fletch

You are a better man than I, softwareNerd. Here I was imagining myself wandering around the womens locker room......Not much virtue in invisibility if one cannot see.

I happen to agree that Iran may not be quite the threat it is made out to be or that it wants itself to appear to be. I think Iran wants the world to believe that it is on the cusp of the nuclear age just as Saddam wanted the world to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam, as it turns out, did not have any real WMD, and the Iranians may be using much of the same false bravado. That being said, Iran still poses a real threat to the region, is the major sponsor of terrorism, is killing American troops in Iraq, and is a threat to American national interests and, as such, needs to be dealt with. Ron Paul seems to want to do nothing. Worse yet, he wants American troops out of Iraq which will only serve to strengthen the hand of the Iranians and weaken our own.

"Reasonably sure?" You can only safely judge a candidate by his stated positions. Assuming that he or anyone else will reconsider at a later date is wishful or hopeful thinking. It is an acknowledgement that the man has a flawed position, followed by the hope that he will someday come around to your way of thinking. It is clear that Dr. Paul does not view radical islam as a threat and likely wont until it jumps up and bites him in the ass. That is how we got hit the first time. Ron Paul seems willing to allow the errors of history to replay themselves at some future date. Despite his other pluses, this one big minus is more than enough to cost him my support. Is he better than any democrat? Yes, but that isnt saying much.

Pacifists are also incapable of making the moral distinction between wars of conquest and wars of liberation. War is evil no matter what the cause, no matter who is the aggressor, no matter who is good or who is evil. To the pacifist, anyone who engages in battle is evil because war is evil. You can push them all the way back to a belief in non-violent resistance to an attacker in a dark alley. Self-defence should also take on a non-violent form regardless of the viciousness of the attacker. Violent self-defence, to the pacifist, is just as immoral as the initial act of aggression. There is often a religious component to this irrational position. Christ, they will often argue, offered no resistance to those who would destroy Him, therefore we should follow His example and offer no resistance when evil confronts us. What they forget is that Christ came here to die. Resistance would have spoiled the plot. We are here to live. Evil must be confronted and defeated. As for Jimmy Carter. He is one of the most vile men of the last 50 years(perhaps longer). It is an embarrassment that he was actually president of this great nation.

stephenmallory, Perhaps the verbally abusive boss was not the best example. What I was trying to describe was a scenario where one could witness a moral evil, yet determine that it was likely not in his self-interest to speak or act out against it. And, more importantly, whether this inaction would constitute a moral failing of some kind. I admit I had not considered the possiblity of passing judgement but keeping that judgement to ones self. Although, I dont see any particular virtue in doing so. As for being guided by principle, I have seen any number of examples of where people are consumed by what is good for them, but seem to otherwise be in a moral coma. Too often, people seem to sacrifice their moral well being for their financial well being. I dont consider myself to be an altruist by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be that at times I place a higher value on the principle of justice than on the principle of self-interest.

Rational Biker, Let me first say that the situation is purely hypothetical. My brother-in-law is actually a decent guy. But to answer your questions. It would reflect very badly upon my family and my wife. They would be guilty of exactly the type of moral cowardice I am speaking of. They would undoubtedly excuse his behavior by saying such things as "that is just Al being Al." Or "he doesnt mean anything by it." All the while knowing that dear old Al is really an intolerant racist pig. Their silence would be a form of endorsement. I am not trying to claim as stephenmallory seems to suggest that there is no virtue in minding one's own business. But there are certain things that I make my business. I am not trying to pass myself off as some kind of morality cop. Its not like I go looking for an excuse to pass moral judgements, but if they are laid before me, I'll speak out. What I find disturbing is that so few others seem to do the same. Too many people, when a situation cries out for moral judgement, mind their own business.

