Eiuol

Politics and morality were addressed, and I was responding to the moral aspect. My comments on discrimination there get at the distinction between morality and politics in terms of what should be done about unjust discrimination.

With regards to meritocracy, responding to some of sNerd's quote, I think Rand was primarily considering rule by those with merit. The suffix -cracy usually implies rule, like autocracy would mean rule by one person. In the video, it seems to be mostly addressing merit in the general sense of getting what one deserves. Rand certainly advocates that. Luck is something worth more discussion later probably, but a lot of the time luck isn't a big deal, because one has the ability and even need to maintain anything acquired. In cases of unfortunate occurrences that are totally unforeseen that an individual cannot reasonably account for is something that likely would need charitable giving. Even if things can be accounted for, if an individual honestly will try to improve, forgiveness and help is probably warranted. Good people deserve help, and not acting to help good people is immoral, to the extent helping is in one's selfish interest (i.e., a person makes art that is highly valuable to you as an individual). Self-sufficiency isn't in terms of being able to provide for oneself alone. "Independence" would be a better word here, independence in terms of one's mind. About start-up capital, it isn't really about certainty if a venture will work - it's about the person with money judging if a certain venture is valuable. Hopefully, the judgment is based on fact. If that's the case, good ideas largely succeed. When the basis is a knee-jerk reaction, the opposite may true. The way to deal with that is encouraging rational thought, but if rational thought is a rarity in Atlas Shrugged, bad things happen. Discrimination is similar. It's just fortunate that people noticed that Dagny was good at what she did, dependent upon people being at least rational enough to see that. If a population is overwhelmingly racist, just being good at a job is probably not enough. Such discrimination is immoral, given that good people are denied what they deserve. In terms of ethics, combating such immorality is proper, but implications of individual rights suggest not to do that through government force. I watched your whole video, I'll see any comments you have here before I say more.

Uhh, the US military isn't immune to corruption or doing bad things. Everything else on this, I agree with Crow. Having an equipped tank is de facto banned. Why do you think the military disables the weaponry? On top of that, you said "he could obtain the proper licenses" to acquire/make a working tank, meaning that there are regulations Tom Clancy must comply with! As related to gun control, I'm saying that such regulations are good and proper for guns, too. Tom Clancy can acquire a tank if he complies with regulations. The US military is just as fallible as any other institution. Now that that's done with... * Aren't the only ways to use a weapon for its purpose either initiation or retaliation? I don't know a third option, except for say, hunting, which I think is not even part of the context here, in the same way I said how the essential purpose of a weapon can be objectively defined. The rest of this is in response to SapereAude: what is a gun For this context, let's say a Glock, which was used/carried by the shooter in question. It is used to shoot other people. I am aware he took his mother's guns, though. what is a nuclear weapon A weapon that when it detonates, it sets off a massive explosion caused by atomic fission. Of course, it is now known that this also leaves behind radiation at damaging levels. They vary in level of destruction. how are they used/ how they function Glocks by pulling a trigger. They can be used for self-defense of the moment, such as during a burglary. They can also be used to initiate force. They can even be used in attempts to take over a corrupt government, although if it came down to that, whether or not there is a right to bear arms is moot. If the government were corrupt, you'd do illegal things. American Revolutionaries did that, even. Nuclear weapons can be detonated in a suitcase, delivered via missile, dropped out of a plane, or even shot by artillery. They are intended to be use when extensive destruction is needed, perhaps against North Korea. Speaking of North Korea though... Someone may feel threatened by North Korea, so they may build a nuke in the event that their oil drilling rig near the Russian-Korean border is attacked by North Korean soldiers for whatever reason. This is indeed hypothetical, but it's not so farfetched. As a defensive weapon, this would actually make sense in my opinion, as a means of self-defense. Furthermore, North Korea is a dictatorship, so it's not as problematic as it would be if the other country were Italy. I would even suppose this business could properly possess a nuclear weapon, because self-defense would be expected in this circumstance. what is the right to live and how does self defense work into that The right to life derives from how existing in a society depends upon individual people being able to use reason in order to pursue what one evaluates as conducive to their life/morality. As a matter of clarification, since people mention it, self-ownership isn't a valid idea, and plays no role in my reasoning here. The concept of ownership first depends on the concept of a right, so a right to life can't be premised on self-ownership. It'd be a messy discussion. Still, starting with a right to life, I notice that force is the one thing that violates a right to life, thus banning/controlling force is in no way a violation of rights. Important to controlling force is having regulations of its use and means of use, in particular, private defense agencies (the anarcho-capitalist sort), and weapons. By nature, these things involve potential rights violations whenever they are used - legitimate use has to be demonstrated in a court of law. If I use a gun in self-defense, I may be in the right, but how does anyone else know? Again, maintain the context: weapons, things intended to inflict bodily harm. With regards to defense agencies, dealing with the very real possibility of improper use of force is best minimized by establishing a government, and in fact doesn't violate a right to establish a private business. Formal rules ought to be in place agreed upon in society for establishing special considerations of how force may be used and who may be in charge (e.g. leaders should be mentally competent, age minimums, etc). By the way, I'm not suggesting that government is infallible and can't violate rights, as many people seem to implicitly suppose (see my comments directed at Nicky; the military is the forceful arm of government, after all). For weapons, my reasoning is similar, but only applies after government is established that can enforce regulations. There ought to be rules in place agreed upon in society for establishing how weapons may be used and who may be in charge (e.g. mentally competent, trained gun users, etc). In other words, this is my response to Rand thinking about how to resolve the issue of protecting oneself without giving others the privilege of killing people at whim. Given that a Glock pretty much works one one target at a time, regulations with as far as establishing mental competence and licensing seems appropriate. The level of regulation should be related to how much destruction a weapon is intended to cause - tanks and nukes would require more regulation. Now, someone is bound to say "a murderer on the loose with a hammer can kill people at whim, so what now, hammers should be regulated?", but that's not addressing the issue of *weapons and guns*. (A can of Raid isn't intended to be used against people!!!!) we defer to the government the right to "retaliatory force" but is self defense really "retaliatory" Yes, self-defense is retaliatory, because force is either defense/retaliation, or initiation. does "defer" mean to "give up all together"? Not necessarily. I never argued for banning guns, though.

