Values and the Defense of Freedom
In the wake of the recent Values Voter Summit, a worrisome question arises: will the Tea Parties or a reformed GOP be able to champion limited government and fiscal responsibility, without also importing the religious right’s so-called “social values”?
HotAir’s Allahpundit raises this issue, noting that speakers at the summit repeatedly asserted the idea that limited government must ultimately be based on religious beliefs — on the existence of a “Big God.” Uncomfortable with these assertions and searching for a better, secular defense of freedom, Allahpundit asks how Objectivists (adherents of Ayn Rand’s philosophy) would respond.
It’s a perceptive question. Though many recognize Rand as a stalwart defender of freedom, few appreciate how radically her defense differs from that of traditional religionists. Key to her innovative approach is an original conception of values and morality — one which ultimately puts her at odds with much of the religious program.
How then might she respond to the religionists’ claims? Though of course no one can speak for her, I imagine that she might begin by challenging a common misconception, one that can be gleaned from listening to speakers at the Values Voter Summit: viz. that religion has a monopoly on values. According to them, either you’re religious and have values, or you’re non-religious and don’t. But this, Rand would argue, is a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t between Judeo-Christian values and nothing; it’s between various conceptions of values, e.g., values derived from faith vs. values grounded in reason.
As an example of the latter, she’d offer her own system of ethics. Its essentials were first presented in a seminal essay where she began by asking: what are values and why does man need them? Her answer is rooted in biological facts. Values — from the most basic ones like food and shelter; to the most sublime, like love, art, and self-esteem — are necessary for man’s life on Earth. As autonomous rational living beings, each of us needs a whole host of values to live the fulfilling life appropriate to man.
In effect, Ayn Rand argues, values reflect the objective requirements of life; they’re not generated by the commandments and whims of some ineffable being. Accordingly, values can — and must — be rationally discovered, evaluated, defined, and defended.
But though values are objective, they’re far from obvious or innate. Beyond the simplest ones like the need for food and warmth which we recognize through direct sensory feedback, determining our values takes thought and work. Consider, for example, the process of discovery necessary for each of us to decide what type of person would “complete” us in a romantic relationship, or what type of long-term career to adopt. Likewise, the problem of prioritizing and integrating our values requires serious reflection and identification. (Is the value of watching a football game more or less important than taking time to write this opinion piece? Is purchasing a new car more valuable to me than other things I could do with the money?)
Given these questions and challenges, we need a science to help provide us with the knowledge and guidance required to identify, codify, and achieve our values. That science is morality.
Rand fleshes out this new conception of morality with a series of detailed arguments and broad historical observations (like the cultural flourishing of ancient Greece and the enormous prosperity engendered by the Industrial Revolution). From these she concludes that, more than anything else, choosing and achieving values requires unswerving rational thought and productive effort. And what conditions are required to exercise these? The absolute freedom to think and act. This, she argues, is the line of reasoning required to defend freedom and individual rights.
she would start from the definition:
Value are the things you want to gain and/or to keep.
(And Virtues is the quality needed to hold a value).
So, value, as you say, is not only life, freedom, the arts; values are also your everyday food, your house and your car (you want to keep them or lose them?).
Imo, the most dangeous problem from religious people is that they can derive into fundamentalism where the worldly things are no more values, but only higher “spiritual” things.
As Ayn Rand said, people are not corpses (body without souls) and are not ghosts (souls without body), therefore we need both kind of values (and its corresponding virtues).
You wrote, “Imo, the most dangeous problem from religious people is that they can derive into fundamentalism where the worldly things are no more values, but only higher “spiritual” things.”
I posit that your observation is inane, and probably describes Materialists more closely. Consider, this idea that Art is supposed to indicate a higher value, an aspect of the trajectory of a perfectly moralized man… Now, consider a Nazi coming home from gassing Jews all day long, and enjoying the evening with his old lady listening to records of Mozart (assume that he really likes and understands Mozart). Impossible? Seems to indicate a clash in some kind of supposed virtuous endowments, which necessarily contradicts Ms. Rand’s thinking. You see, Materialists are liars. They appeal to things like art and humanitarianism to justify materialistic Reasoning (in an attempt to codify materialism and moral rightness in Man alone), because, and only after they observe the beauty and organization of creation in such things, they refuse tribute to God and give it to themselves.
Rand was not a materialist. http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/MONISM.htm
Your recommended essay says, “There is no valid reason to reject consciousness or to struggle to reduce it to matter; not if such reduction means the attempt to define it out of existence.”
This implies a concept that I’ve only recently realized to be true: We DO assign values to certain identities or classes of things on an individual basis. Also, collectively. (Even though it is relative it does happen.) Staying with the individual, we decide what value we will give to such things we experience, whether they are empirically realizable or not does not matter. For example, an atheist would assign a zero for faith, or gods; or a Biblical Creationist might assign a zero to life in outerspace – higher values for things they DO value. The question is only this, what have you assigned to Jesus Christ, as you realize Him now, and why?
KevinB – Please recognize that my opinion of Jesus Christ is not a product of seriously study so it may be flawed.
What I know of Jesus is virtually all good. His promotion of the sanctity of ones sole and the autonomy of man living for his own salvation was apparently revolutionary. His promotion of love as a primary value as well as compassion, tolerance, charity etc… appears to have been an indispensable temperance to the brutality and tyranny promoted in some Old Testament books. I think that civilization’s progress beyond masses that were forced to pledge their lives to kingdoms, emperors or priests could not have occurred without the integration of Jesus’ ideas.
I’m not as enthusiastic about my understanding of Jesus’ promotion of altruistically dedicating ones life to love of humanity, but I take it as a product of his time. It’s not so far removed Objectivism promotion of finding happiness by productively dedicating one’s life’s work to the furtherance of a project, cause or principle of one’s choosing. At least Jesus broke with competing ideologies and recognized that it had to be a personal choice.
Beautiful, Kevin. Thank you for putting into words what I could not when I read the article this morning.
Yes, and I recall that Rand’s reason and logic showed that doodling with a married man was just fine (can we even say contract rights here?). The Enlightenment was completely wrong about human nature. This was demonstrable, at the time, by close observation of existing human societies and the study of history, and now by brain-science. Frankly, anyone declaring the perfectibility of man seems to be ignorant of present reality, past history, and current science. Human Nature exists and it cannot be altered more than slightly and for a short time. Wasn’t Rand a Jew? What would she care about Christianity ot its teachings? The Classical Greeks were not Christians, but they were quite religious (ask Socrates) and were also the foes of the detested anti-Hellenistic Jews. The first state to be based on atheism (except Revolutionary France, of course) and last a significant number of years was the Soviet Union, and how did they do on the Objectivist freedom-scale? The whole Objectivist/Libertarian thing reminds of an engineer’s saying: “in theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice, but in practice — there usually is.”
Fortunately, Christian leaders don’t have that problem.
It’s not the “the problem” that’s at issue. It’s the assertion that such behavior is “just fine.”
We all sin. Some of us justify it. Some of us repent.
Talk about inane … This type of response is such crap and used endlessly as a brilliant retort against anyone arguing a faith based values system. Do those that advocate fidelity to their marriage vows (even those that do so from a firm Christian foundation) in some or even many cases break them? Of course … Does that make their reasoning any less valid? … Of course not. They may be hypocritical but not any less able to espouse the value and beauty in what they lost.
You’re right Mark, I should have risen above Jacobite’s equally inane slam and responded with something more reasonable. I’d be a better man if I trade temper for patience.
Personally, I think that Rand was a stubborn, rationalizing and unapologetic b~tch. She had a right to a devoice and even to her alternative marriage had she developed it with her husband’s consent from the beginning. But as far as I know, she never apologized for not doing so. For what it’s worth, Christians are not immune to that either. Rand’s failing in this regard is at worst proof that being an Objectivist does not guarantee good behavior.
Not to mention that the doodling is pretty much as myth as Branden was shown (and even admitted peripherally) that he lied repeatedly to gain favor and fame.
Yes, and I recall that Rand’s reason and logic showed that doodling with a married man was just fine (can we even say contract rights here?).
Rand wasn’t perfect, and she made mistakes. Personally her affair was a mistake, and philosophically I believe some of her ideas about sex to be mistaken. As for the objectivsit community in general, I don’t know what the rates of divorce or adultery are amongst those who accept her philosophy, but I doubt it would be higher than the general average.
Frankly, anyone declaring the perfectibility of man seems to be ignorant of present reality, past history, and current science. Human Nature exists and it cannot be altered more than slightly and for a short time.
Rand acknowledged the fundamental inability to alter basic human nature, but unlike the Christian religious tradition she did not see human nature as good or evil. She saw human nature as a given, and developed her value system in accordance with that nature. For example: we need to produce to survive, and production is a major value in objectivism.
Wasn’t Rand a Jew?
She was of jewish descent, but her own religious convictions were athiest.
The first state to be based on atheism (except Revolutionary France, of course) and last a significant number of years was the Soviet Union, and how did they do on the Objectivist freedom-scale?
The Soviet Union undoubtedly outlawed religion because the value systems of religion competed with those of Communism, and thus had to be stamped out to create the perfect socialist system. Rand’s problem with the soviets was not their athiesm or their attempt to base their code on something other than religion, it was with the way they went about it. The soviets’ moral code considered the group to be fundamental unit of society, the preservation of the group as the primary value, and equality as the overriding goal. Rand, otoh considered the individual to be the fundamental unit of society, the preservation of the individual as the primary value, and individual freedom as the overriding goal.
No, the Fundies are right, not Rand. This whole notion that a “rational” approach can come up with good values is refuted by the concept of eugenics.
Rationally, we should kill off the unfit. We should reduce the burden on society of the sickly. Stupid people should not be allowed to breed. Hmm, maybe we can take this further to say that certain races are inferior. Perhaps those who believe in God will be deemed unfit, being superstitious primitives.
Argumentum ad absurdum defeats this sophistry.
The reason morality has to come from a Higher Power, is simply this: Who’s to say your rationale is any better than mine? We are all human, flawed by nature. Who gets to decide right and wrong?
Now we get to the real motivation of these rationalists: Power! Who gets to decide? Stalin infamously remarked, “It is not the votes that count; it is who counts the votes.”
In the USA, the political Right is overwhelmingly religious and embrace a traditional morality. Their behavior in office is far, far superior as a result than the Left. Scandal after scandal emerges this election. Leftists flout the law, enrich their cronies and relatives. Why? Because their morality is that of their political ideology.
They do not care if you lie, cheat, or steal… as long as you support the Party and its agenda. Their morality is simply very different from mine. How’s their church attendance? Not worth mentioning. Giving to real charities? Again, not very noteworthy.
We cannot even agree on what works economically, because the two sides have completely different agendas. The Leftists seek power, and the Rightists seek solutions for all (although they may get it wrong frequently).
As an example, Leftists seek to tax the “rich”. Well, how much is “rich”, and WHO GETS TO DECIDE? That, in the end, is what it is all about. It is not the wealth. It is simply who gets to DECIDE who has the wealth. “It’s not the votes that count.”
If one does a true reasoning of what is moral, taking into account liberty and unintended consequences, when you get it right, it will match Biblical values. Where you get it wrong will run counter to the Bible. These questions of morality were solved thousands of years ago. These are not great mysteries with which we must grapple.
There must be a Higher Power to decide, for we are all equal and flawed. Bereft of Such, we cannot be egalitarian, for some will always end up being more equal than others. Morality will then be determined by those who count the votes, and they will always be the most immoral, or amoral, amongst us. Such nations always become cesspools of misery.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What greater power is there than the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong? I say let’s reserve that power to God, the only One to Whom it can be entrusted.
This whole notion that a “rational” approach can come up with good values is refuted by the concept of eugenics.
We have a winner!
When I see a chopped-up fetus, my stomach is twisted into knots. This is NOT due to reason. It is passion.
No, the reason you feel this passion is because you value individual life, as I do, and you do not like seeing anyone lose a life because you hold this value. This is quite rational and in keeping with the fundamental individualist values of this country.
For the record, I am pro-choice because I do not believe the pro-lifers adequately consider the rights of the mother and because I view a fetus to be a potential life (though I am sympathetic to arguments against late-term or partial birth abortion). But I sympathize with the pro-life position insofar as I view it to be rooted in a fundamental respect for the value of individual life.
“Rationally, we should kill off the unfit. We should reduce the burden on society of the sickly. Stupid people should not be allowed to breed. Hmm, maybe we can take this further to say that certain races are inferior. Perhaps those who believe in God will be deemed unfit, being superstitious primitives.”
This is not true. The reason you are falling into this trap is because you have bought the idea that the primary objective of morality is the good of society, and that society is the primary value which should be defended. Rand was vehemently opposed to this. Rather, she believed that the fundamental unit of society was the individual, and that the primary value was the sanctity of the individual and his inalienable right to exist. When you hold the individual as your primary and society as your secondary, as the Founding Fathers did when they enshrined inalienable rights into our Declaration, then you end up with a society which would never commit such an act because it holds as a fundamental tenet the inalienable right of all individuals to exist, regardless of whether their existence benefits “society.”
“Rationally, we should kill off the unfit.”
Rand would not advocate that as the justification for doing so would be “socialist” in nature (ie – the main eugenic justification is one couched in conservation of society’s resources). She argued very strongly that “society” is not an entity, cannot make decisions, and has no rights.
I don’t agree with everything Rand wrote, but I do see value in her arguments. I do feel that she got religion wrong (or, more accurately, that she was right about some extreme forms and then painted all religion with a broad brush). She argued against a particular brand of “altruism” that was gaining political traction at the time (one that involved using the government to force others to participate in what was billed as Christian altruism). That thinking got us the Great Society and has continued to gain steam to this very day.
Our founding principles do affirm special status for individual humans based, as far as I can read, on an unexplained concept of a “soul” (“endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”). The founding fathers were very specific that our rights did not come from a document or the benevolence of some government, but were ours intrinsically…but they also told us their rationale for such a statement.
We get into dangerous territory when we start to say, “they were right about the nature of the rights but wrong about where they came from” – by what yardstick is that statement reasonable but the left’s retort, “yeah, we get them from government and laws” (which leaves us at the mercy of future legislation, regulation, and judicial decree to revoke them) somehow out of bounds?
That said, there are many atheists, agnostics, and people who mistrust religion in general in the good ol’ USA and who will never be won over by a religious argument but don’t have to be driven to pull the blue lever every election for fear of reinstatement of prayer in public schools or mandated creationism in the science classroom.
No, Rand did lay out a completely secular way of affirming individual rights and liberties that is at least as internally consistent as the views of we theists. If her writings can be a tool for bringing large numbers of “rationalists” (I use quotes because I don’t consider myself an “irrationalist”) to the conservative cause in the name of ending the welfare state, infringement on our liberties, or just-plain-bad keynesian economic policy, then it all goes to our common good (our individual goods which coincide with each other – not the alleged “good” of some imaginary entity the left calls “society”).
Rand’s philosophy and the traditional theist/deist philosophy on individual rights don’t have to be mutually exclusive (and I think that was the author’s point). How do you satisfy the religious right while not alienating “rationalist” conservatives? Simply consider your audience and frame the common goals in the rationale that particular audience would find most attractive. The ends are the same…even the means are the same…it’s only the rationalization of it that’s different.
…there’s more than one way to skin a cat…
Hey, dude! Get a clue before shooting mouth off.
