From what I've read so far, I'm finding it difficult to disagree with anything about objectivism so perhaps this might provide useful terminology for my ideas. Thanks for recommending it.May I suggest you look into the various subsets of "objectivism"
Why do you feel the need to dumb things down? "Pain is objectively undesirable to a vast majority of people" would be a completely uncontentious statement to me, but instead you want to make it into a stupid statement that has no meaning.To say pain is objectively bad is pretty much a stark "fact.
It'd an objective truth that you would prefer to live a life of many truths? Are you speaking like this to annoy me? Why don't you just say "I would prefer to live in a life of many truths rather than many lies"???What I would say is an objective truth though is that if I had to live a life constructed mainly of lies then it would be worse than living a life of mainly truths.
Why do you insist on framing your opinion as an objectively truth? Is it a kind of insecurity? Or a kind of arrogance?To kill someone's family because they upset you or someone you know is objectively wrong. The reason it is wrong is that if such a view was not held we wouldn't be here. We are here, therefore there is some underlying (maybe primarily biological mechanism) that allow us to exist
I recognise that. I also recognise that throwing away our values is not practical or desirable. It doesn't mean that nothing can be done. For example take a desire to be respected. Disrespect angers you, great respect massages your ego and makes you feel happy, base line respect is what you expect from others. In my opinion there are three things you can change (three big things) about such a value. You can change interpretation, response or fulfil the foundation desire another way.I would also caution placing a dividing line between what we call "society" and "subject." Through neurological studies we know that we are born with "social abilities," we are social creatures, and our social nature integrates with the world to such a degree that ... well! Here we are!
So being disrespected greatly angers the individual and he constantly feels disrespected. The problem might be that his definition of respect is too stringent and unrealistic. It may be difficult or consuming to find ways to have people address you, behave around you and speak to you in the ways you want. To fix this problem, you can reinterpret the way you see respect into something which is more attainable. Lowering your standards so that you are more likely to believe your ego is being massaged and less likely to become irritated by the actions of others. This can be done by reconsidering the intent or meaning behind the actions of others, finding ways of viewing respect as people you respect do and so on.
Alternatively you can change your response, you still feel you are being disrespected all the time but this no longer angers you. You may come to view their disrespect as defiance of your presumed superiority, you may find ways of getting back at the individual to make you feel in control, you change your response so that the likelihood you walk away from being disrespected happy increases and that received perceived respect leads to increased satisfaction and self-esteem.
Lastly you can think about why it is you wanted respect in the first place, perhaps it's due to some underlying insecurities you have. There may be a more direct method of fixing this issue rather than seeking respect. When you find that method, you are likely to have resolved the issue with greater efficiency and precision.
I think this is all pretty much doable without actually lifting a finger or hurting anybody. I think it eliminates a lot of the reasons for violence to begin with - although if it was beneficial then I would have no problems with it. However generally it really isn't and people talk like morality is the thing that stops violence. Violence is extremely risky, murder and rape carry extreme penalties for very often, absolutely no pay off. You risk your safety and freedom, you'd have to really hate someone to want to kill them. Looking at statistics of shooting to kill in WW2 and the American-Vietnamese war, most people do not seek needless conflict.
In my view, without strong values and principles the reasons for murder become slim. Society and law ought to take care of the rest, making it impractical for you to even think about violence when the risk/reward ratio is so awful. There are societal repercussions for bad behaviour too but most people are just generally nice people who don't need morals to force them to be nice. There are benefits in co-operation that exist already.
Also I got no idea what you're talking about with regards to lies, clearly in my view whether you should lie or not is a question of risk/reward in practical terms. Lie to make someone happy? Good. Lie that makes you look good? Good if low risk and no ambivalence about it. Lie that stops you from seeing the truth? Generally bad. However I don't know why you're talking about lies unless you're just having a go at Spectrum.