Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
Ok, now were getting down to things I've only said 3 or 4 times. The function of morals is to promote the interest of the moral community. It is easy to figure out what would promote the interests of a given moral community by reasoning about it. You may have some leeway still to argue about what 'twould be best to promote, but it is still easy to see how reason can make good choices here.
Is the moral community arbitrary? Yes. It could be your city, your dance community, your genome, your species, your phyla, your planet, your church laity, your country, or the local gang of thugs you've fallen in with. Picking the best moral community to promote allegance to is also not a given, or an easy task, but it is still subject to the rules of reason, which can tell you that loyalty to some of these moral communities is pointless, and some is effective toward ends you and those around you pretty much universally agree are good. Is this a fallable process, an underminable process? Sure. Nobody promised you a moral rose garden where you didn't have to work and suffer setbacks for good ends. That is not an effective argument against it, either as to it's origins or it's effective results, since, abundantly on the historical record, exactly the same thing can be said, and demonstrated, regarding transcendental sources of absolute morality.
How many different ways do I have to say I'm tired of the same arguments over and over? The fact that morals fail to be implemented in certain humans is not an effective argument here. The existence of sociopaths does not demonstrate that having moral restraints isn't a good idea worth working for, and reasoning about, and attempting to implement. And the existence of sociopaths despite God's Moral Authority, is equally a refutation of God's absolute moral authority.
Then see my post 1080 and respond. Each person decides what is best for HIMSELF. Each person is a moral agent and does not make moral decision based on what is good for the community!
Yes it is. It is very germaine to morals. Each person is a moral agent, not each culture, society, community - those are nonentities and cannot make decisions for me. You make moral choices daily - so do I - and it is absurd to suppose that I make them based on the greater good! Crapola! I make moral decisions - that has to do with morality! Get it? MOrals start with the individual. True, societies make rules, but they cannot decide for a person what he/she will do.
What you have just written is fundamentally illogical. First you say that the fact of moral failure does not matter. Then you say that it does not matter, about what standards really exist, but that it does matter, when it comes to God's being the author of those standards.
I don't know, but I would say, as I have before on this thread (what a shock!) that it should be no surprise that the evolutionary pressures that gave us moral restraints focused on a set of morals that helped us survive and prosper as tribes of dangerous large social predators so we didn't tear each other apart, instead of bearing fruit and multiplying. (thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not bear false witness...) This doesn't prove that these morals came from transcendental sources--it proves that they make a good deal of sense to a reasoning person who wants his tribe to increase.
Only to those who can't reason their way out of a paper bag.
First you say that the fact of moral failure does not matter.
Where did I say this? It doesn't prove that the human tendency to be moral doesn't arise from human causes, or that we can discern useful morals by reasoning, dut it matters a great deal to those who are shafted by sociopaths.
Then you say that it does not matter, about what standards really exist, but that it does matter, when it comes to God's being the author of those standards.
To the extent that I can parse this, this is not what I have said. What you are probably reacting to is my claim that the existence of sociopaths equally indicts reasoned morals and God-given morals. In what manner to think this contradictory? In point of fact, I am not claiming universal infallible morals, so I'd expect sociopaths to exist--on the other hand, I'd have to regard God's absolute morals to be shown up as implementation design flaws because of God's inexplicable failure to build humans in such a manner that sociopaths can't exist. Why did God do this? Does God just not give a rip about His Creations? If so, why should we give a rip about Him?
Good grief, another one, I have just been over this, perhaps 1/2 dozen times now. The tendency to have inbuilt morals is sculpted into us by 3 million years of tribal existence. It is a markedly strong survival trait. See Red Queen theories in the literature, I'm pretty tired of saying it over and over here. Are you too busy thinking up your next sermon to read?
Yes, that's what I thought you said.
The answer to this is very simple, dh. God did not create moral automatons because He created self-directed, self-willed beings, and that, because that is what He is, and it was a perfect creation. But accept responsibility for your own choices, man. You and every other human chose disobedience. Don't blame God.
Why is that difficult to understand?
But when you do something wrong, do you feel that your survival is threatened, or do you feel guilt?
BTW, sermon? Are you too busy overextending scientific theory and practice to understand?
Over the long haul, that is exactly what happens. We educate, we socialize, we propagandize, we provide sanctions where we can to weed out the breeding capacity of the immoral. If we're smart, we make good choices as to what morals we choose to implement by this process. If we aren't, we let some numbskull who thinks murdering daffy old woman and Mideanite babies are just as good moral laws as "thou shalt not steal". Make these decisions for us. But we do make these decisions, no matter how loudly you think otherwise.
Try relating to a robot, or even an animal, compared to a living human. There is a difference.
The difference shows relation to God is ultimately, the definition of life.
Who cares? If it's a moral restraint, it's supposed to internally punish us for disobeying. I'm not much concerned about implementation details.
If I could understand this, I'd probably think it was self-serving hogwash. If God made us self-willed and self-directed on purpose, why do you think one of our most important purposes wouldn't be to develop moral restraints through observation, reason and education? God wanted us to find water and food for ourselves, didn't he? If God is such a big fan of free will, why do you think God invented our moral restraints free of charge when he couldn't bring himself to provide us with food and water free of charge?
"Who cares?" is hardly an intellectual honest nor scientifically satisfying response. Our feelings relate to the things with which we are involved, especially what we're relating with. If one does something wrong and he only knows this by some (mystical) survival desire, why does he feel something (guilt) that is not the feeling of calculating a loss of the chances of survival? It's not a matter of implementation, but of the same approach as any other means to understand human evolution/development/adaptation/relationship.
Try again.
Really? No one picks up their litter unless they are advanced christians? No one restrains themselves from murder when they are angry, unless they are christians? No one works for volunteer organizations to relieve the suffering of the poor unless they are christians?
What planet do you live on?
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.