You’re whole juvenile rant is self-refuting.
Absolutely excellent column, Amit. Clear, well-reasoned, and compelling. It should be printed as a flyer and handed out at any Tea Party rally, because the importance of keeping the religious agenda out of our case for limited government is _the_ most important internal issue with the Tea Parties. If the Tea Parties devolve into a religious conservative movement, it will, as you say, cripple the movement’s arguments for true freedom, and also split the parties irrevocably between the religionists and secular freedom fighters, again putting them at odds.
I did not become truly conscious of the danger of liberalism until I read Atlas Shrugged. However, the only real concern I had with it is that there was no religion and the heroes in the book seemed to be ammoral concerning marriage and adultery. I am not a prude but I do not hold as heroes anyone who does not practice a “good life”.
There is much to be praised of Rand concerning individual freedom, the incentive to be rewarded for your work and the inability of Big Government, no matter the good intentions, to ever be a substitute for freedom and making your own way.
If your premise was correct, why are so many on the Left without Religion and why do they turn from Rand and individual freedom for their own version of “what they think we should do because they just know more than the Great Unwashed here in the Hinterland. I could take any farmer in Arkansas, Mississippi or Tennessee who knows ten times more about running a country, or a farm, than Pelosi, Reid, Bide, Obama etc.
Belief in God is not required to be conservative in your thinking and freedom is absolutely the civil recipe for abundance in countries throughout the world. But without God in your life, a whole lot of those folks are going to make their own rules, tell you that aborting a viable child in the womb should be left up to a Womens choice. If an unborn child has no rights, why would a lib, who has freedom, think I am entitled to what I earn or produce?
Without a God, the principles and values needed for a good and free society then become the laws of Man and not God. I do not say that a person without a God may not try to be a good person but most of the ones I know privately or publicly have views that I do not see as good for all of us. Many of Rand’s ideas are good but there are no children because she had no children. but don’t we need good, loving families in our society? There was no God because she did not have God in her heart, at least from Atlas Shrugged. But wouldn’t you agree that most of the people you trust in your life have some kind of religion that they honor on a constant basis?
“But wouldn’t you agree that most of the people you trust in your life have some kind of religion that they honor on a constant basis?”
No. Most of the good, reliable, compassionate people I know are agnostics skirting atheism.
That said, most of the people I associate with on a regular basis are are agnostics skirting atheism, so I guess that’s to be expected statistically.
And I am a religious, church-going man…it’s just that I’ve met most of my friends through school and work and that’s probably just the demographic representation of agnostics in my age group here in the northeast.
My best friend is as near an atheist as one can get without actually declaring himself to be one and I’d trust him with my life in a heartbeat…my next best friend is himself fallen away in practice and is just as upstanding a guy.
My girlfriend and I both attend church regularly, as does my family (but not hers), but the religious folk I’ve met in my life who tend to “wear it on their sleeve” (not attendees at my church, but people I’d known in college) I’ve found to be some of the scariest, most intolerant folk with whom I’ve ever crossed paths.
Just my $.02, since you asked
This feels like a throw back to the good old days when the introduction of the looney lefts ideas were thought to have some merit. So down that broad, loosely defined road the people went. We, today have experienced the results.
This emotional approach to society has obvious flaws and drawbacks. The chief one being how it ‘allows’ the growth and spread of evil into a country.
We have seen and are witness to, the foothold of evil turing itself into terror. Evil does that. We must stand. And I mean Stand, fully in the face of the odds. Moral clarity is what is needed, not whishy washy whitewashing.
It would be a pity to repeat the flogging of that tired old dead horse.
It’s my contention that to a sufficiently powerful mind, both natural rights and the Christian ethos can be reached without faith — because they’re one and the same. (Quibblers should take note: the ethos is not the mythos, or theology; it’s the behavioral code, expressed in Commandments Four through Ten.) But interestingly enough, a mind that powerful will often leap from there to faith. Apparently, the consideration of rights, which are abstract, “unseen” principles, can lead the mind to pondering other “unseen” aspects of existence. Once one steers one’s thoughts in that direction, God takes the helm.
(Yes, I’m a Christian. Is anyone prepared to deride my intellect on that basis?)
One of the great ironies of political thought is that the major natural-rights scholia, Objectivism and libertarianism, have been so hostile to religion, particularly to Christianity. Ayn Rand’s dislike of religion is legendary, and libertarians tend to be hyper-rationalists, unwilling to consider even the possibility that reality as we know it through our senses might not be the whole story. Yet America, the Land of the Free, was founded and populated by devout Christians who largely migrated here for religious reasons. Even today, it remains 74% Christian by the 2000 Census, which twists the knickers of such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins to no end. The nations of Europe, where freedom is swiftly becoming a misty memory, have “de-Christianized” in tandem with their political devolution. The lands where freedom has never reared its head at all have never known substantial Christian admixture.
Correlation is not cause; trust a former physicist to know that. But correlation ought to provoke thought and study…especially when it’s as strong as that between Christianity and political freedom.
For a deep exploration of this theme, I recommend M. Stanton Evans’s book The Theme Is Freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Ghate, for a good overview on how freedom can be justified by anyone willing to adhere unswervingly to reason. This is a very important topic with the many false alternatives we are presented with in current political arguments.
I have heard people argue that if you base freedom on reason, then whose reason do you chose? Well, I say to them, if you base freedom on faith, then whose faith do you chose? This article clearly articulates why reason is the foundation for freedom.
This is clever, but the answer is easier than you think. Observe what works, and observe history. This idea that religion has a ruining effect is completely backwards. (And if it were true we may also argue just as valid that technology has a ruining effect on men and the earth.) The question that American Materialists must ask is why are they so adamant to turn a country, like America, that works, away from the traditions that have established her? For all that religious people could tell it very well may be because you are slaves to sin and controlled by evil.
“For all that religious people could tell it very well may be because you are slaves to sin and controlled by evil.”
Thanks Kevin B Stakhanovite for your comments on wreckers.
This idea that religion has a ruining effect is completely backwards.
Yeah, that’s what I think everytime I look at Syrian or Iranian society, that they’re being destroyed by secular values and that only their religion has kept it from being even worse than it is.
Seriously, it is bad ideas which ruin societies, whether they are rooted in religious or secular values. The reason that the “Judeo-Christian” tradition works so well is that it is able to coexist well with the values of inalienable individual rights which are really at the foundation of this country.
Hey, where are the Objectivists to come to my rescue and point out that you are creating a false dichotomy? I’ve basically asserted that Religion (I was meaning mainly Christianity, but I think the same case can be made generally of Religion) has benefited society more than it can be said to have stunted it. In the absence of government, religion creates government. Which is productive, in fact, self-regulating in a sense.
The negation of arguing the benefit of religion is not that secularism is destructive (your false dichotomy). Although, what is secularism at the end of the day? Big Government, so you would implicitly keep it on a leash with or without Religion’s existence (unless you’re a progressive). Also, this sort of gives a sense of an illumination that Religion conduces compared to the machinations of government. People simply want to believe that a secular world could have done it alone. Nazi Germany… I rest my case.
Sure KevinB. I’m curious. What about this declaration?
“For all that religious people could tell it very well may be because you are slaves to sin and controlled by evil.”
So who are these “slaves to sin” and who is “controlled by evil.” How do you determine this? People going about there lives fit this description simply because they disagree with you? How do justify such sweeping statements? Are you speaking for God? Are you assuming God’s responsibilities?
Of course, misdirect about dichotomies.
Yes, use the extreme. “Nazi Germany”? Weren’t the Jews viewed as the “personification of evil”?
That declaration is to say that my perspective (my argument, as it were) is valid because I am asserting my axioms as True, and if someone is going to unfairly disparage about religion, namely Christianity, then it necessarily wittles down my options as to what they are really about. If you read all my posts carefully you’ll find that I never claim an axiom is False, by whatever group. I might argue against it, or challenge it, but I do not declare it False. When it comes to certain foundational truths they become axiomatic. It doesn’t matter if your atheist, objectivist, creationist, etc. We all have them, and THAT IS THE POINT of that declaration… If a certain person or group incessantly accuses my axioms of Falsehood without proof or Correct correction then that declaration is simply to say that it will inevitabley be my conclusion that they are wicked, seeking to cause disruption and harm through ignorance or belligerence. They accept their own axioms, but reject my foundational truths because it is tied to faith or religion. We see this type of belligerence all day long that says people of faith do not even get a seat at the table of reason. It is an attempt to discharge an opponent out of hand.
So what KevinB. If you truly have faith, then nothing can shake that foundation, not “belligerence all day long” nor “If a certain person or group incessantly accuses my axioms of Falsehood without proof”. It seems that these situations give you pause. Are there those who cause you discomfort simply because they disagree with you, therefore you, and it is you, wish to label them as “evil”? What becomes of them? Are they discarded, marginalized, persecuted, crucified, or fed to wild beasts?
Are you using the spiritual to maintain and/or to change the political?
Why don’t you “declare” that judging others as being “evil”, using the cloak of “False” righteousness, is in it self precisely “attempt(ing) to discharge an opponent out of hand”?
There is room in Hell for you.
“Reason” denotes deductive or inductive logic. Deductive logic argues from propositions, in the mode of the syllogism. A valid deductive argument need not be true. It can produce a valid conclusion that is completely false if any premise is false. Inductive logic works by generalising from observations, and is the characteristic form of argument for science; but a conclusion of inductive logic can be invalidated by a single contrary observation, and the whole system ultimately depends on a deductive argument. In the end all deduction winds up depending on what are called axioms: propositions that are accepted as true without reasoning. The article speaks of “an irreducible primary”, which is in effect an axiom.
So when the author talks of “reason” as a basis she actually means that a certain set of axioms are to be used, which are different from the axioms of Christianity. These axioms are those of the Enlightenment, and are fundamentally anti-Christian. These axioms are the first premises of deductive reasoning and since they are false they will give false conclusions.
The author also claims that men left to themselves will be more productive and moral that in states without liberty. She quotes the US and UK in the 1800s as proof of this. She fails to mention, however, that at that time Christianity was generally accepted in those countries as the foundation of law and morality. If there were freedom without a Christian foundation for morality, there would be no restraint on evil. That indeed is the case with unbridled capitalism, which seeks only after money without any regard for morality; it is concerned only with what people can get away with legally.
Finally, the author contrasts faith and reason. The unstated premise is that faith is irrational. This is false. Faith is based on the certainty of what God has said. It is supremely rational because it puts its confidence in the word of God, which cannot be broken (and that is verified by Jesus, who in turn is authenticated by his resurrection). Anyone who does that soon receives plenty of evidence that his faith is rightly based. On the other hand, the Enlightenment premise that man is perfectible has been disproved time and again over the centuries.
In her view, freedom is both moral and practical. No top-down authority is necessary to keep man in his place, and most laws are written primarily to punish the relatively few who would choose to initiate force against others.
This post is long and disjointed (lacking time), but I want to point out that mere secular intellectualism as a foundation, is pretty weak soup in defense of freedom. It is true that empirical science cannot verify religious propositions due to the inherent limits of science itself.
Science is limited to the realism of the natural world this side of the atomic divide. It may never explain the phenomena of the subatomic world, which seems to be entirely unreal. It’s true we can observe the effects and develop elaborate theories, but the trend has been that the deeper the investigation, the greater the questions. It tends to be a growing discovery of how little we know about the existence of reality.
Neither can science answer the big questions. It can tell us how to build the bomb, but cannot tell us if we should or should not use it. That is a religious, philosophical question. The only thing that science and nature can teach us is survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, for the advancement of the is the most successful gene pool of the physical animal. Thus from biological imperative, it would be perfectly right to destroy competing gene pools, with superior technology for the advancement of our own gene pool.
The Christian heritage of the West originally derived its sense of law from transcendent power that clearly defines the human different from the other animals. The human being is uniquely self-aware with a sense a moral dimension opposing the instinct of the animal. This faith believes in the requirement that man is to become a moral being and that there is meaning to life larger than the mere self, and license to the animal instinct.
Man has full RAM (random access memory) capability that can utilize an alternative operating software that can counter and control the hardwired ROM (read-only memory) of genetic imprint. It is this alternate operating software that makes civilization possible. Even the phrase “rule of law” is a formulation that can only be called religious.
A unique and interesting feature of successful religious- philosophical beliefs that underpins the development of civilization is that it has never, will never, be developed from” scientific approach” but from religious teachers with transcendant understanding and perception which the worldly-wise will de-construct and think themselves wise. Secular rationalism is hopelessly inadequate in development of a religious philosophical system that will work.
That sense of three-dimensional understanding— that intuitive depth perception called wisdom with transcendent inspiration, will not follow the current intellectual fads, which are always evolving. A successful system that is timeless does not necessarily follow rational logic of the worldly wise — because things are infinitely more complex then the solutions proposed by secular philosophers (Freud–Marx and others). Christians believe in the transcendant inspiration of the Bible and it speaks to the being of man with three-dimensional perception and understanding to those who are open to its transcendant dimension.
The Carl Sagens and Isaac Asimovs of this world shall never see God. God seems to inhabit a twilight zone where, like night vision, outlines can be a perceived only by looking indirectly, Trying to focus directly (attempting scientific testing, logic of reason) the outlines disappear. So then, it is declared there is nothing there. But it is like the biblical injunction — “no man shall see the face of God,” or physically perceived him and try to reduced God to a scientific phenomen —- attempting to set up man to be as God, in alliance with the thinking that man can be as gods unto themselves. Naturally, the minority within society that forms the political class seem to gravitate to this idea of gods among men, controlling the destiny of millions of the “common cattle” of humanity.
This causes considerable confusion regarding religious faith when religious ideology is used by the political class to condition the populace to accept autocratic rule with its attendant corruption of living above the law. The blame is put on religious faith instead of the corrupt political class.
To understand American traditionalist, you have to understand the cultural memory left behind by the people that built this country. This country was founded by people who understood that when the government takes care of you, it controls you. How else do you understand the story of the pilgrims, under enormous hardship— losing half of their group — and yet refusing to return to the safety of Europe, not wanting to come under the rule of the political class that “took care of them.” And if you want to understand Patrick Henry’s historic quote “give me liberty or give me death” read the following.
I find in Laura Ingalls Wilder’s simple but well-written stories inspirational and providing insight into the mind of original Americans. Fourth of July celebrations were religious services, of a sort, by men with the law written in their hearts.
A farmer/settler (Frontiersmen) selected as master of ceremonies: “Well boys, I’m not much good at public speaking, but today is the glorious fourth. This is the day and date when our forefathers cut loose from the despots of Europe………………. (S)o here we are today, every man Jack of us a free and independent citizen of God’s country, the only country on earth were man is free and independent.” Etc.
Next, the reading of the Declaration of Independence with hats off. “Laura and Carrie knew the Declaration by heart, of course, but it gave them a solemn, glorious feeling to hear the words”.
Next the song of My Country ‘Tis Of Thee.
And now Laura when at approximately the age of 14: “suddenly she had a completely new thought. The declaration and the song came together in her mind and she thought: God is America’s king. Her whole mind seemed to be lighted up by that thought. This is what it means to be free……. the laws of nature and of nature’s God endow you with the right to life and liberty….. you have to keep the laws of God, for God’s law is the only thing that gives you the right to be free.”
