ClumsyMonkey.net

Ah, but why is that car not in my driveway? Is it because Or is it because my grandparents have decided to spend thousands of dollars on my cousins, while ignoring me? Or is it because of those damn dot com yuppies who fucked up the economy? PERSPECITIVE MATTERS.

this is not a challenge to my point. my point that was believing there is a car on your driveway does not make one appear. the reason there is no car on your driveway is completely irrelevant.

[/quote]
You are chosing to focus on the loss of life here as the defining characteristic of both attacks. If someone else points out that lives are being saved, since us attacking them is preventing them from organizing an army to attack us, then they have chosen to focus on another aspect of the attacks. If someone points out that by preventing the destruction of our country, we are preseving the freedoms of those people in our country, they are focusing on yet another, VALID, aspect of the war. Your personal bias against the loss of life has affected how you view this situation. You have made a subjective judgement.[/quote]

i'm not arguing whether or not the war is correct. i am arguing that in both situations, innocent people died. regardless of the reason for this, the fact remains that people who did not deserve death recieved it anyways. this cannot be right and wrong at the same time. if it is wrong to kill innocents on american soil, then the same must be true of afghani soil. my bias has nothing to do with anything here.

matt, matt, matt...

Ummmm, selling sex for money can have a corrupting effect on society. I'm sure you could see how it may force younger females into a life of prostitution and disease by people of higher power than them. I'm surprised you find that to me moral?? And the government does have the moral authority to tell you what to do. Its in the law. Because society's needs come before the individuals. I know you don't like that, and I don't either sometimes, but if personal freedom reigned there could be no order.

the law? it was the law in south africa that black people suffer a significant number of restrictions on their liberty. it was the law in afghanistan that women undergo the same thing. it was the law under hitler that jews be executed. the law is not always right, in fact, it is almost invariably wrong.

"society" has no needs. individuals compose society. that "society" has a greater need for things that the individual is just a way of saying that some people get to benefit while others suffer.

Drugs can control yor life and even if you don't want to take them you can't control yourself. Saying that these drugs are not immoral is a blind statement to me. It ignores many consequences of drug addiction, taking advantage of residential neighbourhoods, etc. Where do you think up what's moral, and then all of a sudden say that these things are fine???

drug use harms no one but the user, and is therefore not immoral.

corey - there is no level of morality. a thing is either right or wrong. however, there are very degrees of harm done by particular crimes. the compensation cannot rightly exceed the harm.

Drug use harms more than just the user .. use Ozzy as an example .. tripped out on heroin he abused his wife Sharon and hit/beat her .. I've seen first hand people tripping out and hitting/punching friends, family etc. because of what they're "seeing" or "thinking" at the time .. when you do drugs it affects the people around you .. just like when you smoke cigarettes the second hand smoke can kill the people around you as well ...

Or take drinking for another example: drinking and driving drunk kills innocent people everyday, so drugs and substance abuse always affect other people ..

Right and wrong are inherently subjective terms. What I think about the situation does change if it is right or wrong, to me. And that's all that matters.

no, right and wrong are not subjective terms. what you think about the subject can be wrong.

No. We have no contradiction because I am looking at one facet of the situation, slave owners are looking at another facet. We have different premises, hence the results are bound to be different.
And we are talking about whether or not mac's suck. Tony says no. I say yes. Who's right?

you are, mac's suck.

objectively, mac's are great machines. whether you like them better then PC's or not is up to you, it's a matter of personal taste. this is an action with no moral value as it doesn't effect anyone other then yourself.

So, you just decided who's innocent. After saying no one gets to decide. Huh.

no, i was defining innocent. noone "decides" who's innocent, you either are you aren't.

[/quote]
Hell, two apples can't even be the same thing, at the same time, individually. What's your point?[/quote]

that it is impossible for two things to have opposite characterestics at the same time, ie to be both an apple and an orange, or right and wrong, or black and white.

Nope, sorry. Genius and idiot are inherently subjective terms. Compared to a six year old, Damascus is a genius. Compared to Stephen Hawking, he's an idiot.

gen·ius ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jnys)
n. pl. gen·ius·es

Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: “One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius” (Simone de Beauvoir).
A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

id·i·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

hope that clears that up for you.


"i swear, by my life and love of it, that i will never live for the sake of another man, or as another to live for mine" - John Galt. you quoting somebody proves nothing to me, neither does it change the fact that no action can be neither right nor wrong.

Joey wrote:Drug use harms more than just the user .. use Ozzy as an example .. tripped out on heroin he abused his wife Sharon and hit/beat her .. I've seen first hand people tripping out and hitting/punching friends, family etc. because of what they're "seeing" or "thinking" at the time .. when you do drugs it affects the people around you .. just like when you smoke cigarettes the second hand smoke can kill the people around you as well ...

was it the drug use that harmed sharon, or the beating? the act of shooting heroin does not hurt anyone but the user. beating somebody, however, is a different story.

once again, is it the smoking that harms the other people, or the seconhand smoke?

Either way, drug use, and substance abuse affects other people .. no matter which way you look at it ..

You're affected if that user od's and dies ...

The drug use can bring on the beating .. it will always go back to the user ..

xchrisx wrote:this is not a challenge to my point. my point that was believing there is a car on your driveway does not make one appear. the reason there is no car on your driveway is completely irrelevant.

Okay, if you'll read the last few posts I made, particularly the one where I edited it to quote matt, then well.

xchrisx wrote:i'm not arguing whether or not the war is correct. i am arguing that in both situations, innocent people died. regardless of the reason for this, the fact remains that people who did not deserve death recieved it anyways. this cannot be right and wrong at the same time. if it is wrong to kill innocents on american soil, then the same must be true of afghani soil. my bias has nothing to do with anything here.

I'm not saying different. Yes, innocent people lost their lives. However, I could simply say since I value the lives of friends and family more than I value the lives of people I don't even know exist, then the fact that the military attacks in Afghanistan will keep them in a condition that leaves them largely unable to kill the people I know, then tough for them.
No matter how much you want to deny it, right and wrong are subjective terms.
Yes, there is such a thing as objective fact. Morality, however, does not fall into this category.

matt, matt, matt...

the law? it was the law in south africa that black people suffer a significant number of restrictions on their liberty. it was the law in afghanistan that women undergo the same thing. it was the law under hitler that jews be executed. the law is not always right, in fact, it is almost invariably wrong.

...
There are currently laws on the books prohibiting murder, abuse, assualt, rape, and so on, all of which you have suggested as being wrong. While laws are not inherently right, again, the issue of whether they are wrong or not is a subjective one.

xchrisx wrote:"society" has no needs. individuals compose society. that "society" has a greater need for things that the individual is just a way of saying that some people get to benefit while others suffer.

No, it's saying that we compromise to make life better in the long term for everyone.

xchrisx wrote:drug use harms no one but the user, and is therefore not immoral.

Only in the world where emotional pain is nonexistant. Tell the mother of a OD'd child that it was okay for the kid to die since "obviously no one else is hurt by his death." I'm sure she'll have some colorful things to say.

Narbus wrote: 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.

Perhaps they don't think about the fact that there is no car, but as thinking humans, it would enter their minds, either consciously or subconsciously, that there is no car. If asked if there is car there, would they not reply "no"?

As a side note, I'd like to draw your attention to the pure meaning of the word selfish: to be concerned purely with oneself. It is only society that has ascribed the negative connotation that it has to be at the expense of others. According to the Objectivist, it is NOT at the expense of others. Rand sums this up by writing: "An individualist is a man who says: "I will not run anyone's life - nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule or be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone - nor sacrifice anyone to myself." –Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism"

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.)

An argument is a rational discussion. In parts, this has become an irrational forum. However, I do not wish to debate this topic, as it is irrelevant. Perhaps another place in another time.

That's, again, ONLY because you, personally value life, and that value affects what you see.

Am I to take this to mean that YOU do not value life? That value EFFECTS what I THINK.

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?

WE do not hang out with Bob. YOU do. Why do YOU hang out with Bob if you do not respect 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.

You are missing the essence of this. No matter what other people think, the fact that YOU murdered someone (took their life without consent) is wrong. Thus, justice must be dealt. TO YOU. If you kill someone, it may effect Bob and Jack's emotions, but it does not effect them objectively. If Bob killed you, Jack wouldn't be objectively responsible no matter how he FELT about it. Bob would be responsible for the actual act. To use Matt's example, you can't hold someone responsible for a murder based only on mens rea. Intent without action is not murder.

First: Not everyone saw there was no car, as I stated above.

Yes they did, try it. Get "Bob" to look into your driveway and tell you if there's a car or not. Unless he's blind, he'll be able to tell you either "yes," or "no." Only Fat Bastard would say "MAYBE..." But that's not applicable here.

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.

You may not CARE about color, but it EXISTS. It may not be relevant, but it is there. You may not think about it, but it does exist. Because it has no moral value, you do not have to be conscious of it for it to be there. You're right, the price DOES exist as well.

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?

Objective, objective, subjective. Bob's SOB-ness is your opinion. Whether or not you CARE about any of it, the objective values are still there. However, because they have no MORAL value, again, you do not have to be conscious of them in order for them to exist. Tell me: If you have never been to Alberta, and never think of it, does that mean that I don't live here? That I don't exist? If that's the case, then you look like a fool for talking to yourself. (I couldn't resist )

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.

I know this is extraneous to the conversation, but please recognize the difference between EFFECT and AFFECT. It takes away from your argument. Back on topic: You are right, we cannot take everything into account. This is the reason for objective values and morals. To metaphorically beat a dead horse, not everything has a moral value. Things that don't do not need to be considered unless you choose to consider them. Every trial that takes place in the world need not effect me, but I can choose to consider them if I feel it is relevant to me, or benefits me, in some way.

Joey wrote:Either way, drug use, and substance abuse affects other people .. no matter which way you look at it ..

You're affected if that user od's and dies ...

The drug use can bring on the beating .. it will always go back to the user ..

is it the use that causes the death or the overdose? simply using drugs does not harm anybody. actions taken under the influence might, but that is a different story. many people use drugs, get high, and don't hurt anyone.

besides, think about all the people the war on drugs hurts. if two cops pull a raid on a party and bust a pair of teenagers snorting coke, do those teens really belong in jail, where they will no doubt be raped repeatedly and
encounter hardened criminals who will teach them all kinds of new tricks?

prohibition sucks.

I'm not saying different. Yes, innocent people lost their lives. However, I could simply say since I value the lives of friends and family more than I value the lives of people I don't even know exist, then the fact that the military attacks in Afghanistan will keep them in a condition that leaves them largely unable to kill the people I know, then tough for them.
No matter how much you want to deny it, right and wrong are subjective terms.
Yes, there is such a thing as objective fact. Morality, however, does not fall into this category.

o, ok, so because these particular killings don't bother YOU there's nothing wrong with them? i value the lives of those closer to me more then others too, but that doesn't change the fact that killing innocents is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are currently laws on the books prohibiting murder, abuse, assualt, rape, and so on, all of which you have suggested as being wrong. While laws are not inherently right, again, the issue of whether they are wrong or not is a subjective one.

i said almost invariably.

No, it's saying that we compromise to make life better in the long term for everyone.

well that's his opinion. what right do he and his brethern have to force it on me?

Only in the world where emotional pain is nonexistant. Tell the mother of a OD'd child that it was okay for the kid to die since "obviously no one else is hurt by his death." I'm sure she'll have some colorful things to say.

it was the overdose, not the drug use, that killed the child. using drugs and overdosing are two seperate things.

xchrisx wrote:no, right and wrong are not subjective terms. what you think about the subject can be wrong.

Fine. Tell you what. You provide a list of what is wrong, and what is right, and, most imporantly WHY.

you are, mac's suck.

objectively, mac's are great machines. whether you like them better then PC's or not is up to you, it's a matter of personal taste. this is an action with no moral value as it doesn't effect anyone other then yourself.

Actually, if I buy a PC instead of a Mac, then Apple won't have as much money, and since they require revenue in order to pay their employees... they are affected.

no, i was defining innocent. noone "decides" who's innocent, you either are you aren't.

Innocent according to whom?

xchrisx wrote:that it is impossible for two things to have opposite characterestics at the same time, ie to be both an apple and an orange, or right and wrong, or black and white.

Okay, no. Stating an objective fact, such as "this is an apple" is totally different from stating a subjective fact, such as "this is a tasty apple" or "This person's actions are wrong." You just showed that objectiveness is different than subjectiveness. Good job.

gen·ius ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jnys)
n. pl. gen·ius·es

Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: “One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius” (Simone de Beauvoir).
A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

id·i·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.
A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

hope that clears that up for you.

