Cole

I don't think that this is a special issue. If you can prove in court that somebody else's property caused damage to your health or property, then you have the right to sue the person. In most cases, this would of course be a very difficult thing to do. I've lived in the second most polluted city in the nation for most of my life and I have no noticeable health damages.

Your examples don't offer a very good answer to the question. Every decision that a man makes is made by cost-benefit comparison. Some decisions, such as the ones you listed, have costs that are closer to the benefits. That's not the issue here. If your position is that the benefit that smoking had on Ayn Rand's life outweighed the costs of such a habit, then you've yet to explain it.

What is the valid reason for her acting in a way that resulted in a sacrifice of value? I understand what you're stating, and I understand why you think that way. Your take on Peikoff's quote seems to be that he is criticizing people who deal with the "ignorant, blind, and gullible" in a certain way. Therefore it's necessary to determine the standards for classifying who is "ignorant" if Peikoff's criticism is to be worth anything. However, you are misconstruing the quote. If you re-read the entire quote again (here) you'll see that he specifically criticizes liars for lying. Liars are the subject of his criticism. The "ignorant, blind, gullible" bit was descriptive- not the subject- of the type of people that liars deal with.

Her ignorance let her to act in a way that resulted in sacrifice. This is immoral. Well now we've got a different situation, because you're including timing into the decision. In your previous situation, old aunty Brenda wasn't in excruciating pain and fearful of dying from blood loss until she could make a decision on which car to buy. You didn't include any reason why she couldn't have gained the knowledge she needed to not pay double the market value of the used car. Don't get things confused here. I never mentioned a "fair price". I refered to the market value of the product. I never said that a person is immoral for marking up a price- I said he is immoral when he commits fraud. Earlier I mentioned that I am free to offer my car for sell for $1 million. Tell me- how am I lying or conning anybody by offering such a trade? The point at which I become a liar is the point in which I commit fraud, which is both immoral and illegal.

I was alerted to Justice Janice Rogers Brown by today's TIA Daily e-mail. Here is a quote from her speech at the Federalist Society given in April of 2000: "As John McGinnis persuasively argues: 'There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature.' As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.' Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the 'tribal view of man.' She notes, '[t]he American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never fully grasped by European intellectuals. Europe's predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave to the absolute state embodied by the king, to the concept of man as the slave of the absolute state as embodied by "the people"--i.e., switching from slavery to a tribal chieftain into slavery to the tribe.'"

Whose morality are you questioning? The morality of the used-car salesman, or the morality of old aunty Brenda? They both act immorally in your scenario. It's not immoral for a person to want to maximize his profit. I have the right to offer my car for sale at $1 million. However, it would be immoral (and certainly illegal) for me to sign a contract with the buyer of my car confirming its market value at $1 million. That would be fraud. Fraud is a form of theft that involves taking a person's money without giving him his half of the "trade" (in this case- a car with the market value of $1 million). The buyer of the car in your scenario is immoral for irrationally neglecting the facts of reality, and thereby making a sacrifice.

There are plenty of other threads that address this same topic. Please spend a little time searching around before you start a new thread to ask a question.

Here is an enlightening article on the issue; Bush's Impossible Social Security Plan by Robert Murphy, The Mises Institute. Bush's error (on a variety of policies) is his timing. He acknowledges that a problem indeed exists, but then proposes a poorly-planned order of solving it. The proper path to take in correcting federal finance predicaments would begin with initiating a drastic decrease in federal spending- in real terms.

There are a few reasons why Objectivists are not agnostic; From an etymological standpoint, the word "atheist" simply means "without theism"- without a belief in God. It's a negative belief system- not a positive one. You don't have to prove anything in order to be properly classified as an "atheist." In fact, you don't even have to know of the concept of God. An atheist merely lacks theism, which is a positive belief. There is no middle-ground between theism and atheism. A person cannot be agnostic without also being either a theist or an athiest. If you are having a problem grasping this then I can point you to a thread in which I explained it in more detail. Since theism is necessarily a positive belief (an assertion of the truth), it carries the onus of proof. The atheist is not in the position to prove anything, since he is not the one making the positive claim. The fact that theists cannot prove God's existence does not mean that the issue is up in the air, and we should all conclude that we cannot know the answer. If something is said to exist, but there is no evidence of its existence, on what basis should we hold that it is even a possibility? The claim that God exists is almost always made arbitrarily, and therefore cannot even be discussed. There is nothing to debate. The theists' argument is full of conclusions with no premises. Dr. Peikoff refutes the agnostic position of "I don't know" by asking, "What don't you know?" What evidence exists in support of God's existence which you are unaware of or ignoring? An arbitrarily assertion of the truth has no ties to reality, and therefore should not be accepted as being true.

Regardless of the intentions of the poster (also remember that the post was originally made within another thread, as a response- and not as its own thread), the opinions he expresses are popular ones. Many people think that ethics are anthetical to a good, happy life. The Objectivist view on ethics is precisely opposite.

He makes a gross mistake when he lists "6. Every living thing acts to maintain its life, for its own sake." as one of Ayn Rand's premises. If this were the case, then ethics would be unnecessary. You could not act but in a way which maintained your life. You wouldn't have volition, and you wouldn't need a standard of value to guide your actions. The rejection of this false premise refutes his claim that premise #10 begs the question. If a person has a choice in a matter of two courses of action to take, and if one course of action results in a gain of value (the enhancement of the person's life) while the other results in a loss of value (the destruction of the person's life), then the person should also choose the course of action which results in a gain of value.

