JayR

As a citizen, those soldiers are acting on my behalf. Given the ridiculous choice, Id rather my tax dollars be spent on soldiers handing out lolipops than slaughtering innocent civilians because theyre bored. Of course Im being pragmatic, Id rather my tax dollars be spent on annihilating legitamate enemy targets swiftly and in devastating fashion. Too bad I dont get to choose, nor does congress as it seems.

If there were any evidence to believe the innocent civilian teenager those men dragged out of his families field and killed was involved in those types of activities Id be the first to piss on his grave. Murdering an innocent person for any reason is the act of unreasoning savages.

Productivity eh? oh well, I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypothesis cant define how I be droppin' these mockeries...

Zip, I agree. And the article Maximus posted puts it in perspective, as I suspected its not as it seems. I just took your first post as unnecessarily cold to the fact that those men (even if they were just a few) killed an innocent boy for fun. I wont argue that the things soldiers go through dont stretch the limits of their ability to remain sane. Be it manipulating a scumbags jawbone, or pissing in the mouth of a dead viet cong for the camera, the ability to detatch to save your sanity is required, Im sure. The article was about a small group of men who planned and excecuted a murder of a young farmer just for fun, which leads me to believe that they werent seeing enough action in the normal events of the day. A conclusion that leads me further to believe that perhaps they werent getting the same stimulus in their day to day activities that "Call of Duty" had prepared them for. I dont play video games, no time. Even under total war, (which Congress would never have the balls to go for) a human being has the right to his own life.

Killing an unarmed 15 year old in front of his family for fun falls under the Objectivist ideal of total war? I guess "war is hell" is an excuse to totally abandon all priciples and behave like a literal animal then. The story is probably half bullshit but come on. I agree with total war theory but this doesnt even resemble any part of it. Lets not make excuses for barbarism, how far can we take that? Dont bother burning the Koran, just burn a muslim, remember September 11th, yay!

By the way, Boydstun these essays of yours are always well done and thought provoking. Keep them coming, and thanks.

Starts with, chronologically? I would disagree. Or do you mean that for a state of awareness to be considered "human consciousness" it must first have a level of self awareness, of "I-ness"? To what extent do you consider higher animals to be self aware? edit: typo

Good thread. To highlight what I think is important: The essence of a thing is just a regular characteristic regarded from a certain perspective. The perspective can change depending on context. Remember that a concept reffers to a thing and all its characteristics, and which characteristic is regarded as essential is contextual. This aids in the priciple of unit economy. Essence is always "qua" (fill in the blank). Your essence as a man is that you talk, reason, and move around. Your essence as a member of this forum is that you have discussions and debates about Objectivism on the internet. Its always "qua" something.

It would take an international effort to refute such a comment.

Good quote, the problem as I see it though, is that most people feel bad for the clam. As if the seagull has committed an immoral act by doing whats necessary to survive.

The production of nickel-56 is usually what does it. This is a type II supernova. The dying star goes through death throws for a good period of time, collapsing a bit causing it to heat up thus re-igniting the fusion process of heavier and heavier elements in eash respective collapse/fusion/expansion period. Finally the elements being fused have such high binding force that the outward push of the fusion of these heavy elements cant support the weight of the star structure and it implodes. I dont know for sure if the size of the star dictates what heavy elements will put the final nail in the coffin though, perhaps it does. I think that nickel-56 during fusion (or attempted fusion) produces iron, so maybe youre both kinda right.

Okay, but the Latin origin of the word fidem means trust. Looking at the concept youll see that a necessary requirement of "trust" is objective evaluation of a person or thing based on prior behavior. This evaluation needs to be based on empirical evidence, evidence that gives me confidence that the person or thing will behave in a certain manner in the future. Wikipedia defines trust as: If I reject the "evidence" for God (because there is none) then it does no good to quibble over the meaning of the term. Faith is not a means to knowledge, its an evasion of it. Thats a strong statement. Ive probably read a lot of the same books that you have on the subject, the only difference is: I dont accept their arguments as evidence for anything.

When trying to validate a statement like this its helpfull to try and integrate an opposite claim, ie. A key driver of human achievement is decision making based on popular opinion, poll taking, and/or democratic consensus. I dont think anyone here will argue that rationality doesnt play a part in human achievement, but to make a strong case you have to prove that 50 million french men can be wrong, and independent thinking is the virtuous way to make decisions. Independence is a virtue, that should be the accepted premise to begin your deduction.

I think so.

The (out) stops causing gravitational collapse, which causes carbon fusion, then... boom. Thats one way. Type 1A I believe.

Thats an interesting take on the situation, Im not inclined to disagree. Its a tough situation though, spreading the rights violating around, diluting in a sense is not the right answer, and has the whiff of pragmatism. But whence comes justice? The guys who screwed up should pay, thats one side. The guy who got screwed should be paid. How can both happen objectively/justly without screwing any third parties? Such is the nature of western pragmatism I guess.

Thats certainly the question to be asked, and its one that I dont know the answer to. Is it necessarily taxpayers who pick up the tab in a case like this? I dont know, thats why I didnt pretend to have an objective evaluation. While resposibility probably shouldnt fall on taxpayers (I work hard for my money), 8300 bucks a year for wrongfully sitting on death row for 18 years is not justice. How is justice brought about? I dont know, an eye for an eye is not rational, but I dont want my eyes (or money) involved at all.

Objectivity, heirarchical reduction of concepts, integration of new knowledge would all be easier Id think.

Those prosecutors involved in this mans case should be disbarred. This is yet another example why the death penalty is insane. This guy was weeks away from being executed because "young prosecutors" were not aware that they were obligated to turn over evidence that could exonerate him (Brady rights). Looking at this objectively, does a prosecutor have to be pulled aside and explicitly told that if he has evidence that will save an innocent mans life that he should turn it in? I guess winning is more important than justice in former DA Harry Connicks office. Pathetic. Edit: My rant didnt answer your question. The man was awarded $8,333.00 for every year he spent in prison, how much of that is punitive damages for the psychological hell he surely faced on death row I wonder? I dont know enough about the legal system to make an objective evaluation but prima facie, Im with Ginsburg. This guy should never have to worry about anything else as long as he lives.

And to make room for said people, a man who eats children is being released on good behavior in Rhode Island. Well thats not entirely accurate, they gave him a plea deal. He still ate a child, thats not up for debate. If/when he gets out I wonder what employment opportunities await him.

Sacrebleu! Joking aside, what the hell is going on over there?

This guy is completely incapable of looking at people as individuals. He probably lives in his mothers basement, wasting the day away projecting his own misery on the "human race", as if its an entity that feels and acts and chooses. Id suggest that he stop being a hypocrite as soon as possible, which I see as a pretty straighforward prescription, not much reading between the lines neccessary. As for the Objectivist response to suffering, dont suffer. Pain in life is unavoidable, but in the context of todays modern civilization, wallowing in misery to to point of suffering is a choice. When you look at ethics from a perspective that judges the moral status of your actions based first on how they affect your life (egoism) vs. how they effect others lives (altruism) its clear that the only way to address the problem of suffering in the world is to put yourself first, and hope others do the same. Edit: a strange thing happened, the first time I watched this I was disgusted, as I went back and watched again it was hilarious!

Well, it depends on what your definition of "is", "a", and "war" is. Who can say what any of these words really mean?

It is indeed an interesting topic, and fundamental to Oism. If you could point me to a decent study that shows that infants are born with an "intuitive sense of physics" or "a theory of mind"(!) Id probably read it. Although by "decent" I mean one that doesnt rely on a deductive and/or rationalistic approach. Ive yet to see any.

Why do they only provide services to women?