Marcus

While I'm not prepared to call prostitution a "moral good". Too many bad things happen in and around the prostitution business and I could'nt justify saying that. But I would say it's "morally neutral". As in, not neccesarily good nor bad. And it's a real issue, sex is a deep need for most men. There are studies that actually show rape rates lowering where prostitution is legal. This is in no way whatsoever a justification of rape, but it goes to show the impact a single law can make on certain crimes ("crimes of passion" if you will). I've been in the military and I've seen what sexual frustration does to heterosexual men. It's not pretty. Never been to prison but ditto there lol.

The other thread on the nature of "evil" got me thinking in a few different directions. Particularly on so- called "victimless crimes". Prostitition, according to Objectivist doctrine, is considered bad, but legally acceptable. The rationale being prostitution (or any money-for-sex relationships) is "faking reality" on part of both the prosittute and the john. Sex, according to Objectivism, is held to be an exclusive good between two mutually valued partners, and money-for-sex arrangements are morally offensive. But let me ask you a question: is the crappily paid McDonalds worker who orders your food "faking reality" when she makes a smile she forced to make in order to please her customers and keep her job? Honestly, it's really no different for most prostitutes. It's a job and means of making his/her living. In most cases it's a woman (90% maybe) due to the economics of the demand for sex (always more favorable to women than men). Is she "wrong" for capitalising on this imbalance, while allowing herself to make a living and make men who otherwise could not access sex less frustrated and needy? Furthermore, most male/female relationships always have some elements of a financial transaction, whether explicit or implicit. This has been the case throughout all of human history and in all cultures. Taking girls out to dinner, divorce settlements, alimony payments, dowrys, wedding rings, etc,. are all elements of "normal" financial transactions in so called "normal" relationships, but somehow, these transactions are not frowned upon? If a man A marries a woman for 7 years, afterwards they get a nasty divorce, he pays her a $500,000 divorce settlement plus $40,000 a year in alimony. Meanwhile man B pays a prositute $300 an hour for sex, over the course of seven years this adds up to $50,540 (24 partners a year). Who made the more "rational" decision? Or man B pays his beautiful, young, model mistress $2000 a month for 4 years, after which they part ways amicably. No alimony, no settlements. Is man B somehow "worse off" because he did'nt get married? Is man A morally superior to man B when there were clearly "financial transactions" in both scenarios? IMO there is no good reason one way or another to declare prostitution a "moral evil" at all. Comments?

No one who decides to cheat believes he will be found out. If he did believe he would be found out, he would not choose to cheat. Greg Therein lies the source of the problem: irrational beliefs.

Rand explicitly stated to violate the rights of others means to forfeit your own rights. The "predator" becomes the "prey". Furthermore, violating the rights of others is not a neccesary condition of surivival (unless you maybe live in a dictatorship where the concept of "rights" do not apply). Which then leads to another question: Why do you feel the need to violate the rights of nothers in the first place if not required to do so? If life is the standard of morality and life does not require hurting or killing or cheating other men (just the opposite), to take those actions *IS* irrational and hence, immoral. "Evil", she identified, is a function of a series of mental evasions that lead to false premises. Every example argument the video made are pretty clear examples of evasion. By the looks of things, most of the commenters in this thread have been rather easily mislead by them. What have we all learned here most of all? This is why persuasive rhetoric must never fall into the wrong hands haha.

He is dead on correct. Reason and Logic are orthogonal to righteousness and good. Ba'al Chatzaf He's dead on wrong. His cheating example evades a clear implication: what stops the cheater from eventually being found out that he in fact is faking his knowledge and skills? This "moral calculus" approach to decision making has already been addressed within Objectivism. This applies to every other example he gave. An action is not "rational" if the actor knows the action is not in his long-term interest. I thought you guys would've caught that.

There is evidence that humans do have some "built-in" values, that is, values that are not learned or neccesarily chosen. For example, in nearly all societies, there seems to be a strong taboo and emotional revulsion against incest. Or that babies as young as 1 know the difference between good and evil and desire to punish evil. There is also the universal appeal of sex, food, facial symmetry etc. All are clear values to most people, regardless of culture or upbringing. I don't totally agree with the objectivist idea that *all* values are learned or chosen.