Laura instinctively understood that to have maximum freedom, without the Hobbesian world of anarchy, depended upon man’s voluntary internalization of the rule of law. This is what the Christian faith provided. Now you can understand Sarah Palin’s perspective even if you don’t agree.
With the fundamental perspective that “God is America’s king” and that all men are created equal before God, a wrenching war was fought. Nothing like this happen in all human history. All other wars are fought for dominance and control by authoritarian ruling classes. While America does not reach the stars in perfection, it still tries to guide by the Northstar of the rule of law.
Of course, the social revolution of the 60s attempts to change America traditionalism with the secular idea of the the pursuit of self: self-fulfillment, self-actualization, self-discovery etc. This essentially represents personal abandonment of responsibility of children to the state. And the state is utterly incapable of instilling that alternate operating software, which by definition, consists entirely of religious ideals. The offspring of this default often exhibit the state of nature of the feral animal. Gangs of males establish territory through violence, breeding with females within the territory that are left with sole responsibility of offspring.
The abandonment of responsibility by adolescent adults has the most negative effect for children in America. In this kind of disordered society authoritarian authority is sought to bring about some order. This is possibly the reason for the attraction of Islam, with its emphasis on top-down coercive control, in the inner cities.
Without a sense of personal moral responsibility to God, the power and impetus of biological instincts of the feral animal will prevail.
And thus why “My Country ‘Tis Of Thee” is a religious hymn. It’s final verse is simultaneously a prayer, a battle cry and an act of defiance against tyrants:
Our father’s God to Thee,
Author of Liberty, to Thee we sing;
Long may our Land be bright!
With Freedom’s holy light!
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King!
the last verse of the Star-Spangled Banner has spiritual roots as well….
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
God bless America. (In my next life I want to be Peachey~well said:)
There is no a priori rational case which can construct the particular system of liberties, rights and responsibilities that make our Western civilisation different from most others. Like all other such systems ours is a cultural construct. Thus, railing against faith as the bulwark of this system is irrational and dangerous. Having God as the origin of inalienable rights is quite an effective way of embedding this system in our, largely theist, culture; it’s a way of taking those rights off the political table, away from political control and horse-trading. Sure, there are other motivations for defending our Western liberties but let’s not fool ourselves – none of these motivations is ‘rational’ (or ‘irrational’) in some logician’s sense.
Great, so you knock down a straw-man false dichotomy and set up your own: “values derived from faith vs. values grounded in reason”. What if faith is derived from Reason? Hmmm
And this, “Because of his [Man's] inherent flaws — be they greed, pride, or what have you — man can’t be trusted to do good. He must be kept in place by a supernatural Authority.” is actually a BIG DEAL if it is true. But your approach it seems is to imply that religious people are all (knowingly or unknowingly) part of some conspiracy to fake “supernatural Authority” in order to control everyone. I assert, it’s the opposite. The belief in Evolution will lead to tyranny and oppression: bad controllers, corrupt leadership. In fact, believe it or not, but the devil is having quite a success in establishing a religion right under your intellectualized noses: Molecules-to-Men Evolution.
Also, this: “Rand, on the other hand, sides with the giants of the Enlightenment in considering man to be morally perfectible.” IS A BELIEF, not simply a SIDE. Please, justify your BELIEF…
More: “In her view” still preludes to A BELIEF. Why are you validating Ayn Rand’s beliefs over other beliefs???
You ask, “Does freedom come from the alleged endowments and pronouncements of a Judeo-Christian God…?” Answer: Yes.
Consider, if Hitler had been successful. His view of the world would be considered not just correct, but TRUE. By putting men in place of God as establishers of human rights it risks going in the entirely opposite direction. Even now you think you know better, you would not oppress, but I assert, YOU WOULD. Look as you are already vilifying Christians, or at the least, suggesting their demotion and redundancy. ON WHAT GROUNDS? That you have dictated REASON?
“When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.” – Ayn Rand
No, not by Objectivists. Both theistic and atheistic fascists have and will claim that their values are true, but that doesn’t make them so.
“What if faith is derived from Reason?”
Well, that is impossible because faith is, by definition, a belief which is held in the absence of verifying evidence. If you came to a belief through reason, it is by definition one that was not come to despite an absence of supporting evidence.
Jesus Christ was crucified and died.
His death was verified by a Roman soldier who opened His side with a spear and observed water escaping, indicating His heart had burst.
He was buried in a tomb sealed with a massive stone with a security detail posted to ensure that no one could steal the body.
Nevertheless, come Sunday morning, the tomb was empty and numerous witnesses claimed to have seen Him alive after the Crucifixion.
Despite having ample motive and wishing to stifle the Christian faith in its infancy, neither the Romans nor the Sanhedrin was ever able to produce the body of Jesus Christ after the tomb was found empty.
None of the witnesses claiming to have seen Him alive after being crucified ever recanted their story even under pain of death.
While one or two followers may be fanatical enough to die for a lie, it defies credulity to believe that the witnesses would unanimously choose death over recanting if they knew for a fact that they were lying.
Therefore, due to a lack of any plausible alternative, I conclude that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, even though this is most definitely an act of faith.
Yes, and why do you believe all this? Because a book says so. And why do you believe the book? Because you were told it was the word of God. And why do you believe it is the word of God? Faith.
I accept that Jesus was a genuine historical figure, as the historical evidence for that fact seems pretty clear. Whether he actually rose from the dead or not, I refuse to speculate.
The fact remains that the claim of the Resurrection is so outlandish that it would be easy to refute it if it were false. The inability of Jesus’ many enemies to refute something that should be incredibly easy to refute is overwhelming evidence that it was true.
As for the Bible, it doesn’t take much faith to believe in a book that tells the future when history confirms that it tells the future. And as for you, stop dithering and doddling. Answer the question: who do you say that Jesus is? Either He rose from the dead, and thus is Lord of Life, Death and All Creation, or He rotted, and thus was a charlatan or a madman. There is no middle ground, no other option to choose, so quit trying to play to a nonexistent middle and answer the question.
I actually should have written originally that faith is reasonable, not that it derives from reason. (I’ve actually had a revelation that Faith precedes Reason, but this is not necessarily spoken of in the Bible, just something I’ve seen in a flash.) Nevertheless, the definition you have is cynical. The Bible says, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen”. The “hope” in this case is that God will keep His promises, promises which we read of in the Bible, or hear from others who have the Holy Spirit. The “things not seen” indicates the future event. Believing that God will do the things he has laid down in the Scriptures is reasonable, to me, because I have read it, considered it, and find nothing that makes me think it is a contrived human attempt to “control” me; the rather, I find that when I read the Bible I get a very real sense that the wisdom therein is greater than man’s, greater than I’ve ever come upon. The Humanity and Love in the Bible makes we weep sometimes. It wins. Therefore, I take it at it’s Word, and accept that it DOES come from God and DO trust in the promises to come. That is reasonable faith.
And just to clarify something, the idea that Christians “have faith” in God’s existence is wrong. The Bible tells us that EVERYONE KNOWS that God exists and decides to reject him. Therefore, you and many other “cynic” types most likely are dwelling on and puffing up (all based on deceptions) your false knowledge over what faith in God actually is.
I actually should have written originally that faith is reasonable, not that it derives from reason. (I’ve actually had a revelation that Faith precedes Reason, but this is not necessarily spoken of in the Bible, just something I’ve seen in a flash.) Nevertheless, the definition you have is cynical. The Bible says, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen”.
Or in other words, something you hope for, despite the fact that you’ve seen no evidence of it.
You’ve based all your arguments for your religion on the bible and what you feel when you read it, a book whose truth must be taken on… wait for it… faith. Also, the arguments of feelings and revelation do not exactly hold much water in the court of reason. I have no desire to mock anyone’s beliefs, nor do I think it necessarily irrational to hold religious beliefs, but I do think that those who hold such beliefs should acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty involved in religious beliefs due to the absence of objective evidence for them (no, the Bible does not count).
Why not?
Also, by showing that there necessarily is a reason to appeal to GREATER AUTHORITY than men I have given reason for faith in a Creator God that endows rights. I appeal to the God of the Bible. (The fact that there is a bias against the Holy (inspired) Scriptures means absolutely nothing in Logic.) We who believe have every right to think that the Bible is basically unaltered from it’s original inscriptions. This is based on the account of at least these TWO WITNESSES: archaeological recovery, and human testimony of salvation. Nature, Historical Narration, Prophecy are others. When the majority swallows your bad arguments against religion, your false unidentified religion of Evolution, then you will have your piss party. Don’t even worry about it, the Bible has predicted you will.
In its simplest terms, if I am free to punch you in the face, I choose not to do so since you and several of your friends can then come back and punch me in the face. It is in my enlightened self interest not to punch you in the face but instead to help you and befriend you so others don’t choose to punch either of us in the face.
Well written article, Amit Ghate; I’m with you. It’s a shame that in the modern world we live in, too many people fail to see how important reason has been in creating the values we have, and what reason could do if we used it more consistently.
Ghate’s essay is excellent because it highlights the fact that a proper defense of freedom and individual rights does not have to depend on an appeal to faith or religion, but can instead be made on the grounds of reason and objectively observable facts about man’s nature.
Such an approach is not only the correct approach, it will also have much broader political appeal to the millions of independent voters like myself who want “the Democrats out of my pocket and Republicans out of my bedroom” (as discussed in this NY Times article):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/health/policy/11health.html?_r=1
I’m highly encouraged by the Tea Party movement precisely because it (generally) supports limited government and individual rights, without also importing the odious “social conservative” agenda.
Ghate’s essay gives them (and all Americans) a much-needed alternative to the two current flawed mainstream approaches to nature of rights — namely, the Left (which says that “rights” come from the state) and the Religious Right (which says that rights come from God and can only be defended by appeals to faith).
You cannot be pro-liberty for some of the people, which is what you want to be if you want to be pro-liberty, but support abortion. Abortion deprives the unborn of their rights without any just cause to do so.
This article shows how Adam Smith’s concept of the “hidden hand” is compatible with Rand’s idea that freedom and reason are the essential prerequisites to morality and productivity. Regarding the alternative to productivity, here’s what the Enlightenment sage, Diderot, had to say:
“In any country where talent and virtue produce no advancement, money will be the national god. Its inhabitants will either have to possess money or make others believe that they do. Wealth will be the highest virtue, poverty the greatest vice. Those who have money will display it in every imaginable way. If their ostentation does not exceed their fortune, all will be well. But if their ostentation does exceed their fortune they will ruin themselves. In such a country, the greatest fortunes will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Those who don’t have money will ruin themselves with vain efforts to conceal their poverty. That is one kind of affluence: the outward sign of wealth for a small number, the mask of poverty for the majority, and a source of corruption for all.”
An excellent analysis. I am not religious, and I get along fine with religious conservatives as long as they don’t try to shove their beliefs down my throat. Their values are based on religion, and mine are based on the value of human life, but we end up agreeing on a great many points. That’s why I’m solidly in the Tea Party camp despite having no religious beliefs at all.
Importing the religious right’s “social values” into the Tea Party agenda would be a mistake, because it would tend to drive away people like me. The Tea Party movement has succeeded because it’s a broad coalition with a simple agenda: Cut spending, cut taxes, shrink government. The more additional points you add to that agenda, the more you narrow the movement’s appeal. Keep the tent big enough to accommodate religious and non-religious people alike.
Very well stated. I’m a Christian and completely agree with your comments about the need for the Tea Party to NOT become quasi-religious. If they start doing that, I’ll be arguing with them. This is not about church. This is about our nation. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with you, Sundog. Thanks.
While walking in my suit with my Palin poster to the Iowa GOP Reagan Dinner, I came across two pro-life protesters with banners. We talked briefly as I am a Catholic and one of the Notre Dame 88. In our short discussion, they said the Tea Party groups in Iowa were not as open to social issues like stopping abortion. I told them the Tea Party stands for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise, and that it is not really about or against social issues. But, I did tell them to be patient since if someone like a Palin becomes President, a Constitutionalist, she will replace Justice Kennedy’s slot with the fifth vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and thereby send the issue back to the states where it was before the Roe decision. I then told them, if that happens, I can count on the three of us fighting hard at the state level. Striking down Roe vs. Wade on Constitutional lines will be a tremendous victory for states’ rights but also for the unborn and their mothers as it would win the battle outright in states that would regulate it more or outlaw it for convenience.
The Founders knew that there must be a minimal amount of virtue in the population, but they also knew that that virtue could not be pushed down from the top without a similar rebellion from people who are rebelling now for fiscal issues.
As a Christian and member of the Tea Party, I will not try to force my convictions down your throat (that never works to change minds does it?)
Would you agree with me, however, that I shouldn’t have to pay for (with my taxes):
someone else’s abortion? drug re-hab for someone who is addicted to drugs that have been legalized? “art” that defames my religion? salary for gov’t worker who views porn at the office?
It gets really tough to separate out the money from all the morality, simply because every financial decision fits into a category of “right” or “wrong”. You and I may disagree about the category, but hopefully, we can agree that the gov’t has no business in funding these things at all.
Would you agree with me, however, that I shouldn’t have to pay for (with my taxes):
someone else’s abortion? drug re-hab for someone who is addicted to drugs that have been legalized? “art” that defames my religion? salary for gov’t worker who views porn at the office?
Absolutely.
> I am not religious, and I get along fine with religious conservatives as long as they don’t try to shove their beliefs down my throat.
I’ve heard this identical phrase a lot, and it has always puzzled me.
Do you mean Christians shouldn’t express their world view around you? I notice that you don’t mind expressing your world view around Christians?
Do you mean Christians shouldn’t tie you to a chair and pipe in Jerry Falwell’s collected sermons? Which Christians are proposing that?
This article shows how Adam Smith’s concept of the “hidden hand” is compatible with Rand’s idea that freedom and reason are the essential prerequisites to morality and productivity. When free people are exercising rational self-interested choices, markets arise. Regarding the alternative to productivity, here’s what the Enlightenment sage, Diderot, had to say:
“In any country where talent and virtue produce no advancement, money will be the national god. Its inhabitants will either have to possess money or make others believe that they do. Wealth will be the highest virtue, poverty the greatest vice. Those who have money will display it in every imaginable way. If their ostentation does not exceed their fortune, all will be well. But if their ostentation does exceed their fortune they will ruin themselves. In such a country, the greatest fortunes will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Those who don’t have money will ruin themselves with vain efforts to conceal their poverty. That is one kind of affluence: the outward sign of wealth for a small number, the mask of poverty for the majority, and a source of corruption for all.”
It isn’t contradictory to believe in the truth of a human being’s natural rights (even endowed by our Creator) and separate that from religious faith.
In fact, whenever the idea of inalienable or natural rights is argued within the context of religion, I think the argument for the existence of those rights is weakened.
The same holds for the notion of morality. If a person behaves “morally” towards his fellow man, that behavior is weakened if he or she is only acting within the context of the exegesis of religious faith.
Moral behavior tied to the doctrine of requirement or threat (e.g., if you don’t do the right thing, you don’t get into heaven), is not as worthy as behavior divorced from any sense of requirement or earning approval, approval from a supreme being of approval from Joe Blow next door.
Religion does not have a monopoly on values. (and look at some of the “values” promulgated inside some of the world’s religons, like stoning a girl who is raped by an uncle or even some of the “values” promulgated in the Bible)
The T-E-A party would do well to stay away from preachiness of any sort and continue to hammer home the fact of the degradation of the Constitution, egregious and illegal federal spending, the monstrosity of a Jabba the Hutt federal bureaucracy, and that we the peeps are Taxed Enough Already.
