Your position on this matter is noted.. but not noteworthy. Ethics
must by definition be derived from what one values. If an individual
values stealing the property of others by brute force, then based on your argument, you may want to raise this angel to sainthood. John Galt, on the otherhand, does not see how civilized men can possibly co-exist. Your position on this matter anti-life.
What you value and how you resolve conflicting values with others can only be derived rationally if one is to survive (that is, if one wants to survive), at least, in a civilized world.
John Galt advocates basic individual rights. If one chooses to do drugs, have wild sex parties, etc... it is his right. Should the
caveman infringe on my rights as an individual, he's going to pay.
By the way, about your next party...
As to your qm diatribe, let me regress further. Why not make everything constant? With all these constancies, we wouldn't need
mathematics (no variables). On a more serious note, one can argue
that constants are really just arbitrary human invention. However,
it is these constants that seem to work (e.g., the speed of light).
We humans do, afterall, need our occasional absolutes. A is A.
|
