whYNOT

I see your point, but I just wonder if Roark was the kind of person to pass a total judgement on someone in this way. First, his work, his productivity, was of maximum importance to him (we know), almost to the exclusion of all else - so he would I think assess Peter on that alone. Second, as an egoist with high rationality, would he take it on himself to presume what Peter's future life might be? Though he might, privately, have done so. I'm not certain, but I don't believe so. Rand has made it clear in other places that she definitely thought a man had the capability to change - his 'potential' - and although we should judge, we should also take that into account. "Benevolence", if you will. (A pleasure, Ben. )

Yes, that's one of the most powerful passages from TF, and one I puzzled over a lot. Despite Roark's compassion in the way he deliverers his statement, there is an air of finality about what he says. I think Ayn Rand was making some critical points: Do not live as a second-hander; Follow your own dream or ambition; Treat your own life with the ultimate respect; And all causes have effects. Now, if Keating had continued his passion for art, while studying architecture, things could well have been different. Roark might have told him on seeing his art "this is where you should be going, Peter - your talent is growing." The two careers did not have to be mutually exclusive, up to that point in time, anyway. But for Peter, in Rand's dramatisation (and for the purpose of her message), yes, it was "too late." Back in the real world - for you, Ben, from what you write, also from what I judge your age to be, and from my own experiences, I can say confidently - "No way is it too late!"

I like it. Audacious and light-hearted, good characterization, and just enough of a 'message'. Nice one!

Yes, Tenderlysharp, you jumped into the deep end, and I understand your frustration. You have apparently a fine mind and a great enthusiasm for O'ism, and whatever you experience, don't lose that. There is a lot to learn here, and Individualists come in all types, so I advise that you keep your eye on the objective, and don't let the rest of it get you down too much. (Said by someone who is a relative newby himself!) No, don't retreat - there is plenty of value on OONet, and believe it or not, there're many other sensitive Objectivists. Tony

I think this finely written and thought out, Islander. I say that because I wrote a more skeletal version of your essay, with the same principles, about 20 years ago - along the lines of 'If God did exist, what would He want of His finest creation Man, etc.' What's interesting is that, though I knew this could not be original to me alone, it's taken 20years for me to discover not one, but two much better versions of my article... within a month. On another Objectivist forum recently, debating atheism, I posted my own rebuttal of Pascal's Wager, calling it whYNOT's Wager (facetiously), and giving an outline of my own essay - only for it to transpire that a member there, apparently a well-known published author on Atheism, George H. Smith, had a while back written an essay titled Smith's Wager - positing the same ideas you and I had. He graciously told me "great minds think alike" - graciously, because he is an obviously excellent thinker, I'd have a hard time matching. Goes to show again how these forums are a terrific place for the discovery and exchange of ideas.

I think deism is a brave and spirited attempt by those who can not abide abnegating their independence, and their rationality - and who recognise all the defects and blind belief in religions - but who also need the security blanket of Grand Design, and all-seeing, all-knowing God. In other words, they want to have their cake, after eating it. (Some present atheists might be familiar with this as part of the 'process' they themselves went through towards atheism, a kind of 'half-way position'. In my case, I had a period of belief in a 'hands off' kind of God, a creator only, who wanted nothing from mankind.) The attempt at deism has to fail for a rational individual, imo, when all the rationalization and contradiction becomes insupportable. moot, I don't think you mentioned the deist's beliefs on Man's soul, everlasting life, etc. Do we assume that it follows the conventional tenet of all faiths?

Those were the days. Things have changed (to say the least.) For a brief period in the 40's there was only one benevolent power with nuclear weaponry. We are now in a nuclear 'free for all', and every Tom, Dick, and Ahmed has the technology, or can purchase it, - and can 'justify' using it against a real or imagined enemy. (By this standard the "evil empire", the USSR, actually behaved with some restraint and rationality; the insane owners of nukes today will show little such responsibility.) But what does the USA do? Can it really go round launching nukes at every belligerent, apparently irrational, nation? Is this rational? What would the consequences be? A first strike might become necessary, by Israel or the US, but with the vast firepower they have at their disposal, it should never be necessary to initiate use of a nuclear bomb at civilian targets. That's the closest to a rational conclusion I can come in this complex and disturbing debate.

Broadly, it seems that every State across the spectrum of democratic, 'democratic' and dictatorial, has had, and has, its majority of enthusiastic supporters, also a certain number of 'just get-alongers', and also its number of conscientuous dissidents. To slightly paraphrase H.L.M.'s famous quote, "We get the government our majority deserves." As themadcat and aequalsa have indicated - what if, as all O'ists here, we are opposed to facets of our governments? Or, much worse, to the whole system of our government? (And are unable for some reason to leave?) I'd find it just a little unfair for the city I live in to be eradicated, that majority, and me along with it. In a conventional war, I'd at least have a chance. (I admit freely that this a specious argument.) Still, once you let that nuclear cat out of the bag, who can put it back?

