whYNOT

How did this topic get into Website Policy & Announcements, by the way?

In and of themselves, none of what you listed above is moral, - or, immoral, (IMO). The Nature of Man, is, as rational animal, conscious, autonomous, and self - directed. (IOW>A rational, volitional, egoist). To act against this, would certainly be immoral. The nature of, let's say, RayNewman, as individual, develops from that basis; as Hairnet says - your 'shoulds'. Hairnet, I generally agree with your explanation, except for the utilitarian arguments about homosexuality. If it were in one's nature to be so, what would the effect to one's self worth be, to deny it? Or, the opposite, to fake it?

I'm fairly sure that placement in the pyramid denotes importance - ie, Value - less than it does a sort of 'time-line' in order of achievement. But, yes, I suppose it could also indicate that Maslow asserted that one cannot (for instance) gain esteem (self-esteem) without having physiological, then, safety, then, love/belonging, needs already in place. Along the lines of "survive first, then flourish," simply. In practice, aren't all levels at work in an individual, concurrently, and simultaneously... albeit with morality as the top value and 'guide'? This would bring it closer in line with Objectivism. When I discovered Maslow's H of N, at about the same time I discovered Ayn Rand, I believed that the two of them might have corresponded. I don't think this is so now, but she could likely have been aware of his work, and maybe he of hers. Anyhow, it has some value, as a psychological base, imo.

"Choosing all actions and values by one's own thought." There is thinking, and then there's thinking... Logical, and deductive, thought. Formative, conceptual thought. Inward-directed thought. (Thinking about your thinking; reviewing, and paying iintense attention to your emotional responses; and so on). All three broad categories are subsumed by one word, Rationality, and all three should be seamlessly integrated and concurrent, I think. All those levels, and hierarchies, of thought...ain't it exciting?

Mindy, That's an awesome post. "Heroes of great proportions" says it all.

Nah, just clever. There are only so many ways one can respond on an Oist forum, I think. These are the ones we see: Respectfully, with agreement. Respectfully, with disagreement Disparagingly, with disagreement and, Non-response. If one can't apply the first two, I believe, then one should go to option 4 - but that's me. Despite Leonid's style (and it must be obvious that English is not his first language), he posted some original thoughts in good faith. Style, or substance - what do you prefer? While I don't yet fully grasp his reasoning, he has utilized some outside sources to sustantiate an Objectivist principle. That's admirable, and deserves a more intellectual debate - which I admit I might not be up to.

Nanite, David, While these arguments have merit in vacuo - I think you are skirting the issue. This is not a question of property rights. Imo, it is a question of which is rational. To drive with diminished capacity, is irrational - and if that were your own business that did not affect anyone else, of course, should be legal. The larger picture is that if I can drive drunk, why can't I then do anything else I want, which could mean not adhering to the highway code, running a vehicle that is a potential risk to others - or ultimately not even requiring driving lessons and a licence. It's interesting this, because it raises the whole subject of anarchism, which I believe falls flat because it is premised on the fact that I might be rational and self- responsible to a high degree, but how do I know you are? How do I know your tolerance for alcohol, for instance; or simply your ability to steer round a corner. You can do what you choose with your own life, but you have no right to risk mine. No, my life (and my car) has value, and whoever the owner of the road, public or private, I would rationally expect some agency to enforce minimum standards of road use, before I drove. I often wryly say (looking at the large number of idiotic drivers) that most people have it back to front. They could be the biggest conformists around, in their lives, but when they get in a vehicle suddenly transform into individualists. I can't speak for you, but roads are one place I expect rule of law, and conformism.

Yup, I got it the first time, and still don't think it's a valid comparison. If I couldn't avoid passing by a couple of thousand plank wielding individuals every day, I'd sure welcome knowing that there's a law against 'wielding a plank in public while drunk.' We drive on the roads making an implicit assumption of trust - that every other driver is proficient, aware, and sane. (Like me and you). While accidents are always going to happen, the well-documented danger of drunken driving is an increased risk that is non-negotiable, and partly preventable by law enforcement.

