|
|
General Discussion
Started by values at 10-15-2007 1:27 AM. Topic has 20 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 10-15-2007, 1:27 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
![Confused [*-)]](/cs/emoticons/emotion-42.gif)
Objectivist Morality
|
|
|
|
|
<p>Greetings All</p>
<p> I am writing curently to alert you to the </p>
<p>newly released synthesis uniting the</p>
<p>fields of behavioral psychology and value ethics with particular</p>
<p>applications to the Objectivism network.</p>
<p>Here the instinctual terminology of instrumental conditioning pro-</p>
<p>vides an elementary foundation for a subjective hierarchy of the</p>
<p>traditional groupings of virtues, values, and ideals. This</p>
<p>formal tie-in with behavioral science effectively validates</p>
<p>the subjective prerequisites of the virtuous realm, an</p>
<p>innovation based upon a basic set of instinctual terms:</p>
<p>namely, rewards-leniency-appetite-aversion. These instinctual</p>
<p>terms, in turn, prove consistent with the higher linguistic</p>
<p>hierarchy characterizing the virtuous realm: innovation</p>
<p>further arranged as a hierarchy of metaperspectives - an</p>
<p>ascending sequence of personal, group, spiritual, humanitarian,</p>
<p>and transcendental power levels, specialized into both authority</p>
<p>and follower roles. The corresponding incorporation of individual</p>
<p>terms is partially depicted below...</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Solicitousness . Rewards ... Submission . Leniency</p>
<p>Nostalgia . . H-Worship ......... Guilt . Blame</p>
<p>Glory . . . . Prudence .......... Honor . Justice</p>
<p>Providence . . Faith .......... Liberty . Hope</p>
<p>Grace . . . . Beauty ........ Free-will . Truth</p>
<p>Tranquility . Ecstasy ........ Equality . Bliss</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Appetite . + Reinforce....... Aversion . Neg. Reinforce.</p>
<p>Desire . . Approval ............ Worry . Concern</p>
<p>Dignity . Temperance ...... Integrity . Fortitude</p>
<p>Civility . Charity ............... Austerity . Decency</p>
<p>Magnanim . Goodness .... Equanimity . Wisdom</p>
<p>Love . . Joy ....................... Peace . Harmony</p>
<p>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the behavioral terminology for punishment serves as</p>
<p>the foundation for the darker realm of the vices of defect, a</p>
<p>mirror-image reflection of the virtuous mode, with the exception</p>
<p>that punishment discourages behaviors judged not suitably</p>
<p>solicitous or submissive: as partially portrayed below..</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No Solicitous. No Rewards.. No Submissive . No Leniency</p>
<p>Laziness . Treachery ......... Negligence . Vindictiveness</p>
<p>Infamy . Insurgency ............ Dishonor . Vengeance</p>
<p>Prodigal . Betrayal ............. Slavery . Despair</p>
<p>Wrath . Ugliness ................ Tyranny . Hypocrisy</p>
<p>Anger . Abomination ........... Prejudice . Perdition</p>
<p>.
</p>
<p>No Appetite . Punishment ... No Aversion . Punishment</p>
<p>Apathy . Spite ....................Indifference . Malice</p>
<p>Foolish . Gluttony ............. Caprice . Cowardice</p>
<p>Vulgarity . Avarice ............ Cruelty . Antagonism</p>
<p>Oppression . Evil .......... Persecution . Cunning</p>
<p>Hatred . Iniquity ......... Belligerance . Turpitude</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This behavioral foundation, in turn, permits</p>
<p>support for the linguistic hierarchy of motivational terms, an</p>
<p>innovation permitted through the symbolism of the human</p>
<p>speech lexicon. Indeed, mankind's transition to an urban culture</p>
<p>lead to the development of the higher traditions of virtues and</p>
<p>values crucial for maintaining social order, as systematized</p>
<p>within the language tradition. For instance, the tradition of</p>
<p>the cardinal virtues was championed by the Greek</p>
<p>philosopher Plato to define the social stratification within the</p>
<p>Greek city-state of his day. Furthermore, the attendant spiritual</p>
<p>and humanitarian traditions celebrated timeless themes: such as</p>
<p>the classical Greek values and the humanistic values. Ultimately,</p>
<p>a mystical tradition emerges, as expressed in the crowning set of</p>
<p>mystical values (ecstasy-bliss-joy-harmony). What lies beyond</p>
<p>this final nameable realm of mysticism remains open to debate,</p>
<p>described only as the "supernatural" domain, permitting the</p>
<p>potential for a "top-down" pattern of influence as well.</p>
<p>A complete listing of ethical terms is posted at:</p>
<p>http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/Masterdiagram.html</p>
<p>A more detailed treatment is also posted at:</p>
<p>http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html</p>
<p>http://www.charactervalues.com</p>
<p>http://www.charactervalues.org </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This new system has also recently been granted a US Patent for ethical artificial intelligence (#6,587,846)</p>
<p>http://www.ethicalvalues.com</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sincerely</p>
<p>John E. LaMuth - M.S</p>
<p>fax: 586-314-5960</p>
<p>P.O. Box 105</p>
<p>Lucerne Valley, CA 92356 USA</p>
<p>_____________</p>
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 2:29 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
|
|
|
A recently issued U.S. patent
concerning ethical artificial intelligence is entitled:
Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer
Simulating Artificial Intelligence (patent No. 6,587,846)
by inventor/author John E. LaMuth M. S.
