Posted on 10/27/2006 8:28:46 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Hi elfman2,
"Murder in a prudent predator fashion has no possibility of Objectivist sanction. An Objectivist may have a moral laps and commit murder, as might a Christian, but anyone arguing in its favor is not arguing from Objectivist ethics."
Oh yes, that's right.
What ModelBreaker described, "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose," is a variety of hedonism, which is the dominant ethic of the day. Sadly, many who call themselves Objectivists do make the mistake of confusing hedonism and rational egoism. So sad!
Hank
" I was much younger when I read every word Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden wrote that I could put my hands on. I didn't even know what "deconstructionism" was then. But after trying hard to satisfy myself that Rand's epistemology was supportable, I finally determined that it was not logically derivable from the reality it posits, a Godless universe. Ultimately, the deconstructionists are more logically consistent with a Godless universe than are Objectivists. "
The implication that I think you’re referencing is that we can’t rely on our perception. I’ve never got a good response from evangelicals to the question, “Then how can we rely on our perceptions of God’s revelation?” Deconstructionism claims to refute both Objectivism and Christianity.
I also found this short essay amusing right from the beginning, for both Christians and Objectivists: Deconstructing Deconstructionism
That wasn't really my point. Even if we could rely on our perceptions as completely accurate, a Godless universe leads inevitably to deconstructionism. Even with accurate perceptions, absent God, there is no reason to favor one course over another except for our individual preferences (lofty or base) and our judgment of probable consequences. Of course, there is good reason to favor certain actions and morality in OTHER people. I want other folks to behave properly. But within the individual, it is all the calculus of desires and consequences and there is no principled basis on which to conclude otherwise, without some kind of faith in the unprovable.
The Objectivist ends up believing in the unprovable as surely as does the Christian. The difference is, most Christians acknowledge that theirs is a probabilistic assessment of reality (not in those words, but in essence) and we wrestle with doubt. The accuracy of perception is just one of the sources of possible error in assessing reality and doubt. The Objectivist cannot admit doubt because his epistemology requires the conclusion that there is no doubt--that his beliefs are derived from the knowable nature of reality itself by syllogistic proof.
In my earlier posts on this thread, I actually underscored this. My Christianity is grounded on my assessment of a very high probability to the proposition: There was a guy named Jesus who died about 2000 years ago. Three days later, he was seen by hundreds of people walking around alive.
I could be wrong. It could be that all the apostles and others got together and agreed to perpetrate a huge hoax and, to cover up the hoax, act like they believed it, even when they were burned to death for their pretend beliefs. Or that the Catholic Church planted thousands of copies of the new testament writings all over the Ancient World to cover up that the New Testament is just a third century forgery. Although possible, I just don't think these explanations very likely.
So that's my best shot as to the fundamental nature of reality, which was sort of where the thread started in the article.
OTOH, the error of the deconstructionist (their faith if you will) is the certainty that, if you can't be certain, then you know nothing. So, they conclude, we might as well give up trying. It is at its core, lazy. Deconstuctionists make life-and-death decisions driving to work every day based on probability (if I go thru the yellow light, how likely am I to get hit), not certainty. But they don't want to do the hard work of figuring out what's ultimately real in the face of uncertainty; so they mock and laugh at everyone who tries.
I respect the Objectivist and the Christian. I pity the deconstructionist.
I understand this. My point was that there is no principled way to get to any moral system, absent God. Although Objectivists believe as you describe, that is a product of personal preference and inclination (and not a bad one in that regard), not of syllogistic reasoning from the nature of reality itself. Rand labored mightily to get there but, in my judgment, could not. Had she succeeded, she would have changed the course of my life.
Thanks for posting. Great article. Thanks for the ping.
If you recognize that “there is good reason to favor certain actions and morality in other people”, then you’ve already acknowledged someone’s ability to define what is valuable to him, with or without the concept of God. Our nature for “good reason” requires those kind of non-arbitrary social conditions to thrive, leading us to develop mutual recognition of social contracts – also known as rights. You’re right, we have to use our free will to choose “one course [ideology] over the other” to the best of our abilities. Hopefully we choose one that best promotes life over death and good over evil as determined by the consequences of our nature and objective environment, with or without the concept of God.
Both Objectivism and Christianity are prone to doubt, each with their over-promising fanatics or fence sitters. As you noted, every action we take is to some small degree doubtable. There’s a tiny element of faith in the decision to set the alarm each night, but that doesn’t make all beliefs equally faith based.
