Posted on 12/17/2003 1:56:16 PM PST by LyricalReckoner
In Muslim countries – I mean countries where they go by the the clerics rule – you can get away with murder. Literally. You can kill your daughter if you think it will improve your standing in the community.
But England is not a Muslim country and it’s not easy to get away with murder there.
Consider the case of Heshu Yones, a 16-year-old girl who was stabbed to death by her father, Abdallah. (The Yones’ emigrated to England from Iraq. Kurds, they fled Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror).
Why did her father kill his daughter? Because he believed she was having sex with her boyfriend. Someone sent Abdallah a letter accusing Heshu of acting like a whore. So, he decided to kill her for the sake of his honor.
A spokesman for the police cautioned Muslims about religiously-inspired murder: “Violence in the name of culture will not be tolerated. Murder in the name of honor will be punished by the severest penalties available in law.”
Abdallah was sentenced to life in prison.
(Excerpt) Read more at misterthorne.org ...
Being factually wrong about facts is foolish, and guess what?
You're factually wrong.
Have a nice day.
It's been a long time since I was in seminary. Wasn't he the one who tried to keep the gospel of John out of the NT? (succeeded in throwing out the gospel of Thomas)
And neither is the ancient Persian god of Zarathustra, Ahura-Mazda; one of many forgotten "gods" once worshipped by humans.
Ayn Rand once said something like ...
"If all philosophers were required to present their philosophy in the context of a novel, there would be far fewer philosophers and far better ones."
Ayn Rand herself being a notable exception to the rule, apparently. It's difficult to take seriously an "objective" philosophy that depends on the ability of an author to construct a suitable universe in which it actually works.....
Conversely, it is impossible to take seriously any philosophy that depends on mysticism and the construction of a non-existent universe in which it supposedly works.
Rand's is a mystic philosophy.....
What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality -- other than the one in which we live -- whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some from of unnatural or supernatural mesns.
Ayn Rand -- "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World."
Well then -- suppose you apply this principle to Rand's own premises.
You will find (if you are honest) that her premises meet this definition of mysticism.
Show me ... in your own words ... how Rand's premises equate to mysticism.
For reference, here is the relevant portion of Rand's definition of mysticism:
What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing."
With that in hand, let's dissect Rand's third premise (from the link):
A. "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others."
Says who? If I apply Rand's premises 1 and 2, then I can plausibly and scientifically suggest that man -- every man -- is merely a transitional piece in the evolutionary chain, and that my striving is merely a means to the genetic good of successive generations. For me to accept Rand's demand that her premise is absolute, requires me to reject what my senses tell me about evolution and DNA -- i.e., Rand has engaged in mysticism.
He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.
Why? Who says? Aside from the obvious corollaries drawn from the evolutionary argument above, it is not obvious that there is something intrinsically, objectively wrong with somebody like a Pharaoh sacrificing others to himself. After all, according to Rand I must exist for my own sake: If I can live like a pharaoh, and die old, rich, and happy, why would that be wrong? Rand never really says -- she's merely making a "claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge" that says Pharaoh shouldn't do that because it's wrong. I.e., once again she's engaging in mysticism.
The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
What, precisely, is my own happiness? Is it the same as yours? The truth is, "happiness" is pretty damned subjective, and knowing what it is requires me to resort to "'instinct,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'" Mysticism, again.
As for "rational self-interest," why is it not in my rational self-interest merely to limit my crimes to those things I know I can get away with? (And a Pharaoh can get away with a lot of things.) Well, because Ayn Rand says so, apparently -- we must accept her allegations without proof, which is (again) mysticism.
The reason Ayn Rand can get away with these errors at all, is because many of her underlying premises had already been derived from a theological perspective, and people had already accepted them on that alternative basis. That is why I called her a moral looter.
Rand's philosophy appears to be founded on her atheism, and her objectivism is best seen as an attempt to "work backwards" toward a non-theistic basis for certain desirable philosophical principles. Unfortunately, in order to do that, Rand requires a us to accept as absolute a very specific set of conditions, many of which do not withstand logical scrutiny. Yet she claims to have done it all very rationally. That is why I called her a philosophical fraud.
The essence of Rand's philosophy, as as she states in your link. is ...
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
And how you've managed to twist that around to end up claiming that her philosophy is founded on atheism reveals the amazing extent of your "logical" stretch.
At no place in her well-developed philosophy will you find reference to mystical arguments involving ghosts, gods, angels or scripture; and anyone attempting to twist her words into evidence of "mysticism" ... needs help.
Have a nice day.
And how you've managed to twist that around to end up claiming that her philosophy is founded on atheism reveals the amazing extent of your "logical" stretch.
As should have been clear to you, it's my opinion that she's started from atheism, and worked backwards. There's a good reason for me to hold that opinion: had Rand started from first principles, there's no way she could logically have arrived at her conclusions, given the four principles you listed above. Indeed, if we accept Rand's claims that her principles are absolute, logic tells us that her first two principles are not even consistent with the latter two.
At no place in her well-developed philosophy will you find reference to mystical arguments involving ghosts, gods, angels or scripture; and anyone attempting to twist her words into evidence of "mysticism" ... needs help.