As implied in its title, this innovation is the 1st affect-
ive language analyzer incorporating ethical/motivational
terms, serving in the role of interactive computer
interface. It enables a computer to reason and speak in an
ethical fashion, serving in roles specifying sound human
judgement: such as public relations or security functions.
This innovation is formally based on a multi-level
hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values,
and ideals, collectively arranged as subsets within a
hierarchy of metaperspectives. The systematic organization underlying this ethical
hierarchy allows for extreme efficiency in programming,
eliminating much of the associated redundancy, providing
a precise determination of motivational parameters at
issue during a given verbal interchange.
This AI platform is organized as a tandem-nested expert
system, composed of a primary affective-language analyzer
overseen by a master control-unit (that coordinates the
verbal interactions over real time). Through an elaborate
matching procedure, the precise motivational parameters
are accurately determined (defined as the passive-monitoring
mode). This basic determination, in turn, serves as the
basis for a response repertoire tailored to the computer
(the true AI simulation mode). This innovation is completely
novel in its ability to simulate emotionally charged language:
an achievement that has previously eluded AI researchers due
to the lack of an adequate model of motivation in general.
As such, it represents a pure language simulation, effectively
bypassing many of the limitations plaguing current robotic
research. Affiliated potential applications extend to the
roles of switchboard/receptionist and personal
assistant/companion (in a time-share mode).
Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible for
this (90 page) patent, a more detailed treatment is posted at:
www.ethicalvalues.com
The direct US Patent link is found at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587846
Sincerely
John E. LaMuth
fax: 586-314-5960
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 8:35 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 67
|
|
|
|
It would have to be based on objectivism. A computer is not like a human, where it can ignore/refuse certain truths. If a computer is told to react a certain way to certain information, it has to react that way 100% of the time. It has no choice. Try putting a more "human" set of guidelines in it, it's wires would get crossed at every turn.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2007, 4:34 PM
|
Felipe G.
Joined on 09-30-2007
Posts 8
|
|
|
|
|
Josh, as I understood this AI Ethical System's main goal is to perform relations with the public. That's very good, because it is a different way of relating AI and people without basing this relation on predefined stimulus and response, an allows the AI to have a coherent response to the human relationship, without getting into contradiction.
However, I just don't understand the process by which the hierarchy of values is "set" for the system. I mean, all our values and virtues/vices are originated from our emotions and/or feelings (which are the response for the environment we are in), then in what logical structure are this "moral imperatives" built (provided they are built artifficially), and how the stimulus recognised by the AI are matched to the correct moral judgement response?
Forgive me for my common-sense questioning, but this seems very interesting, and importanto for both objectivist philosophy and robotics science.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2007, 8:52 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 67
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the premise that "...all our values and virtues/vices are originated from our emotions and/or feelings...." Actually it's the other way around. Our emotions are based on our values/virtues. Emotions aren't just random reflexes, although they are responses to our environment. The way we react to our environment and others is based on values/virtues. If you value a stimulus, you will have a positive emotion, if you don't value a stimulus you will have a negative emotion. This system seems to define what values are to be based on for the AI. In objectivism, as in reality, that which supports life is a value, that which harms life is a non value.
This is my oversimplified version. I'm sure it's a whole lot more involved than what I describe.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2007, 7:07 PM
|
Felipe G.
Joined on 09-30-2007
Posts 8
|
|
|
|
|
But Josh, if it is our emotions that are based on virtues and values, what are they originated from?
