Freedom and Virtue
Posted by JohnBrown 10 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
Is a high degree of responsibility necessary for the people to live in freedom? Do the people have to be responsible, honest, and hard-working—in a word, virtuous—before they can handle freedom? It can be a chicken-and-egg argument, certainly. Do the people lose their virtue and then lose their liberty? Or, do they gradually lose their liberty and then lose their virtue, in proportion? The cause and effect is important, because it provides a clue about how best to restore freedom. If the former, then the people must be taught virtue again, presumably by the State. But this approach is hopeless and absurd. Or, the people might somehow be drawn again to religion and absorb the moral teachings therein.
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.
—James Madison
In any case, if the people lose their virtue and then lose their freedom, there would need to be a moral revival before we could return to freedom. But if the people lose their liberty and then their virtue, the approach is more straightforward: set them free. When people are free to face the full consequences of making poor or immoral choices; when sloth, greed, envy, lying, cheating, stealing, unreliability, and broken promises have real social and economic consequences, they will be induced to become more virtuous. When the State penalizes saving and investment, when it taxes incomes and wealth away, and when it provides unearned benefits for free, it not only discourages positive, productive behavior, it rewards bad character at the same time. It subsidizes bad behavior.
To reward responsibility and penalize irresponsibility, we don't need a moral revival first. Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate. Wards of the State are not self-reliant, competent, independent individuals. In freedom, individuals build good character. In freedom, relationships are strengthened; societies become more virtuous. Harry Browne wrote an article on this topic that addresses the issue quite well.
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.
—James Madison
In any case, if the people lose their virtue and then lose their freedom, there would need to be a moral revival before we could return to freedom. But if the people lose their liberty and then their virtue, the approach is more straightforward: set them free. When people are free to face the full consequences of making poor or immoral choices; when sloth, greed, envy, lying, cheating, stealing, unreliability, and broken promises have real social and economic consequences, they will be induced to become more virtuous. When the State penalizes saving and investment, when it taxes incomes and wealth away, and when it provides unearned benefits for free, it not only discourages positive, productive behavior, it rewards bad character at the same time. It subsidizes bad behavior.
To reward responsibility and penalize irresponsibility, we don't need a moral revival first. Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate. Wards of the State are not self-reliant, competent, independent individuals. In freedom, individuals build good character. In freedom, relationships are strengthened; societies become more virtuous. Harry Browne wrote an article on this topic that addresses the issue quite well.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I don't claim that. If you read the Hebrew account of Genesis and the creation of this world, the word used is more appropriately rendered "organized". "Creation" never meant something from nothing. It is a straw man fallacy.
What I hold is that intelligence existed before this life and will exist after this life. It merely changes in form. You assume that there is a contradiction when there is none.
Can any human become an expert of the supernatural?
Yes, there are many religions that present very obvious contradictions, as I pointed out with the Nicean Creed. But one should be aware of two potential fallacies with declaring ALL religions to be absurd: 1) that you have categorically studied all religions and 2) that because they are called a religion they must be false. One is a fallacy of inclusion and the other is a fallacy of association.
The only way to test the validity of any proposed philosophy (or religion - which is philosophy by another name) is to test its tenets or principles. Speculation must be followed up with action.
One is free to value her opinion on the matter or not. However, to assume that Rand speaks authoritatively on matters of faith would make her...
a prophet(ess). A person of faith. The same "faith" she derides and openly scorns. If she were here, I think even she would agree with me that that is not a role she pretends to.
I was driving to work one day and it occurred to me that living in the 20th century and not knowing how to fly a plane was absurd. Flying lessons led to parachuting. I achieved soloing but got too busy earning a living to carry either endeavor any further.
The training you receive during Ground Week and Tower Week builds one's belief in your training, your equipment, and yourself. By the time you hit Jump Week, you're ready to go, and it seems perfectly right, and rational.
Naturally, my first thought was, "what in the heck am I doing here?"
_______________________________
Your "claim" is derived from a contradiction to those natural laws. I know you likely don't believe it a contradiction. However, that logical error tries to place Consciousness (god or man's) in the position of creating Existence. Existence ceases to axiomatic because what it _is_, depends on who is telling the story. So, A doesn't equal A sometimes; other times it might; and other times it morphs back and forth in your mind.
That crucial difference in whether reality IS, or was created, is not taken lightly in Objectivism. When someone asserts there is not any logical problem which has primacy, then that assertion must be challenged. If not, then the day will come when someone has enough power to try and force me to bow to his revelation/interpretation of reality.
Load more comments...