TLD

Certainty is an assessment of evidence for a specific conclusion. I don't see "measuring evidence against certainty": you evaluate the evidence to determine if it is sufficiently consistent for certainty. Knowledge is much broader - grasping the facts of reality.... And forming concepts from those facts and observations is the process of induction.

Proof and certainty are related - and Epis. But probability is merely a lower level measure of evidence without a similar conclusion.

There have been a lot of interpretations here of what Probability means and how it is to be applied. But if the original question was, in part, asking for the Objectivist position on Probability, I would say that that is not a philosophical concept. It is simply a measure of some level of evidence for something. It is, in essence, measured against "certainty," a more important concept.

I see your point. Suggestion: write, or get others to write, in Bioethics journals et al to explain how Objectivist ethics applies to all fields of endeavor. Prepare lectures for conferences to educate on how it applies. If a separate text is still necessary, it could refer to Objectivist publications for the fundamentals and then discuss the concretes for your specific field. But such scientists should be intelligent enough to grasp Objectivism and apply it. If not, then they won't likely buy what you say anyway.

Advancements in biology and medicine should not change ethics. So why would there need to be a book on Obj. Bioethics?

Understand that this forum attracts people who are reasonably serious about Objectivism. Your question was a bit mystifying to some; my response might explain why others - while not holding that same thought - responded as they did. You are up surprisingly late for a 16 year old; I'll assume you have a strong thirst for knowledge.

Then you should know not to ask the question.

Actually there is and I'm surprised no one noted it. Drawing from Rand's 1963 "Ethics of Emergencies" article: Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics. In the case of the altruist ethics, it is a "malevolent universe": that man is helpless and doomed... that emergencies, disasters, catastrophies are the norm and his primary goal is to combat them. Thus they tend to offer "lifeboat" situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. But that is not the norm for man and lifeboats are not the place on which to base one's metaphysics. And that is not how to define one's morality. When Objectivism says that the moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness, that does not mean that he is indifferent to other men has no reason to help them in an emergency. It does mean that he does not sacrifice himself to the needs of others. Any help he would give would be an exception, not a rule; an act of generosity, not of moral duty.

As this thread appears about to close, I want to make a few observations for the sake of those who are learning Objectivism and might be confused by the opposing views presented here. I have communicated with many people who call themselves "Objectivists" over the years, from forum discussions to study groups to Obj. conferences. Many of them make significant errors in applying Obj. principles, either because of a lack of understanding or simply the difficulty in doing so. Most errors appear to be due to rationalization: the principles are, in some way, considered too rigid and rationalizing can enable one to act more flexibly while still believing he is adhering to the principles. Others are due to 'over-applying' the principles: one interprets them so rigidly that he will believe he is truly applying a principle when in fact the latter is not in question. Those who most consistently apply the principles are the more abstract thinkers who focus on reason and rationality. One can often apply the principles correctly despite being limited in his ability to abstract, simply by being basically rational and applying sound common sense. We have seen all the above in this thread. But worthy of note from the thread are: 1. Copyright legislation has had addendums to limit restrictions. 2. While the "fair use" statute has been dismissed as a factor by some, its intent cannot be ignored: to provide rough guidelines to enable the courts to determine what types of copying represent fair, and thus acceptable, use. 3. With or without the application of "fair use", no court has ruled that one cannot use an owned CD on multiple devices strictly for personal use. I say "use" here for a purpose: the courts may simply not be interpreting such use as "copying" in the legally restrictive sense; and I see no evidence that they will ever do so. 4. The Howell case, believed by 1 or more persons here to be the case that fights personal use, has been shown not to apply to same; in fact, the prosecution clearly implied that personal use is not a violation. 5. A lot of reasonable common sense arguments have been presented in support of personal use; no common sense arguments have been presented that opposes it. 6. The RIAA, again dismissed by some but yet an organization representing a large portion of music producers/artists, has acknowledged that personal use is acceptable. 7. I am the only one who has noted numerous examples of implicit and explicit permissions - without exception. 8. I have objectively concluded - from all the above - that the concept of "certainty" applies here: until told otherwise by the courts or some music association or artists, personal use is acceptable/moral. No, one cannot generally say that the lack of an explicit denial of permission to do something suggests - by itself - implicit permission; but that is not the case here: all the evidence supports permission, thus "certainty" in my conclusion. Those whom I believe fall into the "over-applying" category will continue to disagree with me; and they need not reiterate their objections. But I am confident that I am moral in my limited use of CDs (or other s/w), and others should believe likewise.