Jake, I just saw you post. My first thought is that, in actuality, this is more Israel's problem, than America's. (The "Little Satan," rather than the Big one.) If any nation has the right to declare war on Iran, it surely must be Israel first. Then if they see no other way - NO OTHER WAY - to survive, it will be Israel that will nuke Iran. Not only because I have a vested interest in Israel ( having some family there), I hope like hell that the US will militarily back Israel in whatever they decide - conventional war or otherwise. I wonder if your present government will...

There is no such thing as just nuking one's enemy today; remember something - Japan did not possess the A bomb, and could not retaliate. It was guaranteed that the US bombing there would end hostilities, and save Allied lives. This is the practical argument, not the ethical one: to use "extreme prejudice" in today's world, is an invitation for every piss-pot nation that can buy the technology, to nuke whoever they feel like, anytime. Besides, there is a protocol to follow! If the USA (or Israel for that matter) has good reason to believe that Iran is escalating its threat against them, then declare war. A quick and deadly war, that must destroy Iran's capability to threaten anyone again. Without nukes. As for "proportionate response", I agree with some of Hotua's thoughts, but definitely not with this one. All war, almost by definition, has to be disproportionate - the enemy must be hit back with 10 times the force that they initiated. But whether one likes it or not, there must be a level of self-responsibility and restraint when a supremely powerful nation (the USA) is forced to deal with one far weaker. Iran does not pose quite the same threat that the USSR once did with its nuclear ICBM's.

So four years later, and 800+ replies, the topical question is finally being met with a resounding "NO". About time. No Objectivist should consider nuking a city, except in the very, very last resort of self-defence. Even the 'surgical' bombing strikes are immoral, unless two nations are in a proclaimed state of warfare. Terrorism is a case I believe for having men on the ground (your CIA), infiltrating, assessing, and assassinating the culprits themselves. You can't get more surgical than that.

Tenderlysharp, Just keep on going regardless - your own way. Don't forget the 'sparks' Jackethan mentioned.

Well as for those arguments from intimidation, this accusation can just as well be levelled at those of the 'beauty is a rational value' camp. Their basic argument is "I admire natural beauty, ergo, it must be a rational value." To repeat, let's keep some sense of proportion here. No one's dismissing beauty as insignificant - it obviously is pleasurable, especially when compared to physical drabness. But a RATIONAL value? Wishing don't make it so. As a benefit in one's own life? (being a good-looking person), sure, use it to the utmost, without guilt. To possess it personally, or appreciate it in others, that's all it is - a benefit.

Is it possible to keep some perspective here? This is what happens when one allows in the premise that good looks are a rational value. What else is? The fact that I like a cigarette and cup of tea before I start a work assignment? That I like blondes with long legs? Or brunettes with big eyes? I think we are over-using the word/concept "value." No, these things may be of 'benefit', visually and psychologically to me, but nowhere near being a Value. As for the morality of pursuing or upholding Beauty, please remember we are talking reality here - not art. What do I call my beautiful wife? A piece of living art, who I chose because I am an art connoisseur? I am only partially in agreement with the Dr Peikoff viewpoint that all harmony is pleasing, and can be objectively measured (to paraphrase him); and partially with Jake Ellison's bringing in Hierarchy to the party. My own hierarchy places character and rationality 100's of degrees higher on a scale, than good looks. But looks might just creep in at the bottom of the scale. To those who decry conflating Beauty with Morality - I agree to the hilt. BUT, to deny that people differ, in intelligence, energy, character, and so on, AS WELL AS good looks is to allow in another false premise - egalitarianism. This is what Post-modernism and PC-ness has done to us: that we are not allowed to refer, even privately , to the fact that someone is ugly as hell - as if that defines all that he is in our superficial world.

Introspection, logic, and being willing to learn; that's an invincible combination, CastleBravo. Now you're really talking!

You've made a persuasive argument, Jake Ellison, and I've been reconsidering my position. Despite the randomness of Nature's "gifts" (why this face, and not that?), I admit that I'm starting to be more inclined to elevating natural Beauty to a place in my own hierarchy of objective value. I suppose one could say that it doesn't matter how or why it came into being - it just is. There are still some elements of subjectivism/intrincism I haven't dealt with yet. Still thinking on it...

CastleBravo, I must ask you, respectfully: You do know about 'mixed premises', don't you? That oddity of people who manage to be extremely rational in one area, and who also are, let's say, religious? You do know that logic, intelligence, and a good grounding in O'ism are just the start of the journey? That in fact, logic is a tool of Reason - and in my experience, rationality takes time, thought, and application to attain - so are you sure you're as rational as you think? I know I'm not always. That it's possible to learn some things from those you have discounted as irrational? That it's possible to even find them pleasurable and entertaining? That (this is the tricky one) Objectivism is in itself so vastly superior to any ideology - that, IMO, it does not require one to behave in a superior and arrogant way. It is a deeply human need to be right in our lives, but the need to compare one's 'rightness' to others ("my God is better than yours") is immature and lacking in real confidence. But if this is important, just live out O'ism for you, alone, and people will take note, guaranteed! And, that you could end up in an ivory tower, withdrawing from life, because you don't approve of, or dismiss most beings as being insufficiently rational? I sometimes have thought that the majority of people are actually insane, not just irrational; but I am not punishing anyone but myself, by backing away. Is this the flourishing life that is ultimately the point of our philosophy? Just asking, respectfully. ("keep you head when all about you, are losing theirs'...)