The central “value” of the Leftoid/Progressive mind seems to be control of every aspect of experience and destruction of human liberty, aka your inalienable rights. America is dying under this onslaught of ignorant regulation and micromanaging dominating the federal government.
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in
freedom itself.”
~Milton Friedman
“It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what
people do, as long as it is compulsory.”
~George Will
If moral men and women ever come to prevail again in the doings of Washington DC (remote, but it’s the only chance we’ve got), then the “values” aspect of restoration will happen in the natural course of events.
To(Rand),it’s the other way around: she defends freedom as a consequence of man’s need to pursue rational, life-affirming values.
“The need of expansion is as genuine an instinct in man as the need in a
plant for the light, or the need in man himself for going upright. The
love of liberty is simply the instinct in man for expansion.”
~Matthew Arnold
Thank you, Mr. Ghate! You’ve written and published a much-needed essay defending reason, rather than faith, as the grounds of liberty.
This article is straight out of the 1960′s; the author needs to study Plato and Aristotle more thoroughly. Moral relativism has been expounded for 50 years, as the atheist’s ACLU has warred against theism in this society.
My suggestion to the author is to go back and really read what the ancients believed (including their basic belief in slavery and levels of society with aristocrats at the top)…
The best analysis I’ve seen of how we came to this high level of well-being for the common man is D’Souza’s book, “What’s So Great About Christianity?” because he has done the research…including the emergence of the idea that the servant is as important as his master, a radical idea for its time and still a radical idea in many parts of the world today.
The author presents a false dichotomy between theism and rational thought. For any non-totalitarian government to succeed, the people of a society must have a common set of values upon which they all agree. Since the author’s views have been in play for so many years, the people in Western societies have splintered into groups with opposite views of right and wrong.
If you believe everyone has a divine soul that deserves it’s ounce of respect and honor, then freedom is rational from that point. I think Rand ignores her initial belief: “she defends freedom as a consequence of man’s need to pursue rational, life-affirming values.”
Sounds like belief if not faith.
We are just monkeys that can count imho.
The logical chain was essentially as follows
1) The primary unit of society is the individual
2) The individual has an inalienable right to exist
3) Man, in order to live, must produce value
4) Since the source of all production is the human mind, he must be left free to think, and he must have the right to keep the fruits of that thought (i.e. his wealth)
5) Since the only thing which can stifle thought or plunder possessions is the use of force, this use must be outlawed from human relationships
6) In order to do this, governments are created and given a monopoly on force, for the sole purpose of destroying any citizen who initiates force against another’s life, liberty or property
Are there “primary” units to individuals?
You mean, like a hand or a foot? No. Individuals are to society what atoms are to physical nature. By combining them, you can create all sorts of things, but atoms are the fundamental building blocks. Similarly, while it is possible to break an atom down into component parts, it ceases to be itself (iron, gold, whatever) when you do it. Individuals can work in groups to make things that they could not do alone, but it is the individual which is still the fundamental unit, and while you can chop up a person into his component organs, the end result will not be a living human being.
Come on, Ayn Rand had the morals of a toad. Values cannot be determined entirely by reason because reason is only a fraction of the human spirit.
“Rand, on the other hand, sides with the giants of the Enlightenment in considering man to be morally perfectible.”
But the giants of the Enlightenment were split on this question.
The French Enlightenment made a god of Reason, and, consequently, tended to favor the idea that man is morally perfectible.
The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment–Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, etc.–looked to common sense instead of reason, and maintained a healthy scepticism about man’s moral perfectibility. The giants of the American Enlightenment followed them closely on these fundamental questions. The Constitution can best be understood as a thoughtful effort to design self-government with man’s imperfectibility in mind.
When in the next century Lord Acton wrote “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” he captured in a ringing aphorism the view that the Founders shared with the giants of the Scottish Enlightenment.
Nice post.
An interesting article. And a fairly common theme these days. Being a particularly simple fellow, I can not help but think this knot is made needlessly complex.
The Constitution is very clearly written, each and every “moral” aka “social” issue that faces us today also faced the framers. The fact that not one of those “moral or social issues” was specifically addressed in the document that is the basis of our government, by men who for the most part were self professed religious men should stand as a clear beacon to all. The morality and social behavior of citizens is absolutely none of the federal government’s concern, none. Clearly if people feel compelled to compel their fellow citizens to adapt their view on such issues it must be debated and contested at the state and local level as per the tenth amendment.
My support of the TEA movement pertains to the need to limit the government to the Constitution which defacto would result in fiscal conservatism. . . and at least at a federal level, libertarianism based on reason. If the movement devolves into a moralistic campaign to impose more restraints on liberty rather than removing them, then it can proceed without me and a great many other people.
“Rand, on the other hand, sides with the giants of the Enlightenment in considering man to be morally perfectible.”
But the giants of the Enlightenment were profoundly split on this question.
It was the French Enlightenment that made a god of Reason and preached the perfectibility of man.
The giants of the Scottish Enlightenment–Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, etc.–looked instead to common sense and maintained a healthy wariness with respect to human nature.
The giants of the American Enlightenment followed the Scots closely in these questions. The Constitution can best be understood as a careful effort to design self-government with human nature in mind.
When in the next century Lord Acton wrote “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, he captured in a ringing aphorism the view the Founders shared with the giants of the Scottish Enlightenment.
Reason is incomplete: that’s what I get out of “Hamlet.” Laertes is passion and action. He gets things done! Hamlet reasons himself into a corner, and then keeps right on reasoning.
The problem with reason (in my book) is that it is indistinguishable from rationalization. Only those outside of you can recognize when you’re following reason and when you’re making rationalizations; and it’s very easy to discount what they’re saying because it’s not what you want to hear.
My brother fell into this trap long ago and continues to fall into it. He gets a sick notion in his head (“I need a second wife!”) and then looks around until he finds something to sufficiently back polygamy to his satisfaction. He just needs to find the right book or pamphlet to convince himself.
It’s a simple recipe: 1.) Get an urge, 2.) come up with a rationalization, 3.) call it “reason,” 4.) accuse your detractors of following passions (which you would NEVER do, because you’re so logical!).
Remember: Kirk was captain; Spock was 2nd banana. Keep your mind that way, too!
And how does that work out for Laertes? He acts without thinking, and Hamlet to some degree, thinks without acting (except when he stabs through the curtain.)
It is also odd that you cite your brother’s impulsiveness as an argument against reasoning. I sense that you think thinking is OK, as long as one quickly comes to the correct conclusion. Is passion supposed to rule the day?
Interesting piece~~thank you. Over the last 18 months, as the angst over the destruction of our nation has increased I’ve been intrigued and encourage to often see postings/comments on a variety of sites from self-identified agnostics and athiests who have openly acknowledged that the foundations of our nation were Judeo-Christian. Some have also defended Christianity’s place in the national dialogue, refusing to attack Christianity from their own theological perspective, because they have realized that this was a divide-and-conquer trap set by the left. This discussion on Rand is a little different angle, I realize, but the leftists are definitely losing ground when they can no longer count on successfully dividing American athiests and agnostics from American Christians.
Well written but I really can’t agree. In particular,it’s difficult to see how anyone can seriously believe in the perfectability of Man in this world, nine years into our current war with the radical Muslims, after 50 million + post Roe v. Wade abortion deaths, and after the scores of millions killed in the last century’s gulags, concentration camps, cultural revolutions, and World Wars. To still believe this requires a faith that would put many a Christian to shame.
If anybody thinks that libertarianism of the Rand variety will hold back Islam and secularism, you’re dreaming.
Man is NOT perfectible. If you cannot get by that truth, you’re already off the right path.
I am a Tea Party Member, a GOP Precinct Exec., a Catholic and 80% libertarian. If you think in the long-run we can make progress on building stronger families, helping people be less dependent on government, and create an America where more people can be trusted to not abuse their freedom without Judeo-Christian religion combined with reason, you live in your own personal Manhattan as Allahpundit.
Note: Religous Faith, important as it is though cannot be forced from the top, and really should not be addressed at the federal level. Therefore, it should go to the states. But, we can ask the federal government to let us PRACTICE our religion unmolested.
I think this does a good job of presenting and explaining the best defense that Capitalism desperately needs right now.
Big God had its chance for 8 years and it lead to bank bailouts, nation building, and a populous so thoroughly disgusted they turned to Obama.
The Enlightenment. The Age of Reason. Locke. Hobbes. Rousseau. Burke. Montesquieu.
These things -and these types of people- laid the philosophical groundwork for The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.
Whatever your party, religion or ideology, using politics and government to implement (legislate) social programs of any kind is to abandon The Constitution and replaces reason with appeals to emotion.
When emotion rules the public sphere, chaos and tyranny inevitably follow.
A reasonable man or woman will only ensure that others are not obstructing his or her own freedoms. They will not attempt to use government to coerce others into living under their religion nor will they embrace appeals to emotion in order to do so. Most of today’s political and social discourse is built upon open appeals to emotion and an immature urge to exercise power over the lives of others. An appeal to emotion is the argument of a child. The attempt to use government, at any level, to exercise power over the lives of others is the act of an immature and damaged psyche.
Observation of the faith-based Carter, W Bush and Obama administrations and their foggy, dysfunctional relationships with reason and rationality suggests that faith, or faith alone, is not sufficient to protect our freedom.
A very timely article and admirably tight. The question is whether or not the religious faction of the conservative movement would use political power towards ends which can only be accepted on faith. I think that those on the left (and some in the libertarian wing) have a dystopian fantasy of a “Handmaid’s Tale” scenario if the christians but had their way; or they think that most christians, if given half a chance, would be like that terrorist in the movie “Contact” (You know, that guy with the 10 pound cross around his neck and a 50 lb Bible under his arm, full of hatred towards science in general and humanity in particular.) I don’t have time to give all my reasons except to say that, americans being what they are, and in our day and age, I just don’t think that we are in immanent danger of living under that kind of theocracy.
Amit Ghate does a very good job offering a lead to the alternative to the standard false dichotomy in morality: Be religious and have values or be secular and anything goes. Values CAN be derived from facts as Ayn Rand has shown. If you are curious about how the argument goes read Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Ethics (available online)or check out the works of philosopher Tara Smith who has done an excellent job explaining her arguments in detail. Also for a powerful easy to read argument for Objectivism, there is no better source than Craig Biddle’s Loving Life.
Humorous cartoon at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/choose-life/ that compares Sarah Palin and other “Women of Life” with the “Women of Death” on the other side.
As an Objectivist, I don’t consider tea parties or Beck’s 8-28 rally fundamentally in conflict with Objectivism. Just substitute “a recognition of an objective reality” for “faith in a higher power”. This recognition (along with our integrated epistemology) is the fundamental difference between Objectivism and other atheistic ideologies, and it largely serves the same as God in religions. It prohibits us from concluding that good and evil are arbitrary, illusionary or subjective. And like God, it guides us in their discovery. (There is of course much more to this.)
I believe that Beck’s decision to promote American’s renewal from an ethical basis is the correct one, at least for him. “Faith” is how he understands its foundation. He has publicly made room for atheists in this movement, declaring that they just need to be “self regulating”. He doesn’t have the time or background for more than that.
Its high time for everyone to fess up that all sides spring from a faith position at some point.
What they “believe” cannot be proved by any science. The fact that most are not honest enough to confess their faith and instead hide behind “reasonable words” doesn’t change the fact. Most from the secular faith are the biggest zealots of all, church ladies in disguise, cramming their faith down every ones throats.
You either have a God who defines good and evil or those words don’t mean anything. You will be left with he who has the guns, makes the rules.
Only one God and faith makes rational sense of the world around us and that’s the Christian faith. That most members of it leave many people scratching their heads, only shows Gods sense of humor.
Jesus leaves unbelievers scratching their heads. He often leaves Christians scratching their heads because His Words are often counterintuitive (note: counterintuitive does not mean wrong in the slightest, just contrary to how people normally think).
“Rand counts reason and pride among her primary values and virtues.” If there is anything that gets in the way of “reason,” it is pride. Pride blinds a man to the truth and leads to paths of destruction. Pride causes obstinacy, disables introspection and supports ideas long after reality has proved them foolish (i.e., communism, socialism, Marxism, detente, appeasement, welfare, etc.). One only needs to look to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to see where pride takes a nation.
You’re thinking of arrogance. Pride is supposed to be based on achievement in reality, and so long as it remains rooted in reality, is not immoral. Arrogance is pride gone wrong, and leads one in the wrong direction precisely because it is not rooted in reality.
When man is able to define “values” values can be anything that man wishes it to be. We have seen when mankind determines what “values” are; death and misery ensues. Those who say that science and reason can somehow help define “values” do not realize that they share the same view as though who gave us communism and its many progeny. Science is a means to explain things around us through experimentation and discovery; experimentation and discovery is not a proper system to try and develop an everlasting set of values.
Saying that man can be “perfected” is the very reason that many men have been led to their deaths. We can never achieve perfection and those who seek it always believe that theirs is the correct way of achieving it and will use whatever means necessary to get it.
Finally, just to try to square a hole: how many societies where religion (and primarily the Christian religion) have ultimately ended up as societies where one man rule over many with a cruel and iron fist and how many societies where religion (and primarily the Christian religion) acted as a moral inhibitor has produced the most just and equitable societies on the planet? Even a person who is “objective” like Ayn Rand would have to recognize that her belief in no God has only ended up in adding to the misery of peoples, not the lack of belief. I am no religious person, but even I recognize that America, with its Judeo-Christian values, has done more for the world than godless Communist China, which has contributed to a lot of misery around the world and continues to do so.
Values and the Defense of Freedom
Is faith necessary for defending natural rights, or is reason sufficient?
This question, and the answers given above, are summarized in
‘Macdonough’s Song’ by Rudyard Kipling
http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/rudyard_kipling/poems/20740
My advice to the TEA ‘Party’ Army of Davids:
For God’s sake do not accept help from any person or group
whose agenda is the imposition of religious values
on the people of the US by the Federal government;
Devolve authority to the states, require transparency
at all levels of government, and call it a day.
This is a thought provoking article and the intelligent and insightful response from readers is humbling. I have no definitive answer of whether or not “social conservatism” will send people out of the Tea Party fold. I have, however, observed through my many years in this country, that abortion, which I presume is one of the social issues we are referring to, has led to a loss of reverence of life, birth, and family. That is not to say that I would push to have abortion repealed, but if this lack of reverence is acknowledged, perhaps we will freely begin to understand not only the ease with which we kill the unborn but what seems to be an increase and an intensity in heinous crimes.
I also presume that homosexuality, the “right” or “wrong” of it, is another of the social issues that we may be referring to. Again, I could certainly not judge what is right or wrong but in our attempt to “equalize” the homosexual lifestyle to that of men and women, we are infringing on rights of individuals all over the place. Parents in MA for example are unable to protest the inclusion in their children’s school curriculum, pictures of two men, two women and man and woman as the normal relationship, naked no less, or risk jail. And, in addition, in attempts to make this relationship equal, women are hired to have babies that will eventually be wrenched from their natural mother to be the “natural” birth child of two men and will most likely never know what a female mother can offer. I don’t have the answers and it is reasonable to think that there are children who will greatly benefit from being the child of a homosexual couple. I am just pointing out that this obsession with gay rights has lead to an assault on individual rights. This has extended to private enterprise as well. I am referring to the suit against e-harmony. So now if anyone should dare to question whether or not hate crimes rather than just crimes, for example is really the way to go, we are accused of being a right wing, religious bigot.
