[Is it immoral to block online ads?]

After thinking about it a little more, I agree to an extent with what you say. In certain cases, ad-blocking is acceptable (though probably not sustainable if enough people do it, and said sites lose money as a result). I've done some research and found that some sites, in their terms of service, prohibit the use of ad-blocking software, so one would have to constantly be on the lookout for sites that present their content on such terms. In those cases, I would definitely consider it to be an immoral action – violating a contractual agreement.

Agreed.

[Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins]

This thread is redundant and should be closed.

Now there's no need for that, I was merely remarking that unfortunately I would not be directly quoting the text at hand, still present was a critique of fundamentally most argumentation conducted throughout this thread. I believe this thread is important, as the more ethics are argued over and refined, the sharper our rationale will be when called to the task of intellectual battle. Whether or not the Objectivist community develops a united opinion on Modern Terrorism or not is inconsequential, for no matter what the duration and ferocity of the argument, all with an open mind (as I am sure all of us possess) will surely benefit. What I meant by my apology was to clear the air of any ire fermented towards me due to my lack of direct quotes, which I most often utilize in my arguments. I repeat, the fundamental critique still hit's most of the propositions worth quarreling over, and this topic is still extremely pertinent and important.

[Is/Ought Problem]

Congratulations: you've shown that you don't understand the Objectivist Ethics.

Please read Tara Smith's book Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, particularly the pages on induction and the choice to live (pp. 101-103).

The role of induction is substantial in Rand's argument for rational egoism. Please take the time to consider it, before regarding the argument as a deduction which falters as soon as someone chooses not to live.

To give some evidence that you don't understand the argument:

You say that the introductory conditional (the choice to live or not) makes the ethical system "subjective," which I take to be synonymous with "arbitrary."

But reality is the grounds on which we decide what is rational or arbitrary, and so the choice to live underlies the very need to be rational--which means that the choice to live or not is a pre-rational choice. Rationality only deals with reality, and if you choose to stay in reality, then reason can be your guide in order to live well.

Also, the objectivity of values stems in part from their beneficial effects on our lives, and also important, it stems from our method (logic) of determining why something is a value (Viable Values, pp. 120-121, note #30 and 34). The objectivity of the values I have do not become subjective simply because another man chose to kill himself. His death does not change the facts regarding various things' negative and positive effects on my life, nor does it effect the harmful consequences of engaging in the wrong mental process to determine what is valuable to me.

Lastly, notice how your view of ethics is no different from Duty Ethics or commandments: ethics becomes "subjective" to you because it depends on human will and choice. But for Rand (Objectivism), this is simply the recognition of the importance of free will. Morality and Ethics depends on free will, in Rand's view. We only need ethics and morality because our consciousness is fallible and conceptual; we do not possess the automatic functions and advantageous body parts (e.g. horns) that other animals do have and use to survive; we can, through evasive mental processes or through sheer ignorance, take actions which are detrimental to our lives, and we can even destroy our lives. But through an act of choice, we can engage in correct processes and thereby advance our lives. But there are so many concrete instances of actions needed to live well, and we are not omniscient regarding what the consequences will be of the actions we take now. The solution, in Objectivism, is to conceptualize the requirements for human survival into principles, i.e. into a code of morality.

But if ethics must be independent of human will, as you've suggested, then Rand's Question (in Ethics) becomes crucial to answer: Why does man need Ethics (a code of values)?--Does man need values at all--and why?

If ethics is supposed to be something handed down to man on high, independent of his will, his goals, his interests, then why does not he need to follow it? I'd like to see your answer, though I must warn you that no one has ever proven the validity of "Intrinsicist (Duty) Ethics."

