Right here:

http://www.freedomkeys.com/paradox.htm

This is some terrific stuff.


Darren A. Dew

The other (meaning of selfish) is: "taking care of yourself and your family first and foremost and to whatever degree YOU deem appropriate."

This is a bit of a cross-over, so I was RIGHT not to tell the univesity their mistake when they offered me a contract which was $20 more than it should be.

OK, I've waited a week now to get back to this board, & am a little surprised that no one has taken issue with Charles' actions.

Perhaps a more clearer understanding of how y'all interpret Objectivism is in order.

On the one hand, by accepting that extra money he was being selfish in doing what was best for HIM. That could be considered very Objectivist.

But on the other hand, Objectivism speaks about "black & white principles" as the phrase that stands atop this board says. So if stealing is wrong, then it's wrong. Period. No matter how you justify it.

Many, if not most, criminals justify their behaviour in their own minds, but would Mr. A or The Question
accept the "I had a bad childhood" excuse from a mugger or a rapist? Heck, would Spider-Man?

And no, I'm not comparing Charles to a mugger or rapists, I'm just trying to use Ditko characters to make a point, so chill out.

I suppose this is why I could never be TOTAL Objectivist. As I've stated before, I admire may of the principles & am trying to incorporate them into my life, but ultimately it's the rejection of a Higher Power (God) that stops me from embracing it completely.

I'm not saying a belief in God is the only way to be a moral person. I consider myself to be very open-minded.
I don't care if you pray to God, Jesus, Jehova, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, or Oprah. Whatever, that's your
business. I try to get along with everyone, & if someone just can't (or won't) be nice to me, then I simply avoid being around them.

And I think that many religious rules of conduct can also have rational basis' for being. So yes, you can be athiest or agnostic AND be a moral person.

The problem is, if you have no outside basis for your
behaviour, it can often lead down a slippery slope of excuses. Never underestimate the human brains capacity for rationalization. If you WANT to do something bad enough, you can CONVINCE yourself that it's OK.

You're a married man, you're in another state on business, you meet a woman at a bar who comes on to
you, what do you do? If you think adultery is wrong because God has declared it so, then the answer is simple. You can choose to ignore it or not, but you know what the answer is.

However, take God out of the equation & it gets a bit
trickier. Why shouldn't you cheat if you can get away
with it? You're in another state, you've got condoms, &
this chick doesn't even know your real name. Besides,
maybe your wife's gained a few pounds, & she doesn't give you oral sex as much as she did when you were single, & she's always nagging you about the long hours you work (although she likes the money you earn)
so dammit, I'm goin' for it!

Yes there are still risks, but some people are just more risk-takers than others. Look at sky-divers & bungee-jumpers. So there you go, you've justified adultery in your own mind, & it works for you. . .
until you find out your wife used similar justifications to nail the UPS guy while you were out of town.

NOW how do you feel?

So I don't agree with what Charles did. It was stealing
IMO. Yeah, I know the University would've probably done the same to him if the situation were reversed, but so what? Be better than that.

This reminds me of a time that I took JB to task for
calling Todd McFarland "The Toddler." Personally, I
think that that sort of name-calling (while often funny) is just childish. I wish professionals would act like PROFESSIONALS. JB's response was basically to say "He started it." Well excuse me, can we grow out of elementary school now?

I don't want to be "just like everyone else." I want to be better. I've had several situations where I'm a at a store & the cashier has given me back too much change or started to undercharge me for an item & I
always point it out. It's pretty sad that the cashier
or the other people in line are always surprised when I do that. I've had cashiers tell me that they wouldn't have said anything if they were me. Well, that's not the kind of world I want to live in (although you could argue that I already do).

Look, I'm not trying to paint myself as some sort of Saint. Believe me, I'm not. Those situations I've mentioned were situations were I noticed what was happening WHILE it was happening. I've also gotten home from shopping & checked a reciept & discovered that I was undercharged or given too much change. In those cases I haven't gone out of my way to go back to the store to correct the mistake. It just didn't seem worth the trouble. Maybe that was wrong on my part.

My bottom line is that maybe I would give Charles a pass if he had just signed the contract without really reading it & then discovered when the contract was up that he had been overpaid then I might excuse him.

Maybe.

But he saw the mistake before he signed it, he knew it was wrong. He should have pointed it out. That's the
honorable thing to do.

Just my opinion.

What do y'all think?


[EDITED FOR SPELLING: I wish there was a spell check on these boards. No matter how many times I proof-read, I always seem to find something I miss once it's been posted.]

I did take issue with his interpretations upstairs on the Byrne board. Probably should have kept it to this forum where it's more specifically on-topic.

I'll just say that I would not have done what Charles did, and I know this because I have been in similar situations and I chose not to do it. I certainly would be tempted to do it, especially with that much money involved, but I would not. Even without falling back on my religious beliefs, I would not take it because that money would ultimately be coming out of someone else's pocket. I would also like to say that I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for someone who prays to Oprah.