• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ask An Objectivist

Tommy Jeppesen said:
What if the baby doesn't own anything? ;)
Click to expand...

Well the mother died before the baby, so the baby is probably heir to mom. If mom didn't have anything, just get a knife and recover the bullet yourself.

ETA: And I have no idea what this has to do with Objectivism.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Remember this is philosophy.

You and I are walking down a road - in a ditch lies a new-born baby and a dead woman. I take out my gun and kill the baby. No family can be found. Now what?
Click to expand...

You're a cold-blooded murderer and the police will arrest you if they can catch you, and the courts will likely punish you quite harshly. Again, Objectivism is not a synonym for anarchism or anarchocapitalism. In an objectivist system, the primary purpose of the government is to protect your rights, which include the right to not be murdered and does not include any right to commit murder.
 
Last edited:
My personal problem with objectivism is the same as with communism really.
It utterly unrealistically assumes all humans are the same will react the same to circumstances, if only they knew the 'right way'

Communism assums all humans truly want to help others.
Objectivism assums that all humans are willing to follow a live and let live mentality.

And both are just plain wrong.
IMO if a truly objectivist country were to ever be founded it would turn into a dictatorship within a generation, if not less.
Because there are people who truly DO want all others to do as they do, and there are those that follow them and these would band together and overwhelm those that do not. So to keep free even an objectivist country would have to create an army. Which would need to be payed. Which would need taxes to prevent people from using the army's protection without contributing. Which would need a burocracy to oversee etc.

Any nation based upon a single philosophy is an unrealistic utopian dream imo. Only by compromise between different viewpoints with give and take politics can something actually workable be achieved.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
My personal problem with objectivism is the same as with communism really.
It utterly unrealistically assumes all humans are the same will react the same to circumstances, if only they knew the 'right way'

Communism assums all humans truly want to help others.
Objectivism assums that all humans are willing to follow a live and let live mentality.

And both are just plain wrong.
IMO if a truly objectivist country were to ever be founded it would turn into a dictatorship within a generation, if not less.
Because there are people who truly DO want all others to do as they do, and there are those that follow them and these would band together and overwhelm those that do not. So to keep free even an objectivist country would have to create an army. Which would need to be payed. Which would need taxes to prevent people from using the army's protection without contributing. Which would need a burocracy to oversee etc.

Any nation based upon a single philosophy is an unrealistic utopian dream imo. Only by compromise between different viewpoints with give and take politics can something actually workable be achieved.
Click to expand...

In short it can be considered a variant of the Nirvana fallacy.
 
Craig24 said:
You are very correct but that's beside the point. What I was illustrating was that Objectivism doesn't view rights as a sanction to act any way that you happen to prefer. When there's a conflict between two or more parties, you have to identify who is right and who is wrong.
Click to expand...

Who decides?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, only if the individual organism is the primary purpose of biological evolution. That is not the case. You have made a positive claim, which amounts to that the purpose of biological evolution is the survival of the individual organism.
Click to expand...

I accept that what you and biologists say about evolution is true. Identifying the actions of living things as a pursuit of values doesn't contradict anyone's understanding of what evolution is and does. You would have to explain how what I posted contradicts evolution.

As to whether we humans are a special case(special pleading) just because you say so, you have to explain what a choice is. You can if you want to start claiming metaphysical Free Will, but then this exchange stops here.
Click to expand...

Objectivism does claim humans possess free will and it is said to be introspectively self evident that we make choices freely. As for this being a case of special pleading, it isn't and I wouldn't say that humans are 'special' due to free will any more than I would say birds and insects are 'special' due to their ability to fly.
 
Craig24 said:
I accept that what you and biologists say about evolution is true. Identifying the actions of living things as a pursuit of values doesn't contradict anyone's understanding of what evolution is and does. You would have to explain how what I posted contradicts evolution.
Click to expand...

That it follows from life(biological evolution) that an organism can only act with one ultimate value in sight - its own life. It can't be observed to be the case in nature nor is it true for humans. A value is for some humans a cognitive construct and not an objective fact like say gravity. If I for a given specific context hold another ultimate value than my own life, it is not a contradiction and it doesn't violate how reality works.

Objectivism does claim humans possess free will and it is said to be introspectively self evident that we make choices freely. As for this being a case of special pleading, it isn't and I wouldn't say that humans are 'special' due to free will any more than I would say birds and insects are 'special' due to their ability to fly.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "we make choices freely"?
 
marplots said:
It seems odd that I should support rights for me and, while recognizing them in other beings, simultaneously trample on them. Does Objectivism rely on virtue as primary, or, think it derives from some other principle, or, perhaps reject virtue as necessary at all?

In other words, if it is in my self-interest to scrub away the mold or scrub away my neighbor, is my virtuous nature supposed to stop me, or something else?
Click to expand...

Just proves that Objectivism is "I got mine, screw you".
 
Craig24 said:
Why not according to me? What did I say anywhere that tells you that a cold blooded murderer is not to be punished harshly?
Click to expand...

Why the appeal to emotion?

Now if the baby has no estate and no next of kin, it is not murder as there is no crime committed, because there is nobody, who can sue.
 
Craig24 said:
Objectivism is not the ruling philosophy of this or any country. At this moment, we are a mixed economy and there are plenty of environmental regulations. What you described are situations that occur now under this welfare/regulatory system, not situations that would necessarily occur under capitalism as Objectivism supports it. Pollution becomes a problem when it damages life and property. Under capitalism, the solution is property rights and their enforcement under objective law in the courts. If you damage my property or poison me, I sue you. If I win, you pay me damages. The more successful this system and the higher the damages awarded, the more it deters would be polluters. I don't claim to know how much better that would work than it does now under a regulated economy. I only know that it's what Objectivism regards as the way to do it.
Click to expand...

You cannot change human nature by changing an economic system.
 
Spindrift said:
Why would it not occur "under capitalism as Objectivism supports it"? What in the scenario is inherently unfeasible under Objectivism?
Click to expand...

Planning a utopia is easy, staffing it is hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom