Matus1976

My original intention was to compare Rand's characterization of feminine beauty against the 'norms' of western society's concept of feminine beauty, which are usually considered to be shy, passive, demure, submissive, along with a slender delicate body and highlighted female body features. I thought for source material to use the movies which depict an unattractive woman being turned into an attractive one and told how to dress, act, etc, in order to be beautiful. For these I picked out She's All That, Miss Congeniality, and The Princess Diaries. Surprisingly I found Rand's depiction of beauty to be very similar to those, I was confused until I realized all three of these films focused on 'royal' feminine beauty, and not typical feminine beauty. One was being groomed to be a prom queen, one Miss United States, and one a literal princess, often they were directed to 'hold their heads high' and 'walk with purpose and elegance' quite different that the shy passive submissive femininity usually considered beautiful. The only thing that stood in stark contrast was the irrelevance of dress and makeup to Rand's conception of beauty, so the temporary conclusion I've drawn is that Rand's conception of feminine beauty is almost identical to the 'royal' idea of feminine beauty. Interesting. Also all three movies depicted the subjects as clumsy, unruly, unorganized, etc, even after they had been transformed into what would have been considered beauty.

I found this interesting article on the topic, which I've only skimmed so far http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/female-hero.html It points out Rand's unique view of gender but also some contradictions which present themselves through her writings on femininity.

Looking at the full quote in context, it does seem like this is something Lillian is thinking. Contrasting this with Francisco's description of Dagny a few pages later at the same party, it seems even more evident that the 'chained' comment was Lillian's thought

Looking at the full quote in context, it does seem like this is something Lillian is thinking.

Here's some of the source material I've gotten so far...relevant but yet to be edited.

Thanks everyone for suggestions so far. I'll add mine as I transcribe them. That line always bothered me. I read one reviewer suggesting that it was a thought of Lillian's, and not of opinion of Rand's, since it was Lillian's reaction to Dagny entering the room that solicited that response/passage. But given Rand's on record opinions it does not seem unreasonable that it was her's. Just women for the purposes of this paper Excellent suggestion!

Forced to take a 'social science' course and ending up in Sociology, for the assigned paper I decided to contrast the gender conceptions of beauty from common media sources against those portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. I'm pouring over the text again for the goodies, but looking for help from fellow Rand admirers, point out your favorite examples that convey the concepts of feminine beauty, such as Rearden seeing Dagny for the first time, etc. I particularly like the way Rand conveys beauty in the feminine context and it stands as a stark contrast to popular conventions, where women are often portrayed as shy, passive, demure, dependent, etc. Where Rand's beautiful heroines are strong, confident, capable, intelligent, etc.

I realize this is an old thread, but it is still an interesting topic. I just came across this in a recent issue of Scientific American Mind which empirically answers the perfect pitch question about innate talent vs practice. "In an experiment published in 2006 my colleagues and I gave a test for perfect pitch to two l arge groups of music conservatory students - Mandarin speakers at the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing and speakers of English or of another nontone language at Eastman School of Music in Rochester, N.Y. - and found that the prevalence of perfect pitch was indeed far higher among the Mandarin speakers. ... But because the Central Conservatory students were all Chinese, the results could mean that genes that spur the development of perfect pitch are just more prevalent among Chinese people. To decide which explanation was correct, ,y colleagues and I gave a test for perfect pitch to University of Southern California music conservatory students, including English speakers and three groups of East Asian students divided by how well they spoke their native tone language. Among the English speakers, the prevalence of perfect pitch was just 8 percent among those who had begun music training at or before age five and 1 percent among those who had begun training between ages six and nine. The statistics were similar among the East Asian students who were not at all fluent in their native tone language. In contrast the students who were very fluent tone language speakers performed extraordinarily well on our test: 92 percent of those who had begun musical training at or before age five had perfect pitch as did 67 percent of those who started music lessons between ages six and nine. Those students who spoke a tone language moderately well fell between the two extremes." Perfect Pitch: Language Wins Out over Genetics - Diana Deutsch et al www.acoustics.org/press/157th/deutsch.html

