UncleJim

You're trying to ascribe a rational definition to the term "model", however, the coiners of that term have nothing rational in mind when they use it. It's a pure Kantian construct meant to convey a dichotomy between the alleged noumenal and phenomenal realms. This is a very healthy reality-oriented reaction but it will get you nowhere in an argument with the "modeler" mentality. Shayne Why be concerned about what Kant has to say? Under Objectivism if someone says they have "modeled" reality that claim needs to be supported by what reality actually is; otherwise the claim is false.

Words by their nature are contextual--there are many definitions for each of those words. Your implication to the contrary is intrinsicism and your argument is silly. The connotation of "obligation" is "duty", but there is in fact no such thing as a "moral duty". The rational denotation of "moral obligation" therefore has to be the the same as "moral responsibility" or "moral requirement"--that which one ought to do. Shayne I did not meant to say there are not many definitions for individual words floating around. I did mean to say there is only one rational definition for each word. Otherwise anyone can claim to have developed the correct definition; and by definition, it would be the correct definition. Let me say this: If an "obligation" is self-determined this means one has acted properly with regard to ones responsibilities.

For example many religions postulate that man was created or intelligently designed, this amounts to theory or model of some aspect of reality. This theory is not accepted by most scientists, who believe in evolution. Objectivism has several aspects, one of which is epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge. So it has a model of how man knows but it is not the only such model. If the "model" does not respect what is then it is-not a model of it. It's real easy for people to simply claim to have modeled reality by claiming that man was created by some kind of intelligent designer. But if that claim is not in accordance with what actually exists in reality then it cannot actually be a model of it.

On the contrary, you're just stubbornly clinging to an irrational definition of "moral obligation". There's no distinction between a "moral responsibility", a "moral requirement" and a "moral obligation", they are all one in the same thing. Shayne Notice that responsibility, requirement and obligation are different words - each has a different definition. You may believe the definition for each is the same but the available evidence does not support your belief.

Your life is the standard of value in ethics. "Too much" implies a standard by which we measure it--the proper standard is your life. To eat "too much" is by definition to violate the standard and breach morality. Don't get confused and think this is prescribing for you exactly how much to eat or how much you can legitimately weigh. Objectivism only says that your life is the standard and reason is the method, it doesn't tell you how it applies for every individual. Shayne Edit: I would add that anyone who does not understand my point above should stop wasting time reading/writing in Objectivist forums and instead go read the Objectivist literature. But that does not respond to my question about your claim that I have a "moral obligation" to not over eat. What you seem to actually mean is that I have a responsibility which is described by what my life is and how that determines how I ought to be acting. If this is the case; then I agree. Your edited remark implies that you actually know what you are talking about. However your demonstrated confusion on the issue of moral obligation defeats your implied claim.

All theories, propositions, religions, science, etc. are models of reality only. Some are based on strict methodology, like most science, others are very speculative, like most religions, but all are models, including Objectivism. Please tell me how religion "models" reality. Objectivism does not model reality; it observes it and then simply reports what it sees.

Nonsense. You are morally obligated to refrain from eating too much, that doesn't imply that anyone should force you. Shayne Exactly what is my "moral obligation" to refrain from eating to much?

Another term for "moral obligation" might be - force. To be morally obligated means that someone else is telling you how you ought to be acting. Often times that other person will use whatever means necessary to get you to do what they believe you ought to be doing.

We call them "fanatical Islamist's" but what does that mean? In my view it means they really really do believe whatever their religion says about human beings and how they ought to be acting. With this being the case then their religion is responsible for why they are acting in the way they are. The only "facet" I see at work here is what religion says about humans. The same is not true with respect to Objectivism. The primary difference is that religion is based on opinion; Objectivism is not. Objectivism is based on reality. Since reality must be observed to be known then Objectivism is merely an expression of what is known.