Things are absurd or not usually based on the principles one holds. It sounds absurd to you, but not to me. Again, you didn't even answer my question. If you can regulate one kind of weapon, in principle, you can regulate other kinds of weapons. But which kinds may be regulated, and which kinds may not be? FeatherFall is giving me a reply based on specific principles, so I will respond to that when I have more time.

Both. Selfish usually denotes knowing about ethical standards and all that, even though a children will likely do things that are in their interest. So, you can say that children implicitly act towards furthering their existence, but that's different than saying that children are selfish.

No, I don't think focus can be forced by even automatic processes, but it probably happens quite easily by nature of having sense organs. When it comes to language, there are so many words throughout the day on top of all the sensations that a child will begin to focus on some of them. A choice to focus doesn't mean that there is an analysis of the options, it only means that it's' not merely automatic. Keep in mind that Rand is coming from a philosophy end - how focus works still needs to be investigated in terms of science. Language acquisition is a complex field, so I can't answer why virtually all children learn to speak their local language, although if you're interested, I can explain the linguistic theories that I know about. As Nicky said, that something is chosen is no indication of how likely the choice is. For whatever reason, basically all children will focus on language. The choice to focus is similar to the choice for life - it is fundamental to all thinking. Both of these choices seem to occur "just because", that is, the choice is not a result of using reason. Reason depends on focusing and choosing life in the first place! The choice may be made based on pleasure/pain, or it might be made based on whatever you can think of, but why will probably remain a scientific question. I disagree with Nicky saying that children choose to focus on language because it is a means towards a selfish end. I don't think a one year old even knows what a means to an end even is. An adult learning a third language may think about ends to achieve, but not a child. Again, language acquisition is complex. The explanation of "means towards a selfish end" is much too simplistic.

Do you or do you not agree that nukes should be banned from private ownership? If you do agree, you already concede my point. If you disagree, I think that is implicitly a rejection of all forms of government. I'll just make another thread, because people seem to respond to my posts by repeating the same point over and over without answering questions that I pose.