Wow Jeff! Really! Objectivism uses terms in ways that are different than the norm! Oh my god, you've found the one fatal flaw of Objectism! Wow! Guess I'll just be burning my copy of Atlas shrugged and wipping out Das Kaptical... The Fact that Rand took some words and used them in a different AND VERY SPECIFIC way, was obvious and very intentional, and the reason was because the hi-jacking of those words is a manifestation of corrupt and malicious philosophical systems and, since words are the only way which we can express ideas, necessarily subjugate the very ideas so critical to human understanding (identification and categorization are critical components of conceptual integration) Given that, can you think of any reason why it might be bad if society takes the idea of giving up something of a lesser value in order to gain something of a higher value and uses the exact same word (hence, idea) to describe that as someone who gives up something of a higher value in order to gain something of a lesser value? Is it, perhaps, because they want to hide the moral distinction between the two? To sneak the later into the grouping of the former, to elevate 'sacrifice' as something that is always good, and sneak in there horrible things which hurt you but benefit someone else under this label that seems to mean something good. Rand was trying to reclaim these words to rightfully recognize particular aspects. Why do we even use the term sacrifice to mean 'giving up something lesser for something greater' when what we are actually doing is rationally prioritizing values Look to dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice We have infact both meanings present 3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value. Tell me, do you think in a rational language, that a word ought to mean both one things AND IT'S DIRECT OPPOSITE? Lets look at it’s origin and change in usage over time. More from Dictionary.com Origin: 1225–75 sacrificium, equiv. to sacri- (comb. form of sacer holy) + -fic-, comb. form of facere to make [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sacrificium : sacer, sacred; see sacred + facere, to make; see dhē- in Indo-European roots.] sac'ri•fic'er n. Here we see sacrifice is “to make holy” “Sense of "something given up for the sake of another" is first recorded 1592” “Baseball sense first attested 1880. The verb is first recorded c.1290” So in 1250 Sacrifice meant “to make holy”, by 1592 sacrifice as giving up something for the sake of another is first recorded. By My nifty Oxford Universal Dictionary, which traces changes in definitions over time, shows that in 1697 that sacrifice was used to mean “A person or thing that falls into the power of an enemy or destructive agency” it notes, amusingly, that this is “Now rare”, The next definition, dated 1844 reads “a loss incurred in selling something below its value” Wikipiedia’s entry on “Sacrifice” says this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice “Sacrifice (from a Middle English verb meaning "to make sacred", from Old French, from Latin sacrificium: sacr, "sacred" + facere, "to make") is commonly known as the practice of offering food, objects (typically valuables), or the lives of animals or people to the gods as an act of propitiation or worship. The term is also used metaphorically to describe selfless good deeds for others or a short term loss in return for a greater gain, such as in a game of chess. Recently it has also come into use as meaning doing without something or giving something up. Now why would the word for making something sacred, and for getting a greater gain, suddenly start being used to mean going without and giving up? Is it, perhaps, that the notion of altruism has so permeated the philosophical foundations of culture that the notion of going without (giving things up) is now considered holy Who might encourage such a change in definition? Who benefits from such a change? And why would a word being used to mean giving something less up for something more start to be used to mean a victim then be used to mean giving up something more for less?

The part I bolded is the part that is a subjective valuation. There is nothing in reality that forces you to adopt that as the guiding principle. You think that survival is important, and therefore construct your moral system around it. "to exist or not to exist" is a fundamental question only if you think continuation of existence is a fundamental value. This again is you reverting back to your flawed definition of what "Objective" means, which you for some reason think is difference in the context of morality. There is nothing in reality that FORCES you to agree on what the mass of an electron is either, or that vaccines do not cause autism, or that cell phones cause cancer. Yet these all have Objective answers. Morality is a question that pertains only to entities which live, this is an objective observation, you can not ask "what is the proper standard of morality for a rock!" The question is non-nonsensical. If morality is a question that pertains only to living entities, then the answer must be one that pertains to the living aspect of those entities. It does not matter if you think survival is good and your moral system should be based on it. Your moral system MUST be based on it - or you die, and thus the question of how a living being ought to live (Morality) has one and only one answer that is logical, rational, and not self refuting. That does not mean you MUST choose that, it just means if you want to live, you must choose it. An objective "standard" for morality is not a mystical authoritarian decree which abdicates volition in every existing being. It is a reference point by which things are judged and actions are guided.

Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective" You ignore the essential part in my quote, namely the scientific method. If you think that this is the same as 'popular vote', then you have no idea what science entails, as this is the crucial difference between objective and subjective arguments, it guarantees that the results of different persons will converge, independently of the person who uses this method (which does not mean that it is infallible, new data and new insights may change the result). A consensus is an interpretation - an evaluation - of evidence which is inherently unclear enough to not give an unequivocal answer. We do not seek a 'consensus' of the mass of an electron, because deriving a 'consensus' is not what you are doing when you are determine error percentages in experimental equipment. The fact that some try to apply 'consensus' as some sort of concept of scientific truth is merely a recent manifest of that post modernistic crap. If you think consensus is a part of science you are grossly ignorant about the nature of science. When a man performs an experiment and claims a particular result, and asks another to verify that experiment and result, they are not giving a 'consensus' they are making an observation. There is no interpretation of observations. The scientist does not say "do you agree that this is the way things are?" he says "are the things that you see happening the same as the things that I see?" This is not 'consensus' Objective replication of an experiment is not a 'consensus' Wikipedia says enough on it Michael Chrichton speaks well on the topic as well

You could use juggling flaming torches as your standard of morality as well, but that does not mean it is an objective standard for morality, or that there is no such things as an objective standard. If "political" animal or "social" animal are used as your standard for morality, they lead to death. No amount of chattyness and voting will grow your food and build your shelters, only the rational application of mans efforts will do that. Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death. MSK - the great thing about life qua man being the objective standard for morality - as objective and factual as the mass of electron or the gravitational constant of the universe are - is that it doesn't matter what the opinions of certain solipsistic bozos are.

Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective" But this 'lack of consenses' anyway - is because those people, and you, and X-Ray, continue to insist that "OBJECTIVE" *ONLY* in the context of morality means it must be accepted by everyone and nothing other than that ever believed. If there is an "OBJECTIVE" Standard of morality, the rationality, logic, and science will answer in the affirmative or negative. Only one definition of Morality is not irrational, the standard by which living beings choose to live. Define morality in a manner that is not irrational and self refuting, e.g. Morality can not be a series of behaviors, because morality is a subset of types of behaviors that a entity capable of behaving performs - not just all behaviors, because no question would be necessary. Now define OBJECTIVE in a manner that is applicable to the SCIENTIFIC use of the term, and using those definitions, ask yourself what is the objective standard for morality. Please, as an excercise, go ahead and write out your definitions and statement.

You just don't get it, XRay, "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality is simply the same as "Objective" in the context of any analysis of reason. You must use a different definition in order for your twisted point to be valid, as any elementary listing of your actual logical argument would prove. This discussion is exactly about the properties of matter, the properties of matter that make up things which live, and the rules of existence which govern those things which live. Those rules say that unless those things which live behave in a manner which makes them continue to live, they will die. Morality, which is the question about how living things ought to behave, is a question about matter, reality, and existence, because living things exist in reality made of matter. Please provdide a definition for "objective" which is equally applicable to the thing you think "Objective" in morality is not, AND the thing which you think "Objectivity" in Science is. i.e. "Objective" is something a religious mystic declares is true. Therefore "Objective" Morality is a prescription for behavior that some mystic declares is true. "Objective" Science is a declaration about a property of matter that someone, anyone, declares to be true, merely because he declares it to be true. (WRONG) Obviously this is not true or "Objective" is an aspect of reality that can be determined by any mind and is unaffected by bias, preference, or values. Therefore "Objective" In science is a statement about the nature of a property of matter, such as the mass of an electron, that exists independantly of any one's opinions, preferences, or biases. "Objective" in Morality is the observation of the reality that for living entities to continue to live, they must behave according to the laws of reality demanded in order to ensure their survival - laws that are not effected by opnions, values, or preferences. The *only* definition of "Objective" which can be rationally applied to "Morality" and "science" is the latter, so unless you are making up an entirely different definition - which invalidates your argument - then you have no argument to make Sorry to burst your bubble again, but there have existed (and still exist) enough systems of morality which accept destroying life. You're not bursting my bubble, you're instead re-enforcing how much of a stagnant close minded idiot you are in repeating over and over again irrelevant things. It doesnt matter if someone 'chooses' something that 'destroys live' as their OBJECTIVE standard of morality, OBJECTIVE means it is NOT subjected to CHOICE, these thigns are not an "OBJECTIVE" standard for morality because they lead to death, and MORALITY pertains ONLY to the QUESTION OF HOW LIVING BEINGS OUGHT TO LIVE. For Living Beings to continue to live, they must behave according to the laws of physics, otherwise they die. I live on earth, where existence exists, where words have meanings, and where actions have consequences. Ok, so the definition of MORALITY which you CHOOSE, has SUBJECTIVE contained within the VERY definition, HA. Ok, so to the definition of morality might as well be MORALITY Xray1) Something which absolute can not be objective, because I say so. And.. you are somebody important? do you officially declare the definitions of words? ha. Funny none of the definitions of Morality I looked up actually say "an empty container people fill with subjective ethical values" 1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct4: moral conduct : virtue Again, over and over and over again, it must be repeated to you, OBJECTIVE has nothing to do with CHOICE. Something is not OBJECTIVE merely because someone is unable to CHOOSE otherwise. It doesnt matter than a million different 'standards' of morality are considered 'objective', because objective MEANS *SPECIFICALLY* not dependant upon choice, opinions, or mystical divination. It means it is available, rationally, to anyone. People can CHOOSE whatever subjective standard for values they want, but all of them will lead to DEATH, unless the standard is life, and that is the absolute OBJECTIVE unavoidable consequence of reality.

This paradox of choice non-sense is rooted in the same basic philosophical corruption - a worship of platonic idealism and holding human errors of judgement up against some impossible standard of omniscience. Instead achieving happiness in the face of a vast array of choices rationally by suggesting people merely adopt a 'good enough' attitude, and pick a 'go-no go' time for decision making, these idiots feel it necessary to force everyone to make the same choices by severely limiting the number of choices. But if this were truly such a psychologically crippling phenomena, how would any human ever find a decent mate in the sea of millions of possible mates? this is just another leverage point for socialist tyranny to try to take root.

I've been wondering why intelligent rational people who are blitheringly ignorant still feel compelled to speak out and formulate opinions about matters they know nothing about, or way argumentum ad ignorance - as skeptics like to call it - is so profoundly integral to the objections of such people, you and X-Ray, on philosophical issues. Argumentum ad Ignorance is a favorite of creationists - e.g. I can not, in the two seconds I've spent thinking about how the eye evolved, figure it out - therefore the eye could not have possibly evolved! That's the whole point, Dragonfly, to you and X-Ray "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality for some reason must be 'dictated by god' while "Objective" in the context of science, reason, and reality, means: "[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785). Objective does not mean everyone must agree with it, everyone must choose it, or everyone must believe it. Anyone can choose to believe anything about the physical properties of matter, but that does not make the actual physical properties of matter non-objective. Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life. No system of morality of living beings can be instructions for suicide and yet still be called a morality for living beings, the concept is self refuting and illogical.

Your use of Objectivity in appraising morality is completely different from the use of objectivity in EVERY OTHER FIELD - including science. You are using a different concept, but are pretending it's the same thing just because it's made up of the same letters. Objectivity, you state EXPLICITLY here is something that SOMEONE CLAIMS exist independently of them when you say ""These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will."" This is NOT objectivity in science, or any rational sense. A scientist is not merely claiming something is 'objective' it IS actually OBJECTIVE because an objective mechanism was used to derive it and it is an accurate description of reality. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind, not to some divine mystic despite their claims to the contrary. You keep insisting there is no such thing as Objective Morality because people can choose to believe other things are the standard of morality, that is completely irrelevant. Your selective ignorance of critical points in this discussion is further evidence of your trolling nature, I can gain nothing further from discussions with you since you clearly seek no legitimate understanding or have any ration objections worth considering and you are clearly making an explicit effort to be a jerk or an idiot. So best of luck to you and your quest to annoy people, I'm sure your mother is very proud of you.

