Objectivism and justifiable murder?

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I am not as eloquent as the smart people nor am I as smart as the eloquent people, so keep that in mind when responding

From what I have gathered most Objectivists{latter reading as O's} are atheist or as I prefer self deist{they are thier own god.

As demonstrated O's are into individualism to the exclusion of outside force{be it government or religion}.

If you have no god and believe that there is no god you in essence become your own god.

If you are against collectivism, then the laws of collectivism are not your laws, because they are made for collectisvist purposes.

So to the point I was trying to argue here before I got sidetracked.

If you are responsible for only your actions and you are an atheist Murder should be totally justifiable and totally acceptable.

My thesis on why:

As an atheist you have no belief in a God so morality of murder is not a question, value of humanity is out the door. As an atheist humankind should be seen as part f the problem and murder should be a god thing.

What problem? The planet has only so many resouces so only the fittest should survive and be alive to make use of those resources, the resources should not be wasted on the weak. So Murder is a good thing. Murderer strong, murderee week.

As an individual you are out for number one, the head honcho, numero uno, you. Murder should be a good thing, it is one less other person taking away or interfering with what should be yours.

So, In conclusion as an objectivist I do not see how Murder can be a bad thing, unless your the one getting murdered or related to the person murdered.

Please in responding to this use small words, i did in posting this.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Small words... Ok.

Bullshit.

 

[EthiopianPrince]

I am NOT an objectivists, but to be fair, an arbitrary murder is not OK by objectivist standards. Objectivists believe that there are ethics built into the universe the way there are laws of nature, kind of like the 10 commandments without God. They believe by observing nature and human society, we can learn those objective ethics.

You might be thinking of moral relativists. Moral relativists believe that there is no absolute right or wrong, just different points of view.

I hope this helps, and I welcome corrections if I have been inaccurate in my post.

 

[seXieleXie]

If you have no god and believe that there is no god you in essence become your own god.

false premise #1. o'ists believe there is no god. that is not the same as believing they are gods. you do not become your own supreme being when you deny the existence of god.

As an atheist you have no belief in a God so morality of murder is not a question, value of humanity is out the door. As an atheist humankind should be seen as part f the problem and murder should be a god thing.

false premise #2: atheists do not believe human life is worthless. indeed, they think human life is incredibly valuable and nothing else exceeds it.

So, In conclusion as an objectivist I do not see how Murder can be a bad thing, unless your the one getting murdered or related to the person murdered.

objectivists believe you have no right to infringe on the rights of others. you are not justified in bringing force on another (read: murder) unless they have threatened you by initiating force on you (read: only in self defense).

were my words small enough?

 

[seXieleXie]

Okay i went and consulted my favorite o'ist message board and have some more info. much more eloquent and accurate than how i would have explained it.

"An Objectivist ethics means rational self-interest. If it would benefit me to kill someone, under ordinary circumstances (someone would give me a million dollars to do it, for example) I still would not to it, because it is not in my rational self-interest. "

"The term "rational self interest" is by no means redundant.

A rational man is one who can see more of life than the next minute or hour or day.
If a rational man found himself hungry and without funds to purchase food, he would not see it as moral or rational to steal the food from another's mouth,for two important reasons;

1) that the principles of individual rights are rational and beneficial and objectively moral, and to break them would be immoral

2) to act in a way that,if the action were reversed,it would be detrimental to an individual ,would be not only irrational but stupid."


"And secondly he will not violate anothers rights,for any rational man can see that to commit certain acts will bring retribution, not only in the form of legal punishment, but retribution by others in society who follow his example of acting on whim and need and immediate desire.
ie. If I steal food from you today, you might likely steal mine tomorrow, if I murder your brother on a whim, you might well murder me tomorrow, if I steal a car because need it, you might very well steal mine because yor sister "needs" one.

Any rational man, not merely Objectivists, do not desire to live in a world where anything goes. So they refrain from comitting acts which if taken up by others could be very detrimental to oneself. "

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Objectivism and justifiable murder?

