Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

[stuartcr]

I'm defending no one, and I am accusing no one. All peoples/govts/tribes/etc, throughout history, (and I would venture into the future), murder and steal from each other, and rationalize it. That is why I don't believe there are moral absolutes other than in theory, and even that is relative. Thankfully, the majority of humans are good people.

[stuartcr]

I don't remember any mention of Christianity in the constitution of the US. Crime statistics in the 17th century are as relative to the time and place as are todays morals. As I said, in almost every instance of nation building, it has been acceptable practice to enslave, run-off, and even kill the indigenous peoples, regardless of whether they were far from perfect or not. The conquering people impose their own set of moral absolutes on the ones that lost.

[stuartcr]

If you will look at my posts, you will see that what I said is far from a liberal marxist attack on our country...read your posts, and you will see that is what you have tried to make it appear like. Of course every single civilisation has been oppresive...that is the point I was trying to make about morality being relative. Why you kept bringing our countries birth into it, I don't know. I used our country 2 times as an example, but I could have, and did, try to make it clear that I was speaking about mankind, not our country alone.

[unspun]

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.

LOL. Yeah, and I suppose it could be said that human traditions inevitably become deterministic, in a way. ;-)

What would that term be... utterly prime, perhaps. Whaddya know? That's a relational term. Funny how it becomes especially difficult for non-God to understand God outside of our relationally based knowledge of him.

[exmarine]

I don't remember any mention of Christianity in the constitution of the US. Crime statistics in the 17th century are as relative to the time and place as are todays morals. As I said, in almost every instance of nation building, it has been acceptable practice to enslave, run-off, and even kill the indigenous peoples, regardless of whether they were far from perfect or not. The conquering people impose their own set of moral absolutes on the ones that lost.

The Constitution ends with "In the Year of our Lord" - who is Lord? The Constitution embodies the principles from the Declaration of Independence - these two docs go hand in hand. Check the bill of rights - we know that the founders believed freedom to be an unalienable right from God.

You can't impose "your own set of moral absolutes" because there is only one set and it is from God, not man. Your point about human evil merely strengthens my argument about the purpose of the moral law - to drive people to Christ. All men have blown it - this is absolutely consistent with Christian teachings. The institutions of mankind are flawed at best and brutally evil at worst. This does not disprove the existence of moral absolutes or a universal moral standard, it merely serves to show that no man can perfectly live up to them. You are looking at governments, try looking at some individuals and see their integrity and honesty and compassion - Washington for one. There is a clear difference in the behavior of an avowed relativist (Marquis de Sade) as compared to a moral absolutist (Washington). How do you explain that? There are men who are moral and do the right thing most of the time - Washington was one of those, and so were many of our founders.

[exmarine]

I'm defending no one, and I am accusing no one. All peoples/govts/tribes/etc, throughout history, (and I would venture into the future), murder and steal from each other, and rationalize it. That is why I don't believe there are moral absolutes other than in theory, and even that is relative. Thankfully, the majority of humans are good people.

There are no good people in God's eyes. You are using observation of populations in order to conclude there are no moral absolutes. Just because a population is behaving in a certain way (murdering, stealing), that does not mean that is what they "ought" to do. Does it? Of course not, otherwise, you could not feel it is wrong. Why do you feel it is wrong to murder and steal? Is that your opinion or is there a universal moral law that says it is wrong? If relativism is true, then all you could say is that the behavior is taking place, but it would be improper for you to say the behavior is wrong - all you can say is that you don't prefer it. Bottom line: If there are no absolutes, then society or the individual is absolute. If society is absolute, then all societies are correct - no matter their beliefs or behavior. You may not like moral absolutism but it is the ONLY system that makes sense.

[exmarine]

If you will look at my posts, you will see that what I said is far from a liberal marxist attack on our country...read your posts, and you will see that is what you have tried to make it appear like. Of course every single civilisation has been oppresive...that is the point I was trying to make about morality being relative. Why you kept bringing our countries birth into it, I don't know. I used our country 2 times as an example, but I could have, and did, try to make it clear that I was speaking about mankind, not our country alone.

I did not intend to call you a marxist. I was merely making a point about our history. I understand you were speaking about mankind, however, different societies have different moral practices and beliefs. Which one is right? How do you adjudicate between societies with conflicting moral practices? What is the standard? Who says murder is wrong?

[stuartcr]

Your last statement is why I believe there is no morally absolute behavior in man, it's all relative.

[exmarine]

Your last statement is why I believe there is no morally absolute behavior in man, it's all relative.

