Matus1976

Michelle:

An accurate statement of her position on stem cell research is that is should not be funded by federal tax dollars.

As a person well entrenched in Extropian / Transhumanist circles (those who explicitly advocate the use of technology and science to extend human life spans, even indefinitely, and advocate modifications and enhancements) I never the less was not very upset by Bush's restrictions (and similar sentiment by Palin) on federally funded stem cell research. For starters, as Selene points out, that's not the role of the government. Additionally though, the US was leading the worlds research in Stem Cells, and was overwhelmingly governed by christian standards or liberals harboring original sin standards, i.e., in favor of curing diseases, but NOT curing AGING, etc. While Christians find such a thing 'playing God' or whatever, liberals find such a thing an arrogant affront to 'mother nature' both equally oppose life. Because of these restrictions, the OTHER free, rich, scientific nations of the world, like JAPAN and SOUTH KOREA, got off their lazy bandwagon asses and started doing some of their own stem cell research which was not bound by the conventions that the poor philosophy in the US forced.

One does not call Pinochet a lover of freedom because he allowed Capitalism to flourish in Chile while he was busy torturing political enemies, and one should not call Miss Palin a lover of freedom, or a proponent of freedom, because she likes capitalism.

And yet, one could with justice call Pinochet and advocate, or proponent of Freedom. You must always consider the context these events take place in. Sparta had slavery and and heavily militaristic society, but it had the concept of freedom as a form of national self determination in a world where NO other peoples or nations had such concepts. Many cultures, such as Egypt, did not even have a WORD for freedom. Every salient step toward freedom should be celebrated, not chastised for not leaping centuries ahead through ages of struggle to some Platonistic idealization of freedom - which will never be attained.

Similarly, in the context of a South America wrought with communist insurgents funded explicitly by the COMMINTERN, Pinochet was a salient step forward in the struggle for freedom in the world. For starters, ECONOMIC freedom is the singular most important manifestation of freedom toward quality of life. Nations which are politically free, but economically controlled, like India, fester in poverty and misery. Nations which are politically unfree, but economically free, like Chile under Pinochet and South Korea under Sigmen Rhee, flourish and see unprecedented standard of living increases. Pinochet instituted vast economic freedoms which directly related to the well being of every individuals lives. By worst estimates, he is said to have killed some 3,000 people. This is a single hour in Cambodia or China under their communist totalitarian murderers. All told, communism has killed some 200 million people this century. Whats the death toll of right wing dictators who lay the foundations of economic freedom? And how many of those 3,000 were in fact communist spies and wannabe tyrants?

Pinochet's economic reforms initiated what is referred to in Chile as the "economic miracle" where from 1975 to 2005 the GDP / Capita in Chile TRIPLED. Today Chile is the only South American country decent enough to visit, and where an American does not have to seriously worry about being kidnapped by some ridiculously communist insurgency. According to the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom, Chile is the 11th most free nation - economically - on the planet. (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Chile) According to Freedom House, today Chile has the highest available ranking for both Political Freedom and Civil Freedoms. Today it has a GDP per capita of $14,900. In other words, it's one of the, literally, free-est nations on the planet. This is in large part due to Pinochet's regime. Compare this to it's northern neighbor Bolivia, with a GDP/Capita of $4,500, moderate 'partly free' ranking by Freedom House, and ranking of 130 in the world for economic freedom.

It's great to be able to pray to who you want to and speak your mind when you want to, but if you're perpetually on the verge of starvation because of a totalitarian manhandled economy, what good will it do you? Historically, theocratic regimes with economic freedoms are some of the most prosperous nations with the highest median standards of living. And nations with controlled economies are always the poorest with the lowest standards of living and most misery and pain. Even so, the existing constitutional protections for religious and personal freedoms can never be transgressed in the US to such an extent that an oppressive theocracy is formed. However, we have NO such protections for ECONOMIC Freedoms, and these are well on their way to being usurped to form an oppressive economic totalitarian state, thus the threat posed by liberal socialists and environmentalists on our literally well being are far greater than those posed by moral authority wannabes.

Robert S. McNamara died at the age of 93. This man who with his master Lyndon B. Johnson killed 60,000 Americans for no great gain.

My gut reaction was to wish that Robert S. McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson would turn on the same spit in hell for the next billion years, at least.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Vietnam war was a tremendous gain. At the height of the Vietnam conflict the Soviet Union was spending almost half of it's GDP on it, while ours never topped some 8%. It also created a gulf in the two major communist powers, and in general was a front against communist expansion. It delayed communist expansion into many countries by many years, helped promulgate the fall of the Soviet Union through the massive expenditures it required by them, and was, in general, a just fight assisting an ally with common values against a common enemy.

That being said, McNamara was a scumbag and idiot whose business like micromanaging caused many many more deaths than there otherwise would have been.

I'm suggesting your basic attitude seems to be more pagan/Roman than Christian, which I don't think you'd object to. I don't.

In the proper context, yes, but you said "but like the ancient Romans know how to send men off to fight with righteousness ringing in their ears propelling them forward into the scythes of death" that could hardly be thought to have a productive value defending spin to it. You might have more properly said "Like a good Roman general, you advocated soldiers fight and die for the highest values" Generally, Romans and Greeks had a much more rational approach to upholding and defending values, all were rejected and usurped by Christian doctrines of humility, forgiveness, asceticism and suffering here on earth, and the thought of eternal bliss in the after life. In "Discourses on Livy" Machiavelli cites this specifically as the main reason Greeks and Romans were so much more successful, in line with Gibbon's attribution to Christian philosophical principles of the fall of the Roman Empire. Machiavelli wrote:

From my blog on the subject

Some of the teachings of Christianity, Machiavelli realizes, are in fact detrimental for a worldview where someone will go out and fight for and defend liberty. Christians always have the easy out, saying, even if things are crummy now, it’s only for a while, and if we suffer now, blessed are those who suffer, blessed are those who are persecuted, in the eyes of eternity this is nothing and we will spend an eternity in the presence of god. When compared to the Pagan religions of the Ancient World, Christianity has had a negative effect on the zeal for liberty. He writes:

“Ancient religions beatified only men fully possessed of worldly glory, such as the leaders of armies or rulers of republics. Christianity more often glorifies humble and contempletative men instead of active ones. Supreme goods are humility, abjection, contempt of worldly things. Ancient religions in greatness of minds, strengths of bodies, and all other things apt to make men the strongest.“

In the great Christian churches, we see Christ in eternal suffering. We see frescos of people on their knees, praying. Or great martyrs who meekly subject themselves to torture or death, Katherine ripped apart by the spikes on spinning wheels, etc. Steven stoned to death. Lawrence on a grid iron. In Greek art we see proud and powerful heroes standing in defense of their highest values. In Roman art we see a celebration of existence, happiness and joy in life. In Greek Philosophy we see a concern with living the good life through virtue, in Christian philosophy we see only suffering and self loathing.

The values they pass on are passivity, contemplativeness, humility, not fighting back, meekness, it has an effect on the way people grow up and lives their lives. When they see their liberty threatened, its all to easy to brush it off, thinking if our liberty goes it goes but I’m going to heaven. The values of Christianity have made it more difficult for people to struggle for and defend their liberty. Religion here harms what he thought the the right political goals for his society should have been.

Christianity is not the only religious advocate of meek passivity or monotheistic domination, but Islam for all it’s terrible faults does not celebrate weakness and passivity (Mohamamd after all gained religious superstardom by fighting and winning numerous wars, contrasted to Jesus who gave in and suffered a terribly painful death)

So I think it's very disingenuous to just say Roman sent people off to die with righteousness ringing in their ears. Romans sent people off to FIGHT for that which they values most, do you think a Roman soldier would say that it might be JUST to kill someone, but NOT GOOD. ?

Again, this all boils down to a perfusion of pacifism coming into conflict with the uncompromising upholding of values. If you think it's just to have values and to defend them, then sometimes it is necessary to kill evil people who threaten those values, and if it is just, it is good and right. This compromising mix of eastern mysticism / pacifism with western value based ethics is what results in the strange sentiment, complete with it's psychological problems. This is a critical thing to have a clear moral stance on, It's very detrimental and threatens our very long term existence as a culture of rationality if you don't think it's just to defend your values, or you think one should stop defending them always in principle when it comes to someone directly assaulting your values, then your values will necessarily wither away, just as the Roman empire did, to those with more conviction and who don't hold rationality as their standard.

What I basically object to in this discussion is you telling us how people would feel consequent to an act beyond your own experience and which I'd not wish on anyone.

I think this is a case of you reading more into what I said than my actual statement, I suspect as a cause that because you were obviously in the military, you are perhaps more sensitive and hyper aware of idiots who have never served making stupid comments about serving in the military - such that you might think you found one with a quick reading where there wasn't one.

So I am not saying how one OUGHT to feel about killing in war, or even how one WILL feel, I said I don't know, but I do know that if something is JUST, than one SHOULD feel GOOD *ALWAYS* about doing that which is just. And if in some cases it is just to kill, then one should feel good about it, not bad. Something being JUST, but BAD is alot like that old "well it's good in theory" thing regarding communism, it never is, theories are descriptions of reality, if it doesnt work in reality, its a BAD theory. It's an internally in-consistent sentiment. And while I can only attempt to emulate the emotions I would have if I ever faced such a situation, I would absolutely NEVER tell a soldier who WAS willing to KILL EVIL PEOPLE who THREATEN MY DEEPEST VALUES that what he did was wrong, even if I qualify it with being Just. Soldiers of free nations should always be proud of fighting for their deepest rational values, and citizens who get to enjoy that should be proud of them as well and thankful.

I admit I missed the nuance of your statement differentiating "pride" and "profound Joy" so I went back and quoted it to update what we are talking about. I'm not trying, I hope, to do an argument from authority on you, and you've made many valid points, but experience does count for a lot.

I understand as my statement was unclear enough to be misinterpreted with a quick read, but after you said it again after I corrected you, I felt that was unreasonable. Your reaction to my comments about war and killing though can hardly be anything but an argument from authority, which actually I'm completely fine with as authorities often know much more, but suggesting I have no right to comment at all without having directly experienced it is unreasonable. I'll make my uninformed comments, if that's the case, and then correct my errors with input from authorities on the subject. I'd defer to your thoughts on this anytime, as I am more than willing to defer to anyone who I come to realize knows more about a subject than I do, a voracious appetite for knowledge can be sustained no other way. But you've been generally a little evasive direct thoughts and reasoning on this, perhaps because you mixed feelings about it from your experience in the military (which I think from your comments you were) But the only appeals to authority knowledge you make are appeals to intrinsism (you wouldn't understand type) which do me little good. I can either go kill someone, think about what it would be like to, or ask people who have what they felt and why.

...You were fortunate. Your health permitted you the privilege of going into combat and killing first hand. I was not so fortunate. ...

Ba'al Chatzaf

I never know how serious to take Ba'al's comments. But if he's sincere about this, then he sounds no different in motivation than the soldier brant mentioned. Valuing killing, he sought the opportunity to legally do so. There are two aspects to killing in war in this context, one is the killing, the other is the value you are defending that results in having to kill an enemy to your values. If Ba'al primary interest were in defending what he values, I highly doubt killing is the most productive avenue to furthering his values, yet that is what he strove for. Sometimes it's necessary to kill an evil person who threatens your values, but it certainly is not always the most important thing, starting a successfull business and using the wealth to further your values in particular ways might be far more productive.

Michael - "go with your heart on this issue ..." I love it. You mean go with your emotions!! It's funny, but I'm currently in need of something to read and have picked up The Fountainhead after many years. Yesterday, I got to the scene where Roar interviews for the Stoddard Temple. Every fiber of his body is SCREAMING not to sign with Stoddard. He doesn't feel good about this at all. Yet he goes with his head.

Imagine how much smarter he'd been had he gone with his gut? I like to think things out, but if my emotions interfere, I assume there's a damn good reason and I don't budge till I get to the bottom of it. My emotions are actually pretty damn smart and spot on as a rule.

Ginny

People will many times intuit something that they are unable to immediately recognize conceptually. In that case, Roark knew the signals of an unprincipled an disingenuous man on a subconscious level, but he had no rational, conceptual reason to refuse the commission.

I think this is something generally not appreciated as much as it ought to be, as people all to easily just attribute intuition to some sort of mystical tool of cognition, or reject it completely as some mysterious manifestation of irrational emotions. But the human brain is a damn powerful computer, in fact, by most estimates, about 1,000 to a million times more powerfull than the most powerful supercomputer anyone can construct today. If you are a rational, intelligent, introspective person, intuition can be an extremely powerful tool, as that supercomputer can recognize much more subtle patterns than you would.

You are reading a lot into what I said that isn't true of me. You don't really know combat and war, but like the ancient Romans know how to send men off to fight with righteousness ringing in their ears propelling them forward into the scythes of death. Killing human beings can indeed be both good and bad in any one instance for the killer. It doesn't have to be both, but the experience is certainly permanently transforming regardless.

--Brant

Well feel free to clarify, that is the point of discussion. If you bring up a point, and someone doesn't understand it, is the best reaction to just say 'well, you wouldnt understand' you are, after all, appealing to the ol "if I have to explain it to you, you would never get it" fallacy that elevates something other than reason as a tool of cognition. Were you saying those American soldiers here happy to not have to kill any more Japanese, or happy to not get killed by them? Maybe it's both, but I suspect it's mostly the latter, especially from the stories I've read from soldiers of that period.

And now you suggest that I am advocating sending men off to die in some useless struggle like some callous Roman emperor - and you speak of misrepresenting things that are not true of you??? All of the sudden, since I say if it sometimes just to kill an evil man, and that if it is just it is also good, now I am some barbarous war monger?

And, am I not allowed to speak on the morality of killing unless I have actually killed someone? Shouldnt I work out my moral principles BEFORE I kill someone? Am I not allowed to speak on the morality of abortion - unless I have an abortion? The morality of torture - unless I torture someone? Unless you answer YES to these, then dispense with the 'you've never done it so you can't talk about it' argument.

Killing an evil man, and finding it prideful is as proper an emotion as profound Joy is when achieving something great.

Well, I won't argue with this if there is pride on the one hand and what you call "profound Joy" on the other, but why would I not be confused for I see no reason in your example why the killing wouldn't result in what you call "Joy" as well as pride.

--Brant

Maybe it would Brant, I don't know. I wanted to be clear that I was not saying one SHOULD experience *JOY* when killing an evil person. Maybe that is proper, I don't know. But Pride is a different emotion from Joy. Joy often involves laughing, smiling, etc. Pride is more the elevated sense of self esteem that comes from recognizing ones own honorable and just actions. I'm not a linguistic master nor an psychology professor so I can't capture it well, but I should think the difference between these two is significant enough to be worthy of a clear distinction.

Matus' example of knifing the mugger three days later seems disproportionate, but if you are the black dude in a Mississippi town and it is 1964, that may be the first and last shot you get at the good ole boy.

Hesitation leads to a deadly situation for you and who you are protecting.

I would believe that most of us as Matus said, would set the deadly force bar at self preservation.

Good points Selene, I agree with you on the justified disproportionate use of force in an act of immediate self preservation. Actually I had a hard time coming up with an example and the pickpocket was the only one since by the time you are aware of the assault, it's over and the threat is gone (he's running away)

But assuming the immediate threat is gone, what actions would justify, in your opinion, the death of a perpetrator? Treason is a good case. But as terrible as child molestation is, I don't think it's deserving of a death sentence.

I am not amused that someone who has probably never killed anyone or is unlikely to is telling us how he would feel about it if he were to kill a monster like Hitler or Stalin. Let's get a little more practical: In effect the crews that dropped the atomic bombs were killing Tojo and the military rulers of Japan. I've never read anywhere where any of them experienced any "profound joy." Of course, when Japan then surrendered the soldiers and the families of soldiers who weren't going to die invading Japan felt tremendous joy. Why? No more killing. The country--our country--went wild in celebration.

--Brant

Obviously you're referring to me, no I have never killed anyone, and I hope I live a life that should never come to that point. But this is an important question, because it relates to the world we live in very directly - and it's equally important to dispense with irrational foundations. Christianity for nearly a thousand years bludgeoned everyone with the notion of feeling shame for their sexuality, causing all kinds of psychological problems and even explicit harm. While the western world is more enlightened and secularized than those medieval days, that remnant of *shame* is still profoundly present, as a walk through Pompeii will make startlingly clear. As objectivists, the similiar remnant of original sin so deeply embedded into society by centuries of christian doctrines now pokes it's ugly head through in environmentalism even in explicitly atheistic people. The christian virtue of unearned forgiveness, similarly meme pounded over centuries, along with humility, has it's own remnant in this irrational separation of furthering values and killing the most evil opponents to your rational values. With the eastern influences creeping into the west, this unearned forgiveness doctrine is morphing into a stoicism like rejection of emotions. Today, children of the baby boomers celebrate peace, without any context, as the highest ideal. Not JUSTICE, not FREEDOM, but PEACE! They don't care what people are fighting for, only that they are fighting, and that they should not be. PEACE without JUSTICE ... is just a well run prison camp.

And this surely plays no small role in the psychological scarring that many soldiers experience, when their rational minds, principles and values tell them that sometimes it is right to kill, and that they killed for the just reasons, to come home to whining pansies who insist that what they did was JUST but WRONG and shameful and/or disgusting is a recipe for a psychological melt down – especially when coming from the very people who enjoy all the fruits that have come from their predecessors killing people who opposed the very freedom and progress they so enjoy. If you feel shame and disgust at killing someone who should have been killed, then you should also feel shame and disgusting at enjoying all the fruits of their killing labors. I await your ascetic abandonment of the fulfilling western life...

"I've never read anywhere where any of them experienced any "profound joy."

Again, you use this phrase, again, I will say that "profound joy" is something you experience with a great achievement you have worked very hard for. Please do me the courtesy of at least attempting to understand my points and respecting them enough to not deliberately mislead people into thinking I said something else. If you do not cease in trying to imply that "profound joy" is something I say someone OUGHT to feel after killing someone, then I see no further point in discussion with you.

Of course, when Japan then surrendered the soldiers and the families of soldiers who weren't going to die invading Japan felt tremendous joy. Why? No more killing

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that those soldiers, who just left Okinawa and iwo jima, where HALF of them were killed, were celebrating not having to KILL JAPANESE, instead of celebrating NOT BEING KILLED and getting to go home to their families. A very large portion of all of the deaths in WWII of US Soldiers came in the last few months!

The point is, if it is sometimes JUST to kill someone, then it is also RIGHT and GOOD, something that is just CAN NOT be NOT GOOD, and something that is good CAN NOT be UNJUST. This line of reasoning is weak emotionalism and is muddling the righteousness which comes from standing up for ones values.