And compared to his little brother, Damascus does possess extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
And compared to Stephen Hawking, he is stupid.
So, he's both. Depending on your frame of reference. Because "genius" and "idiot" are largely subjective terms.

xchrisx wrote:"i swear, by my life and love of it, that i will never live for the sake of another man, or as another to live for mine" - John Galt. you quoting somebody proves nothing to me, neither does it change the fact that no action can be neither right nor wrong.

Question:
Driving through the desert, you see a woman lying on the side of the road, dying of thirst. You do nothing. You just continue on your way. Moral or immoral?

Fine. Tell you what. You provide a list of what is wrong, and what is right, and, most imporantly WHY.

instead of providing a huge list of what's "right", i'll just tell you what's wrong

iniating force against another person.

i'm done.

Actually, if I buy a PC instead of a Mac, then Apple won't have as much money, and since they require revenue in order to pay their employees... they are affected.

allow me to restate, your preference on computers doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

Innocent according to whom?

innocent, the word, means not guilty of any offence.

Okay, no. Stating an objective fact, such as "this is an apple" is totally different from stating a subjective fact, such as "this is a tasty apple" or "This person's actions are wrong." You just showed that objectiveness is different than subjectiveness. Good job.

here's another objective fact: one thing can not be both right and wrong at the same time. nothing which exists can have two contradictory traits at the same time.

And compared to his little brother, Damascus does possess extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
And compared to Stephen Hawking, he is stupid.
So, he's both. Depending on your frame of reference. Because "genius" and "idiot" are largely subjective terms.

this is really dumb, but no, they aren't. people use them in a relative fashion but that's not what the word means. idiot is a person with a low IQ. stephen hawking has a high iq. my IQ is lower then his, but is not low enough to classify me as an "idiot". same thing for genius.

comparing charles manson to stalin does not make charles manson a saint.

Driving through the desert, you see a woman lying on the side of the road, dying of thirst. You do nothing. You just continue on your way. Moral or immoral?

neither. i am NOT DOING ANYTHING to quote you.

you sit still, and do nothing. moral or immoral? that is what you just asked me.

Quote:
Driving through the desert, you see a woman lying on the side of the road, dying of thirst. You do nothing. You just continue on your way. Moral or immoral?


neither. i am NOT DOING ANYTHING to quote you.

you sit still, and do nothing. moral or immoral? that is what you just asked me.

haha, that was kind of funny in avoiding a question. If there were no snipers about or any danger to myself, then simply leaving a woman to die would probably be immoral to myself. If I recognized that she was probably going to die I might just throw a bottle of water, pick her up, or at least tell someone that there is some dumbass lady in the desert who's probably gonna bite the big one. To not help her would be negligent in my books.

so pointing and laughing at her is out of the question?

I'm kidding, I couldn't resist

Nikita,


I apologize for what I said earlier about "strange morals"......I had no basis for saying that. Was more out of my confusion, though I must admit that the logic supplied by xchrisx may be defined as an objectivist view point, it probably doesn't fit into the word "objective" as it apparently has assigned values towards life which I am unfamiliar with. It makes it quite difficult for me to challenge or to learn about something that I know very little about. Some assigned readings may help me ascertain a foundation towards what it is.

I'm glad that you know the meaning of mens rea. What you forget is that in MOST cases, mens rea and actus reus are necessary in order to convict someone. HOWEVER, one can be charged for manslaughter based on actus reus alone. It is still taking someone's life without their consent. Given that fact, I agree that it is not murder, but it is still removal of life without consent, thus the sentence is less. (see my last post on quid pro quo).

I didn't forget it at all........don't assume what I know. I left it out because the "guilty act" as i mentioned in there was obviously present.

Matt wrote:

Quote:
haha, that was kind of funny in avoiding a question. If there were no snipers about or any danger to myself, then simply leaving a woman to die would probably be immoral to myself. If I recognized that she was probably going to die I might just throw a bottle of water, pick her up, or at least tell someone that there is some dumbass lady in the desert who's probably gonna bite the big one. To not help her would be negligent in my books.

how can doing nothing ever possible be immoral?

xchrisx wrote:there is no level of morality. a thing is either right or wrong. however, there are very degrees of harm done by particular crimes. the compensation cannot rightly exceed the harm.

Ok, a thing is either right or wrong. But sometimes it is neither. One wrong is no worse than another wrong but may be subject to a harsher punishment Notice how this is also subjective. You may believe that the electric chair is a harsh punishment, but I may believe that locking someone in a cell for 100 years is more harsh. Who is right? We both can't be right, we've established that right?

