Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name

BlueWind's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. No, the REAL question is: why are you all so determined to blank them out? Why does this line of questioning frighten you so that you must evade any answers? This seems pretty clear to me, so why don't the rest of you get it?
  2. Thank you, that's what I was trying to get at. I may never be in a passanger plane crash and have to resort to canabalism to survive; but it's not like that's never happened to anyone before.
  3. Although Congress authorized it the Supreme Court actually said it was the wrong thing to do. The case was "Ex parte Milligan."
  4. I wasn't trying to adress some "greed" issue where one party is cast as the bad guy. I was trying to address an issue where you're damned if you do or don't.
  5. I understand what Peikoff is getting at: don't base your morality on the exceptional situation. At the same time, this still avoids the quesion of what to do in "lifeboat" or other extereme situations. Situations like: do you use a superweapon that will kill innocent civilians as well as soldiers to end a war early and prevent an even greater number of casualties on both sides? You know, like we did with Japan. Or, do you stop an air-raid on one of your cities and thus let your enemies know you've broken their cryptological codes and can read their secrects? Or do you let it burn like Churchill did to Coventry? How about if your country is fracturing and to help hold it together you find you must violate some of your nation's most cherished laws? Lincoln did this during the Civil War when he declared martial law and suspend habeas corpus to keep the North in line. These situations may be rare and exceptoinal but THEY STILL HAPPEN and a rational morality MUST deal with them in some way.
  6. I had been thinking about posting a “moral scenario” thread when I saw another one on here. So I’ve been inspired to add my own, hope it doesn’t crowd things too much. Here is the situation: One year ago the person whom you love most in this world contracted the rare and fatal disease called “cooties.” While some treatments have been found that can prolong the life of the person with it (up to but not beyond a year and a half) there has not yet been found a cure, until now. A local scientist has announced that he has discovered a cure for cooties that was successful on his pet monkey. By the nature of the disease we know that such a cure will absolutely work on humans. You go to this local scientist’s house and tell him of your problem, you ask him for the cure. The scientists tells you: “I’m sorry but I can’t help you. You see I worked on the cure because my wife came down with cooties and I have only one dose left. If she doesn’t get the cure she will be dead in two months. I could make more but it will take me a full year to produce more serum. Unfortunately this is due to the fourth state of the process where I must soak widget-root in Glenlivet for one year to get the proper chemical compound. There is no way to speed up the process.” The problem here as I see it is: do you respect the property rights of the scientist and let your one true love die, or do you take the cure and seemingly abandon reason? I know what I would probably do, but I’m just wondering what others thought of this?
  7. I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to get at... It's a problem because the sciopath can say "yes I understand others have rights that should logically be respected but I don't care." I point this out as a problem because such a person COULD have self-esteem and happiness (not pleaseure, but more of a psychological well being) and still be a cold-blooded killer because they have no empathy for anyone. Like Vincent in "Collateral" they could actually take pride in how well they do their job and how professional they are.
  8. I think you underestimate what I personally think of as "the problem of the sociopath." This is the kind of person who CAN value his or her own life, but is so lacking in empathy that they do not care for others. Even if shown how there is a logical contradiction in how they can value their own life but not others, they can simply say "you're right, but I don't care." Have you seen the movie "Collateral", if you have then this is the kind of man I'm talkaing about. Vincent sure seemed to care about what happened to himself and had some pride in his work, he just had a complete lack of empathy towards others. Unfortunetly I'm not sure you could reason with a person like that.
  9. I see that I'm thinking of "abnormal" in a different way then you are. I'm thinking more of the "abnatural" way... what I mean is: rape may be statistically rare in modern America but it is in no way un-natural. In an environment where there is little law and order rape would be rather common, in fact my understand of the history of sex would seem to indicate that our modern day number of rapes is a hisotoric anomoly and if taken in the long view is actually "abnormal" because it is so low.
  10. I'll go and look up more information for you, but even when he was alive Sally was a scandal that his political opponents used against him. Even if she did have his children, so what? Ideas stand on their own, independant of those who thought of them. Jefferson's work should be viewed for what it was and not who he was.
  11. I think he kept them so he could cover up Sally Hemmings' (sp?) pregnancy. It was his child and if he had let them all go it would have been more difficult to place the blame on someone else. Well that and he was a INTJ (according to the Myers-Briggs) and our kind know that the rules don't apply to us.
  12. After gay marriage is legalized, and then multiple-partner marriage comes along I think I'll get myself four wives. One to bring home to the money at a high paying job for the rest of us. One to service the kitchen. One to service the laundry. And one to service me when the others are busy.
  13. I think that in large part it really depends on what they mean by "unconditional love." If you mean what the phrase literally implies then that is totally absurd. Husband: "Hi honey, I'm home. So what did you do today?" Wife: "I chopped up our only son and made a stew of him, want a taste?" Husband: "Well that was a bad thing you did, but I unconditionally love you so... yeah I guess I'll have a sip!" If, instead, something else is meant then 1.) it should not be called "unconditional love" and 2.) it needs to be clarified as to what exactly everyone is talking about.
  14. I just finished WFR and I'm not sure if he's inconsistant as much as he's having difficulty trying to express what he means in "normal" terms. For normal people "selfishness" is always a bad thing and easily labled as such. Unfortunetly there is no real good english word for "good selfishness" v. "bad selfishness". When I try and explain "rational selfishness" to normal people I ususally give the example of pride .v hubris. Most people understand the difference and can start to go from there to understanding the differnce between "selfishness" and "rational selfishness". Does anyone know of one word (english or otherwise) that would express the idea behind Rand's "selfishness" ?? Aristotle's virtues of Temperance and Generosity taken together would seem to point in the correct direction, but I've never found just one word for it.
  • Create New...