Judge: Abu Gharib images and videos need to be released

Research objectivism. It's where a good deal of my current philosophy is derived from. As I said, it's quite hard to punch holes in from a purely logical standpoint. It does advocate a very coldhearted point of view, but its logical support is impeccable.

Yes, I do have quite a sense of humor, but I'm certainly not exhibiting it right now.

I don't particularly wish to get into the constructionism argument, however. It's essentially a pointless argument between "it doesn't say I can't, so I can" and "it doesn't say you can, so you can't." Regardless, the document was never meant to be static.

Indeed. basically, the Constitution says what the current Supreme Court says it says. Which is why I hope we don't get a ridiculously far-right-leaning judge nominated to replace O'Connor.

I think this policy issue is an example of the tragedy of the commons.

I'd rather have a centrist judge replace O'Connor, but that's not likely to happen. A far right-wing judge will likely be nominated for the position.

Indeed. I'm not too fond of Roberts, but really, Bush could've nominated someone a lot worse. And I suspect he's going to. Which means basically, our best hope is the Democrats actually have some spine and filibuster the next nominee.

I guess objectivism isn't exactly the philosophy with the most developed ethical system. Can you expose it briefly, please? I would like to see what this might logically irrefutable philosophy says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

I guess objectivism isn't exactly the philosophy with the most developed ethical system. Can you expose it briefly, please? I would like to see what this logically irrefutable philosophy says.

---

Well, I didn't say I was completely objectivist. I said that a goodly portion of my philosophy consists of objectivism. Some of its tenets defy the logic I've been able to put together, which is why I said it was almost impossible, rather than completely impossible, to defeat it logically.

Objectivism is a system of epistemology set forth by Ayn Rand, the most vehement capitalist I've ever heard of. It is elucidated upon in her novels, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and the most well-known, Atlas Shrugged. Hers promotes itself as a philosophy entirely, 100% based in reason. It starts with the ancient philosophical precept, A is A; a thing is equal to itself. To deny this amounts to solipsism; the belief that nothing actually exists and knowledge is thus impossible. However, there exists no evidence whatsoever for a belief in solipsism, whilst there exists ample evidence for the existence of reality, through our own senses. Having now established that existence exists, Rand goes on to state that, because A is A, contradictions in reality do not and cannot ever exist under any circumstances. If she was walking down the street and saw someone pull a summon to thwart an attacking gang, she wouldn't chalk it up to magic. She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

Having established that there exists a logical reason for every occurrence that transpires in the universe, Rand takes a detour to the more human side of things. Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency. Every time I sit down to watch Star Wars for the trillionth time, I'm doing it because I think it kicks ass. Every time I feel a sense of accomplishment after working a particularly messy math problem, I've done it because it's what I like doing (or in the case of some people, they're doing it because it's required to get to something they want.) If I accept a given faith (something that Rand hates more vehemently than anything else, because of its lack of and according to her, flagrant insult to logic) I'm doing it because I either believe that by doing so I will grow as a person or that I'll be saved from burning in hell forever. If I have sex with someone, I'm doing it because it feels good (the understatement of the century). As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering. There does exist a good bit of support for that, in the complete and utter failure of Communism. Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work. Compare that with our thriving capitalist system. Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally. Therefore, capitalism is the most kickass economic system ever.