Originally posted by Todd-'o'-Vision
If you have no god and believe that there is no god you in essence become your own god.

false premise #1. o'ists believe there is no god. that is not the same as believing they are gods. you do not become your own supreme being when you deny the existence of god.

Ummm, what is the false premis here? I said O'ist believe there is no god and you said that O'ist we said the same thing.

My conclusion is that if you have no god then the next highest being in your view {yourself} becomes in essence god, thus self deism.

false premise #2: atheists do not believe human life is worthless. indeed, they think human life is incredibly valuable and nothing else exceeds it.

How can a Atheist believe that human life is valuable? It comes from and returns to nothingness. A human life isbut a blip on a radar inthe Athiest Evolutionary time scale. Nothing more nothing less, a random colection of minerals etc.

 

[seXieleXie]

Re: Re: Re: Objectivism and justifiable murder?

Ummm, what is the false premis here? I said O'ist believe there is no god and you said that O'ist we said the same thing.

My conclusion is that if you have no god then the next highest being in your view {yourself} becomes in essence god, thus self deism.

God
1.
......(a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
.....(b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2.A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3.An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4.One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

man does not become a god just because he doesn't believe in the existence of a power higher than himself. he doesn't believe he is the creator of the world, that he is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing.

How can a Atheist believe that human life is valuable? It comes from and returns to nothingness. A human life isbut a blip on a radar inthe Athiest Evolutionary time scale. Nothing more nothing less, a random colection of minerals etc.

how can any human not believe in the value of human life? look at all man has accomplished. look at what he can do. just chosing to live means you value human life... your own.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Objectivism and justifiable murder?

God
1. ......(a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
.....(b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2.A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3.An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4.One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

man does not become a god just because he doesn't believe in the existence of a power higher than himself. he doesn't believe he is the creator of the world, that he is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing.

god

3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

What does an O'ist think themself are/is {can't get grammar correct its one of those two}?

An O'sit thinks himself the individual is the Chief Good and regards theme self as thier soul supreme accountability.

how can any human not believe in the value of human life? look at all man has accomplished. look at what he can do. just chosing to live means you value human life... your own.

As a collective Mankind has done very great things, but no one man can take responsibility for anything that we have today or ever. Yes we have great forefathers of invention but behind every great edison, assimov, etc. there are little people unknown who's knowledge was use by the great knowns.

As an individual human life is but 70 years of individual insignificance, as a collective human life is invaluable

 

[seXieleXie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Objectivism and justifiable murder?

What does an O'ist think themself are/is {can't get grammar correct its one of those two}?

An O'sit thinks himself the individual is the Chief Good and regards theme self as thier soul supreme accountability.

right, but not some higher power to be reviered and honored. a man is just a man.

As a collective Mankind has done very great things, but no one man can take responsibility for anything that we have today or ever. Yes we have great forefathers of invention but behind every great edison, assimov, etc. there are little people unknown who's knowledge was use by the great knowns.

As an individual human life is but 70 years of individual insignificance, as a collective human life is invaluable

aaaaaaahhhhhhhh. hehe. that is like the antithesis of the o'ist point of view. it is the great works of individuals that has propelled mankind as a whole forward. sure, isaac newton "stood on the shoulders of giants" but without his individual genious physics would never be the same. without the individual efforts of the wright brothers avation would never be the same. it is the individual who invents, develops, challanges, takes risks, and ultimately succeedes, not the collective.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Objectivism and justifiable murder?

aaaaaaahhhhhhhh. hehe. that is like the antithesis of the o'ist point of view. it is the great works of individuals that has propelled mankind as a whole forward. sure, isaac newton "stood on the shoulders of giants" but without his individual genious physics would never be the same. without the individual efforts of the wright brothers avation would never be the same. it is the individual who invents, develops, challanges, takes risks, and ultimately succeedes, not the collective.

yes but that inividual{s} never would of gotten there with out the collectives knowledge

take an individual seperatate{individualise} from everything at birth and give him nothing of knowledge collected {collectivism} and see what great invention they make

 

[EthiopianPrince]

Hey Todd,

You have no reply to my points?