I think that a generally reasonable person can commit to any major religion. I have nothing but admiration for their noble efforts to promote life and good, until it includes misrepresenting my ideology. Whey they mischaracterize Objectivism as an arbitrary choice over condoning murder (while exempting their own religion as such) or selectively employ the absurdity of deconstructionism to it (without employing it against their own religion), I educate them on what they’re doing. Sometimes that’s enough, especially with people who recognize that we both have much greater ideological opponents than each other.
We are in agreement. It is good when Objectivists choose an ethic of life over death. It is good when they apply reason to reality. But I am firmly of the opinion that, sans a creator, there is no syllogistic reason to choose one or the other. In other words, I believe that the only logically consistent athiest philosophy is deconstructionism--any athiest philosophy that introduces notions that one set of actions is better or worse than another has imported a back-door form of mysticism (so long as the philosophy purports to be right, rather than probably right), as such notions posit morals that cannot be derived solely by reason and observation. Why? For an action to be good or bad requires a standard by which to judge goodness and badness. A Godless universe provides no such standard as any such standard can based only on the inclinations and subjective preferences of the judger. Once the standard is set, reason can then be applied. But the judgment of what is good and what is evil is pre-reason, if you will.
Thus, my argument earlier was that athiesm logically drives you to deconstructionism if you demand syllogistic certainty, which Rand claimed to have produced. Once you relax that requirement and realize you are dealing in probabilities greater than zero and less than one, a consistent athiest philosophy is possible, although it is, necessarily based on unproven moral judgments (either explicitly or implicitly).
But I did not intend to say that Objectivism articulated the "meat" argument. Only that athiesm inexorably drives you there so long as you are looking for a provable philosophy that is logically consistent.
If you recognize that “there is good reason to favor certain actions and morality in other people”, then you’ve already acknowledged someone’s ability to define what is valuable to him, with or without the concept of God
This is true. But the ability to define that "for yourself" is inherently subjective unless that knowledge comes from some higher place (hence the backdoor mysticism argument above). In other words, defining morality by internal standards makes man into God and, in Christian terms, that is the sin of Adam, eating of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
And that's where I parted ways with Rand many years ago. She attempted an enormous task, objectifying philosophy, creating a philosophy that was provably true. She believed she had done so. But imho, she failed in this great attempt, as will anyone else who tries.
This has been an interesting exchange. Thanks for your time. Should you ever find yourself looking for more than athiesm can provide, you will find many smart, good folks who have already been to the foot of the cross ready to welcome you. It's certainly the best thing that ever happened to me, although, to be honest, I only arrived after much kicking, screaming, and grabbing on to door jambs as I was on my way.
Now, the objectionable [or praiseworthy] parts of any religion are to be found in its sociological/civilizational aspects. This boils down to what kind of a society the particular religion favors or helps to promote - in the here and now, on this earth. These are the fruits by which one knows the tree, and not the immaterial parameters like 'filioque', the number of prescribed daily prayers or whether its clergy is married or celibate, wears beards or shaves, and whether their ritual headgear resembles overturned chamberpots or not.
I now see the premise with which Objectivism lost you, not that I’m recruiting. The standard of life over death is established from the first cell division. That’s the threshold of life. That process naturally builds upon itself with successive cooperative and specialized levels through more complex organisms. It continues through our nature, and that which promotes it we call good. That's it, no complex syllogisms.
Objectivism’s justification picks up in my last post regarding our ability to identify what’s in our rational self interests, leading to social contracts. I forget who said something like, “The question of ‘Is life worth living’ is one for an ameba, not a man”
Like you said, "it's good that Objectivists choose an ethic of life over death" and it’s good that Christians “choose” the same. Just because it’s a choice does not mean it’s arbitrary. If there’s no reason to choose an atheistic ideology promoting life, there’s no a reason to chose a theistic one. (That radial view’s probably why Islamists don’t consider choice important.)
"I believe that the only logically consistent atheist philosophy is deconstructionism"
Deconstructionism’s premise itself is the epitome of logical inconsistency. From the 7th sentences in the link I passed you: "… if all language systems are conventional, then so is the statement that all language systems are conventional. To claim that all language systems are conventional is a self-contradictory statement. Therefore, it is a false statement. " If nevertheless a belief in deconstructionism is a reason to distrust your perceptions of Objectivism, it’s a reason to distrust your perceptions of Christianity.
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.