The single most important political principle ever

[Melkor Unchained]

Pretty much, and because we need it for anything resembling a rational evaluation of actions and their consequences, which is a necessity for organized civilization. I believe in absolutes because reality is full of them. 'Absolute' doesn't mean that it never changes or is always the same; it can of course change as the environment around it does. It just means that it's identifiable within said environment and context.

I just don't see how morality exists in the same way an electron does. It seems nothing more than something we impose with our minds. Sure, the concept of morality is useful, but so is the concept of Newtonian mechanics, and we know that the latter is technically incorrect.

I'll agree that morality is a construct of sentience; that it wouldn't exist in our minds without the ability to comprehend/theorize it. But the same can be said of mathematics and physics; but that doesn't make them less objective than they are.

I understand what you're saying though, since one is a component of nature that we simply didn't learn about until we had the tools; morality, meanwhile, has been pondered pretty much since the dawn of civilization and with varying degrees of success.

[Tekania]

I think what is trying to be conveyed, is that "Objectivist moral" absolutes are more like the speed of sound in a medium.... They are fixed when particular environmental criteria are met... Of course, that means they are not technically objective (hence why I call the philosophy dishonest)...

[New Kereptica]

Pretty much, and because we need it for anything resembling a rational evaluation of actions and their consequences, which is a necessity for organized civilization. I believe in absolutes because reality is full of them. 'Absolute' doesn't mean that it never changes or is always the same; it can of course change as the environment around it does. It just means that it's identifiable within said environment and context.

I just don't see how morality exists in the same way an electron does. It seems nothing more than something we impose with our minds. Sure, the concept of morality is useful, but so is the concept of Newtonian mechanics, and we know that the latter is technically incorrect.

I'll agree that morality is a construct of sentience; that it wouldn't exist in our minds without the ability to comprehend/theorize it. But the same can be said of mathematics and physics; but that doesn't make them less objective than they are.

I understand what you're saying though, since one is a component of nature that we simply didn't learn about until we had the tools; morality, meanwhile, has been pondered pretty much since the dawn of civilization and with varying degrees of success.

Physics? Planets orbit stars even if there's no-one to see them.

[Melkor Unchained]

I think what is trying to be conveyed, is that "Objectivist moral" absolutes are more like the speed of sound in a medium.... They are fixed when particular environmental criteria are met... Of course, that means they are not technically objective (hence why I call the philosophy dishonest)...

And I think that's probably an unfair characterization. All facts are subject to their environments; H₂O can only exist in certain conditions, that doesn't mean it's not H₂O when it does...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Physics? Planets orbit stars even if there's no-one to see them.

To be fair, physics doesn't exist unless there are minds to study it, because physics is the study of the behavior and properties of things out there in the universe. The things are there and their behaviors are there, whether or not we observe them, but the study of them does not exist unless we are actually studying them. (duh!)

[Melkor Unchained]

Physics? Planets orbit stars even if there's no-one to see them.

To be fair, physics doesn't exist unless there are minds to study it, because physics is the study of the behavior and properties of things out there in the universe. The things are there and their behaviors are there, whether or not we observe them, but the study of them does not exist unless we are actually studying them. (duh!)

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

Actually, I think sound is defined as the actual vibrations in the air rather than the perception of said vibrations.

[New Kereptica]

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

Actually, I think sound is defined as the actual vibrations in the air rather than the perception of said vibrations.

According to Wikipedia, it is the vibration within frequencies detectable by organs of hearing.

(Apparently cited from the American Heritage Dictionary)

[Melkor Unchained]

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

Actually, I think sound is defined as the actual vibrations in the air rather than the perception of said vibrations.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

In a way though, now that I think of it, this is at least tangentially on topic, since it does more or less deal with the circumstances under which objective fact exist.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

In a way though, now that I think of it, this is at least tangentially on topic, since it does more or less deal with the circumstances under which objective fact exist.

If the sound is intense enough, he will feel it regardless of whether or not he's deaf. You can feel really intense sounds.

[Tekania]

I think what is trying to be conveyed, is that "Objectivist moral" absolutes are more like the speed of sound in a medium.... They are fixed when particular environmental criteria are met... Of course, that means they are not technically objective (hence why I call the philosophy dishonest)...

And I think that's probably an unfair characterization. All facts are subject to their environments; H₂O can only exist in certain conditions, that doesn't mean it's not H₂O when it does...

No, it's a fair characterization... H₂O exists as a construct in certain conditions, and not in others... The problem with Objectivism, is it is non-adaptive to conditions... It assumes (actually out-right denies) the existence of the medium of its conditions, to present a false-static model... It's non-adaptive...

[New Kereptica]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

In a way though, now that I think of it, this is at least tangentially on topic, since it does more or less deal with the circumstances under which objective fact exist.

If the sound is intense enough, he will feel it regardless of whether or not he's deaf. You can feel really intense sounds.

At that point, it become rather difficult to differentiate sound from any vibration through a material.

[Melkor Unchained]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

In a way though, now that I think of it, this is at least tangentially on topic, since it does more or less deal with the circumstances under which objective fact exist.

If the sound is intense enough, he will feel it regardless of whether or not he's deaf. You can feel really intense sounds.

Yeah, that's true but it's still dependent on perception. Without the nerves to feel it, it would have no effect.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

At that point, it become rather difficult to differentiate sound from any vibration through a material.

In any solid material, there will be three waves propagating simultaneously. There will be two perpendicular transverse waves, and one longitudinal wave. Sound is of the longitudinal variety. In a gas, sound is manifested as a propagating sinusoidal variation in the density of the air.

[Melkor Unchained]

I think what is trying to be conveyed, is that "Objectivist moral" absolutes are more like the speed of sound in a medium.... They are fixed when particular environmental criteria are met... Of course, that means they are not technically objective (hence why I call the philosophy dishonest)...

And I think that's probably an unfair characterization. All facts are subject to their environments; H₂O can only exist in certain conditions, that doesn't mean it's not H₂O when it does...

No, it's a fair characterization... H₂O exists as a construct in certain conditions, and not in others... The problem with Objectivism, is it is non-adaptive to conditions... It assumes (actually out-right denies) the existence of the medium of its conditions, to present a false-static model... It's non-adaptive...

This actually isn't true, but whatever. I think a lot of people read the wiki article or Atlas Shrugged and come to the conclusion that "the individual is right, selfishness is always right," which isn't the case. Identity relies on boundaries, and since Rand/Peikoff believe that morality has identity, it has boundaries (and therefore conditions) as well. If someone should choose to take this this as 'subjectivity' for ease of interpretation, I guess that's okay, but it's not technically correct. Rand said that she preferred the term 'Existentialism' to describe her philosophy, but couldn't use it since it was already taken!

To take the most basic example, Objectivism holds that it is wrong to steal... unless said 'theft' is to re-appropriate resources that were previously stolen by the entity who currently 'owns' them. Without such a principle in place, contracts would be meaningless, and you can ask any Objectivist how important contractual obligations are!

[Grave_n_idle]

And GnI, kindly shove it.

Which, if you were anyone but a mod, would be received with some kind of comment about how it wasn't an appropriate response, and maybe you should get a grip.

Instead, I'll just say, that's not an appropriate response. Get a grip.

If you're not willing to read Peikoff, you can get out of my face with that 'leap' crap. It's explained, I promise. If you don't agree with it that's fine, but you seem to be more than happy to dismiss it out of ignorance. Go ahead and read OPAR with your preconception that it's Always Wrong About Everything Except Objective Reality, but don't come in here and try to tell me it's wrong "just because," which is what you seem to be saying. For all the 'open mindedness' you seem to claim possessing, you appear more than happy to dismiss this position without bothering to research it. It'd be like if I never read a word of Kant and said "categorical imperative is a load of bollocks." I'd be challenged within seconds, but apparently it's totally honest and open-minded for you to dismiss Peikoff without reading it.