Rational values/virtues are the result of knowledge, thus, have a sensory root somewhere in the hierarchical structure of mind. But "to value" or "not to value" something (in the way you put: If you value a stimulus, you will have a positive emotion, if you don't value a stimulus you will have a negative emotion) means nothing more than the pleasure/pain basic human response to the environment. this dichotomy pleasure/pain, satisfaction/insatisfaction is extended the same way to approval/disaproval, true/false, positive/negative, good/evil, value/non-value. Its is not of the same kind, but is expressed in the human behavior by the same stimulus-response process. This process is described by psichology as coming from since the cellular life, and symbolizes the mitosis and phagocytosis of the cells (I read that in Mira y Lopez, but that's just how Ayn Rand describes it too).
Besides, i can't imagine how can emotions be derived from rational (and linguistical) values and virtues/vices, since they are secondary in the reasoning process. Babies are capable of feelings and amotions (as like as animals), and only later they develop rational-linguistical moral imperatives and abstract values. My question was how is the result of this process simulated or built in an AI.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2007, 1:51 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
|
|
|
A planetary system of ethics is an achievement that long has been anticipated as crucial on the world scene today. Although organized religion has long been regarded as the standard bearer for the promotion of the virtuous life style, the various conflicts that afflict the major world religions today clearly expose the inherent weaknesses to such a simplistic interpretation. Ideally, a scientific foundation to such a global ethical perspective would prove beneficial towards resolving many of these difficulties. Indeed, the profound status of the scientific method effectively permeates the economic and social fabric of the global community as a whole. Here, a formal scientific tie-in with ethical principles should prove particularly effectively for removing the cultural stumbling blocks towards such a widespread global acceptance. In particular, a foundation within the scientific principles of behavioural psychology provides the most effective solution towards achieving worldwide acceptance, invoking instinctual principles shared in common as a human species (and with the rest of the animal kingdom) as a general unifying theme. When these primary behavioural principles are further extended to encompass the more advanced social levels of group and universal authority, the related relevant domain of the traditional groupings of virtues, values, and ideals rightfully enters the picture.
...........
<p>Solicitousness . Rewards ... Submission . Leniency</p><p>Nostalgia . . H-Worship ......... Guilt . Blame</p><p>Glory . . . . Prudence .......... Honor . Justice</p><p>Providence . . Faith .......... Liberty . Hope</p><p>Grace . . . . Beauty ........ Free-will . Truth</p><p>Tranquility . Ecstasy ........ Equality . Bliss</p><p>.</p><p></p><p>Appetite . + Reinforce....... Aversion . Neg. Reinforce.</p><p>Desire . . Approval ............ Worry . Concern</p><p>Dignity . Temperance ...... Integrity . Fortitude</p><p>Civility . Charity ............... Austerity . Decency</p><p>Magnanim . Goodness .... Equanimity . Wisdom</p><p>Love . . Joy ....................... Peace . Harmony</p><p>. </p>
-----------------------
The most basic personal level of power hierarchy is certainly the most rational jumping off point here, making it seem only fitting that the associated motivational terms would share such similar elementary characteristics. According to level one of Figure 1, these are respectively designated as the ego states of the personal authority (guilt-worry-nostalgia-desire) and the alter ego states of the personal follower (hero worship-blame-approval-concern). These groupings appear tailor-made for incorporation into the power hierarchy, gratefully adapted from the field of self-help psychology; most notably, the best seller Your Erroneous Zones (1976) by Dr. Wayne Dyer. Indeed, the intensely personal nature of this self-help field makes its associated terminology particularly effective for specifying the dynamics of the personal power realm.
These distinctive motivational terms, in turn, can be seen as grounded in the objective terminology of behavioural psychology. For instance, the desire for approval is the colloquial equivalent to the behavioural paradigm of solicitous behavior aimed towards positive reinforcement (or rewards). Similarly, the sense of worry in anticipation of concern can alternately be equated to submissive behavior anticipating negative reinforcement (or lenient treatment). When this two-stage, operant paradigm is phase-shifted one stage into the past (with reinforcement now the active principle), the remaining ego and alter ego states are further explainable in such behavioural terms. For instance, hero worship rewardingly aims to reinforce the personal authority’s past notable achievements (experienced as a poignant sense of nostalgia). Similarly, the remaining lenient sense of blame alternately gives rise to the respective submissive feelings of guilt.
Although only briefly described, these basic groupings of ego and alter ego states, in turn, serve as the elementary foundation for the remaining collective listings of virtues, values, and ideals outlined in Figure 1. The accompanying objective (behavioural) grounding to this personal foundation adds a welcome scientific validity to such a grand scale undertaking. Indeed, a basic pattern clearly emerges from this diagram; namely, the left-hand column of authority roles is characterized by what are termed the authority ideals: read downwards as the personal ideals, the civil liberties, the ecumenical ideals, and the humanistic values. The right hand column of fol-lower roles, in turn, specifies a parallel trend based in the realm of the virtues; namely, the cardinal virtues, theological virtues, the classical Greek values, and the mystical values.
