Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 and useless; you had said what you just said initially I wouldn't care.
|
It is because you are focusing too much on the topics I used and not on the actual point I was trying to convey. I used religion because that seems to be an issue where all sorts of people tend to be real logical. Those who believe in subjective reality will sometimes argue using logic to disprove a God. Of course, they believe logic to be flawed.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, do you decide who is more important than you and who isn't. If you do, you trust
your own rationality and judgment over everyone else's. This makes you selfish. You can still be selfish and give to those in need, or even die for a loved one. The point is, selfishness is doing what you will to do and doing things because you have reasoned them. If it is better for you to put your own life on the line for a spouse, or a really good friend because you they are a high value in your life, then you are still being selfish.
Quote:
|
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.
|
They can exist. Just like creationism, Scientology, and the Mayan calendar thing. They are concepts that exist. They are not reality. If logic is a way to observe reality, then only one morality can be right. If reality is objective, there must be an objective morality. This is because we can still use logic to observe this thing (morality) in reality. This logical morality is the objective reality. However parts of it differ due to what one's goals are. The skeleton is the same meaning the only reason you can have for your morality being what it is would be that you reasoned it out using your own mind.
Quote:
|
I never said selflessness was rational (though in many cases its commendable.) 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! 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?
|
Giving is perfectly fine as long as you have a reason to give it to them. If you give to someone you don't know, then what reason do they deserve charity over the other millions of kids who need it? There would be no reason. If you know a person in need, and you value them, then it is still moral to give to them. You have no duty to give to them. You do it because you have reasoned it out. It is selfish in this way because you put your own interest (in this case your interest would be that person) over everyone else's interests (other people, other things, etc.)
Quote:
|
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 all 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.
|
It is rape. I am
forced into a rape situation, and I let it happen, I am still coerced. This makes what I did involuntary, rendering the idea of my action to be irrational.
I have a hard time grasping how one can logically say that one has the right to someone else's life. That is my main problem with people. When some new tax comes out to tax more of the rich to give to people they don't even know, I have a huge problem with it. I have a huge problem with people reaching into my pocket and telling me I must care for a person I do not want to care for. Yet the majority of voters, including democrat and republican, somehow get away saying that they do it so that the good of all is achieved. There is no reason why everyone deserves a "right" to health care and such if it takes away my right to manage the money I worked for just like I have no "right" to walk into a poor man's house and take all he owns. If I am to give to people I would like to do it rationally and voluntarily, not because I have a gun to my head. Especially when the money I could be giving could be going to some waste of space blowing their money on crack and alcohol while their children starve. Not all people are equals. Some people are better than others because they have worked for it. At birth, all humans are equal, but eventually all humans become individuals and begin to think with their own brain. Some make irrational decisions that lead to their destruction, others make rational decisions that lead to financial success. Some are born in an environment where the struggle to be rational and to achieve financial success is harder. If they make it out of that situation and become a successful rational business man, they completely deserve every penny they earn and have proven that they are a monumental human being.
The philosophy of altruism, believes that the crack-addicted, children-starving man and his hardworking son who ended up becoming a business man are both equals. Those who propose this philosophy believe that the hardworking business man should have to give money to his father who almost starved him to death (and granted, he also gives towards those in a familiar situation to his and etc.). Then the father can go by more crack and still be considered to be equals with his hardworking son. This is a bunch of bull****.