an indirect use of force. With libel and slander, the intent is to do a person harm indirectly--I am not directly trying to secure a value from that person through mutual exchange. In the above example John committed fraud to secure his job. Fraud is criminal whereas slander and libel are civil. The important thing to remember is that the judgement of what is libeleous and slanderous should not be left up to the government precisely because it involves the freedom of speech. You are free to say whatever you want and the government has no right to intercede there unless what you say causes direct harm to anther person, such as yelling Fire! in a crowded theater. (What is important to note in that situation is that the yeller can only be held resopnsible for physical harm caused. He can be held responsible because without the direct action of him yelling Fire! there would have been no stampede and no harm caused. His action directly resulted in the destruction of life or property.) The idea that libel and slander should be left up to the people and not the government does not make restrictions on libel and slander non-objective. There are still objective criteria that must be fufilled(that what was said was untrue and caused harm to the person being libeled or slandered), but it is up to the people as to whether these criteria are fufilled. The best example of which I can think to illustrate my point would be the 1735 case of William Cosby vs. John Peter Zenger. Cosby was the governor of the New York province. Zenger printed an editorial that basically said Cosby and his goons were jerks. Cosby sued him for damages, but the people ruled that because Cosby and his goons were in fact jerks that Zenger had not lied and any harm that had come to them was because they were jerks.

Dunkley: Does this mean "we're all in this together" because "we're all parts of a whole?" Why?

It wasn't too bad. I didn't really begin to understand the bulk of the philosophy until senior year. My girlfriend at the time really enjoyed that. We're not speaking anymore. She was the last bit of selflessness and mysticism I had to eject from my life before I could seriously consider myself a student of Objectivism. I was in a class senior year that visited Hudson weekly. We met with John Clark. We learned how to write Op-Ed's and policy reports. It was a blast.

Ironically enough--Cathedral. It was my choice, too. At the time however I had never heard of Objectivism and I was one strange kid. I was very mystical, very modern liberal, and very communist...not Communist...I knew they were bad, but I thought if everyone was consented to it, a communist economy would be the ideal economy. I really changed from freshman to senior year. Cathedral got progressively worse as I realized my mistaken thought process. By senior year I was ready to jump out a window nearly every class I went to. I must say however, that I was well-prepared for college both academically and, how should I say it, politically.

I'm from the northeast side of Indianapolis, like Geist/Castleton area if you know where that is. Right now, however, I'm at Purdue in West Lafayette.

Eric, When you write, you say you use 'spiritual' as a means of expressing a feeling of exaltation or awe. What are these feelings in reference to? What is your idea of the meaning of 'the highest'? Also, one of my friends told me that at the Indiana All-State Honor Band, you said that you supported online file-sharing. I was wondering if you still feel that way and why. Coire

What was the point of all that?

Stephen: First, let me clarify the issue to make sure I have it correct: In a situation where man has been metaphysically reduced to a choice between his life and the life of another, morality a) neither pertains to his choice nor a later evalutation of his choice or B ) does not pertain to his choice but does pertain to a later evaluation of his choice or c) pertains to his choice but not to a later evaluation of his choice. If this is not the issue then we should probably clarify it before we continue. I think the disagreement also may lie in the question of whether or not all of man's choices are inherently moral ones, ie inherently based on values. I think they are. I also believe this quesiton should be addressed before we continue as it is a more fundamental concern in this situation, that being the metaphysicsl nature of man rather than the code of ethics he follows. I think that Greedy and I are trying to say that, because man is cognitive and rational, there can never be such a situation in which morality does not apply. Stephen, you said that the position I was advocating makes morality subjective, but if morality does not apply, how can it be subjective at the same time? What does your position do for morality? If morality does not apply in this situation, what standard should I base my choice on? What I am asking is how can you seperate morality and choice if man possesses consciousness? If you were in this situation, would you conscioulsy say, "This situation is outside the realm of morality" and not choose or randomly choose because of this? I understand that Rand said that morality does not pertain to this situation. What does "does not pertain" mean though? Does it mean should not be applied to choice, or does it mean that any action taken should not be evaluated morally to the situation, but man must still make a choice, he cannot be morally judged for his choice. But you can choose to live or not to live. So is there a standard for such a choice? Greedy if I have misrepresented you in any way let me know so I can stop.

