Objectivism Part 2: Ethics

An analysis of Objectivist ethics...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• objectivism
• freedomain
• ayn
• rand
• philosophy
• ethics

[tropicalmist999]

How do you spel the name of this author you speak of "Inran"? I'd like to read her book. And whats with the airplane side effects in the background?

[stefbot]

Ayn Rand.

[Entropy56]

Canadian Paul McKeever kicked your ass, where's your response?  :-)

[stefbot]

I have invited him for a debate, but no response.

[onotheo]

Where to read more about the (gaps?) in ethics, particularly the one mentioned in the video?

[stefbot]

You can check out my free book on ethics - UPB - available on my web site... :)

[Adeikov]

@impratik Explain yourself. Even religious will say what you say "you contradict x ideas, therefore you misunderstand x ideas".

[CapitalistPhil]

@impratik I think he raises some good points...

[impratik]

Stef, this video goes to show that you do not understand objectivism.

[fab006]

@fab006 Cont... Then, of course, they might arrive at another result, but just like "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong, that simply means they have made a mistake (assuming Objectivist ethics is correct, which we must assume, otherwise there is no argument in the first place :) )

Again, as long as they do not freely choose to focus on the particular problem of ethics, they DO NOT know that they are less happy than they could be. That's precisely because the do not have automatic knowledge.

[fab006]

If you ask why evil people do not correct their ways, it is precisely BECAUSE man is a being of volitional consciousness. Free will in Objectivism means that you have to CHOOSE to focus your mind on a particular problem. It is precisely BECAUSE man does not have automatic knowledge that these people will not do the right thing (nor will they know that happiness lies in doing so) unless they choose to consciously figure ethics out. Cont...

[fab006]

I think your mistake here is presupposing the existence of pain and pleasure (on a psychological level, not on a biological one). You sum it up by saying "what makes people happy is subjective." That is exactly what Ayn Rand is contesting. She holds that "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values." Since you can only achieve values that are possible to achieve, your values must be rational and objective. Ethics tells you HOW to be happy, not why

[rationalway]

'Someone who throws him a a grenade to save others acted selfishly because he couldn't live with the thought a of letting them die.'

Yeah, right! Honestly, viewing the world from that kind of view is such an douchebaggy thing to do!

Claiming that people voluntarily only do what pleases them is both false and assholish at the same time! So is claiming that people should also be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it pleases them even if it kills them!

[kingneddy]

here is some philosophy on how to know what is moral. 'do onto others as you would have done onto you'.

i love Ayn Rand & stefbot. i would love to hear stefbot talk about the high possibility of evolution not being scientifically sound. the pro's & cons of the big bang theory. its just not logical to me that nothing can explode into everything.& this leads onto many other questions.like darwin being a fabien socialist in london & obviously a n.w.o propagandist with close ties to rothschilds?

[Bigturns33]

Stefbot doesnt her ethics derive from the other to catagories in her philosophy. She said man should not live by phsyical force. Is this a subjective value or Objective and how do we arive at the logical reasoning of this. I think rand did a good job of this with the axiom that existence exists and breaking down to that conclusion epistemologically. What do you think? Do you think thats a valid assessment.

[waksibra]

@tropicalmist999 LOL