Now we come to the last part of objectivism in a nutshell, which concerns dealing with other people, or the ethical system that Shadow Nexus mentioned. It is quite developed, but not in a way that has very much to do with emotion, as it is, after all, based on the principle of selfishness. Here is where I perceive that her deviations lie. According to Rand, the quality of a person's character is based upon the work they do; this fits well with her theory of capitalism. This I can agree with. However, Rand goes on to say that for the sake of allowing the human mind to grow, we must never engage in violence against one another. This, in my opinion, is in direct contrast to nature, which violence and death are very much a part of. The universe we live in, due to the law of conservation of energy, requires us to take from, and in some cases, destroy others in order to exist, lest we be destroyed ourselves and our resources appropriated for their gain. All of the empires and governments in history have been built upon bloodshed and human suffering stemming from the innate desire to control and the (according to Rand) supremely moral virtue of selfishness, the desire to acquire possessions and money. Basically every Final Fantasy game, as well as Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, and probably a bunch of other RPGs I haven't gotten around to, have complained at length about this; this is the same complaint I make. From a logical perspective, full selfishness bears absolutely no concern for the growth of others' minds and will happily destroy them for its own growth. But in addition, we are logically all quite connected to each other. We can prove this from any epistemological viewpoint, ranging from emotions to mathematics and derivatives thereof (pun lolz). I hold the view that it is logically impossible to be 100% selfish; that would imply never doing anything that helps anyone else, ever. And yet, it's a generally accepted and easily provable fact that when you help other people, you're helping yourself in some form or fashion.

That's all I can type for right now, but it should give you a basic idea of what objectivism is about. You can google it as well, obviously.

That's a pretty good explanation of Objectivism, really. I agree with a lot of points of it, actually, but I definitely don't agree with the interpretation a lot of her followers have that the government's welfare and education systems should be eliminated entirely. I consider it to be in everyone's best interests that everyone else have food, shelter, education and health care so that they can contribute fully to the workforce.

I still need to read some of her books (besides Anthem, which I thought raised a number of valid concerns about collectivist societies), although I suspect that I'll end up disagreeing vehemently with her on certain issues. xD

I object to objectivism for one simple reason. There is no such thing as a completely independent person (or nation, which in my mind can be viewed as a person). For example you drive on roads built by other people, your PC was built by someone else, your clothes, shoes, and food all were produced by others. So if you were completey selfish, you wouldn't care about the people who do all those things for you. If you don't care for the others in a society (or in the case of nations, the international community), then they will eventually be unable or unwilling to provide those things for you. If you are enough of an ass, then they may even break into your house to get your stuff, etc.

Even if you don't care for others because you feel a moral obligation, failing to do so would make things worse for you.

That's why objectivism doesn't work. It seems to operate on the assumption that all humans are independant, and therefore even if your neighbor has absolutely nothing, you'll be fine because your neighbor never provides you with anything.

In other words, the reason that you'd better care about the state of affairs in the middle east is that's where we get our oil (and dates too, I think) and therefore we need to be nice to the people in that part of the world, at least if we want our cars to start up.

There's plenty of oil in Alaska, but the planeteers won't let us drill there.

In the beginning of humanity, all of us were largely independent. A functional society depends on everyone being interested enough in their own gain that they put out the work for it.

I get it. And I see flaws. Every system has flaws.

Quote:

---

She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

---

A is A is a tautology (sp?) far from proving anything. The principle of no contradiction dictates that "something cannot be another thing in the same place and time". I can accept that. However, from that principle, I cannot see why human reason can actually defended as the ultimate form of knowledge. The Baron of Munchausen has to cross a lake to get to the castle, yet he can't swim, and the lake is too deep for him to walk. The Baron explains how he held his ponytail high to keep him suspended above the water as he walked. Of course, the truth is the Baron never got to the castle. Your philosophy seems to imply the Baron could walk despine the ocean being too deep, and that is the error of the illustrated path. Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason already pointed out the limits of knowledge, with arguments only refutable from the point of view of mysticism. Attempting to cross the lake walking is like attempting to take this scientifical reason beyond it's actual capability. This is also a contradiction. In the end, what you claim to be knowledge is belief.

Quote:

---

Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency.

---

Doubtful, as is everything, but I'll accept it as true now because discussing this would take us far away from the topic.

Quote:

---

As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering.

---

If human suffering is what she is trying to avoid, I can see a great contradiction with her defense of capitalism. I'll get to that later.

Quote:

---

Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work.

---

Psychology or culture? Ah, , I can't believe I find myself with Marx again, I always find myself defending Marx in this forums, not because I am a Marxist, but because the whole point of his system has been corrupted to such points people actually believe Communism to be something completly different to what it actually is.