And finally, someone referred to religion advocating stoning a woman who was raped and other religious activities when in reality those activities are limited to, in my opinion, pseudo-religion, not Judeo/Christian principals. In Islam for example, the religion is indistinguishable from its political system. That in itself is an issue that needs to be confronted honestly or it will devour us whether by overt jihad or silently working its way into our laws and our politics until “sharia is the law of the U.S. and the Muslim flag is flying over the Whitehouse” as the Imam proudly told Christiane Anapour on CNN . The so called peaceful and moderate Muslims that we are tiptoeing around trying not offend are irrelevant. It is the radical faction, the ones making the rules, that we need to address, and unless Christians begin stoning and beheading, I will not fear them or their inclusion in the Tea Party, but will stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
I’m an atheist and conservative. I don’t consider “social values” a matter of religion but rather common sense. Self restraint is the issue. Wanton behavior and bowing to politically correct nonsense like gay marriage will destroy any society.
So…the argument is that reasonable and educated people have the ability to choose ethics over morals and call them ‘values’. No argument here. Now, what about the masses of people who are not reasonable, are not educated, and are not inclined to deliberating ‘good versus evil’ or ‘ ethics versus morals’ or have never even considered reading Ayn Rand and, more than likely, have never even heard of her or her ‘objectivists’. Say that you succeed and religion is struck mute in the political debate. What fills that void? I’m not suggesting by any stretch that those who embrace religion are all ignorant and either incapable of, or not interested in, debating the ‘ethics versus morals’ question. Neither am I suggesting that those who embrace no religion automatically qualify as persons possessed of highly ethical behavior or understanding. I am saying that there are innumerable persons for whom the deep seated doubt, the unanswered question, regarding the very possibility that there MIGHT be divine knowledge of their actions and retribution for villainous and reprehensible, even heinous or despicable, behavior is the only check on complete and callous self interest and gratification at any cost to others. If that doubt is removed… if those reasonable and rational arguments that there is no place for religion in the political debate convince that portion of society that they needn’t be concerned with the question of ‘the afterlife’ because the state is not concerned with that eventuality, what fills that sudden void? What is to keep unethical people from behaving without regard to ethics or the rights of others? What’s to stop people from deciding that what happens to anyone else doesn’t matter to them because their only concern is with this life and what they can get out of it? No pleasure left unexplored…no whim unfulfilled… no fit of pique or temper restrained… because time is fleeting.
Pride. (That which is ridiculed by several here.) The self recognition that one is productive and is contributing in a principled way to the progress of what is objectively good in the world.
With respect to your concerns. I don’t know if pride is enough or if its negative attributes out-way its benefits, but is does potentially fulfill the void left by fear.
Wrong, Pride is a vice. Pride is what says, “I’m entitled.” Why do you think tyrants above all demand that the masses love them? They demand constant praise because their egos need it.
Without the fear of God, the only remaining checks on behavior are fear of the government and public shame. If one fears neither God nor man, nor gives any care toward public opinion, that person must be physically prevented from harming others, because that person’s passions will be unbridled.
Wrong. Pride is moral ambitiousness. In pre-reformation Christianity, Pride was identified with the idea that one should aspire to be a “good Christian” and sinful precisely because it was an attitude at odds with man’s fallen nature.
Those Christians eho go around saying “without God, anything is permitted” confess their own souls. We should take them at their word — that the only thing stopping them from running amok is their fear of an imaginary entity. And even that constraint doesn’t amount to much, given the history of the Dark and Middle Ages when feral Christianity held sway in the West.
Fortunately, this confession speaks only to those Christians (and their counterparts among the believers of other religions, Islam evidently i cluded), not to humanity in general, as evidenced by the existence of moral non-believers.
Amen, for without Christ, my mind would be utterly base and deviant. Now look at your own life and your own heart, and observe what its desires are. If you are honest, you will be horrified.
Demanding affirmation from others is inconsistent with having pride. It’s more consistent with a lack of pride.
The intrinsic problem with trying to assume that pride would fill the void left by the removal of the fear of divine retribution is that pride is entirely subjective. It is also predicated on a number of variable and contingencies. For instance: There is the individual who keeps their dwelling or living area neat and clean. This individual may not be able to afford new clothing, but the clothing they do possess is always clean and neatly patched and repaired by their own effort. This individual has the kind of pride that demands they make every effort to be self sufficient and civilized. Yet, look around you. Millions, even billions, of human beings lack this kind of pride. They choose to live in squalor, not lifting a hand to make even a minimal effort to maintain what they do possess. How often is personal pride centered around being able to bully or intimidate? How often is it centered around constant acquisition? My point is that your definition of pride is the definition of a rational, reasonable, decent, educated individual possessed of world view that includes all people being equally decent and well intended. Individuals who possess these qualities aren’t the problem in the world and don’t require restraining. They are, in fact, capable of self restraint. It is the greater majority of humanity that requires addition restraining. Those who don’t ponder the state of man or the uplifting of humanity. Pride is an unreliable substitute for that deep and intrinsic fear of some final judgment and the restraint that it produces.
Consider, too, that for many, it isn’t exactly ‘divine retribution’ or any great pondering of the nature of the deity that acts as the restraint of which we speak. For many, it is the vague and shadowy notion, which exists almost subconsciously, that there is some form of ‘afterlife’ that acts as a damper for more violent and selfish emotion and actions. These individuals don’t feel a constant and ravenous desire to experience all they can, to have all that they can get in THIS life because they believe that they will somehow be able to continue to experience in another life. Often the individual doesn’t examine this belief or even acknowledge it. For instance, the popularity and perpetual appeal of the ‘ghost story’. Obviously, to cling to the idea that there are ghosts is to believe that a persons ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ or ‘personality’ lives on after their body has died. If asked directly if they believe in ‘ghosts’ these people often honestly respond by saying that they don’t know. That’s my point. The doubt in their own minds is enough. For many, conscious thought isn’t necessary to act as the restraint of which we speak. These individuals don’t feel the sense of urgency, or even panic, that someone who has neither religion nor belief in ‘life after death’ may well feel. The argument can even be made that the ‘life after death’ belief is even more seductive and functions as a greater check on rapacious behavior than fear of ‘divine retribution’ since these individuals feel that they have time, that they will see their loved ones again, that they will get another chance. The void that is left if that belief is suddenly vanquished is vast. We know that ‘nature abhors a void’, so there is only one question that remains: “What fills the void?”
Standish,
You point to people who live is squalor by choice as evidence that pride doesn’t promote good behavior, but I suspect that the vast majority of them are taught that pride is a sin.
You suggested that pride is responsible for bullying and greed. Perhaps a lack of pride is as much to blame. I’m not convinced that either are to blame.
I can’t guess if the promotion of pride in good behavior is more or less effective at causing it than promoting fear for bad behavior. And I wouldn’t guess if restraints on bad behavior due to a belief in an afterlife are greater than such a belief’s potential to suppress productivity in this one. All I can say is that a people more motivated by pride in their work than fear from their sin seems plausible is very attractive to me.
Could Ayn Rand have formulated Objectivism without the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization?
Ironically most Americans on both sides, but especially the Left, disregard, ignore, or fail to recognize that the fundamental beliefs of Western civilization are based on Jewish and Christian texts, especially the 10 Commandments. A simple sampling of our laws will serve to make this obvious: thou shalt not kill (murder), thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (adultery), thou shalt not steal (theft, robbery), etc.
As much as Rand would like to believe that man is capable of objective behavior without religious guidance I would challenge that by challenging her premise. How can we know how Western civilization, and thus Rand’s Objectivism, developed without the influence of Christianity? Could it have developed without the foundational influence of Christianity? I say No, it could not. To refute Rand’s argument one merely needs to look to the Islamic world where reason is absolutely rejected due to the inability of Islam to make room for reason. Meanwhile many of the most prominent proponents of reason were not only Christians but were members of the clergy: Bede, Aquinas, Becket, et al. Some of the West’s most influential guardians of liberty were devoted Christians: Adam Smith, de Tocqueville, the Founders, et al. Could Western man have created Rand’s objectivism without the guiding hand of centuries of Judeo-Christian Western civilization? I say No.
That is an interesting question. For sure Ayn Rand as anyone would have needed to be free and live in a society that respects individual rights to have had even the opportunity to think so deeply and publish her philosophy which is obviously very anti-statist.
Could chemistry have ever become a science without there first being a stage of futzing about with alchemy, learning how to refine substances, measure them etc? I say NO. Religion, when it has value at all, has its greatest value in its practical advice, but it is scattershot and inconsistent and undercut by the metaphysical theorizing of the theology. “Thou shalt not murder” is a really good idea it turns out, quite apart from the justification Moses gave.
“Could Ayn Rand have formulated Objectivism without the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western civilization?”
Much of Rand’s philosophy is Aristotelian. Aristotle predates Jesus. I suggest you read (more?) of Rand, in particular her writings other than We The Living, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
“Western civilization are based on Jewish and Christian texts…”
And Jewish and Christian texts are based on tens of thousands of years, for want of a better term,”Pagan” beliefs.
Certainly Judeo-Christian philosophy influenced Rand. I can, with equal certainty, conclude that Judeo-Christian philosophy had a major influence on my personal philosophy. And I am a non-believer.
In general, I wish people well. If they find solace in a belief system that I do not follow, I wish them well, and I will have a benevolent view towards them, even though a minority in such groups sometimes preaches hatred toward others.
I would expect the same tolerance from others in allowing me to think as I see fit. If self defense becomes necessary, so be it.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
–John Adams October 11, 1798
Ayn Rand’s hairdoo was atrocious.
Wow! Amit Ghate does an excellent job in concisely introducing Rand’s theory of value, as relevant to the Tea Parties.
The notion, that the fear of rotting in hell is necessary in order to prevent a man from murdering another, is false. This is because such arbitrary claims can only be accepted on faith–which is, the opposite of reason. Once a man adopts faith as a valid means of knowledge, there is nothing to stop him from following the Holy Emperor Constantine in murdering the heretics.
The trick that mystics use to subordinate you is to make you believe that you are helplessly flawed on your own (the idea of Original Sin, as Amit points out). Just because it is possible to make a few honest errors in thinking, does not imply that objectivity is impossible.
It is important to note that mystics of spirit, as Rand called them, are not the only crusaders of unreason. There are also mystics of muscle–those who replaced “God” with Society, as an entity that nullifies individual judgement. They include the Socialists and all its categories–the egalitarians, Communists, Fascists, modern-day Leftists, Environmentalists etc.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. It is not contrary to reason in the slightest, unless that reason is perverted by men’s minds.
Man has free will. Just because some men choose to believe in virgin birth, doesn’t mean that it’s “evidence” for a “thing not seen”.
>Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Which means faith is not evidence at all. Calling faith evidence is double-talk and neurotic rationalism trying to hide faith behind reason. It is fundamentally an sign of weakness in your conviction of the adequacy of faith.
All things are known ultimately by means of the evidence of the senses. The tiniest particles and most remote objects of astronomy are known by means of instruments that act as transducers that present their results within the range of human senses. The most abstract reasoning about justice and love can be unravelled and traced to particulars that are observable by repeatedly asking “what does this word refer to?” God cannot be so unravelled, which is the clue to the difference between faith and reason.
Wrong. “What does this word refer to?” ???
I wrote that that way because I thought it would give “wrong” a double application in meaning. At your posting, and the word to answer as to what it refers to. I’m not sure that got through. What does “wrong” refer to? The only way to escape the one-sided logic you have to employ (that doesn’t put your foot in your mouth) is to only affirm positives. Such that, it is not wrong to deprive someone bread if they’re hungry, but it is right to give them some. Very well, it may work as a personal philosophy, but in the face of murder or other heinousness you might be hard pressed to respond. See no evil may be the protocol of the divine, but you’ve already dismissed such nonsense.
Argumentum ad nauseam. Replying with “wrong” and “???” does not constitute reasoning.
Your assertion can be summed up as “All that is is observable,” or “Man is the measure of all things.” Even the natural world refutes this assertion. Anything beyond the event horizon of a black hole is unobservable, but it is nonetheless real. Just as detectors allow us to observe quantum phenomena, so too are there certain things which must exist, but which are by their nature impossible to observe (such as a particle existing in a location where conservation of energy forbids it). There are things that exist that are impossible to observe, not because of any technical shortfall of humanity, but because the laws of nature forbid their observation.
The point was not: only that which is known constitutes reality. No, reality exists independent of man’s knowledge. Rather, the point was that (proper) knowledge of reality is achieved only by logical reasoning, i.e. by logical integration of the material provided by our senses. Faith is an attempt to bypass this process—an evasion of the fact that reason is man’s only means of knowledge. An idea is accepted either on faith, or by reason. It’s either-or; you can’t have both.
> According to them, either you’re religious and have values, or you’re non-religious and don’t. But this, Rand would argue, is a false dichotomy.
Some might call it a false dichotomy; I call it a straw man. The question, from this “religionist’s” perspective, is not whether non-religious folks have values. Of course they do. God made values, after all; they are real, just like air is real. You could argue that air doesn’t exist, but not without using air to fill your lungs and transmit the sound. So it doesn’t surprise Christians that atheists have values.
The question is, given their premises, how can atheists explain values? If values are to carry authority, they must stand over man, in judgment over man’s thoughts and actions. The question is, in a world without God, how can anything stand over man? Isn’t man the measure of all things, in humanist terms? If so, what’s stopping man from choosing to commit execrable acts of cruelty and calling them good? Isn’t man just a collection of molecules, in materialist terms? Then what separates man from a beaker of chemicals? Aren’t values just a product of man’s thinking? And aren’t man’s thoughts simply a collection of brain chemicals and electronic charges? So then, by what criteria do we distinguish one good set of chemicals and charges from a bad set? What chemistry text can help us decide whether the Federalist Papers are better than Mein Kampf?
There is, of course, a complete line of thought on how ethics evolved in lock step with Darwinism. If ethics assisted man’s survival, then of course they were reinforced and propagated. But here’s where that line of reasoning fails: ethics are compelling only if people see them as somehow transcendent. Once you see that ethics are merely an evolutionary strategy — more biological than philosophical or theological — then how do they hold any authority? Morality then becomes, not Oz the Great and Powerful, but just the silly man behind the curtain shouting and pulling levers. Once we understand the behavioral deception, we become free of any silly constraints.
Randists want to say the ethics spring from Reason; I say phooey. Of course, it is in my best interest if people behave ethically. However, it is not necessarily in *my* best interest if *I* behave ethically. Whether it is depends on who I am.
If I am Ted Bundy and I get my jollies by killing pretty young women, doing so creates a state of mind — excuse me, a configuration of chemicals in my brain — that I enjoy. You say, well, the pretty young women did not want to be killed; I (that is, Ted) would ask, “Well, what is that to me?” In evolutionary terms, Ted lived and the women died, so Ted wins. In materialist terms, Ted’s brain chemistry was to be served and the cost was the women’s lives — which are just chemistry, after all — and there is no criteria by which to judge one chemical configuration better than another. The only thing we can say to Ted is, “Do it and we’ll kill you” — and, of course, we did, because doing so served our own brain chemistry. But this is not so much a moral injunction as it is a practical one. Should Ted have been less murderous, or just more careful?