I am not speaking of behavior, I am speaking of moral principles themselves. Behavior means nothing because it says nothing about what "ought" to be done. You can't make conclusions about moral principles from observing human behavior. They are two different things.

[stuartcr]

I do not know what or how God sees. I am using observation of peoples, because that is all I have to observe the moral behavior of people. I never said people should act in any specific way, I said that people do behave as if morality is relative, with which you have agreed a number of times. If people always act as if morality is relative, than it seems that this is the way people are. As I said, as long as we have freewill, we will have moral relativity. I believe, as an example, the commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill'...is it ok to kill in self-defense? in abortion? in capital punishment? in a war? in order to take over a neighboring countries resources? in the heat of passion? in a criminal act? in a religious fervor?...the list goes on, and the morality is always relative to the situation, and this is only 1 commandment. Many have gone to war, not wanting to kill, but they did...why is that?

[exmarine]

Is it wrong to murder or steal? Is anything wrong? If you say no, then your observations about mankind are really meaningless becuase you have no standard with which to judge them. If you say no, then all human acts become morally neutral - feeding the poor and torturing a baby are equal morally. Is that what you believe?

[stuartcr]

To me, behavior is sometimes the result of someone acting on their moral principles. Behavior of peoples, is what we have, to live with. If someone is of different beliefs than you, and they believe that it is ok to steal from you, you respond to their behavior. You cannot separate behavior from morals, that is one of the things that makes us human.

[Frapster]

Theory and practice are more alike in theory than theory and practice are in practice.

[exmarine]

I do not know what or how God sees. I am using observation of peoples, because that is all I have to observe the moral behavior of people. I never said people should act in any specific way, I said that people do behave as if morality is relative, with which you have agreed a number of times. If people always act as if morality is relative, than it seems that this is the way people are. As I said, as long as we have freewill, we will have moral relativity. I believe, as an example, the commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill'...is it ok to kill in self-defense? in abortion? in capital punishment? in a war? in order to take over a neighboring countries resources? in the heat of passion? in a criminal act? in a religious fervor?...the list goes on, and the morality is always relative to the situation, and this is only 1 commandment. Many have gone to war, not wanting to kill, but they did...why is that?

Yes, many people do behave as if morals are relative - people act out their beliefs. The world is mostly moral realtivists. So? That doesn't prove morality is relative, that only proves most people are behaving as if morals were relative.

The commandment accurately says, "thou shalt not murder" Capital punishment is not murder - it's justice. Abortion is murder because the unborn have committed no crime. Some wars are just wars if they are against an aggressive evil enetity (Nazis, Saddam, etc.), some aren't just. Self defense is certainly just - I have the right to kill someone who is trying to kill my wife or me. It's rather simple isn't it? Murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder. All human acts must be measured against a universal moral standard, otherwise, there is no way to judge them. My question for you remains: Are all acts morally neutral or is there a right and wrong standard to judge actions by?

[exmarine]

To me, behavior is sometimes the result of someone acting on their moral principles. Behavior of peoples, is what we have, to live with. If someone is of different beliefs than you, and they believe that it is ok to steal from you, you respond to their behavior. You cannot separate behavior from morals, that is one of the things that makes us human.

I agree with your definition of behavior, but that says nothing about the nature moral principles. Are morals mere personal preference or are there universal moral standards that exist independent of man? In other words, are moral principles invented or discovered?

[lynn madison]

"I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words."

AND

"But there is a second faction, run by Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who started and runs the Objectivist Institute, a competing organization whose view of Objectivism is that it is not complete, and can be improved."

Question: if you go around, all day every day, with the idea that your philosophy is "incomplete" and "can be improved," how are you in a position to "shut anyone down"? Not to mention the fact that belief in a "higher power" contradicts the axioms of Objectivism or any other secular philosophy.

[exmarine]

WHO SAYS THERE IS A GOD? You?

I do say that moral principles must originate from God, otherwise, there can't be any morals, only personal tastes. If the only logical source for morals is God, then that is evidence for God. Let me ask you - do you maek up your own moral rules or are there universal moral rules that exist independent of your beliefs?

[unspun]

But this matter of God allowing suffering is a meaty issue, exmarine. How could God have let this happen, for instance?: "Dozens Dead..."

I confess you skeptics about the goodness of God have given me food for thought, as it pertains to such a calamity. Could it be I've had my fill of the spoon fed doctrine I've leaned?

[unspun]

...or even learned?

[tpaine]

You've leaned so little, it shows in your apostacy.