^ I'm at a loss at what this all means I'm afraid. You've essentially explained nothing. You have no argument to even begin a debate. And I'm quite glad you've decided to remove yourself from the discussion.

How about that this belongs under humor?Why? Objectivism encourages people to live and develop themselves to their fullest extent. I see nothing funny about that. Unless I am mistaken.It reads like fan-boy material coming from someone with no experience in the real world. To the point of being funny. If Objectivism is making you feel like you have super-powers, I suggest you look into the ancient Greek concept of hubris before trying your next super-feat. Here's a case that comes to mind, though I hate to hold this man up to any kind of ridicule:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Niederhoffer I met him at an Objectivist event in 1997, right before his fund blew up, and...let's just say he was exuding overconfidence. You say my original post has no relation to the "real world" (with no further explanation) then proceed to give me an irrelevant example of some random person you met some years ago. If you read my *original post*, not skimmed, READ, I said nothing about feeling like I myself have superpowers. I said the result of continous, demanding, lifelong practice results in abilities far above that of the normal person (akin to "superpowers"). I implied this is essentially a side effect (not a primary goal) of operating normally as a consistent, principled Objectivist. I am growing tired of the pointless, thoughtless criticism I am getting here for sharing ideas. Atleast tell me *why* you disagree. Or maybe just keep it to your damn self. Familiarize yourself with the basic principles of argument and debate. Put up or shut up. I'm ok with different or oppossing views, but I don't have much tolerance for unsubstantiated, drive-by trolling.

Mike, my opinion stands until reason to change it. If and or when you or anyone else gives me a reason (via good arguments), I'll change my stance. Doubtful though it is. The whole concept (AI) is abhorrent to me. Now about those superpowers....

^ Never heard of him. I'll check him out. In any case, calling my viewpoint "garbage" is a bizarre claim, as you just admitted to not reading Kurzweils books or taking an examined look at his position. I have. I've read his essays( such as accelerated returns), viewed his talks and excerpts from his books. I'm informed enough to create an opinion.

No, actually (that is, the future "singularity" event) it is the central focus and goal of his writing. Everything he does and writes about refers ultimately to that goal. He's sort of a transcendental materialist. I have. Some I like (such as the medical innovations he proposes, life extension, 3d printing technologies and others). Others I vehemently oppose (AI). There was no false identification. I did not judge "out of the gate" at all. I was already aware of his position and arguments. I simply disagree with (many of) them. For reasons I will probably elaborate on in another thread. You forget to mention that you also made an assumption (i.e. pre-judgement): The assumption that I did'nt know their arguments or what I was talking about. That assumption is actually wrong. What makes them "lazy" in my view is 1) They are waiting for some indeterminate, future, "transcendental" event to solve their perceived problems 2) They neglect to find creative ways to solve issues, today, as they are and instead "pass it off" to some future, machine super intelligence because they have effectively "given up" on human efficacy. A dangerous, lazy idea. If the world is knowable, and man is equipped to survive and solve problems then can he not solve a problem as simple as hunger? Or is he ultimately helpless and needs intelligent robots to do it for him? Most of the problems of today are epistemological and political, not metaphysical.

I'm no fan of the singularity (I'll explain in another thread at some point). The idea that we should just "pass off" all our problems to artificial intelligence and advanced technology is not only foolhardy and dangerous but extremely lazy, and takes a dim view of man's efficacy. I admire his ability to learn a difficult skill and commit to it long range. A skill that is highly valued by the market and worth millions of dollars at higher levels, like basketball. Pie-eating does not fulfill that criteria.

^ Do you know any competitive pie-eaters who're worth 100's of millions of dollars? I don't.

lol He would surely notice that he is different from the others. He would be reminded of this fact everyday. Power is the ability to do what others cannot. I'm refering to a general way of being, of operating consistently. This guy (not objectivist) has a set a lofty goal, and commits to it daily. He started 4 years ago, and has logged over 5,000 hours to his 10,000 hour goal. Playing golf (at a high level) is a highly valuable skill. He is to the point now where he drew with Phil Mickelson (famous pro golfer) and beat him the following day (by one stroke).