If morals are objective, what then is their essence in a godless world? Perhaps they are physical — are they hiding under a rock? Are they present in brain chemicals? Are they encoded in DNA? If they are physical, how can they transcend man, who is also physical? Then by what criteria do we determine one set of physical objects (morals) to transcend another (man)? If they are not physical, then what are they? Without God, can the metaphysical even exist? Even if so, why pay any attention to metaphysics at all? Can’t observe it or test it? Then why listen to it?
Is it the will of the majority that determines ethics and gives them authority? Well, so much for them being objective, then.
Is it instinct? There is no doubt that some ethical laws seem instinctive. However, there are also a lot of unethical behaviors that also seem instinctive. Chimps, for example, pick ticks and lice off of each other, and reciprocate the favors they are shown — so altruism can be instinctive. But chimps, like humans, also murder each other — so murder can be instinctive too. By what criteria is one set of instincts judged good and the other bad?
None of this makes any sense in a godless worldview. The only thing that brings in any clarity is, what gratifies the individual making the decisions? As a human being, living in a world of constraints set up by other human beings, I must weigh what I would prefer against what others will tolerate. That alone explains why, most of the time, most of us behave. What it does not tell us is why we ought to behave when no one is watching and when the risk of being caught is manageable.
In a Christian world view, however, morals can judge man because they are greater than man. Morals cannot be greater than man unless created by something or someone greater than man. The essence of morality is relationships, and there is one eternal set of perfect relationships which can provide the template for moral behavior: the relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Only an eternal relationship greater than man can instruct man on how things should be done, and only God can hold man ultimately accountable. Any alternative to God leaves us looking under rocks for objective morality, or trying to find eternal truth in chemical reactions.
> The question is, given their premises, how can atheists explain values? If values are to carry authority, they must stand over man, in judgment over man’s thoughts and actions. The question is, in a world without God, how can anything stand over man?
This is the question which Ayn Rand answered in the form of “Who is the Final Authority in Ethics?” Here is how Ayn Rand begins her response:
There are certain questions that must be questioned — that is, challenged at their root — because they consist of smuggling a false premise into the mind of a careless listener. “Who created the universe?” is one such question. “Do you still beat your wife?” is another. And so is the question above.
It comes up in many different ways, directly and indirectly. It is usually asked in some formulation such as: “Who decides what is right or wrong?”
Students of Objectivism are not likely to ask this question, but they may hear it from others and fail to understand its nature.
The nature of the error will become apparent if one applies that question to the physical sciences: “Who decides what is right or wrong in electronics?”
It is obvious that the root of such questions is a certain kind of conceptual vacuum: the absence of the concept of objectivity in the questioner’s mind.
The essay is reprinted in the “The Voice of Reason” and available at this link: http://freedomkeys.com/ar-whodecides.htm
Paul, I asked, in a universe without God, taking their own premises seriously, how can atheists (a set of individuals that includes objectivists) explain the authority of values? Your response is, basically, that it is impertinent to ask the question. Not terribly helpful.
One major problem many of the posters seem to be havnig is Amit’s contention that man is “morally perfectible.”
I would like to point out for the record that this contention, though admittedly confusing, does not refer to the progressive belief that we can alter human naure to create a better world. Rather, Rand held human nature as an absolute which could not be evaded or changed. By calling man “morally perfectible,” Amit was referring to the fact that we can embrace and fully embody a code of morality which is based in human nature, eventually becoming more moral as we improve our ability to live up to this code. This is done through the production of value (goods, services, etc.) and the pursuit of happiness (a fulfilling career, a loving family, beneficial friendships, etc).
Brianna, what does objectivism say about people who do not want to produce and whose pursuit of happiness comes at the expense of productive citizens? Economists tell us that most people, most of the time, will do that which they perceive to be in their best economic self-interest. What happens when the incentives are shifted so that what is in the individual’s best interest is not in the interest of his fellow man? Some will adhere to virtue; most will not. How many recipients of TARP bonuses gave the money back?
It is our desires that shape our economic agendas, not the other way around, and many are not inclined to “improve” their “ability to live up to this [moral] code.” If, as you say, Rand assumes human nature is a constant, she agrees at least to that degree with the hated Bible. Unfortunately, the Bible sees a different constant, proclaiming that man’s most righteous acts are as filthy rags, and that he is dead in sin, that there is none who are righteous. Man’s twisted gift is his ability to justify anything he does. It’s his willingness to make morality malleable enough to conform to his agenda that is so outrageous and yet seductive. Some monsters (Jeffrey Dahmer springs to mind) are blessed with enough self-awareness to realize they are monsters. Others live and die with a clear conscience, unaware that they are doing anything but good. Man is more than able to see immorality in others. He does not excel, however, in shining the moral spotlight on himself. As the Book of Judges said about a relatively dark era of the history of Israel, “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” To such men, lying is wrong, if you do it; stealing is wrong, if you steal from them; sexual purity is a good thing for one’s own daughters, but your daughters better watch their step around them.
I don’t think Rand has much to tell us about the roots or essence of morality. She could perceive its presence, like the rest of us, but somehow believed we thought it into existence. We are not that talented, we are not that good, and there are limits to reason.
Brianna, what does objectivism say about people who do not want to produce and whose pursuit of happiness comes at the expense of productive citizens?
It holds them in very high contempt as parasites. It also doesn’t believe that anyone could find true, long term happiness from pursuing such a path. Rather, they live in chronic fear because as people who are dependent on others for their existence, they never know when the supply will run dry.
Economists tell us that most people, most of the time, will do that which they perceive to be in their best economic self-interest. What happens when the incentives are shifted so that what is in the individual’s best interest is not in the interest of his fellow man?
This is why Objectivists don’t believe government should interfere in the economy, because their actions will by definition cause people to act in ways which are not based in reality. It freezes thought and action because reality requires one course and government another; if you don’t do what requires, you will die, but if you don’t do what government requires, they will kill you (obviously this would only literally occur in an extreme case, but it is the essence of the argument).
As for whether what is in your best interest is also in the interest of your fellow man, Objectivism holds that you have no duty to consider what is in the interest of your fellow man. All you have to do is make sure that you do not violate his rights, which are the same as yours (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, to be succinct). While it is true that those who act in their rational, long-term self interest almost invariably benefit people other than themselves, that is not the primary motivation behind the actions of an objectivist. Rather they do what they do because it brings them happiness, and they refuse to violate others’ rights because they know that to do so is to violate their own rights, which is hardly in their self-interest.
It is our desires that shape our economic agendas, not the other way around, and many are not inclined to “improve” their “ability to live up to this [moral] code.”
Well, if they’re not willing to do that, then no one will punish them. They simply will not get the reward that comes from having a happy, fulfilling life. To be moral is both a practical thing to do and a benefit to your life, not a burden or an irrational sacrifice.
I don’t think Rand has much to tell us about the roots or essence of morality. She could perceive its presence, like the rest of us, but somehow believed we thought it into existence. We are not that talented, we are not that good, and there are limits to reason.
Human beings are not perfect, but in the scientific realm, the pursuit of understanding and the laws of nature have nevertheless brought us incalculable benefits. They have made us incredibly rich and productive, and they have enhanced our lives in countless ways. Granted that such a search for the moral laws of existence is harder due to the nature of the search and the ease with which we could misinterpret the information, but if the potential benefits of such a search are anything like the known benefits we have received from the search for truth in the scientific realm, then I think that pursuit is worth the effort.
Brianna, I responded and the wizard of the URL decided to put my response at the end of the comments. Just a heads up.
I agree with Objectivists that the reasons for why humans should be free and have liberty needs to be supported by reason. I don’t agree that religion is destructive and not a good thing.
Brianna is right in her statement that:
“The reason that the “Judeo-Christian” tradition works so well is that it is able to coexist well with the values of inalienable individual rights which are really at the foundation of this country.”
Some conservatives say that America is a Judeo-Christian country founded on Judeo-Christian values. This is correct. Many of the ethics/morals in Christianity/Judaism are similar to Rand’s ethics like honesty and integrity. Now Christians live by those morals at least partly because they believe that God has deemed it good to do so. Objectivists do so because those morals help fulfill and improve their lives. The most important point is that both groups live by those morals. Both groups support the cause of liberty, freedom, and justice. Why they do so is secondary. Sure in an intellectual discussion the religious person will have to abandon reason and use faith to defend why humans should be free, but how often in the mainstream political discussion do we get that deep? I don’t think most people (including voters) even think about why humans have rights and should be free. Sure it would be better if everyone had a good understanding of why we should be free, but that is not the case. Most people do realize that freedom is good and just accept that individuals have rights. What is important is that we get people to realize what politicians/causes are on the side of freedom and which ones are not. In that Objectivists and freedom loving religious people need to work together in achieving a result that both groups want.
Just as I find that Objectivists should not be so anti-religion as to discredit religious people who want the same results as they do, I would like to see more objectivist thinking in the Tea Party and conservative movement. There are lots of non-religious (not necessarily objectivist) conservatives. The Tea Party needs to stay away from too much religious rhetoric because anyways the tea party is just about economic issues and the role of government. For example there should not be pro-life signs at a tea party rally.
In conclusion, freedom loving people from all schools of thought need to work together to achieve a results that is greater than the means (or the reasoning).
You’re right and you’re wrong. You are not against me, so you are for me, but let me explain something. When Jesus explained to “render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, and render to God the things which belong to God” He WAS using Reason. He is saying basically do not muddle up religion and worship with your politics. So, a person of faith can explain why we “should” be free through reasoning, because it is a defense of their right to practice without interference. The reason you seem to imply that Objectivists are more coherent as a standard is because you’ve assumed that Faith has little value in daily living. Is that true? Well, one day when someone’s daily living is extended into eternity they may beg to differ.
You’re right and you’re wrong. You are not against me, so you are for me, but let me explain something. When Jesus explained to “render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, and render to God the things which belong to God” He WAS using Reason. He is saying basically do not muddle up religion and worship with your politics. So, a person of faith can explain why we “should” be free through reasoning, because it is a defense of their right to practice without interference.
Rand viewed religion as a sort of “primitive philosophy.” She acknowledged that many people used religion in an attept to figure out how to live their lives, but thought the approach was flawed because it was invariably fundamentally based on faith. To the extent that people interpret what is in the bible using reason and judgement, many truths can be found within it, but if Christians treated the bible as Muslims treat the Koran, as the literal word of God whcih must be literally followed, then the vaunted Judeo-Christian tradition would quickly start going very, very downhill.
Well, one day when someone’s daily living is extended into eternity they may beg to differ.
Again, something you take on faith. I don’t know whether or not there’s an afterlife, but I have certainly failed to see any definitive proof of it.
You have shown, fairly accurately, that your question is flawed, the term “Big Religion” is flawed.
I’d been shown that even children respond to the “threat” that somebody is watching you and will hold you accountable for your “sins”, whether it is a “God” or a “Man in the next room watching you who’d be upset if you cheated.”
A real life surveillance society exists today, in Britain. It “sort of works” at best. And at least some people are very upset about it. But if one believes in God, there is ALWAYS someone who will, 100%, hold you accountable. To the extent people believe this people behave better.
Perhaps we need “Big God” and “modest religion.”
The phrase “Big Religion” makes me nervous. I prefer modest secular and modest religion with an “interested ‘Something-or-other’” that will hold us accountable and exact punishment or reward depending on how well we play this computer game without adequately unambiguous game manuals.
{^_^}
Or perhaps we just need Orwell’s Big Brother. After all, that’s what your arguments amount to.
I do not need to have a camera or a God watching me, because I think being immoral is stupid. Lying, cheating and stealing never gain anyone anything in the long term, I know it, and thus I feel no temptation to commit such acts.
I also know exactly who is always watching me, whether there are cameras or a God out there or not: myself. For example, there is no point in lying to anyone, because I know that there are two things I can never fool: reality, and my own mind. My mind will tell me that what just happened isn’t in accordance with reality, and reailty will eventually pay me back for my acts by exposing the contradiction betwen what I said/did and what is actually true. No God or Big Brother required, and none wanted!
Everyone has a god. Those who do not worship YHWH will give His praise to idols. These idols may or may not be heathen gods and statues. Many idolize money, sex, power, fame or intellect.
The Dark and Middle Ages. An era ruled by unopposed and unconstrained Christianity. Far from an era of morality, it was an era of immorality, of society ruled by brutal thugs who derived their moral authority from the Christian principle of man as sinful, and therefore in need of constraint, like livestock.
The only reason why communism’s body count was so comparatively high compared to Christianity’s, was because the latter did not have the benefit of a preceding era of secular liberty and consequent prosperity to boost the population and thereby supply it with a sufficiently large pool of victims.
Does anyone find it interesting that Christianity did not result in a free society dedpite 1500+ years of opportunity, but after a mere cengury of rising secularism and the breaking of Church power, it suddenly shows up?
There are multiple references to a monarchic and totalitarian “Kingdom of God” in the Bible, but no mention of a Republic of God.
Just some inconvenient historical facts, whixh no Christian will ever broach in a thread like this, for obvious reasons. It too obviously makes clear just whose wild rampage through history has gone on the longest and has so clearly been unconstrained by anything real.
With the possible exception of the Federalist itself, anyone desiring a deeper understanding of freedom would benefit the most by carefully reading Lord Acton’s Essays in the History of Freedom. Gathered in a single volume, these essays are astonishing in the depth of their wisdom and learning.
Lord Acton:”…when Christ said:’Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,’ these words…were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of freedom.”
It took centuries to work this out. As Winston Churchill wrote of the founding of the colony of Rhode Island in 1636 in his magnificent book The New World, “Roger Williams…was the first to put into practice the complete separation of Church from the lay government, and Rhode Island was the only centre in the world at that time where there was complete religious toleration.”
And thus was the way opened for the great works of the Founders.
You are also during the time you listed men were also governed by monarchies and authoritarian regimes, right? Christianity may have been the de facto religion, but in terms of governance they were decidedly secular.
However, let’s let the past be the past. Have you heard of the biblical proverb, “By his own works you shall know them?” Let’s take a look at the end result of the belief in Christianity, Islam, and the lack of belief in a God. If you were honest you would admit that the greatest achievement of Christianity was the birth of the United States of America. If you were honest you would admit that Islam has resulted in a authoritarian regime in almost every country where it has been established and a thorough intolerance of anything that is not Islam. If you were honest you would also admit that any society which removed the belief in a God have all debased into morally bankrupt societies in the aggregate and into murderous regimes that routinely kill their own people in the particular.
By the by, the Bible is not establishing a totalitarian regime within the Bible (reference to “Kingdom of God” requires a great deal of faith), but is giving man the means to free themselves from the totalitarian instinct of MAN. You get this no earlier than when Moses stood up to the Pharoah on behalf of slaves. If you are going to talk about the Bible don’t begin by slandering it.
The problem with citing the Roman Catholic Church’s reign is that they can be shown to have dismissed a clear teaching of the Scriptures in that they merged the power of the Church with the State.
The thing to realize is the benefit the Holy Bible has had on all Western society. Being sure to separate what it actually teaches with how people have manipulated it, and continually bifurcated into factions. When you consider the good things that have arisen and become established in society you will find that the Bible has openly endorsed them all along, but strangely, none of the bad. Slavery? A manipulation of men. Chauvinism? Manipulation of men. Charity? Bible. Fair government? Bible. …Etc.