Just a note, a common follow through of posing the Is/Ought Problem is progressing to make claim to Ethical Nihilism as opposed to Moral Relativism, that being the concept that morals are simply non-existent as opposed to dependent on who is interpreting what. The argument tends to go as such: You may say that it is imperative for one to X if they wish to Y (Survive in Rand's case), but this is simply stating a fact, and not bridging the gap required to explain what makes it morally imperative. Since moral imperatives have never been bridged to, and seeing that they are never adequately justified as a result, morals simply do not exist. They are abstract conceptions derived from observations you make in terms of value, but they do not exist simply because one has expressed that they do. To prove that a moral is existent requires the bridging of the Is/Ought gap, from observation to imperative, which is for all intents and purposes in Nihilistic thought, not possible.

The debate is often obfuscated by simply reiterating that "My observation applies universally and therefore is imperative if you desire Y" but this is once again does not explain why Y is something you ought to value, or how it is moral. It merely is an observation, a descriptive phenomena.

"Also, the objectivity of values stems in part from their beneficial effects on our lives, and also important, it stems from our method (logic) of determining why something is a value (Viable Values, pp. 120-121, note #30 and 34). The objectivity of the values I have do not become subjective simply because another man chose to kill himself. His death does not change the facts regarding various things' negative and positive effects on my life, nor does it effect the harmful consequences of engaging in the wrong mental process to determine what is valuable to me."

You assume that certain things are positive and negative, which is already fallacious and ignorant of the subjectivity of values. It is positive if I deem it positive, negative if I deem it negative. My judgmental faculties alone can produce this decision on my own behalf.

Value is not objective, nor is value linked to morals. I may want Value A, but that does not make the process to attain Value A moral, simply desirable. To say I "ought" pursue Value A begs the question of how we transferred from "desirable/logical" to "right/morally imperative" Under Ethical Nihilism prescriptive statements are merely extensions of descriptive statements that are conflated to suggest importance/suggest emotional inclination/influence the person in question, and as such not one particular course of action can be moral. Merely desirable.

Long term happiness, I shall note quickly before departing, is of no greater value than short term, for value is subjective and actor dependent. Rand's emphasis on survival is based on taste.

^^The essential Ethical Nihilist argument, the most dangerous and critical in terms of Objectivist defense of itself, seeing that it denies morals as opposed to espousing their subjectivity.

[Rights of artist vs rights of subjects]

You must justify that nude art is pornography, and then we talk the moral debate. So long as the children were not subjected to unwelcome sexual treatment (in this case they were merely photographed for artistic purposes) no evident crime is identifiable. You may argue that someone out there inevitably will use it for sexual purposes, but that indeed has no bearing on whether or not the artist is at fault.

[Popular Atheists and the Political Left]

As stated before, God must be cast out to establish humanistic practice as the predominant social philosophy, and thus it has become part of the foundation of leftist doctrine.

[Is it immoral to block online ads?]

Blocking ad's on the net is akin to muting the television whilst commercials are playing, it is not immoral seeing that it is largely a matter of what you perceive to be in your self interest. You may value the ad, you may not, regardless of whether site owners largely depend on ad income to sustain themselves it was their prerogative to put themselves at the risk of ad blockers by establishing the site, with full knowledge that they depended on ad income in the first place.

[Concerning the Rights/Status of Minors]

A simply application of reductio ad absurdum is called for here. A 2-day old infant is a minor, because a 2-day old infant is under 18. If minors are the same as adults and have the rights of adults -- specifically meaning 'have the capacity to act on their own independent judgment' -- and if the law recognises that right, it also cannot grant any special privileges to the 2-day old infant. They must have the legal right to seek employment, and if they cannot grasp the concept of "work" or "money" or "buying groceries", then they must face the consequences of their evasion. This could get to be a serious problem, since at age 2 days, a child's ability to speak English or any other language is extremely limited (nonexistent), and they therefore cannot consent to any contractual arrangement.

As it stands, the age of majority is not a single thing, anyhow (compare marriage with parental consent, without, drinking, joining the military with and without parental consent, driving, forming contracts, being President).

Anyhow, if you can propose some kind of objective test that demonstrates a child's ability to grasp concepts of legal responsibility so that they can be legally bound by contract, that would be better than the statistical, age-based approach. So far, nobody has come up with anything decent. You might try searching the topic here, since this issue has come up a number of times.