Sorry, but almost all of what you say is wrong, which you'd realize if youd read any book relating to medieval history that's been published in the last two decades. The church did not suppress the use of reason in the natural sciences through active discouragement during the dark ages, it philosophically changed the focus of the use of reason - away from your material well being and toward over-analyzation of the correct interpretation of the 'one true' truth of the bible. The university was born in the middle ages, and the best universities demanded a rigorous exmaination period and debate in order to progress. What were the nature of these debates however? Debates and questioning focused only on the bible and bilbical interpretations, not metaphysics or epistemology, not tools or medicine or philosophy, but only of biblical questions. If you knew anything about mideieval history you would know this. The entire notion of Aristotle's 'ignorant' assessments about reality being promulgated over centuries came excatly from this era, the dominant mideival philosophy strayed inquiry away from material realities, they discourages investigations into the natural philosophies by elevating classical thinkers (in the form of received authority) to near god like figures who could not be questioned. Even Aristotle insisted such behavior was nonsense, yet they insisted Aristotle had all ready figured everything out. In Medicine, the mideieval periods elevated the Roman Doctor Galen to an almost Godly status, instructions in medicine were deliberately conducted in such a manner as to never refute Galen's claims. His theories dominated for well over a thousand years. The attitude of the medieval period was clear, all the big questions about reality had been figured out, stop wasting your time on such things, and go read your bible. In Galileo you are talking about isolated examples of deliberate attempts to remove heretical information - this is not what made the dark ages dark, it was the systemic underlying philosophical attitude, promulgated by Christianity, which undermined in every aspect of life the perception that it was at all important or necessary to concern one's self with material well being.

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons. No, X-Ray, we are talking about OBJECTIVITY, we are not talking about Objectivity A which applies only to science, and Objectivity B which applies only to your imagination. Objectivity is ONE THING, whether it is OBJECTIVE mass or OBJECTIVE Morality. The meaning of Objective is the same. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping this simple concept. Objectivity as a *real* concept, has only one meaning. Objectivity as hijacked by religious thought is contradictory and self refuting. You can make up other meanings to Objectivity if you want, such as below, but stamping your feet and whining doesnt make it true. Lets try this again. Compare and contrast these to uses of "Objectivity" explain to me why you must use your definition of Objectivity in this example, and not the proper definition of Objectivity. And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)" Simply repeating something over and over again doesnt make it true.. What's your argument? Whats your chain of reasoning? As they say, Check your premises! Actually, you should literally do so. In fact, please explicit write your logical argument, starting WITH your PREMISES, and going through your conclusions. Perhaps this will get you to finally see your flaw. Amazing, you basically contradict every argument you've made here. So when you present a *beleif* that contradicts a *claim* then this is NOT EVIDENCE disproving the claim. Ok, I agree, lets look at your statements Here, the claim is that life is objective the standard of value, actually, life is the objective standard for morality, but lets presume you know the difference (values are the thing you choose to seek, morality is the objective basis for that choice). A nihilist believs that life is not the standard of morality, and so chooses to value things that contribute to his death. CLAIM - Life is the objective standard of morality BELIEF - life is not the objective standard of morality See this here belief, contradicts that there claim, but, as you so clearly state this IS NOT EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE CLAIM, except here in this very quote YOU CITE IT AS EVIDENCE DISPROVING A CLAIM! Here you are saying the because some people can choose to value things other than that which results from life being the objective standard of morality, then the claim that life is the objective standard of morality is disproving by a belief to the contrary. Except you just said contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims. Right, so because different people have different opinions about the nature of humanity and justice, there is therefore no objective nature of humanity or justice. Except you just said contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims! Your implication being, of course, that individuals can choose to hold something other than life as their objective standard for morality, and that somehow disproves the notion that life proper to man is the objective standard of morality. Except! you just said that contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims! Yikes! And yet apparently that the same word can have different definition and be used in different ways, and that both definitions are not necessarily appropriate for both uses, escapes you, someone who has 'studied linguistics'. What was that you love to say, oh yeah, better CHECK YOUR PREMISES! Premise 1) you know alot about linguistics Premise 2) someone who knows alot about linguistics would know that some words have multiple meanings Premise 3) someone who knows alot about linquistics should know that some words have multiple contexts which are not interchangelabe. Observation 1) you lack a simple understanding of the notion that one word may have more than one meaning conclusion - since you do not appear to understand that some words have multiple meanings and contexts which are not interchangeable, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of linguistics would know just such at hing, then the only possible conclusion is that you know virtually nothing about linguistics, or are deliberately misleading and a troll. Of these, checking your premises, it's pretty clear that Premise 1 must be the flawed one in your case. Here is another word that has multiple meanings: Freedom. meaning 1) = without cost, e.g. free meal, free ride. meaning 2) without forcible restrictions, e.g. free man, free nation. Here is an in- appropriate mixing of these two definitions from a popular recent song "They call this a free country, why does it cost so much to live" Now, here is the same inappropriate mixing of these definitions but reversed. "Of course I think black men should be free, Everyone OUGHT TO HAVE ONE!" Your uses of "objectivity" which is a scientific concept, in context of some type of religiously received authority, is just as fallacious. Perhaps you might want to CHECK YOUR PREMISES! Actually, lets take your little case but convert it to the scientific concept using the same twisted misapplication. Yours: The fact that you think these are different is the root of all your errors. If you want to attack Rand's claim about morality being Objective, it must be her DEFINITION of Objective that you are attacking and *proving* to be incorrect (not merely repeatedly insisting ad naseum that it is incorrect) P.S - Check your Premises!

Oh so now Shermer is a liar and only you are clever enough to discern the truth via some telepathic psuedo psychologizing. mm hmmmm. So when Shermer actually disagrees with your position, it must be because he's being lying and manipulative. One might even suggest that you.... CHECK YOUR PREMISES

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons. Ah, well, You had better CHECK YOUR PREMISES! Oh, well, as they say, CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

Because that standard is irrelevant. If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct, but that's no argument against becoming a baker. Precisely, Dragonfly. Excellent example of applying Rand's advice "check your premises". You are confusing abstracts with principles, again, your misunderstanding (and Dragonfly's) is based on a basic ignorance of Objectivism, so stop patting your self's on your own backs and go read. The 'what if everybody' did that is applied to moral codes, not particular specific range of the moment actions LIKE BAKING. If everyone was a baker they would perish. If everyone was a productive rational intelligent being who pursued goals conducive to their own thriving and the thriving of the society they live with in, every one will flourish. Baking is AN EXAMPLE of a productive rational endeavor. But there you go again, stuck on repeat check your premises, check your premises, check your premises, check your premises... Do you even KNOW what the premises are in this case? Obviously not, since your objections are so superficial.

The boot is on the other foot: the fallacy lies in assuming there is anything like objective morality. That is, the intrinsicism lies precisely in assuming that morality is objective. Actually, the boot is on the other foot: the fallacy lies in assuming there is NOT anything like objective morality. That is, the intrinsicism lies precisely in assuming that morality is NOT objective. Both are irrelevant to the concept of "objective" in the scientific sense (the only sense that matters) What someone thinks is the mass of an electron, and WHO that someone is, is completely irrelevant. Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added) Oh, so NOW to state something is OBJECTIVE you are saying it is SUBJECT TO PROOF OR DISPROOF! I thought something was Objective ONLY if someone could NOT choose something other than it? Which, ridiculously, is what you say in the very NEXT sentence! I could believe whole heartedly that all women everywhere are treated with the exact same moral standards, thus your claim that they are in fact not being an objective one is invalidated. I could equally say that it can be objectively proven that different people believe the mass of an electron to be different in different countries, and thus (by your 'logic') there is in fact no such thing as an objective mass of an electron. And the very next sentance which you changed your usage... I am utterly confounded that you could so wantonly mix these two obviously very difference definitions of Objective in the very same sentence. EITHER Objective is something that is a provable aspect of reality, or Objective is something nobody disagrees on, which is it? Shermer was right on target with his analysis. Actually Shermer has since retracted this objection, now doubt finally coming to realize that the way he uses "objective" in every other context was not how he was appraising the objective nature of morality See - http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx His response Oh - wait, what's that you just said? "...once you go down the path that there are OBJECTIVE TRUTHS PARTICULARLY IN THE MORAL REALM DEALING WITH VALUES!" Oh My! So Shermer acknowledges that there is an objective morality, but he's just a little uncomfortable with telling other people about it. Fair enough... I have no doubt Shermer came to this conclusion when researching or introspecting on the topic of his recent booklet "The Science of the Soul" In this article he expands hmmmm.... Sound familiar, X-Ray? On that concern Shermer says Theists FEAR the moral implications of Darwinism, naturalism, humanism because they think cynically and ignorantly, just like you, that objective morality is the province of divine decree, that someone must descend from a mountain with stone tablets burning bushes and lightning bolts for something regarding behavior to be moral and that if anyone anywhere for any reason believes otherwise the whole concept of objectivity is obliterated (which, of course, is in itself an objective claim!) I've asked over and over again, why can I choose to believe the mass of an electron is different than it actually is, yet not invalidate the objective mass of an electron, but choose to believe that morality is different than it actually is but somehow invalidate the concept of objective morality. Yet over and over again you avoid the most basic objection to your claim, which is based on a flawed definition of 'objective' The fact that some people can choose to believe other things are the objective morality does not mean nothing is objective morality. Of course, because your