And your point is ...What, exactly? Or has sardonic parody become the latest fashion in rational debate ? (seeing as there is an earlier instance of it over in M. and E.)

? ...and Israel as a close second... WTF?

I don't think the IOF principle is applicable here,( unless "potential IOF" is a factor, and this doesn't seem rational.) I consider a motor vehicle as a guided 'missile' that requires a sober and responsible operator to get to its destination without risking others' lives and property. I don't know if any of us would want to use the roads if other drivers did not share the same control we have (supposedly). Remove the DUI law, and you may as well remove the driving licence law, or the law of having a roadworthy vehicle. This would result in highway anarchy, and that's probably what attracts libertarians! Me, I think this is one of the few areas we need limited government involvement.

So we all know that existence precedes, and is independent of, consciousness. Now, what can happen when one is of above average awareness and intelligence, and also is predisposed to depression? In fact, what comes first ? which is the cause, and which the effect? :- does observation of the often harsh reality of living, to such a sensitively aware person, cause or heighten depression? Or does the medical condition itself 'force' one to view life as dark and meaningless? I tend towards both; that the two things are inter-dependent. A person can sink into psychological subjectivity, that frustrates him all the more because he knows this is in direct antithesis to his conviction of Objectivism - and feels powerless to fight it. At a pre-cognitive level, even Objectivism, which is the very philosophy that does equip us to deal with existence and reality, is not sufficient to deal with this vicious spiral, I think. The spiral must be broken - or just interrupted - by all means possible, to allow one's rationality to gradually re-emerge, and for perspective to be established. That's when Objectivism comes into its own. crypticway, these were some thoughts I've had for years, and I'm no psychologist, but you might recognize something there. While integrity and honesty are crucial in support of self-esteem, I don't believe they are cause, alone. Pride is the motivator. Starting from the most elemental things ( using your physicality in digging a ditch, writing and introspecting as well as you do, courage in keeping your head up for another day, looking the world in the eye,- and so on.). I agree with the other posters that each of us is our own measure. I will add that comparison with those 'better' or 'worse off', is mainly fallacious, and definitely harmful to growth of pride. All the best.

Very enlightening, and simply explained; thanks. "We must undo the relatively few controls on the Internet, repudiate net neutrality, and keep the government's stupid hands off this brilliant private property."

Sophia, For anyone who has known the debilitating heaviness of depression, those were wise, honest, gentle, and rational words. The first and primary move to rational selfishness, and self esteem, is the acceptance of what one IS. Honest self-assessment will reveal what one can improve and change, through rationality, imo. N. Branden wrote: Self-acceptance is quite simply, realism. That which is, is. That which you think, you think. That which you feel, you feel. That which you did, you did. As you say, be kind to yourself.

I'm pretty dumb on Internet issues; I mean, who 'owns' the Internet? What I am certain about is that what the State can give, the State can take away.

That's a whole lot of justification going on. To make this very clear, merely to feel jealous for a woman is not the total criterion. But that type of woman who deliberately, overtly or subtley, encourages your insecurity, is the one to run from. I don't fully understand it, but it seems that some men and women need to cause pain, and need to feed off others' self-worth. Objectivists prize their self-worth, more than most - and the first signs that anyone close to you does not value you and undermines your sense of Self, are the warning of more to come. The illustration from my life ( I hope) goes to show how easily it can happen. . Landon, in the last resort, it is for each of us to own up to ourselves for such errors - to understand them, and to make the effort to correct our conscious and sub-conscious premises. Ultimately, I believe, we get what we feel we deserve.

Maybe it's not so easy. Not when she is the most exciting experience you've ever known - and the thrill of it, and the resulting sublime intimacy, spirals into an addiction. I can't make a call about this woman since I don't know nearly enough about her. I can only relate my own similar situation 6 years ago. This was a woman who knew all my buttons. Demanding as hell, and (beneath an incredible charm), as cold as ice. I hadn't experienced jealousy ever since my 20's - but she did it. There is an old Jim Croce song that comes close: ...."and for every time that we spent laughing, there were two times that I cried. You were trying to make me your martyr - that's one thing I just couldn't do; oh baby, I can't hang upon no lover's cross for you." In my case, and I must emphasize this, in my case, I have no doubt I was dealing with a fully developed narcissist - and I provided what the psychologists call her "Narcissistic Supply". Anyhow, 2 years in, followed by 2 more getting out. Landon, IF this rings loud and clear,( and even if she just isn't good for your sense of self), I'd suggest running - no matter how much it hurts for now.