I'm still here. First off, part of the problem is you some of you guys are starting off with the wrong idea of perfection. Perfection, according to Objectivism, does not mean omniscience or even the lack of mistakes. Instead, it is a full, consistent committment to rationality. - Atlas Shrugged And Brant, you are missing the point. My point was that consistently committing to excellence, on a daily basis, to one's fullest extent, is not only a value psychologically and selfishly, but it will make you a source of great values to others. This is the idea of the hero. Objectivism is not a philosophy for people who desire, on principle, to be "average". Nor for those who believe moral perfection is an impossible quest destined only to failure (malevolent universe). Maybe Epicureanism suits you. It's still rational (mostly). My ideas have been blown out of proportion, miscontrued and even attacked on other parts of the forum. There are people here that, for example, have argued against the efficacy of charisma (to contrary of daily observation and countless scientific studies on the subject). This whole process is not new to me. But my goal is ultimately to get people to think of new innovative ways to apply objectivism and make new connections. If nothing else my ideas always get alot of response and attention.

It is both a virtue and a consequence of virtue. Forming a feedback loop. Or we can agree to disagree. Reality will sort it out.

My point with the post (which some here are seeming to misinterpret) is to sum up a 'feeling', a result of deliberate, consistent, demanding action. The physical and mental result, not just the emotional. I brought up professional athletes because they are the most relatable, concrete examples of what I sought to convey (i.e. examples of excellence and achievement). The response I got from some of you is really bizarre (especially this being an Objectivist forum?). Pride is not a virtue, this goes in the humor section etc,. Almost as if it springs not from genuine criticism but insecurity. But Mike, I get your point. I did'nt aim to bring it across as "You're damned and lame if you don't do this!", just used "superpower" as a device to convey what I was thinking.

Cheap shot. This has nothing to do with impressing others. Rather it is about achieving ones fullest potential because it is life affirming, pleasurable and moral to do so. The result is a richer experience of life. A life made more interesting by your own achievements. Go back and re-read my post. Then, go back and read up on the virtue of pride. Then watch your favorite professional athlete and marvel at the enormous dedication he undertook, and resulting pride he must feel for achieving glittering success in his sport. No steroids required. I can only conclude you haven't read The Fountainhead. --Brant I can only conclude you have'nt read my initial post. Howard Roark does not exist in your initial post. But then, he wasn't an Objectivist, was he? You don't seem to know much about sports or competence either. A certain complexity is missing. Your view of what being an Objectivist is is like Peter Keating's mother's view of him being an architect. --Brant Because you can tell I don't know much about sports from.....a few typed words? Yeah, sure (My brother played college and professional football). I know enough about sports to know pride when I see it on the face of a man (or woman). And you're making alot of assumptions, like a blind man reaching in the dark. As usual your "drive by" style of writing leaves others bewildered and is actually counter productive to your whatever point you're trying to get across.

Cheap shot. This has nothing to do with impressing others. Rather it is about achieving ones fullest potential because it is life affirming, pleasurable and moral to do so. The result is a richer experience of life. A life made more interesting by your own achievements. Go back and re-read my post. Then, go back and read up on the virtue of pride. Then watch your favorite professional athlete and marvel at the enormous dedication he undertook, and resulting pride he must feel for achieving glittering success in his sport. No steroids required. I can only conclude you haven't read The Fountainhead. --Brant I can only conclude you have'nt read my initial post.

