Archive for the 'Ethics' Category

The Coming Election (Show 049)

Published
by
Brandon
on February 26, 2008
in Capitalism, Economics, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Objectivism, Politics, Religion, Rights and Show Notes
. 3 Comments

Show 049 was an excellent discussion about the coming U.S. presidential election. Arthur explained his views starting with this question: Which party will do the least damage to Objectivist ideals? (I will try to summarize what he said, but please listen to the show for his own words.)

The Republicans essentially stand for religion. They consistently try to mix faith with government, of which even small amounts can be disastrous, and will lead to a theocracy. Furthermore, their religious altruistic beliefs conflict with the self-interest morality necessitated by capitalism, which they claim to defend. Because of this, they’re misrepresenting capitalism, making it disreputable and therefore harder to realize.

The Democrats stand for a disintegrated attempt at socialism (or pieces of it). But since the fall of the Soviet Union, communism and socialism are no longer the threat they once were. It has been demonstrated that such systems are horrendous. Moreover, since the Democrats’ views are disintegrated, they can not achieve long term success. So, in order to give Objectivism time, it makes the most sense to throw out the bigger threat, the Religious Right, and vote for the Democrats.

Many Objectivists will bring up a third option. What about the Libertarians? The Libertarians say they stand for liberty, but they have an anti-philosophical approach. Their guiding “principle” is the non-initiation of force, but without a proper underlying philosophy, no one can say what initiating force consists of. Politics is a derivative of ethics and must be treated as such. Otherwise, capitalism will continue to be misrepresented, which is immensely destructive. (For those interested, there is also a discussion of Ron Paul on the show.)

It was a great show and I highly recommend you listen to it. You may want to read Diana Hsieh’s post on the election as well.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

The Organ Trade (Show 043)

Published
by
Brandon
on January 14, 2008
in Capitalism, Ethics, Health Care, Rights and Show Notes
. 0 Comments

For this show, Mosley and Arthur have a discussion based on the ARI op-ed, To Save Lives, Legalize Trade in Organs. It is only a paragraph long, so I have posted it below.

“Thousands of individuals waiting for transplants have died through the years because the law forbids the sale of human organs. To significantly increase the availability of organs, this murderous law must be scrapped and the trade in organs decriminalised. If the law acknowledges our right to give away an organ, it should also acknowledge our right to sell an organ. And if the law recognises our right to pay for a life-saving medical treatment, it should also recognise our right to pay for a life-saving organ for transplant. Individuals able to pay for organs would benefit at no one’s expense but their own. Those unable to pay would still be able to rely on charity.”

The right to life means both the right to the mind and body, organs and all. People are dying every day from not having the healthy organs that they need. Creating an incentive, by allowing trade, can save these lives. So what is holding us back? Listen to the show for more details about how this could work.

Are Ethics Really Objective? (Show 034)

Published
by
Mosley
on November 13, 2007
in Ethics, Objectivism and Show Notes
. 0 Comments

On show 034 we discussed a listener’s question about ethics. His argument was that ethics must be a priori and non-objective. Arthur and I talked about how they are objective. I am not going to go over the whole hour-long show here. It was a complex discussion, so it would be better just to listen to episode yourself.

On show 035 we are planning to talk about capitalism and debunk a few common myths about it. What capitalism is and what collectivists call capitalism are two very different things and on this show we are going to show you that. It will be recorded live on Sunday, November 18, 2007 at 8pm EST.

Questions about Objectivism (Show 022)

Published
by
Mosley
on August 16, 2007
in Capitalism, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Objectivism, Rights and Show Notes
. 1 Comment

On last weeks show (show 022), I talked about another email I got from the “Rand Hater”. They told me that they enjoyed the show, which I was happy to hear. They also gave me a list of questions to answer in order to help give them a better understanding of Objectivism.

1.) What are man’s rights? Is there a list?
2.) What is freedom?
3.) Why is laissez-faire capitalism the only economic system that permits freedom?
4.) Does money equate to happiness?
5.) Would you say that how happy a person is, is a judgment on how good their life is?
6.) What do you think about public radio?
7.) What do you think about piracy (on the internet, not the high seas)?
8.) Do Objectivists believe that nobody has to be poor or live in poverty
and all that it is, is a matter of choice?
9.) When people were talking about alcoholics during the last show they said they could choose to stop drinking, but the first step in AA is to admit that you are powerless. Isn’t this a contradiction?
10.) Are Objectivists pacifists, or do they believe in preemption?
11.) Are corporations necessary for a free society?