You tell me, if someone was stalking and harassing someone you love dearly, and then ultimately tried to KILL them multiple times, seriously injuring them, then, say, killed their parents and siblings just to cause her grief, and then you found yourself in a dark alley with a gun with this person - what would YOUR emotional reaction be? Would you lay down the gun like a good christian and FORGIVE him? Would you tell him that an emotional attitude of peacefulness and tranquility, like a good Buddhist, are the highest ideals, and that you can not harbor any ill feelings toward him, because that 'makes you no better than him' or some such nonsense? Or would you kill him, and if you did, what would you feel? Would you be glad? Indifferent? SAD?

This is an important notion because the implicit foundation of the rejection of moral praise for killing evil people that deserve death is rooted in ambiguity and compromise, it is saying that NO value is so important as to cause harm to another person in when furthering it.

If you can just kill the evil people that's great but, in reality, this is not usually possible.

Fine. But let's not pretend that it is noble to kill innocents in the process. War is a messy business, and these things happen, but no innocent deserves to be killed for living in the wrong country.

On that I wholly agree

If you can just kill the evil people that's great but, in reality, this is not usually possible.

Well, there are two simultaneous discussions going on, one relates to the accidental deaths of innocents in war and how much effort should be made to try to avoid that, and the other whether or not it's good to kill an evil person, and what your emotional reaction to that ought to be. Since you say "If you can just kill the evil people that's great" I assume you are ok with the intentional killing of someone as long as they 'deserve' it?

By what standard would you say that killing another human being is morally justified? What does a person need to do to deserve death in your eyes?

(And I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm honestly asking.)

That is a good question, well first of all I would say in self defense in a generally proportionate level of response, e.g. if someone is tries to pick your pocket shooting him is not appropriate, but if he is brandishing a gun and acting in a threatening manner, it is. But I don't think that's what you're referring to, and once the immediate threat to you is removed, the nature of what is just or not changes. It's not appropriate for someone to knife a mugger 3 days after they were mugged, the delayed retaliation of force is the province of law enforcement agencies and must be subjected to appropriate legal and moral standards (you might be mistaken for instance if that person was actually your mugger) ... I can't say I am a fan of capital punishment either, mostly because mistakes can be made and permanent sequestration is good enough, but in cases of unequivocal guilt with no reasonable possibility of mistakes...well I'm still hesitant to say someone guilty of 1st degree murder even deserves death. Conversely someone like Hitler or Mao absolutely deserves death immediately, with no hesitation. Where I draw the line in between 1 intentional murder of an innocent person and millions for what is deserving of death... honestly I don't know, I'll have to mull it over some.

Do you think in any case someone is deserving of death, and if so, what would make them earn that?

..but killing human beings no matter who they are is a grim business and not the business of the Objectivist philosophy which is about the positive, productive, creative and rational side of being a human being.

--Brant

What about killing Hitler or Stalin is not "positive, productive, creative and rational"? Some people need killing. We should celebrate their deaths and the people who kill them.

here here! we cross posted the same sentiment...

...with their cumulative death toll of almost 200 million innocents, there could have been no greater tribute to justice, reason, and productivity than killing any one of those scumbags

I once knew a man who relished killing. He killed a lot of people, enemy combatants. He came home from war and killed his wife so he could marry someone else.

I'm not sure of the point of such an irrelevant red herring. For one, I would not typically relish killing, any more than I would 'relish' punishing a child for doing something wrong. Maybe those top megamurderers I would relish, with their cumulative death toll of almost 200 million innocents, there could have been no greater tribute to justice, reason, and productivity than killing any one of those scumbags. But second, I'm sure quite alot of people in the military have killed, and don't come home to kill their wives. I suspect in this case the man's values were placed on killing to achieve an end, without consideration about the end in site, whether it was just or not, or HE was in fact an EVIL person, seemingly joining the military for a chance to kill people for just reasons, and losing that opportunity, degraded to killing for any reason. You are implying through this anecdote - and this is seemingly MichelleR's implication - that killing renders a person immoral automatically, regardless of contexts and cause. It's like you are suggesting 'this is the only consequence of a man who enjoys killing'

If there are circumstances when it is just to kill someone, then such an action must be good and right and noble.

I could have killed all those people you mentioned. I could kill Fidel Castro (but not his brother). There wouldn't be any "profound joy" in it though.

I did not mean to imply I would feel profound joy in the action of killing, I said "Killing an evil man, and finding it prideful is as proper an emotion as profound Joy is when achieving something great. " I am equating a proper positive emotional reaction with the achievement or defense of a proper rational value. If I kill an evil man, I will be proud of that action. I would not laugh, dance, sing, or experience a sublime joy. But feeling right or good about doing something JUST, which in this case is killing an evil man, is just as proper as feeling JOY and achieving something great after years of struggle.

Disgust and relief but not that. I would take some not insignificant amount of pride in it, true, but killing human beings no matter who they are is a grim business and not the business of the Objectivist philosophy which is about the positive, productive, creative and rational side of being a human being.

