Objectivism

[jules208]

What you’ve described IS captilism. Producing something that others need, and trade voluntarily for something that you need. Trade with money, trade with other goods–as long as you keep the system going.

Again, it’s not about every man for himself. Capitalism can’t survive that way. The idea is to not give at the expense of yourself or anyone else; what is too often preached is that giving is not “good” or “moral” unless it’s a sacrifice; unless you harm yourself in some way. It is also that no act of non-sacrificial charity should ever reward vice, but only virtue. The man who squanders his money away on drugs and gambling and becomes homeless, for example, should not be rewarded for it–to so encourages purposeful depravity.

On your first paragraph, you’re correct; what I described is capitalism. Now let’s take it a step further and say that as in the book of Acts in Scripture, the people produced and brought what they had to the table and each took only as he had need. Nevermind the bartering; there is only community stewardship, if you will. This is the ideal situation that Christ calls us to. We are supposed to concern ourselves with the needs of others as well as ourselves and admonish those who do not contribute to do so.

Now, to your final paragraph, I don’t know where Ayn Rand or any current supporters of her theory got the mistaken and distorted idea that giving is only “good” or “moral” if you give to the point that you put yourself in harm’s way. When we raise our children and care for our elder parents, we are giving out of our singular production for the benefit and survival of two, three, four or more other human souls. Since when have you sacrificed the good of society for the sake of raising your children or caring for your elderly parents?

It’s nonsense to talk about giving as a liability against humanity. If I have two coats and you need one, and I give you my extra coat, I have sacrificed already because I did not profit from giving away my extra coat. Do you see the difference between this example and what the objectivist theory proposes about giving and charity? It is simply a justification for self-centeredness because what people eventually hear is, “I don’t need to do a thing for another person because I’ll harm myself in the process.” That’s cowardly.

I suppose that the self-centered perspective abides well in the hearts of those who profess not to believe in God. Those who do not believe in God and Christ, who came that we may have life and have it abundantly, would likely believe that if they help others, there will be no one to help them when they need it. And furthermore, a professed atheist would certainly seek to preserve him or herself from death if this life is all there is, to their way of thinking.

God created the universe and he created each one of us for His pleasure and his glory. He loves you and he loves me. Trust in Him is the missing equation in the selfish or self-centered person’s heart. If we operate without faith in God, we will be more inclined to believe that Christ’s commandments about love and sacrifice are harmful, which is the lie of the devil.

From the discourse here, it seems that the greatest mistake that presumed objectivists in general are making is the grossly incorrect understanding that giving is a path to (self-)destruction and death. This could not be further from the truth. Giving is more than the reliquishing of material resources. If your neighbor’s driveway is full of snow and you help him shovel it away, where is there harm done? When your child is sick and feeling miserable and you stay up all night to comfort him or her, how do you bring harm to yourself or injure the greater good?

And what if you lose your life out of love and sacrifice for another? It seems that the heart of the matter is fear. Fear drives the self-centered person to protect his interests above everyone else. With God in the equation, we need not fear death or fear extinction or harm. What appears on the surface is loss to the fallen human mind, but every act performed to the glory of God will result in triumph and eternal life.

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25 NAB)

Peace to you all and I pray that God will continue to bless you with spiritual growth toward Christ.

 

[BlaineTog]

I’m sorry what I meant was that there really shouldn’t be feelings of guilt in the first place. Objectivism isn’t simply a way to get yourself to sleep at night–remember that this system is considered the best moral system, so there shouldn’t be anything to feel guilty about.

There’s never any good reason to feel guilty in Christianity either, but that’s irrelevant: people feel guilty regardless.

I hate to have to say this, but God’s not filling my gas tank… I’m dealing with the practical here. I believe they say that God’s people are responsible for helping each other do his will? Okay, so we’re back to people. And I don’t believe people have come up with an infinite system of wealth.

Acording to Christianity, we are radically dependent on God. If you don’t think it’s God filling your gas tank, you’re fooling yourself. Oh sure, you have (name removed by moderator)ut, you have the ability to perform actions, but even your actions are only made possible by the direct action of God.