Thanks for the link, Tenure. Here is a quote from softwarenerd that sums up my question: That brings me back to my original example about confronting a boss who you believe has acted immorally. Doing what you think is right may not be in your self-interest. So if you think it is right to confront him but do not because it is not in your self-interest to do so, have you just committed an act of moral cowardice? Suppose that you have an in-law that is a racist. Perhaps the brother of your wife. Confronting him on the vile nature of his beliefs would be the moral thing to do, but it might not be in your self-interest as it may cause irreparable damage to your family life and even your marriage. Would acting in my self-interest require my silence? Maybe I am the crazy one, but I would confront the prick and deal with whatever the consquences of that action might be. Would this be an example of me acting against my self-interest? Is it right to value other moral principles higher than self-interest?

Suppose a man witnesses his boss being physically or verbally abusive to his spouse. It would likely not be in his self-interest to confront his employer with his boorish behavior as it might lead to an end of his employment. In fact, in an effort to get ahead, he might see it as being in his self-interest to pretend to support or even rationalise his boss's actions. Would this not be an example of where self-interest leads to moral cowardice? Or certainly moral apathy. Is it not the moral position to confront what one sees as evil regardless of the impact it might have on ones own self-interest? Some years ago I was sued by an employee for wrongful termination. The suit was bogus. Some of my closest 'friends' at the time were also friends with my accuser. They, too, knew the fraudulent nature of the suit against me, but not one of them came to my defense. They hoped I would win in the end, but none of them was willing to step out on that limb and side with me directly. Doing so would likely cost the frienship of the other party involved. Each had their own self-interested reasons for not wanting to lose the friendship of my accuser even though it was clear that he was wrongfully accusing me. They seemed to think it was in their interest to remain friends with both parties, so my so-called friends decided not to get involved, not to take a moral stand. Hell, I would have had more respect for them if they had taken a stand against me. In my mind, nothing is more pathetic then standing on the sidelines while right and wrong do battle. That is how I define moral cowardice. Anyway, my accuser ultimately dropped his suit, and I largely dropped my 'friends.' I have since adopted the Major Hochstetter approach to friendship: "I trust everyone. And no one." It is rather liberating knowing that when it really matters, you will only have yourself to rely upon. I count upon no one who sees his self-interests as lying elsewhere to stand in my corner. But my question: Am I right in suggesting that self-interest can lead to moral cowardice? If so, at what point, if any, does one set aside self-interest for principle? Or does the root cause for this sort of behavior lay elsewhere?

Dont they all do that? Can you imagine a man running for president who said, in reply to a question of foreign policy: "I'm really not the right person to answer that question. You might ask my opponent. He is more 'knowledgeable' in that field than I am." As for Rudy's ability to handle the single most important foreign policy problem facing America today--Islamic fundamentalism--he seems to have made the case (at least to me) that he is better equipped than most others, particularly than the democrats. Hillary, Obama, et. al. would seek UN Security Council blessing abroad and political consensus here at home before giving Chemlawn the go-ahead to attack the chinchbugs in the White House lawn.

I will assume that you have actually read Locke's Two Treatises of Government and have not gotten your knowledge of it second hand. Book I contains enough Biblical references, talk of God and the role of Adam to cause ones eyes to burn. Book II, the more influential of the two, is far less reliant upon the Bible, but can in no way be said to divorce itself from a belief in God. I can post a relevant quote or two later, if anyone cares. Perhaps a source of our disagreement comes from my understanding of the relationship between Divine Law and Natural Law. It has always been my understanding that Natural Law is man's participation in Divine Law--which might be the result of reading too much Aquinas.

The whole idea of human liberty in Jeffersons day came from the notion that God was the creator of men and that it was the will of God that man be free. Those who enslaved men, or forced one man to serve at the feet of another were not violating the will of a pumpkin, or the musings of men like Jefferson, they stood in direct defiance of the will of God. The whims of the earthly kings could be and, in fact, should be defied if they contradicted the known will of God. Jefferson believed that it was a self-evident truth that source of rights was a Creator God. Perhaps if you believe otherwise, the burden of proof should be upon you. You can and, in fact, Objectivism does find a source of rights that excludes a Creator. But a lot of good that would have done the founders even if they had understood it. It was the linkage of rights to the Almighty that was essential in rallying the God-fearing public of the day to the cause. No one was going to follow the great pumpkin or the devil into battle with the King of England. They would and did fight for those rights they saw as endowed upon them by their Creator. I think the case could be made that the founders interpreted some parts of scripture as saying man must be free, and started to build a state with that aim. I dont believe that there is a link between God and rights, because I dont believe that there is a God. However, the fact that others see such a link does not cause me any real concern. Enlightened Christian thinking is preferable to much of today's unenlightened athiest ideology that links the concept of rights to society or majority rule or some other such nonsense. The principles that lead to the founding of the US have been proven to be compatable with Christianity. With that in mind, I dont see Christianity as a threat, but a potential ally. Religion isnt going away anytime soon, and if America can return to the enlightened Christianity of our founders, that will be a victory in itself.

