Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DanLane

Regulars
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

DanLane last won the day on November 8 2010

DanLane had the most liked content!

About DanLane

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Is there a meaningful difference between revenge and retaliation? Just by connotation I would say retaliation can be delegated, but revenge is something more personal. Either way, in an extreme case like what you're talking about it would be moral to take revenge, with the full knowledge that unless you uncovered new evidence in the process it would also be moral for the police to arrest and prosecute you afterwards. Waiting for the worst of the anger to pass, assisting with the investigation and exhausting other options are still higher on the list of actions to take after being victimized
  2. I hadn't thought of the environmental angle. Of course, most environmentalist movements regardless of label would have to agree that human extinction is the only place to draw the line for enacting their policies.
  3. Pretending to be someone you're not in order to leave a good impression: bad. Boasting to a level of harassment about every good thing you do: bad. Maintaining a positive attitude, good hygiene, and being proud of what your accomplishments say about you: good. It sounds like you have the right priorities, but just in case: being nice/sociable is not intrinsically second-handed, especially towards people you actually admire. All you have to avoid is putting on a facade, and even then, professional behavior and courtesy have contexts in which they are in your best rational interest to mai
  4. I've never heard someone describe themselves as antinatalist, but part the argument is familiar from various forms of nihilism. As far as "category error" goes, I don't know how they would mean it except, like you said, that they believe the smallest amount of harm invalidates the greatest amount of good. Discussions I've had have led down the path of defining causality, and they generally believe that to take part in any chain of events which ends in disaster is to cause the disaster. Example: You get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee, and then you hit a pedestrian who dives in fr
  5. By what means do you distinguish between maximum and minimum pleasure? If you apply reason to decide on a hierarchy of values and then seek to achieve as many of those values in as great a quantity as possible without violating anyone's rights, then you probably don't have any real disagreements to settle here. Somebody has been telling you some strange, misguided things about Objectivism, and I think that's the root of this conflict.
  6. Sorry about the misunderstanding, and my lack of clarity in the first few responses.
  7. Misread what you were saying earlier. I kind of skimmed over that part, assuming it would fit in with the rest of your points, which it doesn't. So you're saying that contradictions could potentially exist, it's just that they don't exist based on anything that you have percieved? If you percieve something of a certain nature and conceptalize it, you know that nothing subsumed by that concept is contradictory. Even the elements that haven't been directly accounted for. The sun is one particular object of a known mass. If it were to be in two places at once, it would have to be redefined as som
  8. If I don't take this seriously, it's because I could go through a billion billion years of a happy life with my epistemology and never be confronted by negative consequences for failing to consider the arbitrary or anything that doesn't exist. Can you say the same about the reciprocal? I won't talk about anti-concepts, pretending to be privy to some secret knowledge of what they are, as though they could be something. Spell out the thing which a consideration of the sum of all human knowledge and all viable propositions is failing to prepare me for? Is it the afterlife? Are we in the matrix
  9. When you say that the sun not rising at the right time is physically possible, you mean that there is a set of circumstances in which real identifiable things interact with eachother, and that is the result. You aren't saying that it's possible that the universe is actually Earth-centered and the sun is a giant glowing pineapple which dances across the sky. Why not? And, for that matter, aksdfbhei fieruhkj sjghgk kgj g g gg g kjsdhnkf oje ? Don't want to play along with my sarcasm? Describe a thing which is not itself. Knowledge has to be integrated with everything that is, not anything th
  10. orj owjhrgopw jgjngjkgn asnfgjklglrnlgk rfgjhhjr r gojk e. Sorry, the identities of the words I was trying to type contradicted themselves. But they're still the same words, so you should be able to read them.
  11. Wearing clothes you hate or which contain statements you disagree with is a compromise of principle. Wearing clothes that are "in style" or culturally appropriate simply because you don't care much about the difference is a compromise of degree. Compromising a principle you believe in is never moral, but not all compromise deals with principles.
  12. One that I didn't mention is comparing the value you get out of the existing job to other options you have available. Let's say, ideally, you want to build websites with enough success to be able to pick your own clients. If that ideal isn't satisfied, and some clients' use of the sites is destructive to your values but not necessarily criminal, you have to decide based on your value hierarchy whether you could avoid or negate that problem by working for another company or changing fields. If you're like me and don't mind manual labor, quarrying can make for a good living. If your car
  13. Greed is a motivation, not an action. It can, at most, be the secondary cause of something. It is defined as the willingness to disregard your own system of morality and take massive losses or commit crimes in order to gain something of little actual value. The "Because Greed" arguement is that capitalism brings out the oh so evil human nature in the best of us, and causes us to uncontrollably steal from or defraud others in a way which ordinary laws are somehow unable to prevent. Therefore we need to be brought under more creative forms of control to save us from ourselves. There is no need t
  14. They should weigh the good against the bad, assuming some of their duties support sites they agree with. The sites could be said to have esthetical value in themselves regardless of message. The arguements of the people you mentioned are self defeating so giving them a clear, understandable presentation could do them more harm than good.
  15. It's not over yet, but Binswanger seems to be dominating. Barber's getting applause for his strawmen and emotional appeals but anyone listening can hear that he's defaulting on and avoiding the actual topics.
×
×
  • Create New...