I am not speaking here specifically about Romantic literature, but the idea of "things as they might and ought to be". A category of ideas about "what is possible" rather than "things as currently observed". This part of the quote made me think deeply and lead me to some interesting conclusions. Objectivism, by it's nature is a highly demanding philosophy, that if consistently practiced, should create people of extraordinary ability, similar to the process of creating a professional athlete. Unlike other philosophies like Epicureanism, which values friends, leisure and stagnant pleasures, Objectivism values conscious activity, progress, and constant growth. It values a sort of radical outtake on life that completely disregards social conventions, mores, beliefs and constraints. The obvious implication is that practicing Objectivists should stand out quite visibly from their peers. By "superpowers" I don't mean in the supernatural, mystical sense, but ability far and above what most people consider "normal" or "average", even that which is envisioned by most people, but nevertheless possible. For example, (and this man is not an Objectivist) taking up the demanding sport of running his entire life, this man has apparently developed the ability to run forever, without ever tiring. There are many outstanding examples of human beings in this world that defy our expectations of what is "normal" or "possible" in common, everyday parlance. Most of them have never even heard of Objectivism. I now wonder what this same type of person, equipped with the right philosophy could achieve. I don't neccessarily think Objectivists should be good at everything, but in our specialized society, most Objectivists should be extraordinary at atleast one particular thing, akin to Malcom Gladwell's "10,000 hours" theory. My point is, operating at a high level of performance consistently, both mentally and physically, as Objectivism demands, one should feel as if he can do things other people can't, see things they cannot, be what they cannot. The definition of power. Or in other words, "superpowers". I won't even pretend to say I hold up to this standard, or practice Objectivism consistently, but I believe if this philosophy is taken to its fullest implications, the result should be quite radical and different than the current one I live now. Thoughts? Peter Keating on steroids. --Brant try living with integrity Cheap shot. This has nothing to do with impressing others. Rather it is about achieving ones fullest potential because it is life affirming, pleasurable and moral to do so. The result is a richer experience of life. A life made more interesting by your own achievements. Go back and re-read my post. Then, go back and read up on the virtue of pride. Then watch your favorite professional athlete and marvel at the enormous dedication he undertook, and resulting pride he must feel for achieving glittering success in his sport. No steroids required.

Pride, the forgotten virtue: - Galt's Speech

I can offer a few from the view of someone who is not an ideologically pure Objectivist, but yet lives by many of the objective moral principles advocated by Ayn Rand. Objectivism is just an intellectual fantasy for weak impotent unproductive failures so long as they lack the ability to actually manifest "what should be" into "what is". The only real Objectivists are the people who make the engine of the world RUN. Greg Yes, there's a word for that: mental masturbation. Objectivism has devolved into endless talking, debates, not taking things seriously etc. Kind of a contradiction, is'nt it?

How about that this belongs under humor?Why? Objectivism encourages people to live and develop themselves to their fullest extent. I see nothing funny about that. Unless I am mistaken.

I am struck by this profound quote: I am not speaking here specifically about Romantic literature, but the idea of "things as they might and ought to be". A category of ideas about "what is possible" rather than "things as currently observed". This part of the quote made me think deeply and lead me to some interesting conclusions. Objectivism, by it's nature is a highly demanding philosophy, that if consistently practiced, should create people of extraordinary ability, similar to the process of creating a professional athlete. Unlike other philosophies like Epicureanism, which values friends, leisure and stagnant pleasures, Objectivism values conscious activity, progress, and constant growth. It values a sort of radical outtake on life that completely disregards social conventions, mores, beliefs and constraints. The obvious implication is that practicing Objectivists should stand out quite visibly from their peers. By "superpowers" I don't mean in the supernatural, mystical sense, but ability far and above what most people consider "normal" or "average", even that which is envisioned by most people, but nevertheless possible. For example, (and this man is not an Objectivist) taking up the demanding sport of running his entire life, this man has apparently developed the ability to run forever, without ever tiring. There are many outstanding examples of human beings in this world that defy our expectations of what is "normal" or "possible" in common, everyday parlance. Most of them have never even heard of Objectivism. I now wonder what this same type of person, equipped with the right philosophy could achieve. I don't neccessarily think Objectivists should be good at everything, but in our specialized society, most Objectivists should be extraordinary at atleast one particular thing, akin to Malcom Gladwell's "10,000 hours" theory. My point is, operating at a high level of performance consistently, both mentally and physically, as Objectivism demands, one should feel as if he can do things other people can't, see things they cannot, be what they cannot. The definition of power. Or in other words, "superpowers". I won't even pretend to say I hold up to this standard, or practice Objectivism consistently, but I believe if this philosophy is taken to its fullest implications, the result should be quite radical and different than the current one I live now. Thoughts?

^ Fair enough.