Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intrinsic Good

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(Mod's note: Split from earlier thread. - sNerd)

Objectivism rejects the idea that value exists inherently or intrinsically in a thing, a person or an action.
I don't understand how this sentence fits into Objectivism. For example if the social system of capitalism is not intrinsically good, then how can you argue against socialists? They could just counter any argument you give by saying that, from your viewpoint you may be right, but from the viewpoint of the poor, you are wrong. You are then reduced to defending capitalism by justifying it in the eyes of every possible observer, ie your main argument would be that capitalism produces the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore it is good.

Only by saying that capitalism is intrinsically good, that it prevents the initiation of force which is intrinsically bad, can you argue that capitalism does not have to be justified by references to the greatest good to the greatest number.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't understand how this sentence fits into Objectivism. For example if the social system of capitalism is not intrinsically good, then how can you argue against socialists? They could just counter any argument you give by saying that, from your viewpoint you may be right, but from the viewpoint of the poor, you are wrong. You are then reduced to defending capitalism by justifying it in the eyes of every possible observer, ie your main argument would be that capitalism produces the greatest good for the greatest number, therefore it is good.

Only by saying that capitalism is intrinsically good, that it prevents the initiation of force which is intrinsically bad, can you argue that capitalism does not have to be justified by references to the greatest good to the greatest number.

yesindeed, you substituted capitalism for value there, and that's not quite right. Capitalism is a political concept. Rand was specific about what values are, and how to evaluate them.

Don't mistake contextualism for subjectivism. The "standard of value" is that which is proper for man's life. But the specific choice to pursue is yours. the choice of values is contextual to you, but not subjective. So therefore, Objectivism says you should be productive, and act as a trader, but it doesn't say what profession you should choose. Choice of pursuits is contextual, not subjective. It's not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understood correctly, you are saying that capitalism is not a value but the social system that makes values possible. Is that right?

What about a sex orgy that is entered into by all parties willingly? Is this not an example of something that is intrinsically bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you'd have to evaluate that using the proper standard (your life). If it has no side effects for you and the gains are very good then it would be okay. The problem here is probably that a lot of people don't quite know how to judge the long-term effects of their actions, so for them it would be much harder to determine if it's good for them or not. But still, giving it the best effort you can is infinitely better than giving up because it's too hard :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understood correctly, you are saying that capitalism is not a value but the social system that makes values possible. Is that right?

No, just that capitalism is a political concept, and so comparing it to ethical concepts that relate to individual choices is confusing. You can analyize in an ethical framework, but analyze it correctly. To just toss it out as an example muddies the waters.

Ms. Rand said "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your life is its purpose." So what you can say about someting in general is "Is it in any way anti-life, or not". In the realm of individual choices however, once you've said someting about a certain thing in general, there may still be all sorts of contexts that cause you to value it not at all, or to value it greatly. It is not sufficient to argue that you would not value and hence not do something, therefore it is inherenlty bad. I think that's the point that is being made. People want to argue the topic from their point of view or their context, or their experience with strippers. Proper argument here is against a standard. Tell me why its anti-life...

Capitalism is inherenlty pro-life. The Objectivist virtues are pro-life. What Objectivist virtue does stripping specifically contradict? If it is not anti-life per se, then you go the context to see if you can say its ethically wrong. i.e. you examine the context of the person's life, and what they are pursuing. Subjectivists, skip the whole standard part and just say, "if I value it it's good." Intrinsicists say "Because things have intrinsic value, all rational people would value something that is good; therefore, if many people, (or even just I) don't value it, it must be inherently wrong." There you have whim vs. the mob.

I think of it like this. Objectivism says "Be productive, act as a trader." What I choose as a profession is purely contextual. Are there still ethical dilemmas I can encounter in my context? sure. It is wrong to choose journalism as a career if I am engergized by engineering moreso than journalism.

What about a sex orgy that is entered into by all parties willingly? Is this not an example of something that is intrinsically bad?