The government of course, I'm not sure why you ask that as though it should socratically reveal that I'm violating a principle of banning the initiation of force. I am claiming that there is implicitly no initiation of force going on in the regulation of force, in the same way a monopoly on the use of force is not an initiation of force. Property rights are a derivative concept of a right to life, but the derivation is made complicated when the object in question is an object used for force. That's the same way when a discussion gets into anarchy and private defense agencies. The only way to stop those is to regulate the use of force, reason being that force of all kinds must be put under objective control and law. Not control of a person's life, just control over force. Why taxation violates principles of Objectivism is totally different and off topic, since money isn't itself a tool of force... My only point is that regulation of guns is acceptable and not a violation of any principles. Require a license in order to buy a gun, for example. I don't usually link Rand quotes except when highly relevant, I thought you'd be interested to see what she wrote, since it acknowledges the same issues I'm talking about. Just leaving guns as a property rights issue is an oversimplification. No one said so far how it's justified to ban the private ownership of atomic weapons, except the argument Spiral presented of "no rational person would own one". I dunno about that in the first place - if I feel threatened by North Korea, why can't I point a nuke? If you agree on banning nukes, you've already conceded that weapons can be regulated, it' s only a matter of degree. From http://www.noblesoul...ys/guns.html

No, I don't think why guns were invented matters as much as the fact that guns are weapons of force mainly used to kill/harm people. I only said that as "oh, this is an aside, but as far as I know, guns were even invented in order to kill people, but I might be wrong". Here in the year 2012, many guns are explicitly for harming/killing people, although some people will use guns for hunting. I could even buy a gun to stir soup with, but that's really quite silly. If I bought a gun, I would only do so to protect myself from violent people, or related threats. Fine, a gun is multipurpose, but my epistemological point is that there are essential purposes to all tools, despite multiple possible purposes. (For the record, I'm not against gun ownership, I'm just for some gun controls/regulations.)

I can split the topic if you want to talk more about gun control, since it's tangential to this thread. After thinking about your point, I don't think it holds water, at least if we both accept that objective understanding of concepts is possible. There is no metaphysical necessity for forming any concept, just as there is no metaphysical definition. For the most part, even if the units remain the same, identified essentials and even purpose can vary among people for the concept. What gives anyone the authority to say humans are rational animals? No one. I could even say that humans are hairless bipeds, since no one has the authority to say it must be that way. The reason I wouldn't accept hairless biped as a valid definition, even though we are using the same referent, is that it violates what I know as the essential which distinguishes humans from similar units. Objectively, I can still say one definition of the concept is wrong. I can do the same with weapons. Weapons are tools, and tools are distinguished based upon their purpose. I can use a hammer as a drumstick, but hammers are made in order to put nails into objects. Indeed, whoever owns the property can choose a number of ways to use a tool besides the purpose it was designed for, but objectively, there is still a purpose. I can even say hammers can be used to kill people, but that's not the purpose of a hammer. Weapons are a kind of tool intended to kill or maim. Weapons can be divided up based on what a weapon is used to kill: humans, and nonhumans. Guns certainly fall under a tool used to kill people, even though you can use a gun for hunting. As far as I know, guns were invented in order to kill people. The purpose in your circumstances for a gun may vary, but there is also the intended purpose of a gun. We're talking about a tool whose purpose is the use of force, and the only way for government to be in control of force is to define what force is and how weapons may be used. That includes guns. Still, with what you said on WMDs, you seemed to have accepted though that there are certain objects that the government may regulate, regardless of what the creator/owner says.