But that's OK, I'll use Marx again: are you familiar to the concept of suprastructure? Attempting to modify the means of production (infrastructure) would change culture (suprastructure). This is also supported by overwhelming evidence. All the suppositions this good lady is doing, all of them, are based entirely on capitalist suprastructure. She parts from the capitalist man to get back to capitalism. She first exposes the suprastructure- wich she considers "natural"- and then goes down to justify infrastructure. Terrible mistake, and a common one. To define a way of thinking as "universal" is by itself a fallacy, to attempt to reduce human psychology to such simple shcemes is reductionist and dosen't embrace the true complexity of things. Obviously, what she is saying applies- sadly- to a great part of the population, but not for all. Marx did the same error: his theory of history develops only through what he knows of European history. Fantastic theory...for Europe.

Quote:

---

Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally.

---

Capitalism is "thriving"? No, "we are the hollow men/ we are the stuffed men", "shape without form, shade without colour,/ paralysed force, gesture without motion" (T.S Eliot). And for me, that is the biggest argument about most political and economical system, including capitalism. The hollow men are the reason against modernism. The hollow men are the children of capitalism, the masses. The hollow men are born from this suprastructure. The capitalism you speak of is a productive totalitarism. In the end, we are rewarded exclusively for our work for the community. The community, the vulgar community, the mediocre chained in the cave, the hollow men. The hollow masses. Because a vicious circle that has emptied them, the circle of eternal production, the perfect ouroboros for the perfectly wrong. This is not individualism, this is submission to mediocrity. Capitalism has a simple law of offer and demand. Offer what is demanded. What is not demanded, what is not giving economical profit, is out of the system, is marginal. When the system has created a suprastructure of hollowness, men will only ask for the hollow. This happens now, and it is increasing. Who cares about the sublime, about Dante or Cervantes, when the brave new world has constructed a perfect kingdom of zombies? It dosen't matter, "for Thine is the Kingdom".

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

She would say, as I do and as a scientist would in the situation, that there is a reason in physics why there exist beings that are able to be summoned into this plane of existence and throw random crap at people. Therefore, it is not magic; magic is defined as the actual manipulation of physical laws, which would constitute a contradiction. According to A is A, this cannot happen. "True" magic cannot exist.

---

A is A is a tautology (sp?) far from proving anything. The principle of no contradiction dictates that "something cannot be another thing in the same place and time". I can accept that. However, from that principle, I cannot see why human reason can actually defended as the ultimate form of knowledge. The Baron of Munchausen has to cross a lake to get to the castle, yet he can't swim, and the lake is too deep for him to walk. The Baron explains how he held his ponytail high to keep him suspended above the water as he walked. Of course, the truth is the Baron never got to the castle. Your philosophy seems to imply the Baron could walk despite the ocean being too deep, and that is the error of the illustrated path. Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason already pointed out the limits of knowledge, with arguments only refutable from the point of view of mysticism. Attempting to cross the lake walking is like attempting to take this scientific reason beyond it's actual capability. This is also a contradiction. In the end, what you claim to be knowledge is belief.

---

No, it implies, as you said, that the Baron never made it to the castle.

Kant is thoroughly and completely in error. In a universe where no contradictions can exist, reason is not merely the ultimate form of knowledge; it is the ONLY viable form of knowledge. There are no limits to knowledge; Kant's choosing to make arguments that can only be refuted with mysticism shows his ignorance. It's like the ID theory; it's untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus it is not science. What we know is knowledge is a value judgment based on reason, not faith or any derivative thereof.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Inherent psychology of all organisms compels them to do everything they do for their own gain. This is backed by overwhelming consistency.

---

Doubtful, as is everything, but I'll accept it as true now because discussing this would take us far away from the topic.

---

No, explain why it's doubtful. We've got another four billion years before the sun explodes.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As the urge to acquire and to act upon one's will is the only verifiable imperative, Rand asserts that a focus on the self is the only truly moral way to live, because to do otherwise (i.e. to live for the sake of others) would violate the laws of nature and cause incredible human suffering.

