sleepy jack

Oh bullshit, do I need to break down exactly what you said for you? You said: "..of course, if I started talking about religion then everyone suddenly turns on their 'logic switch'." You had previously been talking about me not approaching morality logically and then you went on to say this. How isn't that pairing morality and religion? This is all semantics of course and not very productive but you said what you said.

It's not like I approach morality with no thought whatsoever (as you're implying.). I do things that I think, in my mind, are right and beneficial to my well-being and others. Here's where I differ from you though; I often place others needs higher than my own because I'm not selfish. I don't consider this "irrational" or "turning off the logic switch" because I don't believe my existence is more important to there's and in many cases I want to add pleasure to their existence because I love their life.

Here's the other difference though: I'm aware morality isn't objective nor can it be approached as such. I clearly have different morals than Rand (in placing others higher than myself) and you clearly have different morals than say, Jesus, because you've stated before dying for other people is irrational because you can't think when you're dead. We BOTH (I'd hope) have a different idea of right wrong then say Ian Brady and Myra Hindley or the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. All these different ideas of right and wrong can't exist if morality is something that can be approached objectively.

Here's the problem I have with your examples: you're taking one extreme or the other and not looking at something that's well...realistic! Plus you're making assumptions that I think either extreme is right. A common example of charity would be say donating to a orphanage or giving to a homeless person. It doesn't really benefit the person in any sense, in fact giving takes away from them financially. The most they take away from it is a sense of satisfaction...which is hardly tangible. Why not look at the morality and rationality of something like that instead?

Also what you describe isn't rape; if you do nothing to stop it and indeed (in the name of "selflessness" let it happen) then it's just consensual sex. So your example doesn't even make much sense in addition to it's unlikelihood. Morality and rationality and how a person operates is all about perspective. You can only live the world inside your own head and make your decisions based on your own observations and rules of right and wrong. You and Ayn Rand seem to have a hard time grasping this.

__________________