When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

Thinktwice

[thinktwice]

When it comes to morality, one religion's "morality" is another religion's "immorality."

And that contradiction is evidence of serious flaws in religious moralities.

For me, a rational ethics -- free from religion -- is the only ethics worthy of carrying the name "moral."

Aristotle produced a simplistic rational ethics based on virtues visible in respected people, and vices visible in non-respected humans. And teaching Aristotle's non-denominational ethics in public schools would be a great idea, but ... We'd be turning out individuals with the same moral upbringing of Alexander the Great, and that wouldn't do in a socialistic world.

Even better is Ayn Rand's ethics. Her's is an ethics metaphysically based in reality and epistemologically based in reason; making it a clear and concise rational ethics that makes sense. Ayn Rand's ethics is clearly also what America's founding fathers had in mind when writing the founding documents that recognized and moved to preserve individual freedom -- the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[yendu bwam]

You may think you need God to help you with what is right and wrong. That is your prerogative.

Hey, we agree on something!

[yendu bwam]

Here's one. Peter Singer, professor of 'ethics' at Princeton University, thinks we should be able to kill kids under age 2 if we don't want them (before, he says, they have a sense of self). The little tykes wouldn't be able to strike back against parents following Singer's ideas. What, in your view, makes such immoral? And what about partial-birth abortion? Immoral, in your view, or not?

[tpaine]

Yes, yes, yes, tpaine. Only those things which ultimately cause harm to you are bad. We get the idea. You have the right to whatever morality you wish. YB
__________________________________

You may think you need God to help you with what is right and wrong. That is your prerogative.
- But please, Y-bwam, realize that others who do NOT believe as you, have moral values, -- perhaps even superior values than those you possess.

[yendu bwam]

But please, Y-bwam, realize that others who do NOT believe as you, have moral values, -- perhaps even superior values than those you possess.

I do realize that, tpaine. That's why I keep saying that people have the right to choose whatever morality they want. As to which moralities are superior, that requires an underlying morality (ideas of good and bad) with which to judge them. My plea to you would be to not reject everything that is religious (and in particular Christian), before fully understanding it.

[thinktwice]

I believe that Christian morality is correct, because I believe in God, in Jesus Christ, and the message They delivered to us. YB - 126

Considering Yb's belief that Christian morality is correct, Yb's implied asumption that no morals can exist without God being involved, and the subsequent yb - tpaine dialogue from posts 126 to 160, I'd like to ask yb to explain the pre-Christian existence of ethical and moral systems.

[tpaine]

How weird. -- You think Stalin "did quite well for himself". -- Sorry, but your ideas on morality are quite bizzare. Talk to your religious advisor.

The easy little point there Tpaine, was that some people do not believe hurting others is bad, and they don't get the idea that it is (as you say is common sense) in situations in which those that are harmed can't strike back.

So what? Criminals like stalin will always be with us. We have criminal law to deal with them. - The Constitutional rule of law, not mans 'moral' whims, that he sees as sent from his version of 'god'.

Stalin acheived all of his immense goals and more. The millions he killed never had a chance to strike back. On his own terms, he was quite successful.

Again, you seem to think successful criminal conduct makes some point about morality. - What point?

At the end of the day, Tpaine, you wish to establish morality from rationality, like Rand. That's a futile exercise.

There is a rational basis for morality. - I demonstrated that, and you have not refuted it, just made 'futile' denials. Go back to school, for logic.

[tpaine]

Here's one. Peter Singer, professor of 'ethics' at Princeton University, thinks we should be able to kill kids under age 2 if we don't want them (before, he says, they have a sense of self). The little tykes wouldn't be able to strike back against parents following Singer's ideas. What, in your view, makes such immoral? And what about partial-birth abortion? Immoral, in your view, or not?
_________________________________

Bizzare questions from one obviously obsessed with abortion. Murder is immoral. - Duh.
If you believe murder has been committed in a partial-birth abortion, gather your evidence, and get your local prosecutor to file charges, indict, & have a trial by jury. -- It's the american way.
-- Fiat laws, prohibiting abortion, are not constitutional.

[thinktwice]

How am I doing, Prysson? And would you like to see a converse review of Rand's Objectivist philosophy?

I'm thinking that post 147 was a major wake up call to prysson, and I'd like to enlarge on my post 147 attempt to explain the basics underlying Christian philosophy in the specific area of epistemology.

Something I'd never noticed in Ayn Rand books before the past few days, are the opening words on that unnumbered page found directly under the book cover. And what I've realized now is that the words written under the "Introduction ot Objectivist Epistemology" cover are significant in explaining philosophical problems in religious philosophies. Here is what's written under Rand's Epistemology book cover.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
This is the problem that epistemology deals with -- and upon the solution of this problem every other aspect of philosophy must rest. For until we know how we know, we cannot be certain of what we know. And if we cannot know anything with certainty, our capacity to reason, to choose, and to act is subverted at the root.

In a world pisoned by the doctrines of irrationalism, a world afflicted by a sense of helplessness and hopelessness, INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY serves as an invaluable antidote. Here is the foundation of a system of thought -- and a view of man's potential -- that returns us from a shadowland of intellectual paralysis and despair to the real world of individual strength and the efficatious mind.