You're just denying the obvious here. Her references to "happiness," "self-interest," "Man being an end in himself," and even "capitalism" are logically unsupportable, given that they are demonstrably not necessary in nature or human society (there's that nasty "senses and reason" clause again). For us to accept her claims, we must appeal to something other than objective reality -- call it ghosts, scripture (e.g., Rand's own writings), or whatever.
At best, one can make a utilitarian argument in favor of some aspects of Rand's philosophy, but that requires a relativist moral approach.
Rand rejects the relativist approach. As a result, she is forced to appeal to something else -- "one's own happiness," for example -- as the basis for her "absolute" morality, because that absolute basis simply cannot be found in nature. Indeed, Rand's epistomology of Reason (not to mention her own novels) would suggest to us that the real "absolute" is closer to Social Darwinism than anything else. Yet I'm pretty certain that Rand considered much of Social Darwinism to be quite evil.
Rand is very firm on the fact of evil -- which, given where she's coming from, is nothing but mysticism. Consider: suppose I point to a Pharaoh who died old, rich, and happy -- thereby satisfying Rand's "highest moral good." Yet we can be sure that Rand would still call him evil -- which means that there's apparently some other, higher, and unspoken definition of good at work.
One presumes that Rand's "additional good" would center around some version of "not sacrificing others to ourselves," but as we've already seen, Objective Reality offers no logical basis for us to treat that as absolute. If Rand is right about her "highest moral good," then the Pharaoh is not evil. And if she's right about him being evil, it's because the evil is defined someplace outside of Objective Reality as Rand would define it.
Another stretch ... assuming that great wealth and power defines Objectivist goals.
Here are some Rand quotes to set the matter straight.
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics -- the standard by which one judges what is good and evil -- is man's life; or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.
Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil.
Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.
Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.
The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do.
Rand's morality applies to everyone, Pharoahs included.
OK hotshot, what is YOUR factual basis for this statement?
Spectacular. A choice that has lasted 120 years for one person, much less by 50% for the vast majority most of the humans that have come and gone in it during recorded history.
What a pathetic and small minded perspective.
Beyond the obvious logical flaws about whether you were given a vote to be born, and the idiocy of extending your "choice", to say, 300 years or so, the "purpose" of your morality shows such a lack of perspective that it mind boggling.
My children have a better idea of the purpose of morality than you, sir.
And I have just began their formal education 5 and 3 years ago. Sad.
It's not a stretch, and you know it. After all, I'm merely drawing logical conclusions based on Rand's own stated principles. It's beyond dispute that our happy Pharaoh -- being happy -- has met Rand's stated standards for the "highest moral good." Yet now you're apparently imposing some higher, and as yet undefined "highest good" on him. I'd say you're being a mystic, too.
Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do.
It's also beyond dispute that our Pharaoh, having died old, rich, and happy, suffered no adverse consequences from having violated Rand's allegedly absolute morality. Thus, reason tells us that Rand's morality obviously does not apply to Pharaoh. Thus, Rand's objectism is quite obviously not absolute -- if it were, our Pharaoh would inevitably have suffered.
Which brings us to this: The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics -- the standard by which one judges what is good and evil -- is man's life; or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.
Now, since Rand is adamant that man is an end in himself, Pharaoh's survival qua Pharaoh is his paramount concern. It does not matter how Pharaoh survives, so long as he does survive. This imperative can be observed empirically in nature, BTW. And man, being part of nature via Rand's Objective Reality, is subject to the same imperative.
Rand's morality applies to everyone, Pharoahs included.
You might notice, incidentally, that in her statement Rand uses the term "man" in the same global sense you have used it: we are all somehow covered by her statement as a group. This is not justified: Rand's philosophy quite specifically applies itself only to the individual, and our example of the Pharaoh demonstrates that Rand's morality is not absolute for individuals. For it to somehow be a global imperative, regardless of individual exceptions, requires us to retreat into some sort of species-based mysticism. (Which negates the idea that man is an end in himself.)
Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil.
According to this, small children and invalids are evil, because, not only do they not depend on reason for their survival, but they actually rely on the willingness of others to keep them alive. (I.e., their survival requires others to sacrifice themselves on their behalf....)
If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.
From this one must conclude that, from Rand's perspective, it is morally permissible for us to choose to starve small children and invalids by refusing to care for them. After all, their "choosing to live" is tantamount to a demand on us to keep them alive, which Rand says they cannot morally do. And since they can't care for themselves, and we're not morally required to keep them alive, it's not our problem if they die....
You'll no doubt argue that Rand wouldn't agree with this -- and I've no reason to dispute that. But note: to be against witholding food from small children and invalids requires us to acknowledge that those beings have some intrinsic moral worth, which has nothing at all to do with me, or my ability to reason. Their moral claims on me are imposed from outside. But how can this be? What is the basis for that moral claim? Alas, you must resort to "mysticism" in order to find the source of that imperative.
Following on into ethics, your ethical ideal appears to be altruism ... which Rand describes as follows ...
If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance).
1. Lack of self esteem -- since his first concern in the realm of values in not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.
2. Lack of respect for others -- since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help.
3. A nightmare view of existence -- since he believes that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe" where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality -- since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
Altruism, for what it's worth, is the demanded "self sacrifice" ethics underlying communism, socialism, modern liberalism and religions.
Whether you like it or not, philosophy is an individual matter.
Every person has a philosophy; it drives them to do what they do.
There is no such thing as a collective philosophy because there is no such thing as a collective mind.
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.