Morals????

[kendo1]

...Okay.

And yes, you are correct-- a number of societal expectations have changed in fairly rapid timing, so that certain behaviors are more generally considered acceptable. Unmarried sex, girls wearing pants, boys wearing kilts, women having careers, men staying home with the kids, lesbianism, and (to a smaller extent as far as straight men are concerned) homosexuality...

Examples of things are, for some of our society, no longer considered a matter of morals.

I wear a kilt, so does my son. This is not a recent occurrence around these parts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wear a kilt, so does my son. This is not a recent occurrence around these parts.

Go ahead, rub it in. Or out. Or just... rub.

 

[amicus]

Before I begin, let me stipulate that I am not a, 'professional philosopher'; not that anyone might posit that.

It was, however, my intention to 'teach' philosophy at the college level before I became enmeshed in campus politics and learned that any mention of a 'rational' approach to the discipline was not acceptable in the graduate assistant level, and totally forbidden at the professional level.(This was back in the enlightened 60's & 70's)

Fortunately, I cultivated an interest in Economics, but ran into a Keynesian roadblock of immense proportions, so I turned to Political Science and ran smack dab into a Professor at the University of Hawaii who said, out loud, in class, that anyone voting for Goldwater was an idiot. You might smile and predict the outcome of that encounter.

So there I was, eight years of college later, with 492 assorted credits to my account, being accepted at the University of Portland, (Oregon) for graduate level studies in, of all things, Colonial American History; sighs.

That pursuit was interrupted, about a year later, by the unannounced arrival of a wife, two children, aged two and five and another one baking.

Now, dearest Verdad, as to the, 'nuance' you referred in a previous post, I am to assume that a woman with two children was ignorant of birth control, ahem. Inferences gratis. (I thought a little levity was called for before the avalanche.)

***

I read the article in the link you provided, word by word, took copious notes, as I am wont to do. I was not sure how to address this, still am not, so I am going to 'wing it', and just plunge in.

Rand says specifically:

"...No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined..."

"...Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it "arbitrary postulate" or "subjective choice" or "emotional commitment" )-and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. Whatever else they may disagree about, today's moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason-mind-~reality.~ ..."

"...What is morality, or ethics?

It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions-the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code..."

~~~~~

(O'Neil)

"...It is at this stage in her argumentation, at the very point of seeming triumph over subjectivity, that Rand loses the battle. She takes aim at the Humean disjuncture of the prescriptive from the descriptive and fatally wounds the pretentions to objectivity of her own systematic ethics: "The fact that a living entity is, deter-mines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.' " In these two sentences, Rand reveals a serious misconception of the nature of the Humean is-ought gap and introduces a dangerous potential for self-contradiction into her own ethical system..."

The sole difficulty arises over the derivability of values from facts.

The following syllogism does not violate Hume's Law:

One ought not to murder human beings.
Socrates is a human being.
Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

On the other hand, the syllogism below does violate Hume's Law:

Human beings have a right to life.
Socrates is a human being.
Therefore, one ought not to murder Socrates.

The second syllogism is defective, for it requires for its conclusion the premise that one ought to respect the rights of others. Add that assumption, and one has a valid syllogism which integrates facts and values. It should be noted that, although many philosophers speak as if the is-ought problem were a problem in logic, the question does not belong to the domain of the science of logic at all.

Prescriptive from descriptive (mine)

(Rand)

"Man has to be man-by choice; he has to hold his life as a value-by choice; he has to learn to sustain it-by choice; he bas to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues-by choice.
A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.""

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought."'

(O'Neil)

"...If, on the other hand, there is a choice either to obey or to disobey this most basic moral maxim..."

This is where:by Patrick M.O'Neil Department of History State University of New York, Binghampton . gets really silly.

In page after page of very convoluted posturing, O'Neil posits that if human life is the fundamental value and man has free will, can choose, to follow actions that preserve life, he also has the choice to end life, which is a contradiction to the basic value.

The second criticism O'Neil offers, after more and more pages is, that since man is not immortal, then any value associated with life is thus transitory and not absolute and not the beginning point of values, morals or ethics.

What is really going on here is O'Neil, speaking for his contemporaries, are really miffed that Rand did solve Hume's, is/ought, dilemma, not only solved it, but rejected it as nonsense and that really pissed off the entire batch of Professional Philosophers teaching such drivel at the highest levels.

I commit the same crime I always do, post too little and with scarce formulae and logic notations to satisfy the logical positivists; but still post far too much to entertain the casual reader.

Now, if I were forbidden to tease, titilate and surprise little girls and big ones alike, a lot of the joy in my life would be verboten.

The feminine mind, in general terms of course, evolved around a campfire, digging roots, nursing and quieting children to keep the Sabretooth at bay. It should not surprise anyone, that the hunter male, skulking through the jungle, butchering on the spot and hauling the prey back to camp, developed a different set of skills.

Fortunately, until the present time, mankind appreciated those different but complimentary skill sets, and somehow, male and female cohabited without killing each other...well...most of the time.

(Now what do I do with the seven pages of unused notations I made?)

regards...

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

(Now what do I do with the seven pages of unused notations I made?)

An obvious answer would be "compare it with my seven pages of notation." You're good, though! You found, without fault, the weakest sounding part of McNeill's analysis, where he takes the logical victory but sounds like he doesn't have much in practical terms. In that part, he's close to stepping in the trap Rand set, that of accepting her offered choice of rational being vs. suicidal animal. McNeill does more than that, of course, but since his points are hard to boil down to a soundbite, I'm not going to tire anyone with a summary the length of the original. I'm just glad you and anyone interested could read; the problems addressed concern more than just Rand and can be of use in some future talks.

Best,
V

 

[WRJames]

The only course I ever dropped in college was a philosophy course on ethics. I had expected, naively, that it would talk about ethichal principles, and, perhaps, address the vast moral challenges of the time -- the sexual revolution, the Civil Rights movement, the war in Vietnam. Some guidiance from the wisdom of philosophy would have been quite valuable.

Instead, the professor proceded with savage intensity to tear down the pathetic constucts of those philosophies, until there was nothing left to guide us.

This was in my non religious days, and it was many years later, almost a decade, before I returned to the church. But I think that experience gave me a little prod, an unsettling premonition that rationality was not all that it was cut out to be.

Of course, gradually, I achieved enough scientific understanding to move beyond the nineteenth centrury world view that seems to underpin so much "rational" philosophy.


So much of the "rational" philosophy of ethics seems to be conditioned on a set of assumptions about what human beings are and how we got here. But what if those assumptions are merely products of the scientific presumptions of more than a century ago. What if they are, simply, wrong?

 

[mythtrav16]

Religion

The only course I ever dropped in college was a philosophy course on ethics. I had expected, naively, that it would talk about ethichal principles, and, perhaps, address the vast moral challenges of the time -- the sexual revolution, the Civil Rights movement, the war in Vietnam. Some guidiance from the wisdom of philosophy would have been quite valuable.

Instead, the professor proceded with savage intensity to tear down the pathetic constucts of those philosophies, until there was nothing left to guide us.

This was in my non religious days, and it was many years later, almost a decade, before I returned to the church. But I think that experience gave me a little prod, an unsettling premonition that rationality was not all that it was cut out to be.

Of course, gradually, I achieved enough scientific understanding to move beyond the nineteenth centrury world view that seems to underpin so much "rational" philosophy.


So much of the "rational" philosophy of ethics seems to be conditioned on a set of assumptions about what human beings are and how we got here. But what if those assumptions are merely products of the scientific presumptions of more than a century ago. What if they are, simply, wrong?

Rationality has it's place, as does spiritualism. Rationality is like a GPS; it's very useful, unless you don't have any spiritual compulsion to go anywhere, in which case it's useless. Likewise, if you are very spiritually in tune with yourself/God/Allah/Buddha/your guiding force, but cannot rationalise a path to your calling, you will be left yearning in frustration.

