Non-religious Morality

Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
93 comments | Share | Flag

Many in the gulch are non-religious, so I thought this concept would instigate some interesting discussion. Humans are social animals, which is the study's premise.
SOURCE URL: https://newatlas.com/seven-universal-moral-rules-oxford-study/58474/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by tdechaine 5 years, 1 month ago
    That article demonstrates how badly people need Ayn Rand.

    Of course morality is universal: it is philosophical.
    But its purpose is to sustain/enhance individual lives, not the collective good.
    With that so well-demonstrated by Rand, it is absurd to even hypothesize that morality is “fundamentally driven to promote cooperative behavior” – for the collective/common good. This is pure altruism- self-sacrifice.

    The list of 7 rules is unreasonably mixed; e.g. property rights are essential and a fundamental individual right (despite the nonsense spewed by the likes of Pigliucci), but fairness is an irrational standard. The result of living rationally for oneself is living rationally/cooperatively with others. But the latter should never be one’s moral purpose.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      Even the supposed observation of property rights isn't correct because it's compromised in principle by qualifications of 'not too much'. They did not observe what Ayn Rand meant by property rights in their field studies of 60 collectivist cultures sampled around the world.

      The entire collective subjectivist premise of collectivism collectively observed is contrary to a rational basis of ethics. Their "research" is acknowledge to be based on a "long-hypothesized idea arguing human morality is fundamentally driven to promote cooperative behavior. This suggests the moral valence of any action is determined by its social outcomes. So a morally 'good' action can be defined as one that benefits cooperative behaviors that serve the collective."

      Calling this "non religious morality" appealing to the "non religious" misses the whole point. "Non-religious" says what one does not believe, not why or what one does accept as true. The negative "non religion" cannot be a basis for morality. These collectivist sociologists/anthropologists have nothing in common with us.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        Ironic that going back to philosopher Cicero, the right to property has been observed as a natural right. Burke believed this, and Thomas Jefferson stated as much in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, only to have it replaced with the more nebulous "pursuit of happiness." That was a result of a compromise between abolitionists fearing it was an endorsement of slavery (humans as property) and slave states who insisted he remove an anti-slavery statement.

        Only collectivist believers have a notion of what is "too much" property. Whenever those who express a desire for "equality" of wealth gain control, the result is equal poverty for all but the elite at the top.

        When I posted this item, it wasn't an endorsement, but an anthropologist view that I was sure would raise hackles and stir an exchange of ideas. Lots of erudite expressions resulted. My thanks to all, and doubleplusgood for you as some of the best defense of real objectivism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          Recognizing a natural right means understanding it as a principle based on the nature of man, not observing it in tribalism the way these clowns claim to find morality. Your intent for the thread aside, there is no such thing as "non religious morality" because there are many mutually conflicting moral theories that are not religious.

          Jefferson and the founding fathers understood and accepted private property rights as a principle and natural right; it was generally accepted and emphasized in several state constitutions, such as Virginia's. But it was not in any known draft of the Declaration. There was no such reference to remove over slavery or anything else.

          All known drafts of the Declaration referred to a right to "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness". "Property" should have been included, but it was taken for granted; today's problems were not foreseen then.

          Congress did remove Jefferson's protest of the King as responsible for the slave trade as one of the reasons for the break from Britain.

          See Carl Becker's, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, which discusses all the known draft's of the Declaration and much more -- from the philosophy presumed by it, to the contrasting philosophy that followed, and from the political process of adopting it to its literary style.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Maritimus 5 years, 1 month ago
        Hello, ewv,
        I think that most of the crowd here lost sight of Ayn Rand's objectivist view and allow the infection of collectivist ideology to creep into their thinking. I cannot believe my eyes seeing someone voting your comment down. Where is their explanation for that action?
        Just my thought.
        Maritimus
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          There is at least one very belligerent and cowardly militant religious conservative who is bulk 'downvoting' all of my posts. There are several other examples below. They also have a record of previously posting false emotional personal accusations based on nothing but their own subjective speculations of what "must be" -- a theme in their method of thinking across the board.

          One of their ideological mantras is that evil, such as communism, is "based on atheism" -- the same fallacy I addressed above. The collectivism in their epistemology package-deals people into invalid concepts based on non-essentials, specifically not being their religious faith, without regard to what we do believe as true or how we know it.

