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.
If I'm mistaken, I apologize. You did state on this thread that you were willing to admit the possibility of God. That didn't sound like someone who believes in God. So, do you believe in God or not?
Why do you ask; could it be that you want to judge my ethics? The best moral aspect about how I spend my next $1000 is that I earned the $1000, and the second best moral story will be about my righteous indignation over any moral judgement you may have about how it's spent.
I ask, because I want you to think about something. Clearly, you haven't. Why don't you just answer the question? Which, according to you is better? (Yes, and I know you earned the $1000!)
Well, as you know, they are related, because lust causes many men to do these bad things. There are other reasons why Christians consider lust to be bad, but as I said, I do not think you will understand or appreciate them.
If you are looking for a cheap excuse to equate the two, you've found it. (Yes, they both want a better world. So does Rand.) If that satisfies you intellectually, so be it.
Actually, Rand's ethics seem to be derived in a manner that roughly parallels the derivation of Descartes famous statement (See post 255). And the following are my words, not hers.
Rand's ethics seems to be premised on the common sense involved in saying -- I exist, my continued existence is good, and my ethics is concerned with the continuance of good existence.
Well, OK, continued existence is one (the only?) of her moral axioms. The statement "the continuance of good existence" implies that there is some other moral axiom at work as well, which quantifies or qualifies the state of existence. What would that be? - In any case, you are getting to the heart of her (arbitrary) morality.
Yendu's opinion about that thought .... In any case, you are getting to the heart of her (arbitrary) morality.
Descsrtes' use of reason to derive "I think, therefore I exist," has come in handy in my possible derivation of the truth underlying Rand's rational ethics. The term, "I exist" leads to the fundamental question as to whether human existence is good or bad; and it can be bad for those near death. But continued existence, however temporal it may be, is by far preferable -- the good -- to most humans. And that connection to "the good," being an essential element in matters ethical, leads to the defining thought that ... "my ethics is concerned with the continuance of good existence."
Given that rational thinking, what is more arbitrary; truth derived from reason or dogma emanating from individuals that people (even millions of people) have faith in?
A further note about Descartes ... His "Meditations on First Philosophy" was published and then placed on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books, but Descartes withheld his work on Physics, entitled "The World," when he was told of the Inquisition's persecution of Galileo for supporting the Copernican theory -- Descartes's work contained similar ideas.
One possible (I'm relying on distant memory so corrections are welcomed) irony regarding Galileo and Copernicus, is that both are now entombed in a tourist oriented "must see" Catholic church in either Rome or Florence.
Yendu's opinion about that thought .... In any case, you are getting to the heart of her (arbitrary) morality.
First, thinktwice, I pointed out that bringing up 'good existence' once you've posited that existence is good, brings into play some other moral axiom that you (or Rand) have. What is 'good' existence? Let's indeed get to the heart of Rand's (or yours) moral axioms, and then we'll go from there!
Sure, most humans like the idea of existence. Christian morality certainly puts a high value on human life. In fact, it puts a higher value on human life than many other moralities (hence the huge debates over things like partial birth abortion, abortion in general, euthanasia, etc.). However, Christianity does not posit that human life is worth more than everything else at all times. "No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friend." Many Christians would give up their lives willingly for their children, or their spouses, or their friends - and many have even for the love of strangers. Christians follow the example of a man who willingly gave up his life for us. Many Americans, Christian or otherwise, have chosen historically to give up their lives so that succeeding generations of Americans could live with freedom in this country. So, what's my point? It's that sure, if you posit that 'existence' is the one 'good' thing (one moral axiom), you can construct some sort of rational morality based on that. That's your right! But if you think about examples like the above (those who give up their lives for God, for the love of others, for country), you might find that there is something you might perhaps innately identify with being good, but which is not encapsulated in the lonely moral axiom that you posit.
But you haven't derived truth from reason. You have chosen a moral axiom, and use reason to develop an ethics from that axiom. As for arbitrariness, if you don't believe in God, and if you don't believe that God wishes us to follow a certain moral code, you may believe that Christian morality is just as arbitrary as Rand's is. But again, something like 90% of humanity does believe in God (they intuit and infer His existence from historical evidence and indirect evidence, as well as from something that exists in their hearts), and does not believe that morality coming from God is arbitrary. You're welcome to believe that it is. The vast, vast majority of humanity does not. However, it would behoove you to understand that since the existence of God cannot currently be proved, there is no point in arguing about whether God's morality is arbitrary or not. Rand's moral axioms, on the other hand, ARE demonstrably arbitrary. Any person (including you or me) could posit whatever moral axioms we want upon which to build a rational ethics.
Well, thinktwice, I'm completely with you on this one! That is ironic! (Galileo and Copernicus, by the way, are people I've always greatly admired.)
No living creature other than man has the ability to know good from bad because no other creature has the ability to reason, thus a rational search for the good -- deriving a rational ethics -- is only possible to humans.
