ClumsyMonkey.net

YourJesus wrote:Damacus - all my proofs, all my beliefs, and everything i know stems from the truth that men are rational creatures. all men have the capacity to be reasonable. some will choose to ignore it.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." - Ayn Rand

Therefore, do not ask me to prove something to you if you deny reason. It will not work. If you are willing to use the faculty of reason that you were given by virtue of being a man, you will then be able to see what i am saying. if you deny reason, we will get no where and i will be leaving you alone.

No. Neither me, nor Damascus, nor Matt are denying reason. We are using a different mode of reasoning than you.
If you claim to have a perfect mode of reason, than wouldn't part of perfection mean that everyone everewhere, regardless of intellgence, background, age, etc. get it? I have contested your reason here on some very solid grounds many times. So it's not perfect. There are flaws. My reasoning may also have flaws, but at least in my version, a rather key point is discussion and realization of flaws in the reasoning. You are denying the flaws in yours.

Exactly Narbus. Well said.

by the way, I think I have a non-sexual crush on your brain.

Matt wrote:Exactly Narbus. Well said.

by the way, I think I have a non-sexual crush on your brain.

Then get ready to send flowers.

Let's focus on the car and the driveway, as I hope this will clear up a lot of stuff.

You look at my driveway and say, "Hey. No car."
I feel that cars pollute and harm the planet, so I look at my driveway and say, "Hey. I'm doing my small part to save the world."
My friend Jack looks at my driveway and says "Hey, you really should repave that, there are some terrible cracks, and some nasty old stains."
My friend Bob looks at the driveway and says, "Hey, that reminds me, I need to get my oil changed."
We are all looking at the exact same situation (an empty driveway) and seeing some totally different things. Are you wrong? Is there not "no car?" Am I wrong? Am I not "not polluting?" Is the driveway not "cracked?" Is Bob's oil level fine!? Or is the situation comprised of many different facets, and our individual bias and personalities focusing on one facet in particular, meaning that we are no longer an objective third party?

Narbus wrote: Let's focus on the car and the driveway, as I hope this will clear up a lot of stuff.

You look at my driveway and say, "Hey. No car."
I feel that cars pollute and harm the planet, so I look at my driveway and say, "Hey. I'm doing my small part to save the world."... Am I wrong? Am I not "not polluting?" Is the driveway not "cracked?" Is Bob's oil level fine!? Or is the situation comprised of many different facets, and our individual bias and personalities focusing on one facet in particular, meaning that we are no longer an objective third party?

I hope this will clarify a lot as well: All of those points are valid assesments of the situation, however the fact remains that there is no car in the driveway. Regardless of the many ways that the absence of a car can be interpreted, there is still an absence of a car. This is the point of the Objectivist.

I too have work and classes interfering with my time available to discuss this matter. I'll try to keep my answers concise.

I believe that this argument has become a challenge of opinions and is no longer an argument. As Objectivists, we do not hold that subjectivity does not exist at all, as one cannot know the contents of anothers mind. Each person IS entitled to their opinion, such is the essence of free speech. Not only does everyone have a right to state their point, but they also have to accept that others have the same right. Therefore, Objectivity comes into play when a persons moral contructs are in question, as well as the universal morals of society. Murder IS wrong, no matter what. However, one can argue about the color blue. Maybe you see green, but the fact remains that you SEE. Matters of perceived color are subjective, the fact that there IS a color is objective. Any of your reasons for the empty driveway could be valid, but it remains that each person you used in the example saw that there was no car. This is an objective fact, however it does not concern morals.

Narbus, you wrote in your last response to me (about 3 or 4 pages ago!!) that you (and I paraphrase here) are still developing your life philosophy. With this is mind, I can understand your resistance to Objectivism, as it is a very concrete, unwavering stance. That being said, I am not here to convince you one way or another. To me, it would be no different that preaching religion at people's doors. My goal is simply to get you to a). Understand Objectivism, and b). Accept that it is valid. In addition, I wish to realize others point of views so that I can reaffirm my beliefs as well as become better equipped to argue (constructively) with other point of views. I speak only for myself in this.

When this arguement began to take murder into account............I guess one could say that it is no longer "murder" if the actions we percieve to be justifiable in acting to preserve our own life supercede that of commiting the act "of taking another life".........Murder sounds like a subjective term. That's why people aren't convicted of it even though they took someone's life with force. Murder is about state of mind.........and is not an objective fact. Forcefully taking someone's life is about as objective as it gets.

Nikita, do you see what I'm getting at........an objectivist always views murder as being wrong??...........because there would have to be a certain lack of morality for someone to commit such an act. In other words, they would have to rationally decide that it is murder that they will commit. That they want this person dead. Mens Rea in other word. But if this is not present and we just have the act, it is NOT murder. Sorry, but could you elaborate how an objectivist might view this. I am slightly confused.