          It used to be that those attracted to the sense of life and philosophy of Atlas Shrugged were filled with enthusiastic questions wanting to know more. Now we see militant dogmatists who don't care about Ayn Rand's ideas. They either confuse Atlas Shrugged with the contradictions of whatever they already believed, or don't care and only want to exploit its popularity as a source of converts for their own dogma (or as their echo chamber), or both.

          Obviously they don't belong here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Maritimus 5 years, 1 month ago
            I believe that I have observed the same stuff.

            It seems to me that one of the problems comes from the need to have very thoroughly thought through whether one's premises have a solid rational root or base, without an emotional devotion having crept in surreptitiously.

            That need seems to be going more frequently unsatisfied. Here and in much of so called mainstream media, which certainly are not mainstream in the true sense of the word and smell a lot of propaganda machines.

            I spent 21 of my younger years in fascist and communist "socialisms" and thus feel thoroughly inoculated.

            Stay well. We will never give up.
            Respectfully,
            Maritimus
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
    There is this gem,
    “In an age where the world is plummeting towards a giant division between those in poverty and multibillionaires, Pigliucci asks whether it is morally good to respect the rights of those who hoard massive volumes of resources.

    "But surely we should respect other people's property," Pigliucci writes. "Well, it depends. If it is acquired unethically, even if legally, no, I don't think there is any such moral requirement. If your wealth is both disproportionate and arrived at by exploiting others (and let's be frank, if it is the former, it can hardly not be the latter), then it is just and fair to pass laws to relieve you of much of that burden, through proportional taxation, for instance.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 1 month ago
      Solver: you quoted- "In an age where ... "
      I was going to mention that but you beat me by 20hours!
      I doubt that statistics bear out that statement. The implied criticism does not consider:
      1) the new mega fortunes are largely the result of creativity and effort (and luck) producing goods and services that are purchased by people, voluntarily, people who think the purchase benefits them. The purchasers are often the poorest.
      2) Whether the statement is true or not, the poor are much richer than they were, and the poorest are numerically in decline as they rise economically.
      3) There is evidence that the efforts of those new mega-onaires helps lift the poor economically.
      So, that New Atlas article has low cred.

      As for reciprocal altruism, I suggest that ideology prevents the authors from using a better term, trade.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
        Your point about how the lot of the poor in this country has dramatically improved is deliberately omitted from mainstream media, and is rarely pointed out even in the alternate news sources. It really hit home with me, as I can remember being a child in a lower middle class home (not poor). We had no dishwasher, my mother hung clothes on a line to dry. We felt privileged, as we could afford a single line phone, without the hassle of a party line. We had a single older car, and were the first on the block to have a gas powered lawn mower.

        Today the poor have cell phones, dishwashers, clothes dryers, big televisions, and access to many "social justice" services that provide so much more to them than our middle class could have imagined. Class envy is just one more weapon used to tear our society apart.

        I have liberal relatives who are well off, but seething with anger over the lot of conservative billionaires. They fall all over themselves to support wealthy liberals, because they claim to support "the people." When I bring up statistics and point to the fact that the conservatives do more to support charities and help the poor, they attribute that as an attempt to improve their otherwise "evil" image. I sadly have to conclude that as is often said, liberalism is a mental illness.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
        “Trade” is the word that popped into my mind. But that word leads to “Capitalism”, which the radical left have been programmed to feel is the cause of all problems.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
        "Trade" is not a better term for what they mean. How altruists and collectivists "want to be treated" is not exchange of value for value under a principle of mutual self interest acknowledged and accepted as the good.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      That part definitely ran up a red flag for me. It smacks of political ideology of the sort percolating in the decaying Democrat party, with the emphasis on "inequality" of wealth, rather than inequality of opportunity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Argo 5 years, 1 month ago
      And who determines that by what standard. Venturing down that path is a very slippery slope. The phrase" can hardly not be the latter", where is the evidence for that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
    I assume the 60 societies the anthropologists studied did not include any communist dictatorships, which generally do not adhere to any of the alleged "moral rules" the anthropologists supposedly saw in every culture.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      Full fledged communism is the least of it, "sampling" tribalism and collectivism in all forms that is all over the world is not a basis for morality.