Bob, I have problems with this on both counts. They are both in theory and not in practice. In practice, FREE TRADE "is the most peace producing relationship." When trade is entered with a dictator or corrupt politicians/businessmen, the game is anything goes—and that often is war. (I won't even start about our end.) In the case of Muslim nations, some parts of the populations feel as you say. Others do not. I have a principle I came up with back in my college days and one day I intend to use it as a theme for a literary work. If a person is content to be going along in a life of habit and modest means, then you come and offer him wealth he never dreamed of, he will take it, but he will forever hate you for it. I see this working just as strongly, if not more so, in oil countries where the general education level is low than appeals to the Qur'an and bigotry. Michael Notice the blue highlight. His premise was based on "free trade." Your interpretation of this point violates his underlying premise. When individuals cooperate from mutual agreement to mutual benefit the only possible outcome is mutual goodwill. All religious doctrine (Islam included) violates what it means to act for ones own goodwill. Religion requires humans to act in that way which its deity is living. Since (by definition) the religious deity does not live here on earth; then, requiring humans to act in accordance with where he does live is an absurdity. This is the fundamental issue of why we are having problems dealing with Muslim nations. They have taken their concerns over how we conduct our personal lives very seriously as is witnessed by the absurdity of their purposefully conducted murders by suicide bombing. They have announced how they want to communicate with us. Since voicing our interest in advancing their personal self-interest here on earth by volitional trade to mutual benefit (here on earth) is not their prime motivation; then, it has become to our best interest to communicate using their method of communication – death. Not our death; of course, but theirs. They are the ones who are; by the consequences resulting from their own actions, proving they want to die. It's in our best interest to assure they achieve their desired goal.

Back to the opening post for a moment. The issue seems to reduce to obligation vs. responsibility. Is it ones obligation to help another? No! Is it ones responsibility to help another? Again – no! What's the difference? Obligations are expectations placed on one by others. It is possible for another to say it is ones responsibility to help others. But that is not true. Why? Because responsibility has to do with what self is, not with what another is. To be a responsibly acting individual means to act in those ways as determined by what ones-self is. However; since both ones-self and the others-self are both of the same species then ones responsibilities are the same as the others. And visa versa. Under objectivism children have the exact same rights as adults. However; since children are limited as to what they are able to do; then, they must be taken care of until they become able to act for their own best interest. For that child in the OP to continue to live he must be taken care of simply because he is unable to take care of his-self. Is his care the responsibility of someone! OF COURSE IT IS!!!! Anyone who would deny that the responsibility for his care exists as a fact of his existence is not an objectivist. Who has the responsibility for his care? His creators! These are the people who are despicable in their actions; not the photographer or you or me. It's just to damned bad things like this happen. Can we help? Of course we can! Is helping our responsibility as objectivists? Hell no! Is helping others achieve a proper human existence contrary to the principles underlying objectivist morality? Of course not! That is an absurdity. Under objectivism - What ought a properly functioning human to do in such a situation? Whatever they choose to do! Their choice of action is their individual right. Under objectivism – no other person has a right to determine ones actions nor does one have a right to determine another's actions. As a matter of fact; it is the objectivist ethic (as explained by the concept of capitalism) which had any chance at all to help this kid and others like him.

A couple groups Mr. Thomas did not mention here are scientists and mathematicians. The industrial revolution was not possible until the science was in place for the engineers, inventors, manufacturers, etc. to do their work. Before all else, science (time-binding) is what makes man different from animals and if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc. A lot of production occurred before any 'science' was well established. When animals evolved into humans their mode of survival depended on production remaining their prime activity. Production of what? You may ask. Children - of course! To be productive both animals and plants must be alive. They must act in that way which addresses their identity. For humans to be considered a properly acting living organism requires they use their mind to understand what they are; where they live; and what this says about how they must act to remain what they are where they live. When considering what humans are the idea of production must include all those "intellectual" activities required for continued human existence.

Did the study evaluate why mans brain is 300% larger than an apes brain and what that says about why humans act in the way they do? Your statement copied from above "But if belief/disbelief/undecidable assessments of propositions requiring use of reason and experiential emotions process through the same brain structures as indicated in Cohen and Harris," is just simply wrong! This being the case then the issue you raise is moot.

A man who lives on an island by himself has certain things he must do to remain a man on that island. This establishes the purpose of his existence. His purpose is to be what he is, wherever he exists. His purpose has nothing at all to do with another's purpose; which of course, is exactly the same as his. Now when this man walks to the other side of the island and discovers another man his purpose does not change nor does the purpose for the existence of the other man. Selfishness explains the nature of those actions which are a requirement of individual human survival. Selfishness does not allow for steeling, fraud and force to enter into how one human interacts with another. Selfishness; when applied to society, is called capitalism.

Ayn Rand said "life is the standard of value." As such life; itself, is not a value but rather it is how values are known and ranked. The existence of life; being a physical existent, is absolute. By normal human sensual observation it is obvious that Life itself has evolved into living organisms. It is the need of life to continue exist within ones own body that establishes what the concept of value means. Not just to one but to all living organisms wherever they may exist. Since each living organism has specific identifying characteristics then what its values are and how it gains them may be somewhat different from the other organisms. But this does not deny that life is the standard for how the concept of value applies to that organism or to its actions. Humans are a specific kind of living organism. They have evolved in such a way that their mode of survival is based in purposeful identification rather than sensual observation as is the case with the other high functioning animals. Value and virtue are human ideas. They can; however, be extrapolated to apply to any living organism. This is because value; and its associated virtues, is life based. If ones actions are not life based they are not considered to be virtuous. Notice how virtue does not apply to one when one is dead, therefore, the standard of virtuous action is self-action; i.e., it is selfish action.

When I look at what exists I see two fundamentally different kinds of things. Things that live and things that don't. The difference is called life. The living things are the different ones because they possess the differentiating characteristic (or attribute). In other words: The existence of life is responsible for what the idea of difference means. Notice how life only makes a difference to living things; to non-living things it makes no difference at all. Also notice how the existence of the life of a living thing is contingent. It's contingent on the actions of the living thing – within which it exists. If a living thing acts contrary to its nature it will cease being what it is because its life will expire and the living thing will die. Since this is the case, then, the proposition that any individual living thing (human or otherwise) can choose whatever it wants to do and remain a properly existing living thing is simply wrong thinking. Again; if a living thing does not (or cannot) achieve those goals which its life requires that it achieve, that living thing will cease being what it is. And this addresses the issue of happiness. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs when a properly functioning HUMAN realizes they are alive and are worthy of the life they possess.

OK! Good boy. Now don't let the ship sink. Keep up the pressure. It's real easy for some to criticize how its been done. No one likes war! I would much prefer they would take all the money they make from our buying their oil to teach their people the capitalistic ethic. Some how I don't think that's going to happen.

How to defend America? Successfully! If that means finding the bad guys in someone else's backyard then so be it. Somebody has attacked us; and not just once but several times! We have a right to defend ourselves against whoever did that. If you think we got it wrong by going to Iraq then offer another solution. Don't tell me I have to wait for them to kill my grandchildren before I can act against them because I am going to hate you for offering such a stupid idea.

As an Objectivist you are required to have evidence to support this. It seems to be lacking. Otherwise a guilty verdict would be a slam-dunk.

When someone asks "am I fat" and another says "no" is the other lying? What's the standard? It's impossible for "no" to be considered a true statement for the person asking the question, if that person is anorexic (for example). In my view to lie means to purposefully describe a fact which is not sensually observable as if it actually is. Asking "am I fat?" or "did you have a good time?" are emotion based questions and as such are asking for an opinion.

As one begins to understand not only that they are alive but that they are worthy of life is when they begin to understand what happiness is. To be happy one must first be alive and then one must understand that that is mans purpose. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs from understanding what mans purpose is and that one is able to achieve it. To be or become happy one must first be alive. Remaining alive is; then, mans ultimate purpose. For man, remaining alive, requires production of the conditions, products and services necessitated by the achievement of that goal. "Moving forward" is a natural resultant of mans nature as the only known creative being in the universe.

If it is a requirement that the premise is true, then why is the conclusion not allowed? It seems to me that you created a contradiction and then denied it is a contradiction.