In any case, I’m not arguing for Communism. There’s nothing wrong with a just economic system. What’s silly is when you start desparaging individuals exercising mercy, which only gets sillier when you attack mercy in general, since everything is ultimatelly given to us out of the love and mercy of God.

You’ve mentioned the concept that altruism is also receiving; I don’t deny that. In the objectivist system, “value” is not defined as monetary or even material. But it still has to have value and be tradable.

Why? More to the point, when Judgement day comes, would you rather God judge you justly according to what you deserve (which will almost invariably be something worse than hell – no offense meant, I’m including myself in that category), or mercifully according to his love?

Yes, you can take care of yourself without the altruism of others.

What if you can’t?

The kind of altruism that Rand argues against is one in which you sacrifice; granted, Bill Gates would have to give a LOT to make a sacrifice that would cripple him. But it does add up when everyone does it; any net loss, even a small one, will slowly erode the economy.

Then he shouldn’t give, is what you’re saying, because giving hurts the economy. But what if he wants to give? What if giving makes him feel good? What if it would destroy the economy of the western world for Bill Gates to give, say, 90% of his money away? He still has a lot of money, so he’s still going to be very well off for the rest of his life, except now he’s converted that 90% which wasn’t really doing much for him into happiness for himself. If the goal is selfishness, how can you criticize him?

What can you trade your happiness for?

Nothing. But that’s the point: you have what you want, so why would you want to trade it?

No I don’t think you’d give away all your worldly possessions and be ridiculously happy.

Who said all? What if giving away just your surplus made you happy?

No, you’re not. Required giving is a contradiction. Nobody should be required (by the government, out of our paychecks, for example) to give to others. The dangerous attitude is that people are compelled to donate. Giving that is not voluntary is looting.

You’re strawmanning me, though it might just be because you’re unaware of the definition of “give.” You don’t “give” the government tax money, you “pay” taxes. Giving is something that you should do, but no one is going to make you give if you don’t want to. You seem to be equating Christianity with some sort of radical communism, which is weird because Christianity isn’t concerned with economics at all.

If there’s nothing you “should” do, then you have no basis for criticism, and your argument loses its base entierly.

That’s a choice. Nobody should be required, encouraged, or compelled to do so.

But they should be encouraged to be selfish, is that it?

The best example is from Rand herself in Atlas Shrugged. The country’s economy was suffering, and the government sought to seize Hank Rearden’s extremely successful metal plant so that his profits could be redistributed. The government forced him to be altruistic.

Um, no. Perhaps you have a poorly-written dictionary? The government stole from him. Altruism, by definition, isn’t forced. It’s a good thing to do, but God doesn’t literally make it impossible for you to refuse to do it. As a matter of fact, he gives you every opportunity to not give, even though you should.

(con’t below)

 

[BlaineTog]

(con’t from above)

Even by my own will, if I am sacrificing myself, I am saying that human beings ought to be sacrificed to other human beings. Any human sacrifice is slavery or cannibalism.

If it’s by choice, it’s not slavery. If it’s not crippling, it’s not cannibalism. You’re not supposed to cripple yourself with giving. It’s just that most people, especially most affluent people (in a not-just-monetary sense), can give of themselves a lot before they’re crippled. You shouldn’t work on a campaign to help the homeless without eating or sleeping, you shouldn’t give away all your possessions to the point that your own children are starving, you shouldn’t cut your arm off to feed someone: though all of those actions are, in themselves, virtuous, they entail unnecessary negative consequences which are not good. Though martyrdom is virtuous, you should absolutelly try to avoid it as long as the avoidance methods aren’t sinful.

Though really, what’s wrong with slavery or cannibalism? On what grounds do you propose to use those words to channel your perjorative tone?

Again, all of these issues are very isolated examples. You just have to see the bigger picture; I don’t think I did, until I read Atlas Shrugged. You start to see that gradually those attitudes and actions WILL eventually lead to destruction.

Eh, God said to do them, so that’s the end of it for me.

But those who produce and trade and seek to improve their ability to produce and trade are not evil; they are serving the greater good, if you will.

Who said they are? I certainly didn’t.

Do not require or compell them to give.