You tell me why its intrinsically bad. Walk through the analysis. Why is it anti-life in and of itself?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You tell me why its intrinsically bad. Walk through the analysis. Why is it anti-life in and of itself?
It is anti-life because each individual does not care about any other individual there, only about satisfying his or her lust. There are no emotional connections made and the whole act becomes a physical one, which is degrading to all involved. If the person did care about any individual involved then they would pursue a monogamous relationship with that person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of a good way of illustrating contextual value, and how value presupposes a valuer:

Kryptonite is BAD for superman.

Barring the indirect negative effects of kryptonite having on the helpfullness of superman to men, kryptonite has no value to man, unless of course it can be manufactured into something usefull, i.e. usefull to the LIFE of man.

Kryptonite in itself has no value. Only when APPLIED to an entity's life functions does it attain value. Therefore since it hinders superman's ability to live qua superman, it is bad FOR him.

Yesindeed: that does not tell us why it is bad in itself. You have only explained how it is bad within the context of a rationally self interested life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be a little helpful if someone explained what "intrinsic" really means, you know; I think that's yesindeed's main difficulty. Intrinsicism is an epistomological position. (It's a little complicated, Peikoff explains it very well in OPAR.)

Applied to ethics, it means you think that an act is good or bad in and of itself without reference to circumstances; ethical principles are usually phrased in the form of commandments. "Thou shalt not lie," and so forth. The problem with this is that there are contexts in which the only moral thing to do is to lie, to lie wholeheartedly and without guilt, such as when someone is pointing a gun at you and asking you where your child is. Intrinsic good/bad doesn't account for this situation; it would have you tell a kidnapper where you kid is! How would this possibly be a good act? It's not good for you, it's not good for your child, it's good for the kidnapper! Intrinsicism thinks that good and evil exist without reference to beneficiaries, results, or intentions.

So, if you were to say that Capitalism is intrinsically good, you'd be saying that it's still good even without the existence of human beings or trade! The opposite of this viewpoint isn't subjectivism, where Capitalism is good because I say it is, but Objectivism, where I say "we have these circumstances, these conditions, and given those conditions we conclude that Capitalism is good."

So, to argue against a subjectivist, you simply ask "so you're saying that people don't need to eat? Why don't you stop eating, then?" Or "So you don't care if you live in filthy and are afflicted with hundreds of diseases no one knows how to treat? Go do it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is anti-life because each individual does not care about any other individual there, only about satisfying his or her lust. There are no emotional connections made and the whole act becomes a physical one, which is degrading to all involved. If the person did care about any individual involved then they would pursue a monogamous relationship with that person.

None of these things are necessarily true. There is no reason why one orgy member wouldn't necessarily care for the other participants. There is no reason why none of the orgy members would have no emotional connections. There is no reason to assume the a "physical only" act or experience is necessarily a degrading one. A person can care for another person, even in a sexual relationship, without necessitating the pursuit of a long term monogamous relationship.

These are more of your judeo-christian values speaking, not values based on individual, objective contexts.

So, you are a self-professed christian, admitted your not an Objectivist, and virtually all of your posts so far have been arguments or opinions against Objectivism. Why are you here, participating in a forum which has the explicit purposes of learning about Objectivism and promoting that philosophy? Which books on Objectivism have you actually read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is anti-life because each individual does not care about any other individual there, only about satisfying his or her lust. There are no emotional connections made and the whole act becomes a physical one, which is degrading to all involved. If the person did care about any individual involved then they would pursue a monogamous relationship with that person.

While RationalCop is giving you the third degree, I'm going to assume that you are sincere, and parse your argument. Your basic syllogism is:

An orgy is a purely physical act [of lust satisfaction] where emotion should be involved.

Purely physical acts like this are degrading to all involved.

Therefore, something that is degrading is anti-life.

And I told you if you could show it was anti-life, it would be generally bad.

My issue is with your claim of degradation. Why are they degrading in all situations, to all involved? As it is, its just a claim. Its the equivalent of saying "Purely physical acts are generally bad", which ends up being a circular argument.

Purely physical acts are generally bad for all [in place of degrading]

Generally bad things are anti-life, therefore purely physical acts like orgies are generally bad.

You are pre-assuming what you set out to prove, or "begging the question". This is something I commonly encounter when arguing with Christians. It takes about 2 or 3 steps for them to always be pushed back to "because God says it is so" as a reason.