When you look at some of the attrocities that have been committed by religious fanatics, both recently and throughout history, it's very easy to understand the John Lennon philosophy "Imagine there was no religion..." But I went to a religious high school and we had mandatory chapel services every week. They didn't manage to convert me from my atheism, but one day, the sermon was given by a girl from the school. She was only a grade or two above me. With a great deal of bravery and honesty, she laid out her own tale of personal despair to all of us and explained how, in spite of all her hardships she had found solice and comfort in the knowledge that God loved her and was there for her. While she failed to convince me that there is an omnipresent being calling all the shots, she certainly managed to convince me that religion has a valuable and justified part in this world.

We aren't just machines who eat & shit, suck in oxygen & expell CO2, get born, fuck, procrate & die. We aren't just economic assets that simply produce a net worth to cover our own upkeep and maintainance over our lifespan, with a small profit going to upgrade the communal financial engine. We are so much more than a series of scientific and logical processes. WE ARE HUMAN. We are self aware! And we have desires and needs that are often irrational but that are as equally guiding in our actions as any rational compulsions!

And one of those compulsions, arguably the biggest, is the need for significance. That is something that rationality will never be able to provide you with, because when you rationally look at a single human being compared to the size of the universe and the incomprehensible forces driving it, the human being is of absolutlely no consequence. The true, fulfilling significance that allows one to function can only come from a stong belief in something that is beyond the bounds of rationality, and so profound that it one could classify it as a religious focus. As long as people have the ability to ask, "Why?" we will be in need of religious enlightenment to guide and comfort us and fully appreciate our fellow humans.

For all the undeniable heartache that religious conflict has caused, I still believe that religion is a wonderful thing.


These words, by the way, are from an atheist. Praise the lord! It's a miracle!

 

[amicus]

Verdad, WrJames, thank you for the response and V. for the acknowledgment, they are often few and far between.

WR brings up two pertinent points, one of the impractical nature of introductory courses in philosophy, they are simply not just overwhelming, but dismissive of what a student brings to the classroom.

I had the good fortune to speak of Objectivism on live radio and gathered enough interested people, from all walks of life, to conduct a weekly lecture series and they too, for the most part, as WR did, wanted practical results from the studies. Unfortunately, but enjoyable, the discussion of whether an action is moral, right, good, leads to another and another and my class was about a dozen or so, which told me that larger sized University classes could not function on such a personal level.

It was also very pressing as without fail, someone would ask a justification for war and other violent acts committed by men from all times and societies.

There was one, a Hollywood actor whose name you would recognize, asked if it could be moral and ethical to love two women at the same time. You might imagine that question carried on for several sessions and occupied far too much time.

Back to the classroom for a moment; I was an older student, having completed two tours of active military service and was quite well read, as opposed to the very young looking normal college student. Being as arrogant then as I am now, or even more as life seems to have a mellowing effect, I insisted on my money's worth from the lectures, not just the dry repetitive introductory overview that confused so many.

It was not until I met a German professor who had fought in world war two and introduced me to Goethe and Rilke, that I finally felt I was in an environment to actually learn something.

I heard on the news yesterday that some dim witted Northeastern State, the home of Brown University, is passing legislation to tax each of the 25,000 students an average of $300.00 a year for the 'infrastructure' they utilized as students in that State.

I suggest, that like the car dealerships that are closing, a heavy percentage of brick and mortar schools will soon be a thing of the past as online learning and degrees acquire accreditation and lower tuition costs.

I keep harkening back to, "Indoctrination U." and the hegemony of left wing political indoctrination that blankets liberal arts education from economics to philosophy and all the Arts in general. That has to be broken in some matter to allow for a true diversity of thought to exist on campuses everywhere.

The weather has turned good again, so I will add to the already planted tomato, squash and potato crop in the ground and add corn and cucumbers at least, maybe more, today as the sun shines brightly and weather surely does affect one's mood, at least mine.

regards...

amicus

 

[Pure]

note to wr

hi wr,

i wouldn't want to argue with your experience. you were likely studying 'metaethics,' the foundations. i recall the 60s quite differently: it was a time of teach ins, and philosophy and history and law profs got up and explained why the VN War was wrong.

i could tell you that the *point* of university might be to have some of one's pre conceptions and pre-set opinions, 'torn down' through rational examination. if you simply wanted reinforcement-- 'god's in his heaven, all's right in the world'--a small religious college would have suited you better.

==

WR said,

WR: The only course I ever dropped in college was a philosophy course on ethics. I had expected, naively, that it would talk about ethichal principles, and, perhaps, address the vast moral challenges of the time -- the sexual revolution, the Civil Rights movement, the war in Vietnam. Some guidiance from the wisdom of philosophy would have been quite valuable.

Instead, the professor proceded with savage intensity to tear down the pathetic constucts of those philosophies, until there was nothing left to guide us.

This was in my non religious days, and it was many years later, almost a decade, before I returned to the church. But I think that experience gave me a little prod, an unsettling premonition that rationality was not all that it was cut out to be.

Of course, gradually, I achieved enough scientific understanding to move beyond the nineteenth centrury world view that seems to underpin so much "rational" philosophy.

 

[amicus]

mythtrav16
Virgin

If you are happy, fulfilled and find 'significance' in your faith, whatever it is, then good for you, and please ignore my commentary.

"...We are so much more than a series of scientific and logical processes. WE ARE HUMAN. We are self aware! And we have desires and needs that are often irrational but that are as equally guiding in our actions as any rational compulsions!

And one of those compulsions, arguably the biggest, is the need for significance. That is something that rationality will never be able to provide you with, because when you rationally look at a single human being compared to the size of the universe and the incomprehensible forces driving it, the human being is of absolutlely no consequence. The true, fulfilling significance that allows one to function can only come from a stong belief in something that is beyond the bounds of rationality, and so profound that it one could classify it as a religious focus. As long as people have the ability to ask, "Why?" we will be in need of religious enlightenment to guide and comfort us and fully appreciate our fellow humans..."