--Brant

Are you trying to imply that I am making the objectivist philosophy negative, counter-productive, and destructive and irrational? What is the point of this statement? This is merely the topic of this thread, it is not an indication that justifying killing is the central focus of Objectivism or that I am trying to make it as such.

Uh-huh.

I'm not wasting any energy on this.

Just stay away from me and my own.

Uh-huh... I'm curious how you can simultaneously consider something JUST... AND *Wrong* But hey, don't let me get in the way of your contradictory premises.

People sometimes seek the truth, but most prefer like-minded views

http://www.physorg.com/news165643839.html

"Perhaps more surprisingly, people who have little confidence in their own beliefs are less likely to expose themselves to contrary views than people who are very confident in their own ideas"

In fact, if you read my posts in this thread, you will find our opinions differ very little, the major difference is that you find something RIGHT and JUST (intentionally killing an evil person) as someone wrong, never good, never noble. I can only suspect this is some remnant pacifistic tendency, since you still advocating defending values rationally, but for some reason don't think it's morally praiseworthy if it results in the justified killing of an evil person.

Mike,

You might have missed it, but we fully agree on one score:

In fact, I believe Raimondo is the same animal as that which he damns, but on the opposite side of the rivalry.

... I would like to point out that libertarian's like Romaindo harbor the exact same fallacious convinctions but just in the opposite direction.

Michael

I did miss that!

Killing an evil man, and finding it prideful is as proper an emotion as profound Joy is when achieving something great.

Strawman argument. The argument was about killing innocent people, not evil people.

No, it was about murder, or killing in general, MichelleR stated that it is sometimes justified, but never good or noble, writing:

If something is justified, then it is right, always good, and in some cases noble depending on your definition. Something can not be JUST AND wrong that is a conceptual perversion.

You'd think that a principle which allows people to blame the deaths of all innocents on the initiators of force in any conflict would also apply to domestic initiators of force. Shouldn't ARIan spokesmen be advocating the carpet bombing of American neighborhoods which are infested with violent crime? After all, it could be argued that fewer innocent lives would be lost in the long run, and bombing neighborhoods would be much safer for the police since it wouldn't put them in danger, and, of course, it would be the criminals' fault that the police had to blow up innocent people in order to wipe out crime. Shouldn't ARIans be arguing that if one police officer dies in the name of justice, it's one too many, and if citizens aren't rising up against the criminals in their neighborhoods, well, then they've made their choice and they deserve what they get -- they're either with us or against us?

Jonathan,

Of everything I have ever read, this takes first place in showing the absurdity of preaching a philosophy for living on earth by elevating indifference to the death of innocent people to a moral ideal.

That was one great piece of thinking...

Michael

I agree, well said. However, I would like to point out that libertarian's like Romaindo harbor the exact same fallacious convinctions but just in the opposite direction. They would insist Iraq should have battleships steaming up the Hudson in order to act in self defense, or would have sat idly by had the Soviet Union invaded Canada in 1980 instead of Afghanastan "They havent done anything to <i>us</i>" they'd cry. Libertarians like Romaindo do a great job for cases of domestic defense and action, but pull the idealogical blinders out when contemplating foriegn policy and think only the most extreme cases deserve reactions. Similiarly ARI total war advocates like Piekoff and Brook have domestice self defense ideas well worked out, but in foriegn policy think the most extreme actions are justified with the most minuscule triggers.

If I have the right to assist a neighbor who is being attacked, I also have the right to assist a neighboring country that is being attacked. It is completely proper to assist allies in fighting common enemies, and it is in our long term rational self interest to do so (such as supporting Israel). Liberatian absolute non-interventionists would see the world perish in a pit of hellish communism or islamic totalitarianism before lifting a single finger - as long as no boots landed on american soil. If I am not literally attacked by a mugger, why is it just to confiscate some of my money to be used to apprehend him? Because it is in my own long term rational self interest to see that any assault on rights is treated with swift and appropriate justice, because standing idly by actually encourages such behavior, boasting that I am doing nothing about a neighbors murderer because he did nothing to me is as irrationally as boasting about non-interventionism with a murderous tyranny launches a full scale assault against an ally with common interests and values. But some ARIians would nuke everyone in response to a single boot. Jonathans consideration is appropriate and is a justified criticism against both isolationism and unchecked interventionism. The same standards of behavior which govern your pursuit of justice domestically ought to be applied internationally.

The assertion that American military personnel are not morally responsible for the people they have killed is absolutely amazing. You know you've destroyed the very concept of reality itself when you can see one man gut or shoot another and then say with a straight face that he was absolutely not morally responsible for the death of the other man. The question isn't "is he morally responsible," which he obviously is, but: "was it justified?" War, by its nature, is reprehensible. There is nothing good or noble about murder. The question is whether the murder is morally justifiable or not.

