Eiuol

I think you entirely miss the point. The question of morality here is supposing a goal of landing a job and that the job will benefit your life. It would be irrational to take actions that will make you less likely to get the job. However, if the standards of how you should look are ridiculous or against other important values of yours, why would you even want a job there? In that case, it probably would be immoral to apply at all. I think it is fair to say Dante was talking about a typical corporate job. Maybe the bigger question is if the corporate world expects everyone to be a conformist zombie and look just like everyone else due to some pretty much pointless or arbitrary standards of tradition. In any case, how you look may matter for various jobs. If you're applying to be a car mechanic, looking a certain way matters little. If you're applying for a job at some fashion design company, the way you look matters a lot because after all, it's a job about making people look a certain way, and a certain sort of style is being sought after. IF you want a job, some standards are reasonable to adopt. SOMETIMES, certain standards may reflect something negative about the company, so wanting the job may even be irrational and thus immoral. You have to look at the context. Really the principle here is: "supposing a goal of yours is rational and the requirements of that goal do not require a sacrifice of values, it would be immoral to do anything that takes you further away from that goal."

The point is that all the other architects in The Fountainhead adopted certain standards *because* they were tradition absent of any consideration of why certain features were ever used. The essential question is why someone does something, not merely that they do something. In this way Objectivism isn't consequentialism. Yes, consequences are absolutely a consideration in moral decision making and any decision made should further your life. However, sometimes you have to take into consideration the full context of your knowledge without important information. The question of the OP doesn't simply end after saying "because it's cheaper." What purpose does a return policy at a particular store serve? Usually it's to allow a customer to get money back because they had honestly poorly evaluated the product purchased. It's not usually to get money back because you finished reading a book and were happy with it and want to trade it for something else. It is a little questionable to me whether or not I did anything improper in the context of this thread since the store gets an item back in the same condition while I get a different book in it's place. The solution to my uncertainty is to simply ask the store owner if they'd care. I'd only be asking the store owner because a *trade* is involved. Some "why"s about the whole disheveled job interview issue: Why go disheveled? Do you want to somehow prove to others that you're a rebel? Why do you want the job? Why would a workplace judge you appearance, and are such judgments rational? Why would you want a job at place that cares about the appearance of its workers? Why go cleanly? Do you want to somehow prove that you're great at conforming to get ahead? That's offtopic, so I hope you don't actually respond to that in THIS thread.

I do think that troll can be defined a little better. Anyone in chat should demonstrate interest to learn about Objectivism, such as asking specific questions relating to works by Rand or idea relating to Objectivism. This does not mean everyone has to be an Objectivist-minded person. There are some trickier cases, but when questions get repetitive enough in style and topic, and comments are more inflammatory than anything, it is reasonable to give a warning that the user should not talk in chat until they've shown their interest, through a forum post for example.

I agree, I guess the use of "reasonable" there is not the best word choice. By "you" I meant specifically JeffS, in case I was vague.

Since the money that has already been stolen IS going to be spent no matter what, the best course of action is to accept that money. There's a difference between money that has ALREADY been stolen and money that WILL be stolen. By not going on food stamps, the SAME amount of money is being stolen in order to fund a food stamp program. And the SAME amount of money is being spent whether or not you or anyone else goes on food stamps. The only reasonable argument you could make is that if, say, the number of people on food stamps increases by 10%, the government may decide to increase the budget of that program, meaning taxes may increase. Or maybe other programs will be further cut. The problem with that is there is no way to really figure what will happen in the future when it comes to a non-objective government, but what you are certain about in this context is that the money has ALREADY been stolen and no matter what you do that money is going somewhere, so it is perfectly moral to accept some kind of restorative justice provided you explicitly denounce taxation.

Just a single bump post to see if I can find any more interest.

That's not true though, the context here is food stamps. By going on food stamps, as far as I know, that doesn't then mean the government is confiscating more wealth, it means that already confiscated wealth is being given back. Unemployment payment would not be an equivalent example, because in that case more money is taken from the company that you used to work at. The issue here isn't about calculating precisely how much of your money goes towards legitimate functions of government, but the fact that your rights were violated and you deserve justice. The only people who deserve justice in regard to government assistance programs are those who explicitly condemn wealth confiscation. Going on food stamps may potentially encourage the government to expand said program, but that's a different line of thought and not what you are arguing.