And do objectivists take into account the whole context of the situation, or do they simply maintain strange morals based on just the act and not the reason behind it...??

If anyone can help me after all we've been through I applaud them for dealing with my curiouslty.....

Nikita, is xChrisx actually using objectivism in his assessments??........how can being objective have anything to do with morality?? Morality itself is totally subjective. Like Narbus and I have been maintaining in our elitist duo (jk)......objective fact only tells you what happened.........it has nothing to do with why. Right??

NikitaTheIrishesqueSpy wrote:I hope this will clarify a lot as well: All of those points are valid assesments of the situation, however the fact remains that there is no car in the driveway. Regardless of the many ways that the absence of a car can be interpreted, there is still an absence of a car. This is the point of the Objectivist.

Perhaps. But in Jack and Bob's case, they don't even see that the car is gone. The concept of "car" never entered their minds. Jack, being a contractor, sees the broken up driveway, not the missing car. Bob, being a selfish bastard, sees a reminder of his own possessions, not the missing car.
The fact that the car isn't there never even enters into their mental equations.
Their personal bias has defined the situation in such a way as to change it, from someone else's perspective. I didn't even notice the cracks, until they were pointed out to me. I was focused on the lack of a car. But then, suddenly, "Shit. My driveway is all cracked." The situation changed, to me, because I suddenly focused on a different aspect of that situation.
How could I have ever guessed that Bob's car was part of the situation, until Bob's perspective connected the two, and changed what I saw as the situation?

I too have work and classes interfering with my time available to discuss this matter. I'll try to keep my answers concise.

I believe that this argument has become a challenge of opinions and is no longer an argument.

That's one point of view. (I tried to resist, I really did.)

As Objectivists, we do not hold that subjectivity does not exist at all, as one cannot know the contents of anothers mind. Each person IS entitled to their opinion, such is the essence of free speech. Not only does everyone have a right to state their point, but they also have to accept that others have the same right. Therefore, Objectivity comes into play when a persons moral contructs are in question, as well as the universal morals of society. Murder IS wrong, no matter what.

That's, again, ONLY because you, personally value life, and that value affects what you see.
So I kill a person.
You are disturbed, because you value life, and see that one has been taken.
Jack is relieved, because the man I killed was threatening to kill Jack's family.
Bob is still being a selfish bastard, sees the gun I used, and fondly reminences about his Red Rider BB gun that he lost when he was a kid. God I hate Bob. Why do we hang out with him?
To Bob, and a lesser extent, Jack, the fact that a life is taken isn't part of the picture. Jack's mental picture consists of his family being alive. Bob's mental picture consists of Bob. The fucker.

However, one can argue about the color blue. Maybe you see green, but the fact remains that you SEE. Matters of perceived color are subjective, the fact that there IS a color is objective. Any of your reasons for the empty driveway could be valid, but it remains that each person you used in the example saw that there was no car. This is an objective fact, however it does not concern morals.

First: Not everyone saw there was no car, as I stated above.
Second: If I'm shopping for a car, then being a poor college student, I won't care about color. Yes, it may exist to you, but not too me. The only thing that exists to me is a price tag. The concept of "color" never enters my mind. You would have to point it out to me. And I might have to point out to you the whole lot of numbers on that price tag.
Yes, after you point it out to me, it exists. But before you point it out? It doesn't, to me. To me, there is no color. None. At all. I don't even think about it.
Yes, the car is gone, the driveway is cracked, and Bob's a son of a bitch. But, and this is important, do I care about any of that?

Narbus, you wrote in your last response to me (about 3 or 4 pages ago!!) that you (and I paraphrase here) are still developing your life philosophy. With this is mind, I can understand your resistance to Objectivism, as it is a very concrete, unwavering stance. That being said, I am not here to convince you one way or another. To me, it would be no different that preaching religion at people's doors. My goal is simply to get you to a). Understand Objectivism, and b). Accept that it is valid. In addition, I wish to realize others point of views so that I can reaffirm my beliefs as well as become better equipped to argue (constructively) with other point of views. I speak only for myself in this.

I understand what you're saying, in part at least. You are saying that there are several facts that cannot be changed. They are immutable. I am saying that we pick and choose which of those facts we see, therefore which facts affect our decisions, therefore which facts affect our lives. There are simply too many facts to be taken into account. We can never know everything. So we have to pick and choose. And that's where personal bias comes into the picture.

Here's some simple logic:

if X = 1, Y = 3, and Z = 5 then you can make several conclusions:

X != Y
Y != Z
X != Z

Or you can make a relational conclusion:

X < Y < Z

Both are correct.

Lets change the variables:

no suppose X = speeding, Y = petty theft, and Z = murder.

again,

X != Y
Y != Z
X != Z

However can we still make a relational comparisons?

If not then that would mean X = Y = Z which we know isn't so by our previous conclusion.

Thusly, we must conclude X < Y < Z or Y < X < Z, based on our perception of what is worse than the others. There is no objective comparison because that would conclude that they are all equal.

The world is not binary. Everything is realitive.

narbus:

i don't know what the childs project had to do with my question. i didn't ask if you could use both apples and oranges for one application but not for others.

my question was, are their objective characteristics the same? you didn't answer it.

are they the same thing? does A = B as you have stated previously or do you know wish to take that earlier assertion back based on the fact that you know have a clearer understanding of what is being asked?

narbus, you nicely proved that perspective shapes opinion. congratulations. but you did not prove that perspective shapes reality, which is what i am arguing against.

now on to the baby killer:

you start out with a contradiction: "...didn't say ever that we need to accept everyone else's view. We do need to accept that everyone else HAS a view, and that it's as valid as our own."

if the baby killer's view is as valid is yours, why do you feel it is appropriate to punish him? punishment implies that he is wrong, but according to you, there is no right and wrong.

If we, as a people, decide that life is valuable, then it is our right to punish those who take the lives as others in the same way that it is their right to believe it is okay to take those lives.

i find myself begining to see that you and damacus are of like mind - do you also believe only in force? is it your opinion that "might makes right"?

also - you put it is his right to "believe" that it is okay to take those lives. you saying "believe" implies that he is wrong. but by your own assertion, there is no right and wrong, only what is right and wrong to individual groups. therefore, to the baby killer, it WAS right. why should be he be punished if he has not done any wrong?

narbus wrote:As damascus said, you are affecting the scenarios by assigning value to certain attributes that you are deeming important. My point was that different people, in different situations, will deem different things important.
No, black skin will not be the same as white. But does that mean that one black person is exactly the same as another black person? No. But you have chosen to focus on the skin color, thereby affecting the scenario by involving your personal motives.

affecting scenarios? what scenario? i am asking if things do have objective, unchangeable characteristics, and if they do, then is it possible for objects to be two different things at once. you have admitted now that things can be seen objectively, and that if they are looked at objectively, that they will be seen as what they are and not as what they are not.

No, no no no nononoonononononononono.

We cannot focus on everything. It's totally outside the realm of what we can do, because we don't have infinite brain power. So we pick and choose what we focus on. This is where our perception begins affecting reality. We choose to focus on the deaths that result from a war, so the war is bad. If we choose to focus on the lives that are saved from war, then war is good. It depends on how you look at the situation.
My point is to realize that we can't focus on everything. To realize that there will always be viewpoints that we don't see, or even consider as existing until pointed out to us.

Our perception in the case of war did not change the fact that the war cost lives. Whether or not it saved lives will never truly be known, as you cannot measure how many people would have died if the war had not been fought unless you claim to be psychic. Reality - that people are dead - is unchanged regardless of whether you percieve the war to be good or bad. Say what you want about the moral value of the war, for now i'm not focusing on that. But you must concede that the objective facts of the situation are as follows : a war was fought and people were killed. that is what HAPPENED, no matter how you percieve it.

The only truly objective quality an object possesses is the object's entirety. The ENTIRETY of it. As in, how a person affects the air around him, molecule by molecule, and how they affect the lives around them, his relation in time and space to every molecule of every planet and star and how his personal gravity affects them and all this shit that we simply cannot do. Even if we could, it raises the question "Well, by looking at him, aren't you affecting the light bouncing off of him, indirectly changing him?" It cannot be done. At all.

what about the color of his eyes? that's an objective quality. how about his height, in feet and inches - an objective quality. his weight is an objective quality. need i go on?

narbus - i do not know how you arrived at the conclusion that "reality does not exist, only our perceptions do" but that is not a reasonable nor rational conclusion.

i am arguing only from reason. if you contest it, then you are contesting reason.

You look at my driveway and say, "Hey. No car."
I feel that cars pollute and harm the planet, so I look at my driveway and say, "Hey. I'm doing my small part to save the world."
My friend Jack looks at my driveway and says "Hey, you really should repave that, there are some terrible cracks, and some nasty old stains."
My friend Bob looks at the driveway and says, "Hey, that reminds me, I need to get my oil changed."
We are all looking at the exact same situation (an empty driveway) and seeing some totally different things. Are you wrong? Is there not "no car?" Am I wrong? Am I not "not polluting?" Is the driveway not "cracked?" Is Bob's oil level fine!? Or is the situation comprised of many different facets, and our individual bias and personalities focusing on one facet in particular, meaning that we are no longer an objective third party?

but did any of your thoughts about the empty driveway change the object fact that it is empty?

once again - i am not arguing that different people can percieve the same event differently. Calgary beat the Edmonton Oilers 4-3 the other night. I am an Oiler fan, so I was angry. A Flames fan would be happy. Different reactions, same event. But does my perception of that event, or the Flames fan's perception change the event [Flames 4, Oilers 3?] no.

