Problems with the New Atheist Movement

[truths-seeker]

LOL, I was teasing, I understand your position. The New Atheist movement on the other hand does hold that the commonly accepted morality, altruism/self-sacrifice, is good. Not once that I know of have they stood out to reject that morality, and sadly it's the same morality that the religions support. They just try to come to it via different means than religion, through "innate feelings" or "intuitions" - possibly developed through evolution. Whereas Objectivism obviously rejects that morality entirely, and presents a different one. This is why, in my opinion, the New Atheists fail in their ultimate goal. They can be so logical and rational, up to that point, then it fizzles out...

[Grames]

Ayn Rand said that humans have no natural instincts (correct me if I'm wrong about that), but most animals do, so why not humans as well?

There are no instincts in human behavior. There are reflexes, and capacities and even involuntary movements (heart beat) but no instincts. The reason why is the conceptual consciousness which has control over everything encompassed by 'behavior'.

I have read (somewhat uncomfortably) articles that talk about Altruism found in nature, a natural instinct in some animals. Developed via evolution. I guess if it was a proven fact that wouldn't necessarily change anything. Just because something is an instinct doesn't automatically make it good. Some animals instinctually kill their young when they feel danger is around, then there's those voles that jump off cliffs... lol...

If it is instinctual behavior by an non-sentient creature it cannot be ethical behavior because ethics does not apply without volition. Describing such behavior as ethical altruism is a fallacy on multiple grounds: anthropomorphizing, dropping the context of ethics, and equivocating the meaning of altruism.

[truths-seeker]

Thank you Grames! That makes total sense.