Agreed in regards to the "infant" argument. As for objective testing I'll attempt to pose a basic model and you can all bounce off of it as you will:

- Sexual activity is not to be prohibited seeing that there is no objective barometer of how one can be "ready" for it. (Same goes for drinking, smoking, and drug use?)

- In the case of legal contracts (property dealing, purchasing of common goods, etc;) a test akin to the naturalization test should be made ready for all who wish to access it, general grasp of mathematics, reading, and writing skills must be demonstrated to be at (?)th grade level (compiled based on national averages) or higher. Special provisions for matters of economics are to be included, concerning loans, property rights, and general legal terminology. Economics and related legal terminology are to be integrated into mainstream education.

- If parts of the test pertinent to certain rights are completed at passing level whilst others are failed, they are to be granted those specific rights.

*Highlighted segments that in my view are largely up to debate.

[Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins]

I'll have to be excused for not responding directly to the other posters in this topic on some issues I'll be hitting on here, thanks in advance.

1.Proponents of Objectivism should not artificially prevent the erection of a mosque if they wish to remain consistent with Objectivist Ethical Practice

Rand clearly outlined that the function of a state for a rational society is merely an enforced guarantee on rights, support of state intervention in matters of business, zoning, and property rights is decidedly amoral in terms of Objectivist ethical practice. Whether the proponents of the religion are extremist or otherwise is of no concern to the state nor you, the primary concern of the state is safety, your primary concern as a practicing Objectivist should be virtue, the sustenance of your status as a rational and free willed individual, to the benefit of your general well being. To advocate unfair business practice, that is the denial of access to property that is being sold by the state on grounds of religious difference, is in direct contradiction with the principals of laissez faire markets and therefore the Objectivist ethos.

2. The reference to Muslims as being "At fault." for the 9/11 terrorist attacks is either fallacious or a poorly worded argument.

The proposition, "Muslim's are at fault for 9/11." presumes the guilt of all Muslims throughout the world in regards to said attack. Evidently this is silly and an unwarranted accusation, many, in fact most Muslims do not practice what we refer to as extremism. The Muslim academic community has nearly been completely united in denouncing the actions of terroristic groups claiming to adhere to the religion. The interpretation of how (and in some cases if) Sharia Law should be enforced varies to the point of rendering any generalization useless in meaningful discourse.

3. There are no direct links to Saudi Arabia masterminding campaigns of terror against the U.S, and they in fact are at direct odds with the majority of terroristic groups due to it's pro-U.S policy.

Self explanatory.

[Concerning the Rights/Status of Minors]

My girlfriend and I discuss this, at length, constantly. On a fundamental level of definition, what the hell is a minor? I agree with the OP's statement - that there are "minors" who make rational decisions and employ the faculty of reason. I shy away from discussions of a "line", or a certain age at which we become fully rational, simply because that seems to evade the still unresolved issue of definition. If a minor is defined as incapable of thinking rationally, then a child who does think rationally is not a minor, and should therefore be afforded the individual rights and freedoms of an adult, right? I suppose the real question at hand regards the measurement of rational faculty. How, and by whom? What determines full rational faculty, and who, officially, determines it?

^^Couldn't have put it better myself, under Rand's ethical guidelines it all comes down to what constitutes a "free willed, rational individual" and if there are different degrees of being rational that are to be treated in varying ways. And as the above poster brought up, how would we gauge these objectively? Perhaps Rand meant to leave this to us purposefully in hopes that further research would help illuminate the foggier parts of this whole debacle. Perhaps she had not thought of the more troubling aspects of the issue and assumed a clear distinction was prevalent to all rational actors. In any case, it is up to us to account for the lapse, a lapse that once filled will without a doubt define the entirety of Objectivist ethical practice.