I'm puzzled by this:

Person A is wrong. Person B is wrong. Person A will be executed and Person B will be charged a $20 fine.

Who decides the level of "compensation"? Who decides the level of "harm" that was done? According to you there is none. Either harm was done or it wasn't. The only thing I can think of is reverse re-enactment. You steal from me, I steal from you. You murder someone, I murder you. You speed on my street, I speed on your street. That would be the only way for compensation to actually equal the harm.

The inconsistencies in your beliefs are not exactly helping your argument.

xchrisx wrote:instead of providing a huge list of what's "right", i'll just tell you what's wrong

iniating force against another person.

i'm done.

I poison someone's drink. No force has been initiated. Hell, I didn't even touch them, but they're dead regardless.
PS: You didn't say why...

innocent, the word, means not guilty of any offence.

So what does guilty mean?

here's another objective fact: one thing can not be both right and wrong at the same time. nothing which exists can have two contradictory traits at the same time.

I hate pickles. I refuse to eat them. I think they're disgusting.
My friend Amy keeps a jar in her fridge just for munchin', she loves the taste so much.
So. Pickles. Disgusting or delicious? And remember, if they have two contradictory traits, they don't exist.

this is really dumb, but no, they aren't. people use them in a relative fashion but that's not what the word means. idiot is a person with a low IQ. stephen hawking has a high iq. my IQ is lower then his, but is not low enough to classify me as an "idiot". same thing for genius.

Actually, according to the defintions you yourself provided, they are. Exact quote: "A person of extraordinary intellect and talent." What's extraordinary? When I was six, I thought that knowing H2O was water was brilliant. Oh, look, it's relative. By the defintion you provided.

neither. i am NOT DOING ANYTHING to quote you.

you sit still, and do nothing. moral or immoral? that is what you just asked me.

Not true. You are doing something. You are passing her by. You are leaving her in the desert. You are witholding aid. You are preventing her from staying alive. You are witholding water. You are allowing her to die.
You made the choice to drive on by and you acted on that choice.
You actions DIRECTLY caused her death. Had you stopped, she wouldn't have died. Had you aided her, she wouldn't have died. But you didn't.

You acted. She died because of it.

xchrisx said

simply using drugs does not harm anybody

but what if the user is a mom who while high on drugs repeatedly cannot function to feed or watch her kids properly. And since the life of the mother is directly linked to the child's welfare, her using drugs will harm the kids.

besides, think about all the people the war on drugs hurts. if two cops pull a raid on a party and bust a pair of teenagers snorting coke, do those teens really belong in jail, where they will no doubt be raped repeatedly and
encounter hardened criminals who will teach them all kinds of new tricks?

No doubt, kids who are 16 usually don't go to maximum security prisons......and subsequently don't get raped up the ass. Whether they deserve that??........well, people on Coke can do some stupid things. They don't deserve to be raped.....that's a flaw in the system, not the law.

no, right and wrong are not subjective terms. what you think about the subject can be wrong.

That is true.. But moral and immoral...........they are terms invented in our minds. If we were not here they would not exist........I think that's referred to as "right" and "wrong" in this case.............


I think my problem so far with objectivism is that seems to configure reality into a box, as to ignore certain consequences of actions. The law is used to reflect trends and attitudes towards certain actions. I know its not perfect........I never claimed it to be. But for people to ignore the consequences of habitual drug use (which does harm yourself and thereby reduces your capacity to be responsible, especially addictive drugs which render you almost incapable of functioning without them) and something like speeding, which in itself means nothing, but in the context of society is considerably dangerous as that it reduces response time. Now, having speed restrictions, are they really that bad. I think they do more good than harm, and in my moral weighting scheme. Can someone who is familiar with objectivism explain to me how having no speed restrictions is better?? In terms of freedoms, I find someone having to drive really fast pretty weak unless under an emergency.

how can doing nothing ever possible be immoral?

ummmm.....not feeding your infant son until it dies...........there. that took 2 seconds.

I hate pickles. I refuse to eat them. I think they're disgusting.
My friend Amy keeps a jar in her fridge just for munchin', she loves the taste so much.
So. Pickles. Disgusting or delicious? And remember, if they have two contradictory traits, they don't exist.

What are pickles??? never heard of them........

I love pickles