How do you know murder is wrong?

[Peter]

Tony wrote: See: Everything in existence is a "fact", equally one person's utterance, or emotion or act, etc. Just like consciousness has a nature, the expressions of a mind have, too. end quote

It’s hard to imagine that speech, thoughts, or emotions are as real as atoms, but they are. In a way those intangibles are like a check backed up by currency or tangible gold. Even fantasies or fictions like fairy tales have a certain reality about them since they are a product of consciousness.  

The God Particle, Petrino 

[moralist]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:25 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

In the sciences,  various protocols have evolved that enable  the use of second hand witness, but under conditions in  which falsehood is improbable.  

 Bob is so blinded by his secular religion he can't even explain how the liberal government scientists he worships could have been so completely WRONG about cholesterol...

...for 40 YEARS.

"Potentially reversing almost 40 years of government policy, the top nutrition advisory board for the United States has dropped its warning against dietary cholesterol. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that no evidence supports a link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease."

http://www.naturalnews.com/048941_cholesterol_heart_disease_dietary_science.html

So much for "various protocols" and "improbable falsehoods"!

I'll take common sense any day over government education because it produces people like Bob who do whatever their government tells them to do no matter how irrational it is. And I'll bet Bob had been eating margarine for decades just because his government told him to do it.

Bob is a perfect example of a secular liberal government educated idiot.

Greg

 

 

[moralist]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:31 AM, gio said:

No need of God.

That would all depend on whether the god is Good or evil.

With just that one short sentence you wrote, you have just explained why your weak amoral libertine secular government worshipping nation is such tempting low hanging fruit which is so easily being assimilated by Islam.

Secular government dependent lambs with no moral standards deserve to be led to the slaughter by evil people with no moral standards.

It's rather poetic justice.

Greg

 

 

[anthony]

22 hours ago, Peter said:

Tony wrote: See: Everything in existence is a "fact", equally one person's utterance, or emotion or act, etc. Just like consciousness has a nature, the expressions of a mind have, too. end quote

It’s hard to imagine that speech, thoughts, or emotions are as real as atoms, but they are. In a way those intangibles are like a check backed up by currency or tangible gold. Even fantasies or fictions like fairy tales have a certain reality about them since they are a product of consciousness.  

The God Particle, Petrino 

Peter,

I like that you touched on fairy tales, and let's generalize, any artistic creations. As best I can put it at this moment, there is a cusp of identity where art, the "recreation of reality", meets O'ist epistemology. An image in the artist's vision or imagination - his consciousness - becomes "real" with the skill of his self-directing hand. Whatever is IN the art is likewise an existent - "a fact". A fairy, a unicorn, the Devil - and so on, aren't "real", but they will be to the fairly experienced/educated viewer's mind.

You wrote, finely: "In a way those intangibles are like a check backed up by currency or tangible gold".

"Things of human origin (whether physical or psychological) may be designated as "man-made facts"--as distinguished from the metaphysically given facts. ... One can alter a skyscaper or blow it up ... but as long as it exists, one cannot pretend that it is not there or that it is not what it is". AR: Metaphysical vs. Man Made

One cannot pretend that it is not what it is. As much for an artwork and what it represents of reality. This is, in a sense, an "artistic-creative" philosophy, I've maintained!

[BaalChatzaf]

22 hours ago, Peter said:

? The stereotypical Jew is smart, a bit amoral, a trader and a bargainer, not a murderous thug.  

Peter

Only a little bit amoral.  By the way being objective and non-sentimental is sometimes mistaken for amorality. Most real Jews will not cheat widows and orphans out of their mite.  Most, I say but not all.  Look at Bernie Madoff.  Shame on him, not only for what he did  but doubly because he knew better. 

[BaalChatzaf]

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

"Things of human origin (whether physical or psychological) may be designated as "man-made facts"--as distinguished from the metaphysically given facts. ... One can alter a skyscaper or blow it up ... but as long as it exists, one cannot pretend that it is not there or that it is not what it is". AR: Metaphysical vs. Man Made

One cannot pretend that it is not what it is. As much for an artwork and what it represents of reality.

Metaphyhsically Given  which means produced spontaneously by nature and not requiring human initiation or guidance.  Steam enclosed in a cavity will naturally exert pressure on the walls,  but it takes a human (or some equally sentient biological being)  to make a steam engine. 

[anthony]

Yup.

¶

Man’s faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions—when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man.

It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The manmade may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity—or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil. One man may be right and everyone else wrong, or vice versa (or any numerical division in between). Nature does not give man any automatic guarantee of the truth of his judgments (and this is a metaphysically given fact, which must be accepted). Who, then, is to judge? Each man, to the best of his ability and honesty. What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given.

The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is—and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality. The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong—it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 27

¶

A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man’s actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man’s character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man’s volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”

 

[BaalChatzaf]

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man’s actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man’s character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man’s volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”

 

I wish the term "metaphysically given"  could be obliterated, expunged, erased, made to disappear...    There is a better term:  "Natural"  and Naturally"  

By the way,  the very same thing could be said about a beaver made dam.   The dam would not exist  if the beaver (for whatever reason)  did not build it.

[Peter]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Only a little bit amoral.  By the way being objective and non-sentimental is sometimes mistaken for amorality. Most real Jews will not cheat widows and orphans out of their mite.  Most, I say but not all.  Look at Bernie Madoff.  Shame on him, not only for what he did  but doubly because he knew better. 

Did you mean to say MEAT and not mite? I would not consider a mite of any value. A Jew would not cheat a widow or orphan out of their quarter pounder with cheese, or eat too many of their fries.   

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Did you mean to say MEAT and not mite? I would not consider a mite of any value. A Jew would not cheat a widow or orphan out of their quarter pounder with cheese, or eat too many of their fries.   

Mite.  A medieval term meaning a small portion of charity given to widows and orphans so they could survive (barely) 

•  

•  

   

 

 

 

 

 

Origin and Etymology of mite

Middle English, from Old English mīte; akin to Middle Dutch mite mite, small copper coin

[Brant Gaede]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:46 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

There is no contradiction.  Rational Self Interest is served by behaving in a rational manner.  Very often the moral is the rational 

Tell us when it isn't.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

On 5/10/2017 at 7:31 AM, gio said:

I haven't read the whole topic but the answer to the question is very easy and simple for any objectivist worthy of this name. Perhaps what I'm going to say has already been said.

• By definition, moral choice, good and evil, presuppose values.
• Values presuppose life.
• Thus, destroying someone's life is against life, so against all values, in general.

No need of God.

Actually the idea of God can lead you easily to murder. Believing in God is based on faith, revelation. This means giving up (at least partially) his reason and this means that this kind of person can accept an idea that has no logical or rational justification, on the basis of a feeling, a desire, a revelation. On this basis, you can be led to murder. Or not. That's just chance, depending of your current desire, according to what your God is supposed to say, etc.

Is there need for morality? If God is Reality (in toto) then reason has an anchor. Then also morality. No?

--Brant

get a grip!

[Brant Gaede]

On 3/27/2017 at 9:50 PM, jts said:

What happened to Religion vs America - ARI?

and transcribed lecture by Peikoff

Great Peikoff!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

30 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Tell us when it isn't.

--Brant

If it is immoral to lie (deliberately utter an untruth with the intention of deceiving) then what do you do when the Gestapo comes around and demands to know where the other Jews are hiding.  Do you hold silence even under torture?  Or do you mislead the bastards?  Or something else?  The moral thing to do is tell the truth,  but that is not the reasonable/rational thing to do. 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If it is immoral to lie (deliberately utter an untruth with the intention of deceiving) then what do you do when the Gestapo comes around and demands to know where the other Jews are hiding.  Do you hold silence even under torture?  Or do you mislead the bastards?  Or something else?  The moral thing to do is tell the truth,  but that is not the reasonable/rational thing to do. 

Mislead as long as possible. No one needs an essay to know that in their core beings.

Can a conviction by a jury be justified? Evidence to convict can rarely be refuted if DNA or an un-coerced confession is obtained. Some criminals boast about what they did and supply corroborating evidence as did the man who shot those worshippers in a Southern church or the killer of John Lennon. And what if the evidence is nearly self-evident like cell phone video, surveillance cameras, and wire-taps? I don’t think images can be created on a computer or in a special affects lab that can hide their artificial origins. Therefore, a “guilty verdict” can be justified and proven.

