Re: choices

[flash flash@xxxxxxxx]

≪that's the attitude Objectivism opposes. And it's self-contradictory:
he *should* obey? Then that's a choice. If one thinks people can't help
but obey, then no issue of morality even arises. There's no morality for
non-thinking, non-choosing, pack-following organisms, like dogs and sheep.≫
Wikipedia and objectivist ethics are mighty strange bedfellows. Only a
trained philosopher interprets choices ("shoulds") into these matters;
the man on the Clapham bus simply feels revulsion for certain acts and
condemns them. Period. No choice involved. As for whether I actually
endorse the position of the man on the Clapham bus, I'm prepared to
discuss my promotional fee with you off list.