Good try!

What does it take???? It does not add to ambiguity; it adds to "certainty." Just as the "Fair use" statute confirms this despite what others believe it to be ambiguous. The courts will never challenge "fair use" to the extent of making personal use illegal (i.e. disallowing the now-accepted exception to copyright law). (I had to jump back in with this.)

It's called being rationally selfish.

You are evading what people are trying to tell you. Or you are just playing a game here. You can only see a benefit because you are evading and suppressing the emotion. By "automatic", I did not mean independent of thought; just look at the example used. Sure it takes focus...; but an Objectivist does that fully. His recognition of the concretes that relate to the understood abstractions is immediate. It's like playing tennis: learn the game well and you do not need to consciously focus on all the fundamentals in order to apply what you learned when playing. If you are just asking everyone to come up with something you already know, then just spit it out. Otherwise, there can not be much more for anyone to say.

First, you are ignoring the guilt that I just explained will persist. That is the automatic emotion that should haunt you. Second, as I think Jake was implying, if you understand the abstractions involved here (which you claim to do), then the concretes that apply should be automatically recognized. E.g. holding the value that stealing is wrong will necessarily cause a single act of stealing to generate a negative emotion. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is an act opposing your values again, then you won't truly "get away with it" - the emotion, remember? I trust you are not now saying that little white lies or little acts of theft are not significant enough to generate those emotions.

I wrote what I did to help determine your mindset here. Now I see you are only focused on a single act, setting aside all other acts before or after it. Given you know an act is wrong and you do not evade that fact during the act, then you will feel guilt. Otherwise, you would have to be evading what you otherwise know to be wrong. You are, in essence, classifying the act in your subconscious as either being moral or merely a mistake; in either case, you might not have an immediate negative outcome. Egoism does not result from selfishness of the kind you are describing. Violating others' rights will make a moral man feel guilty for what he did; he will have other emotions when recognizing the damage.

Man needs a rational standard of value in order to live his life successfully and happily. Happiness is the result of achieving values. If you hold irrational values - non-Objectivist values, then you are, of course, immoral and will violate the rights of others in pursuit of your own pleasure. E.g. stealing is using force against another to achieve an irrational value. As Rand said in Atlas, "neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." One can evade the irrationality of such values and believe himself to be happy, but he will not truly be happy. You can start by "pirating copyrighted material" (excluding "fair use" of it), but the evasion will enable you to commit even greater crimes against others. Eventually, the evasion will become too difficult, the guilt will set in, and you will become psychologically troubled. Hedonism says that the good is whatever gives you pleasure; you will have become a hedonist. Objectivism says that the good comes from the adherence of a rational standard of value. In other words, happiness is the purpose of ethics, not the standard.