      Their "research" is acknowledge to be based on a "long-hypothesized idea arguing human morality is fundamentally driven to promote cooperative behavior. This suggests the moral valence of any action is determined by its social outcomes. So a morally 'good' action can be defined as one that benefits cooperative behaviors that serve the collective."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 1 month ago
    Well, those rules look to me to be a bunch of nonsense (especially when brought into the Gulch).
    Ayn Rand said that a social environment was better for man than living alone--"but only on certain conditions."
    And she reiterated that man had to right to his own life and his own property.
    It is not for others to get together and gang up on a man because they disapprove of the way he got his property (provided he got it honestly and without violating anybody else's rights. Just another way of trying to sneak in the altruist morality and strangling free enterprise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 5 years, 1 month ago
    The collectivists try to make an immoral argument moral by basing it on an immoral premise and demanding that everything after that be interpreted to prove the argument while claiming to 'love the poor'.
    When there is a difference between what humans have or control (own) it exists because not only of the differences in what humans are capable of but more importantly what they choose. The inequalities never go away even when the collectivists are in charge, they are rearranged by the use of violence when the collectivists rule and the order is rearranged morally when people can choose to be objectivists. Objectivists do not rule, they simply choose for themselves what they desire and let others do the same. Interesting how the altruist philosophy of morality was slipped in using the word reciprocity. While on the face of the word it means that if I give you something I get something in return which sounds like free market capitalism paying close attention to the follow up argument one realizes that what is meant in this case is if I am given something I have to give it back to keep it in the loop because I cannot come into possession of any property at any time which leads to the question of who would do anything if at any moment the crowd could demand everything you have to be 'returned' to them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
    This part may get some Objectivists talking,
    “Another example comes with the moral rule of social reciprocation. This moral foundation underpins the idea of reciprocal altruism, or simply put, treating others how you would like to be treated.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 1 month ago
      Reciprocal altruism - That is the wrong term for it. Treat others like you would want to be treated is a reasonable moral rule, but it does not require altruism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
        A subjectivist "want" is not the basis of a reasonable moral principle. "Reciprocal altruism" is the intended meaning in the article and there is no excusing it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
        “Treat others like you would want to be treated is a reasonable moral rule”
        I always thought that this idea had a slight collectivist bent. We are all individuals. The way others want to be treated is not necessarily the way you would want to be treated, and vice versa. A better, but more difficult moral rule, would be to treat others the way they want to be treated.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
          So how would you treat someone who says, "I want to be subsidized so I don't have to work"?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
            Ignore them or teach them the errors of their ways.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
              Good solution, but it's not really treating them the way they want to be treated.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
                That’s why it is more difficult. There are always outliers. If they choose to be spoiled children or criminal, treat them the way the deserve to be treated.

                Imagine over 50% of the country thinking they are entitled to other peoples wealth while they sit back and relax, and applying their wants to golden rule collectively.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Only "outliers"? They are everywhere. The principle is subjectivist from the beginning.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
                    They should be outliers, but if you continue to punish the productive and reward the entitled, you will get more of the entitled and less of the productive. The collectivist’s other People’s Money principal allows for this.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                      They shouldn't exist at all. Whether they are outliers or dominant depends on the intellectual state of the culture. What should be is objective. A principle of treating people in accordance with what they want is subjective and not a valid principle.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
          "A better, but more difficult moral rule, would be to treat others the way they want to be treated."

          That one is incredibly dangerous because it puts your actions subservient to another's (often unknown) desires. This is at the heart of the current gender confusion laws that are now criminalizing (even absent intent) calling someone by anything other than their desired "gender".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 1 month ago
            Well, it's treating others the way You would want to be treated but either way...the way you would like to be treated may be unacceptable to someone else and the way someone else would like to be treated just may be offensive to you.

            So you really can't have something so open ended...got to be a hard and fast reasonable rule.
            Unlike the demoncrapic mobs, you have to have an agreement on how we interact with each other and within civilizations such that it is civilized.
            ...and yea...we need a proper definition of what it is to be civilized too.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 1 month ago
              I think the underlying assumption(s) in treating someone the way you want to be treated is first: that you aren't insane and wish yourself harm and second: that you aren't openly seeking to defy reality. If that's how you are defining "civilized" I'm right there with you.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                The underlying assumption is subjectivism. It's not a matter of what one "wants" with no objective basis. What people "want" does not necessarily mean they aren't "insane" or seeking to "defy reality". Altruists do it all the time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 1 month ago
          The reasons that I treat people the way I want to be treated rather than the way that they want to be treated are as follows:

          1) I will have nothing to apologize for if I treat people the way I want to be treated. If I treat a person like crap because he/she deserves it, then that is beneath my dignity. I would rather, as Roark says, "not think of" them.

