If religious and philosophical ideas were liquid substances...

[Boojatta]

then would you be able to distinguish between pineapple juice and urine?

That is a short question and not very substantial material to base a thread on. So consider this: (revised version of something that it's too late to edit)

Three Commandments of Ayn Rand Worship?

First Commandment: Put all your mind, heart, and soul into your role in the economy. Spare nothing for family life, hobbies, social life, volunteering, philanthropy, etc. The amount of money you make measures your virtue. What you do with the money is completely irrelevant. However, money is just a tool or vehicle. It won't replace you as the driver, but it will measure all dimensions of your worth as a human being.

Second Commandment: The only proper functions of government are: violence, threats, and figuring out the appropriate threats or violence in a given situation. You shall strongly oppose and resist and even physically fight any government attempt to go beyond those functions. Threats and violence are the only way that governments can interrupt, block, or deter violations of your rights. One of your rights is the right to maliciously torture dogs, cats, and chimpanzees just for the fun of it, provided that you bought the animals. The reason animals have no rights whatsoever is that animals don't understand the rational language of threats. Animals only understand violence.

Third Commandment: Be a creator. The creator builds tools, but doesn't work to get the power to make policy. Power is achieved only by those who have power-lust. Power-lust is the fruit of a vacant soul. The parasite achieves political power and decides what the tools will be used for. Von Braun created the V2 rocket for the Nazis. Maybe you can be like Von Braun and develop fantastic new technologies that will be initially used for evil purposes. It's even possible that the technologies will later be used for some non-evil purposes.

[varkam]

1. I would add a fourth...

though it is strongly implied in the first and the third:

Look out for yourself only. Do not act in selfless or altruistic fashions, as this robs other individuals of their own self-sufficiency.

Sweet Jesus I hate Ayn Rand the philosopher.

[Boojatta]

2. You listed one explanation. Are there others?

Do not act in selfless or altruistic fashions, as this ...

It might be interesting to collect all of the Randroid rationalizations for that guideline. Perhaps one of them is that no one could possibly be motivated by sincere kindness and empathy?

[saltpoint]

6. So do I. When Ayn Rand isn't merely irritating, she's boring my ass off.

Terrible writer.

[SidDithers]

38. I can't count how many times I've started Atlas Shrugged...

and have never finished it. Her writing is freakin' painful.

Sid

[saltpoint]

40. Hi, SidDithers. Yep. Hell of a keen mind no matter my take on the

philosophy -- I always give credit to the brains fueling the work, but sheesh -- a little writing talent would have gone a long way in that book.

I just read John Irving's A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY, which is a master fictionist at work, and 'am diving into Andrew Holleran's NIGHTS IN ARUBA, which is also awfully good.

I'm a bit spoiled by authors like these -- they are poets and lyric writers as much as craftsmen. I want my forest glens to be as enchanted as possible!

[NMMNG]

9. Aye

Do not act in selfless or altruistic fashions, as this robs other individuals of their own self-sufficiency.

That reminds me of an idiotic thing I was told in a training where I work with individuals who have developmental disabilities. The trainer claimed that "in the upcoming decade the biggest form of abuse will be staff doing for the clients what they can do for themselves".

It's abuse to do for someone else what they can do for themselves??? I guess then we should start arresting maids, butlers, chauffers, wait-staff and every other person who is paid to do what people can "do for themselves". :crazy: (Not to mention over-indulgent parents/grandparents/guardians, etc.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Whooooosh!

This post flew right over my head.

[charlie]

4. While we're brushing the jet fumes out of our hair

here's an amusing cartoon that succinctly captures Rand's Objectivism:

[saltpoint]

5. In that surreal realm I hold that John Calvin would be represented by

a slurry of rattlesnake neurotoxin and fish vomit.

I'm just not a big fan of John Calvin, truth be told.

[nemo137]

7. You and me both, sir.

I think Calvin was really Rand's John the Baptist in many ways.

[saltpoint]

8. Hi, nemo137. I go pale when I think of what it must have been like

to live under Calvin's reign in Geneva. Yikes.

