The Evil of Catholicism (example)

[Darth Rock&Roll]

K, find your peace in a way that suits you.
Your life will change your experiences as you go.
if you choose to put yourself into a box, then that is where you choose to be.
I have no qualms with that.

I simply don't agree with your world view.

[The K Prodigy]

if you choose to put yourself into a box, then that is where you choose to be.

How am I in a box? I leave myself free to do anything and everything.

[Bob]

Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or logically prefer one action over another.

No one should read too much philosophy otherwise you box yourself in with too many presuppositions and meaningful experience becomes too analytical and neurotic. Intimate and close relationships become next to impossible and your martial arts will dry up and blow away. Too much and you lose reality contact and become what society labels as insane but often the victim thinks they have found the true insight of life that there is no life and sometimes commit suicide.

Not a good path to be on or at least a very lonely an d painful path to live.

Except I'm not a moral nihilist, I'm a moral relativist, and while the 2 are related, they are not the same. Care to play again?
_______________________________________________

Nope, you are far too intellectual for me--a bear cub playing with his prick! LOL

[Michael]

if you choose to put yourself into a box, then that is where you choose to be.

How am I in a box? I leave myself free to do anything and everything.

When you're alone, doing anything and everything is fine because you can't hurt anyone, but loneliness is terrible. In the society of others, morality begins with imposing limitations on yourself to avoid causing harm. What harms others is bad, what helps them is good. Only children think they're free to do anything and everything. At the start it's innocence, but it soon become irresponsibility when you can't see the harm you do. But how far can you see without a beacon on that dark path?

[The K Prodigy]

When you're alone, doing anything and everything is fine because you can't hurt anyone, but loneliness is terrible. In the society of others, morality begins with imposing limitations on yourself to avoid causing harm. What harms others is bad, what helps them is good. Only children think they're free to do anything and everything. At the start it's innocence, but it soon become irresponsibility when you can't see the harm you do. But how far can you see without a beacon on that dark path?

But, I'm not alone. Even if I was alone, loneliness is not the worst thing ever. Don't defend yourself, you'll be harming someone. But seriously, what if they are causing harm to you, that makes further harm okay? What if something you consider as a benefit, the receiver sees as a detriment? Just because I am sans moral compass, does not mean I can't see cause and effect. I've painted it phosphorescent. Dark in your eyes.

[zenshiite]

K, if you feel that no one is answering what you're saying... perhaps you're not communicating what you're trying to get across very well. While I'd say certain things are relative on the moral plain, for instance women covering their hair and bodies from the attentions of men they are not married to, or the rights or wrongs of pornography(even though from a religious perspective it's universally considered immoral), alcohol, drugs, sex out of wedlock etc. Other things are univesrally held to be immoral: murder(defined as the unjust taking of a life... not simply all killing), theft, oppression, rape, child abuse etc. Murderers rarely ever consider the morality or immorality of what they do, they are either incapable of it or they just don't care. The same is true of rape, and usually of thieves. Child abuse is often associated with alcohol/alcoholism as well as simply being angry, and being in the throes of anger is practically a kind of madness. Oppression is more often than not a case of the oppressor not even considering the morality or immorality of his actions, all that matters is personal power. That's not to say that the oppressor doesn't attempt to find means of justifying his actions as "moral" to followers, or the followers to do the same themselves.

John Wayne Gacy didn't think what he was doing was morally right, he was doing it because he was a psychopath with no grasp of right and wrong.

[Michael]

I don't question your ability to see cause and effect. The example you give about self-defense is valid IMO, that's why it's impossible to define concretely with rules exactly what is right or wrong for any situation. General principles of morality can be followed, but it's always up to the individual to apply them according to their own perception. I don't know if your perception is dark, I was speaking generally about the path of life and not directing that at you, I just don't think the way you describe freedom is workable. If you have a group of people who think they're free to do anything and everything and never graduate from that viewpoint then they'll never try and avoid the inevitable conflict.

[The K Prodigy]

That's not to say that the oppressor doesn't attempt to find means of justifying his actions as "moral" to followers, or the followers to do the same themselves.

Then to them it is moral, what invalidates their opinion? What let's you force your own moralistic view above theirs?

but it's always up to the individual to apply them according to their own perception. I don't know if your perception is dark, I was speaking generally about the path of life and not directing that at you, I just don't think the way you describe freedom is workable. If you have a group of people who think they're free to do anything and everything and never graduate from that viewpoint then they'll never try and avoid the inevitable conflict.

You're confusing people who think they are free to do anything, and people who can't see consequences. I am free to do anything I wish, but there are obviously things I hold off from doing. Not because I find them "evil," but because I realize what the ultimate end result would be.

[shawnsegler]

This thread is starting to give me a headache. Why don't you guys stop it?

[Chris Fleming]

The kid has obviously swallowed a huge gulp full of doublethink. Only by doing so can someone convince themselves that there actually is no right and wrong apart from themselves....and believe that he should be treated rightly. Merely hiding behind the "i see consequences" line does not provide a convincing rational behind the pretend philosophy. Man has a conscience. It is part of what makes man a spiritual being, because man has a spirit, rather than an evolved ape. It is only when a person dulls it down does he invent fantastic philosophies which he naively thinks will shield him from any responsibility toward man and toward God.

[internalenthusiast]

hi, kid prodigy,

from your response, you may be an ayn rand follower? i'm not sure what your reference to the wiki article implies?

and i'm still not sure what you are arguing, overall.

i think a number of the responses you are getting involve the concept that ones responsibility in the world does not begin, nor end simply with ones own self advantage.

as my second grade teacher used to say: what if everyone did that...

well, she annoyed me at the time, but as i've grown up, i think there's a useful thought there...beyond her attempt to control children--which is what annoyed me at the time.

IMO, when we are growing, or grown up (if we ever reach that) and experience love or empathy with others--then things other than simple "advantage" or "consequences" step to the fore.

[Bob]

Is Ayn Rand's philosophical views on morality at the bottom of this discussion?

Interesting site and citation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

There are a couple of questions that one must ask before one throws one's hat in with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

1: What was Ayn Rand's point? What is Rand's message? Simply put, Rand wants to draw attention to the role played by reason in ethics. She perceived the world heading for a new dark age in which life decisions were made on the basis of extreme superficiality – which, for most people, means blindly following the path of least resistance, and stripping others of the cognitive, rhetorical, and logical tools to justify any other way of life in any terms other than whim.

But objectivity does play a role, Rand says, for two reasons. Firstly, reason (ie., thinking in terms of means and ends) is required in order to be able to correctly match the means to the ends. Therefore ethics and moral philosophy requires two things: clear knowledge of our ends – our values, standards, goals, desires, and so on; and clear knowledge of reality, of the situation (the context) in which we act.

Secondly, Rand says, reason must also be used to discover the content of that value system. Values, Rand holds, are an aspect of the facts of my interaction with the world, following from my identity. She takes great pains to distinguish this from moral realism (which was the doctrine originally to go by "objectivism"); the good exists only under conscious evaluation, not free-floating like magic through space. On the other hand, she also insists that this is different from moral relativism by maintaining that values must be "rational" – "derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason." Value is always expressed in terms of purpose, and every achievement has consequences.

What standard is it that's "derived" from fact? Rand says, life, and its corollary, freedom – and corollary to that, responsibility. This means, absolute respect for rights, including property rights, which means: laissez-faire capitalism. All these points follow (says Rand) from an absolute insistence on the importance of respecting life. Why life? Because life is the means to any end. The continuing existence of the self the precondition of any action or of holding any value in the first place.

2: In expounding this message, was her exposition clear and her reasoning sound? On this point, I have some serious concerns.

Some well-versed Objectivists have confessed, when pressed, that any objective morality must have subjective content (though the extent to which individuals actually differ is beside the point). This is because, while the content of ethics follows from the facts of reality, the facts in question are my facts, the facts of my personal psychological (and even physiological) constitution – ie., the facts of my identity. Therefore, how much "objective" content that Objectivism actually has is open for debate. Even the "absolute" end of life is debatable, since its value derives only from its instrumentality, and if one runs out of dreams, life is, objectively speaking, nothing but a liability. This is a fact Rand implicitly, and contradictorily, admitted in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, when she uses the example of a man who would commit suicide if his lover died, because his life is no longer worth living. If this scenario were at all possible, and if we can sympathize to any extent with it, it means that life can't be an end in itself – though this is exactly what Rand maintains.

Furthermore, there's the problem of rights. Does Rand succeed in securing the sanctity of rights that her political commitments require? Obviously, no. It is in no way clear how her self-oriented ethos translates into a requirement to respect the freedom of others. Her statements on capitalism seem to indicate that absolute freedom is necessary for economic progress (which, in turn, is essential to the continuation and improvement of life), since an economy based primarily on conscription, slavery, tribute or booty requires war, which is always more costly than its harvest can pay for. What Rand fails to mention is that this, of course, depends on who it is you're fighting. To sidestep this, Rand introduces the idea that it's not enough to survive just as homo sapiens, but that one must also survive qua "man" – ie., not as a brute, but as someone who respects other peoples' rights. This is treated in depth in her novels, as the heroes she portrays represent her ideals of human behaviour. Not a very thorough treatment of the problem, by any means – and far from "objective," since this particular good reeks of casuistry, with subjective overtones that are afforded for her personal values, but have nothing to do whatsoever with the actual objective structure of ethical thought.