*snipping pile of blah-blah assumptions about how I couldn't have read it and thought it was illogical leap-of-faith crap... and deciding instead that, no matter WHAT I say, I'm arguing from ignorance*

[Grave_n_idle]

It wouldn't have to 'take into account' neutrinoes, etc - it would just have to be equally true with or without them.

Which, considering neutrinos technically have mass and hence technically break flat space-time symmetry, is not really possible.

Nonsense, 'moral law' doesn't (have to) care for flat time-space symmetry.

Indeed, I'd consider it a pretty odd moral law if it DID have dependencies based on flat time-space symmetry.

[Tekania]

To take the most basic example, Objectivism holds that it is wrong to steal... unless said 'theft' is to re-appropriate resources that were previously stolen by the entity who currently 'owns' them. Without such a principle in place, contracts would be meaningless, and you can ask any Objectivist how important contractual obligations are!

But see, that relies on those odd maxims such as "individual sovereignty".. And other such criteria... Suppose individuals are not sovereign? I don't believe they are... I don't believe individual self-determination is intrinsically beneficial... In fact, I believe it's counter-intuitive to how human progress and evolution has occurred during the entire history of human kind... It's a devolution of the human social-evolution... Because it seeks to devolve the multi-cellular organism back to the cellular cooperatives....

:EDIT: And by "believe" I mean trust which is derived from observation of human social evolution to conclude a reasoned ideology...

Or, to put it more succinctly... It seeks to turn man into jellyfish...

My absolute moral principle (objective moral principle) is survival of man as a species, not individual survival... What this means is cooperative and inter-reliant social constructs and complexities, and care for the group as a whole for the entirety to progress... That is, societies themselves are the real entities, "individuals" are merely organs and cells within the whole... States are their brains, which are made up of the network of the whole, to redistribute as need be...

Much like an ant colony, we can do great things as cooperative societies... but all a single ant can do is randomly move pebbles around till it dies...

Objectivism may create narrative heroes of Inventive Industry leaders... But in truth, Industry leaders are usually those who have used their power of capital to exploit the invention and labor of others, and bring themselves more capital for further exploitation...

IOW, to me... Objectivism is incompatible with human progress as a species...

[Melkor Unchained]

*snipping pile of blah-blah assumptions about how I couldn't have read it and thought it was illogical leap-of-faith crap... and deciding instead that, no matter WHAT I say, I'm arguing from ignorance*

So you've read OPAR then?

My absolute moral principle (objective moral principle) is survival of man as a species, not individual survival...

This is where you lost me (but AHA! I got you to say the words 'my absolute moral principle' ). A species cannot survive unless its individuals do. Of course some 'inter-reliant social constructs and complexities' are to be expected if we're to live together under anything calling itself 'civilization,' but strictly speaking the 'survival of man as a species' isn't necessarily dependent on civilization to begin with. It may not be necessary for our survival, per se, but it I'll grant that it is how we have flourished.

I recognize that the requirements of civilization necessitate 'inter-reliant social constructs,' to borrow your term. I just don't believe those constructs possess the authority to mortgage/redistribute the results of my labor for someone else's direct benefit. I'll pay taxes for services the private sector can't readily provide, but not to subsidize my neighbor. I made about ten grand last year, and I have more than enough of my own problems without taking on hers.

[Sitspot]

I'll pay taxes for services the private sector can't readily provide, but not to subsidize my neighbor.

So which exact services do you think it reasonable to pay taxes for? I ask because I think it has huge implications for the rest of your argument.

[Melkor Unchained]

I'll pay taxes for services the private sector can't readily provide, but not to subsidize my neighbor.

So which exact services do you think it reasonable to pay taxes for? I ask because I think it has huge implications for the rest of your argument.