Descartes used a mathematical process to prove his own existence, making the term "I exist" an established fact. Given that fact, and knowing that facts carry infinitely more weight than axioms, the truism "I exist" becomes a standard upon which a rational ethics can be built, a standard upon which a code of values leading to a "good existence" can be based.
For comparison, Ayn Rand's "... Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value -- and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." So, for what it's worth, my ethical takeoff on Descartes' work goes one step in front of (without contradicting) Rand's work by establishing existence instead of man's life as a standard of value upon which rational ethics can be based.
Can you show me a flaw in Descartes' "I exist" work?
If you can't find a flaw in Descartes' "I exist" work, please show me what you think is wrong in my follow on to the "I exist" work.
Some separate questions: What does the word "truth" mean to you; and, how does one know truth?
Wow, there's so much to work with here! Let's see:
1) The ability to reason has nothing to do with establishing what is right and wrong. (And, as an aside, other creatures certainly have an ability to reason.) 2) Descartes did NOT use a mathemetical manipulation to establish his own existence. He simply posited it. But apart from that, we all posit that. Both mathematics and morality (they have some similarities!) start with unprovable axioms. (Check out Goedel's theorem. You might find it interesting.) 3) Yes, you CAN define existence as a 'good (i.e. as a moral axiom),' and you can construct some sort of rational ethics from that. (It would, of course, be very limited.) Rand undoubtedly had other moral axioms at the bottom of her rationality ladder. She either wittingly or unwittingly chose them arbitrarily. I can posit moral axioms too, and build a rational ethics around them. Stalin did. So did Buddha. You can too. 4) If we are to judge which rational ethical systems are better, Stalin's, or Buddha's, or mine or yours, we have to bring into play a higher set of moral axioms. If you don't want to do that, then there is no point to the whole exercise of developing a 'rational ethics.' Yours would be as 'good' as mine, or as 'good' as Stalin's, or as 'good' as Buddha's. 5) If existence were the only good in people's moralities, we would spend our lives sealing ourselves off, trying to reduce risk to life and limb at any cost. We would also consider the self-sacrifice of soldiers and cops and parents and firemen a 'bad' thing. Still, you are welcome to posit any moral axioms you wish, and to build your rational ethics around such (arbitrary) axioms. To what purpose do you do so?
Skip the hypothetical question freshman approach; what do you want me to think about?
At the short of it, we all 'know' we exist (though, in reality, our existence might be of a far different nature from what we believe it is - as an example, we might be a giant computer simulation running on a gargantuan computer run by some other intelligence). And existence itself, even in physcis, is somewhat undefined! For instance, in quantum mechanics, we learn that we and the whole world are made up of interfering wave functions which cannot be directly shown to exist, and which can be expressed mathematically only with imaginary numbers. Think about that. We cannot directly show that wave functions (which make up everything) actually exist! Again, like Descartes, we assume we exist (though that existence, as in the computer simulation example), might be significantly different than what we suppose (a la the movie Matrix!). Now, assuming that we exist, you are proposing to make existence 'good.' Well, that's a moral axiom. And most moral systems include existence, at least to some degree, as a 'good.' Christianity does, though not as an absolute. But most moral systems have many other moral axioms as well. And truth in the next post!
Well, truth to me is that which exists. Which, one should note, does not necessarily preclude that which cannot be proven to exist - much truth may exist that we cannot prove to exist. We cannot currently prove that God exists - but we also cannot currently prove that wave functions (the basis of all reality, according to our physicist friends) exist. And we all know the emergence of existence conundra. - Did the universe (i.e., existence) form out of nothing, or out of something? And if out of something, how was that something created - and so forth. And as for moral truth - either that always existed (along with the existence of God?), or it was 'created' by someone simply positing a set of moral axioms that suit a lot of people. A third alternative is that such moral axioms were posited by outside intelligences - like aliens, and passed down to us. A fourth alternative is that God exists and that He posited those axioms. But what is interesting is that what distinguishes humans is not their ability to reason - but their ability to understand good and bad. There is some sort of resonance between our understanding of good and bad in our hearts, and the moral axioms that so many believe come from God. In actuality, most, when they look at humans, they see that many will make that resonance more important than even the will to survive or the will to benefit materially. That is why someone will risk their life to save a man in a buring car, or why someone will rush across a road to save a baby, or why someone will tell the truth when they don't have to, in order to help a stranger, etc. etc. In short, there seems to be a receptance in humans to things like the Christian moral code, even thoughh we are tempted frequently to ignore it. That's just a hint (among many, many) that there may be a preexsting, Godly moral code. The problem for those who don't believe in such is that you are left to posit your own moral axioms. ANd when you do, you must appeal to your own higher ideas of good and bad to select those which you think are 'good.' In short, therefore, either moral truth is preexistent, or we have lots of people running around (like you, or me, or Rand) making it all up. I find more indirect evidence for the former, and for obvious reasons, hope that I am right!
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.