Quote Originally Posted by Asta Kask View Post
She was going by the Kantian definition - an action undertaken for selfish reasons, even if it also benefits other people, is morally worthless. Only if the action is undertaken without any thought of gaining anything is it morally worth anything.

Rand's definition was basically this - you sum up the positive and the negative and if the sum total is positive, it's a selfish act. If the sum total is negative, it's an altruistic act. It's an extreme position but it's not illogical.
Fair enough. I still disagree with the entire premise, though.

Quote Originally Posted by The Succubus View Post


Why shouldn't we? It's a perfectly acceptable gender-neutral term. For those richer in years, being referred to as a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth as suggests a level of immaturity stemming from the "boy" or "girl" part. It wouldn't really matter a jot to me if someone referred to their lover as a "boyfriend/girlfriend", "partner", "significant other" or if they want to be crude "a casual fluff". With the fluff part exchanged for a similar word.

The only time I can see it as an issue is if someone isn't out about their sexuality and they use the term "partner" to avoid disclosing the gender of their beau.

But again, it's a perfectly acceptable term, what's the beef?
I agree that the term should be usable by anyone, but... Well, I don't think that words should be seen as offensive or not based purely on whether most people accept them... >.>

Quote Originally Posted by Keveak View Post
I always wondered about Rand's objectivism. Does it include a factor to explain how we gain access to technology, medicine and food that we are not specialised to make ourselves? Seems like we would lose a lot by only using what we can do ourselves, but I might misunderstand. ^_^'



Does that include the feelings we get from doing it? Altruism usually make me happy and not doing so can make me feel guilty, which would make most acts I do selfish by that logic. >_>

I do not quite agree with Kantian morality, though. I think many things can be good without being the most altruistic or the least selfish possible, though I am not sure if that is what moral worth refers to. ^_^'

I am also scared that someone might harm themselves if they do not consider their own benefits. Or they could end up giving so much that they are prevented from gaining a position that can do more good. But that might just be me misunderstanding it. Sorries.
*Hugs*. Just, *hugs*.


~Bianca