The bible has often been used to justify both the divine right of kings (merging of state and religion) and slavery. It’s a mixed book, as most philosophies are mixed, and whether it leads you to good or bad ideas depends on how you interpret it. The reason it usually leads to good things these days is because people ignore the bad parts or interpret them away.
Chattel slavery is neither endorsed nor condoned by the Bible. A man could fall into indentured servitude for seven years if he fell into a debt or incurred a fine that neither he nor his family could or would repay. After the seven years he must be released and weighed down with gifts, and could only be kept in servitude if he swore an oath of fealty to his master. For the master to be eligible for an oath of fealty, the servant must have come into service unmarried and the master must have procured for the servant a wife. Even so, the oath of fealty was voluntary on the servant’s part, and had no bearing on the status of his children. By binding himself to his master in exchange for receiving a wife, he made himself a slave for life, but his children would be free upon their coming of age.
As for the divine right of kings, the Bible makes clear that God raises up and tears down governments, and thus that Christians must obey all legitimate authority. Authority ceases to be legitimate when it orders immoral conduct (for example, commanding the head of state to be worshiped), bans moral conduct (say by forbidding parents to teach their children righteousness), or violates its own laws, thus claiming authority it does not lawfully possess.
Chattel slavery is neither endorsed nor condoned by the Bible.
According to YOU. That doesn’t change the historical fact that the bible has been used to condone it. Whether it (the book, God) actually condones it or not was not my point; whether it HAS BEEN USED BY MEN to condone it was.
http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm
You know, it’s funny because after my first post to this article a fellow offered an essay concerning my addressing Randist mentality as Materialists. The point is that I accepted his correction about the nuances of his system of thinking, and I read what he offered. He was essentially asserting such things as True about his way of thinking and I do not dismiss his axioms out of hand. Do I agree with him? No, but I have axioms that are perched as seemingly precariously in reason as he does technically, as do you, so I respect that. Now, here you are prejudging basically anyone who ever lays eyes on a Bible, because it is misinterpreted, and we can never really know what it says, apparently.
Say what you want about Religion in general, but anyone can see that the Bible stands alone among ancient religions in it’s position in the world. The Old and New Testament speak of things going back to Creation, and even speaks of the end of the world. This is what you would expect if it were true.
In any case, why don’t you take your own medicine and stop trying to pull the rug out from me? It seems you are in agreement with Objectivism, so isn’t it true that you have to admit that a thing IS WHAT IT IS accordingly. The Bible is what it is, so stop giving it an ‘F’ without knowledge.
Grand Unified Theory of Science, Philosophy And Religion (GUTSPAR)
http://GUTSPAR.Com
Common ground for theists and non-theists believing in individualism over collectivism.
–Jim Wrenn, Editor/Author GUTSPAR.Com
Grand Unified Theory of Science, Philosophy And Religion (GUTSPAR)
http://GUTSPAR.Com
Common ground for theists and non-theists believing in individualism over collectivism.
Above comment and content pertain to the issues and views described at
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/values-and-the-defense-of-freedom/
–Jim Wrenn, Editor/Author, GUTSPAR.Com
Before Christianity there was Paygonism. What more needs to be said ?
The Tea Party + Religious Social values = Conservative Republicanism. A Failure since this combination will NEVER deliver a majority at the polls.
The Tea Party must be social value free, focused on a limited set of values in the economic, security and federalism sectors where the interests of conservative and libertarian voters DO deliver a majority.
We must be prepared to vote for TEA candidates who do not reflect our personal social views in the interest of getting a government that addresses the major problems we face today. We can split and focus on social issues after the country is put back on firm footing. In the meantime…arguing social issues only helps the Libs.
Aren’t financial issues also social/moral issues? If the goverment takes money from me to give it to someone else, I consider that confiscation and thievery. Is that not a social / moral issue? Or are social issues everything but financial issues in your mind?
Are you prepared to vote for TEA Party candidates that also speak about social issues? Or is it only that some of us must accept TEA Party candidates that agree with you on those matters?
Well, it depends on what they say when they “speak out,” now doesn’t it. If they “speak out” about in favor of making or keeping marriage, abortion, drug use, gambling, prostitution or jaywalking federal issues, I will have no choice but to vote against them. As Lincoln said, I prefer my despotism pure. . . without the base alloy of hypocricy.”If they speak out about keeping such issues at the state and local levels as proscribed by the Constitution, I will vote for them.
Anyone who doesn’t think we are headed toward a police state is delusional. Already we are the leading jailers of the civilized world, already we have more laws than any one individual can keep count of. If you’re “comfortable” with a “conservative” police state, then how comfortable will you be when the liberals take over the police state you’ve created? Look at London that now has more surveillance cameras than people, how convenient will that be for the jihadies when they take over? That huge federal bureaucracy you praise for locking away people who do things with their own bodies and with other consenting adults can just as easily be tasked with registering and confiscating your arms when the pendulum swings the other way.
Again, to paraphrase Lincoln, not wanting to be a slave I have no desire to be a master. The more power you give the federal government, regardless of your intentions, the more that power will be used against the people, that is the ONLY target of federal power. The federal government is a necessary evil, more of it is therefore more evil.
I don’t think you understand me at all. I’m all for removing lots of laws from the books; I’m all for dismantling the bureaucracy; I’m for liberty and NOT a police state. What I’m not for is the federal gov’t imposing their immoral laws by fiat on the rest of us.
So what is your view on abortion? OK or wrong? What about marriage? Are you OK with it being redefined?
My views have been stated, neither of these are federal issues, both are plainly state and local issues.
Rapidly approaching the precipice…
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”
Ayn Rand
Ideology always leads to blindness, both intellectual and emotional.
“The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Ideologies taken on faith certinaly lead to blindness, but ideologies whose fundamental principles are known and whose conclusions are tested against the evidence of the real world are a different story. When you know the axioms of your ideology and are willing to change them based on whether or not their conclusions hold up in real life, your ideology (whether true or false) will eventually lead to wisdom, not folly, because eventually you will come up with the truth, or at least get a lot closer to it than you were when you started.
“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything — you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
Robert A. Heinlein
“If This Goes On” (1940
see:
“Notes on the State of Virginia,” Query 13 and Query 17.
reference also:
“The Kentucky Resolution of 1798″
“The Virginia Resolution of 1798.”
When we stop cherry-picking and actually compare Rand’s ideas about freedom with that of the Founders, you’ll see that their ‘ideological’ concerns wrt to government are not far removed from one another. (That said, Adams and Jefferson both violated The Constitution when they were in power.)
> [Objectivism] holds [the unproductive] in very high contempt as parasites.
I think Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and George Soros can live with our contempt. But calling them parasites is a perspective that presumes parasitism is wrong. That’s an interesting view, considering all the parasites to be found in nature. For every productive species, there are dozens of parasites that make a good living at their expense. Since there is no God (in the Objectivist universe), who are we to say parasitism is bad? Parasites have been around longer than man.
> It also doesn’t believe that anyone could find true, long term happiness from pursuing such a path.
That sounds like a faith, not a position based on reason. And besides, Objectivism is a selfish ethos, so what do we care about their happiness? And why should they listen to our, er, preaching on the subject?
> Rather, they live in chronic fear because as people who are dependent on others for their existence, they never know when the supply will run dry.
We are all dependent on others. We all fear what will happen when the economic system breaks down. If Randists think they are an island, they’re wrong. If we’re all raising chickens and growing tomatoes in our back yards for subsistence, there won’t be a lot of money, say, for egoistic novelists.
> This is why Objectivists don’t believe government should interfere in the economy, because their actions will by definition cause people to act in ways which are not based in reality…
I tend to be sympathetic toward this view — Objectivists seem to understand something about economics — but we have to be honest about the proper role of government. I see that role as the NFL’s role in a football game. There can be no game at all without rules and referees, and it is government’s role to enforce the law and provide the stability that makes the game, capitalism, a possibility. The problem starts when the referee takes sides and sees himself as one of the players.
> As for whether what is in your best interest is also in the interest of your fellow man, Objectivism holds that you have no duty to consider what is in the interest of your fellow man.
It doesn’t matter. Capitalism forces someone to consider the interests of his fellow man, while socialism only requires someone to consider the interests of the commissar who hands out the goodies.
> All you have to do is make sure that you do not violate his rights, which are the same as yours (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, to be succinct).
If someone has no duty to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man, then how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man? And where did those rights come from? If Our Creator didn’t give us those rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, what did? The rocks and trees? Quantum physics? Reason? What is it precisely that enshrines reason? How do we know we can count on it? If we can count on it, how do we know we can count on humanity to discern and apply it?
Things sound arbitrary in the world of Objectivism. It sounds almost as if Objectivism requires that Christians look the other way while they borrow the Christian premises to uphold their arguments.
> Rather they do what they do because it brings them happiness, and they refuse to violate others’ rights because they know that to do so is to violate their own rights, which is hardly in their self-interest.
Some people seem to acquire happiness just fine by violating others’ rights. Go ahead and lecture them that they can’t find true happiness that way. I’m sure they’ll listen intently.
> Well, if they’re not willing to do that, then no one will punish them. They simply will not get the reward that comes from having a happy, fulfilling life.
It’s amazing how much Objectivism sounds like Buddhism.
> To be moral is both a practical thing to do and a benefit to your life, not a burden or an irrational sacrifice.
That sounds arbitrary, so let’s embrace the arbitrariness: why can’t we turn it around? To be practical and add benefit to our lives is to be moral. So now I am empowered to do anything that practically benefits to my life. And since I have no responsibility to my fellow man, that makes room for a lot of behaviors that some might consider immoral. Oh, right, somehow I am responsible to observe my fellow man’s rights, even though I have no responsibilities… And they say Christianity is loaded with paradoxes.
> Human beings are not perfect…
The very idea of perfect human beings requires a transcendent standard. That standard cannot be Reason, unless Reason was invented by something greater than humans, which is not a possibility in the Objectivist world. When man draws his very last breath, so will Reason.
>calling them parasites is a perspective that presumes parasitism is wrong. That’s an interesting view, considering all the parasites to be found in nature.
Yes, in nature there are many species who survive by preying on other species. But there are none who survive by acting as parasites on fellow members of their own species. Humans eat chickens and cows. They don’t eat each other (at least, they don’t unless you live in New Guinea or Cuba).
>>It also doesn’t believe that anyone could find true, long term happiness from pursuing such a path.
>That sounds like a faith, not a position based on reason.
Not at all. For example, look at the situation of immigrants in the US vs. Europe. Immigrants in Europe hate Europeans, whereas most immigrants in the US are happyy to be here. How can this be, when Europe gives them better benefits and other perks than we in the US do? Because they do not work, they do not produce, they know they are dependent on others (on some level) and they do not like it, it makes them unhappy and bitter. You can also see that attitude in government housing projects.
>If Randists think they are an island, they’re wrong. If we’re all raising chickens and growing tomatoes in our back yards for subsistence, there won’t be a lot of money, say, for egoistic novelists.
You misunderstand. When I say we have to live independtly, what I mean is that we have to independently sustain our own existence. This doesn’t mean I have to live on a desert island. But it does mean that I have to give those around me value in exchange for what I want with them, I have to deal with them by trade and not through begging or at gunpoint.
>I see that role as the NFL’s role in a football game. There can be no game at all without rules and referees, and it is government’s role to enforce the law and provide the stability that makes the game, capitalism, a possibility. The problem starts when the referee takes sides and sees himself as one of the players.
We are in agreement here. I think you simply misunderstood what I meant when I said government should not interfere, but I meant what you said about being a referee and not a player.
>If someone has no duty to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man, then how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man?
Because it opens the door to violation of your own rights by him. Just as we do not stifle someone’s speech because to do so would stifle our own speech, I do not look to steal another person’s property or otherwise violate his rights because to do so would violate my own.
>And where did those rights come from? If Our Creator didn’t give us those rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, what did?
I believe those rights are inherent in human nature, requirements for his survival and happiness. If you want to believe they are granted by God because God created man and the universe, that’s fine by me; certainly I have no proof that you’re wrong. But you can’t just lay those rights down as commandments, you have to realize that human beings cannot survive without them and explain why, or you’ll get cooked by the first progressive who argues for collectivization and the good of society.
>Some people seem to acquire happiness just fine by violating others’ rights. Go ahead and lecture them that they can’t find true happiness that way. I’m sure they’ll listen intently.
Actually, these are the people I don’t bother to lecture. This is what jails are for.
> Yes, in nature there are many species who survive by preying on other species. But there are none who survive by acting as parasites on fellow members of their own species. Humans eat chickens and cows. They don’t eat each other (at least, they don’t unless you live in New Guinea or Cuba).
Are we talking parasites, cannibals, or both? Plenty of species are cannibalistic — spiders, scorpions, mantises, crabs, hawks, hyenas, even chimps, our closest animal relatives. As for species that parasitize each other, off the top of my head, I can only think of one: the angler fish, where the males attach themselves to the female. But the point I was making is that the type of behavior you characterized as parasitic is older than reason. It appears to be a perfectly viable option for survival, and in Darwin’s universe, survival is where it’s at. A strategy that assists survival is therefore not so easily dismissed as “unreasonable” — reason being, apparently, where Objectivism derives its authority.
> Not at all. For example, look at the situation of immigrants in the US vs. Europe. Immigrants in Europe hate Europeans, whereas most immigrants in the US are happyy to be here. How can this be, when Europe gives them better benefits and other perks than we in the US do? Because they do not work, they do not produce, they know they are dependent on others (on some level) and they do not like it, it makes them unhappy and bitter. You can also see that attitude in government housing projects.
There may be other explanations for what you’re observing. Maybe it’s because immigrants in Europe are primarily Islamic.
> You misunderstand. When I say we have to live independtly, what I mean is that we have to independently sustain our own existence. This doesn’t mean I have to live on a desert island. But it does mean that I have to give those around me value in exchange for what I want with them, I have to deal with them by trade and not through begging or at gunpoint.
Perhaps I did. As I said, generally, I have no quarrel with Randian economics.
>> If someone has no duty to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man, then how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man?
> Because it opens the door to violation of your own rights by him.
What if I’m willing to take that risk based on the risk vs. reward model?
> Just as we do not stifle someone’s speech because to do so would stifle our own speech, I do not look to steal another person’s property or otherwise violate his rights because to do so would violate my own.
This presumes that all people think this way. Some do. Some don’t. There are plenty of people who steal others’ property regardless of the theoretical risk to their own, that’s why we have prisons. As for speech, I think college speech codes show that the people who espouse free speech the loudest, namely colleges and universities, are the first ones in line for taking away free speech when it doesn’t agree with their positions.
But I think the premise here that is the most questionable is that, in a godless world, it is in everyone’s best interest to play by a set of moral rules wherever they come from — Objectivism, the Bible, Buddha, whatever. Some people are actually better off under socialism. Or so they perceive, and who is Rand to tell them otherwise? I understand why Rand wouldn’t want them sucking off of her writing profits and would want protection from them, but that’s beside the point.’
> I believe those rights are inherent in human nature, requirements for his survival and happiness.
So if something is inherent in human nature, it is therefore a good thing? Really?
> If you want to believe they are granted by God because God created man and the universe, that’s fine by me; certainly I have no proof that you’re wrong.
