Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cole

Regulars
  • Posts

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Cole

  1. Cole

    Animal rights

    The unami receptors detect glutamates, which are not exclusive to meat products. In fact, broccoli has more glutamates than meat.
  2. Cole

    Animal rights

    Erik, I'm not so sure that these arguments work. You seem to be merely repeating your conclusion. Why do you think that? Humans have no claws. Our teeth are the dullest of all the primates (even more dull than gorilla's teeth, and they are- with the rare exception of insects- exclusive herbivores). Omnivores have a stomach acidity pH of 1. Humans have a stomach acidity pH of 4-5. This is why humans must cook meat in order to make it palatable. This is not necessarily for biological omnivores. Our bipedality doesn't give us the speed needed to hunt other animals. Clearly, man has enough intelligence to build tools to hunt and domesticate animals for food. But this doesn't prove that humans are biologically intended to consume meat, when doing so is not a requirement of their health. The fact that humans have done something for a long time proves that it is the proper way of living? It's ironic to find such a statement on an Objectivist forum. The body can digest many things and live to do it again. How does that prove that humans are biologically intended to consume these things? That's a poor analogy. It certainly proves that humans should not eat rocks, but it doesn't explain what biological facts require humans to eat meat in order to be healthy- which was my original question. If you don't believe that humans must eat meat in order to be healthy, then my question was not directed to you. I did not dispute that humans are capable of digesting it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
  3. Cole