I answered the questions on the show to the best of my ability and understanding. If you feel I made any contradictions please email me so we can discuss it.

On this weeks show (show 023), I have a few topics we can talk about. If you think of anything else, just send me an email. It’s more fun when I have listener questions and comments to talk about.

Here are the topics so far:
1.) Evading reality.
2.) Objectivist perspectives on foreign policy.
3.) How Libertarianism and Objectivism don’t mix.

Remember to listen live Sunday, August 19th at 8pm. All you need to do is sign up for a TalkShoe.com account to call into the show LIVE.

Sacrifice for Strangers?

Published
by
Mosley
on July 5, 2007
in Ethics, News, Objectivism, Politics and Rights
. 0 Comments

The Ayn Rand Institute came out with another op-ed about the war, The Real Disgrace: Washington’s Battlefield “Ethics”. It talks about a report that was recently released by the Pentagon that says troops would not report “unethical” behavior by fellow troops. The author of this op-ed explains why he takes the side of the troops.

The author says it’s the Washington’s Rules of Engagement that are crippling our troops and pushing them to use this “unethical” behavior. He also explains how Bush is sacrificing our troops for the freedom of others, and is not really fighting our enemy (Iran). When the author brought up that Washington and Bush view this as a compassionate war, I was reminded of an essay by Rand.

The essay is called Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World. She focuses on how the idea of altruism is destroying our way of life. She mentions that both the liberals and conservatives fall victim to this train of thought. Bush was quoted saying, “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers”. How messed up is that! Our military was formed to protect this country and our way of life, NOT the country and way of life of others! Here is proof that the idea of altruism has found its way into the military, a place where it should not be.

Yes, our troops risk their lives, but they do it to protect their way of life. And that is moral. To force them to sacrifice themselves for others is immoral. We need to understand the difference and protect our troops from this altruism so they can protect themselves and the American way of life.

Life is the Standard of Value (Show 015)

Published
by
Mosley
on June 25, 2007
in Ethics, Objectivism and Show Notes
. 3 Comments

On the talkcast recorded June 24th, 2007, Brandon and I talk about the first essay in “The Virtue of Selfishness” called “The Objectivist Ethics”. The essay talks about the core values and virtues of Objectivism. It closes with a very short description of how they apply to a political system, but mainly focus on man as an individual.

Ayn Rand starts off by defining ethics and morality. Basically, she says it’s a code of values that someone uses to determine what is good and what is evil. The simplest standard of value is an organism’s life.

“An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” - The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand p.17

On page twenty-five, she applies this idea to rational man. She clarifies that we differ from animals by our ability to further our understanding of good and evil with reason. It is not just what will threaten our lives that is evil, evil is also that which threatens our (rational) values. Values should not be based off of whims; they should be based off of man’s ability to understand, rationally, what is in his or her self-interest.

This is only a taste of what is in the essay. There is so much information covered, it would take me more then a few minutes to talk about it here. Brandon and I discussed the whole thing on the show recorded on TalkShoe.com. After listening, if you think there is a point we missed, feel free to leave a comment and we will discuss it.

The essay we are going to discuss next week (July 1st) is the title essay in “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”. It is only $7.99 at most book stores, so there is no excuse not to read it.

Altruism or Defending Your Values (Show 011)

Published
by
Mosley
on May 23, 2007
in Ethics, Immigration, Objectivism and Show Notes
. 6 Comments

On the podcast recorded May 20th, Brandon informs us that Leonard Peikoff answered our question about the Virginia Tech Shooting.

Q: During the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech College, there was a professor, a holocaust survivor, who blocked a door against the shooter so that his students could escape safely. And although he died in the process, the students did escape. Is this an act of altruism that Objectivism classifies as immoral?

A: No. As you present it, it was a heroic act in defense of the professor’s values. – Click here to read the full answer.

I would like to thank Brandon for sending the email. Also, after reading what Peikoff had to say, it seems that we came to the same conclusion. It’s nice to know that the show is working and we are all learning from each other.

We also talked about some of the many comments from our new listeners and readers. One of the ones we talked about was immigration. I was watching the news and saw that there is new immigration legislation so I thought I would bring it up on the show. We were just talking about this last week so that means that talkObjectivism.com is on the leading edge of political discussion.