~~~

One might begin by noting the absolute lack of any evidence that might lead one to suspect the existence of a supernatural being of any kind. It just ain't there.

If there is no God, no Heaven, no Afterlife, no promise of anything between here and the grave and thereafter, where then does one look to find that 'significance' of life you identify as a 'need'?

Many turn to a quasi-atheist stance, proclaiming that being part of a vague, 'greater good', a communal sharing of woes, satisfies that need. They, too, have no evidence of that, just a prayer that it is truth and will continue to fulfill them.

You answer your own question, but only partially when you state, "...WE ARE HUMAN. We are self aware!..."

That, 'need', of significance, has been addressed by just about everyone, since God passed into history, and has been identified as, 'self esteem', in both psychology and philosophy.

It is, in my opinion, demeaning for a sentient creature to desire to be but a worker bee in a hive of bees or a fish in a school of millions, sardines outside the can.

There is a reason that Christianity and most every faith requires an individual to give up, sacrifice, one's own self identity, to become part of the 'flock', those who adopt one of the thousands of faith's available for you to cuddle up in, like a bug in a rug.

Observe children at play sometimes, notice the unabridged joy with which they face life and the pleasure in just living that they express.

Human sentient life holds its' own purpose and meaning. Instead of looking up into the sky, at the vast Universe and feeling small, feel huge and powerful as it is you, the individual, looking upon existence; it does not perceive you, you perceive it.

Life is the issue and the value of existence and death is of no consequence as all things evolve and change and so do we, whether through Shakespeare's seven stages of life or just an acceptance of life as ever changing.

And so, mithtrav16, welcome to the forum and welcome to the world of ideas and unfettered thinking, there is a place for it after all.



Amicus

 

[WRJames]

One might begin by noting the absolute lack of any evidence that might lead one to suspect the existence of a supernatural being of any kind. It just ain't there.

If there is no God, no Heaven, no Afterlife, no promise of anything between here and the grave and thereafter, where then does one look to find that 'significance' of life you identify as a 'need'?

Well -- it's probably fairer to say that there is no evidence that you would accept as valid. If one were tempted to talk about things like the Big Bang, the improbability of our evolution by random chance, near death experiences, childhood memories of previous lives, or the Shroud of Turin, I am sure you would take great pains to debunk any and all of these. After all, you have to, to sustain your "no evidence" claim.

Really, atheism is a faith like any other.

 

[amicus]

WR:

"...Really, atheism is a faith like any other..."

~~~

No, it is not, you are incorrect.

Observing reality is an act of reason, rationality and logic, not faith.

As there can be and is no certainty in faith, I am led to understand that it 'comforts' believers to state that atheism is a faith, as you said, like any other, and thus open to error.

I do not wish to argue with you or any believer, you have your faith, enjoy it; but please do not attack atheism as a religion, for it is indeed not such.

Religion remains a derogative term to those that pursue knowledge through reason and rationality. Faith in anything, is the refuge of a weak mind, be it Fascism, Socialism or Catholicism.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

hi wr,

i wouldn't want to argue with your experience. you were likely studying 'metaethics,' the foundations. i recall the 60s quite differently: it was a time of teach ins, and philosophy and history and law profs got up and explained why the VN War was wrong.

i could tell you that the *point* of university might be to have some of one's pre conceptions and pre-set opinions, 'torn down' through rational examination. if you simply wanted reinforcement-- 'god's in his heaven, all's right in the world'--a small religious college would have suited you better.

==

WR said,

WR: The only course I ever dropped in college was a philosophy course on ethics. I had expected, naively, that it would talk about ethichal principles, and, perhaps, address the vast moral challenges of the time -- the sexual revolution, the Civil Rights movement, the war in Vietnam. Some guidiance from the wisdom of philosophy would have been quite valuable.

Instead, the professor proceded with savage intensity to tear down the pathetic constucts of those philosophies, until there was nothing left to guide us.

This was in my non religious days, and it was many years later, almost a decade, before I returned to the church. But I think that experience gave me a little prod, an unsettling premonition that rationality was not all that it was cut out to be.

Of course, gradually, I achieved enough scientific understanding to move beyond the nineteenth centrury world view that seems to underpin so much "rational" philosophy.

How condescending! Particularly, since in my post, that very self same post that you actually quoted, I mentioned that this was in my "non-religious days." The last thing I was looking for was small religious college.

And your recollection of the 60's is similar to mine -- we were struggling, collectively, for a new moral identity. This particular course was billed simply as a course on philosophy of ethics or something of the sort. I expected it to actually deal with some of the pressing moral and ethical issues of the time.

 

[WRJames]

WR:

~~~

No, it is not, you are incorrect.

Observing reality is an act of reason, rationality and logic, not faith.

As there can be and is no certainty in faith, I am led to understand that it 'comforts' believers to state that atheism is a faith, as you said, like any other, and thus open to error.

I do not wish to argue with you or any believer, you have your faith, enjoy it; but please do not attack atheism as a religion, for it is indeed not such.

Religion remains a derogative term to those that pursue knowledge through reason and rationality. Faith in anything, is the refuge of a weak mind, be it Fascism, Socialism or Catholicism.

Amicus

We all see the world through a filter. As I said in my previous post, there are a lot of things you have to filter out of your world view to maintain your beliefs.

I guess I must be weak minded, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

 

[cloudy]

the Shroud of Turin, I am sure you would take great pains to debunk any and all of these.

Dude...the shroud of Turin is a really horrible example since it's already been proven to be a fake. Just sayin'.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dude...the shroud of Turin is a really horrible example since it's already been proven to be a fake. Just sayin'.

Oh, but there are scientist saying that the debunking is fake!

*nods*
`
All of them well paid for their investigations-- by the Catholic Church.

*nods*

 

[WRJames]

Oh, but there are scientist saying that the debunking is fake!

*nods*
`
All of them well paid for their investigations-- by the Catholic Church.

*nods*

You are totally wrong on that one. At least the Catholic Church part.

As for the fake part -- I wouldn't have mentioned the Shroud of Turin except that I stumbled on to a show on the Discovery Channel a few weeks ago. Apparently, the portion that was used for carbon dating had been repaired in the Middle Ages, so what they were dating was a mixture of ancient linen and Medieval cotton.

So it may not be fake after all.

Whatever it is, it's a very mysterious object. Interestingly enough, we were not able to appreciate how mysterious until technology had orovided some very sophisticated tools.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You are totally wrong on that one. At least the Catholic Church part.

As for the fake part -- I wouldn't have mentioned the Shroud of Turin except that I stumbled on to a show on the Discovery Channel a few weeks ago. Apparently, the portion that was used for carbon dating had been repaired in the Middle Ages, so what they were dating was a mixture of ancient linen and Medieval cotton.

So it may not be fake after all.

Whatever it is, it's a very mysterious object. Interestingly enough, we were not able to appreciate how mysterious until technology had orovided some very sophisticated tools.

This was on the Discovery channel?

Check some less credulous sources; Robert Carroll, a phd who teaches critical thinking, has put together some pros and cons here...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

"the 2008 research at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit may revise the 1260–1390 dating toward which it originally contributed, leading its director Christopher Ramsey to call the scientific community to probe anew the authenticity of the Shroud.[7][8] "With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence" Gordan said to BBC News in 2008, after the new research emerged"--Wikipedia

 

[WRJames]

This was on the Discovery channel?

Check some less credulous sources; Robert Carroll, a phd who teaches critical thinking, has put together some pros and cons here...