          2) Sometimes people want to be treated so much better than anyone has a right to be treated that it would require sacrifice on my part. See CBJ's comment regarding "I want to be subsidized so I don't have to work".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by rhfinle 5 years, 1 month ago
            "I would rather, as Roark says, "not think of" them.
            ": Careful, in this day and age you'll be considered a Racist or a Sexist or a [their choice]-ist, if you don't actively support their agenda. They'll have your job!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            If you live by a rational ethics you have nothing to apologize for at all, nor would they accept an apology.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 1 month ago
              This only furthers my point that treating people the way I want to be treated rather than the way that they want to be treated is an objective (lowercase) moral principle, even if it does have the religious historical basis.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                Any principle based on "the way I want' is not an objective principle. The statement formulated that way does not reflect why you want it. Anyone with any "wants" could say the same thing and mean something entirely different than you do.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          You take into account what someone else prefers when he is a friend with rational preferences. It's not a fundamental principle to treat others however they want.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I started to read “The neuroscience of intelligence” by Haier. He talks at length about IQ and it’s effect on a culture and race. From their studies, they estimate the average IQ of Americans is 97- meaning half of the people have IQ OF LESS THAN 97 and half have IQ greater than 97.

    I am only through chapter 1, but I suspect that IQ May have some effect on the ability of a person to use reason effectively. In a democracy run by mob rule as we have today, this could tilt the country towards the emotional left even though ayn rand laid out the principles of objectivism carefully

    Tests in most other cultures show average IQ rates lower than that in America ( except for some far eastern cultures). Raises some interesting questions for sure about the likelihood of spreading a complex group of philosophical principles in the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      IQ is a relative score based defined with 100 as the mean. It does not prevent the majority of people from understanding basic principles; indoctrination does.

      Most people don't live up to their intellectual capacity.

      (The mean is the average, calculated in the usual way, not "half above and half below", which is the median.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
        From what I read, lower IQ means more limited ability to understand concepts and principles. Try explaining john galts speech to a somali refugee and see how far you get.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          The number is a relative score, relative to whatever the average is. 100 is assigned as the average.

          If someone from Somali barely speaks English he won't understand either the test questions or the principles in Galt's speech. A person of average intelligence ought to be able to understand both with sufficient explanation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
            From what I understand , the designers of IQ tests are primarily interested in the functioning power of the person’s brain, problem solving, spatial recognition, ability to recognize patterns. Usually given in person for highest accuracy.

            Us military doesn’t accept people below 83. I think there are supposedly 10 million people in USA below that cutoff. Already.

            Accepting random migrants from South America would reduce the average IQ in America and make us less competitive in the world. That is why immigration should be merit based.

            As technology advances, I think People need to be smarter and more educated in order to compete in our economy. More and more low level jobs are being taken over by automation and robots
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
              Problem solving isn't knowledge and it isn't integrity. IQ tests do not include a lot of what we mean by intelligence. Whatever the "IQ" of immigrants from the south, they can learn and so can their next generation. Those with high IQs can potentially also be more clever in pursuing welfarism and socialism.

              Regarding what people think, the only relevant criterion is appreciation of self-responsibility for thinking and living, and respecting the rights of the individual. That is made much more complex by the state of those factors already in this country, making adopting it as policy impossible. Welfare statists want more "clients".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                I think I would prefer NOT to have hordes of migrants from shithole countries like Honduras, Somalia, Syria, and Mexico invading the USA where I live unless they pass a means test and truly want to assimilate into our country like immigrants used to do. I think IQ does make a difference, as well as education and philosophical orientation.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                  How well an immigrant does on an IQ test does not tell us how well he understands or accepts the principles required to "assimilate" American individualism. A high IQ socialist or ordinary criminal is worse than a dumb one. Nor does having rights depend on intelligence, let alone IQ.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Absolutely right. It used to be that true immigrants uprooted themselves to come here because they wanted to be a part of American culture. There was no “help” given by the welfare culture, and that was known. The strong and responsible immigrants survived. America needed more strong and responsible people, and our system meant that only the fiercely self reliant and healthy bothered to come here. I would say those that came were mostly the smart ones too

                    Now our system favors the weak, the less intelligent, and the ones looking to be taken care of. America does NOT need those people, and needs to stop admitting people because we feel sorry for them.

                    If a migrant showed up at your door, what would you require if they wanted to move in with you? Our immigration policy should be crafted more along the same lines
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
    Those "universal" rules of morality may be common across many cultures yet not all philosophically sound.

    The stuff about the "greater good" may apply to societies where the main means of production is land and whoever owns it can effectively enslave the serfs.

    Consider the common concept of revenge, which is common across many cultures. Before criminal justice systems, it was a deterrent for crime. A person committing a crime knew that the victims or their families might come after them for revenge, even if it was illogical in that the revenge wouldn't undo the wrong, e.g. bring back a murder victim or recover the stolen property. There's a good reason for revenge to be so common, yet it's not the way to deal with crime in a society with a criminal justice system.

    I also wonder if there might have been some selective advantage for sexual assault. The religions of the world seem to tolerate abhorrent ancient practices of enslaving and abusing non-combatants in war. It was apparently a fact of life then, although beyond the pale in modern morality. Might this horrible behavior have been selected for when it passed down the perpetrators' genes? I do not know. I'm not sure if this happened.

    But I'm sure not all behaviors that are part of our basic proclivities are a good idea. Not all notions of morality that crop up frequently in human societies are sound.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      Collective subjectivism is not scientific objectivity and does not establish "universal laws".

      The collectivist "greater good" should not apply anywhere. The right of private property right is the opposite of feudalism and does not "enslave serfs", which is imposed by statist, feudalist government.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years, 1 month ago
    I don't see how anything in this study beats the original 10 Commandments (minus the religious portions).
    Why, exactly, do we need a NEW set of morals? I'm not seeing it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
      All the ten commandments are "religious portions". That's because they are allegedly commandments from God - no other justifications are necessary. We need a set of morals that are derived from and based upon a rational philosophy, not a theocratic edict.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years, 1 month ago
        They are only "religious portions" IF you truly believe them to be handed down by God. Since I'm not handicapped by that belief, I'm more willing to believe that man, himself, wrote those commandments and simply credited God for them.

        Another thing I can't quite grasp is how you feel that "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" are "religious" portions. Why do people get so uptight about religion? I've been married to a Christian for over 40 years and we've never fought over our beliefs. To date, nobody has tried to lock me up, cut off my head or burn me at the stake, for my lack of faith.

        Am I missing something?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
          Please re-read my post that you responded to. All of the ten commandments are "religious portions" - edicts handed down by a deity - even though some of them make ethical sense in an Objectivist context. It is not necessary to be a theist in order to identify something as religious.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
            You have to take them out of context and rewrite the meaning to get any of them to make ethical sense. They are all duties from the start.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LarryHeart 5 years, 1 month ago
        Here again is the mis-translation of Hebrew that leads to incorrect interpretations. The correct translation of Devarim is Things/Realities. !0 things that were put in order (Tzivah). Order not commandment. We confuse the two words in translations. So no we don't need a new morality we just need to get over rejecting the one that works because people are told that Religion is bad and that religion is about believing in some GOD commanding us with a club in one hand if we don't obey. It's more like the 10 principles of highly successful cultures. Read and learn or you will sucked into following what is invalid (Pesel - we translated as Idols) or go making images of Zeus and sun or son gods and other false stories that rulers make up to justify keeping themselves in power by Divine "Right"..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
          Ayn Rand showed why a new morality was required, based on the nature of the individual and the requirement to use his rational mind to live . That is in contrast to the supernaturalism and mysticism of religion, whose morality did not "work" and should be rejected. The 10 commandments are not principles of "highly successful cultures" and no list of injunctions to be accepted as "duty" could be.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
          A moral code based on the ten commandments does not “work”. For one thing, they were supposedly handed down by a deity, so they were in fact edicts, not a list of suggestions. For another, the ten commandments were presented as a package, so one cannot throw out the first three and call the rest a “moral code that works”. A moral code is just that – a code of conduct – and in order to be valid, it must have a rational basis. Otherwise it is just a random set of prescriptions for “proper” behavior, without any justification other than that the code happens to correspond to the religious and cultural beliefs of those that uphold it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
            I could postulate that “treat others as you want to be treated” pretty much covers it all. Not based on reason, so people here might not like it, but I think people would treat each other better than now
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
              That is actually a good rule of thumb for mutually cooperative behavior, but it won’t work when dealing with people who want to cheat you or otherwise harm you. I think it’s better to employ your postulate when dealing with people who share your viewpoint, and seek to minimize any transactions with people who don’t.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                I agree in practice. Some people will insist of being treated fairly but will try to get away with everything

                A good example is the drivers in Las Vegas. They drive like maniacs, cutting people off all the time. But if you cut them off, they get belligerent.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
              It leaves out how you should want to be treated and why. Rejecting pragmatism as not based on reason is not a matter of "postulates" and a subjectivist "not liking" it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                It’s not philosophy, and it requires everyone adhere to it in order to even work. But I would surely like people to simply adhere to the idea of doing to others as i would want them to do to me - as opposed to rampant collectivism. The subject of the post as I remember was a comment obout some elements of various religions that were better than others
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                  Rejecting objective philosophical principles for pragmatism does not "work". A collectivist "everyone adhering" to a collective subjectivist "everyone wants" is profoundly immoral and does not "work".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                    Might be si, but the likelihood of what you are suggesting in our lifetime is pretty close to zero
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                      Pragmatism does not work in our lifetime.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                        Are you sure you arent adopting objectivism as a dogma to be accepted in its entirety or not at all?

