Hazard

The Renaissance occurred (i think) because technology finally allowed mankind to have extra time that didn't have to be spent on mere survival. The reason I have been able to develop my mind and learn about things like Objectivism is only because my society is technologically advanced. Does this not make me an object of charity to the men whose inventions made them the permanent benefactors of mankind? If I were, say, born in a poor village in Africa where disease was rampant and we could barely grow enough food to survive, I would not be able to develop my mind past the level of a cave man: the basic survival ethics. This is the conundrum that I am faced with: I have the capacity to succeed, not by my own will and effort, but because I am lucky. I cannot justify using that success for selfish ends when it was bestowed upon me and not earned. It seems reasonable that I should, in turn, use my success to provide others with a means to success; just as it was done for me. However, this line of thought brings me to the frightful conclusion that I would be taking the whole worlds misfortunes upon my shoulders (like Atlas). I would not be able to justifiably enjoy any luxury (from a soda to a car) while there is still suffering and misfortune. Note: I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem Rand's logic makes a lot of sense to me. But "for the cost of a cup of coffee a day you could provide for a child's life." Therefore, the question determining if I should live by her values or the ones stated above is: Can I justify valuing my small luxuries (like a cup of coffee) above the very lives of others, especially when my good fortune that allows for my success was not of my own effort but of the effort of those before me? -Jordan

Thanks guys. Btw what does Dakar in Senegal have to do with anything? Is that where that one notorious member is from? I forget his name.

You can assess someone however you want, the only thing that matters is wether your assessment is useful and serves its purpose. For example, I can measure my gas mileage however I want; but if I don't end up with useful information, I wont reach my destination before I run out of gas. Its all about practicality. You have no control over how I or anyone other than yourself judges anything. You can't control others thoughts. That is a flawed question. -Hazard

I just got a private message from joyzinga20@yahoo.in - I haven't been on OL for a few months and I can see no reason why she would message me. She also has NO active topics or posts. She even mentioned that she wanted to communicate through email. This sounds fishy! Anybody else get a similar message? -Hazard

"Open wide here comes original sin." - Regina Spektor

Just curious, Does Mr. Singer live just above the bare minimum required for sustenance? I wonder if he still buys a soda now and then. Or drives a car for that matter. Jordan

Mr. Gaede I could not have said it better than Selene: To the rest: Thank you all for your input. Jordan

No man has a right to force another man to submit to his will. No man has the right to someone else’s life. However, assuming that God exists, God has that right. By definition, God is man’s creator and therefore master. Additionally, God created morality. Any man who stands against God has nothing to stand up for. Supposing that God exists, would you submit to him no matter what he wanted you to do? Jordan

Thanks to the both of you, I figure, the more of these kinds of conversations that I have, the better I will get at it. Jordan

I used to be a Christian, but am not anymore. Most of the people that I know are Christians. Suddenly most of my close friends are grilling me over my salvation. Nothing I say changes anything or even brings the argument to a close. How can I have a conversation with people who (truly care about me, but) continue to remind me how "dangerous the path I am taking is" and how "afraid they are for me?" It's just highly uncomfortable and I want to be able to have a good time with them with out them being constantly worried over my salvation. I'm sure many of you have had similar issues. What did your experience teach you? Jordan

Ok, I see what you are saying. I even remember Rand saying something about sacrifice, so i suppose that giving one's life in that manner wouldn't be a sacrifice after all. However, that would imply that you hold certain values above that of your own life. In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand wrote that life is the value and one's own life is the virtue as I stated above. So, I'm slightly confused about the virtue/value system here. Does putting one's child's life above that of your own violate her theory or not (regardless if it is a sacrifice)? Or, is giving up a value for something else wrong if and only if it is a sacrifice? For instance, A>>B so giving up B for A is not a sacrifice, but giving up A for B is. Jordan

Rand's ultimate value in morality is life and her virtue is "one's own life," correct? Which begs the question, does Rand view certain cases of Martyrdom and/or sacrifice as moral? For instance, if I throw my body on top of a grenade in a bunker to save my comrades, am I evil? This action certainly does not sustain my life; however they do sustain my values (what I act to keep and hold as important) such as the life of my fellow soldiers. So how does Rand (and the rest of you) view giving up one's life for what one believes in? Also, this sounded like a contradiction to me when I first heard it: I remember the point in Atlas Shrugged where everyone from the valley risk their lives in an attempt to save John (I recall the passage saying something to the effect of: If we had failed, the rest of them were prepared for a fully-armed assault); and later when they are returning to the valley in the plane they claim that it was a completely selfish motive. I just don't buy that. Realistically, they were concerned for John's interests and willing to give up their lives for his safety and survival. So, if selfishness is "concern with one's own interests," they certainly were not being selfish. Jordan

Oh, i see. Thank you for clearing that up. Also, I agree with Brant, if you don't recognize the statement "Existence exists" then you haven't read Rand very much.