 

[Astro]

Todd - wheres a responce to your question.

I am not an athiest, I do not believe myself to be a supreme being, I believe in Powers which are higher than myself, however nor am I Christian.

I am the only person who knows what I do, I am the only one who has had genotype and environmental experiences that I have.

Your attempt to reduce thought to an animal level of what can be mine should be does not work with any social animals. Humans have a highly developed social structure free from any godhead, this is the same thing that means female lions look after each others young, and injured apes will be helped by other apes. This is not humanity, this is social structure and inclusive fitness.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Objectivists believe that there are ethics built into the universe the way there are laws of nature, kind of like the 10 commandments without God. They believe by observing nature and human society, we can learn those objective ethics.

Obseving nature {collection of wildlife {primal collectivism}}

Observing Human Society {Collection of society}

Looks like they use collectivism to define them selves isn't taht anti-individual?

You do what is being done by everyone else because everyone else has deemed it acceptable.

If the Universe is just a happenstance collection of planets, gases, etc with no intelligent designer then how can you assume any constant laws of its nature, science changes presuptions every day when it finds something different then what it believed yesterday

 

[SilverVeil]

My motto as I live and learn is dig and be dug in return.

A person should always remember the Prime Directive :

1st do no harm. Ergo .... murder is harm to another entity.
Thus... murder is wrong.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Humans have a highly developed social structure free from any godhead, this is the same thing that means female lions look after each others young, and injured apes will be helped by other apes. This is not humanity, this is social structure and inclusive fitness.

Social structure formed from collected experience{collectvism}.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

My motto as I live and learn is dig and be dug in return.

A person should always remember the Prime Directive :

1st do no harm. Ergo .... murder is harm to another entity.
Thus... murder is wrong.

Who's idea is to do no harm, with out a god, that is just a societal idea{collectivism}

 

[EthiopianPrince]

Once again I'm a skeptic, not an objectivist.

But I think an objectivist would answer that an INDIVIDUAL can arrive at an objective ethical code by observing nature and human society.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Once again I'm a skeptic, not an objectivist.

But I think an objectivist would answer that an INDIVIDUAL can arrive at an objective ethical code by observing nature and human society.

I am just playing devils advocate here with this thread

but to your point isn't gaining your views by observing society{collection of people} just a form of mental collectivism

 

[MunchinMark]

I'm not at all certain that a person could truly make a completely objective decision.

I am an atheist, I am not a god because there aren't any. But I do consider that ethical ideas hold society together. People need society in order to survive. So that society survives there are rules- ethics.

Not killing people without a damn good reason is a pretty major rule in that collection.

Bear the 'good reason' bit in mind. It is the get out clause that prevents a soldier from being automatically a criminal.

 

[EthiopianPrince]

isn't gaining your views by observing society{collection of people} just a form of mental collectivism

Civil Disobedience wouldn't be mental collectivism then, yes could be considered objectively ethical. I suspect objectivists consider it ethical to have protested Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

 

[Unclebill]

Todd, you fundamental tenet is flawed, i. e., fallacious. You attempt to define anything derived by observation of a collection or group as collectivism.

First, it should be apparent that men living in an organized society can be far more productive and advance far quicker than a single individual or a family living in a solitary state. However, living in a geographic proximity and exchanging goods and services among themselves is not collectivism so long as the association is one of their free choice.

The basis for defining man's innate necessity to be free to choose the endeavors which he pursues is too long to try and replicate here. I can provide references if you like but I get the idea that's not where you are headed with this thread.

But as a derivative of man's nature, freedom is a necessity for his pursuit of happiness and the sustenance of his life. This implies an innate right of ownership of his life. Ownership of his life means he is also entitled to the product of his efforts gained in pursuit of sustaining his life. His only innate obligation is that he refrain from violating the equal or same right of every other man.

