Replies

No, he makes no assumptions and there is no such thing as intuition. All is learned.

Then the author is not consistent. He decrys that Objectivists do not model exemplary behavior. But why should they? The "objective" rule if we are only meat can only be "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose." So murder is OK as long as you have a very low probability of getting caught. Or, if like Ted Bundy, the pleasure of murder outweighs the consequences.

I was an Objectivist many, many years ago. The author is starting down the same path that eventually lead me to the Cross.

It all depends on how you assess reality. As a non-Christian, I did not believe that reality included God. But then I looked hard at the evidence for the Resurrection and it is simply overwhelming. That's what made me a Christian.

Once you accept the Resurrection as a highly probable part of reality--that is, it really happened--your belief about what is real changes; not because you have become subjective and squishy, but because that's the verdict the evidence demands.

So I don't disagree with the author's basic approach. I disagree about what is the nature of the reality we confront. Back to my original question; if the nature of reality is that we are meat, why does the author concern himself with great questions? Why does he believe there is a standard of behavior that is exemplary other than: "do what'cha want; but don't get caught?" Why does he care that Objectivists do not model good behavior?

ModelBreaker

Because both the author and Ayn Rand would have been appalled by the idea that "the nature of reality is that we are meat." It is disgusting. Did you read none of the quotes? Meat is physical, but life, consciousness, and the volitional nature, while natural, are not physical, and the nature of man is a rational/volitional conscious being, for whom life is not mere existence and for whom pleasure is only a value when it is earned.

If you did not understand even this much, you were never an Objectivist. I am not an Objectivist, by the way, but regard Ayn Rand as the greatest philosopher so far. The problem with Christianity is first and foremost, the belief that evil can or ought to be forgiven.

Hank

As a non-Christian, I did not believe that reality included God. But then I looked hard at the evidence for the Resurrection and it is simply overwhelming. That's what made me a Christian.

Amen.

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD
by Cornelius Van Til

"The "objective" rule if we are only meat can only be "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose." So murder is OK as long as you have a very low probability of getting caught. Or, if like Ted Bundy, the pleasure of murder outweighs the consequences.

I was an Objectivist many, many years ago. "

That’s not remotely consistent with Objectivism, which recognizes our right to life as the foundation for which all other rights derive. 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.