Adam, They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions. There isn't a context, it's a dictionary. Are you asking for examples? Jordan

This is just a verbal dispute. The both of you are operating by different definitions of "axiom." Merriam-Webster: Axiom "1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit 2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1 3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" Maxim "1 : a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct 2 : a proverbial saying" In one sense of the word (1), Xray is right. An axiom can be defined as the mass opinion of truth; however, using it in the metaphysical sense (2) or (3) an axiom is unable to be proven, but is necessary as a foundation for logic and reason. Example: "Existence exists." So, this may be a dispute as to what is assumed to be an axiom and what is an axiom. Jordan

Reidy, Could you clarify? I don't understand your post. If I'm right, then homosexuality is immoral, or at least that specific argument doesn't make it moral. Jordan

If homosexuality is moral because it is just a "sexual preference;" so is bestiality. Jordan

Logical Positivism is defined by Merriam Webster to be "a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless" Isn't "metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless" a contradiction to the rest of the definition? Jordan

I suppose you who believe that homosexuality is moral feel the same about bestiality? Ted and StudiodeKadent, Let's not forget that Atlas Shrugged is a fictitious novel. We can't pretend that characters actions or motives mean anything other than what the author intended them to mean. Jordan

No. What on earth makes you think that she suggests using another's judgement? Have you read her books? If I agree with Rand through my own independent reasoning, I am not using her logic as a basis for my own. I am using my logic to come to the same conclusion. If I tell you that 2+2=4 and you agree with me, does that mean that you are abdicating your judgement for mine? No, not if you figure it out for yourself too. Jordan

Hazard, Your father's advice is excellent. "Audiatur at altera pars" applies not only in the courtroom, but every time one wants to get the compelete picture of an issue. What exactly was it you were philosophically thirsting for? Do do believe Objectivsm encourages independent thinking? If yes, in what way? To check one's premises is an excellent advice by Rand. This involves checking her own premises too. That's where I would start. Xray, I had multiple issues of "blank outs" (to use the Galt terminology) in my life philosophy at the time, but it was all really a combination of my reaching intellectual maturity at the time that I was reading ideas that were actually rational. So it wasn't that I found something that I was looking for, it was that I found something that I hadn't realized that I wanted very badly. Yes, I believe Objectivity encourages independent thinking. There is no other form of thinking than independent thinking, no one can think for anyone else. The closest thing to "dependent thinking" is a volition that abdicates one's own judgement for the judgement of someone else. Jordan

A lot of the vocabulary here is over my head, but I'm keeping my dictionary at hand and I'm sure it is just a matter of time spent in personal research for me. Thank you all for the comments and the welcome, your articles and links will be a great place for me to start. Jordan

Thank you both very much. Just curious, why does academia brush her off? And another thing I heard someone else mention, why don't I ever hear of Objectivists accomplishing great things?

In a nutshell: 1. Objectivism for me has been like water to a man lost in the desert. 2. Finding it so appealing, I almost slipped back into a state of blind obedience to the Objectivist philosophy (contradicting its very nature) 3. To "check my premise" I would like to be exposed to Rand's critics. ( I just can't fathom why someone, after reading her books, would not become an Objectivist) I went on Amazon and read the preview for "The Ayn Rand Cult" by Jeff Walker which struck me at its mention that the most passionate Objectivists became Objectivists when they were young and did so with an incredible zeal. (I am 17 and that is exactly what happened to me). My father told me: one side of a debate will probably sound right until the opposition presents its case. So far, i've only had the Rand side of the debate. I would appreciate a recommendation of where I should start reading, or even your own disagreements with Objectivism. Jordan

GS, Do you have a moral standard? If so, than why dont you believe in rights? Jordan