                        I some people agree to at least some o the principles mentioned in objectivism, is that not better than if they adopted 100% leftist ideas?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                          Rejecting Pragmatism as a false and destructive philosophy is not "Objectivist dogma". Pragmatism does not mean rationally "practical". The philosophy of Pragmatism does not "work" because of its own nature and its origins in Kantianism. If Ayn Rand had not formulated her philosophy, Pragmatism would still be false and destructive. It isn't waiting for the future, it never "worked", including in "our lifetime".

                          Pragmatism is and has been for over a century a major means for the dissemination of destructive policies and destructive underlying philosophical ideas on which it is parasitical -- including, but not restricted to, the entire trend of progressivism.

                          That you would "surely like people doing to others as you would want them to do to you" is a subjectivist standard based on what you "want", with no basis for it and no way to implement it. To the extent that what you personally "want" is correct, your "wants" will not change what others think and do. That, too, is subjectivist.

                          You can try to take practical measures to personally protect yourself during your lifetime. Adopting Pragmatism because there "isn't time" for anything else does not "work" and would make your own life worse. Changing the course of politics requires changing the fundamental philosophical ideas that are broadly accepted, however long that takes. There are no shortcuts.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                            "Changing the course of politics requires changing the fundamental philosophical ideas that are broadly accepted, however long that takes. There are no shortcuts."

                            This is true. I dont harbor expectations of changing politics in the USA, at least while anyone I know is alive, and you shouldnt either. Ayn Rand spent her life hoping that could happen, but she overlooked the basic reason the currently living leftists are leftists- they DONT think and cant be convinced through reason- Unfortunately for all of us.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                              She addressed people who are receptive to rational ideas and made a big difference by doing so. It has not yet been enough to reverse the trend.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by term2 5 years, 1 month ago
                                My point is that since most people today who are leftists make only emotional decisions, ayn rands work falls on deaf ears. I think the decision to use reason is learned when very very young, so the next generation should be more receptive, assuming their parents teach them the value of reason
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
                                  Most people hold contradictory mixed premises. The worst of them will never change. Others may at least stay out of the way. The most likely to be receptive are the young, but they are also being taught by the worst among the intellectuals.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • term2 replied 5 years, 1 month ago
          • Posted by LarryHeart 5 years, 1 month ago
            I just explained why people have the wrong idea based on incorrect translations and you go right back to that invalid translation as Proof? . In Hebrew they are not commandments they are things that are put in order...not random. And you you argue based on the incorrect translation that they are random and commandments/edicts therefore they are not based on reason. Obviously you did not read what I wrote and invented your own rules about what counts as reason based on your own prejudice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 1 month ago
              Just saying “people have the wrong idea based on incorrect translations” does nothing to address my objections. Why should the ten commandments be considered an integrated moral code? Who (or what philosophy) is their source? Who created the list and put it in order, and for what purpose? How can the first commandment, in particular, be interpreted in any way other than the command of a deity? (“I am the LORD your God . . . You shall have no other gods before me.”) How does this first commandment (and the two or three that follow) even qualify for inclusion in a rational moral code? It is not “prejudice” to expect rational answers to these questions, especially when the ten commandments are so intimately tied to the religious beliefs and practices of those who supposedly “mistranslated” them. Take away the religious justification and we would not be having this discussion, since most people would not even know that the ten commandments exist.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
              "Thou shalt not" is not a matter of "putting things in order". They are prescribed duties pronounced without rational basis as edicts claimed to be from the supernatural. CBJ did not "invent his own rules about what counts as reason" based on "prejudice". Constantly accusing others here as "biased" and "prejudiced" for not being "open" to your religion and personal "translations" is not rational argument.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 5 years, 1 month ago
      Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics" "beats" the 10 Commandments. It shows why a new morality is required, based on the nature of the individual and the requirement to use his rational mind to live as an objective basis of ethics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo