Yeah, it said on Wikipedia that objectivism and objective morality used to complement each other or mean about the same thing.No, the two are entirely different terms, like Existence and Existentialism.
Objective morality includes the Golden Rule, but Objectivism only really negatively implies it and totally misses the spirit of it.
In any case, go read the wikipedia article on Objectivism. You’ll learn more that way than from our brief synopses.
Are we thinking of the same wikipedia?Yeah, it said on Wikipedia that objectivism and objective morality used to complement each other or mean about the same thing.
“Negative implication,” as in “it backs into the Golden Rule by accident,” not an implication of negativity.I don’t see how Objectivism negatively implies the Golden Rule.
No, it’s that Christians do it because it’s what’s best for others, whereas Objectivists do it because it’s generally what’s best for themselves.The Golden Rule is not original to Christianity. It’s just that for Objectivists, it’s not a God-given rule of morality because it doesn’t need to be.
Just as the others below say, I don’t know what’s the official view of the Church on this. Further, Objectivism may be self-consistent, but still founded on a weak foundation. Primarily, my concern is: How could anybody evaluate if something is BEST unless he has something to compare with (we say, God)?Is this another type of atheism? Could someone give me a little info on how the Church views it?
Thanks Much!!
Al
It says, “The name is capitalized to distinguish it from other philosophical positions to which the term “objectivism” has sometimes been applied.” I guess I assumed the “other philosophical positions” were things like objective morality. But I don’t know because it doesn’t say what those other philosophies were.Are we thinking of the same wikipedia?
Neither article mentions the other. The only only place they come together at all is at the disambiguation page, which only means that someone who types in “objectivism” or “objectivist” may want one or the other.
Like… reverse implication or something?“Negative implication,” as in “it backs into the Golden Rule by accident,” not an implication of negativity.
You say that Objectivism misses the spirit of the Golden Rule. It seems to me that Christianity does. The reason the Golden Rule is so great is because it is based on reason and the real world, derived from the concept of reciprocity and can therefore, be used to solve many matters of conflicts between groups of people with different cultures, politics, ideas, etc. The fundamental Biblical teaching of the Golden Rule had really made it into a morality of pacifism which most people today believe is a backwards, immoral position.No, it’s that Christians do it because it’s what’s best for others, whereas Objectivists do it because it’s generally what’s best for themselves.
-geekborjFurther, Objectivism may be self-consistent, but still founded on a weak foundation. Primarily, my concern is: How could anybody evaluate if something is BEST unless he has something to compare with (we say, God)?