Why not? Even in an economic sense, they have a tremendous debt to God which is horribly unpayable. God has agreed to release our debts if only we’ll give to each other. We, in a very real sense, owe each other. If you don’t, you’re welching on a debt.

 

[ireland381]

I don’t know where Ayn Rand or any current supporters of her theory got the mistaken and distorted idea that giving is only “good” or “moral” if you give to the point that you put yourself in harm’s way.

To clarify, she defines altruism as giving with self-sacrifice. Not all giving and not all Christian charity is a sacrifice, but Catholicism and others certainly encourage it (what is Lent for, but to sacrifice simply to feel suffering? Modeling Jesus’ suffering in order to understand it, perhaps, but it is still dependent on giving something up that you value). That is how she defines altruism, and here’s one of the many places she said it:

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

It’s nonsense to talk about giving as a liability against humanity. If I have two coats and you need one, and I give you my extra coat, I have sacrificed already because I did not profit from giving away my extra coat.

Technically, no. You are not suffering as a result or sacrificing. It is the “give the shirt off your back” type of charity that Rand opposes.

Do you see the difference between this example and what the objectivist theory proposes about giving and charity? It is simply a justification for self-centeredness because what people eventually hear is, “I don’t need to do a thing for another person because I’ll harm myself in the process.” That’s cowardly.

No, it’s not. It’s self-serving. Which in the long run, benefits all.

I suppose that the self-centered perspective abides well in the hearts of those who profess not to believe in God.

I would probably agree. When I believed in God I was taught to feel guilty for lots of things for no good reason.

Those who do not believe in God and Christ, who came that we may have life and have it abundantly, would likely believe that if they help others, there will be no one to help them when they need it.

That’s right. Because those who produce things to fill other’s needs will no longer be able to produce. They cannot provide for others and they can no longer even provide for themselves. Eventually we will run out of people who can give us things.

And furthermore, a professed atheist would certainly seek to preserve him or herself from death if this life is all there is, to their way of thinking.

Okay… that is why they are attempting to give themselves the best life by producing and continuing to produce.

God created the universe and he created each one of us for His pleasure and his glory. He loves you and he loves me. Trust in Him is the missing equation in the selfish or self-centered person’s heart. If we operate without faith in God, we will be more inclined to believe that Christ’s commandments about love and sacrifice are harmful, which is the lie of the devil.

I use reason as my guide, not faith. What you’ve said supposes that only people who believe in God can be moral. Morality does not spring from religion and religion does not claim the monopoly on it. It is a sad fallacy to assume atheists or agnostics are immoral people. I believe that sacrifice is harmful because reason and logic and experience tells me so, not the devil. Even if I believed in God, that faith does not replace the logic of that conclusion.

From the discourse here, it seems that the greatest mistake that presumed objectivists in general are making is the grossly incorrect understanding that giving is a path to (self-)destruction and death. This could not be further from the truth. Giving is more than the reliquishing of material resources. If your neighbor’s driveway is full of snow and you help him shovel it away, where is there harm done? When your child is sick and feeling miserable and you stay up all night to comfort him or her, how do you bring harm to yourself or injure the greater good?

Again… not every act of charity is bad. Giving is not inherently evil.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal …

It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

It seems that the heart of the matter is fear. With God in the equation, we need not fear death or fear extinction or harm. .

Fear is an emotional reaction to the unknown. Faith and reason are both ways of acquiring knowledge, and therefore both attempt to eliminate or ease fear. I choose reason. And you’ve illustrated perfectly that religion and God were developed as a means of calming fear. Faith is not the only antidote to fear.

 

[ireland381]

Oh sure, you have (name removed by moderator)ut, you have the ability to perform actions, but even your actions are only made possible by the direct action of God.

People still have to carry out the actions. And God as Christians believe gave us free will to do that or not. God may have provided it all, but when I’m in the desert with an empty gas tank and a gas station, do I pay for gas or will God magically put some in my gas tank? You cannot erase people from the equation.

Then he shouldn’t give, is what you’re saying, because giving hurts the economy. But what if he wants to give? What if giving makes him feel good? What if it would destroy the economy of the western world for Bill Gates to give, say, 90% of his money away? He still has a lot of money, so he’s still going to be very well off for the rest of his life, except now he’s converted that 90% which wasn’t really doing much for him into happiness for himself. If the goal is selfishness, how can you criticize him?

Still missing the point. If it’s voluntary, it’s fine. If it’s an obligation in any form, it’s not.

Who said all? What if giving away just your surplus made you happy?

See the above.

You’re strawmanning me, though it might just be because you’re unaware of the definition of “give.” You don’t “give” the government tax money, you “pay” taxes.

I pay for things that I need, and I shouldn’t be required to pay for things that I don’t need or want. I would rather give to charity myself than have the government insist that I pay them so that they can decide how best to distribute it. It’s my money, I should decide how to spend it. Would you rather have charity by force or out of the goodness of one’s heart? But that’s a basic conservative stance.

But they should be encouraged to be selfish, is that it?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Selfishness is a virtue.

Um, no. Perhaps you have a poorly-written dictionary? The government stole from him. Altruism, by definition, isn’t forced. It’s a good thing to do, but God doesn’t literally make it impossible for you to refuse to do it. As a matter of fact, he gives you every opportunity to not give, even though you should.

Yes, they did steal from him. They did it under the pretense that it was for the greater good, that other people had needs. There are many ways to pussyfoot around it, but yes, if it’s not willingly given it’s theft.

 

[BlaineTog]

People still have to carry out the actions. And God as Christians believe gave us free will to do that or not. God may have provided it all, but when I’m in the desert with an empty gas tank and a gas station, do I pay for gas or will God magically put some in my gas tank? You cannot erase people from the equation.

Not at all, but you’re trying to erase God, which is much more absurd.

Additionally, God gave us free will to do good or to do evil, but he then told us to do good. We are obligated to do good, a) because God told us to, b) because our happiness is necessarily contingent upon it, and c) because we owe it to God in repayment for our infinite debt. That hell is the worst we get for disobeying is a mercy.

Still missing the point. If it’s voluntary, it’s fine. If it’s an obligation in any form, it’s not.

Why? Why is it wrong to say that it’s right to do something?

Yes, in a manner of speaking. Selfishness is a virtue.

Why should I be selfish? What if I don’t want to be?

And why did you give all the parts of my post where we actually disagreed a pass? You mostly just replied to the parts that don’t actually have much to do directly with our disagreement.

 

[ireland381]

I want to apologize for getting so involved in this discussion and perhaps it’s gotten a bit off topic. But I want to say a few things…

You may feel I have to right to be here or criticize because I don’t believe in God. To clarify, I am agnostic–which only means that I believe that there is no way to prove the existence of God. It’s often misinterpretted as just having no opinion or not being decisive. If there were factual proof of God, that would destroy faith because it is knowledge based on what cannot be proven. This makes me not a strict Objectivist, it’s true. In a way I find agnosticism more reverent in that it does not presume that such finite, limited creatures could claim to know or understand something as great as the God we conceive of. I stepped away from traditional religion because I could no longer accept all the contradictions it teaches.

Personally, and again this may be against Objectivist views, I believe your personal beliefs in religion are your own. As long as you are comfortable with your beliefs, they are right for you, in a sense… I was not comfortable with the beliefs I was brought up on. I don’t believe one should use those beliefs on others, though… you can tell me that I have a debt to pay to God, but I don’t believe in God and feel no obligation. If that is the way you feel, I don’t judge that. I would only oppose being told by others that I should give because they (or God) think I should.

Over and over you have implied that I think giving is evil. It’s not. It’s a great thing when it’s done properly. But it should never be considered a moral obligation.

A good example… the government is giving a sum of money back to everyone… a gift. Interestingly, everyone gets an equal amount. It’s designed to stimulate the economy by giving people money that they can spend as they choose–a wonderful idea, except where is the money coming from? It’s coming from taxes we paid… it begs the question, “Why did I have to pay this in the first place if they’re giving it back?” and more importantly, it’s entirely unequal. The person who pays hardly any taxes gets a windfall while the people who had to pay more get pennies compared to what they paid. I can’t understand why it isn’t proportional.

And the issue of giving creating happiness. I don’t subscribe the the equation of all giving of something with monetary value produces an “equal” amount of happiness… how and why would you quantify happiness, anyway? Yes, I realize that I’ve focused this largely towards the economy, but that’s so critical. Things of monetary value are important. Happiness simply doesn’t fuel the fire. And try to separate it if you want, but you are losing money and gaining happiness… losing money. When there’s widespread poverty, is your happiness going to sustain you and your neighbor?

There are people who are unable to produce; that’s a small minority. When all your money goes to the government so that they can help people, how do you know who it is you’re helping? Is your hard earned money going to the crippled man or the orphan who cannot produce? Or is it going to the homeless man who squandered his money away and now is starving and cold?

 

[joeybaggz]

In any discussion of Atlas Shrugged one thing should be recognized, and that is the fact that Rand’s world is populated only by “perfect” people. By perfect I mean people who are physically whole and capable being economically productive. In the world of the Rearden, Taggart, D’Anconia, Mouch, Boyle, and Claude Slagenhop (don’t you just love that one), there are no handicapped, no mentally ill, no physically ill with crippling diseases, etc. I don’t think it is Rand’s intention to discuss the concept of charity or altruism as we know it in Christianity. Granted she is atheistic in her outlook and religion comes in for a bashing, but only so far as it, in her opinion, willfully joins with the economic looters and moochers in preaching, or maybe better, trying to sell economic suicide as a virtue. Rand’s target is socialism, and the Great enemy for her and her protagonists in AS, is not God, but Robin Hood, or at least the blasphemy the Robin Hood represents.

Understood in that light, Rand’s economics is not at cross purposes with Christian understanding of the proper economic function of healty and whole human beings.

My two cents

 

[BlaineTog]

You may feel I have to right to be here or criticize because I don’t believe in God. To clarify, I am agnostic–which only means that I believe that there is no way to prove the existence of God. It’s often misinterpretted as just having no opinion or not being decisive. If there were factual proof of God, that would destroy faith because it is knowledge based on what cannot be proven.

If that’s the definition, then I’m agnostic. But I’m not. So the definition is inaccurate. Different people define it differently, but basically, agnosticism is a stubborn resistance to choosing between atheism and theism. It isn’t faith that we can’t know (such faith I would define as simply “being reasonable”), but that we cannot reasonably put our faith in God’s existence or in God’s nonexistence.

In a way I find agnosticism more reverent in that it does not presume that such finite, limited creatures could claim to know or understand something as great as the God we conceive of.

It does presume to know that God could not or would not make himself known somehow. If he could not, then he’s not really very powerful at all and probably not worth worshiping, not any more than, say, Bill Gates (though at least Bill Gates can make himself known). If he would not, then he doesn’t really love us, and the only reason to worship him would be fear, though if he doesn’t interact with the world, you lose that reason too. Really, this is a much bigger presumption than that of Judaism (and, by extension, Christianity), which doesn’t claim to have found God at all, but that God found them and has stuck by them despite how very much they’ve stayed because he’s just that good.

I stepped away from traditional religion because I could no longer accept all the contradictions it teaches.

Name three contradictions in the Catholic belief system. Heck, name one.

Personally, and again this may be against Objectivist views, I believe your personal beliefs in religion are your own. As long as you are comfortable with your beliefs, they are right for you, in a sense… I was not comfortable with the beliefs I was brought up on.

To a certain degree, this is true. It is always wrong to go against your conscience if your conscience is genuinely telling you to do something.

I don’t believe one should use those beliefs on others, though… you can tell me that I have a debt to pay to God, but I don’t believe in God and feel no obligation. If that is the way you feel, I don’t judge that. I would only oppose being told by others that I should give because they (or God) think I should.

Well, if God thinks you should give, you should give, but I still don’t see a problem with me telling you to give. I wouldn’t be particularly annoyed if a friend who was a devout Wiccan (or whatever) told me that I really shouldn’t eat chicken if the subject of eating meat had come up. I mean, she shouldn’t have much of a hope of convincing me, just as I don’t think I’d have a hope of convincing her to go to church every Sunday, but we can at least bang out the logic of the positions together. And as far as Objectivism fitting in with Christianity, the suggestion is logical absurd on its face: even if there weren’t general theological differences on which Objectivism relies that are absolutely incompatible with Christianity, the Bible still says in no uncertain terms that we are to help each other.

Over and over you have implied that I think giving is evil.

No, I’ve asked you why you think it’s not.

But it should never be considered a moral obligation.

Not when you’ve defined morality as selfishness. I simply don’t see why you would define it that way, nor do I see how selflessness fits in once you’ve set selfishness as the spine of your system.

And the issue of giving creating happiness. I don’t subscribe the the equation of all giving of something with monetary value produces an “equal” amount of happiness… how and why would you quantify happiness, anyway? Yes, I realize that I’ve focused this largely towards the economy, but that’s so critical. Things of monetary value are important. Happiness simply doesn’t fuel the fire. And try to separate it if you want, but you are losing money and gaining happiness… losing money. When there’s widespread poverty, is your happiness going to sustain you and your neighbor?

A) Why do you care about your neighbor except insofar as he could potentially drag you down?
B) Again with the strawmans! When did I say you should bankrupt yourself to be happy? Bankruptcy makes most people unhappy! However, studies have show that while there’s a sharp difference in happiness between the destitute and the well-off, the rich are no happier than the middle class. Having money doesn’t make you happy, and using money for hedonistic pursuits only makes you feel good in the short term. Altruism, however, gives lasting happiness, as long as you don’t have hunger pains shouting at you and making it impossible to think about anything else.

There are people who are unable to produce; that’s a small minority.

Oh, but they’re a sticking point! If even one person isn’t able to support themself, they are an issue. Because giving isn’t just something the masochists do to the sadists (though even if it were, why not let them?), but something the haves do to the have-nots. By giving, you make it possible for someone to get on an even keel, or at least make it more possible.

When all your money goes to the government so that they can help people, how do you know who it is you’re helping?

Once again, the government doesn’t factor into this. They are irrelevant to the disagreement.

 

[jules208]

I use reason as my guide, not faith. What you’ve said supposes that only people who believe in God can be moral. Morality does not spring from religion and religion does not claim the monopoly on it. It is a sad fallacy to assume atheists or agnostics are immoral people. I believe that sacrifice is harmful because reason and logic and experience tells me so, not the devil. Even if I believed in God, that faith does not replace the logic of that conclusion.

This will probably be my last response to your arguments because you seem to have an emotional axe to grind and you make generalized and subjective judgments about a lot of what is posted in this thread. You rationalize much with the claim that you use reason, but your arguments are often weak and prejudicial.

For instance, you claim that my statements presuppose that 1) only people who believe in God are moral; and 2) that atheists or agnostics are immoral.

You’re outright wrong in that claim. I would suggest that if you have an axe to grind, be honest enough with yourself and with others to acknowledge your axe and stop allowing it to blind you to logical argument. The topic of these posts are not about the moral convictions of atheists and agnostics but about giving and sacrifice and whether giving sacrificially is inherently destructive. You have been arguing that it is; those of us who believe in God argue that is it not. When I state that the logical conclusion of the objectivist argument is greed and selfishness, you cannot deny that in this corrupt world, a nobjectivist’s proposition about giving would feed right into the mindset of the selfish and self-centered, which is most human beings, believers and non-believers alike.

I usually don’t waste my time debating with those who present poorly formed arguments, but I thought it important to do so if only for the sake of future viewers of this thread.

Again… not every act of charity is bad. Giving is not inherently evil.

Again, a tangential argument. The topic of discussion here is whether sacrificial giving is destructive or productive. The objectivist argues that it is; those who believe in the God of Mercy believe that it accomplishes far greater good than you will see or know in this life.

Fear is an emotional reaction to the unknown. Faith and reason are both ways of acquiring knowledge, and therefore both attempt to eliminate or ease fear. I choose reason. And you’ve illustrated perfectly that religion and God were developed as a means of calming fear. Faith is not the only antidote to fear.

Once again, an emotional attack at worst and an overgeneralized argument about the phenomenon of religion at best. Atheists especially love that old cliche argument that religion is the opiate for the downtrodden and unsuccessful. Another lie of the devil.