---

If human suffering is what she is trying to avoid, I can see a great contradiction with her defense of capitalism. I'll get to that later.

---

You're right here, though one has to question whether it's possible to avoid suffering.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Communism violates human psychology; without incentive for gain, humans will not work.

---

Psychology or culture? Ah, , I can't believe I find myself with Marx again, I always find myself defending Marx in this forums, not because I am a Marxist, but because the whole point of his system has been corrupted to such points people actually believe Communism to be something completly different to what it actually is.

But that's OK, I'll use Marx again: are you familiar to the concept of suprastructure? Attempting to modify the means of production (infrastructure) would change culture (suprastructure). This is also supported by overwhelming evidence. All the suppositions this good lady is doing, all of them, are based entirely on capitalist suprastructure. She parts from the capitalist man to get back to capitalism. She first exposes the suprastructure- wich she considers "natural"- and then goes down to justify infrastructure. Terrible mistake, and a common one. To define a way of thinking as "universal" is by itself a fallacy, to attempt to reduce human psychology to such simple schemes is reductionist and dosen't embrace the true complexity of things. Obviously, what she is saying applies- sadly- to a great part of the population, but not for all. Marx did the same error: his theory of history develops only through what he knows of European history. Fantastic theory...for Europe.

---

What's wrong with reductionism? As Ockham's razor says, the simplest solution that fits the facts is usually the right one.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Rand holds that the work we produce is the product of our rational, reasoning minds, and that we deserve to be rewarded according to the quality of our work; living for others restricts the mind's ability to be the way it is naturally.

---

Capitalism is "thriving"? No, "we are the hollow men/ we are the stuffed men", "shape without form, shade without colour,/ paralysed force, gesture without motion" (T.S Eliot). And for me, that is the biggest argument about most political and economical system, including capitalism. The hollow men are the reason against modernism. The hollow men are the children of capitalism, the masses. The hollow men are born from this suprastructure. The capitalism you speak of is a productive totalitarianism. In the end, we are rewarded exclusively for our work for the community. The community, the vulgar community, the mediocre chained in the cave, the hollow men. The hollow masses. Because a vicious circle that has emptied them, the circle of eternal production, the perfect ouroboros for the perfectly wrong. This is not individualism, this is submission to mediocrity. Capitalism has a simple law of offer and demand. Offer what is demanded. What is not demanded, what is not giving economical profit, is out of the system, is marginal. When the system has created a suprastructure of hollowness, men will only ask for the hollow. This happens now, and it is increasing. Who cares about the sublime, about Dante or Cervantes, when the brave new world has constructed a perfect kingdom of zombies? It dosen't matter, "for Thine is the Kingdom".

---

Why do you think we're doing the work? We're not doing it for the sake of the community. We're doing it for our sake. Also, what's this talk of the sublime? What, precisely, do you define as sublime?

And honestly, citing poetry isn't a very good argument, no matter what you're arguing for or against.

Quote:

---

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

Oh boy... you just had to say it.. didn't you? You had to bring me in on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

And honestly, citing poetry isn't a very good argument, no matter what you're arguing for or against.

---

I take it you do not read or write poetry? I can forgive such a mistake if that is so. I used to think similarly until I opened my eyes and actually looked at poetry(4 or so years ago).

Poetry is just as useful(sometimes more useful) a means to convey a message as anyother form. Most people just don't take the time to truely read it. Poetry and the like can convey some of the most important messages.

The Hollow Men(a pretty neat poem by the way) can convey multiple messages and arguements. However, the difference between poetry and other forms of writing is this:

1) normal writing(or so we potential writers are taught) assumes you are a dumbass and know nothing. We are also taught to assume that you need to be retold what we already told. Not to mention to define everything to a fault. Not a bad philosphy... but not perfect.

2) Poetry; assumes you can think and read between the lines. It assumes that you know something. And it implies it.