Had that been the text of the Declaration of Independence, upon what philosophical principles would it have been based? Writing it that way would have effectively eliminated the religious element, but that does not mitigate the religious element in the original text. Jefferson saw God as the source of individual rights. While this may or may not be factually correct, Jefferson believed that it was. I believe that everything else followed from the mention of God, because Jefferson believed it. Jefferson chose his words carefully. If he didnt feel that the use of the word Creator did not reflect his thinking, or was not relevant to his point, I doubt that he would have used it.

Boy, softwareNerd, I disagree with that completely. First of all, the reference to a Creator is not a passing one, it is a vital one. It linked the concept of rights to an Almighty God, an objective power higher than the whims of an earthly king. Jefferson did more than build an argument of 'ethical or political import,' he built whole justification for the revolution upon this single sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The idea that rights flowed from a Creator was not 'stated, and forgotten, as an irrelevancy' it was viewed by Jefferson as a vital self-evident truth requiring no futher explanation. You and I may be able to derive the concept of rights from a source other than a Creator, but the founders could not. They believed that rights flowed from God. Take away God and there was no foundation for the basis of inalienable rights. No inalienable rights, no justification for revolution. It is in this respect, and in this respect alone, that I view the founding of the US as having been based upon religious principles. They may have come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, but I dont see the benefit in minimizing the the role of enlightened Christianity in shaping the world view of those men that the founded of this country. To be clear, I neither contend nor believe that the Constitution is anything other than a secular document.

It is clearer to you than it is to me, obviously. The US was founded upon the principle of individual rights. The founders saw these rights as having a divine origin. So I am not sure how or why you would leave religion out of the equation. Nicely phrased. Try adding a new religious painting, statue or symbol to a public building. I suppose it will stay there only so long as the ACLU in unaware of its presence. The conservative beef is that private expression of religious belief is being suppressed in public places.

Sorry, softwareNerd, didnt mean to just leave that post hanging there like that. I posted that particular paragraph to show that religious education is really nothing new in this country. The whole of the nation in Madison's era were educated under Christian auspices. Yet America was born under these conditions and, in fact, thrived. If Christianity and Christian education were not a threat to America in Madison's day, why would it be so now? My reading of the founders has lead me to believe that they were against the idea of a 'Church of America' not the idea of church in America. Or as some conservatives argue, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The public education system in this country has bigger problems than whether or not the word God should be uttered in the classroom. I am obviously out of step with the rest of you guys here about religion, but I dont fear Christianity at all. Personally, I think Christians should be given exactly what they are asking for. If they want creationism taught alongside of evolution, I say do it. Force the myth to confront reality. One theory will stand, the other will fall. I suspect that ultimately, for Christians, it will be one of those 'be careful what you wish for' moments.

From James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham:

You might try this approach: To attribute a 'miracle' such as this to God is really an insult to the Amighty. What you are suggesting is that the creator of universe, the creator of all that is would reduce Himself to the level of a streetcorner magician. For a being capable of creating man from the dust of the ground, healing an allergy to peppers is the Divine equivalent of pulling a rabbit from a hat. Are you suggesting that God answers the prayers for such trivial ailments as this while ignoring the prayers of the untold millions living in squalor, dying of starvation, or enduring unspeakable torture? What type of monster would behave that way? Certainly no such creature would be deserving of the title of God. You might as well worship Sigfried and Roy. You will still get the sleight of hand that so impresses you, some degree of entertainment value, and they wont try to pass themselves off as Divine. Generally, when I debate theology with Christians, I accept their basic premise--that there is a God. But I argue strictly from the perspective that any God would be a God of reason. You arent likely to convince a theist to abandon his belief in God, but you can get them to alter the way they view God. It may not be much, but its the best you can do. In fact, I regularly confront your fellow countrymen on the BBC Religion and Ethics website.

I didnt mean to suggest that you had. I was simply trying to stress the importance of an individuals personal motivation to achieving greatness.

I dont think effort, practice or study is enough. No one is going to put forth the effort needed to achieve greatness without first having the desire to do so. You must first have an interest in a particular field before you put forth the effort to master it. If you could simply compel someone to work hard enough at something or study hard enough at something, greatness would be the legacy of totalitarianism. In fact, the opposite is true. It is in fact the interest or desire that propels the effort. I would never put forth the effort needed to become a great guitar player because I have no desire whatsoever to play the guitar. If I were somehow compelled to practice or forced myself to learn how to play, I would probably be decent at it, but I would never be great. Practice would be a burden to me not a pleasure. I would live for those moments when I could tear myself away from it rather than play it. I see examples of this where I work. I see lots of people who do jobs that they dont particularly enjoy doing. They do the least they can do to get by. Such people are hardly destined for anything close to greatness. Then there are those who truly love what they do. They come to work early and stay later than they have to. It is their love of what they do that leads them to dedicate themselves to doing the best that they can--sometimes to the point of greatness. Even the most motivated of men are unlikely to devote themselves to something in which they have no innate interest. If you first love what you are doing, you will devote yourself to it. If you devote yourself to something you love, you are certainly far more likely to master it.

While I think religion is the result of many things: namely fear and ignorance, it is mainly the result of man's quest for a moral code. While much of man's fear and ingnorance have been stripped away by science, man has not made equal strides in the field of morality. Modern day America is a good example. The rise of the religious right is not a reaction to scientific advancement, but to what Christians see as moral decay. Religion answers Rands 'who decides?' question in the field of morality. It provides an answer to the question 'Who are you to tell me what I am doing is wrong?' God steps in as the great Moral Arbiter. It is He who decides what is right and wrong, not man. In a way, it gives light to the Christian view of the Bible as an 'objective' moral code. God created man and gave him His ten commandments for moral living. A proper moral life is not something left to the subjective whim of man, but is something to be guided by the objective will of God. Virtually all modern day non-Objectivist atheists view morality as subjective. Christians, perhaps rightly so, feel that without God there would be a moral free-for-all. Confused about morality? Want to live a moral life? Christianity offers an answer: Follow the example of Christ. Now, Objectivism may offer a far more rational alternative, but most people are not that rational and fewer still are Objectivists. Ayn Rand was so far ahead in her thinking, it might be a thousand years before the rest of mankind catches up. In the meantime, people will contine to look toward religion for their code of morality.

Having endured 44 straight Northeastern Ohio winters--and lacking enough sense to move south--not only am I a supporter and advocate of global warming, I contribute to the cause wherever and whenever I can.

Leaving aside abortion and atheism, what aspects of Objectivism do you feel are most in conflict with your faith?

You can make the case that going into Iraq was a mistake. But you cannot make the case that a hasty exit from Iraq would not be far worse. Ron Paul wants us out of Iraq immediately without regard to the consequences of that action. In my mind, that makes him just as irresponsible in this matter as any short-sighted liberal. The first priority of a president is safeguarding the lives and possessions of his countrymen. His stance on Iraq shows that he does not understand this. His Rx for Iraq damages America's long term national interest.

There are millions of carpenters out there, most are probably quite skilled at what they do. What makes a carpenter great is the same thing that makes any man great at any particular thing--the abilty to do what seemingly no other man is capable of doing. That is the mark of greatness. Agreed. Moral greatness is possible for all men, but unfortunately, here, as in all other realms of greatness, most men struggle for mediocrity.

I know very little about art--actually nothing. But, for what its worth, I like these a lot.