Matt, your question was aimed at Nikita, and she is a better Objectivist then me, but I think I can answer some of it anyway:

matt wrote:And do objectivists take into account the whole context of the situation, or do they simply maintain strange morals based on just the act and not the reason behind it...??

The act alone is what creates the moral question. we cannot take context into account because context creates contradictions. How can a murder [the taking of someone's life when it was unprovoked by encroachment of liberty] be a moral act in some contexts but not in others - it cannot be. killing a rich man to take his money and feed your starving family is not moral.

this applies to pre-emptive strikes. returning fire in self defense is not murder, it is in fact a rational response to a threat to your liberty.

PHEW.

Corey:

In your logic example, you are first using numbers, which have different values. then you switch to acts of moral value. there are only two moral values, right and wrong. either an act is right or it is wrong. there is no degree of wrong, if something is wrong, it is wrong, period.

YourJesus wrote:Corey:

In your logic example, you are first using numbers, which have different values. then you switch to acts of moral value. there are only two moral values, right and wrong. either an act is right or it is wrong. there is no degree of wrong, if something is wrong, it is wrong, period.

So to you, Speeding = Murder.

Speeding = wrong
Murder = wrong
therfore Speeding = Murder

no.

theft = wrong
murder = wrong

speeding has no moral value.

theft = murder

fine... then speeding = right
to not speed would be wrong which would equal murder

no, speeding has no moral value. it is neither right nor wrong. it is the same as winking.

YourJesus wrote:There are only two moral values, right and wrong. either an act is right or it is wrong. there is no degree of wrong, if something is wrong.

YourJesus wrote:no, speeding has no moral value. it is neither right nor wrong. it is the same as winking.

Your so called "logic" is a bit inconsistent. There are only 2 moral values: right and wrong, yet you introduce this 3rd moral value which is neither right nor wrong. If the abscence of both moral values is possible, why isn't the presence of both allowed?

If I own a road and set a speed limit and you go above that limit, you are neither right nor wrong? Then what the hell are you?

some things do not have moral value, corey.

driving a certain speed down a highway is not hurting anybody. it does not fly in the face of anyone's rights. therefore it has no moral value.

however, if i am doing it on your road, a piece of land that you own, you have the right to fine me, or ban me from using your road. you as the owner are allowed to set whatever restrictions you want, and punish the violators as you see fit.

YourJesus wrote:some things do not have moral value, corey.

driving a certain speed down a highway is not hurting anybody. it does not fly in the face of anyone's rights. therefore it has no moral value.

however, if i am doing it on your road, a piece of land that you own, you have the right to fine me, or ban me from using your road. you as the owner are allowed to set whatever restrictions you want, and punish the violators as you see fit.

And when I fine you, my explanation would be what? "You didn't do anything wrong but you must give me $100 for going to fast"

YourJesus wrote:
driving a certain speed down a highway is not hurting anybody. it does not fly in the face of anyone's rights. therefore it has no moral value.

unless of course you lose control of the car and go smashing into a car in the other lane, killing everyone inside of it.

well.

i'm stumped.

on a different note i will add to was this whole topic was about
as a heterosexual male i must say i do like the video

now you all may continue with you conversation.

or your conversation

ok.

i have figured some stuff out... i'm not totally out of the woods yet, but here goes:

the government mandates a number of laws that are irrational. there is nothing immoral about driving a certain speed, therefore, no law is required.

there is nothing immoral about selling sex for money. nor is there anything immoral against drug use.

the government does not have the moral authority to tell me what to do. nor does anyone.


however. if you build the road, then it's yours. you own it. you may use it as a means to finance your life. you have the moral right to use your property in any way you see fit, and furthermore, you have the moral right to determine how others will use your property.

therefore, if i speed on your road when you have said you do not permit speeding, i am now in violation of your rights.

here's where i get stuck. according to my earlier assertion, all wrongs are the same and they're all punishable in the same way. therefore, you can fine me, or ban me, or shoot me in the head.

which kind of makes me uncomfortable.

you see, i don't see how right and wrong can be measured, but the idea of shooting somebody in the head because he rear-ended you or sped on your road doesn't sit well with me.

there has to be some way to objectively measure the degree of wrong and the degree of action required. I know somebody smarter then me must know the way.