THE METAPERSPECTIVE SCHEMATIC FORMAT
This higher-order paradigm of ego/alter ego states is curiously reminiscent of the similar concept popularized in the modern-day field of Communications Theory; namely, the metaperspective format of R. D. Laing, and also P. I. Watzlawick. In Interpersonal Perception (1966) Laing and associates researched the dynamics of interpersonal communication, characterizing it as the “spiral of reciprocal perspectives.” In The Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967) Watzlawick (et. al.), in turn, examined the informational aspects of communication: exemplified as his “hierarchy of metaperspectives.” Both formulations share a common hypothesis; namely, communication between individuals is typically overlaid with abstract “meta-messages,” specifying how such a relationship is to be conducted. The “metaperspective,” from the Greek “meta” (above) represents a higher order perspective upon the viewpoint held by another, schematically defined as “this is how I see you seeing me.” Indeed, there does not appear to be any theoretical barrier limiting the degree to which reflection can serve as a basis for itself, culminating in an unprecedented 10th-order level of meta-abstraction.
THE INTRINSIC COHESIVENESS FOR THE ETHICAL HIERARCHY
Although this cohesive hierarchy of authority levels emerged as a direct outcome of Set Theory, the true elegance of this system is seen in the respective listings of motivational terms, intriguing in their formal, four-part pattern of organization. Each of these respective listings of virtues, values, and ideals shows an intimate degree of connectedness with its respective authority or follower role across the board. Of even greater significance, however, is the high degree of cohesiveness seen for hierarchically linked sequences of motivational terms themselves, such as seen in the case of the cardinal virtues, the theological virtues, and the classical Greek values. This pattern scarcely proves to be an isolated phenomenon, for it effectively repeats itself across the entire ten-level span of the power hierarchy. For instance, returning to Fig. 1, within the left de-scending column (representing the authority roles), the upper left quadrant of motivational terms (read in descending order) yields the sequence of nostalgia-glory-providence-grace-tranquility. All five terms share a positive style of past-directed focus, stressing the theme of past notable achievements. The same quadrant in the right-hand column of follower roles yields the related motivational sequence of hero/worship-prudence-faith-beauty-ecstasy; themes all appearing to reciprocate the authority role through a reinforcement of such past-directed (nostalgic) perspectives.
A parallel circumstance further holds true in the case of the adjacent (upper right-hand) quadrant of Figure 1. The respective authority roles yield the related sequence of guilt-honor-liberty-freewill-equality: themes all sharing a similar past-directed focus (although now designating a more submissive sense). The corresponding follower roles further cement this observation (e.g., blame-justice-hope-truth-bliss): a hierarchy mirroring that based upon hero worship, with the exception that negative reinforcement is now in focus. The remaining lower two quadrants of the power hierarchy are further amenable to such a systematic style of analysis, only now based on the sequences of “desire for approval” and “worry in anticipation of concern.” Indeed, it proves particularly amazing that these motivational trends should exist at all, each lining up so perfectly within its respective quadrant of the power hierarchy. This grand scale organization of the power hierarchy is certainly its major selling point, its perfect symmetry and cohesiveness far too intricate to have risen solely by accident. Such exceptional symmetry is ultimately accountable due to its elementary foundation in the most basic personal level of the power hierarchy, fully explainable in terms of the behavioural terminology of conditioning theory.
In concert with the newly devised master hierarchy of virtues and values based upon behav-ioural principles, it further is hoped that the moral commonalties across all religious traditions will be emphasized encouraging a new era in religious tolerance. This new ethical system could eminently qualify as the long anticipated foundation for a global system of planetary ethics serving a secular constituency, where such moral issues have typically been downplayed due to well-meaning attempts to avoid religious favoritism. This same system could also serve as a valuable adjunct to the major religions of the world without favoring any one of them. Indeed, this new ethical hierarchy exhibits the potential for promoting a peaceful coexistence with many of the established world religions, particularly in that it does not preclude the existence of a top-down pattern of influence (of a supernatural nature) as well. Consequently, this overall picture potentially amounts to the best of all possible worlds: enabling an ethical revival in the secular world (which has typically been downplayed), as well as the potential for an even greater degree of spiritual cooperation and tolerance amongst all of the established religions of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2007, 5:34 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
I hope you guys know this guy, values or John E. LaMuth, is pulling our legs. He is not presenting an Objectivist Morality that is in any way associated with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. It seems like he has some sort of program which generates complex sentences with lots of four and five syllable words which get coupled with other thre to five syllable words; like “instinctual terminology “ , “instrumental conditioning”, “elementary foundation”, and “subjective hierarchy” . These things don’t mean anything. Objectivists, ever since Nathaniel Branden, have criticized the use of the word “instinct”. There may be reflexes and automatic reactions, but calling something an instinct is like calling something a doohickey. Calling something “instinctual terminology” is even more ridiculous.
Then he puts together several words associated with morality or ethics, words like virtue and honor and evil and caprice. He parades these words and others out there in no particular order, and he probably laughs as we try to make sense of them. It’s a waste of time. They make no sense. He is making fun of us.
Several people have tried to make ethics global and more scientific. . Mr. LaMuth
doesn’t mention Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Bentham or Mill. He mentions Plato but does not indicate that he understands anything about Plato’s views. He mentions
Dr. Wayne Dyer and a few other authorities. He refers generally to traditional views, yet we don’t know who he considers traditional. He refers to behaviorism and behavior psychology, but we don’t see how exactly behavioral psychology interfaces with artificial intelligence. It’s all just a bunch of words, certainly not some new movement in Objectivism.
Bis bald,
Nick.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2007, 11:23 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 67
|
|
|
|
Well, I feel like an ass. Thanks Nick haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-28-2007, 12:40 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
|
|
|
I said all along that this is a pure AI symbolic language simulation employing ethical parameters. That is the true proof of utility... It doesn't matter whether a man or machine plays out the symbolisms of CHESS does it ? You guys a really narrow minded !!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-28-2007, 12:59 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
|
|
|
Nick Writes
I hope you guys know this guy, values or John E. LaMuth, is pulling our legs. He is not presenting an Objectivist Morality that is in any way associated with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. It seems like he has some sort of program which generates complex sentences with lots of four and five syllable words which get coupled with other thre to five syllable words; like “instinctual terminology “ , “instrumental conditioning”, “elementary foundation”, and “subjective hierarchy” . These things don’t mean anything. Objectivists, ever since Nathaniel Branden, have criticized the use of the word “instinct”. There may be reflexes and automatic reactions, but calling something an instinct is like calling something a doohickey. Calling something “instinctual terminology” is even more ridiculous.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Denying instincts is patently against Rand's drive for individualism in fulfilling one's drives and desires -- food - drink - sex - etc. in line w/ the principles of operant conditioning. Take a look at your own life ??!. I further proceed to show how a religiously neutral system of ethics can emerge out of this behavioral foundation ... Is it customary to ridicule someone bringing a significant contribution to the Obj. field to the table ???
JLM
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-28-2007, 1:25 AM
|
values
Joined on 10-15-2007
Posts 9
|
|
|
|
Nick writes
Several people have tried to make ethics global and more scientific. . Mr. LaMuth
doesn’t mention Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Bentham or Mill. He mentions Plato but does not indicate that he understands anything about Plato’s views. He mentions
Dr. Wayne Dyer and a few other authorities. He refers generally to traditional views, yet we don’t know who he considers traditional. He refers to behaviorism and behavior psychology, but we don’t see how exactly behavioral psychology interfaces with artificial intelligence. It’s all just a bunch of words, certainly not some new movement in Objectivism.
Bis bald,
Nick.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John replies ....
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false .... I have posted an excerpt from the patent that outlines exactly how behavioral psychology interfaces with artificial intelligence.
--
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html - -
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html -- Please read before firing from the hip... You're a bad shot...
JLM
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-29-2007, 1:05 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
|
|
|
<BLOCKQUOTE><table width="85%"><tr><td class="quoteTable"><table width="100%"><tr><td width="100%" valign="top" class="txt4">Denying instincts is patently against Rand's drive for individualism in fulfilling one's drives and desires -- food - drink - sex - etc. in line w/ the principles of operant conditioning. Take a look at your own life ??!. I further proceed to show how a religiously neutral system of ethics can emerge out of this behavioral foundation ... Is it customary to ridicule someone bringing a significant contribution to the Obj. field to the table ???</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wonder if you've read anything by Rand. She rejected operant conditioning and the whole behavioral foundation. This was Skinner's thing. She was also not into AI. This is Dennett's thing. It has nothing much to do with the Objectivistism of Rand or this Atlas Society. You are a spammer. That's all.
bis bald,
Nick
JLM
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 (21 items)
|
1 2 > |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Objectivist Morality
|
|
|
|