Devil's Advocate Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) JASKN, et al., ObjectiChristianty?! No such thing... at least that's not what I'm arguing. Let me try one more time to clarify my position... First off, I don't see this forum as dedicated to atheists trying to convert theists, or vice versa. Advocates of reason argue objectively, period. Ayn Rand's actual quote is, "I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy." So what if any, respectable philosophical aspects of religion remain relavent today? Consider the following two statements... -- "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Ayn Rand "Do to others as you would have them do to you" ~ Ethical Reciprocity, aka The Golden Rule -- What Ayn Rand identifies as 'consistency' clearly implies ethical reciprocity, which is a common tenet in most religions, and taking her at her word, fundamental to how Objectivism treats the subject of individual rights. Ayn Rand also defines rights in a social context, but here explicitly states the 'obligation' isn't imposed by government, but by "the nature of reality". So one can make the point that regardless of faith, heroic beings are obligated to treat each according to some other standard than a man made one. That is my interest in Objectivism, why I participate in this forum; I share her apparent and expressly stated "respect (for) religion in its philosophical aspects". -- "Just because you can dream it up doesn't mean it's true. Also, mass acceptance doesn't imply truth" ~ JASKN Agreed, but respectfully the same holds true for atheists. Edited January 10, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Also, mass acceptance doesn't imply truth" ~ JASKN Agreed, but respectfully the same holds true for atheists.What exactly do I need to accept, to be an atheist? dream_weaver and JASKN 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The "nature" you are referring to is, presumably, existence as such, whereas the "nature" Rand was specifically talking about in her quote you provided was the human requirement of survival via reason. She wasn't talking about anything close to "reciprocity." She argued for rights as a means for men to live together while each individually supporting his own life with his own mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I read something by AR in which she proved to me that arbitrary assertions like, for example, "God exists," deserve no response whatsoever, because they're an irreducible, epistemological dead-end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 What exactly do I need to accept, to be an atheist? LOL, touché Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) The "nature" you are referring to is, presumably, existence as such, whereas the "nature" Rand was specifically talking about in her quote you provided was the human requirement of survival via reason. She wasn't talking about anything close to "reciprocity." She argued for rights as a means for men to live together while each individually supporting his own life with his own mind. OK, so not "nature"... nature... human requirement of survival via reason, i.e., existence as such; or is there some other kind mortal nature you're referring to? Let's say there is some fundamental difference... does it change the meaning of 'respecting the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized'?? If so please elaborate, because I clearly recall Ayn Rand lecturing on the importance of taking ones words literally... Edit: And how does consistency* (as cited above) vary significantly from reciprocity** ?? * "conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness." ~ Google Consistency ** "a situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights, etc." ~ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reciprocity Edited January 11, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 My kind of religious person, an independent thinker. AR once told somebody he was too smart to be religious. It'd be a tad presumptuous for me to say it. Devil's Advocate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) OK, so not "nature"... nature... human requirement of survival via reason, i.e., existence as such; or is there some other kind mortal nature you're referring to? Let's say there is some fundamental difference... does it change the meaning of 'respecting the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized'?? If so please elaborate, because I clearly recall Ayn Rand lecturing on the importance of taking ones words literally... Edit: And how does consistency* (as cited above) vary significantly from reciprocity** ?? Existence as such is not the same thing as the existence of men. Although men are within the universe, we aren't talking about all of existence when talking about the specific attributes of humans. Ayn Rand bases rights specifically on the human ability to reason. Her full quote was: One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection. The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected. Rand wasn't arguing for any obligation -- only the "obligation" of each individual to himself. If you recognize other men as also having the capacity to reason, you should treat them as you treat yourself, because in that sense you are the same. For example, you shouldn't treat him as a rock. In this way, you are consistent in your action based on reality as you observe it and judge it. The "Golden Rule," in contrast, is dictated from the Divine, with no consideration permitted by the reasoning individual. The Rule comes with no explanation. By omitting both consideration and explanation, it is the opposite of Rand's view of rights. So, while the Rule is a primitive ethical statement, it doesn't have anything in common with Rand's ethics. Edited January 11, 2014 by JASKN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) That's nicely explained. Rights are rights, morality is morality. Although the second makes the former necessary, the rationale for O'ist ethics is anything but ethical reciprocity. That individual rights and Christian ethics seem to intersect at the Golden Rule is coincidental** (or serendipitous, depending on where you stand. ) The two shouldn't be cross-purposed. **[but of course they do share the same pragmatic roots - Do as you would be done by - and - the rights you assume for yourself are vulnerable and short-lived, if you do not assume