Collectivism is a societal organization which ignores the nature of man and says that as an individual, you have no right to your life and thus no right to anything you produce toward sustaining it. The collectives owns the proceeds of your (and everyone's) efforts and thus, in essence is the owner of your (and everyone's) life, i. e. the individual is the property, the slave, of the collective. The individual's only purpose is to provide whatever is needed for the benefit of the collective. There is no right to property, to freedom of choice in any matter or even to ones life if the collective decides otherwise.

As to the Objectivist becoming God by virtue of atheism, in one sense, perhaps you could look at it that way. However, it's a fallacious view fraught with problematic interpretation. God is almost universally defined as a superior being, a supernatural entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. No Objectivist has such a self-image simply because they share the basic premise that all men are created equal, i. e., they are all endowed with the same innate (unalienable) rights. The source of your rights is that you are human.

In fact, you are far more likely to find one who embraces collectivism as seeing himself as God, i. e., a superior being, who is certain in his perception of himself that he is better equipped to make decisions for others than are they to make decision for themselves. It is the collectivist who says it is necessary for government to level the playing field so that the (insert your favorite platitude here) can have a chance to compete on equal footing with those in society who discriminate against them or somehow or other have some perceived advantage. That is so condescending and arrogant that I find it totally offensive and thoroughly intellectually and ethically dishonest. Anyone who embraces this mentality does not view men as equal; they view some, almost inevitably themselves, as the superior ones who must care for and nurture the less fortunate.

The collectivist attitude is analogous to the parent/child relationship except in the parent/child situation, it is proper until the child has learned and matured sufficiently to become self-sufficient. But in the collectivist perception, those who need his care taking and supervision never mature to become self-sufficient. Rather, they perpetually need his largess to attain any success and thus they are obligated to be grateful for his beneficence.

To address you point about justifiable murder, there is no such thing. If you said justifiable killing, I would say there is; if someone attacks you and in defending yourself, your assailant is killed, you are completely justified.

And to be specific, murder is a bad thing because it violates the most fundamental right of the individual, the right to his own life. And since that right is a cardinal value for the Objectivist, not only murder but even assault or battery is not acceptable. Objectivism very succinctly defines criminal actions as being the only action prohibited to the individual and the fundamental definition of a crime is the initiation of the use of force.

Objectivist also understand that rights are the same for all. One does not garner any special rights by membership in any group of any kind. For example, minority rights, gay rights, women's rights, gun owners' rights home owners' rights, renters' rights, etc., are all meaningless terms cooked up by the collectivist mentality to obfuscate and subvert the only rational definition of rights.

Any benefit derived from membership in a group is a privilege. But that privilege is still constrained by the definition and prohibition of criminal acts, i. e., no group may endow anyone with the right to commit a crime. This is contrary to the collectivist idea that the group has a right that is superior and thus may take whatever action is deemed beneficial for the collective.

And rights apply only to ones choices and actions. There is no right to property, per se. The right is to own property if one acquires it. There is no right to have a job; only to seek a job if someone offers or to create one's own job. There is no right to medical care; only the right to seek it if someone is available and willing to provide it.

And to reinforce what seXieleXie said about the valuation of human life, the Objectivist recognizes that life is an end in itself. It is the ultimate value a man strives to sustain. There is no greater value than human life to the Objectivist.

It is the collectivist who demeans, denigrates and cheapens the value of human life by essentially equating humans with other animals as fodder for the benefit of the collective, as a herd animal to be dominated by their direction and control for the goals they, the self-anointed leaders of the collective, deem the proper course for mankind. That is why their mantra for equality is physical or economic or some other tangible to which they point and say, "because of the obvious evidence, equality cannot be achieved". Because it is fact that no two people are equal in physical strength, intellect, economic success, health, nor any other of a myriad of measures. The only truly universal measure of equality is in the concept of rights and it is this single sphere of equality that the collectivist seeks to suppress because it is anathema to their ideology.

The best they then offer is that everyone share equally in the misery of their slave pit except of course for the leader(s) of the collective whose wisdom entitles him(them) to be the hand(s) holding the lash.