Stella, I did look at the link and it is total bullshit. For one thing, the shroud is not painted. For another, it could not be produced by modern technology. To surmise that it could be produced somehow by a painter in the Middle Ages is absurd.

As for the Discovery Channel -- they were reporting a piece of research. You can check it out yourself if you dare.

 

[Verdad]

The key thought of the article Stella linked is this: never mind whether the shroud is a medieval fake. More points to that than not, but let's leave that aside. Let's imagine a confirmation were found the shroud is indeed 2000 years old and it indeed originates from Jerusalem. It would still be pretty damn hard (and I'm being very generous here) to prove it was Jesus' and not someone else, and if we even imagine that too could be proven, it would still say nothing about Jesus' divine nature.

The questions of faith remain the questions of faith; I was even under impression it's kind of crass for a believer to demand proof about his faith.

 

[amicus]

The Cult of Moral Grayness

http://freedomkeys.com/ar-moralgrayness.htm

Such are the reasons why -- when one is asked: "Surely you don't think in terms of black-and-white, do you?" -- the proper answer (in essence, if not in form) should be: "You're damn right I do!"

That is the final paragraph from a piece by Ayn Rand and is pertinent as her rejection of moral grayness is still repeated even on this forum, forty years later.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

The key thought of the article Stella linked is this: never mind whether the shroud is a medieval fake. More points to that than not, but let's leave that aside. Let's imagine a confirmation were found the shroud is indeed 2000 years old and it indeed originates from Jerusalem. It would still be pretty damn hard (and I'm being very generous here) to prove it was Jesus' and not someone else, and if we even imagine that too could be proven, it would still say nothing about Jesus' divine nature.

The questions of faith remain the questions of faith; I was even under impression it's kind of crass for a believer to demand proof about his faith.

It's a mysterious object -- probably the most mysterious object on the planet. To say that it's a "fake" you would have to explain how it could have been created -- perhaps be able to replicate the feat.


Now, the let me reiterate that the everyone assumed it could not be genuine because of the carbon dating. But that has been thrown into question. The section that was dated was rewoven with cotton thread -- and the dating is inaccurate because of that.

That was what the show said.

I'm not sure of there has been dating of another section since then.

 

[Verdad]

Hi, Ami, I had a look at the text and made a few brief comments.

One of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today's culture, is a certain fashionable attitude toward moral issues, best summarized as: "There are no blacks and whites; there are only grays."

Rand opens by misrepresenting the opposition, or at least by addressing some hypothetical opposition in which I don't recognize myself. Even on this thread, I've not hesitated to call some actions plain wrong, entirely 'black', and neither have others. If she said, "In addition to blacks and whites, there are also grays," that would be closer.

Unless, of course, she wanted to say ethics necessarily deals with blacks and whites, while the 'gray' stands for that in life which is morally neutral or morally unsolvable and as such doesn't belong in the field. With that I could agree.

Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white. In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil. And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture.

Little to object to here, especially if we lived in a perfect world of no conflict. The alternatives people face rarely have the good grace of presenting themselves in neat pairs of good and evil, though. When it's more evil and less evil is when it gets complicated.

There are, of course, complex issues in which both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others -- and it is here that the "package deal" of pronouncing both sides "gray" is least permissible. It is in such issues that the most rigorous precision of moral judgment is required to identify and evaluate the various aspects involved -- which can be done only by unscrambling the mixed elements of "black" and "white."

Here, Rand basically admits to the utilitarian calculus such as I suggested above. Once we've unscrambled the elements of black and white, we are, I presume, to put them on a scale and go with the side that prevails in whiteness. But does it mean the sum, if not the building blocks, can be more or less white? Is that kinda like, gray?

The basic error in all these various confusions is the same: it consists of forgetting that morality deals only with issues open to man's choice -- which means: forgetting the difference betwen "unable" and "unwilling." This permits people to translate the catch phrase "There are no blacks and whites" into: "Men are unable to be wholly good or wholly evil" -- which they accept in foggy resignation, without questioning the metaphysical contradictions it entails.

Again she says, and I approve, that morality deals only with issues open to man's choice. For a person to be wholly good, then, it suffices they never take the bad option if a good one is available. That's a nice move as it puts the ability to be wholly good within reach. I appreciate this move as her gesture against apathy, against a certain stance that says, "Ah well, since life will soil you one way or another, why have any standards? You'll fail anyhow." I don't recognize myself or anyone close to me in that stance, though, so as far as I'm concerned, what Rand dispatches here, however passionately, is made of straw.

