Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cmac19

  • Birthday 07/22/1990

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Philosophy, Law, Economics, Mixed Martial Arts, Brazilian Ju Jistu, Baseball, Football, Swimming, Art, Music, Guitar, Parties.. Etc.
  • Location
    Toronto, Ontario
  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
  • Relationship status
  • Interested in meeting
    People in the Toronto area for social or romantic relationships.
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
  • Biography/Intro
    19 Year old law student from Toronto Ontario interested in Philosophy, Law, Economics, Mixed Martial Arts, Brazilian Ju Jistu, Baseball, Football, Swimming, Art, Music, Guitar, Parties.. Etc.
  • Copyright
  • Real Name
    Colin MacDonald
  • School or University
    Ryerson University
  • Occupation

Cmac19's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. This is really disturbing... but not even a little surprising. Goodbye capitalism, hello socialist dictatorship. Invest in bullets
  2. Actually she did address this issue in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She writes that punitive damages applied to civil court cases as well as fines given to criminals would be more than enough to fund the necessarily small number of services needed in a rational society
  3. Is the idea of citizenship charges a legitimate plan? I have heard arguments before that the government cannot own any property and therefore it is immoral for them to charge us simply to live here, however, is it necessarily immoral for the government to charge us for the provision of services in the same way a business does? The laws of supply and demand still apply to government services (ie higher crime rate = a higher demand for court services) however no Objectivist would ever claim that businesses should be supported by donation. Is it possible to run all government agencies through systems similar to insurance policies?
  4. Cmac19

    Criminal-acts or not?

    I would have to disagree Mindy.. In the "extreme case" as David defined it the innocent other is unknowingly about to cause your death. He is not morally guilty but he is nevertheless a very real threat to your life. There are many possible scenario's in which this sort of reasoning may apply. The idea that "I can't get away, and I can't stop him without causing him serious harm or death" is both sound and moral. The individual does not intend to kill the innocent victim, however the harm he intends to inflict is the only way of preserving his own life.. In David's hypothetical it's important to recognize the fact that even if the individual does not shoot the innocent captain the captain will still die, as his actions would result in the death of everyone on the ship. However, if the individual shoots him, there is at least a possibility that he will survive.. in practical terms he's actually doing the captain a favour.
  5. The idea behind the Dawkins quote is actually quite frightening, even if just because it's so plausible. Hopefully, if such technology ever does become available, it will be done intelligently and safely... although in the current trend of technology that doesn't seem likely
  6. First of all the idea of restorative justice is not new at all... Secondly it is entirely opposed to the ideas of Objectivism and the fundamental principles of justice. Restorative justice assumes that the focus of justice should be on rehabilitating the offender because there is something wrong with that person. This almost always takes the form of deterministic beliefs which blame society or the raising of the offender rather than the offender themselves. The bottom line is that offenders are rational agents with free will just like the rest of us and are just making poor decisions based on irrationality and poor information. The rehabilitation of irrationality should be the province of education (a proper, rational, privatized education system) and the institution of the family. The criminal justice system should be entirely concerned with retribution and dealing out the just penalties to people who violate the rights of others. For more information on crime as rooted in rights theories see Ayn Rand's writings on the nature of rights.
  7. Zac it's pretty clear you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point... Numerous people have made it entirely clear what the true definition of collectivism is and that nothing that falls under that correct definition is morally acceptable according to Objectivism. Nothing that you have said has even come close to proving that collectivism can be good or necessary... If you have any legitimate points to make feel free. Aside from that your arguments so far have been irrelevant and poorly devised.
  8. it's also possible that your father is a good physicist, and that he is perfectly capable of understanding logic, but that he makes a conscious or unconscious decision not to apply logic to the other area's of his life. I have seen many examples of people like this around me as I watch brilliant mathematicians, or brilliant architects tell me that that sort of logic has no place in philosophy, or politics, or interactions with other people. What I believe is that these people are perfectly capable of understanding and applying logic, and that at some point in their life they actually did try to apply it to politics or philosophy, but they were so overwhelmingly beat down by the irrationality of others that they decided it was easier to refuse to apply logic except where it was absolutely necessary for survival (ie, their work). If I had to make a guess I would say that this is exactly what happened with your father.
  9. Cmac19


    The difference between the fetus and the newborn is the context of its environment, but i'll go over that when i answer your third question. The fact that a newborn can perform identification is fairly self evident. I don't really think it's necessary to claim that a baby can identify things, as soon as they are out of the womb they reach for their mother and begin breast feeding... if you really need proof of this point just go to a maternity ward. A newborn has a context for its sensations because it is aware of its environment. It can feel the cold, it can see the lights and the other people around it, just because it can't speak doesnt mean its brain doesnt begin the process of identification. A fetus cannot see anything, it cannot feel its environment, if anything invades its environment and causes it to feel something it cant possibly identify that feeling with any specific object or figure because it can't see anything. You made a point earlier about a fetus being metaphysically attached to the mother, I will make a similar point that a fetus is metaphysically separated from the physical environment by way of the uterus. Until it exits the uterus it has no capability to exercise its rational faculty
  10. Cmac19


    While I agree with your argument for the separate nature of a person (I will definitely include this as part of my argument next time) I fail to see how a fetus not being cut off from sensations = a conceptual consciousness. Also I would like some references to this data that fetus' can perform identifications as I believe this to be impossible. The fetus does not have any context for its sensations, although it certainly does feel and hear things, and therefore it cannot possibly perform identifications. Identification absent of all context is impossible
  11. Cmac19


    I wrote a reply to the issue of abortion for a paper recently that I feel accurately reflects the foundations of Objectivism and answers the question nicely, please feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning. The issue of abortion is essentially the issue of personhood, if the fetus is not a person then it has no rights. If the fetus has no rights than it cannot possibly be immoral to destroy it. (I use the term personhood because the argument that the fetus has rights because it is human is speciesist and irrational) The only objective, defining characteristic of personhood is the rational faculty (I believe this necessarily contains both general consciousness, and at least some rudimentary form of conceptual consciousness). At no stage during its development, in utero, does a fetus ever attain this state (this is in large part due to the nature of the environment in which the fetus grows, as it has no way to identify anything or anyone conceptually, it may remember things, but it cannot conceptual identify anything). However, the instant a fetus is taken out of the womb, ie born, it begins to develop this rational faculty. It identifies it's mother, it identifies the cold, it identifies feelings of hunger and it recognizes things about its own nature that it could not possibly know while in the womb (this also responds to the objection about infanticide; infanticide is not permissible because a child becomes a "person" the instant it is born). The argument for the potential personhood of the fetus does not refute this argument as the potential to be recognized as part of a certain group can never give you the true status of a member. For instance, I am studying law, this means that I have the very real potential to become a lawyer at some point in the future (just as a fetus has the potential to become a person at some point in the future) however, this does not give me a license to practice law. Neither does it mean that people should respect any legal advice that I give them. The argument that this is a faulty analogy because the fetus' potential is unconditional whereas my potential is conditional upon my actions also fails. The fetus' potential for personhood is not unconditional, there are many cases where, even left free from abortion, many fetus' do not ever reach the stage of personhood. This means that my analogy is sound and that potential personhood does not give the fetus a right to life. Let's review: Person = Rational faculty = general and conceptual consciousness Fetus = no rational faculty = not a person = no right to life Infant = rational faculty = general consciousness and rudimentary conceptual consciousness = right to life Potential person = not a person = no rational faculty = no right to life Any questions?
  12. Take a logic course in school, or read a book on introductory logic.. It helped me out immensely
  13. Actually this I disagree with.. Letters and words are just symbols and philosophy deals entirely in words.. Symbols are just a way of representing an idea, just like a word.. Just like creating a name for the philosophy (which is a symbol) there is nothing wrong with creating a symbol that is non verbal to convey the exact same message.
  14. Excellent response... Not enough people are actually willing to simply point out the fallacies and leave it at that.. but really, that's all you need to do. Once you've pointed out that someone's logic is faulty then the discussion is over.. either change your reasoning or give up
  15. I agree, I would say self-absorbed but even that could be taken as an important feature.. I would say skip the self-interest part and just go on about how irrational or stupid they're being
  • Create New...