And by my above post, I dont mean to say that the idea that people are ends in themselves is in any way wrong. I mean that the premises Kant uses to justify it are totally wrong.

That's what I want to know Greedy. Sorry about the joke Eddie. But seriously, look at Kant's justification for why people should be considered ends in themselves. I'm sure you'll eventually disagree with him.

Eddie, that was precisely what Kant said man should do in that situation--nothing. Generally, Kant saying something is right leads me to believe that the opposite is true.

Eric, if that truly is you, and you'll have to excuse me for being skeptical because I admire your work so much, could you provide proof for me by sending an e-mail from the e-mail address provided on your website to [email protected]?

If only I could attract Whitacre to this website by merely mentioning him. If that really is you Eric, you'll have to excuse the skepticism. I cannot possibly think why or how you would be at this forum. Gnargtharst, you make a good point. I own a few of his CD's and the written intro's in the CD cover talk about Eric's prevalent "spirituality." He refers to God in some songs. A quote from him: "I want to write music that reaches out all the way across to the back of the hall and holds you there until it's completely finished, so that we can have a transcendental experience together." He seems to attribute the inspiration for his music to some unknown source within his soul. Sometimes I wonder if people like him are Objectivists at heart who have found no words for what they know to be true emotionally, and the best way they can express it is through music and references to spirituality, even though spirituality in the way they have to say it is not quite what they mean. I remember being at this stage in my life. I knew emotionally what I wanted, and searched for it in many religious areas, but never quite found my meaning of "spirit" until I found Atlas Shrugged.

I could most certainly not see Rob Lowe as Francisco. And I always thought of Dagny as more...delicate, frame-wise. Selleck maybe if he shaved his moustache(I have no idea how to spell that).

No, but in the context in which all other moral factors have been negated because of the metaphysical facts of reality. Whose life? Are you trying to say that I'm being subjective? My life is worth more to me than a random stranger's life to me. Is there any other way to analyze that? Should I try to maximize the achievement of value, ie more people value him than do value me so I should let him live?

It almost sounded like that's what you were implicitly suggesting. The entire situation however is a case of moral essentials. Considered heirarchically, your life must take precedence over the life of any other man. Its as if, comparatively, my life is like the axiom of identity and his life is like the corallary of causality--without identity, causality is not possible. Without life, the above evaluation is not possible. The essential in this situation would be life or non-life. If I were to place a higher value on the other mans life, it would turn ethics on its head. Stephen are you saying it would be a purely metaphysical decision? Simply to be or not to be? I agree with you that one cannot be morally judged after making a decision, but implict in the choice of any volitional being is a standard by which to choose. That standard is morality. You cannot seperate the two. Let me add however, this situation seems extremely implausible because of mans ability to solve problems. I cannot even concieve of a situation where I could be absolutely sure that it is me or him, and without knowing that I could not condemn another man to death.

Are you saying that in this situation to die for the sake of the other person--no matter who it is--is a right course of action? Wouldn't you try to sustain your life even if it meant killing the other person? I think I understand what you mean when you say that this situation is outside the juristiction of morality. It is because morality is based on the idea of life--without life there could be no other values. Life preceedes morality, in effect, because it is the standard of morality. The metaphysical fact of life and its nature as non-dependant on other's lives cause us to create a selfish morality. I would agree that this decision has as much moral relevance as any other metaphysically given, such as rock at point B as opposed to rock at point A. But, I believe that GreedyCapitalist has a point. I don't think the decsion can be left up to chance. You still must choose his life or yours--you cant evade that fact. While you can't be held morally responsible for your choice, you still must make a choice based on standards because you are and value your existence and you know that you do. To do otherwise would be to evade the context in which the decision is made--that is--your consciousness. Does that make sense or should I clarify?