Indeed it does. I think taxes should (for the most part) cover vital services that the private sector cannot/will not provide (police, fire, potentially roads, to name a few). Any other programs can/will be within the government's mandate if the people say it is; e.g. 'if they're willing to pay for them.

The best way to describe what I support is, ironically, Obama's 'Public Option' writ large. I think that the government's power/authority should be a direct representation of the will of the people via the marketplace. Have the government compete alongside the private sector for goods and services. Thus, the revenue it gains is a direct result of the peoples' wishes. If they want the government to assume a larger role in life and the subsistence thereof, they'll buy its products. If not, they'll generate wealth by purchasing goods from private corporations.

Either way, it's pretty much win-win for the government. If the people buy their products, its budget grows and the people have spoken--they want it to expand. If not, they buy private and bolster taxable revenue.

[Sitspot]

So are you saying that everyone should pay taxes for police and fire or just that you personally are willing to do it and don't mind if others don't?

[Ryadn]

More to the point, if morality is 'subjective,' neither you or a policeman has the 'authority' to tell me my actions are im/moral and thus worthy of reprimand/accolades; without objective standards law--and therefore civilization--has absolutely no basis.

Or the subscription of everyone in society to a collectively agreed subjective morality. The majority of people hold enough of the same standards of morality that sensible law enforcement stems from shared, subjective rules.

So.. if a majority of people in $NATION declare it's okay to invade a neighboring country and rape its women, that's a legitimate moral mandate? I think not.

Is it immoral if, instead of being carried out by the people of a nation, it's done by one troop of baboons to another? Should we prosecute certain species of spider that eat their mates for homicide?

[Tekania]

This is where you lost me (but AHA! I got you to say the words 'my absolute moral principle' ). A species cannot survive unless its individuals do. Of course some 'inter-reliant social constructs and complexities' are to be expected if we're to live together under anything calling itself 'civilization,' but strictly speaking the 'survival of man as a species' isn't necessarily dependent on civilization to begin with. It may not be necessary for our survival, per se, but it I'll grant that it is how we have flourished.

I recognize that the requirements of civilization necessitate 'inter-reliant social constructs,' to borrow your term. I just don't believe those constructs possess the authority to mortgage/redistribute the results of my labor for someone else's direct benefit. I'll pay taxes for services the private sector can't readily provide, but not to subsidize my neighbor. I made about ten grand last year, and I have more than enough of my own problems without taking on hers.

Actually I used those on purpose...

I say out species IS in fact dependent on civilization... Sure, a single ant can do things, it can even gather some food... but it dies... and when it's dead, nothing... Civilization is not dependent upon the survival of a single component... But continues and progresses as a whole... Therefore the "survival" of man is in fact dependent upon civilization... Because there is no real "survival" apart from civilization...

I believe those constructs DO possess the authority to redistribute resources... In fact, I think that is the primary reason for their existence. Resource distribution within the civilization for the purpose of overall survival, resources such as Defense, Security, Protection, Health, etc...

Property is an ok thing... but really labor means more than property... I'd argue, in fact, that property doesn't really exist... it's merely an artificial boundary created for selfish reasons... real value is in labor, which must be constantly exercized.... Which highlights the primary problem with our modern capitalist system... More value is given to the nebulous "capital" than is given to labor...

The "Free-Market" is inherently coercive, its system advocates capital as value, and utilizes capital to coerce work from others... Those with the capital, reap the most rewards; and those with the labor, reap the least... Really, the opposite should be true...

[United Technocrats]

How about this:

Let's say that x = 0.99999... (i)
Hence, 10x = 9.99999... (ii)
Also, 10x – x = 9x (iii)
However, substituting from (i) and (ii), it follows that 10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999... = 9 (iv)
Now, from (iii) and (iv) it follows that 9x = 9, so x=1.

Finally, from (i) and (iv) it follows that 1 = 0.99999...

Careful, you might prompt some of the math semi-literates into debating you about this.

Yeah, that's what I wanted!

EDIT: And I expected it to end by you finally explaining them what is wrong