tk

This silly excuse has been used zillions of times over. In the first place, it doesn't even agree with the dictionary definitions of "rational" that I know of.

Besides, your brand of "reasoning" is bogus. Using the same form of "reasoning", I can derive the exact opposite of what you derive. For example, because having to deal with retards in the world is a waste of time for the intelligent-minded, I argue we should murder as much as possible, so that Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest can kick in, and the cream of the crop (i.e. us) can spend their time on more constructive things. Murder is a virtue. And do I have to explain once more why all Objectivists should consider joining Al-Qaeda to further their own aims?

If you don't agree with me, then clearly you've not sufficiently thought over the issues. Go figure.

And finally: Man is irrational. If this makes you feel uncomfortable, so be it.

tk

...you know what? Your view of imperfection and murder sucks, big time. You claim that humans are rational except in those `brief moments' of irrationality, where someone goes drunk driving and then mows you down on the road like it's nobody's business, or detonates a bomb next to where you're sitting, or puts a bullet through your head because he mistook you for someone he didn't like, or drops a nuclear bomb right above your head.

I should really see to it that the next Objectivist I meet will soon find himself lying in a corner waiting for someone to save his life, while other people go about pursuing their own laissez-faire capitalistic ideals, and refuse to give a hand because they know altruism is bad.

99Percent

Care to elaborate without using hyperbole?Strawman. Those who are retarded are usually being taken care of their close friends and family. It would be against their wishes if we decided to go ahead and murder them.You are underestimating me by a lot. I have thought and debated these issues at great depths in this forum. Take a look before jumping to adhom conlusions.No, man is a rational being. Reason is his essence, his distinguishing and redeeming feature compared to all other beings. So he ought to act rationally and therefore morally. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, thats your loss. You do have only one life to live you know.Yes. Even cold blooded murder or murder for gain is irrational.Strawman again. Why would this objectivist, or for that matter, anyone be waiting in a corner for someone to save his life? Everyone individually has a responsibility to look after their own lives. That doesn't mean either that people lack empathy and have humanistic impulses to help others.

tk

Prove, not elaborate. If an argument is sound, it's sound, even if it's short. If an argument is bogus, it's bogus, even if it's long.

For proof of my original assertion, I cite Merriam-Webster. The burden of proof is now on you to exhibit dictionary definitions of "rational" and "reason" which agree with your assertion, that the two are unconnected with logic.

Strawman? Aren't such wishes irrational?

That couldn't be an ad hominem, since you used the same line of argument. (Wait, maybe it is an ad hominem.) And clearly you haven't thought enough, as you still can't explain why Objectivists shouldn't be joining Al-Qaeda.

You may be right, if "rational" means "capable of spewing junk". But I await your dictionary definitions.

Oh, of course. I forgot that the very moment you were born, you were able to find your own food and water, get your own job, and look after your own health and safety. Though people have humanistic impulses, you constantly rejected them, because you knew such impulses were altruistic and thus irrational.

Perhaps you can ask your parents or guardians how many times you fell ill while you were an infant. Then, tell them straight in the face that they shouldn't have tended to your ailments, rather they should've dumped you in a random corner of the world to live or die, and used their own time fruitfully on capitalist pursuits. Seriously, if it weren't for them, you won't be able to sit here blabbering your nonsense.

99Percent

[Reason is connected with logic, I never claimed otherwise. What I claimed is that reason is not the same as logic. I suggest you go and take a basic course of philosophy in order to understand the difference.Why would they be? Your original "argument":fails for a simple reason: you are presupposing a general good (Darwinian survival, cream of the crop, etc) which must be false, as the good can only be determined, perceived and pursued by the individual. Those individuals taking care of their retarded loved ones determine, perceive and pursue their own individual happiness that way, and what would be immoral and therefore irrational is for anyone to go against their wishes by force, like murdering them.I missed it, please repeat it.Strawman again. Remember I am not Ayn Rand.Strawman yet again. You must have a heck of a lot of straw back there

Gurdur

That is merely a presupposition of yours, and BTW, it's easily proven wrong in an empirical sense --- i.e. your claim is not only prescriptive, it's also descriptive, which is where your claim is completely against the facts.

Many people decide together in acts of social consensus what is morally right or wrong, following much discussion and debate. This is rather a simple fact of daily life, and factually disproves your claim that "good can only be perceived by the individual".

99Percent

My claim is not based on empirical facts at all. Its based on simple reason, on what is logically obvious with a bit of reasoning. As I have said before the facts by themselves cannot tell what is good or wrong. There must always be a value judgement on everything of which can only come from the individual. In fact as human beings we continously make value judgement every single moment of our waking life - its our modus operandi as rational human beings and what allows us to survive and be happy. This argument is not based on facts, but on common sense using ordinary reason where any ordinary human being can understand.My claim which again is based on reason and not on facts still stands. The observable "fact" that people "debate and discuss" of what is good and bad is dubious at the very least. Most commonly people are persuaded, indoctrinated or even threatened with mob rule. This is in fact the path followed by cults or states where charismatic leaders or politicians have the upper hand to compel others on what is "good" and "bad". This happens too easily and commonly because people forfeit their individual responsibility in deciding for themselves what is indeed good and bad since only the individual can infact decide this. It also happens in "democratic" societies where people simply let the state decide for them, letting the state educate their children and even indoctrinate with patriotism, or let the state find their jobs, feed them, find them "proper" housing, subsidize health, etc. We allow the nanny state to prohibit us from drinking before we are 21 years old, from taking drugs for pleasure, from smoking in public, etc. where disobeying the law is threatened with jail and even death. In effect we become zombies manipulated through state propaganda, carrots and sticks, because we are too lazy to think for ourselves.

Gurdur

That is correct --- your claim is simply a presuppositional premise. One disproven by the facts.
This is simply a very bad and self-contradicting claim of yours.

You claim objective morality is a fact, revealed by "reason".
Then you claim facts cannot prove truthfulness.
Do you see your self-defeating dilemma ?

QUESTION 1:

If you deny the truthfulness of fact-based observation, then what chance do you have to say anything is truthful or not ?

Seems like the ultimate in sophist relativism to me.
Name the value judgment in determining the fact of gravity.

99Percent

All philosophical premises must reside on a foundation. You are simply denying you have one, which is absurd since everyone must have one.No. You are wrong on the second point "that facts cannot prove truthfulness". That is not what I am claiming. Facts do confirm what is truth. But facts cannot prove what is good or bad, ie, facts cannot prove morality. Again, morality comes from reason not facts. Your following question is moot. There isn't any. Thats the whole point. Gravity can be good or bad depending on the circumstances, and that is when we make our value judgment. Can you see now what I mean when I say that the facts themselves cannot tell us what is good or bad?

Gurdur

What a muddled and wrong accusation of yours.

I recommend you read some philosophy, namely Gödel and Popper, being the two relevant philosophers here.

Let's look at what exactly is wrong with your statement:

1) All systems must eventually rest on assumed premises (see Gödel).
These initial premises cannot be derived from anything, they can only be accepted, rejected or disproved (see Popper).

2) My only relevant significant initial premise (as said time and time again ) is that there is a natural world independent of human perception and interpretation.

Would you seriously like to debate any of that ?