Not necessarily. Broken unit applies to units that lack an essential feature, as well as units that lack features that they are supposed to have, teleologically speaking. In the thread Dante linked: Later on in the thread, "deaf man" is an example of a broken unit, so in some sense, medicine largely involves the study of broken units. Any person should be able to hear, in terms of biology. I believe part of the justification for the idea of broken unit is that attributes cannot be separated from a unit. If you split a rock in half, you can say that you have two rocks, or that the rock is split. If you split a computer into many pieces, you can't say there are many computers. As a unit, there is no more computer. Lacking a motherboard, though, would not mean there is no computer. The point here is that even if a computer lacks things it really should have that impact its functioning as an entity, it's still a computer. Lacking essentials always impacts functioning, while nonessentials might, or might not. Hair color has no bearing on the functioning of people, so varying hair colors won't lead to brokenness. I agree, though, that attributes themselves cannot be broken. That really depends on the causal relationship between sex and gender. Anyone who takes the view that there is a causal relationship between sex and gender probably would say that sex is the encompassing concept while gender would be a resulting psychological attribute. Some may say that. being male leads to certain levels of testosterone, which leads to masculine behavior. If it is true, then [blank] gender would be an example of a broken unit, caused by a lack of testosterone (or whatever leads to genderized behavior). Whether or not this ought to be fixed depends upon if the consequences have a negative impact on one's life. I'd bet there would be no negative consequences, so it wouldn't need to be fixed. Still, the question matters to the extent of whether or not there are negative consequences. Part of the reason I think there is no causal relationship between sex and gender is the variation I've seen in how strongly people identify with their gender. I usually think of myself as having a weak gender identity, while some people have a strong gender identity, but neither type of person is impacted much in terms of how they function. The only impact gender seems to have on functioning is with how values are pursued.

Having thought about the idea of "broken unit" more, I do not think it would apply to attributes that are due to choice. Being a Marxist is a choice, as is being a Christian or even a Scientologist. What would a "broken unit" of a Christian be? A Mormon? We can argue into the finer details of conceptual hierarchy about whether or not Mormon is properly a species of Christian, but the point I'm making is that for chosen viewpoints and/or non-concrete abstractions (i.e. justice) don't have broken units. Lacking some important features seems to really only move the concept around in hierarchy, or modify the concept's definition. Broken seems to only be relevant in the cases where choice is not directly part of the equation (e.g. tires, apples, genetic traits, some psychological disorders/problems, medical conditions). My reasoning is that concrete entities or anything close to concrete is meant, by nature, to function a particular way. Certainly, philosophical concepts have a nature and function, so my point is that variation may be more acceptable and even epistemologically necessary in order to interact with physical entities on a direct level. Trying to consider any person with a medical flaw as inhuman would be an epistemological nightmare, as would a dog with three legs being declared a "nondog". Or that a flat tire is a "nontire". Those types of aspects can be theoretically fixed, like if someone discovered a cure for diabetes. Even if fixing is impossible, all of these entities still maintain clear semblance to what they are supposed to do in normal circumstances. Perceptually, there is enough to not establish a whole separate category for these broken units. With psychological traits/personal aspects, this is difficult to break apart. Personal aspects are anything like choosing one's moral code, while psychological traits are things like cognitive ability. Personal aspects on their own may be immoral, as anyone here would say about choosing an altruistic morality. But psychological traits are not immoral on their own because they are largely not up to choice; cognitive ability caused by certain psychological traits isn't immoral on its own. A person with dyslexia, for example, is not inherently immoral. If that person fails to take into account their dyslexia into their life and doesn't make proper considerations for their circumstance, then that is immoral. Is a moral code of altruism a "broken unit" of a proper moral code? I say no, as treating altruism on its own terms is epistemologically important. Is someone with bipolar disorder a "broken unit"? I'd say so, because for all intents and purposes, a person with dyslexia is as human as anyone else for interaction, yet dyslexia is an abnormal condition, in the same way a physical disability is an abnormal condition. As was said earlier, thinking about people on an individual level is what's important, not whether or not they conform to the statistical norm. But figuring out cases of a "broken unit" is important to figuring out what actions a person can take in order to be moral. A dyslexic would value knowing they are dyslexic for purposes of adaptation. The "brokenness" isn't immoral, though. An on the other hand, one can help being altruistic, so it's possible to condemn that choice for being totally up to individual choice. At the same time, it's possible to praise choosing egoism. Where does gender fall? I think it primarily falls under individual choice, so "broken units" in gender don't make sense. Any justification I've seen for masculinity/femininity have been based on someone being male or female, which often seems like begging the question. If gender falls in the other category, then it is still treated like any "broken unit": becoming fixed isn't always obligatory, but making one's life as good as possible given the circumstances is. (I think from now on I'll say "deviant unit", I don't like the connotation of broken when it involves people.)

You are right on that, so to rephrase: I am not aware of any evidence that suggests autistic people are prone to extreme bouts of violence (i.e. a shooting spree) by nature of autism. I am indeed aware that some autistic children are aggressive and/or violent, but that's different than the violence we are discussing.

It's fine to wonder if prematurity leads to autism, but that has nothing to do with this shooting because autism isn't associated with violent behavior at all.

Are you suggesting that prematurity may lead to autism, which then leads to acting violent?

I wasn't refrering to this case specifically. I realize he took his mother's guns, so gun regulation is a moot point. I notice now my error about semi-automatics, I somehow in my mind got mixed up, but in any case, I still doubt teachers would be carrying around guns in an elementary school. Who gets to decide the purpose for a nuclear weapon? Or any government? Implicitly, with your reply about nukes, you are saying that some weapons may be regulated. My previous post was only pointing out why I believed your argument was no good. It failed to account for the fact that guns are tools of force, so your argument is at best incomplete. Tools or methods of force (i.e. private defense firms) ought to be regulated because no one has a "right" to use force as they please. Self-defense is the only time force should be permitted. Consider linking this discussion on gun control to discussions on anarchy. Why can't I just run a private defense firm? I don't think it's possible to argue for absolutely no regulation of weapons without accepting that in principle you'd be accepting anarchy. All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?

Definitely, that was the point the sentence following the one you quoted. For the most part, I see "broken units" as an aspect of variability within concepts which for people results in different conclusions to make for ethical decisions. I can apply principles, but the particulars are unique. Of course the primary concern is as an individual, yet categorizing can help make decisions about life. A diabetic is classified as such so that he knows that insulin is an ethical need to the extent insulin maintains his health. I doubt though that gender is even an important attribute, and might be better left as a cultural concept, just as a subculture works. For some people, a broken unit wouldn't apply to them if gender is left as a cultural concept, because they were never part of the concept in the first place. You personally wouldn't be a broken unit of Marxist, because you aren't some altered form of Marxist - you're simply not a Marxist in any sense.

Against semi-automatics? Doubtful, and I would wonder if adults would just be carrying around guns in an elementary school. I would actually avoid bringing a gun to an elementary school in case a *child* gets hold of a gun accidentally. Just to be clear though, I don't have anything against concealed weapons really, provided that a person passes background checks or any regulations. Not very well, apparently. Stop at premise 1 or 2. You must consider the purpose of guns in particular, which is killing. For most forms of property, the purpose isn't for killing or other actions that may be an initiation of force. The purpose of a car is transportation, despite the fact it can be used to kill. A person ought to have a right to dispose of their car in any manner, as long as it's not an initiation of force. The issue with guns is that they are built for force, the very thing that is often a rights violation. Considering that government ought to have a monopoly on force in the name of protecting rights, along with disallowing vigilantism, guns pose a unique issue. Self-defense is proper, but on the other hand, it is not proper to wield weapons in an identical manner as other property given what weapons *are*. Different considerations must be made for the methods of using force, including guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. Even considerations for private defense agencies are quite similar to the use of guns I find. Do you agree that private citizens should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons? If so, why should government be allowed to regulate nukes, but not guns?

To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person. The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society. Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force. Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon. Other weapons would be outright banned, like nuclear weapons.

Obesity isn't ever an initiation of force. Killing people can be.

One other comment... This comparison is bad. Spoons are made in order to eat, which by nature isn't an initiation of force. Guns are made in order to kill, which is either self-defense or initiation of force. Someone buying a gun in order to initiate force is a realistic possibility, as is the possibility of buying a gun for self-defense. Buying a spoon in order to initiate force is totally implausible. Guns make violence possible, and without a gun, a person is severely constrained. My idea here is that guns should be regulated, and semi-automatics probably should be banned except for rare circumstances. By regulation, I mean oversight of who can and cannot purchase guns to assure that person's purpose for the gun is explicitly self-defense. Guns are tools for *killing* people.