 

[Pure]

Notes on reason

amicus places himself on the side of reason, as against faith:

ami Observing reality is an act of reason, rationality and logic, not faith.

As there can be and is no certainty in faith, I am led to understand that it 'comforts' believers to state that atheism is a faith, as you said, like any other, and thus open to error.

I do not wish to argue with you or any believer, you have your faith, enjoy it; but please do not attack atheism as a religion, for it is indeed not such.

Religion remains a derogative term to those that pursue knowledge through reason and rationality. Faith in anything, is the refuge of a weak mind, be it Fascism, Socialism or Catholicism.

pure: fair enough, amicus; you're in a very big club, though, you know; the devotion to and exaltation of 'reason'--and the dark suspicions about 'faith'-- go back at least to the Fr. Revolution. In philosophy of the 19th century, its most famous advocate was Hegel:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Lisle/dial/hegel.html

Georg Wilhelm Friederich Hegel
1770-1831


Hegel was the last of the main representatives of a philosophical movement known as German Idealism, which developed towards the end of the eighteenth century primarily as a reaction against the philosophy of Kant, and whose main proponents, aside from Hegel,

include Fichte and Schelling. [...]

For Hegel, the fundamental principle which explains all reality is reason. Reason, as Hegel understands it, is not some quality which is attributed to some human subject; it is, by contrast, the sum of all reality. In accordance with this belief, Hegel claims that reason and
reality are strictly identical: only reason is real and only reality is reasonable.


Your call for the triumph of reason remind me further, of the Internationale, third line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale

Arise, wretched of the earth
Arise, convicts of hunger
Reason thunders in its volcano
This is the eruption of the end
Of the past let us wipe the slate clean
[...]


There are no supreme saviours
Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.

Wikepedia discusses the ancestry of the song:

The Internationale (L'Internationale in French) is a famous socialist, communist, social- democratic and anarchist anthem and one of the most widely recognized songs in the world.

The Internationale became the anthem of international socialism. Its original French refrain
is C'est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L'Internationale/ Sera le genre humain.

(Freely translated: "This is the final struggle/ Let us group together and tomorrow/ The
Internationale/ Will be the human race.")[...]The Internationale is sung not only by communists but also (in many countries) by socialists or social democrats, as well as anarchists. [...]


From 1922 to 1944, The Internationale was the de facto national anthem of the Soviet Union.


The original French words were written in June 1871 by Eugène Pottier (1816–1887, previously a member of the Paris Commune)[1]
===

pure: If socialists were among the original advocates of reason, against church (faith) and oppressive state, it has had a number of advocates in our 20th century. Prominent atheist advocates of 'reason' have included Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh.

Another movement you have noted, eugenics, 'racial improvement' is said to be founded in 'reason'---who could rationally NOT want the best specimens to prevail and want degenerates to spawn? Both US and German versions carried out various measures, including the sterilization of the 'unfit'--retarded or of 'inferior' race.

==
So while the advance of 'reason' can, i suppose to credited with stopping the burning of witches and *religious* wars, and perhaps with bringing prosperity to the first world, the overall picture is rather mixed, i think you would agree. both the US and Germany were highly advanced in science, investigation of reality by reason, but found themselves killing one another with advanced technology.

I suppose you'll claim that except for objectivists, other self-said proponents of reason are imposters; objectivists haven't killed anyone in the name of reason. Yet they've never held power in a nation; maybe they never will.

Reason, like faith, often brings its own intolerance, and i think one can 'read' between the lines as to what objectivists would do with "looters" and "misfits" and "parasites." (favorite terms of Randists).

It's intriguing to watch two 'men of reason' collide and try to resolve differences. At what point do they turn to weapons?

Conclusion: So some of us are scared by certain 'men of faith,' such as inquisitors; but we are ALSO scared by certain 'men of reason', who may have decided that i don't fit their 'rational plans', and that, given my defects, esp. "irrationality", there is no reason for my continued existence [at least as a free person]. Indeed, amicus, you have mentioned shooting a number of types who disagreed with your politics. I'd personally feel safer with certain 'men of faith'

PS: It might be added that the dichotomy of reason and faith that you suscribe to, is suspect, in any case: It seems to me that Thomas Jefferson might well be described both a 'man of reason' and a 'man of faith' and this applies to several of the US founding fathers. Ronald Reagan probably fits in both categories:

http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2004/06/07/ronald-reagan-on-religion-and-politics/

RRWithout God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Margaret Thatcher's views of her own Christianity (Anglican) and the role of the Church may be found at

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=103793
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/Speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107246

 

[amicus]

Thank you for perusing the piece, I had you in mind and the intent to perhaps bring the topic back, but you did so before I.