I can now summarize and make my final remarks. Seeker uses the copyright symbol & "All Rights Reserved" on a CD as evidence that no copying is proper. If you look at copyright legislation, you will find that that is a phrase to broadly protect (under all scenarios) the creator of the CD (or other s/w) from theft. However, there is a "Fair Use" exemption to US copyright law: "copying music for personal use is not a violation." (There may be some limitations in other countries.) "Fair Use" also says that "Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations." Clearly, copying as we have been discussing is not considered theft. Allotrope acknowledges that "Fair Use" makes exceptions such as those we are discussing and that "intent" is a consideration; he gives "benefit to the consumer." But then he hedges a bit re implied permission. (Convenience, per se, is not a consideration - leaves open too many examples.) I think it is reasonable to assume that he copies for personal use. David tried to educate (unnecessarily here) about property rights, explicit permissions et al. But he does not show an understanding of the real applications of copyright law and explicit exceptions as above. His assumption that s/w copying does not relate to CD copying is not entirely true. Freestyle says "permission is permission" without acknowledging that some amount and type of evidence of permission can indeed lead to a general assumption of permission. His Sand Castle analogy is not appropriate. Scott points out that the (basic copyright) law says copying is illegal. As with "All Rights Reserved", there had to be a broad law and such messages to cover all attempts to steal copyrighted materials. But the courts have clarified the law many times, in part with the "Fair Use" doctrine as above. He copies for personal use. RationalBiker simply noted a case where "someone was sued for personal copying (of music)." Interestingly, that was an RIAA suit - the organization that wants the most strict interpretation of the law. But more interesting is the fact that it sued the defendant over his “unauthorized” copies because he allegedly placed them in his “shared folder” for distribution over a peer-to-peer network, not because he was simply using the music on his computer or other device. The court granted the defendant's reconsideration motion claiming that his actions did not meet the criteria for violation and that the original motion should be denied. Regardless of who wins, this case goes beyond the copying we have been discussing. I have discussed this issue over time with a significant number of s/w companies and music artists and a CD manufacturer. They all not only explicitly gave permission to copy for personal use, but they clearly implied that that is generally a given, thus implied permission/authorization. Clearly, current law leaves room for such copying and does not suggest it is a moral concern. No one has provided a single example of a refusal to copy. With all this, it is rational to conclude, and I am absolutely certain, that one is authorized and moral to copy a CD for personal use. Note that 3 of us copy for personal use; the remaining 4 have refused to say. I am not sure what to assume by their silence; but it does not matter. They have been arguing the wrong principle all along, leaning on the strictest interpretation of the law, refusing to see the intended exceptions and how the concept of "certainty" applies. And none of them have said such copying is immoral. All of us are indeed moral here; those who don't copy are simply denying themselves some pleasure and/or reasonable convenience. (In principle, nothing new has been presented here. But I hope this summary with perhaps more clarity on some points will change at least 1 person's mind on this issue.)

So you are saying that you do not use a CD to put music on your computer or any personal device? (I'll address your response later after David, RationalBiker, Freestyle... respond.)

I don't need a helping hand: I am very much an Objectivist; but thanks. It has been noted more than once that such permissions have been given. And no one has provided a counter example. Let's take a different tact: how many of you can say that you do not have any music on your computer via a CD? If you do not, is it because you got an explicit refusal to do so? If you do, did you get an explicit acceptance, or did you believe it was ok without asking? And don't say that that does not constitute making a copy.

I have been trying to tell you that there is in fact a pattern. That is why I can use the term "certainty." But since you and others seem to refute this, then I want examples of any company who has denied anyone the right to copy their product for his own use. If there are not sound examples, than quit playing devils advocate.

With expiration of copyright and product being unavailable, there is no issue. Under your re-release scenario, it would depend on whether the later version also has the copyright mark and the product is essentially the same as the original.

There seems to be much confusion about "permission" in this context. It does not only mean explicit authorization, but implicit as well. The evidence is all the examples of authorizations that I and others have received. The "Certainty" derives from that and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. I am confident with this conclusion; you should be able to see the broader argument here. But if you want to buy an extra copy of every CD for your child to use or for you to use in multiple devices, feel free. (I really doubt that there are many on this forum who actually do that - who believe that that is the only moral thing to do.)

You took 1 line out of context; that is not my definition - read all posts. Bad analogy: No "preponderance of evidence" applies. Also, there is no ownership issue there. Of course it is about morals, and the issue of "permission" is important to determine right from wrong here.

So I elevated its significance a bit. I cannot agree with your conclusion. All the evidence points to "permission" - no examples of denial can be shown. Thus, I am "certain" that I will always have permission for personal use copying; I will never question my morality with such copying unless I see it printed or am told otherwise. No evasion is involved: permission is the default here; I will never need to explicitly ask permission in such cases.

No evasion here. The key to your post is the last question; and "certainly" is the key to the answer to what we have been debating. You were significantly involved in the Confirmation thread where certainly was discussed multiple times; I can't believe you asked that question. But in case you missed it all, go to that thread or look in The Lexicon