moralist
-
Posts
665 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by moralist
-
-
Infinity isn't only the horizon you can never reach... it's also the amount of time you can walk toward it.
-
They quited and started from the scratch.
Yes they did.
So ditch the immoral European liberal socialist third party payer system (which infests government, credit, insurance, healthcare, debt, law, education, unions)... and use the American Capitalist system instead.
Americans have the luxury of not needing to start from scratch. An alternative ethical economic system was used in Galt's Gulch, and that system already exists right here and now. Fewer and fewer people are using it only because Capitalist producers are a rapidly dwindling minority.
-
Hold that thought for a moment, moralist. While that wasn't really my point, certainly you are right as far as it goes, but there are further levels. You identify what "doing that makes you into" (a predator or prey) as not good for you, am I right? In other words - not in your self-interest; or - unselfish.
??
Yes.
The secret of immunity to becoming the prey of others is to give up preying upon others. It is generally believed that one person's gain can only come at another person's loss. Those are both losses in terms of the creatures people devolve into by participating in that closed zero sum predator/prey system.
There is another system where both parties mutually benefit because they are neither predator or prey... and each of us freely chooses to which system they will pledge their allegiance.
Careful - if you continue your line of thinking, you'll conclude with rational selfishness as the only possible outcome..
I already do...
Doing what is morally right is ALWAYS in your own rational selfish interest.
Next thing, to mentally remove other people's judgments on one's self from the equation, and what remains as primary is that one has acted against a just outcome in reality ("faked" it) AND against one's knowledge and consciousness, therefore, immorally - to and of oneself. The predominant deception is self-deception: separate from, and before even taking into account the effects of this deceit on others - as likely unethical behavior alone.
Substituting the old oath -"As God is my only witness" - for - "As I am my only witness"- would complete the case for the ethics of rational egoism. Simplistically. (Highly.)
I totally agree. Never jigger with reality.
If you do what's right and let all the chips fall where they may... they will always fall in your favor.
-
...except it was not designed:
Ok. In your view, a Dell computer was designed... while a living biocomputer with a duadrillion connections isn't.
-
These things take time. If I told a feudal lord from england that one day english speaking people will have a giant country in the west where they all vote for their leaders and there are no nobles, he would have called it a utopian fantasy.
I never said that this would happen any time soon, it could take thousands of years. As I said earlier this was a theoretical point.
Don't hold your breath... things will get a lot worse before they ever get better.
The present vector is a downward spiral of more and more morally and fiscally irresponsible people failing to govern their own behavior creating and bigger and bigger government bureaucracies who they need to be their "mommie".
It's each individual's own personal responsibility to autonomously act to save themselves from becoming collatoral damage just as did the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged.
-
When people refer to "small vs big government" they typically mean the percent of GDP that the government takes up. A government that takes up only a small ammount of GDP could exist on a planetary level yes.
You do understand that is a utopian fantasy.
So to make your fantasy into reality, what event will happen to make the majority of people personally responsible enough to govern themselves?
-
A completely nonsensical idea. Volition by definition can't be violated.
No one can force you to do something against your will?
Lots of luck trying that line on the next cop who pulls you over.
-
This makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying if there is proof for or against god, that would deny freedom of choice to deny?
Yes. To deny... or to affirm.
Accepting the existence of a nothing is impossible to think about aside from what you arbitrarily assign to the "nothing". Choosing to believe in that nothing is irrational and denies all sorts of ways one should make rational decisions.
I don't believe. I know. And this is why I don't believe in the "nothing" you described any more than you do.
You talk about freedom of action, and choosing irrationality is something Rand consistently says is immoral or improper thinking.
See? You have already freely made your own choice of what seems right to you. It is inherent in each choice to regard what was rejected as being wrong. This is your right as a free man. The beauty of the moral justice in all this is that we each get exactly what we deserve as the results of the choice we have freely made.
-
And there's the rub, IT is what it IS
...and it's an absolutely brilliant design.
-
Moralist, what you don't understand is the difference between volition and love
Love is not violating the volition of others... and that's a valuable virtue to possess because it means that your volition can't be violated.
-
Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki's entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence.
Heard some interesting facts about the brain. There are a about 100,000,000,000 neurons, each connected to 10,000 other neurons, for a total of 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) connections. This is complexity beyond comprehension.
-
I stand by my original post. I didn't say I wanted a world government made by the people of today. I also did not say anything about it being "big".
I think that a planetary government is desirable.
Planetary is small?
-
The bigger the government (in either scope of function or geographical extent) the more incompetent it is.
...and oddly enough, the more freedom you can enjoy. I knew a courageous man who escaped from Germany during the war. Because he understood the principle of bureaucratic incompetence he was able to use it to gain his freedom.
-
Well argued, I think.
Still, as an ethical concern it should be looked at from the p.o.v - not only of the potential 'target' or 'victim' of this action - but of the actor himself.
Essentially, would YOU do this?
If not, why not?
Good point. It's well worth considering the kind of person doing that makes you into. Someone who preys on others becomes the kind person who can be preyed upon by others.
-
Whose fault is it if the revealed word is not made to known to those other than the chosen?
Everyone who is an adult already knows right from wrong. That's the only "revealed word" you need to know. Belief in God is not necessary to enjoy the rewards of doing what's morally right, so it's only your own fault if you fail to do it.
-
Lol, "the highest form of love", is one which we must choose without any virtue to be known or experienced
You don't understand. The highest form of love is the right that you can freely choose. And you already know and enjoy that right by your own personal experience. What you do with it is totally up to you because you're the only one who is personally responsible for your own life.
Ayn Rand was wise enough to recognize this right:
"The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."
The issue of God is completely prooflessly open so there is nothing that can violate your personal autonomous right of free choice.
and if we don't choose this absentee object of affection we burn in hell.....
You can only create your own personal hell right here and now by your own actions. This is why you have complete freedom of choice. So that there is no one else for you to blame for the just and deserved consequences of your own actions.
No thanks, I'd take a superficial blonde with DD's over that any day.
That's your own free choice and your own consequences. I freely chose a good woman for a wife.
-
Are you arguing that belief in "God" is good because the consequences for such belief are beneficial?
Not at all...
Arguments are pointless when there is neither proof for or against God. If there was, it would violate the sovereignty of your free choice of denial. This choice has to all be on you... so that the deserved consequences of your own actions are all as the result of your own free will and there is no one else for you to blame except yourself for getting what you deserve. And I am just as free to choose as you are and the consequences are all on me as I also get exactly what I deserve as the result of my own free choice.
This is the highest form of love... to never violate the sanctity of our own free will as a free men.
-
If there is such a thing as "natural moral law" why are there so many moral and ethical systems.
While there are many cultural customs and ethnic traditions, there is unanimity that stealing is morally wrong in all of the successful ethical systems. This is because there are universal moral principles which are larger than any single individual society.
In the realm of physical science you do not find that kind of variety. There are at most a few plausible systems. I agree that moral law is constrained by biological necessity. Any moral doctrine that precludes the maintaining and preservation of human life is bound to fail if for no other reason than its practicioners will become extinct.
Even so, these biological constraints do not uniquely determine moral codes or even trim them down to a few.
Similarly as with physical laws, there is only one plausible system and one implausible system regarding the moral law on stealing. One system accepts it as being true, while the other rejects it as being false.
-
You are starting to be a major image problem for this forum.
You made no attempt to understand the context of my post.
You said:
I think that a planetary government is desirable.
You see a big one world government as being good... while I view it as an accurate indicator of the failure of irresponsible people to govern themselves.
And since the government is created by the parasitic political majority, my approach to it is: The bigger the bureaucracy, the dumber the bureaucrats, and the more it screws up... exactly like Ayn so accurately predicted it would in Atlas Shrugged.
Colonizing other planets is a utopian fantasy when people can't even budget their own finances, and neither can the government they created in their own irresponsible image.
-
Law that govern humans in society are made up, not discovered.
ruveyn1
When I consider the law against stealing property which belongs to others, and realize that it is always a beneficial law regardless of the society in which it is utilized, it suggests to me something of a more objective nature than just arbitrarily "made up". To me it is evidence of a natural moral law governing the behavior of humans, much like the natural law of gravity governs the behavior of physical objects.
Now, popular collective societal consensus can either choose to uphold the law against stealing... or it can choose reject it and accept the consequences. But it seems to me that that objective moral law is always there just like physical law is...
...and the only difference is in how we respond to it.
-
It depends on what is technologically and economically viable. I think that a planetary government is desirable. If humans in the future decide to colonize the solar system, a unified government will be harder to accomplish due to the great distances an expenses.
Federalism is also an important principle here.
I'd love a one world government.
The bigger the bureaucracy with more useless unproductive government educated dummies employed in it...
...the bigger the cracks through which to fall.
-
I should have used a comma " No, tuning implies..."?
That's a relief, Tad... didn't think you had come over to the dark side.
Using the same example... tuning is not necessarily conscious. It can be something as unconscious as a physical law governing harmoniously resonating frequencies.
-
No tuning implies a 'conscious' choice between alternatives.
I could be wrong... but did you just say the opposite of what you meant to say?
-
Very clever... looks liks someone had logged the content of the Art Bell show.
Jesus Tax
in Political Philosophy
Posted
While I agree with the point of your humor, there's more to that verse:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."