Posted on 11/13/2009 7:51:55 AM PST by cornelis
I personally have a problem with an atheism with moral absolutes. I can't see how that works. But even if I didn't have that problem, I'd have a problem with the taking as given that duty and happiness are seen as opposed in Christianity.
Somewhere in this thread Rand rightly contrasts doing something on a whim (because the mere doing would make one happy) and doing something with the object of happiness. THAT would be our point of contact, or one of them.
Tsk-tsk, try not to be too blunt.
It simply does not, it is a formal fallacy of logic. Any atheist who says I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner.
As far as philosophy goes, Moses was the first who said our rights are not dependent upon the whims of an earthly monarch.
Like Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence ...
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
I’ve read it, and you’re right. Very enjoyable.
If one rules out enough data, one can say that nothing has contact with the real world.
How do you figure? Videtur a priest or a rabbi would be claiming, whether rightly or wrongly is another matter, an absolute standard of which at least parts had been made somehow accessible to human type personnel. Whereas the atheist seems to deny any absolutes and to proceed to apply them.
Yes she was a nut, Many here dont seem to realize that atlas shrugged was a work of FICTION...there are no black helicopter circling your house.....there are no aliens trying to preform an anal probe on you...fiction. Damn....people are soooooo stupid.
Any atheist who says I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner.
How do you figure? Videtur a priest or a rabbi would be claiming, whether rightly or wrongly is another matter, an absolute standard of which at least parts had been made somehow accessible to human type personnel. Whereas the atheist seems to deny any absolutes and to proceed to apply them.
Yes, you are correct there, at least the priest or rabbi admits there is one singular source defining what their ideals are.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration.
Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
The trouble for us occurs because all men seem to believe their weenies come from heaven, so this justifies (in their minds) some right to play "God" with everyone else's life.
Fear of God is the beginning of understanding, and perfect love casts out all fear. God bless you & yours.
My wife apparently thinks mine does.
Must be why she gasps "Oh God" so often.../hijack>
Cheers!
You need to turn your hearing aid up...she's saying... My GOD....not again...:)
These articles makes me laugh. All of the Rand detractors will not admit that Rand influenced them enough to have an opinion.
Nevermind the minor fact that if Rand is so wrong and inconsequential, why does she still bring out such strong emotion and opinion?
Wow, you have objectively proven that objectivism is nonsense. In your world, a man who would, despite all of his self-preservation instinct, give his life for another, could be deemed selfish. I’m sorry, but nobody on a sinking ship is thinking about “spreading one’s seed”. Objectively, it is never is someone’s best interest to die.
Morality is that thing that tells us to do something against our self interest or instinct. My instinct is too take what I please from whom I please. My instinct is to cheat for monetary gain.
Morals tell me not to do those things, not self-interest.
Again, that’s the problem, you presume to know what is in my self interest and I say you cannot know it. It seems self evident to you, but you may be confusing your self interest with my self interest.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand puts forth a philosophy that is about more than just self-interest. The whole philosophy seems to come down to this quote:
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
That second part is important. It keeps the first part in check. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand does put forth a system of values. Her heroes - as flawed as they were - were honest in their business and worked hard. They didn't expect other people to sacrifice for them. Her heroes did risk their lives to save each other, but they did so because they chose to do so.
OTOH, Rand's antagonists in AS were businessmen who used government to crush their competition. So, yes, the antagonists were thinking of their own self-interests, but they expected others to sacrifice for them. They didn't live up to the second part of the quote above.
Also, in an interview, Rand said she believed there was nothing wrong with a person giving to charity. But, she said it was immoral for a person to give more than he or she can afford or take from his or her own children or spouse to give to others.
There are holes in Rand's picture. And there are things she said and did that made me cringe. But, I think most of us here agree with her overall philosophy, as stated above.
I think you and I (and Rand) are in agreement. Yes, as per Rand’s philosophy - er, at least, my understanding of it - doing something in one’s self-interest is moral. But, lying and cheating would be immoral. Only producers who were honest people were invited to the Gulch. I remember one was a boy who’d worked on the trains. That is, you didn’t have to be a big business owner to be invited. Rand seems to have valued honest work that produced something. That was my understanding of her philosophy, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.