Talk about stolen concept fallacy. I suspect this particular interpretation is merely a remnant off shoot of the eastern pacifistic buddhist abdication of values and rejection of emotions.

Murdering an *evil* person is GOOD, RIGHT, and NOBLE. If I could have killed Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, I would relish every moment of it, and would forever cite it as one of my proudest achievements. Your reaction is of the common post modern western variety, who, stumbling upon people fighting, insist that they stop because to you PEACE is the highst virtue, NOT JUSTICE. You don't stop to ask why they are fighting, you don't care that one is trying to kill the other and rape his wife. All you care about is that thier fighting, and they ought not to be. If something is *justified* then it necessarily must be GOOD, RIGHT, and JUST. If you feel disgusting for doing something that is JUSTIFIED, then you harbor contradictory premisses. Either your action was not justified, or what you base positive and negative emotional reactions on is disconnected from justice.

War, by it's nature, is neither worthy of praise nor reprehensible, any more than hitting someone is or doing something productive is praise-worthy or reprehensible without considering it's context and purpose. You could be hitting someone because you are a mugger, or producing bombs that look like childrens toys - these are reprehensible. You could be hitting someone who is tyring to make bombs that look like childrens toys or producing a malaria vaccine, these are praiseworthy. You could be fighting a war in order to plunder resources and enslave a population, or be doing so defending or furthering that which you VALUE. In the latter case the war is praiseworthy, and properly just wars are an extension of defending or furthering values. Wars fought in defense of that which you value or to further that which you value are NEVER reprehensible - unless carried out in a reprehensible manner, like those ARI often advocates.

Killing an evil man, and finding it prideful is as proper an emotion as profound Joy is when achieving something great.

Tycho himself was still a geocentrist in theory (or a “geo-heliocentrist”) believing that the Earth was the center of the universe, with all bodies ultimately orbiting around the Earth

Actually Tycho was a supporter of Copernican Heliocentrism when he begin he decades of detailed observations, but begrudgingly came out of it as a geo-centrist because he did not observer *any* stellar parallax. People of that time, even the most wise and prescient, did not conceive of the universe as more than 100 or 1000 times the distance of the earth to the moon, and expected to see stellar parallax. Stellar parallax is so small however that it was not empirically observed until the mid 1800's.

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorites

Tibor Machan

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/S...p;thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Actually we are not. The bug population of the earth outweighs the mammal by at least 100 to 1. Long after humans are extinct the cockroach will still be around along with ants and other critters. Humans have a high opinion of themselves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's much more than that, Baal, but if what you measure 'success' by is percent of biomass used up in the tissue of that entity, you have an odd standard of success. Are you a 'more succesfull' entity at existing in the world if you are a big fat guy then if you are a little skinny midget? When another giant asteroid strikes the earth, it will wipe out ALL life, including cockroaches, it will only be HUMANS that will stop this from happening. Misanthropes have a low opinions of humans, and a high opinion of cockroaches.

Michael,

Thank you for this thoughtful composition.

George Reisman has criticized the widespread environmentalist premise that nature possesses intrinsic value. I heard him speak about this roughly 15 years ago. He has an article on this, which is linked below.

Thanks Stephen, I'll read the essay. I am aware of this criticism of environmentalism, but I had not made the connection that liberals, who tend to avoid the idea that there is any kind of 'objective' standard of morality, who will sit back and appeal to multi-culturalism in the face of a rampaging genocide, never the less hold this abstract pure environment as their objective standard of morality, applicable and morally justified in defending. They'd cry imperialism if one nation insists another not imprison people for writing essays about democracy, but if the emissions of the smoke stacks of their factories are too bad they'll be more than happy to unleash a holy wrath upon them, and yet no one complains that they are just imposing their arbitrary standards upon another people.

Reisman’s talk was under the auspice of the Ayn Rand Institute. In the Q&A, I pointed out that in Rand’s theory of value every organism is an end in itself and that its own inherent value constitution is what it is without any relation to human cognizance or human utility. I asked him how he would accommodate this idea, which is part of the base of Rand’s objective theory of value, with his Austrian-inspired approach of maintaining that all goods in the earth, whether living or not, are only goods in relation to human utility. He said he would have to defer that to the Objectivist philosophers.

I think this is something that still needs to be worked out, and your question was a good one. While i am all for using the material environment to better human life, I'd still oppose cutting down EVERY tree, even if some human mechanical equvalent performed all the functions that trees do in the atmosphere. I'll sometimes use 'intrinsic value' but when forced to define it would say it is the small amount of value that every rational entity places on something.