I'm not trying to argue for orgies. They are not for me personally. But I am trying to show you what you are going to encounter here. Objectivists won't long put up with the "it is so, because it is so" type of arguments, and Christians are prone to them (I know, I used to be one...). If you're going to stand firm with type of argumentation, it can't be reasoned with, as you have accepted your faith as a fundamental means of knowing something to be true. You may find some losing patience with it and suggesting that you read some of the basic literature first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While RationalCop is giving you the third degree,

Hey, it's what I do. :lol:

I'm going to assume that you are sincere

Me too. I'm assuming he's sincerely a Christian and somewhat out of place on an Objectivist forum. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason why one orgy member wouldn't necessarily care for the other participants. There is no reason why none of the orgy members would have no emotional connections. There is no reason to assume the a "physical only" act or experience is necessarily a degrading one.

I do not mean to pick on you but I do not think this represents anything close to what Ayn Rand had to say about the topic of sex.

Treating sex as a mere physical experience is psychologically harmful. Not because sex is bad, but because sex is, and should be more than that.

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important…[sex should]involve … a very serious relationship…. (“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 8.}

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind – by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. (“Of Living Death” TO, Oct. 1968, 2.)
To treat sexual encounter solely as ‘physical’ is equal to pretending that the mind need not be involved in the actions of the body. Casual, value-free sex is harmful. To what degree? It depends on frequency. If you were to often and indiscriminately engage in sex in this way, without regard for the rational reasons for the act (the spiritual part of sharing/celebrating mutual values), doing so would be programming your mind and body to respond to anything but that single person of your highest value. You would be creating mind-body split - your sexual choices would no longer reflect your choosen values. This would have a profound negative impact on your self esteem.

A one time 'physical' sexual encounter would not of course create such negative effects.

According to that doctrine (Christianity), man’s sexual capacity – regardless of how it is exercises or motivated, not merely its abuses, not unfastidious indulgence or promiscuity, but the capacity as such – is sinful or deprived. (“Of Living Death” TO, Oct. 1968, 1.)

Miss Rand criticizes here religious view of sex (and rightfully so) but notice what she regards as abuses of sexual capacity.

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore pleasure is the standard of morality…. Pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action….….(“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 7.)

How can an orgy be a response to values? What rational value can one derive from an orgy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism rejects the idea that value exists inherently or intrinsically in a thing, a person or an action.
I don't understand how this sentence fits into Objectivism. For example if the social system of capitalism is not intrinsically good, then how can you argue against socialists? They could just counter any argument you give by saying that, from your viewpoint you may be right, but from the viewpoint of the poor, you are wrong.
I think you may be using "instrinsic" differently than most of the other people here. Intrinsically good, from my standpoint, would mean that something is good regardless of any factors/context.

OTOH, as I understand it, the goodness of capitalism would depend on whether a person implicitly accepted life as their highest value (or some similar conditional.) Capitalism wouldn't serve any particular value to someone who no longer wished to act.

Within the context of "rational" men, it might be correct to say that capitalism is good for everyone, but I don't think this should be taken to mean that it is intrinsically good. There's still a premised argument that leads to saying that capitalism is good for all xxx, and if the premises were false, then capitalism wouldn't be good. Intrinsic values don't have (relevant) premises.

Only by saying that capitalism is intrinsically good, that it prevents the initiation of force which is intrinsically bad, can you argue that capitalism does not have to be justified by references to the greatest good to the greatest number.
Let's hope not!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean to pick on you but I do not think this represents anything close to what Ayn Rand had to say about the topic of sex.

Fortunately, I don't feel "picked on". Ayn Rand said a lot of things, and not all of them were integrally tied to her philosophy, Objectivism. Also, I did not represent that what I said was the same as what Ayn Rand said. Ayn Rand said many things that spelled out the principles of her philosopic system, and Ayn Rand also said many things that represented her individual application of her philosophy. One can disagree with the later statements and still agree with the philosophic principles. Ayn Rand also said words to the effect, think for yourself, don't just believe what I say.

Treating sex as a mere physical experience is psychologically harmful.
You are saying this as a universally true "value" at all times and in all cases therefore I require that you prove that it is true 100% of the time for all people.

