Objectivism 101

DavidIg wrote:

Joe.
Tell us how you determine right from wrong in an objective manner...with any luck you won't confuse yourself.

You don't believe in objective morality? That makes you a pretty poor objectivist, David. Watch out, they might kick you out of the clubhouse.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

DavidIg wrote:
Joe.
Tell us how you determine right from wrong in an objective manner...with any luck you won't confuse yourself.

You don't believe in objective morality? That makes you a pretty poor objectivist, David. Watch out, they might kick you out of the clubhouse.

Non answer....as expected.

0 Replies

As I stated in 2006:

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2436004#2436004]There can be no such thing as subjective or relative morality. Therefore, if there is such a thing as "morality," it must be objective or absolute.[/url]
My thoughts on moral relativism can be found here.

Now you get to respond to my request:

Why don't you explain to us again how morality is based on intersubjective agreement and how that can be reconciled with your new-found belief in objectivism.

0 Replies

joefromchicago : Spoken like a true acolyte in the temple of Rand:

Sorry to inform you, but I have never read any of Rand, only about her, so I can hardly be accused of being one of her worshippers. I am a truth-seeker and a follower of reality. Truth is my GOD! I don't worship anyone that puts on a sock puppet and then tries to play GOD.

So Joe, unless you are a clone of Edgar, I will ask you the same question, what qualifies the right to act by establishing right from wrong?

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

Sorry to inform you, but I have never read any of Rand, only about her, so I can hardly be accused of being one of her worshippers. I am a truth-seeker and a follower of reality. Truth is my GOD! I don't worship anyone that puts on a sock puppet and then tries to play GOD.

Coulda' fooled me. You certainly have the jargon down pat. But your unfamiliarity with Rand's works doesn't mean you're not a Randroid. It just means you're an uninformed Randroid. You'd be one of thousands.

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

So Joe, unless you are a clone of Edgar, I will ask you the same question, what qualifies the right to act by establishing right from wrong?

Aren't you a little, well, new to be asking if two well-established members of A2K are clones of each other? Spend a bit more time here -- you might actually develop enough cred to start questioning veterans' identities.

As for your question, I can't make any sense of it. If indeed you are asking me the same question you asked edgar, then I guess you're asking me "do you know the difference between right from wrong?" Are you asking on a definitional level? Or are you asking on a more practical level? If the former, then my answer is "yes." If the latter, then you'll have to give me some more information about what it is you are trying to distinguish as "right" from "wrong."

0 Replies

Joe,

It is a basic and defining question as to know if one is a criminal or not. A criminal by definition, is one that can not differentiate between right from wrong, either because they are brain dead or because they have a sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

As I stated in 2006:
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2436004#2436004]There can be no such thing as subjective or relative morality. Therefore, if there is such a thing as "morality," it must be objective or absolute.[/url]

My thoughts on moral relativism can be found here.

IOW, you have no real idea.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
As I stated in 2006:
[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2436004#2436004]There can be no such thing as subjective or relative morality. Therefore, if there is such a thing as "morality," it must be objective or absolute.[/url]

My thoughts on moral relativism can be found here.

IOW, you have no real idea.

Sorry you didn't understand all of that, David. Next time I respond to one of your posts, I'll have to remember to type slower.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

Joe,

It is a basic and defining question as to know if one is a criminal or not. A criminal by definition, is one that can not differentiate between right from wrong, either because they are brain dead or because they have a sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality.

Don't ya love how these geniuses and sub geniuses can't answer such a simple but important question Shocked

It's interesting that some of the members flirt with what sounds like Individualist philosophy, yet none are able to detail the basis of their regard for the individual.

0 Replies

Jenifer Johnson wrote:

Joe,

It is a basic and defining question as to know if one is a criminal or not. A criminal by definition, is one that can not differentiate between right from wrong, either because they are brain dead or because they have a sociopathic tyrant criminal mentality.

Gotta' keep reminding myself: objectivism threads bring out all the nuts.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

IOW, you have no real idea
Sorry you didn't understand all of that, David. Next time I respond to one of your posts, I'll have to remember to type slower.

You obviously either haven't noticed it, or are unable to comprehend it, but JJ and I have explained to you what IR's are and how they operate.
Could you copy and paste a few paragraphs on how you determine right from wrong for us......or is the subject a whole book length load of nonsense{as is typical of most philosophers}.

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

IOW, you have no real idea
Sorry you didn't understand all of that, David. Next time I respond to one of your posts, I'll have to remember to type slower.

You obviously either haven't noticed it, or are unable to comprehend it, but JJ and I have explained to you what IR's are and how they operate.
Could you copy and paste a few paragraphs on how you determine right from wrong for us......or is the subject a whole book length load of nonsense{as is typical of most philosophers}.

Nope, sorry David. I'd love to give you a complete how-to guide to determining right and wrong, and I am perfectly prepared to give it to you, but I still have an outstanding request to which you have yet to reply. It wouldn't be fair if you expected me to answer all of your questions but you never answered any of mine, now would it? Just to refresh your recollection, here it is for the third time:

Why don't you explain to us again how morality is based on intersubjective agreement and how that can be reconciled with your new-found belief in objectivism.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

[]
Nope, sorry David. Just to refresh your recollection, here it is for the third time:
Why don't you explain to us again how morality is based on intersubjective agreement and how that can be reconciled with your new-found belief in objectivism.

I'm never going to answer this question, at least not to you....so perhaps it's time you exited the thread huh Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

DavidIg wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I suspect we'll see loads of eloquence but minimal comprehension+ the rejection of reality and common sense to boot.

Well, I'm off to work. Got to go be evil to my fellow mn today. Hope you can convert me before it's too late.

Remember, this is a philosophy topic in the philosophy section of this message board, I expect people to either know their ****, or to shut their pieholes, ie, rubbishing philosophers or philosophical concepts without logical justification just won't do.

I can't do a damn thing for idiots or the evil.....one must have a degree of intelligence and decency to start with+I'm not here to be popular, I'm here to express the truth, ideally amongst "some" genuine truthseekers.

Don't get shitty.

0 Replies

An objects definition is objective in that it's definition reflects what the object is, thus A=A simply means a thing is what it is.....but it must be understood that a definition is open ended....we anticipate and are equipped to add further info that reflects what the object is......so extra details don't invalidate the objects nature{unless they contradict what we previously knew about it}.

Whilst the words and language that we use are interchangeable between cultures, the objects details are not, thus we can say that a apple is an apple by virtue of what we know about it, including the fact that it conforms to a life/time cycle....this process isn't magic, it's quite consistent, as such we can have confidence to say we "know" something about such an object.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Don't get shitty.

Don't wet your pants Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

A degree of moral absolutism based on genetic predisposition, or so one argument goes.

Nature versus nurture, and so the argument may continue.

0 Replies

Earlier, DavidIG wrote:

Remember, this is a philosophy topic in the philosophy section of this message board, I expect people to either know their ****, or to shut their pieholes

then, DavidIg wrote:

I'm never going to answer this question, at least not to you....

Well, it appears you took the "shut your piehole" option. Smart move.

DavidIg wrote:

so perhaps it's time you exited the thread huh

Now you're the thread police?

0 Replies

Joe.

**** off and stop being such a jerk, you remind me of those vindictive and petty fools who pop up in shows like "Days of our Lives"....so either make a genuine attempt to discuss the issues dictated by the thread or exit it.

0 Replies

Objectivism 101

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know