My dear, I strongly recommend that you pray and pray often for the light of grace and truth. If you harbor a lot of resentment and bitterness toward those who caused you great grief and fear and guilt in the past, make every effort to forgive them. You are doing yourself no good by holding onto your bitterness.

If you truly have no bitterness in your heart, why should you run away from the possibility that there IS a loving God waiting for you to come to him? Reason and logic abide quite well with faith and hope. When we rely solely on the one or the other, we become distorted and extreme in our thinking and behavior. The atheist who claims to use only reason grows bitter, narcissistic and elitist while the religious zealot whose primary orientation is faith grows judgmental and superstitious.

You signed up at a Catholic forum for a reason. Spend some time in prayer if you’re still seeking the truth. And please spare me any argument that I’m shoving my religion down your throat. It would be an absurd claim for you to do that. I could just as well argue that you are on this thread trying to shove Ayn Rand down everyone’s throat here as well and that would be a lie.

I commend you for the respect you have shown on the thread thus far and I do truly hope that you find answers to what or who it is you are seeking. We can deny God exists, but it doesn’t remove the empty hole that was meant to be filled by him. God bless you.

 

[inthecloud]

Thus God cannot create matter because a mind cannot change what is real, since the function of the mind is only idetification of what already exists. Consciousness must be consciousness of something because a mind that is blank is then conscious of nothing and thus a contradiction. So reality exists independent of consciousness, and thus a divine mind cannot control and cannot create existence.

Is that compatible with Quantic Theory? Does observing someting changes it?

Also, does the Objetivist claim that self interest is should be the only source of morality is in crash with evolutive theory that states that Altruism in a natural behavior of social animals as Aristotle once said?

So is a balance between selfinterest and altruism the human behavior.

 

[Doyle_Mashern]

FWIW…

"Respondents to the Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits, conducted [fall 1991] for the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress’ Center for the Book, cited the following when asked to name a book that had made a difference in their lives:

1. The Bible**
2. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
3. The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
5. The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien

** A large gap exists between the #1 book and the rest of the list."

englishcompanion.com/Readings/booklists/loclist.html

 

[geekborj]

Is this another type of atheism? Could someone give me a little info on how the Church views it?
Al

I think the Church teaches us to serve God and God only. That: “We should love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul.” and that “We should love our neighbor just as we love ourselves.” In both these commandments, the very object is God Himself not any ones’ self.

Objectivists reduce the second rule as the ONLY law and ignores the first and the primary. Note that the second is “like the first” since we are made in the image of God. Objectivists seems to try to give false reasons to our “love of neighbor” avoiding the real reason – God. The only reason why we should love ourselves is because of our love of God – we want to give more glory to Him by keeping ourselves alive and helping others do the same. Take that love away and the very essence of life withers like a branch without a trunk.

 

[jules208]

I think the Church teaches us to serve God and God only. That: “We should love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul.” and that “We should love our neighbor just as we love ourselves.” In both these commandments, the very object is God Himself not any ones’ self.

Objectivists reduce the second rule as the ONLY law and ignores the first and the primary. Note that the second is “like the first” since we are made in the image of God. Objectivists seems to try to give false reasons to our “love of neighbor” avoiding the real reason – God. The only reason why we should love ourselves is because of our love of God – we want to give more glory to Him by keeping ourselves alive and helping others do the same. Take that love away and the very essence of life withers like a branch without a trunk.

Well said… so true!

 

[Rat_Doctor]

Hi, I’m one of those “future” readers of this thread who has greatly appreciated this discussion.My brother is heavily into Objectivism and if I try to ask him what it’s about, he just gives me books and tapes and websites which I don’t have time to read/listen to or visit–he won’t just talk to me. So, it’s been very enlightening to read this discussion (we were all raised RC but I’m the only one of my sibs who came home–so far!)
my $.02…I couldn’ t help but think of St Francis in the discussion of poverty vs happiness (I’m announcing my candidacy for SFO next month ) and also Rom 1: 19-30 passed through my mind re:agnostics/atheists.
Anyway, new to this forum…think I’m gonna like it:thumbsup:

 

[Hubriss]

Wait wtf… I’m totally confused.

I thought objectivism was the theological standpoint, and subjectivism was the non-theological or the atheist/agnostic standpoint. This is the morality thread so I am assuming that we’re talking about objective and subjective morality. I thought moral subjectivism was equated with moral relativity and therefore attributed to atheists/agnostics.

Someone said that no theist is an objectivist, but I thought the idea that there is objective morality, independant of what people think, and created by God that people are “inspired” to know was the total Catholic position. Isn’t subjective morality supposed to be the despised one?

Without objectivism isn’t it impossible to claim that an action is intrinsically “good” or “evil?” I know that there can be atheistic objective morality, like the the morality that Kant tried to develope. His categorical imperative was the idea that a person should, “act upon a maxim only if he at the same time should will that it become a universal law.” (paraphrased) Yet Kant believed that this morality still depended on God.

But ultimately how can an atheist/agnostic believe in a objective moral code that does not depend on something to meaningfully create and enforce it? (I don’t think laws of a society fits the bill, because ultimately those are subjective as well, depending on a consensus of the ruling class, which in democracies’ case is the people.)

Basically, I’m wondering why it is that people are saying that theists aren’t objectivists, while good and evil depend on objectivism. If theists don’t adhere to objectivism or relativism, then what DO they hold to?

… or is objective morality completely different from objectivism? Where I might be confused is that I’m thinking objectivism depends on objective truth (i.e. God).

Hmm… reading up on it I think I’m understanding more. Objectivism is just a belief that moral propositions can be logically proven to be true or false? I don’t see this as very realistic, and therefore not a belief that atheists/agnostics would hold. So… I guess subjectivism would be something like…“I’m really angry at you, so I’m morally justified to kill you.”??? I would think most atheists are moral relativists, I think I am. I do believe that there is a rational way to determine whether or not moral propositions are desireable, but I don’t see how you can say 100% that this action is bad, and this is good. Haven’t we all learned from Kant that a universal rule that lying is always bad is not desireable? I actually think everyone is a moral relativist, no matter where they think they get their morals from.

Would apprecieate it if someone could clarify it for me and tell me if my last realizations were right. Along with what the belief of theists is.

Another question: The golden rule, it is a theologically neutral moral proposition that would be calssified as subjective morality correct?

 

[Rat_Doctor]

I was under the impression that this discussion centers around a specific philosophy founded/espoused by Ayn Rand (at least that’s my brother’s interest) also known as “Objectivist Epistomology” (I think that’s the title of her manifesto); not just what may be “objective” vs “subjective” b/c yes, there certainly is an “objective” morality—God’s and a 'subjective" one, man’s!!

 

[Mirdath]

Wait wtf… I’m totally confused.

I thought objectivism was the theological standpoint, and subjectivism was the non-theological or the atheist/agnostic standpoint. This is the morality thread so I am assuming that we’re talking about objective and subjective morality. I thought moral subjectivism was equated with moral relativity and therefore attributed to atheists/agnostics.

‘Objective morality’ and ‘objectivism’ are two entirely different animals

The former is the idea that there may exist a universally applicable code of ethics, and is just as easily held by unbelievers as by theists. The latter is a particular school of ethics revolving around the idea of ‘me first’ founded and mostly epitomized by Ayn Rand.

 

[Hubriss]

‘Objective morality’ and ‘objectivism’ are two entirely different animals

The former is the idea that there may exist a universally applicable code of ethics, and is just as easily held by unbelievers as by theists. The latter is a particular school of ethics revolving around the idea of ‘me first’ founded and mostly epitomized by Ayn Rand.

I see… thnx. So objectivism used to be almost synonymous with objective morality… I guess until Ayn Rand used the term. I like it. So the Golden Rule is perfectly compatable with it. Why then do theists have a big problem with it? The Golden Rule is probably Jesus’s most quoted/best ethical teaching.

 

[BlaineTog]

I see… thnx. So objectivism used to be almost synonymous with objective morality…

No, the two are entirely different terms, like Existence and Existentialism.

I guess until Ayn Rand used the term. I like it. So the Golden Rule is perfectly compatable with it.

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.