JacobGalt

Leonard Peikoff said that in a podcast. I'm asking you if you agree or disagree with him that hacking into the British university to get the Climategate emails was moral.

So all of you would disagree with Peikoff that hacking into computers to get the 'Climategate' emails was immoral, right?

While they are "just curious"-type questions, I ask them to see if my application of what I've learned in OPAR is similar to what Objectivists think.

Hacking into voting booths would be as immoral as promising free health care?

What if someone stole the election by hacking into the voting booths?

I mean steal the election by buying votes.

If you don't rob it, the people that win it will use government power to violate my Rights.

Do the ends justify the means, basically?

Yes, thanks for the Socrates-style questions. Nope.

No, only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a man or woman.

Or is it immoral to put their want for food over my money?

No -- I know the Objectivist view on sex. My question was: if you find values in your mother, for example, is it moral to have sex with her?

Pain is anti-life, pleasure is not.

If it brings pleasure and isn't irrational, it's moral.

Yes, I do, but I want to hear arguments for and against the morality of incest and bestiality.

It would seem to be that it is against man's nature to have intercourse with animals, but is it immoral? And what about with a family member?

Could you summarize it in one or more paragraphs as you normally fantastically do?

Where does that right come from?

Does the arbitrariness of picking a sports team make it improper for me to cheer for one?

You should think about what are the most important values to you. If it's the joy you'll get out of the job, go with your favorite one. If it's the money, go for the one that is most needed and pays the most (probably engineering). Regardless, you need to hierarchize your values.

Mass murder also increases GDP per capita. If it violates Rights, it shouldn't be done.

It is certainly not contradictory if you think that these children having a little bit more opportunity is more important than what you could have bought with the money.

Money, as you pointed out, really only is the medium of exchange (ie. Federal Reserve notes or silver coins) while wealth is all property that has economic value. You can create wealth when you create economic value, that is, make something that is worth more than it cost.

Your vote will never make a difference in a national election, so it is a waste of time. It is not immoral to not vote -- that's ridiculous.

What are the odds that your vote will flip the election? But dozens of millions already do vote -- my point is that one vote doesn't make a difference, so going to the polls is a waste of time, and thus an immoral sacrifice.