blazingtruth

What about in cases where the teacher "could" compare answers? There is the *possibility* that the teacher compares answers. I would say that the act of somebody else cheating IS putting yourself at risk in almost all school settings, and thus should be reported.

I think some people need to re-examine the character of Ragnar from Atlas Shrugged...

Very interesting Nyronus, is there an article I could read on that? I'm not surprised with the results, I'm strictly concerned with the ethical implications of his experiment. At what point (if any) did his experiment become unethical?

Consider a scenario which clearly isn't life-threatening: You're in school taking a test, and you become aware that a student is cheating off your test. Clearly, you are not being harmed directly in any way, or are you? Do you tell the teacher? Why? Assuming you do not care more about your reputation with that specific student than you do justice, you should tell the teacher. Am I wrong?

@Lasse - regarding your last situation about context: Say, for instance, that you find a suitcase with 1 million dollars along with a credit card. You know very well that you can track down the person (through the name on the credit card, authorities, accounts associated, etc.) and return the money without much difficulty. Assuming, of course, that the credit card was in the suitcase or you knew otherwise that there's a 100% probability that the card and money were connected to the same person. Now taking that same assumption, switch a credit card with a strand of hair. You notice the strand of hair and KNOW without a doubt it belongs to the man to whom the money belongs. You CAN trace the hair (through DNA, databases, etc.) to find this man, but it's awfully difficult in comparison to the credit card. In fact, the work is greater than the reward, let's say. Is it moral to neglect the piece of hair, knowing that it's possible to return it to its owner? Are you morally obligated to go through any means necessary to return the suitcase? Is that a moral choice you make by picking up the suitcase?

Background: "The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted from Aug. 14 - 20, 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four students were selected out of 75 to play the prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned randomly. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the "Officers" to display authoritarian measures and ultimately to subject some of the prisoners to torture. In turn, many of the prisoners developed passive attitudes and accepted physical abuse, and, at the request of the guards, readily inflicted punishment on other prisoners who attempted to stop it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his capacity as "Prison Superintendent," lost sight of his role as psychologist and permitted the abuse to continue as though it were a real prison. Five of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts soon made publicly available." -Wikipedia What are the ethical implications surrounding Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)? The only notable use of deception is the "surprise arrests" as a matter of initiation of the experiment. With that being stated, what is the role of consent in determining ethical standards? In light of this experiment, informed consent was given to all participants, including deep debriefing sessions regarding the potential emotional trauma induced if they choose to agree to participate. Generally, is the initiation of force morally acceptable if consent is given by an individual who fully knows and understands its consequences? Thank you for your time.

@Biker, that's probably the psychological/emotional aspect of my question, yes. And with reference to the previous posts, where it says: "Why interchangeably use "universe", "nature", "reality", and "god" to describe the same concept?" That is probably the answer I would give, on a very simplistic level.

Finished reading all those links, Dante, and I do concede that a criminal is one who breaks the law, not the Constitution. Thanks for correcting me. Generally speaking, I've found a few trends between all of those threads: 1) Prison is exile, except inverted. The problem here is cost. Who's responsible for funding prisons? Surely, the prisoners and private donations ought to be the major source of income, and prisons should be self-sustaining. What happens to a prisoner who refuses to work to support his imprisonment? 2) Prisoners still have rights. Namely, the right to life. Is there any circumstance where an O'ist would reason that another individual no longer has the right to live? 3) Victims must receive compensation of an equal value. 4) Prevention fails. Criminals will always exists, and the law will always be broken, sometimes on accident. I'd like to hear your opinions. Post away!

@Eiuol, I am troubled in reconciling an idea such as "the map is not the territory", in terms of my position as an individual with regard to reality. I am inclined to believe (perhaps irrationally) that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. That the Universe is something greater than the sum of all matter, energy, etc. I think ico hit the nail on the head, and 'synergy' is what I am trying to describe. Perhaps I was mistaken in trying to find similarities between O'ism and Pantheism, when synergy is what I was looking for. Thanks all.

Consider a country with a Constitution containing strictly O'ist principles and philosophy. Namely, rights to life and liberty are established and guaranteed by courts, military, police, etc. (not funded through taxation). It is the ideal government. Thus, a criminal is presumably one who violates the Constitution, through the initiation of force on another individual. - How would an Objectivist penal code function? How ought criminals be punished? What do you do with them? - Are all instances of "initiation of force" considered equally immoral? Are there varying levels of severity? What are they? - Should "fair compensation" be provided to the individual against whom the crime was committed? Who provides it? How? Presently, most penal codes suggest individuals ought to be 1) locked up in prisons funded by taxpayers, or 2) given the death penalty. From an O'ist perspective, I'd suggest there's objections to the manner in which both of these are carried out. It appears as if the underlying aim is to remove the criminal from society, so he does not commit crimes again; therefore it is conceivable that 3) relocate them to another country, is another possibility, although this may serve impractical. Remember:

