(This doesn’t mean that humans that philosophize are not able to con: they are. But in that moment, they are not philosophizing. A man whom murders one and a man that murders 100 are both murderers, but just on a continuum. Likewise, a man that gives money to a child and a man who has murdered others and gives money to a child are both charitable, although one is also a murderer, meaning that the charity exists on a spectrum as well, despite having exact realities regarding these situations.
Interesting observation: a man who “philosophizes” once is not accepted as a “philosopher“, while a man who murders once is considered a “murderer.” It’s interesting how differences occur because of how we ethically (and I believe that our ethics are defined by “love”, which is God Himself) define our reactions to specific actions (I consider THIS person a murderer because he killed someone and I feel this specific way about that, or I consider this person a murderer, even though I believe his murdering was justified, or I don’t consider this person to be a murderer because I believe his killing of someone else was justified, and I don’t consider a “murderer” to be someone that kills, but rather one that kills unjustly (so being a “murderer” and killing someone would be two different things in that regard, with “murder” meaning killing someone who was not a direct threat of killing you and “killing” someone meaning not murder, but ending someone’s life who was a direct threat of killing you, and thus is defined as “self-defense” instead of “murder“, although both involve “killing.” These are just some of the possibilities that people could believe when it comes to regards of different instances of people dying at the hands of others in obviously different circumstances (even if you regard killing in any way on the same ethical plain: there is still a difference between killing someone who is standing on a sidewalk, talking on a cell phone to his grandmother about how much he loves her rather than shooting someone who has a knife inches away from your neck and who keeps screaming “I’m going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!” As I said, maybe you regard killing in each instance on the same ethical plain, but obviously, the circumstances are different, and I just want you to be aware of the differences of circumstances and not necessarily say that one instance justifies different ethics than the other or not. That is not my intention, but rather I just want you to be aware that there are different circumstances regarding, obviously, different circumstances))).
For you simpletons out there, let me baby you and condemn your ignorant, quickly-tempered mind and say that I am not saying that we SHOULDN’T consider someone whom murders once a “murderer.” This may be the first and only time that I give your juvenile mind what it wants, but the only reason I am doing such now is because of the ignorance that I do not want to deal with that I know I would have to if I did not treat you like a child throwing a tantrum and thus receiving a sucker).
You know, I believe that I am beginning to understand the term “Objectivist Ethics” more and more.
Once again, for you simpletons out there, I’m not trying to merely repeat what Ayn Rand has said demagogically, but rather I believe I am understanding more and more what “Objective Ethics” actually means, and thus I will attempt to describe it in my own words (because I find completely understanding Ayn Rand difficult at times: I can only understand small parts at a time) and thus I will create my own opinions about “Objectivist Ethics” to see if they are closely related to Ayn Rand‘s or not, although based on the term “Objectivist Ethics” and what it is that I want to discuss, I hope to believe that they are similar, although I am not sure at the moment if they will be.