You may be exactly right on your interpretation of Ran's John.

Power has a nasty habit of ruining people's lives, especially when it is misappropriated. For me, Calvin was one of the most easily overtaken personalities -- a victim of, and abuser of, power.

[Random_Australian]

10. Can't be a fluid. there are just 94 elements to work with.

But there are ~1826482864628662 elements to work with in a philosophy.

Yeah, I made that up. It is within five powers of itself of the correct answer, I bet.

[Boojatta]

11. Is this the Fifth Commandment of Ayn Rand worship?

You shall agree with everything written by Ayn Rand. Not everyone can be as well versed in Objectivism as Ayn Rand's officially designated intellectual heir. So complete understanding is not absolutely essential. Memorizing passages and reciting them word-for-word with no omissions or ellipses is a good sign that one is not making the error of failing to sufficiently respect The Words Of Rand.

Agreement is strong evidence of rationality. For now, we are satisfied to propose that all people would have equal rights in our Utopia. However, remember that man is by definition a rational animal. Surely those who are not Objectivists are animals qua animals but not rational qua noncrimethinkful animals. There will come a time when you will belong to the aristocracy of the rational.

The outsiders will not even be able to afford to pay the cost of access to information about the laws that we will use against them. After all, those who did not contribute to the creation of the law are receiving an unearned benefit. Public libraries subsidize the lazy and foolish people who failed to provide for themselves the universal substance of value: money. Public libraries reduce the market for books, punishing brilliant book publishing entrepreneurs for their brilliance. In the future, the lazy bloodsuckers who today spend their time in public libraries will be picking garbage for copies of statutes, regulations, and case law the way that vagrants pick garbage for food today.

[Zebedeo]

12. Absurd commandments, indeed

and yet, according to many posters in this forum, these moral laws are not objectively worse than any other standard of morality. They're just different, and the difference is purely subjective.

[trotsky]

13. Yet since you can't prove YOUR set of moral laws has any sort of

objective basis, you haven't really solved anything. Yours are just as subjective as anybody else's. Sure, you declare yours to be superior, but where's the proof?

[Meshuga]

14. There is no superiority

It's just a personal choice by many to follow the moral standards of their religion or ideas. There is no need to prove anything to anybody since it's a personal choice and a personal belief. You follow whatever you think is the best path to being a good and decent human being.

[trotsky]

15. I happen to agree with you - mostly.

But the person I was addressing does not.

[SidDithers]

39. Exactly..it's a personal choice...

hence, it's subjective.

Sid

[Zebedeo]

16. The proof is in the absurdity

of the notion that no set of moral laws is any better than any other. If that were the case (as you argue) then you have no basis to criticize the Ayn Rand "commandments" in the OP, or to criticize Hitler's moral code, or Satan's moral code, for that matter. Everything is just different flavors of ice cream, and none is any better than any other. If you can live with that, OK, but I think it's utterly preposterous and obviously untrue.

[Random_Australian]

17. There was no notion that "no set of laws were any better than any other" -

merely that they were subjective.

However, these things could be equal if and only if subjectivity were to imply invalidity in judgmement or that belief was unable to process the existence of different beliefs.

In other words, just because something is subjective does not mean you cannot judge it.

[Zebedeo]

24. You can judge someone else's morality,

but only to the extent of saying that you disagree with it. So you may disagree with the Ku Klux Klan's moral laws, and they may disagree with yours. Neither of you is any more right than the other -- you just have different preferences.

I view this as the worst sort of mushy-minded moral relativism. The implications are horrendous.

[Random_Australian]

32. The act of judging gives properties of right and wrong, all subjectivity

means is that the KKK don't agree with me, and they think they are right.

It in no way stops me from taking action against them. Moral relativism indeed.

[trotsky]

18. There is no "proof from absurdity" when it comes to moral systems.

You have to assume one is objectively superior first.

I think it's utterly preposterous and obviously untrue. (emphasis added)

Exactly. You couldn't have proven my point better. You just showed that even you acknowledge that your moral system is subjective, too.

[Zebedeo]

23. It must be a strange life you live

I mean no disrespect; I simply am amazed that you can go through life, day after day, maintaining the mentality that no act is objectively any better or worse than any other act. So when you hear about something awful, like the couple in the news today who raped and murdered various women and videotaped it, you don't conclude that their behavior was objectively any less moral than your behavior in getting dressed and going to work today.

That's a bizarre way to live; so bizarre that I am having a hard time believing that that's actually how you see things.

Tell the truth - do you really hold such a point of view, or are you just arguing this point as a Devil's advocate?

[trotsky]

25. You just don't get it.

You live the same life. You just believe that your morality has an objective basis. Can't prove it, can't even demonstrate it. But you criticize others anyway.

Of course you also heap on the misunderstanding that acknowledging moral systems all ultimately have only a subjective basis means that all acts are equally "moral." Because if you couldn't paint your opponents as thinking that rescuing someone from drowning is the "same" as sending 6 million Jews to the gas chamber, you really wouldn't have anything to argue.

Bottom line is, your moral system is just as subjective as those you criticize. Someday you might just understand.

[Zebedeo]

28. Ah - HAAA!

So you DO think that some acts are objectively more moral than others! You give as an example that it is objectively more moral to rescue someone from drowning than to send 6 million Jews to the gas chamber. Very good example. These two acts are not morally equivalent. They are not just a matter of personal preference. One is objectively good. The other is objectively bad. Thank you for proving my point.

And no, my moral system is not as subjective as any other. Mine is objective. It is derived from a source other than myself - God. I do not make it up as I go along.

You may say that I am not perfect at interpreting God's will. That is undeniably true. But I do my best to interpret His will, which exists independently of me. That is not the same as making up my own moral code out of whole cloth. I suspect you already knew this.

[trotsky]

29. Let me repeat: you still don't get it.

Let's try this:

1) Prove that your source is God. This means you need to prove that a god exists, that the god is YOUR god, that your god dictated this morality, and that the same morality dictated is the one that is in your hands in the form of the bible today. Go.

2) Tell me if it's OK to get a blood tranfusion, or receive an animal organ transplant. Give me the objective moral answer, and show me where it came from. Go.

Because if you can't do both 1 and 2, then your objective morality is bogus. It's as subjective as anyone else's.

[Random_Australian]

33. Nope, it is still subjective, but unequal inside the subective reality

and belief system of the responder.


It means, Trotsky thinks that saving someone from drowning is better than sending 6 million to the chambers. It means Trotsky will do the former and act against the latter. It also means that Trotsky knows that Hitler did not think he was doing evil - but has judged Hitler as (negative adjective) and will thus act against it from his own moral system.

(My interpretation of Trotsky's response)

[Boojatta]

19. Could you define what it means to say that something is any kind of a

moral law, regardless of whether it is a superior or inferior morality?

For example, suppose a heretical sect of Objectivists declares that there are two additional commandments: "You shall not open an umbrella indoors and you shall never eat an apple on a Monday."

Mainstream Objectivists might say: "Those are not just silly. They aren't even moral laws. So the question of whether or not they are good moral laws does not even arise." Would you agree or disagree with that hypothetical mainstream Objectivist view?

[trotsky]

20. Oh, I'm not defending big-O Objectivism.

I only know enough about it to know that it's a counter-productive way to run a society.

I'm just asking how someone can judge a moral system to be inferior for its subjectivity, when their moral system is subjective as well. And using the small-o objectivism in reference to that.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Boojatta]

21. Before you tell me that an evaluation of the quality of a moral system

(whether it be a relative or absolute evaluation of quality) is a matter of subjective judgment, can you tell me what it means to say that an entity is a "moral system"?

Perhaps you wish to say that evaluations of quality are necessarily subjective, regardless of the kind of entity that one is attempting to judge the quality of?