All I'm really getting at is that values only serve a purpose in furthering your life. There certainly nothing wrong with trying to share values and a sense of life, which would in your case certainly require teaching about reason and virtue for example. The purpose in doing all that really would not to make sure your values are passed on, but to make your life better and possible. It would be purely incidental that any values you teach someone will "live" on. Nothing about that benefits you while you are alive, though it is true that by teaching about virtue those people will continue to flourish. Maybe that's not too far off from what you're saying, but it's important to explicitly focus on how values are for pursuing life. Having kids in order to pass on values comes across as needing prove your life means/meant something, instead of acknowledging life is already meaningful and you just need values to keep your life going.

How do you propose, then, that you get paid back? By simply suffering through that injustice, on top of all the sort of ways the government has made it even harder, due to regulatory policies, to attain things like food, housing, or medical care?

I think you are dropping everything that distinguishes bullfighting from killing animals for the thrill of it. There is more to bullfighting from that from my limited knowledge, it involves a very complicated sort of process that is not significantly distinguishable from performances like dancing. Killing a bull is merely a consequence. It is also important to recognize that people don't see bullfights *because* bulls get killed. At best the animal slaughter comparison is a complete misunderstanding of what bullfighting is about. If CGA knows more about the details of what bullfighting involves, he should explain it to us. Presumably, being from Spain, he knows a fair deal about them.

A lot of art is "fixed." Roark becoming a successful architect in The Fountainhead was fixed because Rand made it that way. The plot could proceed in no other way than how Rand wanted it to proceed.

I think the wider question of "does a performance such as dance qualify as art?" is more important here. Bullfighting is as much a performance as ballet, and given what I know about bullfighting, it is closer to dance than sport or pure entertainment. You should note that recreation of reality is a necessary but not sufficient factor in determining what is or is not art. What sort of metaphysical value judgment is present in dance? What sort of metaphysical value judgment is present in bullfighting? I question whether or not moving in a particular fashion could really ever qualify as a metaphysical value judgment of any sort. The presence of value expression is not what is meant here, what is meant is a value judgment of what the artist thinks reality is or is not and how one deals with reality. If any performance is to be art, it is bullfighting, because there involves more than just a conglomeration of movements merely to kill a bull. The matador moves in a particular way for a particular reason to quite literally command nature through the use of reason rather than brute force like the bull. Bravery or courage are not the primary things to take into consideration if you want to argue that bullfighting is art.

Sometimes even when the professor is bad, you can still acquire some valuable information by reading the material provided. The professor here is so comical that it's hard to believe, but I would still suppose that the coursework involves reading about history such as woman's suffrage, which does not require you to support any radical feminist ideas. If the OP enjoys annihilating silly premises, she can at least practice focusing on how neither men nor women have any inherent specialness in any regard to rights, and improve writing skills involving discussion on individualism. That is, if the class involves a lot of the writing, which I would guess is the case with a class named "Women's Studies."

That's part of the problem. It could be hijacked by anyone at any time, which seems to be exactly what Beck has done. I see nothing for myself to gain in affiliating with such a group, and I have no reason to think that there won't be a massive influx of "family values", because of how prevalent religion is. I do not have any reasonable expectations to make, only mere guesses or hypotheticals. If I were to lead my own movement, I would explicitly disassociate myself from the tea party movement even if some ideas would be the same. I do not understand how religion is any less dangerous than socialist-type or mixed-economy-type policies. Maybe most tea party supporters aren't in favor of anything like making abortion illegal, but even granting that, the point is there is no one guiding any ideas. And when it comes to movements, unless there is a cohesive and organized structure to them, they always fizzle out. So the only expectations I have now is that either (1) the Tea Party movement dies out in a year or so, or (2) the majority who support the Tea Party movement, the religious-inclined, will take it over.

I think the point is once you are dead, valuing is not possible. The whole point of values is that they enhance your life and enable you to live. You couldn't possibly pass on a value, since values are chosen. You couldn't transmit your values to anyone even if you wanted, especially not your kids. What you should ask is what good it would do for your life. So what if people may even incorporate values completely by their own choice, how would that come into play when you are dead? Relating to that, the only reason I'd write a will is to let the people I value know that I do value them, and I'd want them to be happy while I am alive. They'll know that they have some amount of value to acquire from me in the future, while I get the benefit while I am alive to know that they are indeed happy right now. I thought that much of this was sufficiently addressed amongst all the posts on the first page. While it does make sense in some situations to think about what you *would* do if you were alive, to pursue a value explicitly to make your existence metaphorically eternal isn't really life enhancing at all. This also applies to fame, fortune, being remembered for your good deeds, etc.

What I mean is that I suspect many parents don't even reach a level of being wrong because they don't really think about why they want a kid.

I am looking for these in particular: Art of Thinking Understanding Objectivism Objectivism Through Induction Unity in Epistemology and Ethics If you have any of these lectures, I would like to work out purchasing or borrowing them from you.