There is another way to cite this difference:

This is my favorite all time quote "Show me, Don't tell me," And it is good to show the difference between an essay or article and poetry.

An essay or article "tell[s] me," whereas poetry attempts to "Show me".

Both are valid sources. You can't say one is not just cause you don't understand it(I assume you don't, that or you read into a lot different then most people I know).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ?????

Quote:

---

And then, what with all of this production? What will happen when we produce beyond what resources allow us? Who is going to save the hollow men? "This is how the world ends".

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

---

I believe most of us reading this took it as being not 100% literal. As in what happens when we used up all our resources and can't produce anymore. Once again, reading between the lines. Not everything there is readily visible.



And as a final point, yes people are selfish. But some of us just enjoy helping people. I like to help people... not cause it always makes me feel good(it doesn't always.. I don't enjoy helping those that I am "enemies" with). However, I would expect the same treatment from them. And I am a firm believer that how you treat people affects how they treat you. It must work cause I have a lot of freinds.

Shun Nakamura was nice enough to point out what I meant with those verses. Then again, maybe we are speaking in different languages. Or maybe I overestimated you.

Quote:

---

In a universe where no contradictions can exist, reason is not merely the ultimate form of knowledge; it is the ONLY viable form of knowledge.

---

Reason in Greece is different to reason after Descartes. Reason proclaims it's own contradictions, even though that may sound like an oxymoron. Are you familiar to David Hume's empirical skepticism? Modern reason has a limit, it is drawn right when we get to things beyond the understanding of man. Things beyond space and time. Like God. Like reality beyond the veil of Maya.

Quote:

---

Kant's choosing to make arguments that can only be refuted with mysticism shows his ignorance

---

Kant was not an ignorant, he simply was not a mystic. And you aren't either. If you are able to refute the Critique of Pure Reason through reason, I'll present you as a candidate to a Nobel prize.

Quote:

---

No, explain why it's doubtful. We've got another four billion years before the sun explodes.

---

Here:

Quote:

---

And as a final point, yes people are selfish. But some of us just enjoy helping people. I like to help people... not cause it always makes me feel good(it doesn't always.. I don't enjoy helping those that I am "enemies" with). However, I would expect the same treatment from them. And I am a firm believer that how you treat people affects how they treat you. It must work cause I have a lot of freinds.

---

Quote:

---

What's wrong with reductionism? As Ockham's razor says, the simplest solution that fits the facts is usually the right one.

---

Usually. And of course, Ockham was in different terms, he was not refering to psychology. As said, the argument is upside down. Capitalism fits this humanity you talk about, a society of hollow men. Because capitalism created them. The pyschological theory you wield is as hollow and simple as it can get. It attempts to do a general rule out of the behaviour a few. Isn't that unreasonable?

Quote:

---

Why do you think we're doing the work? We're not doing it for the sake of the community. We're doing it for our sake.

---

Capitalism is for the sake of the community. Offer and demand. Society demands, you must satisfy such demands. If you produce what is not demanded, to hell with you. And personally, I believe Divina Comedia is something superior to Da Vinci Code. And "Les quatre cents coups" is far beyond Episode III. But in a society of hollow men, the hollow is the demanded, the hollow is the produced. Because the hollow men have their "headpiece filled with straw", because this is how capitalism can mantain itself. If people longed beyond Eliot's Wasteland, things would be different.

Quote:

---

What, precisely, do you define as sublime?

---

The sublime lies in the eye of the beholder. For me, the sublime is in Baudelaire, Goethe, Gil de Biedma, Hölderlin, Friedrich, Gauguin, Rembrandt, Chopin, Mahler, Truffaut, Wong Kar-Wai, Basho and a few more. That as for the sublime produced by man. Then there is the sublime in nature, wich is beyond art. The sublime is found in the aesthetical extasis, in Beauty with capital letters, and of course, that is beyond reason, beyond offer and demand.

Quote:

---

We cannot ever produce beyond what resources allow. Such a thing violates the laws of physics.

---

Shun replied to that. We are already overporducing. We waste more quickly than nature can regenerate. Productive totalitarism demands. We do not eat, we devour.

I do both read and write poetry, actually. I write many forms and genres of fiction, and plan to do so as part of a living someday. It's just not generally a good thing to cite it in a debate.

If Kant is so irrefutable, then why is there even a field of science anymore? Why haven't we all packed our bags and gone home? The answer is simple: because Kant is wrong. There exist no limits to reason. What Kant is advocating is a variant of solipsism, for which there exists absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, solipsism flies in the face of all of our well-established logic. If reason is invalid, then Kant cannot argue with reason that reason is invalid. Instead, he argues in terms of mysticism, which flies directly in the face of A is A (which, by the way, is not some simple, overused maxim -- it is the very cornerstone of reality.)

Objectivism would hold that God does not exist because there exists no proof that he does. I don't necessarily agree with this, because it is impossible to prove one way or the other, so a responsible, reasoning being would dismiss it not as false, but as arbitrary. Quite simply, you either believe it or you don't.

Reason proclaims absolutely no contradictions, anywhere, save for things that seem like contradictions but in fact are solvable through the acquisition of more knowledge. Remember, contradictions cannot exist. If contradictions can exist, reason does not work. As our technology has shown, reason does work. Therefore, anything that is seemingly a contradiction can be solved.

If Kant wasn't a mystic, he wouldn't be ignorant, now would he? Kant is actually one of the most easily refuted writers in history, and I'm far from the only one who can point out some of the blatant idiocy that his philosophy is filled with. Proving him to be a babbling buffoon is far from a Nobel-worthy achievement. If you want to argue against the current order of science and reason, you must do it in terms of logic, which can be proven, not in terms of something untestable and unprovable. Either the universe exhibits a defined set of behaviors, or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

Capitalism did not create the society you're describing; human psychology created capitalism. And in the case of an altruism such as that you're describing, you are still helping your enemies for your own benefit, because you perceive that by doing so you are displaying moral fortitude.

Capitalism is also absolutely, 100% not for the sake of the community. People only care that other people live insofar as those other people are able to produce stuff that they want, which they can buy through their money, or insofar as other people make them feel good somehow. People produce for the community in order to get money for themselves. They don't do it for the sake of producing for the community, or because they want to be generous. The fact that they produce a product to sell is irrelevant. Their intention is what matters.

It's odd, though, because as much as I logically agree with this, what I desire the most is a state of being (other than death) in which all sentient suffering is null and void. Eventually, assuming some bad doesn't happen to us, we're going to run out of things to discover. That will likely take millions of years, but it'll happen eventually. What will be the capitalistic incentive then? Innovation will no longer be possible. At that point, I think we will have but two choices: to enter a state of paradise, or to die. Personally, I'd like the former option. I'm sure everyone can agree with me on this.

Erm...uhm...I have the impression you haven't understood Kant. Either that or you are confusing him with another philosopher. Mainly because I don't see how your suposed refutation matches his theory. Are you sure you are not confusing him with Hume?

Quote:

---

Capitalism did not create the society you're describing; human psychology created capitalism.

---

And who created socialism? And tribalism? And monarchy? And anarchism?

Quote:

---

you are still helping your enemies for your own benefit, because you perceive that by doing so you are displaying moral fortitude.

---

As far as I put examples, you can show me how the action is selfish. Mainly because good actions always have some kind of benefit to the subject, even if it's just "feeling good". When I do a good action looking at my gain, I know it. When I do it out of good nature, I know it too. The fact you move for selfishness dosen't mean everyone does. I am far away from sainthood, but I know when I am caring for my fellow brothers and when not. To this you can reply it's unconscious selfishness. To that, I cannot anwser, I have no evidence, and you have no evidence.

Quote:

---

They don't do it for the sake of producing for the community, or because they want to be generous. The fact that they produce a product to sell is irrelevant. Their intention is what matters.

---

That is much closer to socialism.