One Prime Mover, your mistake is an easy one to spot; Ok, here you've explained the subject of your argument (the Objectivists defining "Objectivism" as such) as well as the definition being used by these people (Objectivism is "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"). Now, since the subject of your argument does not change, let's see if your description of the definition they use also remains constant (as it should)... No, you've now decided to change the definition being used from "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" to "a true, perfect philosophy." You've switched the essential attribute being used to define the word, and you thereby contradict your earlier premise. You cannot substitute your own definition of a word for somebody else's, and then conclude that whenever the person uses the word that they are using it to refer to your definition instead of their own. This is all the more illogical when, only a paragraph ago, you admit that the Objectivists in question define "Objectivism" as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." If you admit that Objectivists use the word "Objectivist" to mean "a person in agreement with the philosophy of Ayn Rand," then consider this substitution; A person in agreement with the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not disagree with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If the definition of "Objectivist" is as you first described it, then this sentence should be valid. What is dangerous or dogmatic about that sentence? No, you're mixing up the definitions again. Calling yourself an Objectivist is in no way "binding" or "restricting". The word refers to a set of ideas that are the same as the ideas that Ayn Rand formulated. If your ideas are not as such, then the category "Objectivist" simply does not apply to you. The description is hardly the "antithesis to free thought"- no more so than the phrase "football player" forces a person to play football.

I would say that charity is always altruistic. Otherwise, it would be a purchase. It seems that most other people use the word this way, as well. When I hear the word "charity" used, it is used to refer to an action with the intent of benefiting the person being donated to, and not the person donating. I invite you to explain a form of charity that is not altruistic, and explain why it is deserving of being classified as "charity" as opposed to being the same as any other value-for-value trade. That is necessarily true by matter of definition. The essential attribute used to define sacrifice is that the action involves trading something of one value in exchange for something of a lesser value. If this isn't an attribute of the action being discussed, then the action cannot properly be described as a "sacrifice."

Joynewyeary, I suggest you look into how Ayn Rand describes the purpose of her writing. A great way to do this is to read the essay "The Goal of my Writing" in the book "The Romantic Manifesto". Or, better yet, read the entire book. The purpose of Ayn Rand's art is to present a stylized, selective version of her view of the perfect man. Her purpose is not to merely reflect the world as it is. She is not a journalist.

Entirely, to the extent that volition is involved.

Hi lindagarrette. I appreciate your interest in these forums, even if it is somewhat accidental. It looks like you misread what Bold Standard wrote. If you read it again, you should note that he mentions the belief that "the workings of the human consciousness is for some reason beyond our grasp" as being an attribute of people who are not Objectivists. In fact, an important aspect of Objectivst epistemology is that man's consciousness can be conceptually knowable. If you're interested in that subject, I suggest you read the chapter "Concepts of Consciousness" in Ayn Rand's book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". Otherwise- I think you're preaching to the choir. Objectivists fully acknowledge that faith is not a tool for discovering the truth, and therefore reject conclusions supported by faith as opposed to reason. In fact, Ayn Rand wrote an essay titled "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World".

Objectivism is not premised by the idea that humans do not need social interaction. Objectivism is premised on metaphysical axioms. Perhaps you're confusing the rejection of altruism with the rejection of social interaction. Or perhaps you're getting thrown off by the notion that all human relationships, at their root causes, are similar to business trades. In reality, Objectivism holds that the increased productivity which division of labor allows is virtuous.

Yes, it is very clear now. Thank you for your help.

Hypotheticals that are outside the realm of existence are not helpful. Saying "What if I could sense something that is non-existent yet could somehow produce sensory stimulation?" does not disprove the reliability of the senses. We are discussing the real world, as it exists. All that is real can be perceived. The fact is; it is not possible to formulate an argument against the reliability of the senses without the soundness of your argument depending on the reliability of the senses.

Felipe, I'm still familiarizing myself with the vocabulary. What I meant when I used the term "space" was the spatial relationship between objects in which no other objects exist. (I'm unsatisfied with that definition, but I can't figure out a better one. I hope you can understand what I mean). My confusion with your description of "empty space" is how something synonymous with "nothing" can be measured (i.e; you describe the empty space between the Earth and the Moon). I'm also confused by the fact that I've always understood "takes up space" to be an essential attribute of matter.

Those prove the reliability of the senses- what you are sensing is what exists. In a hallucination, you are sensing the internal dysfunction of the dopamine neurotransmitter. The fact that we can know of the cause of a hallucination proves that this cause exists as a true, perceptual phenomena. The same reliability applies to illusions. Consider the stick-in-water example, in which a stick appears to bend in the water. This does not prove that the senses are unreliable. It proves that you are sensing a true, perceptual phenomena- that light waves move at a different speed through water than they do through air.

Weren't the sequels essentially the same plot line with different actors? Also, the crow analogy used in ITOE related to how many perceptual concretes could be retained at once- not how many concepts could be processed/memorized.

I looked into it a bit more and discovered that the theory of spatial infinity is not accepted among all physicists- as I had previously thought. Although infinite space is difficult to comprehend, I find finite, limited space to be equally difficult to comprehend. And I've concluded that physicists who declare that the "universe is expanding" are using a flawed definition of the word "universe."

The fact that the reliability of the senses is an axiom is the reason why an explaination was not included.

Felipe, I understand that "nothing" is not an entity. I understand that the universe is eternal. I've read ITOE. I never said anything that would imply otherwise. My questions were; If the universe is all that exists, then how can it possibly expand? If space is necessarily finite, then what happens at the limits of space?