[trotsky]

22. There are definitely objective elements.

You can measure things like (as an extreme example) how many people will die as a result of this choice. But defining a moral system is of course incredibly difficult. I've tried to point this out to the other poster before - the bible is certainly FAR from a complete set of moral instructions on how to live one's life. Is it OK to give blood? Donate organs? Have another child to hopefully get a matching bone marrow donor for your other child who has leukemia? And forget those issues which were unheard of in biblical times - people can't even agree on what the bible DOES appear to address. Is it OK to get an abortion? To die with dignity? Wage war? Have homosexual sex? Even in the other poster's ideal objective morality, there is confusion and disagreement and personal interpretation. I'm just trying to get him to admit it.

[Meshuga]

30. The escense of the Bible answers a lot!

Most issues which were unheard of in biblical times are addressed based on the Bible. Look at all the books of Jewish responsa. They base their answers based on scripture.

The Bible (at least the first five books) is a system of moral instructions on how to live one's life. And Yes, you can use it to answer questions like "is it ok to give blood?", "Donate organs?", "Have another child to hopefully get a matching bone marrow donor for your other child who has leukemia?", "Is it OK to get an abortion?","To die with dignity?", "Wage war?", "Have homosexual sex?", etc.

The questions are not asked directly, obviously, but there are values in the Bible that help give us answers to these questions. But to see these values you cannot read the Bible literally. The Bible does have a prohibition on male homosexuality but many argue that it depends on the purpose of the sexual act. The prohibition was based on homosexual acts performed as pagan rituals that was common at the time the rule was created.

You can use the bible to say that the donation of organs is fine since it will help to save the life of another human being. The same goes with blood donation and having another child to save a person with leukemia. The same also applies to stem cell research which will help the quality of life the afflicted and save lives.

As far as abortion, the Jewish view of the nature of the fetus (Jews were the ones who introduced the Bible to the world) is based upon a statement in Exodus which dealt with a miscarriage caused by men fighting and pushing a pregnant woman. The individual responsible for the miscarriage was fined, but was not tried for murder. We learn from the commentaries that payment was made for the loss of the fetus and for any injury done to the woman. Obviously no fatal injury occurred to her. If this case had been considered as murder, the Biblical and rabbinic penalties for murder would have been invoked.

There is a HUGE library of moral laws based on the Torah (first five books of the Bible) that are used to this day and answer contemporaneous questions.

[trotsky]

31. You can say all those things,

but not one of them is an objective answer. You are basing your answer on your own interpretation of what the bible says - thus it's subjective. That's the point.

[saltpoint]

27. But can we not any longer fully accept or deny the relative

absolutism of a subjective abstract? Whether or not a qualitative entity is judged objective or whether a given moral system is not abstract, can ANYONE judge such an entity -- IF that entity is NOT, strictly speaking, an entity?

[Zhade]

26. Some might say religious faith was mercury.

:evilgrin:

(I kid. There are some good, non-crazy believers here.)

[Random_Australian]

34. Actually, that could be a variety of comliments and insults.

That might be taken as saying that religious faith was half the world, for example.

(Alchemist viewpoint from cinnibar decomposition)

[Zhade]

35. "Whoosh."

"What is, the sound of R_A's explanation going right over my head?"

:D

[Random_Australian]

36. I really should explain better. The big party trick of the alchemists

was to roast cinnabar, which would then decompose into Sulphur Dioxide and Mercury. Sulphur Dioxide is brimstone, and to the alchemists represented all that was impure in the world, and the other product was Mercury, which is something that is truly beatiful to see, (though not many people have), which they thought was the thing from which all that was beautiful and good came from.

So there were two elements in their opinion, Mercury and (Foul smell), which made all the world, so saying that religious faith was Mercury could be taken to mean that religious faith was half of the entire world.

:D I know a fair bit!

[Boojatta]

37. Where can I find a complete list of Commandments of Ayn Rand Worship?

[saltpoint]

41. Boojatta, you might try contacting the Ayn Rand Bookshop in Irvine, CA.

They are an astute bunch and would likely be able to point you toward a text or two.

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/contactarb.asp

It might involve a credit card, as they are a retail business.

I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand, but there are those who are, and that's cool.

Good luck on the hunt.

[Boojatta]

42. Perhaps the marketing department of the Ayn Rand Bookshop in Irvine, CA

could post some free explanations for everybody who reads this thread. Not everybody has a good credit rating.