I want you to also prove to me that say, 5 or 6 (just for example purposes) people engaged in sexual activity together could not possibly share deep emotional bonds for each other based on shared values.

A one time 'physical' sexual encounter would not of course create such negative effects.

Well, after a long paragraph of trying to disprove what I said, you throw this sentence in to reinforce what I said, which I will summarize as; there is nothing intrinsically immoral or harmful about orgies. The rest of what I said remains true. None of the things that yesindeed said in the post I responded to are necessarily true.

The quote about hedonism is non-sequitur since not all participants of orgies necessarily have to be practitioners of a hedonist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is nothing intrinsically immoral or harmful about orgies.

There is nothing intrinsically anything about anything. :worry:

However, objectively orgies are the very height of promiscuous behavior and are a total perversion of sex as defined by Objectivism. The Objectivist position completely rejects orgies and promiscuity.

I think that needs to be said in this thread at least as much as the rejection of intrinsicism. If it isn't said, then someone's going to get the wrong idea: this should be a rejection of intrinsicism, not a support of orgies.

The quote about hedonism is non-sequitur since not all participants of orgies necessarily have to be practitioners of a hedonist philosophy.

Do you think any of them could be a practitioner of the philosophy of Objectivism? I can't think of any circumstance under which anyone who practices Objectivism would ever willingly participate in an orgy. I am open to the possibility of an example, but I will bet fair odds that any such example would be quite bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to JMeganSnow about lying to save your child:

Lying is still intrinsically bad, but in a situation in which you can only choose evil or evil, choosing the lesser evil is the moral course. Similarly if you are forced into an orgy, then you cannot be blamed, but you should still feel revulsion after the event because an orgy is wrong. Therefore what Inspector says is key:

I can't think of any circumstance under which anyone who practices Objectivism would ever willingly participate in an orgy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Objectivist position completely rejects orgies and promiscuity.

I've never seen orgies mentioned in an ethical context in any of Ayn Rand's writings. Where did you get this from?

Treating sex as a mere physical experience is psychologically harmful. Not because sex is bad, but because sex is, and should be more than that.

Well, I think treating sex as a mere physical experience is a mistake, not just because sex is good, but because sex is not just a physical experience. Not even getting a massage is "just physical." A massage is emotional-- pleasure is emotion. It's practical-- you can get things done without being hindered by sore muscles. It's cognitive-- you can think more clearly without being distracted by pain. etc.

And sex effects a person in much more complex and profound ways, psychologically. But I think "just physical" was maybe not meant so literally (just based on what I gathered from the context). In debating a Christian, "just physical" can very likely mean anything short of a marriage relationship.

A one time 'physical' sexual encounter would not of course create such negative effects.

The way I look at it, it is true that time horizon is very important in judging the morality of any sexual relationship. It's not so simple as "casual sex is only okay as long as it's a one night stand." (I don't think that's what you were trying to express-- that's an admittedly liberal interpretation of what I quoted :worry: ). Values are always to be taken into account, but the significance and scope varies depending on what one's trying to gain from the sexual relationship.

If a man is looking for a long-term sexual partner, obviously she would have to be highly compatible in terms of sense of life, explicit and implicit philosophy, psychology, lifestyles, etc. This is someone who he would have to trust-- because his health and happiness is going to be inextricably tied to her. And he'll have to enjoy her company outside of the bedroom, too, most likely. Etc.

But many types of profitable relationships are possible that are not so serious and involved. I believe it's possible for a person to be attracted to someone's sexual identity, upon first seeing her, because he knows there's something he likes or some way she'd be compatible or that they would compliment each other. I think that kind of connection, if it's intense enough and reciprocated in the other person's evaluation of him, could conceivably be the basis of a rewarding short-term sexual relationship, even if he doesn't know anything much about the person besides that they have that connection (some information about her character would be necessary for health reasons, though). Of course, it would be reckless to marry someone, or move into her apartment based on just that. (I've made the mistake of doing the latter before! Not recommended!) But for a short term ("casual") sexual relationship, I would argue it can be good.

It's not "just physical," but it's not a major commitment either.