I take your point. Maybe I should have phrased this "To call anything VISUAL, 'designed' by Nature, a rational value is puzzling..." We are talking Beauty here, not air and food - how much does raw, physical, beauty (not man-made) actually have to do with furthering one's life? And remember I am not denying some value in even this. It just seems there is a large value differential between the two. Robert: I am in complete agreement. I hoped to make this clear by using quotes on 'design'. How else can one avoid that old 'creation', and 'pre- determined' fallacy? I can't think of another way of putting it right now.

If one looks at all the random constructs of nature - a 'beautiful' scenic view, an eagle in flight, a 'beautiful' face, the colours of dawn, etc., there is value to the eye and emotions, that I'm not denying. But if one looks at what Man can and has accomplished, - a steel bridge, a noble sculpture, an electronic circuit board, etc, here is Rational Value, that serves as an example of what you and I can attain. Now this is (what I call) "Soul Food." For me personally, the beauty of a woman is just the introduction to her - if what I perceive as the rest of her becomes known, does not match that visual pleasure, she is a dull and empty disappointment, to me. (And that's happened often.) OTOH, those whose minds are alive and questioning, who radiate integrity, independence and courage; now that's a beautiful woman! Despite a few imperfections of looks, it's her "self made soul" that is attractive - rationally. To call anything that Mother Nature 'designed' a RATIONAL value is puzzling me. Yes, I like to see natural beauty, but is it going to sustain my life? It hasn't and doesn't.

I don't think there is anything particularly rational in seeking out only beautiful women. (Just the same as there is nothing rational in avoiding them.) Morally, this seems to be intrincism. Beyond the obvious of taking care of your face and body, and most critically, living towards an integrated and mostly moral life which will result in 'inner' beauty, great looks are a lucky accident of birth. The need to 'have' beauty is much more psychological, and biologically hard-wired, than it is rational. I cannot understand how it can be any more virtuous to be beautiful, and to pursue it. (Excluding beauty in art naturally.) Handsome is as handsome does.

I believe that one's psychological make-up can definitely pre-dispose one to altruism. Instead of altruism being consciously upheld as an ideology, causing the shift to second-handedness, and from here to dutiful conformity, and then to low self esteem, and then to reduced sense of ego; - it probably happens more often in reverse. IOW, one could try to justify altruism intellectually,(e.g. rationalising self-sacrifice) after 'grasping' it psychlogically. In the end it is less important which come first, than that one is aware of the fact that it's one big emotional-psychological-philosophical package involving the "Other". As I keep repeating, Altruism is a huge, all embracing concept that goes far beyond 'doing something' for others. And actually, the stronger one's sense of self (ego), the better one is equipped to be benevolent towards others, and even help them occasionally, without contradiction, or threat to ego.

The concept "Value" is being used too broadly; just as, the concept "Altruism" is being used too narrowly. I think that 'value' - 'Value' can come in degrees. I also think that one does not have to be fully rational to seek a 'value'. But an "irrational value" is a contradiction in terms, I believe. Also, there comes a lower point on the scale where 'want', 'need', 'desire', or 'choice', should be used instead. Using 'value' indiscriminately corrupts the concept. To say >I like Weetbix for breakfast< demonstrates 'desire'. To say >I feel that I should eat breakfast every day< demonstrates 'need'. To say > I must eat to live < is simple 'value'. To say > I choose to live a productive, independent life < is a high 'Value.' So Keating 'valued' his parents opinion enough to 'value' becoming an architect? Or, rather, did he want to please others badly enough to study for a career he had no love for, and came to loathe? With insufficient 'Self', he could have no idea of what he valued. An altruistic, conformist, second-hander. One can only value to the extent and consistency of one's rationality and egoism, IMO.

This breakdown turns around the word 'value', I think. Mother Teresa valued (one supposes) helping the needy. ie, she saw importance in suffering - and the suffering. Just to 'value' something or someone does not automatically make it a Value. It depends on the moral worth of the subject, and the object - the valuer and the valued.

I like your brevity, Sophia, and in a nutshell you've said everything I wanted to say. I had a thought that is also to the point : The altruist seeks the sanction of others just to exist.

Trying to get this straight, Objectively: a. Based upon lesser info at that time, Ayn Rand condemned homsexuality as immoral. b. When further information revealed that homsexuality has a strong predisposed element, O'ism officially overturned that position - based I think on the premise that it is irrational to condemn what is in one's nature, and non-volitional. (Open to correction on this.) c. New studies now indicate what was actually obvious, that situation and circumstance, AND free choice, play a large part in "Ambi- sexuality" (new one on me ). d. So some previous heteros can make a 'lifestyle choice' for either sex, arbitrarily. e. So now that practising homosexuality/bisexuality for some or many is volitional again, does one go back to condemning it - if only for those who choose this ? My personal view is that I won't, but I admit I don't exactly understand why not...