absurd definition of "Objective" means no one ever could ever *believe* otherwise - so your boast is not very interesting. Show me ANY scientific value EVER and I will SHOW you someone who at sometime KNEW, INSISTED, that the value was DIFFERENT! thus proving to you that there is no such thing as objective science! Another objective claim. Actually I believe it can be otherwise. So I've now invalidated your claim - since to you Objective means no other belief or choice is possible. It is actually you who is mixing things up here, Matus, not Michael Shermer. Nope, Shermer has changed is position on this, but beyond that, you wantonly mix definitions of objective at your whim. Again, the error is on your part. For unlike you, these scientifically minded people have not made the mistake of trying to prove moral values scientifically. They know it can't be done. WOW! I was hoping to get a little more of an argument then you just merely insisting, again, that I am wrong, without claim, evidence, reason, or argument. No matter WHAT you apply "objective" to, choice is irrelvant in that. People make that 'mistake' because for 90,000 years tyrants have been insisting they have divine claims to absolute truths. It's taken alot of time for people to apply science and reason to all fields of life. The Renaissance was the application (re-application really, after being lost during the dark ages from the application in classical Greece and Rome) of reason to metaphysics, art, and epistemology - ushering in the scientific revolution and unparalleled material progress. During the dark ages, epistemology was governed only by religious intrinsicism, people were explicitly forbidden from applying reason to their life on earth or their material well being, and reason could only be applied to absurd philosophical debates about the nature of the trinity and the communion. The Enlightenment was the rejection of received authority, and led to man declaring inalienable rights independent from claims of tyrants and thugs. It was the application of reason to the remaining realms of philosophy, Politics and Ethics, and led to the resurgence of constitutional states, republics, civil liberties and market economies. But it was not the complete application, deists justified human rights with appeals to mans nature as designed by god (e.g. if God designed man to strive to understand, grow, and thrive than any tyrant who obfuscated this was an affront to God's very will) Man's nature was the evidence, but God was the cause, they still succumbed to this religious notion of "objective" that you are parroting here, though they had stamped it out of every other area of life, it had not been completely eradicated from ethics and politics, but the enlightenment represented a tremendous leap forward on the front unparalleled in human history. Reason applied to Metaphysics (existence) became a recognition of the properties of nature and an attempt to understand, classify, and utilize those properties. That there is, in fact, an objective reality (even if some people choose to believe there is not) Reason when applied to Epistemology became the tools to actually acquire that knowledge of the properties of existence. Reason applied to art become a recognition of the role that art plays in mans life, thus the resurgent of classical romantic realism during the renaissance. Reason applied to politics - rejecting divine and received authority of ancient texts and tyrannical traditions - became free markets, civil liberties, the rights of man, constitutions and representative republics. Reason applied to morality would be born as the the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and need only to mature into the objective morality of Life qua Man. At one time, "Objective" was usurped in every philosophical realm, reason has re-claimed most of them. The 'Objective' nature of existence was the universe God created and the rules he wrote. 'Objective' knowledge was the divinely inspired texts derived from monks getting high in caves or princes starving themselves and staring at their navels. 'Objective' in Politics was the divine right of Kings, who were manifestations of Gods, to whip you and collect your goods. 'Objective' art was celebrations of those tyrants, Gods, and ramblings of mystics. "Objective" in EVERY OTHER realm is now used appropriately, as a measure definable aspect of reality that is accessible to any man through reason. Religious thought has receded into the gaps, ever decreasing ones at that. Ethics is not the 'only' realm of philosophy which somehow perpetually remains untouched by objective science and reason, despite your claims (I'd ask you to prove that is is inherently free of such applications, but your counterargument has never been anything more than some vague appeal to the ability to choose other things) It is, however, the only realm in which reason has not been fully applied, due to ignorant resistance from people like yourself, from theists afraid of anarchy, and even materialistic scientists afraid of chaos or the validity of science and lacking any philosophical common sense.

