Objectivism 101

DavidIg : can people really be that stupid?.


No, I think they really believe they are "born a criminal".

I did some stupid things when I was younger, but once I got the hang of philosophy, IR's, objective ethics etc, I always try and do the right thing.....but this bunch seem to prefer the comfort of childhood and literally hate the notion of learning how to be decent.

" ...I got the hang of philosophy...".

How did I know you'd get a thrill out of cartoons?

There seems to be quite a few people reading this thread, and they're waiting on the pseudo-philosophers to inform them how they determine right from wrong.....

don't hold your breathe folks, LOL.

So the bottom line for JJ and David is that if you do not agree with objectivism, you are a psychopathic tyrant, with a criminal Jew mentality.

I would agree with you two if only you would stop calling right from wrong objective.

existential potential : I would agree with you


It is not a matter of agreeing with anyone, that is the point.

Right from wrong is objectively established because you know that if you violate another's individual rights and sovereignty, they have the right to violate yours, to your death. It is the law of human nature, objectively established, that one has to subjectively end one's own life, so by violating another's individual rights and sovereignty, you are subjectively ending your own well being.

"God said" subjectively established, defies the law of human nature, to have dominion over another, by committing a fraud, a criminal act.

Because we are all uniquely distinct individuals, labels of distinction are only used to communicate ideas. We call them Jews because they are who perpetrates this fraud promoted by Judaism. Now that you understand where this mentality originated, I will call them criminals, but you can still call the Jews.

Your right. Generally, if someone attacks me, I will defend myself, to whatever extent I deem necessary. But it is only objective, to the extent of a closed system, and if you cannot understand that, your a fool. In the open ended universe, I can do what I like, as can you, nothing tells anyone otherwise.

I have neither said, nor "spewed" any such thing. It is rather hilarious though, given that almost everyone else here knows i'm an atheist. What you have here is a strawman, but what is even more pathetic is that it is based on the bigotry which you toted in here with you--it's certainly not based on any post i've made here.

If you want to eat your guts up with inane hatred, help yourself. It certainly does me no harm.

existential potential : In the open ended universe

No, a snake will strike if it feels threatened in its universe. If there are living organisms out in space (open ended universe) they will strike if feels threatened, based on the law of self-preservation.

Even microbes comply with the law of self-preservation.

JJ,

Why do you persist with this incessant high school droning about "God" being used as a "source of authority" for human conventions? Every non-believer knows this!

But to cite "Jews" (alone) as being the epitome of this common mental palliative merely indicates the well documented mental problem called "an authoritarian personality" involving obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Notice your ridiculously repetitive use of "head-banging" "criminal mentality" and anal references which combined with the infantile scapegoating, are classic symptoms.

Get help.

"Setanta Said", Is projecting the same ****-stained subjective mentality as "god said". Just because you claim to be an atheist doesn't mean you don't project the same ****-stained subjective mentality.

As a truth seeker, I love the true. A bigot is one that is intolerant of the true, because they hate the true, that they are a criminal.

I rest my case.

fresco : But to cite "Jews" (alone)

No I don't. I am only putting it into the context of Judaism.

It is you that believes that "one is born a Jew", Jewish race, not me. Because you believe in Judaism, you think I'm singling out individuals. See how intrenched you are in the Jewish mentality? Outside the context of Judaism, there is no such thing as a Jew.


Pull your head out of the twilight zone, head banger.

fresco : I rest my case.

You have conceded that you have the criminal mentality of "might makes right". Tell me something I don't already know.

Jenifer, you seem to have this absurd notion that everyone who challenges Objectivism somehow loves the Jews. I honestly don't agree with the belief that God chose a select group of people to be privileged and receive the "truth" based solely on authority, but I by no means believe that all claims to subjective authority in the course of human history go back to Judaism. That's a incredibly ridiculous claim.

As the debate about personal rights. I think most people would recognize that a morality system must be constructed around some kind of contractual system. "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." The problem, though, is that the specific actions put under contract are subjective.

Capital punishment can be translated into: "I'll submit to my own execution for certain crimes if you will do the same." Those who are against capital punishment would argue that it is not morally valid to enter such a contract. And, even if there are no higher level moral authorities to say whether it is moral or not, then the decision about what agreements are settled upon becomes subjective. It still doesn't sort out the philosophical problem of when a person enters the contract. Is abortion wrong because the thing being aborted is alive and therefore entitled to the contract against murder, or is it not alive yet and therefore not entitled to the contract (meaning abortion isn't murder)?

If we say that we can objectively establish a system of contractual ethics because, if we didn't, it would lead to the extinction of mankind, then we are implicitly placing the survival of the species as our first priority. Abortion is fine as long as it helps the species survive, but then we have to enter into arguments over whether it really does (overpopulation vs. slippery slope, etc. etc.) Even given the need for some kind of contract, it isn't impossible that a criteria different from the survival of mankind could be established.

A counterexample to the notion that a contractual agreement leading to survival is objectively moral: A factory owner employs a worker for almost no money whatsoever. The owner can easily pay the worker more at very little cost to himself, but he knows that the worker will not be able to find employment anywhere else and must accept the offer. As a result, the worker manages to survive when he would not have been able to otherwise, but only barely surviving. He is clearly being underpaid for his work. Both parties enter into the agreement, but I think most people would say that the owner is taking advantage of the worker and is acting unethically.

Of course you can dummy, but you RISK being jailed, injured or killed!!!
It's hardly complicated, ie, you respect my right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, and I'll respect yours, however, if you or anyone chooses do violate me, then you're at my mercy or the law's.

Ethics are a body of knowledge that apply to humans only, ie, we create them, they define how we're going to deal with each in the face of death and destruction, of course, you could switch your brain on and choose "life", but it seems as though reading mainstream philosophy's got you all confused.

How do you go about ordering fish and chips with such an ostentatious vocab?