 

So is it morally correct to sentence a murderer or a traitor to death? In some states, many cases have been overturned because of re-tested DNA. I think the death penalty should only apply to those cases where the defendant in his right mind, freely admits to murder, with corroborating evidence, or where the evidence is irrefutable because the murder was recorded for all to see. So before the present day some murderers should have their death penalties overturned and life in prison should be the reconsidered sentence, except in the cases of a confession “gladly” given or if the evidence is a visual recording of the crime that is *real*.

 

Of course there can always be people wrongfully convicted if the witnesses, cops, evidence and judge are bent on evil, so no one can say with 100 percent surety that the verdict was correct, or that unicorns don’t live in Central Park, or that Indiana Jones did not find The Holy Grail.  

Peter   

[moralist]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If it is immoral to lie (deliberately utter an untruth with the intention of deceiving) then what do you do when the Gestapo comes around and demands to know where the other Jews are hiding.  

Don't you know that lying to evil people and even killing them in order to protect the lives of the innocent is doing good?

 

Greg

[Peter]

U.S. Secret Agent Gregory wrote to Ba’al of the Mossad: Don't you know that lying to evil people and even killing them in order to protect the lives of the innocent is doing good? end quote

 

Of course he does. He is just being his usual, contrary self. He enjoys goading and getting peoples’ “goat” though I wonder what he is going to do with the “goat” once he gets it. At least you know the goat’s attention will be diverted, and Ba’al’s knives will be sharp and Kosher, when he humanely dispatches the goat.

Peter  

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If it is immoral to lie (deliberately utter an untruth with the intention of deceiving) then what do you do when the Gestapo comes around and demands to know where the other Jews are hiding.  Do you hold silence even under torture?  Or do you mislead the bastards?  Or something else?  The moral thing to do is tell the truth,  but that is not the reasonable/rational thing to do. 

You've tied your boat up to the wrong rock.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You've tied your boat up to the wrong rock.

--Brant

How so?

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Of course he does.

 Bob doesn't even know why murder is wrong, Peter.

He only knows what his government tells him is legal because for him morality is only legalisms created by people, so it's all just subjective opinion with no objective moral standard.

He'd gas Jews if he was a Nazi because his government told him it was legal. And this is because he has no objective moral standard. His behavior is purely a matter of whatever culture into which he happened to be immersed...

...which made him the perfect government trained monkey.

Greg

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How so?

In your example it is immoral to tell the truth, but you call it "moral."

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

In your example it is immoral to tell the truth, but you call it "moral."

--Brant

Most of the time morality requires truthfulness.  But there are times  when the greater morality requires silence of deceit.

Moral rules  are fuzzy devils. There is no Bright Line separating morality from immorality.  That is why it is such a vexing problem. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

22 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Most of the time morality requires truthfulness.  But there are times  when the greater morality requires silence of deceit.

Moral rules  are fuzzy devils. There is no Bright Line separating morality from immorality.  That is why it is such a vexing problem. 

The view from "higher standards."

(I guess...    )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Most of the time morality requires truthfulness.  But there are times  when the greater morality requires silence of deceit.

Moral rules  are fuzzy devils. There is no Bright Line separating morality from immorality.  That is why it is such a vexing problem. 

There is morality, which we can call "basic." From that we get moral and immoral (actions). Morality is only reflected by the politic. It resides in the person. The heart of the Objectivist philosophy is morality. This is not its logical schematic, which starts with reality and ends with the politics. I think you have trouble with this because of your genetic makeup, not what Greg keeps harping on. Wolf focuses on legal philosophy. As for that he thinks bread should be sliced and you broken. That's only two sides of the same coin. (Greg's side is also the ad hominem attack.)

--Brant

[moralist]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral rules  are fuzzy devils. There is no Bright Line separating morality from immorality.  That is why it is such a vexing problem. 

They're only fuzzy devils to Bob and the secular liberals who acknowledge nothing greater than the government that suckles them. Morality and immorality don't confuse decent people because they know by their Conscience what's right and wrong...

...so why is it such a vexing problem for Bob?

Greg