Stripped

[emily]

[Narbus]

[Johnny]

[emily]

[I AM ME]

[Brooklin Matt]

[mosaik]

ok narbus, remember that you asked for me to explain this all to you later when you're rolling your eyes and bitching about how boring i am.

the thing that seperates man from the lesser animals is his rational mind. this is the key to man's survival, without the ablity to wield logic and reason man would not last long in a world filled with animals of a predatory nature.

because man is an animal, however, he has certain instincts. he wants to be loved, fed, etc. he will take action in order to have his needs met, based on instinct. this is called acting in rational self interest.

the only time a man is not acting in rational self interest is when he is not using his rational mind. because man is a creature of free will, he can choose to disable the use of his mind. the only time when mans mind is rendered useless is when force is invovled.

force is a tool of the lesser animals because they do not have a mind capable of reason. when a man resorts to force, he is not using his mind, and therefore, not acting in rational self interest.

my morals are based on the principle of rational self interest. they are the "natural laws", based on the mans instincts and the golden rule: "the freeomd of your fist ends where the rights of my nose begin"

a man acting in a rational way does not murder, steal or rape. ever. for any rational man, the end does not justify the means. a rational man realizes that men are ends in themselves and not tools to be used for some greater purpose. a rational man recognizes that all men are his equals, and as such are entitled to the same rights he would have for himself: the rights to go about their business unmolested.

an attempt to suspend those rights only stems from irrational and ureasonable behavior.

our rights are not given to us by governors or created by laws. they are given to us by other men, acting with rational self interest in mind.

now you go. tell me why i'm wrong.

[mosaik]

matt, you're a collectivist.

this ideology is based on the irrational idea that the lives and rights of the many are more important then the lives and rights of the few. this is why you and i cannot see eye to eye.

you feel that it is okay to sacrifice human life to gain an end, because you see men as tools to further some grand scheme of societies. i see men as individuals who are not means to an end, but ends within themselves.

you would sacrifice the life of one innocent if it meant saving the entire world from disease, whereas i would not. this is because for me, circumstances do not dictate morality. my morals do not "depend" on the context of an action. if an action is to be taken, and considered moral, then it must be moral to take that action in all circumstances. otherwise you are NOT ACTING RATIONALLY, and therefore, NOT ACTING HUMAN.

see my longwinded post to narbus if you need more reasoning.

[Narbus]

[Brooklin Matt]

I think you just proved that you are totally illogical in assessing what is truly moral Yourjesus.

I'm immoral for killing one life to save millions more?? It might it difficult, but as an objectivist, isn't it a numbers game. Why is that innocent worth more that than million others. Because he has to die............million of innocents would die if I didn't act. I would be deranged to let millions die......Its not a pleasent task, but indeed it is very necessary. Call me what you wish, it still makes for a very weak statement. You are not for society.........just yourself........nothing can come between that......even the end of the world???

It sounds extremely weak to let your own conscience dictate the lives of millions. I thought an objectivist puts themselves aside and contemplates rationally what's best..............not uses pride in his morals. Sounds quite fishy and contradictory to me.

I'll get back to this later, but I have to go the library.........seriously.

[mosaik]

narbus, your post was long so i'll get to it in a while

matt:

i am a rational thinker, therefore, i do not believe in contradictions or double-standards.

i am about to prove you to be irrational.

would you kill that innocent baby if nothing was at stake?

[Corey]

If you are pro "self-interest".. who are you to tell others that they are "irrational"? If all you care about is yourself, then I guess what others think is none of your business and they would actually be "right" because how they feel is in THEIR self-interest. Hmm.. so much for being against double-standards.

[Narbus]

[committed]

[mosaik]

[Narbus]

[committed]

[emily]

[emily]

[starvingeyes]