    Animal rights

    To play devil's advocate, and hopefully to add to the quality of this thread; What biological fact of the human species requires them to consume meat in order to be healthy? I see that AutoJC is banned, but maybe somebody who agrees with his position can answer the question.
  4. That begs the question. If the fact that everything in the universe is moving is used as a premise, then on what basis are we to believe that there is anything that isn't moving? Why would the proponent of this position get to make up the rule that God is a causeless effect? That would seem to depend on the validity of the very conclusion he's attempting to prove (that a "causeless causer" is even possible).
  5. No. The post wasn't directed towards you or your comments. I decided that this isn't the appropriate place to express my distaste for the personality of other forum members. However, my statement about benevolence holds true.
  6. The theory collapses on itself: A. All things in the category "existent" are "moving." B. All things that are "moving" must have had a "primary mover." C. The "primary mover," innate in being "primary," must not be "moving." D. Therefore, the primary mover cannot fall into the category of "existent"; it is non-existent.
  7. This is a good, real-world example of how benevolence has a place in rational egosim. When you treat people rudely, they're less likely to help you in the future.
  8. South Africa banned the use of DDT in 1996 and did not begin using it again until very recently. There was a 400% increase in malaria-caused deaths during this time.
  9. What are you disagreeing with? I didn't make any claims about the Star Trek universe. In fact, I said that I am unfamilar with it. What I did say was that Objectivism is a philosophy created in accordance with the universe as it exists. It depends entirely on the axioms of metaphysics. If these axoims were, hypothetically, non-existent (a hypothetical is what you are dealing with in this situation, and it is only in a hypothetical that they could cease to be axioms) then Objectivism would no longer be possible.
  10. It's fine that you think that "allocating resources has nothing to do with the study of economics," but understand that this contradicts what seems to be the exclusively-accepted definition among economists in the world. This type of unfamilar assertion requires more explanation. Your definition ("Economics studies the production of wealth in a division-of-labor society...") is too limited. Economics not only studies production, but also distribution and consumption. In its most abstracted form, it is the study of how humans make decisions about how to allocate scarce resources. The Soviet Union had large-scale production. Would the Soviet Union, by your standard, qualify as an "efficient" economy? Or would it also be required to take into account what was being produced, how it was being produced, and for whom? I'm having trouble understanding what your claim is here. Can you perhaps re-phrase your position using economic terms?
  11. You make a good point. I wish I would have thought of that...
  12. I wasn't using "Earth" in the context of a specific planet. I was using Ayn Rand's own words for describing the philosophy as being relevant to the universe as it exists. The philosophy wouldn't apply to a hypothetical universe in which A is not A.
  13. I've never seen Star Trek and I don't know what the "Star Trek universe" implies. However, you should understand that Objectivism is a philosophy for living on Earth. Its base (metaphysical axioms) is rooted in the facts of the universe as it really exists.
  14. I appreciated the irony in Pink Floyd performing the song "Money." Here are some of its lyrics: Also, I wonder how many supporters of the concert are also environmentalists who supported the banning of DDT. I'm sure that somebody during the concert must have mentioned how many Africans (most of them childeren) die due to malaria. However, I highly doubt that anybody criticized the philosophy that lead to DDT being banned and malaria becoming wide-spread.
  15. Prices are the mechanism by which the market responds to the forces of supply and demand. The price system is how resources are allocated in a capitalist economy (as opposed to central planning). When prices are set by forces other than supply and demand then the market is not as effective at allocating resources. Economically, socialism fails because of its inability to properly determine prices.
  16. Price fixing does make the market significantly less efficient and unresponsive. However, coercive monopolies are not possible without the help of government (therefore, a non-laissez-faire economy). In order to have a large enough share of an industry to allow for price fixing, a company would need to prohibit new entry into the field by would-be competitors. Ultimately, this can only be accomplished by initiating force. For a monopoly to attempt to close entry by making deals with the suppliers of the factors of production in that specific field would require these suppliers to act against their rational self-interest. Purposefully and contractually limiting the number of potential buyers will never benefit a company's bottom line. If a company were able to hold a monopoly and set prices independent of market forces, then it would (ironically) be creating incentive for increased competition and therefore the end of its monopoly. If it were to raise prices beyond what the natural equilibrium price would be in a competitive field, then this would cause new suppliers to flood the industry. These new suppliers, too, would be able to charge above-equilibrium prices- until it became flooded with enough competition to destory the monopoly and regain market-based pricing. There was an article from the Mises Institute on this subject not too long ago. I wish I could find the link. The article proved that products these days are, indeed, "not made like they used to be." However, it showed that this was not some form of aggression towards consumers by greedy corporations. Rather, it was a natural response to consumer demand. As people become more wealthy (as they are today), they prefer more disposable goods. They'd rather buy new things than own the same product for years. It's a good thing that this demand is being met. Understand that employers compete for quality employees. Any employer is free to charge $0.75 an hour for unskilled workers. However, every other employer competing for the same labor market now has an incentive to charge $0.80 an hour (or offer more benefits, workplace protection, etc.)- so he can get the first pick among the pool.
  17. Doesn't the standard quantum mechanics explanation for the results of the double-slit experiment require that photons (or whatever is being discussed) travel as both a particle and a wave?
  18. I'm still having some difficulty with this. If space is the absence of any existents- absolute nothing- then how could forces exist in space that have an effect on matter? If space is non-existence, then how could space curve? If space cannot curve, then the General Theory of Relativity (which proves that the gravitational force between two objects is caused by the curvature of space between those objects, and not a push or pull from the objects themselves) is inaccurate. If this theory is inaccurate, then how do you explain the force of gravity? How can a force exist within something that is synonymous with "non-existence"?
  19. I am pretty sure that Professor E is Leonard Peikoff. I once saw a photograph of the roundtable but I couldn't recognize anybody- let alone associate them with their letter.
  20. Being offered a job under certain conditions is an initiation of force?
  21. Education does not depend on the existence of taxation. Your argument rests upon the premise that there is significant demand for education. If this is true (and it is), then this demand for education also premises the conclusion that private schooling would be a successful investment. Since the fact that education has many benefits and that many people demand it is not being refuted, you do not need to bother proving it. The existence of the demand is a given. What is up for debate is the best way to supply education; either by competing providers subjected to the forces of supply and demand, or as a centrally-controlled government monopoly.
  22. How are they rationally justified? Do you not believe in property rights? How is it consistent with property rights to forcefully take money from a person that they would not have given voluntarily?
  23. Have you looked into the finding published in the book The Bell Curve? The American Psychological Association put together a committee to investigate the claims in the book and concluded that many of them are accurate. In addition to race, there are distinct differences in IQ averages when occupations are compared (i.e; janitors to lawyers). I think it's been well-proven that IQ score is positively correlated to factors indicating success in life. Again, the question is regarding to which extent it is influenced by genes and/or environment. I certainly never said that it is entirely or primarily genetic.
  24. Actually, it seems to be commonly-accepted knowledge among those studying IQ that there are distinct differences among racial lines. The disagreement is on whether or not this is due to environmental factors or genetics. Right, but there is plenty of evidence to show that IQ score is positively correlated with success in life. The is what the book The Bell Curve was really attempting to prove. The race controversy just got in the way of that.
  25. I don't understand the assertion. What does "50% of cognition is genetic" mean, specifically? Is he refering to IQ scores? Nevertheless, I'd be interested in seeing a study proving that. This reminds me of an article attempting to prove hereditary differences among races by using only one source- an encyclopedia from 1932. For the record- the difference in their IQ scores was more than one point. The one point difference is in regard to an specific index created to compare the IQ scores of two people- not the scores themselves. To an extent, yes. Objectivism holds that volition is an attribute of man. Objectivism doesn't reject the idea that genetics influence cognition and behavior. It rejects the idea(s) that behavior is determined by either genetics or environment (i.e; Skinnerist behaviorism) and that humans do not truly make choices. Identifying man as volitional is essential to Objectivism.
×
×
  • Create New...