X-Ray, perhaps it would do you good, if you have any integrity, to engage in an intellectual excercise of comparing and contrasting the use of "Objectivity" in the context of this quote (of yours) And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)"

Wrong premise, evidenced by the simple fact that human beings quite obviously can choose as a value to end their life. You are getting it. Since humans have the ability to choose, it logically follows that the ethical values they select are a matter of subjective choice. Actually you're apparently not making any effort to understand, or are being deliberately argumentative. 1) 'LIFE' as in the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence, is NOT the Objective standard of morality. Objectivism does not say LIFE as merely existence is either, as evidenced by Galt's suicide threat at Dagny's torture threat. And as I explained in multiple posts, the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence is fine as the standard for animals that are nothing more than robots, but it is not for ones capable of reason and volition. 2) Life is usually the prerequisite for your objective standard of behavior, the good life, the Aristotlean Eudaemonic life. But in some cases pursuing your mere mechanical existence might harm things you value more 3) "Since humans have the ability to choose" You're still basing your concept of "objective" on the very ignorant understanding of it as something related to 'choice' Choice has much to do with religious authoritarian claims of 'objective' moral authority, but has no business in a rational standard of 'objective' You can 'choose' anything you want as your standard of behavior, but LIFE requires you choose only a particular course of actions, and morality pertains to the question of what a living being ought to do, so the only Objective Standard for MORALITY is LIFE. Objectivity has nothing to do with choice. If you choose to not acknowledge or counter the myriad of points raised against you showing your conceptions are based on a fallacious definition of 'objective' I can take is as nothing but clear evidence that instead of striving for an understanding of objectivist ethics you're nothing more than a troll. Non-sequitur in your reasoning: since you have already acknowledged that "anyone [can] choose whatever standard of morality they want", this shuts the door to objective standard of morality, doesn't it? So, are you asserting that anything in which someone can make a choice has no objective standard? That's utterly absurd. Anyone can choose whatever value they want to believe the mass of an electron is too, or choose what they believe will happen when they jump off a building, but that does not mean there is no objective standard for the mass of an electron or basis to gravitational acceleration. Anyone can also choose to believe whatever they want to believe is the objective standard for morality, but only one thing is. For someone professing such an indepth understanding of linguistics, you sure have an usually hard time grasping the notion that some words have multiple definitions. Well, someone asking "what is the standard of morality" can ask this question to get people to check their premises and discover possible fallacy. Are you or are you not asking, when you ask "what is the standard of morality" how someone ought to live? To dissociate a question from the material implications of it's answer is an exercise in semantic obfuscation. Even if you are asking it to 'check their premises' the reason why you are asking about their premises is because the question is important and it is important because it pertains to life. Uh, no, opinion has nothing to do with it. It is an observational assessment of reality and existence. It's no more worth noting my opinion on the matter than it is to note that my opinion of the mass of an electron happens to match the measured objective mass of an electron. The only thing worthy of note is the actual measured mass of the electron. Opinions that agree or disagree with it which have no rational basis to are irrelevant. Never mind that you philosophically refute your own position, since you are saying essentially that there is some objective standard of logic in which it is demanded that one reject things which are capable of being chosen in relation to morality as 'subjective' - objectively you are saying that any 'ought' ought to be rejected as subjective! yet you are stating an ought that relates to an is. Nice try, but you can not steal the concept of objectivity in order to reject the concept of objectivity. Apparently the only thing you've ever read by Rand was 'check your premises' since you parrot it like a brain dead drooling pyschopath. You are wrong about the context of Objectivity, you are wrong about what "Life" is in objectivist ethics (although in other posts you acknowledge it is more than the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence, e.g. attacking her concept of life qua man as a prescription for behavior of a abstract grouping) you are wrong about what objective means, and you are wrong that nature of self-interested behavior associating it with anything any looter, moocher, or muderous tyrant happens to fancy that whimsical minute. You are basing your rejection of a few out of context quotes by rand on an ignorant and incorrect definition of objectivity and morality, your simplistic and incorrect interpretation of these few out of context quotes is refuted by hundreds of individual quotes by Rand, by countless concretes she elaborated on in fiction, and by the very theme of all of her total works. If you're interested in having a real discussion, get on with it. If you are here and engaging in this discussion in an attempt to understand exactly what Rand means, then get on with it. If not engaging in discussion with you is a waste of time, to sufficiently challenge the objectivist ethics you need to move intellectually beyond this first grade mental level of whining about non-choice being some fundamental of objectivity.