I am going to doff my philosopher's beret for the moment and slip into a more comfortable writers habit()

The very first story I posted here some years ago, "Susan", which also won a monthly first prize in the Romance Category, is, in essence, a moral drama.

My lead male character, visiting a daughter on a military base, while taking a walk, came on a scene with two men about to rape a woman. He didn't consider not acting, only how to proceed to resolve the situation. His actions portray a moral and ethical response that define the nature of this particular man.

He severely injured the two men, a crushed testicle on one, a shattered knee joint on the other, the girl escaped, he left, shaking with an adrenalin rush.

But never once did he question his actions or motive.

A man, my character, is guided by his moral premises and they cannot be gray by nature. When you or I or anyone creates a character who is required to act, we create them to act decisively and give them virtues and values that we hold, or perhaps we aspire to holding.

As individuals we learn the differences between right and wrong from our parents, from our environment and from our interactions with others as we mature. Everyone develops a sort of moral compass to guide them but few ever attempt to comprehend why they make the choices they do.

As children, we live under the moral guidelines of those who are responsible for our actions but when independence is granted or taken, suddenly we are left to call upon our own resources to make decisions and carry out actions.

We also have laws that influence our behavior and up until about a half a century ago, in this country, a religious code of conduct that most accepted to form our concepts of right and wrong.

In my experience in life, I doubt one in a hundred, perhaps a thousand, ever consider a formal study of ethics and morals as they apply both to individuals and society in general.

I find it difficult to place a starting point where thinking men began to explore the realm of human action beyond the dictates of one religion or another. Were I to postulate the Greeks or the Egyptians or the Chinese, someone would no doubt challenge my assertion; and properly so.

Still, the effort to find a code of ethics beyond those commandments, has been a long and ongoing prospect and, I suggest, one of necessity.

It is the nature of man to know his decisions and actions are the correct ones to further his life, his goals, his survival. There can be no indecision, no guesswork, no 'grayness' as he meets the challenges of life.

If you stop to consider, almost all the drama you have read, past and present, all portray moral dilemma's and their resolution. Even cartoons for kids, at least the ones of my generation, usually had a moral premise of good guys and bad guys.

I said in an earlier post that I am not a professional philosopher, because the definition is that when one is paid to perform a task, one becomes a professional. That does not mean I have not pursued, extensively, the history of philosophy, from age to age from Thales forward in an attempt to both satisfy my personal curiosity and to hone my ability to express my thoughts in a rational manner.

Up until about age 18, other than life experience, my knowledge of philosophy was limited by my over indulgence in science fiction writers. Then, one midwatch about a Naval vessel, I discovered an unread copy of Atlas Shrugged in a trash can in the Radio Operations Center, of all places.

While her fiction intrigued me, it was her non fiction, with all the references, that consumed me and began a lifelong pursuit of understanding just what it means to be human and sentient.

I was surprised and am still that way, at the intense resistance offered by intellectuals of any stature when her name is mentioned. One might compare the attempt to comprehend and live an objective life on a par with a religious cleric trying to live a Christian life with all the temptations and easy ways to avoid making moral decisions and living by them.

I respect those of faith who attempt to live their lives according to their beliefs, I have no respect for those who declare there are no moral standards to guide one.

There are dozens and dozens of Ayn Rand Clubs, Objectivist affiliations that one can become a part of, on a par with the many religious organizations that one can gain strength from. I belong to none for it is my conclusion that Objectivism, like Atheism, is not a faith or a belief, but a personal journey, taken at ones leisure, to rationally function in an ever changing world.

That you took the time to read and critique the essay I provided, is sufficient gratification to me and reason to continue reflecting and explaining, when I can, a rational moral and ethical structure that enables others to expand their minds beyond faith and belief.

I extend my gratitude once again as you teased me into a somewhat lighter and more personal response in reference to a sometimes dry and serious discussion.



Amicus