[Supererogation]

This is a very one-dimensional, mechanical view of self-interest, and it is not the self-interest that Objectivism holds to be the proper standard. It is quite possible for a self-interested person to derive (selfish) pleasure from letting a married couple sit together; indeed, if he has a proper spirit of good will and benevolence that comes from the kind of self-respect that Objectivism advocates, he probably will. This isn't to say that he should automatically give up a seat in the front (maybe he's injured and walking to the back pains him); it's up to his own context and value system, obviously, but there's no a priori reason why sitting at the front is *the* selfish act.

Yea I definitely see where you are going with this.

It all depends on his values. If he values seeing a happy couple together at the mere price of having to sit at the back of the train, it would not be morally wrong of him to choose to sit in the back.

And I wasn't saying I support selfishness in a situation like that, I was merely providing an example of supererogatory morality to think about.

[What is a human being?]

The above are quotes from the AR Lexicon (which quotes ItOE).

So, the concept man is a mental integration of the group of existents that fit the description of a man. (that description consists of the "observed similarities which distinguish men from other existents")

Here's the Lexicon entry (also from ItOE) on Man:

Just as a preventive measure against people jumping to conclusions, I should add this observation of Rand's to the description: "A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells." (The Objectivist Forum)

Ah, thank you very much for defining that for me Mr. Ellison

[Supererogation]

Supererogatory morality... interesting topic actually.

Here is an example to think about:

Suppose there is a train and there are three seats left. There is a pair of seats near the front of the train (lets assume the front of the train offers the advantage of being able to exit the train first) and there is one open seat near the back of the train. If you are walking and you are first in line to choose your next seat, and you notice there is a recently married couple behind you who would most likely want to sit next to each other. In a selfish viewpoint, it would be ideal for you to choose to sit in the front of the train as you can exit the train first and it offers you an advantage. At the same time, to take the pair of open seats at the front of the train, you are forcing the couple to split up and they would have to sit in separate seats for the train ride.

Are you now morally obligated to choose the less convenient seat in the back of the train for the "good" of the couple behind you? Are you morally wrong to choose to sit in the front of the train and make the couple split apart?

[What is a human being?]

Sorry if this comes off as a "noob" question, but I think I have the basic idea of what Rand classified as a human. I am fairly new to the Objectivist philosophy (So far only read Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, and some of The Fountainhead. Have had some MINIMAL studying of the theory itself), so bear with me.

Rand, as we all know, was the Champion of Reason. I am trying to get a picture of what being HUMAN means and what classifies someone as being HUMAN. Is being "human" merely mean that one has an applicable conscious and that one can make RATIONAL decisions. If this is the basis for being "human", then what does this give you? Because you are human, you are now entitled to human rights, is this correct?

Again, sorry if this comes off as being a stupid question, but I think it is important to define humanity and what being human entails.

[Why are you anti-theft?]

I think you are having issues with realizing that philosophical and mental products are still products in themselves. To say that "Just because it is not a material or LITERAL item, then it is not the same as stealing from him", is a dangerous precedent to set for yourself. Think about it on the terms of your so called "rights" that you possess. Those are not literal or physical materials, they are more or less intellectual ideologies am I right? To set the precedent of saying that "Because it is intellectual property, I can steal it," is to write a blank check on all other intellectual rights or property.

[Several outrageous propositions]

Very interesting and thought provoking thread! Would love to buy your book when it comes out. Any ETA on release date?