3: Does this represent a significant contribution to philosophy? I certainly don't think so.

The points Ayn Rand believes are original to her, simply aren't. She misrepresents thinkers before her who were deeply interested in the relationship between reason and political autonomy (Kant, Mill, etc.) to give the false impression that they hold views they don't actually hold. Moreover, the themes she does discuss invite being treated in much greater detail than she gives them. For example, the manner in which values are actually determined is one Rand doesn't touch on at all – but which other philosophers have tried to answer. Rand had the equivalent of a Bachelor's level knowledge of philosophy; her tirades against "subjectivism" are clearly motivated by her personal experiences with academics she disliked, rather than any deep knowledge of canonical philosophical sources.*

Furthermore, although she cites Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in some places in her books, I wonder if she actually ever read the guy – much of the first section of his major treatise Human Action contradicts almost everything she says, which indicates that she was only interested in von Mises because she agreed with his conclusions, not because she was persuaded by (or even understood) his arguments. How subjectivist economics (ie., a subjective theory of value) can be used to support "Objectivism" is beyond me.†

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Ayn Rand's political and ethical writings do tend to be on the shrill, frantic side. The woman was addicted to indignation, and while that doesn't necessarily affect the content of the philosophy, and isn't in itself reason to dismiss it, it reflects poorly on her character and on her civic spirit. Also, it's worth noting that organized Objectivism has some cult-like qualities, since a "cult" of "individuality" might indicate some hypocrisy somewhere along the line – again, not destructive to the philosophy per se, but important to remember. Furthermore, if Objectivism is "heartless," it means that it's making counterintuitive claims about morality, perhaps without backing them up or explaining why its claims are being taken by others to be outlandish. This may have some bearing on the plausibility of a moral theory – it's definitely something you'll want to think critically about.

All in all, Rand's philosophy is attractive to many people for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are drawn to the characters in her books (especially Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged) and use that as justification for promoting her philosophy qua philosophy. Unfortunately, her philosophy does have some holes in it, but when people are driven by aesthetic (rather than rational) criteria, it's impossible to reason with them in terms of formal argumentation – hence Randroid syndrome. Nothing is more inimical to the spirit of the philosophy, even if the form that spirit takes is abortive.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* It's my understanding that she got her degree in philosophy in Soviet Russia. It would not at all surprise me to learn that she was taught sanitized, "Sovietized" versions of the great philosophers as part of an exercise in propaganda, to impress upon students that the whole trend of Western thought culminates in the doctrines of Communism. I have no evidence that Rand ever went out of her way to read the unmodified original versions of the same philosophers. So when she argues against Kant or Mill, for example, I can see no evidence that she knows anything about the views of those thinkers, and as far as I can tell she is railing against a straw man version of those thinkers she was taught by Russian academics.

† The most significant disparity between the two theories is that von Mises begins from the assertion that value (at least insofar as he's concerned with it) is, objectively speaking, relative to the constitution of the acting individual (ie., "subjective"), and that only casuists, sophists, and philosophanders will try to impose their own, non-objective sentiments on the rest of the world with grandiose "objective" arguments. He makes a point of saying that reason is a faculty which deals with means, not ends. Rand, on the contrary, believes that all values, all ends, must be objectively "validated" by reason. Another blatant disparity: Rand indicates that changing your evaluations is a mark of inconsistency, seemingly using the logical term as an ethical pejorative; Mises says that there is no logical inconsistency in changing your valuations. Another: Rand says that values must be hierarchized; Mises says that because all desire is mapped ordinally across a binary of alternative choices, and the conditions by which they are mapped are constantly in flux, values can't be hierarchized.

http://www.everything2.com/title/Critiq ... bjectivism
_________________________________________________________________________

[internalenthusiast]

bob, with respects, if you meant this question to me--no i don't.

i was trying to respond to this young gentleman's post. and i think the answer should come from him.

very best...

[Bob]

Internalenthusiast--not pointed at anyone--sorry--just a point of interest in passing.

[internalenthusiast]

Internalenthusiast--not pointed at anyone--sorry--just a point of interest in passing.

'

thank you, and no problem. i was quick off the trigger there...

my apologies...

thanks for posting the ayn rand stuff...

best to you...