Heh, when I first noticed the thread, I thought how seeing the word gender in a thread title is like a signal for me to post. "If there is any truth to the contention that certain things are generally true for the member of a gender (i.e. Poison X is bad to drink, and women ought not seek the Presidency), don't we counsel our own destruction when we continue to apply this derivative thinking to individuals to whom these things do not, in reality, apply" Sure, but before talking about what is true for gender at all requires specifying what gender means, and proposing essentials to the concept. Ethics have to be applied to personal circumstances through principles, so for gender to be part of developing any ethical principle depends upon knowing what gender specifically refers to. A lot of the time I think culture has a massive influence on raising kids, and leading them to adopt genderized behavior. While that may be interesting sociologically speaking, in terms of ethics that is mostly irrelevant - society isn't a basis for ethical principles. Anyone who accepts Objectivist ethics wouldn't care if their behavior conforms to society, only if it conforms to pursuing values and one's own life. For psychological interpretations of gender, that requires expertise or background, and evidence. Studies are even better. Dante stated a similar idea, I think, by saying that simply theorizing is insufficient. That's true for any statement regarding reality, whether its physics or psychology. I should say that some studies are questionable because of poor statistical methodology that generalizes far too much, and extends too far. Are there differences between genders for spatial processing? Perhaps; I haven't seen many studies. Even if there are, how significant are the differences in daily life? The differences might not be noteworthy, even if statistically significant. There is likely more overlap than people on average care to acknowledge, but I need to read more on the subject. There are scientific questions that need to be answered. Suppose a fundamental characteristic of gender (i.e. masculinity, femininity) was discovered. Whatever it could be still doesn't quite warrant ethical considerations about what behaviors to take, because broken units exist. A person has to be established as a non-broken unit before anyone can make a proclamation of immoral behavior. For instance, I think of how telling someone in a wheelchair to work out more to be able to walk again has moral weight to it if the person can be expected to recover, but it is meaningless if the person is that way due to genetic disease. DonAthos, I think you misunderstood the point of a "broken unit". Changing the terminology to "abnormal unit" may make more sense, it really doesn't matter. A person being born diabetic is a broken unit to the extent any human should be able to produce insulin, but this individual does not. The difference isn't enough to suggest a diabetic is inhuman, but enough of a difference to be diagnosed with a disease that negatively impacts survival/existence. In the case of gender, "survival" of the unit as it doesn't have to do with dying per se, only whether or not a person has even the non-essential characteristics. If someone is a broken unit for whatever reason (e.g. transgender because of XXY chromosomes), then different behaviors become necessary than would normally be expected of anyone else.

Fine, but you haven't backed up your assertions or answered several questions addressed at your posts.

I'm sure you meant this, but I think you meant to say they believe it absolves them of personal responsibility. But as far as I know, the people who take medication usually take it as a matter of personal responsibility because they are able to think better, alongside seeing a psychologist. Indeed, some psychiatrists fail as doctors, and just give any med that seems to treat the symptoms, which is bad medical practice! You don't have any evidence that psychotropics *frequently* make things worse. I'm really surprised Grames posted that video, because the source is terrible.

I'm not sure what it is that you're missing in what I said. You're saying that the solution is not a drug alone. This is true. Drugs alone aren't a solution, but they can be part of the solution. I don't advocate non-adults from taking psychiatric meds, but some psychological problems can be in large part due to a real problem in the brain. I don't know if you've known anyone bipolar, but that's a kind of issue where medication is needed on top of psychological treatment. By needed, I mean without which they may actually harm themselves or others. In most cases, that harm will be immoral. So, part of fixing the problem is taking some medication to better control the harmful thoughts or obsessions, just as the psychological treatment that goes with it is for helping to control those thoughts. I said doctors aren't after fixing the moral problems of a person, because part of their job is to just fix the problem. Fixing problems helps a person to get on the road to moral and personal success, by enabling them to be healthier. That isn't to say all psychiatrists are good doctors, though.