I do agree with much of what you say in your post, but why do you say it would be wrong to endorse parenting outside the context of two parents in love? Clearly, physical love (I assume by that you mean sex) and reproduction are well connected, but it doesn't necessarily then follow that the love of a partner is needed as part of the reason to have a kid. The child-making part is different from the child-having part. I would be careful here in saying you could have any person mirror your values. It really depends how specific you mean value, since that could apply to the sort of stereotypical situation where a kid is deciding between following their own dreams or the desires of their parent, quite like how Keating became an architect rather than a painter (that's the first example I thought of). If you mean more abstract values like virtue or reason, then that would be a good way to look at what sort of goal you could accomplish by having a kid. From what I gather, most people in general seek to get married then have a kid because it's just what you do. Everyone does it, so why think or do otherwise? Of the kids I've observed, very often the brattier kids seem to be around the parents that care very little in reprimanding or correcting them. I'm not even sure if many people even reach a level of thinking that they are making a necessary sacrifice to the good of society.

Just to mention real quick, "not art" isn't just a matter of being very bad, but of possessing none of the characteristics of art. If the music provides enjoyment, then that is sufficient reason to listen to it. Now that's not a good reason, I think, to avoid listening to music that's new to you, but there is no harm in listening to music you enjoy. "Shoot 'Em Up" is one movie I liked a lot that I think is really poor quality art, but it was quite an entertaining movie. There is no reason to watch that movie other than recreation, it does not provide really anything to contemplate. Maybe listening to "bad music" means you have bad taste, but so what, that usually doesn't mean anything other than music that a lot of people don't like. The standard for enjoyment is not necessarily quality, either.

It's still there if you choose IP.Board as your template, which can be changed at the bottom left as freestyle said. What happened to me is that the template changed to Orb, but now I changed it back to what it was before.

I don't see the importance of pointing this out. So what if kids constitute a future civilization? The point is, a (rational) goal of having kids is not primarily about extending civilization, since you will never be alive to value a civilization beyond the span of time you're alive. Now I understand that civilization will be affected to some degree, whether it be positive or negative, but I don't see what that matters here when it comes to values. At best, when it comes to having kids, I think "avoiding the end of civilization" is rationally a nonvalue in the sense it neither harms nor benefits *you*. You wouldn't be alive long enough.

There wasn't any indication of irrationality here, all we know is that the person in question is a social worker. Even if employed by the state, it does not mean she is condoning the use of force by the government, what would matter is if she participates in that use of force. There are many details that the OP would have to consider that they simply would not be able to write down in a short thread like this. What can be said is that a social worker as such can be entirely selfish and rational because they could pursue their values in a non-sacrificial way.

Any person is competent to think, the extent of your intellectual capacity - if it is to mean that no two brain's are identical due to genetic differences - does not change that. Such a capacity doesn't determine what you can know, only what is the best way for you to learn. There is nothing out there a person is incapable of understanding, all they have to do is take the time to think about whatever is they are having trouble with. Knowledge is built up from lower level knowledge, there is no reason to think there's a point you'll reach where there is no more progression to be had. At worst, intellectual capacity only limits how fast you can learn, but I suspect even that can be overcome with practice as well as technology. In fact, that's what self-esteem is about. No matter what limitations you have, physical or mental, you can always be certain that by using your mind, you are capable of living and worthy of happiness, because the mind is a tool of survival. So what if another person has a greater capacity of any kind, that does not hinder your ability to grasp reality, no comparison of being less or more is necessary. Even those with the most severe of mental incapacity are able to grasp reality and all the important concepts relating to it, though it may take a lot longer.

Objectivism isn't something you "leave," no membership is involved. As a philosophy on living life, it's a matter of deeming fundamental aspects of it as incorrect. The only thing you specified is that you disagree with the Objectivist position on government. What about everything else though? Where is it specifically that you diverge? I would suspect it's somewhere far before politics in hierarchy of knowledge; your political philosophy is dependent upon your ethical philosophy. You could have all the right premises about ethics, but that won't necessarily mean your political philosophy will then be correct. Still, you can't approach politics as something detached and floating on its own. You've barely provided anything about the particular points about Objectivism that you disagreed with. I don't even know of any "alternatives" to Objectivism that have the same tenets.

It does some kind of off-topic for this thread, but I'll post anyway. I would trust most of the chat room frequenters to be a moderator there, you included, so it's mainly an issue of how would want to be one. I volunteer myself even since I am in chat frequently, though it should be known I have little to no experience in moderating anything.