You can't derive moral laws from physical laws, that's the point, it's wrong to ask for that in the first place. Morality is not embedded into the fabric of space time. It's the religious push for an 'objective' morality that is undeniable and absolute that leads people to search for that. The only thing relating to morality written in the laws of the universe and laws of physics is the consequences of your actions. What you choose as your basis is not embedded in the grand unified field theory or quantum fluctuations, but the consequences of choosing action A or B as it relates to what you choose to value is. Shermer's main criticism of Objectivism is that he thinks it is saying there is an 'objective' basis for morality (in the religious sense) that Rand asserts she discovered and demands be accepted as true by everyone, this is utterly incorrect (Incidentally Shermer is essentially an objectivist and admirer of Rand) Objectivisms' 'Objective' code for morality is 'objective' in the sense that it is understandable, discoverable, and available to anyone with a mind. And it's not the 'only' morality, but it is the ONLY one proper to rational beings in a real universe who wish to 'live' any other system, in other basis, is ultimately one that leads to death, destruction, and decay THAT is written into the laws of physics.

The Swedes are rational beings and they manage to live in a working "People's State" So much for the "only" you assert.

Baal, you just argue for the sake of arguing, it's irritating. The Sweedish social state has caused it's economy to steadily decline for the past 40 years or so. If the entire world was a 'sweedish peoples state' it would fail, eventually, and decay. To the extent which a moral and political system holds life as it's objective standard for morality is the extent to which it prospers and is successful. To the extent which it does not, it declines and decays. You act like if there is even one regulation on trade, it instantly should cause everyone to die. Get real.

Moral and ethical systems are conventional. They are based on conventions, protocols, customs and laws that are made up by people

bla bla bla yes I know all that. Half the point of the essay is that to call something an 'objective' morality should not mean it somehow transcends conventions, protocols, customs, whatever. The other half is that liberals, who scoff at the concept of an objective standard of morality, readily embrace one in the form of environmentalism.

This is not to say that all ethical systems are equal. They surely are not.

Thank you for making my case. Objectively, (i.e. empirically verified) using Life (life qua Man) as the standard of moral value, leads to the only successful and fulfilling existence for all rational beings that exist in that world. It should be obvious that if 'tree life' were the objective standard of morality, that this standard would be the one most conducive to a succesful life for trees. This would be obvious to any rational tree who cared to investigate the question. whatever you make the objective standard of your morality is what prospers from that, and because we are humans, sentient, rational, non-omniscient, and exist within the same universe, if you want to continue to live and existence then objectively the only standard of morality conducive to that is the life of those sentient, rational, non-omniscient entities. What you hold as your standard is conventional, that you have a standard and it has consequences regardless of your opinions is objective.

a less meaningful existence. Rand clarifies this as ‘Life qua Man’ that is, the thing’s proper to life in the context of an individual’s values and Man’s nature.

Nihilistic skeptics, atheists, and philosophers throughout the ages have insisted that there is no such thing as an ‘objective’ morality. Theists will make a claim that the word of god handed down as moral commandments are in fact an ‘objective’ basis for morality, and in their case they use ‘objective’ to mean something like ‘absolute’ and ‘irrefutable’ in this their use of the term objective has infiltrated the skeptical philosophers, like Michael Shermer, using the religious definition of objective also insists there is no ‘objective’ basis for morality and justifies this by saying how can you say this or that is right or wrong, according to what? Shermer misunderstands ‘objective morality’ when he uses this a criticism of Objectivism, as if Objectivism has identified through revelation the one true morality, instead of identifying the only one proper to rational beings in the real world.

Life qua -which- man?

Again, a VERY interesting topic for discussion and one I have been mulling over a great deal (had some discussions about it over at Objectivismonline.net) I'd like to discuss this topic if you or others are interested, in a separate thread.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell us how to derive moral laws from the physical laws that faithfully describe how the real world works. I can see where physical laws can -constrain- moral laws (see evolutionarily stable strategy) but I cannot see how physical laws can -determine- moral laws. Perhaps you know something that I am missing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can't derive moral laws from physical laws, that's the point, it's wrong to ask for that in the first place. Morality is not embedded into the fabric of space time. It's the religious push for an 'objective' morality that is undeniable and absolute that leads people to search for that. The only thing relating to morality written in the laws of the universe and laws of physics is the consequences of your actions. What you choose as your basis is not embedded in the grand unified field theory or quantum fluctuations, but the consequences of choosing action A or B as it relates to what you choose to value is. Shermer's main criticism of Objectivism is that he thinks it is saying there is an 'objective' basis for morality (in the religious sense) that Rand asserts she discovered and demands be accepted as true by everyone, this is utterly incorrect (Incidentally Shermer is essentially an objectivist and admirer of Rand) Objectivisms' 'Objective' code for morality is 'objective' in the sense that it is understandable, discoverable, and available to anyone with a mind. And it's not the 'only' morality, but it is the ONLY one proper to rational beings in a real universe who wish to 'live' any other system, in other basis, is ultimately one that leads to death, destruction, and decay THAT is written into the laws of physics.