The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: "is" vs. "should"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Wrong (see in situ)

"is" vs. "should"

So what you are saying is not that values "are" objective, but that moral values "should be" objective. What you are arguing is not that man "is" rational, but that man "should be" rational. You are basically professing your preferences, which are subjective, meaning they are not universal. All I have to do is to show you two people with different morals to demonstrate that moral values are subjective. All I have to do is to show one act of a person acting irrationally, by whatever definition of "rational" that you choose, to show that man is not rational.

Arguing about what "should" be is a longer discussion, of course. But I will leave you with a simple example of why Objectivism is incompatible with libertarianism. If one community unanimously decides that their moral law shall be "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs," an Objectivist would be morally repulsed, while a libertarian would be a-ok with it, as long as everyone is participating voluntarily.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu