Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword
The bold I fixed. The idea of an objective morality is the morality that is true and right. Just as we use logic and rationality to find what is true and reality in the universe, we use it to find the "objective morality". The reason rationality and logic can be used in reality is because morality is just as much a part of reality as anything else. The "objective morality" is the morality FOR THIS REALITY. If you want to abide by your own subjective morals, which you get from your own subjective universe then feel free to go on your feelings. However, there is no reason as to why these subjective feelings should be applied in this reality because they are not found in this reality. They are found in your distorted, subjective reality. As has been shown by Aristotle, logic is the reliable way to observe this reality. So that is how we find the objective morality. Here is Ayn Rand's best article to describe it: The Ayn Rand Institute: The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand It is from her book The Virtue of Selfishness. |
Morality and theology have nothing to do with each other. Like...at all. You can't approach something abstract (morality) scientifically because science deals with concrete observations and facts.
P.S. I gave up writing a response to that, I'm far too busy with schoolwork to write a who knows how many pages argument in response to a twenty page article.
Quote:
Rationality is reason.
Right is what follows the moral code.
Wrong is what doesn't follow the moral code.
Logic and reason are the moral arbitrators. The article linked above will give you some of the main ethics.
|
Why don't you give me them instead? Because if what is "moral" comes down to being "selfish" which is basically reproduce, eat, and don't kill people than Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't so much philosophy as pointing out the obvious.
Quote:
|
I only demand rationality of those who want it. Of course you want it because you use rationality to disprove God and all sorts of stuff. CA is just different. The world would be a better place if everyone was rational though. The reason I am not rational, well there isn't one. I am in a lot of cultural mesh with the Christian religion since have been brought up that way. 2-3 years ago I started looking a Christianity more to find out that it wasn't what it seemed. Now I am in between atheism and agnostic theism (Christianity). My main problem with following Christianity is the fact that what I think is right, isn't right. The world that Jesus and God want to create is not the world I want to create. They want to create a world where everyone is a bunch of socialists and love unselfishly. I want to help towards creating a rational world where people are responsible for themselves and what they do. I want to do what I want to do is the bottom line. Also, I have lived selflessly and I mean very selflessly. It's like eating food without taste buds. It is the worst feeling in my life. Selfishness and individualism are what make my life happy. So technically I don't logically agree with God, and neither do my feelings. However, I still do contribute to his kingdom for some odd reason. I still tutor after school at my own loss for some odd reason. I still give money away for some odd reason. I don't really have a steady world view right now. Believe me, it is not a good position to be in.
|
See but here's the problem I have with creating a rational world. I don't believe humans are rational beings. Our genes maybe but our conscious and thinking minds? Not in the slightest in fact your argument above shows you yourself are irrational and Ayn Rand was irrational. I don't think a single rational person has ever existed. So why strive for the impossible? The world isn't black or white, nor is it completely selfish or completely selfless. You can't operate in extremes and absolutes nor can you judge every single thing as either right or wrong. Life just isn't that simple (please note: I'm referring strictly to abstract things, not concrete. I'd consider gravity an objective truth because it's completely provable and testable.)
Quote:
|
Historical evidence of Jesus can be found in writings by the Jewish historian named Josephus. A couple roman governors wrote letters back to each other concerning a "Christus" concerning an uprising in Jerusalem. One also mentioned this "Christus" when he talked about all the martyrs. The evidence of Jesus being a real person still does not contribute to the fact that there is a god though.
|
I'm very skeptical about Jesus' existence. I don't know if you know who Jim Walker is but he makes a very good argument against the "evidence" here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim Walker
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
|
Quote:
|
There is no reason to believe this. Life is meaningless when you believe that there is no right way to view the universe.
|
Erm, pardon me but what? That doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
|
It is called an argument from authority when you try to argue that something is right because smarter people believe it.
|
You're placing too much stock in what I said. I merely
suggested (not said this is right) you might want to look at things like Objects to Objectivism or any other criticisms of Ayn Rand. She had a disdain for academic philosophy (fact) and because of this alot of her answers to philosophical questions either don't answer the question or show a fundamental misunderstanding or outright ignorance of the question.