Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
Too bad they can't state "we have no king but Jesus", take up arms and fight their oppressors.
Oh, I forgot. The Tao Te Ching teaches "water finds it's own level", so maybe those people believe that it's their lot in life to be serfs...
One of the greats of our time (and a favorite of mine) was Albert Einstein...a direct quote:
"Give up the idea of a personal God in favor of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself."
I understand that. However that is not the operating definition used in the Bible. Joshua did not murder as it was under the command of God. The JudeoChristian moral code and its terminology differs from the libertarian one. That shouldn't be news. Of course our's view is correct and your's is wrong. That shouldn't be a stunning development to you either. The difference between the 9/11 hijackers and Joshua is rather crystal clear. They neither worship God nor did they receive any commands or sanction from God. ;-)
...and disregarding minor inconveniences such as how reality and reason came into existence.
Oh yeah, and that little logical incosistency about no one can be certain of any existence but his own, yet at the OWK-defined intersection of wills of a known existent and an assumed(?) existent, a "natural" barrier has..what.."evolved"? appeared? ...that prevents one from pushing their personally-derived value sytem upon others (WHAT others? By your own reason, you cannot know if others exist, but yet realization of this "objective" is the engine used to derive individual value-systems?).
Okay, I went back and re-read your screed...and I keep getting this image of a snake eating it's own tail....
Interesting, we may be making progress. You're saying that reason can be used to evaluate competing moral views (e.g. "love your neighbor" versus "kill the Jews"), but is insufficient to develop those views in the first place?
Or why God "commanded" it according to the Old Testament?
OR why you don't consider it murder?
Feel free to answer any of the questions.
Actually, most of the atheists I know are not Objectivists epistemologically, though they may agree with some of the basic principles. Most atheists I know have their epistemological foundations in "pan-critical rationalism", which is actually credited to a William Bartley, a respected protestant theologian who did a lot of much-referenced work on rationality in Christianity. While Bartley wrote from a Christian perspective, his reduction of rational Christian epistemology is equally applicable to the atheist as well.
It is a rational moral absolutist framework, but it also eliminates the necessity of a fixed reference for morality. In doing so, many of the lingering irrationalities of the Christian epistemological premise could be resolved without eliminating God as a valid reference for morality. But as a consequence of this, he acknowledged that it was clear that God was not necessarily the only valid reference for a rational absolutist framework nor was any "God-like" figure required. I'd suggest reading the book ("Retreat To Commitment" IIRC), as it is hard to do justice to it here and a significant fundamental advance in philosophy when it was written. It paints a more powerful picture than the caricatures that most people argue over.
Epistemologically speaking, pan-critical rationalism is frequently considered the "state-of-the-art", whatever that means in the field of philosophy. :-) It is curious that both Christians and atheists have been able to adopt its epistemology without contradiction.
Really? We've had plenty of similar situations here in the west where simple logisitics would not allow an oppressed population to throw out tyrants without the help of outsiders.
Too bad they can't state "we have no king but Jesus", take up arms and fight their oppressors.
Indeed, too bad they can't simply take up arms and fight off their oppressors. Mouthing empty religious sentiments has very little to do with it.
Oh, I forgot. The Tao Te Ching teaches "water finds it's own level", so maybe those people believe that it's their lot in life to be serfs...
Or maybe those who think they understand something believe it's their lot in life to open their mouths and confirm that they don't.
So when he took a sword and slit the throats of hundreds of innocent women and children who offered no resistance, he was not committing murder... Cuz God told him to do it...
And we are supposed to believe this, but not believe the claims of other murderers, who say that God told THEM to murder...
By what moral yardstick do we separate the true "God-sanctioned" murderers... from the pretend "God-sanctioned" murderers?
Oh, but rational men can agree on certain oughts. For example, men ought refrain from murder.
Given the certainty of a murder, would you prefer to be a) the victim, b) the murderer, or c) neither. No rational person would choose option a). One ought not murder.
You know, I hate to ask reductio ad absurdum questions like that, but it really fleshes out the insanity of pure libertarianism.
Libertarians either can't see or refuse to see the absurdity of holding "liberty" as the ultimate ideal. Liberty is wonderful, yes, but true freedom is not of this world.
Exactly, OWK.
As I stated... the ONLY moral system which allows EACH individual to act in accordance with his own will, is one which prohibits the initiation of force or fraud.
This is lame, especially for you. It sounds like the Wiccan or Satanist crap that those boogers throw out there. Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law...or do as thou wilt, an that ye harm none.
At best you are putting forth a pseudo-religion, or you are being unbelievably dense just to carry on a meaningless argument.
The question, at the risk of repeating myself in a myriad of ways, is WHAT stops you from initiating force, fraud, cheating, stealing, or suing an insurance company because you spilled hot coffee on yourself?
What keeps you from taking paper clips or copy paper or even rubber bands home from the office since your boss has so much more money than you do?
Get real here.
It is called "The Golden Rule" by many and it is inherent in human reasoning and rationality...quoting Einstein, for exanmple......"Give up the idea of a personal God in favor of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself." N'est Pas?
There are obviously more exceptions than there are rules... and somehow they call this an ABSOLUTE? Go figure.
We could have said--"live and let live", but we didn't. Force was initiated by the Union (yes, yes--Fort Sumter--I know we could debate that forever, but for the sake of argument) and men were freed.
Exactly. I've yet to receive answers to my similar questions in 95.
"The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21
Do you mean EACH, or EVERY? Nowhere in your post do I read about the obligation of one individual to be responsible for the successful pursuit of happiness of anyone but himself. Your system is based on the individual pursuing his OWN values. Where does the necessity for an individual to consider the values of EACH (or EVERY) individual come from? He who values killing can achieve happiness without concern for the values of others, thus achieving the stated goal of your moral system. Unless, of course, you value the good of the collective over the good of the individual.
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.