The Unfan

I do.

Someone who has no intent of putting effort into anything can still discern right from wrong.

I'm not sure how to reply to this because I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from reading what I posted.

That which actually exists.
This is a fairly unconnected thought it seems. If you're saying morality is based on reality and reality is where happiness is derived from than you're a hypocrite. You harped on about how nihilism is hopeless and such a thought process is nihilism.

On the other hand, if you're saying happiness is derived from self than duh. Of course happiness is derived from chemical reactions in your brain. However, doing whatever makes you happy is not always ethical.

I have three problems with this. One, you're denying that happiness can be derived from other philosophies which is certainly not true. Two, you're saying Rand's philosophy allows for happiness, which may or may not be true in some cases; personally I find it depressing. Three, you're saying that happiness is more important than what really is, therefor Rand's philosophy is better. That is pretty nihilistic thinking.
How are you defining beyond? You either made the most obvious statement ever or made an obviously false statement.
When did I say this?
Nope, I'm saying that it hasn't been found yet.
How so? If morality is based on logic and some people think more logically than others than some people will derive different morality. It seems that your argument would support subjective morality, not go against it.

I agree. The question isn't if they're right or wrong on a moral level, but if they can be obtained ethically.

Inuzuka Skysword

Ron Paul's writing isn't too good. I read The Revolution: A Manifesto because it was on sale. It really is just Constitution worship in a simple form for everyone to understand. Some of the writings he recommends at the end aren't too bad including Ayn Rand's works, Mises' works, and some of Rothbard's. I don't really think that Libertarianism is good though seeing that it is devoid of any moral base and even the name suggests that liberty is the end which it seeks. Objectivism sees man's own life, his pursuit of happiness, as the end. Objectivism claims to know the objective morality, whereas most arguments for Libertarianism defend it because of the opposite. Politically they are similar. Everywhere else they are much different.

Son of JayJamJah

I enjoyed it quite a bit and thought he did an excellent job of working in plain speak to reach as many open minds as possible.

You and I will always branch apart when it comes to the origins and foundations of morality. Morality in my experience is inherent to the individual and the environment in which they grow up. I find individual Liberty and it's preservation one of the most morally sound pursuits imaginable.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

bungalow

Ayn Rand is a fucking awful philosopher and an even worse writer.

Inuzuka Skysword

Elaborate so that I might be able to give you some credit. Otherwise, you seem to be like the other million critics who critiqued her books without having read them nor understood them.

Exactly. That is the problem. It is just as stupid as nihilism. You never get anywhere with that idea. One has to believe in some sort of morality. One lives by a morality whether he wants to or not. He may constantly rebel against his supposed morality, but that only creates a new one. A morality is a set of rules to achieve a goal that one sets for oneself with his own reason. That is morality in its true sense. Most philosophers hold that one should run away from reality and admit there is no objective morality. However, then they hold that there is no such thing as the objective world. They hold that there is no defined right or wrong way to go through with an action. There most certainly is if one has a goal and one can judge it based on what is more rational to achieve his own interests.

You just choose to not think about the question of morality when you say, "Nope, there isn't a right or wrong in this situation." That is cowardly and you are letting reality dominate you. It is just as dumb as determinism in the sense that it forfeits one's life to reality.

The Unfan

Having a raison d'etre does not make you a moral being. This definition is beyond atrocious because it makes that assumption. One can have no drive and still be a moral person.

This is why I hate Rand's philosophy. It tosses out philosophy based on reality and logic in favor of selfish gain. In my mind what I gain from reality is far more important and precious than anything I could get out of denying it for selfish goals. The ideaology doesn't care about what actually is as long is it makes you feel good.

Son of JayJamJah

^This is the problem with the internet, you read of bunch of out of context bullet points some true and some not all misrepresentations of how the man thinks, never listen to him or read his thoughts expansively and then assume you have an idea of what he's about.

If you believe everything you claim about Dr. Paul is as cut and dry as you put it there you're 10x as nuts a you accuse him of being.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

cardboard adolescent

what the **** country has threatened us or used force on us since pearl harbor? and if i recall correctly our response was to bomb the hell out of them.

Inuzuka Skysword

I am arguing that the wars we have fought since then have been just. I am just saying that in the wars the US does fight, we aren't doing it right. We aren't doing it to protect ourselves. We are doing it so that we can set up a new government or protect another country which our government has no responsibility for.

I am suggesting that the only goal of any just war is self-defense. Therefore, eliminating the threat is what should be done. The Vietnam war was for a completely different purpose and was a waste of time. That is a bad example.

bungalow

Well then you're just a hopeless idealist and equally unqualified to comment on how our generals should be fighting this war. This fight is existential for the insurgency, not us, therefore we can never win. It's a simple as that.

Also, as an aside, was the American Revolution not a just war?