Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

scottd

Regulars
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scottd

  • Birthday 06/01/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sacramento, CA

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Interested in meeting
    sure
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

1803 profile views

scottd's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

0

Reputation

  1. They would be stupid not to go along with blackmail???????? A criminal is not entitled to "exchange" that which he has STOLEN FROM OTHERS. They would be stupid to say yes. Rewarding a thief is not an option.
  2. Are you kidding me? A good man does not take or accept the unearned. Context is everything, but in this context it reeks of theft.
  3. Amazingly well conceived and written article. Thank you for sharing this. Everyone in America needs to read and understand this before next November...
  4. The fact that new evidence may arise a year later than your choice is made is irrelevant. We make decisions based on the evidence at hand. If new evidence arises that shows you made the wrong choice, it was still the right choice at the time you made it. That is to say, it was the rational choice at the time.
  5. Not the final choice we've been discussing. All leading up to it yes. Size of tile, final choice of chocolate or vanilla, choice to walk through left door or right door...no. All things being equal, the final decision that must be made, having no moral implication, is not subject to moral evaluation.
  6. I agree completely. Therefore one can say that not all choices are open to moral evaluation. Same applies to chocolate or vanilla, etc...
  7. I agree with optional, or subjective, whichever term you are most comfortable with. I think that all the moral, life furthering, choices in the re-tiling of my kitchen were made leading up to the choice of the size of tile. I don't see how a choice can have moral implications if neither choice is immoral. What am I missing here? Can you offer a different context that may make your point more obvious?
  8. So you can never be sure you are making a rational choice, since you can always dig deeper? There is another philosophy or two that suscribe to that notion. Objectivists do not.
  9. How can it be moral if there are no moral implications? Like I said, all other choices have been made rationally, but this is another choice, a NEW choice if you will.
  10. Sure, logic and reason. That's a given. In my context, however, all the rational objective evaluations have been made. all that is left is the size of the tile, a purely optional/subjective choice.
  11. I see what you mean. I think the difference would obviously be that in your context you are choosing to kill; an immoral act. In my context, you are choosing the size of a tile. My assertion you quoted above obviously needs a further qualifier, you're right about that.
  12. Agreed. But I am specifically discussing THIS choice, in the given context, and whether or not it is a "moral" choice.
  13. All other options were already identified and chosen rationally. All that remains is choosing the size of tile, with aforementioned criteria. That is the context. Given that context, I submit it is not a moral choice at all. I think this is a very simple question with a simple answer. I'm not sure why some people come at these things with 12 paragraphs. Not attacking or faulting you here, just making an observation. There is an obvious tendency to over analyze sometimes. I do not need any quotes from AR to know that my size of tile choice, given the context, could never be construed as immoral, therefore it is not a moral choice.
×
×
  • Create New...