David, Good Idea! (It's just that now I feel kinda lonely...)

My question is: Does the initiation of force that caused Ground Zero in the first place, justify further force against people who want to legally utilize that space? The rationale being that these people are connected to the initiators by race and religion. I don't want to over-simplify this argument, and like you others here, have been wrestling with it. But after all, they are American Muslims. Do they not deserve the benefit of the doubt? Despite their lack of diplomacy and sensitivity (putting it very mildly!) That's the 'trouble' with Individualism - at person to person level, or as here, with individual rights: It requires far more work and thought for O'ists to take each action, context or human being on their own, and not descend to irrational collectivization; of course I know that that's the moral beauty of Individualism, too. No, Islam did not bring down the Twin Towers - people did. People who were in a gang, in a sub-group, of a sub-set, of a sect in Islam. These gangs and all who concretely support them are the ones who should be identified and targeted, mercilessly. But I believe that without evidence to the contrary, the US Muslims must be treated as Americans - and individuals- first and foremost. THAT is what the USA became rightly admired for, and to do anything else would be a moral victory for her enemies, imo.

Rights are value- based; the value here is life itself. Life is the primary value, while mine, or yours, is the specific value - well, thats my phrasing. ie, to value mine, I should also value yours. Actually, I'm just repeating what RayN writes above, and I like his reply. However, doesn't this presuppose that this guy with water shares the same morality you do? (I've often wondered about the corollary of "do as you would be done by" - can't someone also insist that "he be done by, as he would do?" ) So, is it the consensus here that it is moral to initiate violence in this fictitious scenario?

When it comes to getting information from the media, my advice is exactly the same as when buying a product : - "let the buyer beware." I've worked on a daily newspaper and two financial weeklies, and all of them had an Editorial Policy handed down by the Managing Editor/ Publisher; whether it was political, economic or societal, the finished result reflected this policy in print. The media, in what it prints, or most importantly does not print, has its own agenda - impartial? Forget it!

In itself, yes I agree - but wouldn't you rather choose to show it to your child in his/her own home, and at the time you think is appropriate?

There are excellent arguments here in support of Israel, especially the exhaustative one by CapitalistSwine. I think all arguments are rational -- moral, as well as practical. As a long time Israel observer, I have never apologized for Israel; and in fact have been wary of any Israel 'apologists'. I think they are the flipside of the same coin shared with Israel's detractors . Both rely on emotionalism to make their points, and both ignore facts that don't fit their views. As far as I know there are no 'perfect' nations in the world today - with Statism so rampant, it is important to discriminate between those better, and those worse. To hate the "better', for being better, is wrong. To apply one set of standards to one nation, and a different to another, is even worse, imo. To the OP, there is no "we", on which side to support; you should make up your own mind, as I have and do. But I'd suggest looking at all the facts and principles before applying moral judgement; not just those that conveniently fit your view. (As only one point - I lived for 20 years in apartheid South Africa, and have visited Israel a few times and studied it well, and can report that there is very little correlation between the two, in government policy or individual racism.)

That nailed it !

Agreed. That is the twisted perception and double standard commonly applied to this good nation being condemned for being good - and for being strong. But don't you think that self-defence in this increasingly p.c., and shallow, unthinking, world also means disseminating information about your country in an honest, forthright and fearless manner? Public opinion (mostly irrational) can and does affect national policy, regrettably. Israel could go it alone, at a pinch, but well appreciates the value of her allies, and her trading partners. Decades ago, Hezbollah printed in their "Principles of War" this statement: "The Media has innumerable guns, whose hits are like bullets. Use them in battle."