[Concerning the Rights/Status of Minors]

It is a fact that children are not adults. They are not as large. That's obvious. In the last 100 years scientists have quantified other, more subtle differences. Gushing about a college baseball world series game I watched a few years ago, I opined that they were better players than the major leaguers. One guy replied that he agreed with the heartfelt sentiment but it is not true. "The college pitcher, when he's in the windup, if he catches the eye of a pretty girl in the stands, he'll forget the sign. You gotta outgrow that. There's no other way."

That said, if you read, for example, Ragged Dick, one of the Horatio Alger stories, you will meet boys of 12 living on their own, renting apartments, and making do as best they can.

Our society did allow more gray area in the gray area. We had a paperboy in our neighborhood who built his route, collected money, created and managed a business. The Ann Arbor News closed last year, but their paper routes were managed by the central office: the kids only delivered. When I was in high school, circ 1964, it was the last of the days when you could quit after the ninth grade, age 16, and, get a job to support yourself.

Times change.

In the commercial world, insurance companies do not give policies to people under 25, as a general rule. Like being 35 to be President, there are some limits even over 18 ... and with drinking it's 21. My daughter is bartender. She pointed out that this person is old enough to enlist in the Army, old enough to choose the President of the United States, old enough to be married, but not old enough to drink -- and it's her problem if she serves it. Seems unbalanced, to her. She, however, felt that children should be allowed to drive, and did so at 10, taking the car for a 100 mile ride at 13. Her companion in crime, also 13, learned to drive the year before.

Do you have a right to sell yourself into slavery? Maybe you can argue that you do, but our society prohibits that as a basic principle. So, too, does the state have a compelling interest in the protection of children.

All of which is to say, that there is a lot of gray area in the gray area.

I'll preface by saying I greatly appreciate this feedback and value the blunt manner it utilizes to really highlight the core issues at hand here, and I am hoping that with the help of the community we can at least draw fine lines in regards to what is right and wrong in terms of those grey zones.

I propose the following, if the child wills a line of action, it cannot by definition be called self enslavement seeing that they set it upon themselves to value said line of action, with the obvious exception of them subordinating their values to that of another. If the child is primarily influenced by coercion and state/parental action to work or act in a certain manner, that is not of virtue and ought be prevented for the sake of society. On this we no doubt agree. However, I must hasten to add that while all the examples of "advancements" we've made as a society are undoubtably true, there was no warrant on it being for the better. What is worth investigating here is not the outright ban or allowance of child labor/freedom of action, but an ethos that can pinpoint the exact nature of what is in actuality a free willed child or a coerced and unwitting "nobody" (that is devoid of any notion of what their own interest is).

[Concerning the Rights/Status of Minors]

You would have to back that argument, and in any case the existence of "non-dependent" minors could render this moral guideline immoral seeing that it would be unjustly applied to them. I refer you to the early stages of the Industrial Revolution before regulations in regards to child labor was enacted by the liberals of the time, children often would work alongside their parents to help secure mutual benefits for them both, valuing both the offer of residency and guidance from the parental figure whilst also wielding the freedom to work and move about as they pleased. This also contributes to the claim I made concerning most children staying with the parent anyway, the only fundamental change would be in the degree of choice children are able to access.

[Concerning the Rights/Status of Minors]

I for one am in firm support of fully expanding the rights of minors on grounds of not being able to quantify the opposing argument in a meaningful manner. Quite simply put, it's easy to say all minors are irrational (and therefore not entitled to the rights of a thinking man), it is a much harder thing to prove it seeing that the existence of 1 exception to the rule completely discredits it. I believe that if Rand had investigated the issue of minor vs. adult more closely, she would have come to the conclusion that volition and free will being the staples of the human faculty ultimately win out in terms of value debate, and from that we can conclude that if a child wills emancipation he ought be granted it (out of respect for the rights of said thinking individual), and of course that if a child wills to engage in sexual activity that we ought not prohibit it. Im short, the deconstruction of traditional parental roles. I assume that most children would vouch to stay with their parents in any case, and thus many problems are subverted.

In any case, in terms of ethics we cannot claim moral righteousness and all the while prohibit a free willed individual by way of brute force is the essential argument.