Posted on 07/03/2002 9:26:05 PM PDT by JMJ333
Okay. My first question has to do with the source of what you view as "good" and "evil". It ultimately derives from:
"...but because I'm human and I want what's best for me."
So, is this sort of a Golden Rule - "Do unto others..." - derived from the desire to establish a society based on mutual reciprocity?
sitetest
Source? Source for the action or for the judgment of the action? In other words, are you asking "what makes people DO 'good' or 'evil'?" or are you asking "how do you judge what is 'good' or 'evil'?"
How do you judge. Is the criterion sort of a mutualized Golden Rule?
sitetest
We start with the rights that a man needs in order to live a full life. We would start, then, with the right to live for oneself, to seek what pleasures or profits we want without physically harming or threatening others. When I say "right" of course I mean that no government should make a law infringing upon this, and a man should be allowed to protect himself against individuals or gangs attempting to infringe upon this. Rights are something that only other humans can understand or respect, so we don't say we have the "right to live" because we don't have the right not to be hit by lightening, eaten up by cancer, or attacked by lions. I'll stop here to see if there's anything I've said so far that you want to take up.
So you believe that this philosophy is objectively true? That this is an objective "construct" of good and evil? Why do you view it as objectively true?
sitetest
Okay. Then what you're saying is that if a person prefers the results that you prefer (technological development, etc.), Objectivism is a good way (perhaps the best way - at least that we know) to get there.
But there is nothing that objectively requires one to have these preferences?
sitetest
So, what are the criteria by which one might objectively judge? Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?
sitetest
I wasn't aware that I was asking for a "motto that can fit on a bumper sticker". I'm interested in what you believe (And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.)
If you wish, you can answer with a motto that can fit on a bumper sticker. Or you can write a 50-page dissertation.
If you would prefer not to continue the discussion, just let me know, that's fine, too.
sitetest
Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?
"True" and "Good" are not interchangeable words. I don't see how values can be "true." Values are indicative of priorities, but I don't see how they can be judged in terms of their veracity.
And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.
You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of "belief." It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief. If you are going to use words interchangeably that are in fact very different, we aren't going to get very far.
"'True' and 'Good' are not interchangeable words."
I didn't mean to suggest that they are. I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.
"You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of 'belief.' It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief."
Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?
sitetest
I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.
Why not just let me say it the way I say it? I already had words of my own.
Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?
I'm not trying to define the law of gravity, I'm trying to explain the difference between believing something, that is, accepting something on faith, and knowing something, that is, having the right to test a hypothesis until you can verify it. And if one day you come across something that is in defiance of the reality you know, the pursuit of knowledge allows you to begin testing again, backtracking if need be to reverify what you know to ascertain that you did indeed know, and nothing has changed. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. If this is going to turn into an exercise in sophistry, the "how do you know we're even here" business, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really not interested.
For a fellow who thinks he goes only where the evidence takes him, you make a lot of assumptions.
sitetest
Thanks for all the benefit of the doubt. ;-)
Check back with me when you get a clue.
sitetest
That's interesting. That may well explain the religious impulse. Maybe the socialist impulse too.
There is, however, something it doesn't explain. Why would a bunch of first century Jewish sectarians think their rabbi rose from the dead, and why wouldn't their enemies simply produce the body?
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.