Posted on 06/05/2015 9:26:22 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
The legions of heaven gathered for the big debate. The topic: Social Justice vs. Objectivism, or more precisely, the belief that everyone should have equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities vs. the belief that we are only entitled to what we've earned and need not care about the welfare of others. A Higher Authority had chosen his only begotten son to defend Social Justice. The Authority had also waved the rules and granted the originator of Objectivism a travel visa from her home in the nether world so that she might state her case in her own words. Jesus, the reigning and undefeated champion of Social Justice, approached the center of the ring and took his seat. Ayn Rand, pop philosopher and godmother to libertarians and Tea Partiers alike, confidently strode from her corner and sat opposite the Son of God.
snip
The bell clanged and Rand came out swinging. "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. 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."
snip
A look of incredulity appeared on Jesus' face. He lifted both hands and asked, "But what of the new commandment I gave you: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"
(Excerpt) Read more at carrollcountytimes.com ...
This seems to be a popular form of "reason" for leftists who want to argue against the religious, that the Bible requires theft of property by a government - by people who covet the property of others, in order to spread the wealth around.
At any rate, one has to register to reply, so the so-called journalist (a Maryland Public TV alum) is insulated from criticism.
” insulated from criticism.”
As they usually do.
Give to Caesar what is Caesars. The Kingdom of God rules all other kingdoms, governments and man.
What should be clear to reasoning folk is that "Social Justice," so interpreted, is Not Social & Not Just.
What the Left has always done is to pick useful tidbits out of context to make whatever point their fantasy requires, while ignoring everything that is really relevant to any subject at hand--such as the vast differences in aptitudes, incentives & the whole gamut of personality traits, moral compasses, etc., of those competing for position in the real world of human interaction.
William Flax
My understanding of Objectivism which admittedly is shallow is that the individual can make a choice to be altruistic but the government should have no role in forcing altruism on the population. This goes back to the early founders of the US who were individually charitable but didn’t take from public money or individuals through taxation to transfer wealth to others. You get to keep and dispose of what you earn rather than government deciding for you via taxation.
At best, the socialist treatment of this amounts to establishing a God’s Love Supervision Committee. (And that’s if they are trying to be honest.)
Such as, for example, instituting laws against murder.
Christian doctrine has also been twisted to reinterpret taxation as alms fuel. The most definitive biblical statement assigns its rightful purpose as to defend order on earth through classic functions of a government (crime fighting, war).
Jesus would be more likely, in such a discussion, to tell people to give objectivists what belongs to objectivists, and give God what belongs to God. It wouldn’t be some paean to nebulous altruism.
In the Randian sense, altruism doesn’t mean to embrace traditional ideas of justice. It means alms.
Sorry, I don’t get your point as forcing altruism or charity has nothing to do with securing the individual from predation and murder.
She isn’t delving deep into the philosophy. She has a limited view.
I knew a person who asserted that you could deduce every single thing that was right from selfishness.
The theology of original sin flatly asserts that this is fallacy. It is the attempt to know good and evil privately, without recourse to God’s personal guidance. While one could say selfishness could guide to submitting to God, the end result will be to forget about the selfishness. To interpose selfishness here is to interpose an idol.
Yes, from what I remember of reading Atlas Shrugged, Rand is not against charity or helping others in need. You as an individual can make the choice to help as you see fit.
But it should not be forced. If it’s forced, it is slavery. You are no longer in control of your resources, or even your body (through your labor) if what you have is taken to give to others who supposedly “need” it.
If you choose to give willingly, you are not a slave, but can make a free choice.
To me, even though Rand was an atheist, this code does not clash with the Bible. You can choose to live a moral life and to aid those in need. You simply should not be forced at the point of the government’s gun. That is not morality.
It does, because good and evil are recognized by man's conscience and understood though natural law, established by God. Objectivism and libertarianism say that good and evil (if they exist at all) follow from some pseudo-ethical pop philosophy principles of "selfishness" or "initiation of force" or whatever. Not only are objectivism and libertarianism wrong, they are evil. No wonder Lavey was so fond of them.
I can’t agree as it seems you’re confusing selfishness with self interest based on someone you knew. However, the philosophy seems to be more based on the right of the individual to determine his/her own actions and acceptance of the consequence of those actions rather than having them directed by the government, especially in the area of economics and taxation. Self Interest would presuppose that we do not kill other people as that would open us up to being killed ourselves. It does not preclude being charitable as the individual would be making the decision to transfer wealth rather than the government in the form of taxes.
This is a Christian attack on Rand and Objectivism. It’s humorous, but a bit nasty.
Yes, Rand had private definitions for everything, including selfishness. But that's a shallow game she liked to play. I think if someone uses common words, then I'm going to hold them to their common meaning and I won't allow that game. Altruism means caring for others and promoting their well being, even at cost to one's self. If someone says altruism is bad then they think that not giving a sh*t about others is good. Hence murder is no problem. It may even be good in objectopia/libertopia.
Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System
by John W. Robbins (Author)
A mostly excellent job of demolition.
By John S. Ryan on December 30, 1999
Format: Hardcover
“John Robbins is unlikely to receive much respect from Objectivists, since he is a devout Christian — a sola-scriptura Biblical inerrantist whose critiques of Rand are mounted on a thoroughly Calvinist foundation and offered for clearly evangelical purposes. The loss is theirs; Robbins knows “Objectivism” better than most of Ayn Rand’s most devoted followers — including its all too numerous flaws.
Nor should Objectivists ignore his critiques merely because they are “religious,” since it is only in their own minds that “religion” is automatically irrational. Robbins is a follower of the late Gordon H. Clark (familiar to one audience as a highly respected scholar of Hellenistic philosophy, and to another as a party to a well-known theological controversy with Cornelius van Til). Calvinism is no friend of irrationality and, especially as interpreted by Clark, assigns a _very_ high place to reason and logic. As a student of Clark, Robbins develops his critiques with more respect for reason than Rand ever showed in her entire life.
The author of _Answer to Ayn Rand_ (a 1970s work that did not receive a like answer from the Objectivist establishment), Robbins has reworked and expanded his critique for this volume, also adding appendices to deal respectively with Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. His central contention is quite a straightforward one, and in my view it is essentially correct though I would quibble about some details. It is this: Rand started with her conclusions and worked backwards, very badly, to transfer those conclusions onto a foundation that will not support them.”
Read more ›
3 Comments Was this review helpful to you?
The idea of voting faux "charity" out of other people's money was never acceptable.
You might find this tale of Davy Crockett's learning about the Constitution helpful: "Sockdologer".
There is nothing in the Bible that could be construed as a call for Social Justice. Christ’s ministry was to individual men and not at all to governments or social groups of any sort. He certainly did not call for a social force to take from one and give what is thus taken to another. He called for individuals to share of their bounty. Sharing out someone else’s bounty is not in there at all and entails no sacrifice, only theft.
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.