My point is that there are moral and not-moral decisions made by everyone,every day, and to restrict one's reasoning to be 100% objective takes some joy out of life.

It depends on the overall circumstances. If length of lifetime is one's highest value, then eating an unhealthy lunch is irrational. But if length of lifetime is one's highest value, then any diet other than the severely "calorie restricted" one would also be irrational, since that diet is (so far) the only one shown to maximize lifespan. Another consideration: If one has, say, a terminal illness, eating an unhealthy but tasty meal might make sense. A lot depends on context.

"real objectivist" lol. I think the most important point here is that only Man can take the "perceptual" to the "conceptual" and that cognition is reason/logic. Check out Virtue of Selfishness,on point

"Dogmatic Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms.

That is not generally a moral issue.

False alternative - shouldn't assume you can't enjoy life as a true Obj.ist.

Yes if it does not compromise his principles.

risk/reward. you make choices. but you cannot deny reason, you can evade it.

That is not a philosophical issue.
One is not obligated to do everything with a focus on how long he will live.

So acting against reason and being willing to accept the consequences is still rational? Don't think so!

An Obj.ist must adhere to Rand's principles. So if he acts on emotions or faith vs. reason, he is contradicting his principles. If he does so consciously and not just in error or in a moment of weakness, than he is not a true Obj.ist.

Don't [most] people make decisions based on a hierarchy of values? Students of objectivism would look to reason, purpose, and self-esteem -- and the development and integration of concepts. Personally, I see far too many comments aimed at "being an Objectivist" and who qualifies...

Heavens no. I choose my attire for more than protection from the environment, given the image I feel expresses who I am. That's purely an emotional decision.

I like art deco and craftsman design elements in choosing furnishings simply because I like them. That's another purely emotional choice.

The best decision I ever made, marrying my soul mate and still best friend after 40 years was kind of a mixed bag. First, she had the unusual talent for rational thinking and direct expression. I never have had to guess what's on her mind. That part of the decision was reason. The fact she had a spectacular body was pure lust, no rational thought involved.

I agree but to be considered a real Objectivist can a person use any other form of decision making occasionally?

If you are willing to accept the consequences of a decision, and you are aware of the consequences, thats enough I think to make a rational decision.

An objectivist holds reason as our only tool of cognition. Decisions shouldn't be based on emotion, tradition or whim. Reason is the primary tool to base decisions on.

I think the answer depends upon whether you are a dogmatic Objectivist or you enjoy life.

Absolutely. But remember that there may be good rational for either side, so most decisions are not black and white. As an engineer, I often have to understand the assumptions made along with all the various facts to make my decision.

I'm not asking about me. This is a more general question. What does it take for a person to qualify as an Objectivist? Can they be somewhat of an Objectivist or do they have to be all in to be considered as such?

I don't disagree with what you state. It does bring up another question though.

Do you think choosing to have an unhealthy lunch that may lessen the length of time a person lives is Objectivist? And if so, does that fall under the risk vs. reward?

edweaver,
do you base every decision as best you can on "reason"? If not why not? However, even if you do that does not constitute that you are an objectivist, but it goes a long way towards you becoming an objectivist.

Hell, no. It it not rational to eat ice cream and BB ribs but I'm going to.....

My comment about "100%" is not an error in thought because I made it with reason. My question has nothing to do with fluff. I simply looking for a discussion on who qualifies to be a Objectivist and why?

Maybe my question would be better asked, if people use methods other than reason to make some decisions, no matter the method, when are they qualified to be an Objectivist?

BTW, I don't believe there is a better way of making decisions than using reason & logic but not all people use that to make decisions or all people would be an Objectivist, wouldn't they?

"Mostly" rational is not my implied standard. Referencing my first sentence, "Every important decision should have serious reasons to back it up, in terms of advancing or maintaining one's fundamental values.* One's politics and ethics are important decisions, thus Spassky would not have been an Objectivist.

Your last comment about "100%" is an error in thought, perhaps an example itself of not being "100% rational."

Your emotions are the summations of your ideas. If your ideas are realistic and rational, your emotions will be valid guides. But they are guides only. You must examine your own feelings and thoughts. "Check your premises."

As Zenphamy asked, what else would you use, but reason tested by reality?

(We use these words in both a common and technical sense. We should keep them straight. In common talk "realism" and "rationalism" mean about the same thing. In technical philosophy, they are false alternatives, diametrically opposed. Objectivism holds that the real is rationally explicable and rational conclusions can be empirically validated. No dichotomy exists.)

Rand wrote an open letter to Boris Spassky, who was "100% rational" about playing chess and 100% irrational about politics, playing chess for the glory of the USSR. You cannot have it both ways.

To use your implied standard, CBJ, you are asking if Boris Spassky could have called himself an Objectivist because he was "mostly" rational (chess, crossing the street, matching his clothes, ...) and just irrational about some things, like politics and ethics.

The often implied question is "what about making mistakes?" The answer is that, as in baseball, errors count, but you don't lose the game (necessarily), as long as you identify them and fix them (with practice). We all make mistakes.

An Objectivist engineer I know says that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."