Going back again to post 147 I wrote ...

How do we know what we know about Christianlity? What is the basis for its epistemology? Answer is Christian religious writings -- C.S. Lewis for instance.

And that does seem to be how Christians know what they know, from what they've read and absorbed in their religious lives ... without any reference to reason.

What's my point?

Objectivist epistemology, in one word, is reason; and it is reason (and rationality) that is treated with contempt by many in this thread.

[tpaine]

Considering Yb's belief that Christian morality is correct, Yb's implied asumption that no morals can exist without God being involved, and the subsequent yb - tpaine dialogue from posts 126 to 160, I'd like to ask yb to explain the pre-Christian existence of ethical and moral systems.
_________________________________

I doubt we will get any effort at a coherent reply.
-- YB has exhausted his simpilistic stance on how, & why, we should obey his views on 'morals'.

[yendu bwam]

Considering Yb's belief that Christian morality is correct, Yb's implied asumption that no morals can exist without God being involved, and the subsequent yb - tpaine dialogue from posts 126 to 160, I'd like to ask yb to explain the pre-Christian existence of ethical and moral systems.

But your premise is mistaken, thinktwice. My belief in God and Christian morality does NOT presuppose that, as you say, 'no morals can exist without God being involved.' Morals are simply beliefs about what is right and wrong. Tpaine has his (seemingly based on whether someone might hurt you), and you may have yours. Having said that, I do believe that Christian morality is the correct morality; just as you may not.

[thinktwice]

She (Ayn Rand) would argue absolutely that the what was right and wrong was relative to the person.

I think you invented this ...

Is lying your forte?

[yendu bwam]

I doubt we will get any effort at a coherent reply. -- YB has exhausted his simpilistic stance on how, & why, we should obey his views on 'morals'.

Ain't never said you should obey my morals, tpaine. It might do you some good, but that's not up to me.

[yendu bwam]

What's clear, as prysson's pointed out, is that Rand had her ideas of what right and wrong were (though who knows where she got them from). She started with her morality, and applied reason to it. But she didn't create morality using reason.

[thinktwice]

Morals are simply beliefs about what is right and wrong.

A perfect example of moral relativism -- delivered to us by a Christian -- YB

[yendu bwam]

Bizzare questions from one obviously obsessed with abortion.

Hey tpaine. It's not a bizarre question when an endowed 'professor of ethics' at Princeton University (one of our 'elite' universities) advocates the demise of little ones before they're two years old. (And he has quite a following.) Like Rand and yourself, Singer thinks he's developing a morality from reason.

[And you evaded the question of whether you think partial birth abortion is moral or immoral. Am waiting...]

[yendu bwam]

Morals are simply beliefs about what is right and wrong.

A perfect example of moral relativism -- delivered to us by a Christian -- YB

Thinktwice, thinktwice, it's quite obvious that people do not agree on morals (on what is right and wrong). That's NOT moral relativism. Moral relativism is when you think all moralities are equivalent! I do not, as you know.

[tpaine]

yendu bwam
Here's one. Peter Singer, professor of 'ethics' at Princeton University, thinks we should be able to kill kids under age 2 if we don't want them (before, he says, they have a sense of self). The little tykes wouldn't be able to strike back against parents following Singer's ideas. What, in your view, makes such immoral? And what about partial-birth abortion? Immoral, in your view, or not?
_________________________________

Bizzare questions from one obviously obsessed with abortion. Murder is immoral. - Duh.
If you believe murder has been committed in a partial-birth abortion, gather your evidence, and get your local prosecutor to file charges, indict, & have a trial by jury. -- It's the american way.
-- Fiat laws, prohibiting abortion, are not constitutional.
167 posted on 9/4/02 7:46 AM Pacific by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
_________________________________
To: tpaine; thinktwice

Bizzare questions from one obviously obsessed with abortion.

Hey tpaine. It's not a bizarre question when an endowed 'professor of ethics' at Princeton University (one of our 'elite' universities) advocates the demise of little ones before they're two years old. (And he has quite a following.)

Like Rand and yourself, Singer thinks he's developing a morality from reason.

[And you evaded the question of whether you think partial birth abortion is moral or immoral. Am waiting...]
_________________________________

Singer asked no questions, you did.
--- YOU are asking the bizzaro questions. -- Get it?

And go ahead, pretend that I didn't answer the 'partial birth' bit if it pleases you. Read my answer again. - If you think its MURDER, [immoral, duh], prosecute.

-- And DO NOT equate my words here with singers. That is a foul unchristian tactic. - Be ashamed.

[tpaine]

Just as I said, an incoherent response . - Platitudes written to disguise your inablity to reason.

[yendu bwam]

If you think its MURDER, [immoral, duh], prosecute.

But do YOU think its murder, tpaine? I'm not talking about legality, but morality. If you're not brave enough to answer, that's OK.

[tpaine]

She [Rand] started with her morality, and applied reason to it. But she didn't create morality using reason. - YB
_________________________________

Sheer gibberish. You are simply putting together words for effect.
Empty rhetoric.