Posted on 08/30/2002 10:31:06 AM PDT by 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.
Who cares, Misterioso? If you wish to debate the points made by Prysson's friend, go ahead. The value of the points are not reliant upon exactly who, centuries ago, said exactly what.
Well, be smug and condescending if you insist. And what's more - you're wrong. Nobody is disclaiming the value of logic! What everyone is telling you (and others) is that first principles, axioms of truth, morality, cannot be derived from logic. You certainly haven't shown otherwise. I think we all benefit from your decision.
The above statement is -- absolutely -- a sophomoric attempt to deny the existence of absolutes.
Here's what Ayn Rand has to say about absolutes ...
A moral code impossible to practice, a code that demands imperfection or death, has taught you to dissolve all ideas in fog, to permit no firm definitions, to regard any concept as approximate and any rule of conduct as elastic, to hedge on any principle, to compromise on any value, to take the middle of any road. By extorting your acceptance of supernatural absolutes, it has forced you to reject the absolute of nature. -- From Galt's speech in Ayn Rand's philosophical novel "Atlas Shrugged."
"There are no absolutes, " they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. --Ibid.
Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute, and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat you bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute. -- Ibid.
Just as in epistemology, the cult of uncertainty is a revolt against reason -- so, in ethics, the cult of moral grayness is a revolt against moral values. Both are a revolt against the absolutism of reality -- From Ayn Rand's essay "The Cult of Moral Grayness."
That title, "The cult of moral grayness," describes religious ethics in a nutshell.
My final act in my local church was to walk out after the sheeple -- following a leader in chanting requests to God -- asked in unison for an end to the death penalty.
Based on my esthetic nature, and my mysterious ability to reason, I can accept the possible existence of He who created the universe.
I would also add that generally speaking no philosopher is ever taken seriously when they simply appear to parrot as a disciple the teachings of a single philosopher.
You quote Jesus Christ, and I quote Ayn Rand. Both were human beings, one even claimed -- through disciples -- to be God; but ... Ayn Rand could write for herself and my quotes have a tangible source.
Which is the better source?
What are your unprovable moral axioms?
Well, Christian moral axioms are numerous (as any complete morality is not simple). But start by considering the 10 commandments. Go on to those provided by Jesus - that we should love all (even our worst enemies), that to judge another is bad (though not to judge a person's actions), that to forgive any who truly repent is good, that to reserve sexuality for marriage (and to consider marriage a true life-long, for better or worse commitment) is good, that to seek humility and shun pride is good, that to turn the other cheek when struck is good, etc. etc. etc. In short, that to shun sin as defined by Christ and the Law & Prophets who preceded him is inherently good. And that to follow the example of Christ is inherently good.
Some churches do weird stuff, and many are filled with sheeple. However, there is no moral grayness in Christ's words. (In fact, Christ was the most rock-hard moralist. He left no room for gray. [which, by the way, is what one would expect of God). If you are rejecting Christian morality because of what your preacher did in church one Sunday morning, then you did not understand Christian morality to begin with.
Given this accepted possibility, you then must consider it possible that we too are created by God, and that God may have moral principles by which He hopes we will live our lives.
Well, if you believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God (as 1/3 of the people on this Earth do), then you would certainly consider Christ a far, far, far better source (actually, the very best source). Right?
Pragmatists would go with the 2/3 world population and conclude that Christ was not God; but I personally wonder about the miracle working -- supposedly well versed -- preacher that never wrote anything down. Homer was writing his material over 800 years before Christ.
The Ten Commandments were a good start in codifying Mosaic Law. Who carved them is another matter.
Regarding your other "unprovable moral axioms," I'll let others decide on their mystical worth.
Meanwhile, here's what Ayn Rand had to say about leading a rational life in an irrational society -- From Rand's essay "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?"
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgement on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.
... in fact, a man is to be judged by the judgments he pronounces. The things which he condemns or extols exist in objective reality and are open to to independent appraisal of others. It is his own moral character and standards that he reveals, when he blames or praises. If he condemns America and extols soviet Russia -- or if he attacks businessmen and defends juvenile delinquents -- or if he denounces a great work of art and praises trash -- it is the nature of his own soul that he confesses.
And this one ... Think about the multitudes of Christians that voted for Clinton while you read it.
Observe how many people evade, rationalize and drive their minds into a state of blind stupor, in dread of discovering that those those they deal with -- their "loved" ones or friends or business associates or political rulers -- are not merely mistaken, but evil. Observe that this dread leads them to sanction, to help and to spread the very evil whose existence they fear to acknowledge.
And finally ... Something for Clinton voters to think about.
An irrational society is a society of moral cowards -- of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals.
Though unprovable (as are Rand's axioms of good and bad), you can see that if God exists, and if he created us with something (good) in mind, then the moral axioms which he has provided us are likely to be those which are best suited for our functioning in life - and for God's purpose. Though many Christian moral precepts are hard to follow (because we are tempted to do otherwise out of selfishness, or lust (a form of selfishness) or pride or greed), it is obvious to a great many (1/3 of humanity) that following such precepts would bring about a vastly better world into which we could bring our children.
A good quote! First, Rand is insisting that we distinguish between good and evil. All religious people would agree, for they are called to do so also. Of course, for religious people, God defines good and bad (those pesky axioms), while for Rand, she does it herself (and arbitrarily - and differently from God). On the question of judgment - Christians are certainly called to refuse to condone any sinful or evil act. However, Christ raised the bar on judgment, refusing to let us judge people themselves. That is where, as I'm sure you know, we get the expression: % the sin, love the sinner." Christ recognized that we are all sinners, and that we each struggle in our own way (if we are believers) against that sin. And does it not seem 'good' to you to call to task a person for his sin, while loving that person and trying to get him to turn away from such sin?
To judge a man, as Rand thinks we should do (and Christians do not), assumes a standard of good and bad. The difference for Christians is that the act of judging a person (not an act) is part of the 'bad' part of the moral axioms.
Agreed, thinktwice! But let's think about Clinton. Most of the objections to his behavior came from Christians (and religious people in general) in this country. Why? Because, for them, he presented a horrendous and sinful role model for their children. But it is not an 'irrational' society paralyzed by the loss of moral standards. It is a selfish and stubborn and sinful society. It's perfectly 'rational' for a man to commit adultery (because it brings intense physical pleasure) - when he thinks that he can get away with it (when nobody will find out). Clinton is a highly 'rational' man. Of course, what he did was (for Christians) immoral. Clinton commits many acts which are extremely selfish.
Well, we are free to believe as we will. I would point out that great multitudes on this Earth have never even heard Christ's message. That 1/3 number is growing. You should wonder about Christ - because the things he said were radical and revolutionary - and have ultimately affected the world more than anything else ever uttered by a human being.
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.