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.
Anyway, you should read her story, it is well-documented. Try to view her success within the context of the last 1,000 years of European history.
How do YOU explain Joan of Arc? Again, before answering, read up on it.--Her trial, and subsequent Reconciliation.
Enough, until you're willing to accept a common language and proper applications of logic. Until then we're only babbling.
As an example: "finds no proof in the test...both the hypothesis is valid and the test is valid and the test confirmed both hypothesis and conclusion", no wonder we can't communicate.
That's enough of this.
Now, in order to create a hypothesis about something, one must begin by attempting to define the thing(s) in question. If a definition is invalid, no hypothesis formed or test created will verify the Reality of something that isn't real. I can't find anything in Rand's writings where she stops long enough to try to define the "god" she is looking to try to disprove. The YouTube videos of her conversations have her immediately dismissing God as irrational and moving on. Piekoff's work similarly spends about two sentences coming to the same conclusion. For a topic with such profound implications, that seems to me to be a grave and fundamentally flawed oversight.
Regardless of your opinion on the validity of my assertion, do you agree that the statement thus formed is rational and logical, and that barring the precedent being proven to be invalid, that the conclusion would in fact be valid?
How is it you acquired knowledge of this "intelligence"?
For it to be wholly inclusive, a philosophy can not be complete without solid answers to the questions of man's existence, purpose, and ultimate disposition. These are questions that are part of the whole of truth - whether you call them religion or philosophy.
According to my conversations here, the Objectivist is concerned with Reality and the study of what constitutes Reality. That is Definition at its very heart. Understanding of the true nature of a thing means being able to Define something in abject detail so that there is no ambiguity, no sliver of doubt as to what a thing IS. Definitions are critical, and are the underpinning for EVERY rational or logical construct. The very simplest way to invalidate a theory is to show the definition to be flawed. Thus it should be of the utmost concern to every philosopher - especially Objectivists - to ensure that the definitions they employ are accurate and logically sound. We did not pigeon-hole the description of the atom to Niels Bohr's model, but delved deeper until we found quarks, and then strings. So too should we be willing to revisit definitions when called upon. To do anything else would be to render Rand's pronouncements equivalent to Bible verse, making her the "god" of the Objectivists - a title she would surely repudiate.
religion |riˈlijən| noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods:
philosophy |fəˈläsəfē| noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
While I can understand the natural desire to lend some gravitas to your faith and the extent of your belief in it, religion and philosophy are in no way the same or share in definition. That is not an insignificant matter, it only adds to the complications of an objectivist attempting to carry on a discussion with the religious or vice versa.
It would seem to me that it's an obvious matter, that in order to carry on a conversation with another, that the use of a common language is essential. Speaking only as a participant on this site, I personally have no difficulty with the religious also wanting to participate, but since it is not the objectivist going to the religious to initiate the conversation, it's in fact the opposite, the onus appears to be on the religious to learn the language necessary to converse here. IMHO
If a principle is ageless, time matters not, would you not agree? If the principles are ones of natural law, they would have been in effect before we were born and would exist after we are gone.
" I see it as a tree starting at birth..."
I will use the analogy of a road instead. I am not a parallel being able to explore multiple branches of decisions simultaneously. There are certainly many side roads and exits we may take. As pointed out by Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat: if you don't know where you're headed, it really doesn't matter what road you choose.
I have a goal in mind, however: to live my life in such a way that the consequences of my actions will promote me rather than hold me back in the next life. Some choices in this life very literally hold me back from opportunities in the hereafter. What you see as fences I view as reminders that if I stray, I may not reach my goal.
"The argument I have with the religious is their attempts to equate rational reasoning and life experience with faith, particularly on a site that supports AR, AS, and rational reasoning."
What I find highly ironic is that you place your faith in a definition of faith invented by a person who didn't believe in faith in the first place. The contradiction between logic and faith only exists because Rand created it. It is a straw man argument. If we toss out her definition and look at faith as I have explained, suddenly reason and faith are companions - not competitors. Fear is the true antagonist of reason. Fear is the basis of prejudice. Fear prevents change and opposes risk. I see the enemy of reason not to be faith, but fear.
I put forth my alternative hypothesis in the hopes that even one person might seriously consider it. In my view, we all existed together before this life and agreed to work together to make it through. Why should I care? That's another definitional debate: the meaning of love.
Period.
However, Galt's Gulch is is dedicated to Atlas Shrugged, the movie based on the book by Ayn Rand which is her philosophy in novel form. She was, and it is expressed in her writings, a non-militant atheist. So, there is always going to be some friction as far as the believers in any form of faith is concerned. She completely rejected faith to the point of hatred.
Load more comments...