Promiscuity is a separate issue. A promiscuous person sleeps with someone regardless of values. He doesn't even have to be attracted to her sexual identity in the sense I mean it. It's neurotic. It's an attempt to "be loved" or "be free," or possibly something that doesn't even have to do with the other person or what she represents.

That's how I interpret Ayn Rand's stance in the Playboy interview. A rational person is attracted to someone who embodies his highest values. Just because you know that someone embodies some of your highest values doesn't ensure that you can have a long term relationship with that person. But, in certain special circumstances, it might be a good basis for a sexual relationship. It's not "casual" in the sense of being disinterested or whimsical. But it might justifiably be "casual" as opposed to an attempt at establishing a serious relationship.

In my understanding, Objectivism's stance on sexuality is neither hedonistic, or prudish-- and exposes these two as a false alternative.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen orgies mentioned in an ethical context in any of Ayn Rand's writings.
One thing to remember is that the concept "orgy" in Rand's time was broader than it seems to be now -- the term "Bacchanalia" would be closer. If you have the CD, you can scan for "orgy", and then see what her evaluation of orgies was -- clearly she condemned them. By putting that together with your knowledge of the Objectivist ethics, it is very difficult to evade the conclusion that Rand would have specifically condemned orgies with direct words, had she been asked the direct question "Miss Rand, do you specifically condemn orgies?".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Treating sex as a mere physical experience is psychologically harmful.

I already gave my explanation but I will repeat.

To treat sex as a physical act (which it is not) is to ignore mental aspects of it from your consciousness, it is to remove value-ing from it, it is evading its full meaning.

Ayn Rand said that there is one 'commandment' in Objectivism "Thou shall think". Objectivist philosophy rejects mind-body dichotomy. Under no circumstances you should engage in activity without valuing (any activity not just sexual one - unless it is an emergency situation (which sex is not) in which you may not have time to perform full evaluation and you may need to relay on your emotional "instinct" (probably not the best word to use but it will due).

I want you to also prove to me that say, 5 or 6 (just for example purposes) people engaged in sexual activity together could not possibly share deep emotional bonds for each other based on shared values.
No the proof is on you on this one. I say that sex is a response to one's highest values a person can find in a human being. This person may not be your total ideal but this person is the best reflection of your values that was available to you. It is apparent to me that there can be only one 'best' person at a time.

Ayn Rand did provide one scenario in which there could be two. One situation would be when a woman who is married disappears and is presumed dead; her husband - who always loved her - remarries, and then she reappears.

An orgy does not apply.

Q: Is an open relationship consisting of one man and two women immoral?

AR: Not necessarily (Miss Rand provided the above scenario), though usually it would be.

(Ayn Rand answers - the best of her Q & A, pg.138)

Well, after a long paragraph of trying to disprove what I said, you throw this sentence in to reinforce what I said, which I will summarize as; there is nothing intrinsically immoral or harmful about orgies.

I absolutely did not do that. I only illustrated that the degree to which this behaviour is harmful depends on it's frequency. Even one act goes against your self esteem because it is an evation of evaluation (removing your mind from the actions of your body) but if you keep repeating it that is when the conditioning process becomes very significant.

The quote about hedonism is non-sequitur since not all participants of orgies necessarily have to be practitioners of a hedonist philosophy.

You did not answer my previous question. What rational value can one derive from an orgy? If there is no rational value how is this behaviour not an example of hedonism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that sex is a response to one's highest values a person can find in a human being. This person may not be your total ideal but this person is the best reflection of your values that was available to you. It is apparent to me that there can be only one 'best' person at a time.

You start this comment by defining sex as a response to highest values in a person, then conclude by saying you have to have one "best" person. The latter does not follow from the former logically. Is it not possible to respond to the highest values in multiple people? Should I have just one friend, because they are my best friend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to expand on what I already wrote.

The fact that according to Objectivism morality is contextual - does not mean that anything goes because you can never be definite about anything. Let me illustrate.

Lying is harmful because it is an attempt to fake reality. For this reason it is considered immoral. However, there is a context in which it would be morally justifiable to lie, for example lying to a murderer about the whereabouts of your loved one.

This contextual exception does not change the fact that lying is harmful.

Now, how much harm should you expect from one act of lying? Well it depends on the significance of the lie, the type of a lie, right? One act of lying can possibly have very negative consequences but it may not.