Further, perhaps it is a link I am trying to connect between O'ism and the main points of Stoic philosophy or Naturalistic pantheism

@Hotu Matua, perhaps that was partially the point I am hinting at, as far as pantheism is concerned. That 'God' is not necessarily something supernatural, or a deity with the face of a man, but is something 'bigger' than our scope of all present understanding-- it is, say, the Universe -- or, metaphorically speaking, the heartbeat of our own existence. I'm not suggesting it is superior to the individual in consciousness and self-awareness, but that it contains all knowledge within it. Pantheism, perhaps, is a realization of one's place with regard to Nature. I make the parallel for sake that the Universe is (presumably) eternal, whereas we are only temporary. Now, this may or may not be consistent with Spinoza's Pantheism. Also, to be clear, I do not think we owe anything to the Universe-- nothing more than a rational pursuit of knowledge and self-interest. Therein lies my purpose for this thread, more or less. @Dante, I agree with everything you said RE: Hotu's point.

@ico, I see your point, and generally speaking I agree. The extent to which we ought to appreciate reality is by being rational, and nothing more. The Universe is not a conscious volitional entity as humans are. Thank you for clarification, I see mental gyrations as a healthy thing. @Tanaka, this is the exact point I have tried to make to 2046; I am not describing what is seen as the 'Christian God' (which, by your logic wouldn't warrant consideration), but a definition consisting of 'God is the Universe', and vise versa. By that definition, it is neither vague, nor arbitrary. Redundant? Perhaps, as referenced nicely by ico and Eiuol. To clarify, it is important to consider the premise without discarding it for sake that the word 'God' was mentioned.

@Dante, I see this viewpoint as bringing nothing for you to the table. For me, a lifelong Christian, it's important in helping me realize "Existence Exists". I think Pantheism is a good place for me to start. I agree with you and Zoid, that it does cause confusion for a fully-fledged Oist, but for somebody who has grown up as a Christian, it's not incredibly confusing and important for me to grasp if I am to make a transition to Oism. @nanite, I had also read several quotes from Einstein and have gotten the same impression. I see pantheism as a more rational viewpoint than deism, for sake that deism still includes the supernatural (outside of existence), while pantheism does not. Thank you for your input.

Thank you, freestyle, that completely answers my question. This is what I had thought. Thanks also for the references. In discussing with Eiuol in the chat, the problem with 'God is the Universe and vise versa' is a double-assignment of terms such that one of them becomes irrelevant. One must be parsed out in order to finally get to the axiom "Existence Exists".

@Eiuol, I am not implying the Universe is "that which is inherently Good", insofar as I am suggesting that which is inherently necessary for our sustenance. So I do agree with the first part of your point - using Nature to further your own existence. However, I digress with your last point and will suggest that some force does determine how things occur, in the form of various limitations of the laws of physics. @2046, I believe the reference to 'God' has caused you to not consider my question, sadly. If existence is all that exists, non-existence does not exist in any way shape or form. Objectivism validates atheism on the basis (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's no rational reasoning to believe in the arbitrary. It's a matter of semantics, I believe. The Universe and God, used interchangeably as Pantheism suggests, are not arbitrary. The Universe we live in is NOT arbitrary, it is measurable. You're confusing God in atheistic/theistic terms (a god which exists apart of the universe), with God in Pantheistic terms (god is the universe, vise versa). The two definitions are intrinsically different.

What, in practice, makes Pantheism an invalid concept? This is the crux of my question.

Perhaps I'm mistaken in that last part: "so as to not destroy it". Do we have the right to exist without reverence of the Universe? Yes However, legal issues aside, would it be immoral to litter or destroy Nature in any way? I see it to be yes. Nature is conducive to our life. I'm not suggesting that an individual species can destroy the Universe (the eternal?), or perhaps Earth, since in doing so we would destroy ourselves first. It is in our self-interests to not adversely harm the environment in which we live. That does not imply alarmist thought.

To what extent are the two compatible? Pantheism - The Universe is 'God', 'God' is the Universe. It's not a belief in an arbitrary, as nature is real, observable, and measurable. It is also consistent with Rand's notes of a "benevolent universe". It does not imply, from what I've gathered, that we owe anything to the Universe or that we are subservient to the Universe. It simply denotes that we ought to appreciate the Universe so as to not destroy it -- that would be against our rational interests. I'm curious.

Why not make the government a 'business' for protecting individual liberties? The government can 'sell' goods and services -- Health-care? Education? The government can charge 'fees' on public services -- Transit systems? Heck, the government can even accept donations from individuals, if they truly need it. But the point is clear: the government cannot initiate force in order to gain value.

"Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself... The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer—because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut." - Francisco d'Anconia I thought this quote would help discussion. Sex is a reflection of an individual's inner values.