Well, but it either is or isn’t. If it isn’t, I’m asking, what does? Human nature? Please. Didn’t the bloodiness of the 20th century teach us anything about human nature? E.g., a new book on Mao shows he murdered 45 million of his own countrymen, and was prepared to murder half of his own country. Here’s a man who, if you were able to ask him, aren’t you sorry for what you did, would reply that, unfortunately he didn’t kill enough people.
> But you can’t just lay those rights down as commandments, you have to realize that human beings cannot survive without them and explain why, or you’ll get cooked by the first progressive who argues for collectivization and the good of society.
All you’re saying here is that morality requires authority. I agree. I just don’t see how authority *over* man can be derived *from* man.
> Actually, these are the people I don’t bother to lecture. This is what jails are for.
In today’s world, you and I are more likely to end up there than the people I’m talking about.
>But the point I was making is that the type of behavior you characterized as parasitic is older than reason. It appears to be a perfectly viable option for survival, and in Darwin’s universe, survival is where it’s at. A strategy that assists survival is therefore not so easily dismissed as “unreasonable” — reason being, apparently, where Objectivism derives its authority.
OK, I stand corrected on the “species eating each other” thing. And its true that a society which is composed mostly of productive people can stand a few freeloaders. But a basic law of behavior is that when you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. A society where everyone consumes and nobody produces cannot stand, and the more you reward those who don’t produce, the more non-producers you’re going to get.
>There may be other explanations for what you’re observing. Maybe it’s because immigrants in Europe are primarily Islamic.
As I said, there are other examples. Look at the inhabitants of government housing projects, getting free food stamps and welfare even as they complain that their benefactors are the reason they’re down. Look at the minorities who complain they’re being discriminated against, even as society bends backwards in attempts to become more “diverse”
>What if I’m willing to take that risk based on the risk vs. reward model?
As I said, that’s what jails are for.
>Some people are actually better off under socialism. Or so they perceive, and who is Rand to tell them otherwise?
She doesn’t have to. Generally the results of socialist sysetms speak for themselves.
>So if something is inherent in human nature, it is therefore a good thing? Really?
Nature is neither good nor bad. It just is, and human nature is no different. Good comes from defining your terms, and whether or not something is in accordance with them. My terms are the preservation and enrichment of individual human life. The good is what serves that goal. Therefore a system which protects the life, liberty and property of individuals, a system in accordance with human nature which allows people to live together without conflict by enforcing a strict respect for their rights, is a good system.
>”Didn’t the bloodiness of the 20th century teach us anything about human nature? E.g., a new book on Mao shows he murdered 45 million of his own countrymen, and was prepared to murder half of his own country. Here’s a man who, if you were able to ask him, aren’t you sorry for what you did, would reply that, unfortunately he didn’t kill enough people.”
I believe a big part of the problem with Communism is that it doesn’t acknowledge human nature. Instead, it declares human nature evil and expects human beings to change it. That’s impossible, which is a big part of why all those people died.
>All you’re saying here is that morality requires authority.
Actually, I explicitly rejected that morality requires authority. I said it requires a logical backing whose ultimate argument was NOT based on faith, but rather on the ability to recognize reality through the use of reason.
>In today’s world, you and I are more likely to end up there than the people I’m talking about.
And what does that say about the world?
> [Objectivism] holds [the unproductive] in very high contempt as parasites.
I think Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and George Soros can live with our contempt. But calling them parasites is a perspective that presumes parasitism is wrong. That’s an interesting view, considering all the parasites to be found in nature. For every productive species, there are dozens of parasites that make a good living at their expense. Since there is no God (in the Objectivist universe), who are we to say parasitism is bad? Parasites have been around longer than man.
> It also doesn’t believe that anyone could find true, long term happiness from pursuing such a path.
That sounds like a faith, not a position based on reason. And besides, Objectivism is a selfish ethos, so what do we care about their happiness? And why should they listen to our, er, preaching on the subject?
> Rather, they live in chronic fear because as people who are dependent on others for their existence, they never know when the supply will run dry.
We are all dependent on others. We all fear what will happen when the economic system breaks down. If Randists think they are an island, they’re wrong. If we’re all raising chickens and growing tomatoes in our back yards for subsistence, there won’t be a lot of money, say, for egoistic novelists.
> This is why Objectivists don’t believe government should interfere in the economy, because their actions will by definition cause people to act in ways which are not based in reality…
I tend to be sympathetic toward this view — Objectivists seem to understand something about economics — but we have to be honest about the proper role of government. I see that role as the NFL’s role in a football game. There can be no game at all without rules and referees, and it is government’s role to enforce the law and provide the stability that makes the game, capitalism, a possibility. The problem starts when the referee takes sides and sees himself as one of the players.
> As for whether what is in your best interest is also in the interest of your fellow man, Objectivism holds that you have no duty to consider what is in the interest of your fellow man.
It doesn’t matter. Capitalism forces someone to consider the interests of his fellow man, while socialism only requires someone to consider the interests of the commissar who hands out the goodies.
> All you have to do is make sure that you do not violate his rights, which are the same as yours (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, to be succinct).
If someone has no duty to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man, then how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man? And where did those rights come from? If Our Creator didn’t give us those rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, what did? The rocks and trees? Quantum physics? Reason? What is it precisely that enshrines reason? How do we know we can count on it? If we can count on it, how do we know we can count on humanity to discern and apply it?
Things sound arbitrary in the world of Objectivism. It sounds almost as if Objectivism requires that Christians look the other way while they borrow the Christian premises to uphold their arguments.
> Rather they do what they do because it brings them happiness, and they refuse to violate others’ rights because they know that to do so is to violate their own rights, which is hardly in their self-interest.
Some people seem to acquire happiness just fine by violating others’ rights. Go ahead and lecture them that they can’t find true happiness that way. I’m sure they’ll listen intently.
> Well, if they’re not willing to do that, then no one will punish them. They simply will not get the reward that comes from having a happy, fulfilling life.
It’s amazing how much Objectivism sounds like Buddhism.
> To be moral is both a practical thing to do and a benefit to your life, not a burden or an irrational sacrifice.
That sounds arbitrary, so let’s embrace the arbitrariness: why can’t we turn it around? To be practical and add benefit to our lives is to be moral. So now I am empowered to do anything that practically benefits to my life. And since I have no responsibility to my fellow man, that makes room for a lot of behaviors that some might consider immoral. Oh, right, somehow I am responsible to observe my fellow man’s rights, even though I have no responsibilities… And they say Christianity is loaded with paradoxes.
> Human beings are not perfect…
The very idea of perfect human beings requires a transcendent standard. That standard cannot be Reason, unless Reason was invented by something greater than humans, which is not a possibility in the Objectivist world. When man draws his very last breath, so will Reason. Given that, it’s hard to see how Reason is any greater than man.
Reformed Trombonist. Which of Rand’s works have you read?
I will tell you if you will tell me which of my arguments have earned your objections, and why.
“If someone has no duty to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man, then how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man?”
Duty is compulsion. Anyone should have the choice (thought), not just the duty (non-thought), “to consider what is in the best interests of his fellow man”, therefore “how can there exist a duty to consider the rights of his fellow man?” leads to a narrow duty bound interpretation of the morality of consideration of the rights of others.
As Rand stated – “The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest… ‘Duty’ destroys reason: it supersedes one’s knowledge and judgment, making the process of thinking and judging irrelevant to one’s actions.”
It can’t be both ways. Either I have a duty to my fellow man or I don’t. If I have no such duty, as Randists have claimed, then I have no duty to be watchful over my fellow man’s rights, as Randists have claimed.
I have read Rand’s Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and yes, all 53 pages of John Galt’s closing rant. That ought to count for something.
Yes, I agree with this –
“If I have no such duty, as Randists have claimed, then I have no duty to be watchful over my fellow man’s rights, as Randists have claimed.”
“I have read Rand’s Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and yes, all 53 pages of John Galt’s closing rant. That ought to count for something.”
And read this too – “Causality Versus Duty” from the book Philosophy: Who Needs It.
Rand explains Rand better than anyone.
I have not read any of Ayn Rand’s works, though I intend to do so but I am an Atheist annoyed by the likes of Glenn Beck touting his belief that reliance on God is the only path to restoring America to that envisioned by the Founders. While Mr. Beck occasionally includes Atheist in his American restoration crusade, an effort that I support, he immediately falls back on his assertion that only a return to God will bring success.
God is the answer; a conclusion that I think is a bit naive and one I do not share. “God” is not going to come and perform a miracle equivalent to the biblical fable of Moses parting the Red Sea and to believe that Conservatives kneeling at their bedsides in prayer and tithing to a church on a regular, religious regimen is going to bring about the desired American reformation is not only naive it is delusional and dangerous.
I find nothing wrong with people of faith practicing their religion but religious fervor is not necessarily a prerequisite for a healthy respect for human life, dignity and rights and, in some instances, it can be antithetical to that end.
For proof consider an in depth study of the ancient, recently revived Islamic political revolution currently underway to impose Islam and Sharia law as the dominant religion and political system around the world. Muslims religious belief is based on the Koran and Mohammad as the prophet of their God, Allah (PBUH). Does one conclude from this that Muslims fervent belief in their “God” is a prerequisite for a foundation in basic human rights; a religion that is misogynistic, homophobic and supreme over all other faiths, which are necessarily based on “false Gods” and which believes that Sharia, the inviolable law of Allah, is supreme over all other man made laws such as our Constitution? And why, if a belief in God is so essential for the establishment of basic human rights, do Muslims come up with a totally different set that is totally abhorrent to modern, enlightened, secular societies such as our own?
While the Founders drew on their religious beliefs in creating the Constitution the very first amendment establishes the freedom of religion that has become an integral, accepted and revered right that all Americans enjoy but I cannot agree that those vaunted inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only come from a God that some of us, as is our right, do not believe exists.
Ayn Rand’s premise that the existence of a supreme being is not a necessary or sufficient condition for establishing a basis for what is or is not a human right is certainly more consistent with what can readily be observed in today’s world.
Isn’t it obvious? The answer is right in front of your face! The reason why Muslims believe that God’s will is antithetical to freedom is that they worship a false god.
Ayn Rand once wrote:
“Those who hold that life is valuable, hold, by implication, that men ought not to be prevented from carrying on life-sustaining activities. In other words, if it is said to be ‘right’ that they should carry them on, then, by permutation, we get the assertion that they ‘have a right’ to carry them on. Clearly the conception of ‘natural rights’ originates in recognition of the truth that if life is justifiable, there must be a justification for the performance of acts essential to its preservation; and, therefore, a justification for those liberties and claims which make such acts possible.”
Wait. That’s my bad. Ayn Rand didn’t write that. The person who wrote that was the man I’m always confusing her with, the man whom she plagiarized and didn’t acknowledge, the man whom she had her character Gail Wynand read and not understand — one Herbert Spencer, in his book, The Man Versus the State (1884).
And it was, I believe, Herbert Spencer’s disciple Auberon Herbert who wrote the following:
“Nobody has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. That is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true society. Whether we are many, or whether we are few, we must learn only to use the weapons of reason, discussion, and persuasion…. As long as men are willing to make use of force for their own ends, or to make use of fraud, which is only force in disguise, wearing a mask, and evading our consent, just as force with violence openly disregards it — so long we must use force to restrain force. That is the one and only one right employment of force … force in the defense of the plain simple rights of property, force used defensively against force used aggressively (Auberon Herbert, The Principles of Voluntaryism, 1897).
Ayn Rand was hardly the first to defend a secular vision of freedom and morality — not by a damn sight — she just couldn’t bring herself to admit that she had gotten so many of her ideas from these free-thinkers and twentieth-century-business-theory proponents, et al:
“When we speak of values we do so under the inspiration and from the perspective of life.”
Said Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, whom Ayn Rand read religiously for nearly two decades.
More here
So, Ayn Rand was concerned about philosophy, why shouldn’t her read Nietzche? I bet if she didn’t, then somebody would come up saying “Ayn didn’t read it!” lol.
Is anybody here saying Rand was “the first to defend a secular vision of freedom and morality”??? double lol for you.
Yet, Rand is the one who finally integrated lot of knowledge, from Parmenides’ identity law, through Aristotle logic, until way down to our times with Ius-naturalism and some austrian (not all) school economics.
Phil Hare gave us a clue, when he said, “I don’t worry about The Constitution.” Bush said it was “…Just a goddamned piece of paper.” Obama said that it was a “Fundamentally flawed document which reflects an enormous blind-spot in this culture that carries on until this day.” Alcee Hasting said, “When the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along.”
Whether from convenience or conviction, almost all of the men and women in our political class claim some form of religious bias or belief system, yet their public statements prove that they are un-reasonable men and women who have little concern for the rights and freedoms of others. The American people continue to elect and re-elect such men and women to represent us all. Where is the reason in that? Where is the morality of religious conviction to be found in our public discourse? The answer is obvious. It is absent from the local level to the federal level. Corruption is rampant. Over-consumption – gluttony – is rampant. Greed is rampant. Sloth has ruled our politics and our economy. Envy of the position, power, and wealth of others is rampant. Uncontrolled, unreasoning anger – even among the religious – is seen on these boards every day, let alone in public discourse and in their treatment of others. Many of the responses on this thread by the religious are derisive of the opinions of others. Un-reasoning pride and hubris show up in almost every word. …and it’s always someone else’s fault…
Where is the reason? Where is the enlightenment? Only those who believe as you do should remain free? That attitude abandons everything upon which this nation was founded. If you wish government to remain separated from your private affairs, you must ensure that it remains divorced from the private affairs of others, or you hand them the moral authority to implement whatever rules and laws they wish if and when they gain power. The sword of government cuts both ways and should be wielded with reason and with great caution.
If another American is not breaking your leg or picking your pocket, leave them alone. Let them be free…so that you can be free.
The fallacy in this entire argument is that religious vales are not based in reason.
However, for the purposes of promoting the argument that the value of freedom is a derived value, the Faith-based notion that values are derived from a Natural Law Creator, and the Reason based notion that freedom is derived from reason is insignificant from a practical standpoint. Both are opposed to the notion that freedom is something granted my men to other men through government, and as such can be allied in their opposition to the elevation of the State. And Both are also opposd to the libertarian proposition that freedom is a do determine your own values is a primary value. Both believe that the value of freedom is derived.
The differences between the two come from a belief shared by both Ayn Rand devotees and some religionists that faith and reason are incompatible. If, however, you believe that the Natural Creator is both logical and reasonable, then there is inherent conflict between values derived from Reason and values derived from a Reasonable God. In fact, they should and do coincide in many respects.
That should read, “There is NO inherent conflict between values derived from Reason and values derived from a Reasonable God.”
The responsibility of people of Faith is to show that belief in God is reasonable and that God created Reason. Those who attack those committed to reason without supporting their arguments reasonably are doing a disservice to religion.
On the other hand, those committed to the concept of Reason necessarily need to open up there minds to the possibility of a God of both Nature and Reason. It is not Reasonable to reject all Faiths solely on the basis that those who promote Faith tend to do so unreasonably. The argument stands or falls on its own, irregardless of the rationality or irrationality of the those who propose it.
In my experience, I have found that it is both reasonable and faithful to believe in God. It does not surprise me in the least that both those who promote Reason and those who promote Faith come to the same destination – to wit freedom is fundamental to the success of civilization and the fulfillment of mankind.
Bingo