This again does not change the fact that lying is harmful.

Now what if you engage in the act of lying often. The harm it inflicts compounds. Can you see how much more profound the negative effects would be to your own self?

It is the same with treating sex as purely physical act.

It is harmful because you split the evaluation of your mind from the actions of your body. Any such act where you ignore your mind is immoral according to Objectivism.

The harm to you from one such act may not be significant but it may be. This does not change the fact that treating sex as purly physical act is harmful. Doing it often is going to compund the negative effects on your own self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not possible to respond to the highest values in multiple people? Should I have just one friend, because they are my best friend?

I believe that Rand said that this was possible, but that it would take "giants" to be able to emotioinally sustain such a relationship without it becoming immoral. Meaning of course that it is not intrinsically bad, but contextually bad for all but a handful of people. :worry:

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already gave my explanation but I will repeat.

Your explanation is insufficient to convince me.

Ayn Rand said that there is one 'commandment' in Objectivism "Thou shall think".
Yes, on that we agree. This is why I am not in complete agreement with everything Ayn Rand said. Ultimately it is my thinking and decisions that I have to live with, not hers.

I say that sex is a response to one's highest values a person can find in a human being.

I say that it is possible for more than two people to share deep emotional committments sufficient that they could all gain value from a sexual encounter with each other. This is probably not representative of the typical orgy, but in evaluating the morality of orgies, one need not limit their evaluation to that which is typical.

I understand what you are saying. I'm saying that I don't necessarily agree that sex has to be that way to avoid being harmful or immoral. However, I will quote Inspector who seems to have understood the main point I have been trying to make;

I think that needs to be said in this thread at least as much as the rejection of intrinsicism. If it isn't said, then someone's going to get the wrong idea: this should be a rejection of intrinsicism, not a support of orgies.

I'm not supporting orgies per se, I'm rejecting the idea that orgies are acontexually immoral.

I absolutely did not do that.
You absolutely did. You said;

A one time 'physical' sexual encounter would not of course create such negative effects.

Then you say;

Even one act goes against your self esteem because it is an evation of evaluation

As you can see, this is a contradiction. I agree with your former statement, but I would not place an arbitrary one time in the beginning of it. Objectively, and without contradicting yourself again, how many times would one have engage in an orgy before it is harmful?

I have more to comment on when I have time, however, there is at least a cursory argument present that my position may well be against an official Objectivist position. If I agree that this is the case, I will likely stop arguing my position so that I am not at cross purposes with the function of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You start this comment by defining sex as a response to highest values in a person, then conclude by saying you have to have one "best" person. The latter does not follow from the former logically. Is it not possible to respond to the highest values in multiple people? Should I have just one friend, because they are my best friend?

This is best illustrated in Atlas. Dagny has a relationship with Hank and then she meets John Galt. Eventhough both men are very close reflections of Dagny's choosen values and share her 'sense of life' she can not longer sleep with Hank. She found a higher ideal in a person.

A friend is very different than a lover. Those two relationships are very different in nature and thus have different requirements (Ayn Rand stressed that point often).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation is insufficient to convince me.

I am not trying to. I am applying Objectvist principles to this topic. If your position is that I am doing it incorrectly, that I am making a mistake, by all means please explain my error (it is not evident to me but if it is to you - I would like to hear it.).

I say that it is possible for more than two people to share deep emotional committments sufficient that they could all gain value from a sexual encounter with each other.

Give me an example of sufficient emotional committments under this scenario.

You absolutely did. You said;

QUOTE

A one time 'physical' sexual encounter would not of course create such negative effects.

Then you say;

QUOTE

Even one act goes against your self esteem because it is an evation of evaluation

It is not a contradiction because I was refering to the degree of harm inflicted - see my post after it for explanation. Even one act of splitting your mind from the actions of your body is harmful same way as one act of lying is harmful.

The degree to which it will inflict harm to your psychology (again notice the term - degree) depends on frequency because it has a compunding effect.

Objectively, and without contradicting yourself again, how many times would one have engage in an orgy before it is harmful?

How many times would one have to engage in an act of lying before it is harmful?

My answer is evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...