Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Okay. Like I said, "on the understanding that you'll simply dismiss it if it proves inconvenient to you." People have been thinking about these things for thousands of years, but you know better than to listen to them.

Hey, if that works for you, go for it. But don't think you can make everyone else in the world ignore the holes that were poked in your philosophy long before you ever formulated it.

What! No Aristotle?

Yes, Aristotle too. I just happened to be thinking of some folks who contributed to formalizing induction.

A can of possibility will never yield a does existentially (unless it is cooked up in a sentence and salted to taste with logic).

For Mill, it would run something like this, though:

Everything that exists, exists because God permits it to exist.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God permits evil to exist.

Kinda hard to deny, really. And then:

A perfectly good being cannot permit evil to exist.
God permits evil to exist.
Therefore, God is not perfectly good.

Or

No being that is both perfectly good and omnipotent can permit evil to exist.
Evil exists.
God is perfectly good.
Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

IOW the comic general_re inside the tyranny of a serious tpaine.

Perhaps you are familiar with Douglas Adams's rendering of God's final message to His creation? ;)

It is the same as the purpose of every human being, or for that matter, every living organism, except that human beings are the only creature who can choose to defy the purpose of thier existense. The purpose of life, for every living creature, is that creature's enjoyment of their life. The purpose of my life, therefore, is my enjoyment of it.

Well, then it doesn't take any thinking at all, per se, to find out that purpose, does it? But something must modify this, though: morality, right? -- so as to find one's best pleasure? -- instead of the Marquis' pleasure, for instance, or Al Capone's pleasure?

So, morality is in a sense, the exertion of a definitive force upon pleasure, by which we may ascertain what is the noblest and best set of pleasures?

Does the determination of what one enjoys also modify morality?

Doesn't that make morality pretty much relative?

Isn't that the essence of conservatism, if I may be so bold? That the institutions and social structures that now exist are the result of millennia of trial-and-error, and that they represent the "tried and true" methods of organizing society? And that, as a result, we ought to be loathe to simply discard them on a whim?

I'm not a conservative. I'm a Christian constitutionalist, just as our founders were. There is nothing left to conserve. Right and wrong never change, so I do not believe in pragmatism - it's machiavellian, marxist, and morally relative to the ruling power. We should not do what works, but we should do what is right. Sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing.

With reference to morality, from what I've observed, there is nothing that man has not done, and, at some time, condoned. This is why I believe there are no moral absolutes. Almost everyone in our country will agree that murder is immoral behavior, yet our very government (of the people), has legalised and condoned it.

Some men are moral - our founders were moral. But no man is perfectly moral because men are basically evil. That's why we all need a Savior. You are focusing on man and you will not be able to discern moral absolutes from observing man, becuase they come from God. However, each man has the laws of God written on his heart - each man has that little voice that says "I shouldn't do that" or "this is wrong".

As you say, there are definitely moral values that we SHOULD all follow, but man does not. Once again, as you say, moral relativism is the dominant system in the world, and has been throughout history. I don't see how you can define something as an absolute, when history has proven that it is never achieved. Where and what is the absoluteness of something that is never achieved? I believe the desire for moral absolutes is an absolute in itself, but there are no absolutes when dealing with the moral BEHAVIOR of man.

You are right that moral relativism has always been the dominant system of the world, but you are wrong in saying it has never been achieved. Our founders established a nation and government based on moral absolutes and liberty and freedom (unique in history of mankind), but since that time, evil forces in America seek to destroy it and turn it into a dictatorship. Evil will always try to destroy what is good - darkness hates light.

And there's no room whatsoever for a greater good that outweighs an even temporary toleration of evil by free moral agents? Not even when God expressed the terms and those who decide to be evil assume full (I sah "full") responsibility? That's "sophistry" (gotta love dismissals -- they often point out one caught up in one's theories).

So sheesh. That's hardly fair -- especially to someone so good, powerful... and so very authoritative to boot.

Our country was founded on BELIEFS based on what men THOUGHT were morally correct (at the time), but in practice, there are no moral absolutes. How do you define a country/government that increases it's boundaries by overcoming an indigenous people? Is that morally correct? Man has been taking things from other men throughout history. It's what we do. That is why I do not believe there are moral absolutes. As long as man has freewill, he cannot practice moral absolutes. Obviously, our definitions of moral absolutes are very different. As an example, I think of an absolute as something which is pure or complete, that which CANNOT be modified, something unconditional. I don't believe that this definition can be applied to morality.

Our country was founded on BELIEFS based on what men THOUGHT were morally correct (at the time), but in practice, there are no moral absolutes. How do you define a country/government that increases it's boundaries by overcoming an indigenous people? Is that morally correct?

They didn't think it - they clearly stated that rights come from God, not man. America is a nation ruled by LAWS, not men. All other nations are nations of men. Many people live as if moral absolutes exist -I am one of them and there are many like me. Just because no one can live perfectly according to the 10 commandments does not mean the 10 commandments are not universal moral laws - they certainly are.

You hit on the very heart of the matter, however. Paul the Apostle told us all what the ultimate purpose of God's laws are: They are to show us how sinful we are and that we have no righteousness of our own and that we cannot deserve or earn our way into heaven. The moral law is a "schoolmaster" to drive us to Christ. Therefore, we must have the covering of the righteousness of Christ as He lived the perfect life for us and when we put our faith in Him, His righteousness is imputed to us. So, your point is true in that no one on earth can live up to the 10 commandments - it's impossible. But I love God's moral laws. Why you may ask? Because they are an extension of God's good, pure and holy character - they flow from His very person, and I love God. God is pure and holy, we aren't, so we need Christ. Without Christ we will be judged for breaking God's moral laws. He does not want to punish us but He must because He cannot go against His own nature, which demands Perfect Justice. By that standard, we are guilty.

Man has been taking things from other men throughout history. It's what we do. That is why I do not believe there are moral absolutes. As long as man has freewill, he cannot practice moral absolutes. Obviously, our definitions of moral absolutes are very different. As an example, I think of an absolute as something which is pure or complete, that which CANNOT be modified, something unconditional. I don't believe that this definition can be applied to morality.

Your definition of absolutes is correct. Man can practice moral absolutes if he loves God and wants to please God out of gratitude, but man cannot obey them perfectly. Why? Because all men are fallen beings, sinners. The bible says that "the human heart is desparately wicked, who can know it?"

And there's no room whatsoever for a greater good that outweighs an even temporary toleration of evil by free moral agents?

Not in Mill's conception - an omnipotent God cannot be "forced" into choices or trade-offs, not even temporarily. Whatever that greater good is, an omnipotent God had the power to achieve it without tolerating evil, but for some reason chose not to.

That's hardly fair -- especially to someone so good, powerful... and so very authoritative to boot.

Perhaps. But then again, it didn't have to be that way if He is truly omnipotent ;)

True, the rights come from God, but the practice comes from man. The current law states that we can murder babies, this was a decision made by man. Is it correct in saying, that it would appear that we are in agreement in that mans' actions are morally relative.

How do you define a country/government that increases it's boundaries by overcoming an indigenous people? Is that morally correct? Man has been taking things from other men throughout history. It's what we do. That is why I do not believe there are moral absolutes.

You are right - many mistakes were made. But compare our govt with other govts and see which one best protects the rights of the individual and which one is the most free. Also, I must point out the the "indigenous" people you speak of were far from perfect -they murdererd each other as well as Americans - so let us refrain from giving them an idealized moral quality.

Bottom line: The better mankind practices God's moral laws, the more happy, prosperous and peaceful he will be.

True, the rights come from God, but the practice comes from man. The current law states that we can murder babies, this was a decision made by man. Is it correct in saying, that it would appear that we are in agreement in that mans' actions are morally relative.

Let me put it this way...relativism is a moral philosophy that a man either believes or doesn't believe. I don't believe it because it is illogical and doesn't fit the human experience. However, Stalin and Marquis de Sade were moral relativists and look what they did! Now look at George Washington who believed in moral absolutes, and compare his life with Stalin's...don't you see the difference? Even though Washington was not perfect in obeying moral laws, he STRIVED to obey them because he loved God and he knew he was accountable to a Holy God. Our nation is founded upon the principle of "self government" wherein each person governs his own moral actions as God speaks to his/her conscience. We were formed as a nation of "self-governing Christians." The Pilgrims and Puritans were godly people - check out the crime rate in 1675, or the divorce rate. In 1780, 99% of Americans were Christians, but it has gone down hill from there as godless amoral people gained influence in our govt. and culture.

One final word about mankind and morality. I got tired of hearing at the university I went to (from liberal mindless idiots) that the U.S. was evil becuase it persecuted the indians, slaves, mexicans, chinese, blah blah blah. The FACT of the matter is that EVERY SINGLE civilization that ever existed on earth was oppressive in one way or another and no one has been able to name one that wasn't. However, America is the singular MOST SUCCESSFUL experiment in government EVER because it was founded upon biblical moral principles. So what is the point of this liberal marxist attack on America's history? Think about that...

Not in Mill's conception - an omnipotent God cannot be "forced" into choices or trade-offs, not even temporarily. Whatever that greater good is, an omnipotent God had the power to achieve it without tolerating evil, but for some reason chose not to

This of course, assumes control, not allowance of moral self-control by free beings. Isn't the former inherently "good?" Be careful now, the answer to that question will decide whether or not one is a classic libertarian! Sounds like Mills would be fit for DU.

So I do not think it is at all fallacious to say that the creation of free moral agents is not good. And, if God chooses to withdraw some of his control, in order to do so, that is the act of one yet omnipotent.

To take up from where the previous post left off, let me add the element I brought up earlier and make it "fair" to God, while it becomes "unfair" to Mills based on his point of view which I still assert as egocentric:

An additional attributed of God, according to Christians is holiness (otherness, distinct, special, above and beyond, set apart). This simply indicates that man's understanding (including his premeses and logic) while God maintains integrity as he applies himself within the scope of our domain, and our logic where perfect, is a subset of God's reason. Our logic does not grasp God, who is ultimately authoritative and beyond our comprehension.

Is this begging the question? It is not begging the question to say that it is a tenet/axiom (revelation) of Christians, that God is holy any more than to say he is all good or omnipotent. It is not begging the question any more than it is begging the question for Mills to declare his premise that he can understand all the logic of God and all the factors at work in it.

This holiness element must also apply in any "equation" about God, in order to convey Christian belief, which remains valid as such.

(But I also hold to the justifications in my previous post, too. Freedom is good. Reduced control is yet omnipotent. God is not responsible for the sin and suffering of free moral agents.)

God is not responsible for what he justly declares the responsibility of others. He is only responsible for how this may effect those outside of this covenental relationship. Mills is responsible for his own evil and how he responds to God. God is not responsible to Job's or Mills' seneses of injustice.

I could go on and on abou tthe "greater good."

Should read:

An additional attribute of God, according to Christians is holiness (otherness, distinct, special, above and beyond, set apart). This simply indicates that man's understanding (including his premeses and logic) does not address God fully, while God maintains integrity as he applies himself within the scope of our domain and our logic where perfect, is a subset of God's reason. Our logic does not grasp God, who is ultimately authoritative and beyond our comprehension.

People have been thinking about these things for thousands of years, but you know better than to listen to them.

I did listen to them. They were wrong.

Hey, if that works for you, go for it.

Why thank you. It's what I have always done.

But don't think you can make everyone else in the world ...

The last thing in the world I am interested in, is making anyone else do anything, think anything, or believe anything. I am not the least bit concerned with what other's think, believe, or do. Each of us has one life and one mind, for which we have complete authority and responsibility. If others choose to make a mess of their minds and lives based on ideas appropriate to brutes barely able to survive, thousands of years ago, that is their business.

Hank

... The purpose of my life, therefore, is my enjoyment of it.

Well, then it doesn't take any thinking at all, per se, to find out that purpose, does it? But something must modify this, though: morality, right?

It does not need to be modified at all.

If by "morality, right?" you mean moral values, moral values do not "modify," the objective. Values, of any kind, are only needed if their is already an objective or goal. The values tell you what kind of actions will achieve that goal. What kind of actions will "work" depend on the kind of being they pertain to, in what kind of environment (world). But no values change the goal itself.

-- so as to find one's best pleasure? ... the noblest and best set of pleasures?

A teenager might equate "enjoying life" with pleasure, but a philosopher does not. What will actually determine the meaning of, "enjoying one's life," must be discovered by each individual. Within certain parameters, dictated by the limits and potentials of human nature and the nature of the world they live in, there is no way to know what will be appropriate to the fulfillment of each individual's nature. We are all different.

We must all eat, learn, work, discover our potential and attempt to reach as far as we can, but what that means for each, only the individual can know. This is one of the things wrong with all attempts to treat every indivdual in the same way, from education to laws governing safetly and health, for example.

This does not mean a person can do just anything they like, so long as they like it. They cannot take deadly poison into their body and not suffer the conequences. They cannot take mind-numbing nonsense into their minds and not suffer the consequences. A human being cannot live contrary to the requirements of their own physiology and psychology and get away with it. This, too, every individual must discover.

Hank

omnipotent

I'm not married to the term. Helpful would be a term that recognizes human agency. Let me guess, the term comes out of the Protestant tradition. They have a penchant for determinism.