Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Not only that, but what's right for you now is always and everywhere absolutely right for you.
So you say. But you're once again demanding that I accept a series of unproved assertions, based on your underlying (and also unproved) claim that self-interest is THE basis of morality.
However, consider the mother who sacrifices her life to save her child. It's a looooong stretch to call this an act of self-interest. It's much easier to call it what it is: altruism. Ayn Rand's rules simply do not apply in this case -- the mom can't be "happy" if she's dead, and I know enough women who've lost children to claim that she can't be "happy" if she decides to let the kid die.
OTOH, if I say that "the good of the species" is the highest good, the mother's actions are clearly moral -- and we have the added benefit of being able to observe that such altruistic behavior has evolved in other species. In this frame of reference, we are free to consider the facts, and conclude that altruism serves to further our supposed moral purpose.
To seek knowledge.
Back to the kiddie pool with you, tippie. If you can't even correctly summarize the discussion, you have no business discussing it.
For the record, I see life and the pursuit of happiness as part of liberty. Denial of either is denial of liberty.
The problem is, what happens if I invoke what I see in nature and explained by the theory of evolution, as the basis of some other system? For example, I could choose, "what's best for the species," or "might makes right," either of which can be defended by observable evidence, and both of which are anathema to what Rand claims.No, appealing to the behavior of other species to ground your moral code for humans is almost completely wrong. (I may say "completely wrong" after thinking about this some more.)In that case, we see that Rand's "assumptions" have some real problems -- and at the very least her system is not objective.
The proper moral system for Man is that which is compatible with our human nature. What is it that defines us? We're the rational animal. We're the ones who are able to rise above our biological heritage as an ape. We're born with precious few innate survival skills, except for one: Our rational brains.
This ability is also our necessity, since it's about all we've got going against the lions & tigers & bears (oh my). It's also what let us produce modern civilization, thus rising above the natives, Ted Kaczynski, etc. But this ability is what makes us individuals. Each one of us ends up drawing upon a myriad of shaping, instructive experiences throughout our lives, and reflecting on those experiences, as we decide for ourselves how to live.
The question now becomes: What kind of moral system best supports our innate desire to thrive, given what we know about human nature? This is true whether "our creator" was mindless, godless evolution or if we were thunk up in an instant by a bored supernatural God-person. Either way, here we are, with our big brains & not much else, wanting to know how to live. Now what do we do?
Do you see why evolution and the behavioral quirks of other species are irrelevant to this question?
Because we're not discussing them. We're discussing the supposedly logical, rational, proveable basis of Rand's philosophy.
But you keep saying this cannot be proved and that cannot be proved but make no effort to say what you mean by prove. If you gave an example of your moral code and showed how it could be proved, we would all know what you mean. You can understand how you reluctance to do so castes great doubt on your assertions that you do have a moral code.
You also make a great many value judgements that must depend on some code, but do not say what it is. For example, biological evolution, better predators, avoiding extinction, "good" of the species, are declard by you as good. But, you do not say on the basis of what value system you are making that judgement.
If you do not have a value system, or do not care to tell us what it is, all such judgements are arbitrary and meaningless. Which seems pretty much the case.
Hank Hank
True, and it is also a form of socialism just like communism is. The Nazis were the National "Socialist" Party. Both systems are socialistic, the primary difference being that communism is much more centralized. I'm not certain that AR understood this about socialism. Did she?
Actually, I suscribe the the opposite position: Right makes Might. Right attracts; wrong repels. Strength in numbers as it were. Liberty attracts; slavery repels. That is why America, based, comparatively at least, in liberty is mighty.
So where does that leave objectivism? You're saying that it is true to those who care to agree with its assumptions. Objectivism, however, claims that it is true -- absolutely true -- regardless of what we might think of its assumptions.
In post #224, I stated I believe man's purpose is "To seek knowledge." But you just left the question hanging...
One one side of your mouth you're saying that following the principles of survival of the fittest is wrong -- a moral judgement. On the other side of your mouth you're apparently claiming that there is no moral weight in "acting Darwinian."
Your definition is very nice -- and it also doesn't prove anything related to your point.
You're missing the point, though. I'm not saying that Darwin's observations are a moral code. I'm saying that it is possible to construct a moral code, the efficacy of which is supported by Darwin's observations. If you want an objective moral code, what more could you ask?
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.