Posted on 07/22/2002 4:31:37 PM PDT by dubyagee
Yes, and I think Christians and objectivist frequently find themselves in about the same place: That which is good for mankind is judged to be in one's rational self interests by objectivists, and Christians believe that what is promoted by God is really good for oneself.
Did God create people able to act in their rational self interests of did people acting in their rational self interests create the idea of God? I'm happy leaving that one for time to tell.
Speaking of time, I have to sign out, it's been fun….
I'm not sure Stalin and Mao are the best examples. You have to recognize the difference between their stated goals and their actual goals. They wanted to run everything. They liked killing people. 99% of philosophy is just a justification for what we want to do.
It's pretty tough to start a revolution by saying "I want to run things so I can steal everything of value, rape women and children and torture and murder everyone who disagrees with me." It's much easier to start one by saying, "Look how bad the masses are being treated! We must overthrow the powerful elite and build a more egalitarian society." Course, once they had the money and the army, that last part about spreading the wealth around kind of got lost in the mix.
I will certainly concede that it is practical or utilitiarian, but that is a different issue from moral good. It is circular to argue that things that promote life are good because they promote life.
The child molester's "difference of opinion " leads to degradation of all that back toward our potential without society. I'm sure we can all see the difference between the coke/pepsi value judgment and the caveman to architect progression in the promotion of life.
Obviously, the child molester can't see it. In my experience when somebody says "we can all see X" or "everybody knows X" or "X is self-evident", it's because they can't actually prove X and they're just hoping no one will have the nerve to ask them to.
I like Coke and the child molester likes Pepsi; I like adult women and the child molester likes preteen kids. So his pursuit of happiness includes drinking Pepsi and raping children. For me to condemn the one choice as evil while dismissing the other as a harmless personal preference, I can only appeal to some higher moral authority (God) that condemns one and is silent on the other.
If I assert that the kids have rights that include being protected from such violations, I have to explain where these rights came from (their Creator).
In the absence of any objective moral authority, yes, I can say that child molesters tend to "degrade" or destabilize civilization. But I have no grounds for saying that's a bad thing, other than my own preference to live in a civilized society rather than anarchy.
Now, one might ask where this alleged 'God' got His ideas of morality, and I would ultimately have to admit that they are pretty much His personal opinion/preference, rather than appealing to some standard outside of God. However, I believe the opinions of the Creator of the universe carry more weight than mine or yours, and ought to be respected on both moral and utilitarian grounds.
I agree with that the pedophile's opinion is just as valid as yours, because you believe truth and values are a matter of opinion. They aren't. Truth and values are absolute, being determined by the nature or reality itself, and can only be discovered (or already known, in the case of God).
Do you believe it would be morally right to steal if God had not said, though shalt no steal? Would murder be OK if God had not prohibited it? Do you believe man does not have a specific nature, that doing wrong does not harm a man both psychologically and physiologically?
Truth and moral values are not a matter of opinion, not even God's. If God had said, thou shalt steal, thou shalt kill, and thou shalt covet they neighbor's wife, He would have been wrong. If He had never said they were wrong, they still would be wrong.
Values are not arbitrary. Values are determined the nature of those beings required to have and capable of having values, rational volition beings, that is, moral beings. Values are determined by the requirements of the nature of such beings living in the kind of world they live in, which includes the both the seen and the unseen.
There is one thing I must point out. The capacity to reason and the correct use of it are not the same thing. One can use a computer to solve a mathematical problem, and one can use a computer to attempt to solve a problem, but use it incorrectly, and produce the wrong results. They both may be called programming. Rationality can be used to reason correctly. That process is called rational. Rationality can be used incorrectly. That process is called irrational. Every place in your post where you used rational, you should have used irrational.
Do you really believe you need some, "outside standard of right and wrong to make such a judgment," as, a man who molests a child is evil? Have you no moral values, values you can objectively describe? Are there no prinicples about the nature of man, the requirements of their existense and there relationship with others that you understand make such an act one of the vilest any human could perpetrate? If someone hadn't told you it was wrong, you wouldn't have been able to figure it out?
I hope you are nowhere near where any of my grandchildren are.
Hank
Hank - I'm afraid I'm with Sloth on this one. Any behavior at all can be rationalized (a la Stalin, Lex Luther, etc.). For religious people, moral values come from God, and we use our reason and intellect in putting those values into practice in (normally confusing) lives. Imagine a guy who can steal a diamond necklace, and knows that he can get away with it (i.e., no punishment in this world). If he believes in God, he knows what he is doing is wrong, and that God will be displeased, and that he will be distancing himself from God and from the chances for salvation (unless he's truly repentant). On the other hand, he may not believe in God and rationalize (using reason) that society would be worse off if everyone did that. In the interests of living in a society like he wants, he may still not take the necklace (like you, he uses his reason to posit what is right and wrong, AND he reasons as you do). Finally, a man who does not believe in God, and reasons that the best thing for him is to look out for number one may simply take the necklace (like you, he also uses his reason to posit what is right and wrong, but he starts with a different set of assumptions). There are many, many rational people who fall into the third camp. In the absence of God's morality, we may rationally make anything up at all. Same for Stalin. Same for Hitler. Same for Lex Luther. They were all rational men who made up their own versions of right and wrong.
Hank - Rationality is rational, by definition. You are appealing to something outside of rationality - that which is correct (right) and that which is incorrect (wrong).
But my point stands. Mao and Stalin were (by the moralities of most people) extremely evil and at the same time extremely rational in obtaining their goals. That they were selfish, brutal and power-hungry men is undisputed!
Precisely.
Was He wrong when He told Abraham to offer Isaac as a human sacrifice?
Do you really believe you need some, "outside standard of right and wrong to make such a judgment," as, a man who molests a child is evil?
Yes, I do. In the absence of such a standard, I have only my feelings that it's bad to go on, and that's how liberals make decisions -- on their feelings.
But the pedophile may not have a morality (concept of good and bad) which gives not a damn about the child or his own self-worth. A pedophile who thinks he can get away with raping a child (for most, an unbelievably horrific act) is acting rationally is his own sexual self-interest. (He derives sexual pleasure from such an act.) For a religious person, such an act is defined as bad by God, and there are serious consequences (even if not of this world) for committing such an act - pleasure or not.
But you also have the consequences of your actions to go on...
I can't say that I believe that anyone who doesn't give a damn about their own self-worth is ever acting in a rational manner.
I'd say, considering Rand was against unprovoked physical violence, you're correct.
The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest-as the armies of other countries have done in their histories-only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. ---Philosophy: Who Needs It (title essay)
By using their 'feelings' and 'reason' as moral guides, liberals have subjected us to things such partial birth abortions (murdering a baby 2 seconds before it's born), killing babies-born-alive (murdering healthy full-grown babies who are mistakenly delivered during an attempted abortion), encouraging kids to experiment with homosexual sex, cloning, allowing the welfare system to decimate the inner-city black family in America, denigrating those who believe in God, etc. etc. etc.
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.