for others the same rights.] Edited January 11, 2014 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Existence as such is not the same thing as the existence of men. Although men are within the universe, we aren't talking about all of existence when talking about the specific attributes of humans. Ayn Rand bases rights specifically on the human ability to reason. ... Here I'd say knowledge of existence as such is dependent on the existence of men as witnesses; but that the existence of men is subsumed by existence as such. It's almost the classic chicken or the egg scenerio, but logic dictates there must be some real object (other than the observer) to witness; so the egg wins because no one knows what goes on beyond their own eggshell. It is hardly a stretch of faith to agree that a human right to life is dependent on a human advocate. ... Rand wasn't arguing for any obligation -- only the "obligation" of each individual to himself. If you recognize other men as also having the capacity to reason, you should treat them as you treat yourself, because in that sense you are the same. For example, you shouldn't treat him as a rock. In this way, you are consistent in your action based on reality as you observe it and judge it. The "Golden Rule," in contrast, is dictated from the Divine, with no consideration permitted by the reasoning individual. The Rule comes with no explanation. By omitting both consideration and explanation, it is the opposite of Rand's view of rights. So, while the Rule is a primitive ethical statement, it doesn't have anything in common with Rand's ethics. We can agree that the term obligation is only relavent to consistently ethical interaction between human individuals, e.g. ethical reciprocity, as cited above in post 81; man to man, so to speak. Ayn Rand's chosen example implies the same. Beyond that, the "Golden Rule" is dictated by men, as witnesses; the reliability of which may be objectively reviewed. It's also relavent to understand that application of the "Rule" requires choice, i.e. free will; equivalent to Objectivist definition, "to think or not". In short, only man can enact the "Rule". However the "Golden Rule" is only one of many versions of a philosophically ethical standard, practice what you preach. "As a concept, the Golden Rule has a history that long predates the term "Golden Rule" (or "Golden law", as it was called from the 1670s). The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China." http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ethic_of_reciprocity.html "Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" ~ Confucious (see link below for more examples) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule So, while I understand Ayn Rand was not appealing to the Divine, the meaning of, "respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized" is consistent with reciprocity by common definition of both words. The credibility of the messager is less important than that of the message, unless the message is contradictory. Truth attributed to coincidence, synchronicity, or the squak of a parrot, remains valid until proven otherwise, does it not? I would argue that Ayn Rand's reason for using an example of reciprocity to promote ethical trade only validates the truth of the statement, do X, if you expect X in return, where X represents ethical interaction between individuals. Anyway, that's how I reconcile the difference referred to in the OP. Edited January 12, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 It just seems that 'do unto others..' and 'practice what you preach..' while consistent with rational self interest , has a different locus when framed in the light of 'reciprocity'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 AR proving the morality of not infringing on others' rights is not the same as do unto others. Before making the case for respecting the rights of others, AR had proven what rights are. Do unto others is a subjective alternative to a code of ethics based on objective standards. Anything goes, as long as I like having the same thing done to me. What if I'm a masochist? What if I like the comfort of a welfare state and I gain the power to implement it. Rights versus whim. Do unto others is: the good is whatever I feel is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whYNOT Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) DA, I'd say the Golden Rule as base for ethics has a flaw. (While it does have value as a day to day general guide in dealing with people). The trouble is, "Do unto others, as you..." does not guarantee the corollary, that OTHERS will 'Do unto YOU...'etc. In fact it creates an expectation in one, from others, which will not always (or seldom) be realised. It is pragmatic enough - which only high lights the wrong of pragmatism - and I think it fails as a *reciprocal* ethical system too. I hardly need point out that's the beauty of individual rights: you or I may follow whichever morality we please, but we will mutually ensure and observe one another's rights - not so much because of pragmatic reciprocity, as I mentioned earlier, more, because of real respect. Respect for another known individual who would never initiate force...and should be protected from force initiated against him. How could any system of Society foster such a climate of benevolence and mutual respect? You obviously know the Objectivist ethics well, so I don't have to extoll the beauty of rational selfishness, the morality not reliant on reciprocity at all. Edited January 12, 2014 by whYNOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 It just seems that 'do unto others..' and 'practice what you preach..' while consistent with rational self interest , has a different locus when framed in the light of 'reciprocity'. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 AR proving the morality of not infringing on others' rights is not the same as do unto others. Before making the case for respecting the rights of others, AR had proven what rights are. Do unto others is a subjective alternative to a code of ethics based on objective standards. Anything goes, as long as I like having the same thing done to me. What if I'm a masochist? What if I like the comfort of a welfare state and I gain the power to implement it. Rights versus whim. Do unto others is: the good is whatever I feel is good. Do unto others only implies consistency in the nature of human interaction; that ones credibility on the subject of having a right to life depends on extending that same courtesy to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 DA, I'd say the Golden Rule as base for ethics has a flaw. (While it does have value as a day to day general guide in dealing with people). The trouble is, "Do unto others, as you..." does not guarantee the corollary, that OTHERS will 'Do unto YOU...'etc. In fact it creates an expectation in one, from others, which will not always (or seldom) be realised. It is pragmatic enough - which only high lights the wrong of pragmatism - and I think it fails as a *reciprocal* ethical system too. I hardly need point out that's the beauty of individual rights: you or I may follow whichever morality we please, but we will mutually ensure and observe one another's rights - not so much because of pragmatic reciprocity, as I mentioned earlier, more, because of real respect. Respect for another known individual who would never initiate force...and should be protected from force initiated against him. How could any system of Society foster such a climate of benevolence and mutual respect? You obviously know the Objectivist ethics well, so I don't have to extoll the beauty of rational selfishness, the morality not reliant on reciprocity at all. I believe the beauty of rational selfishness is that it recognizes a reciprocity of self interest in human interaction. There are any number of reasons to believe this is so, or to recognized the inevitable threat of a unilateral application of individual rights. One either has an equal right to the preservation of ones life, or one is at the mercy of those who do. It's as close to being self evident as it gets. Our ancestors appealed to God as the final arbitor in an uncertain world; Objectivists appeal to Reality, having the benefit of living in the society God once secured. Taking ones place in time into account, both appeal and are bound to the same source of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 Devil's Ad, Do unto others doesn't imply any specific values other than what each individual actor likes done to him. Not everybody wants to live. There's no consistency, as if that was even a criteria for a validation of an ethical slogan. It's egoistic moral subjectivism. Establishing rights is based on objective reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Dearest Devil's Ad, You misinterpreted AR's use of "consistency" and "obligation." She used consistency on the metaphysical sense, referring to the law of identity. She used obligation in a metaphysical sense too, not referring to a type of moral duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 The do unto others slogan is not compatible with Objectivist ethics because it's standard of the good is not objective reality, it's subjective whim. It's not even compatible with judeo-christian ethics because the decisions of morality are not made by the divine mandate of mystic subjectivism; morality is determined by each individual's egoistic subjectivism. It's a type of individualism, but not the right type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Devil's Ad, Do unto others doesn't imply any specific values other than what each individual actor likes done to him. Not everybody wants to live. There's no consistency, as if that was even a criteria for a validation of an ethical slogan. It's egoistic moral subjectivism. Establishing rights is based on objective reality. Ethical consistency is maintained by acknowledging a right to life means the right to dispose of ones life as one chooses. There is no such thing as absloute life, thus no meaning to a right to live that doesn't necessarily include the right end ones life; else no real choice involved, ergo no right to secure. Edited January 13, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Huh? You got all that from do unto others? "Ethical consistency" is what you wanna call aknowledging the right to life. Is there something new here besides that? I wanna see you prove that do unto others is a good slogan. I've proven it's egoistic moral subjectivism. On this site, I don't need to prove why that's evil because AR already did. My new idea was proving the do unto others slogan isn't even compatible with christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Devil's Ad, You spoke of a right to commit suicide is part of the right to life. I agree. I know a man who walked out onto his porch with a rifle and pointed it at the cops, so they would kill him. He told me this, with the scar from a cops bullet smeared across his face (he lived). He wanted to be killed. Thank God he didn't follow the golden rule (he didn't shoot). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Devil's Ad, You spoke of a right to commit suicide is part of the right to life. I agree. I know a man who walked out onto his porch with a rifle and pointed it at the cops, so they would kill him. He told me this, with the scar from a cops bullet smeared across his face (he lived). He wanted to be killed. Thank God he didn't follow the golden rule (he didn't shoot). I don't see how the golden rule would apply... If I want to be killed by cops, I should allow others to be killed by cops?? Rights to life and liberty mean there's a choice involved, else the "right" is in fact a duty, i.e., a moral obligation. In my mind that kind of moral obligation is only relavent to immortals; know any?? Edited January 13, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Devil's Ad, Do you misunderstand the subjectivist slogan? Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. What did the man want them to do unto him? He wanted them to kill him. If the man did unto others as he wanted done to him, he would've killed others. Regarding your validation of rights, I'm unclear as to what you're saying. Are you saying that rights are derived from the fact that man can choose to not excersize his rights? And I don't know if you're saying that "duty" is a concept that a moral being should accept or reject. I don't know if I agree because I don't understand what you're saying. I do know that do unto others is a shoddy substitute for an actual code of ethics based on reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Do unto others... Can be consistent with an individualistic morality, but it isn't one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.