About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed and Joe,

I am having a bad sick day.  I think you are both confusing what I observe with what I personally believe and practice in my own life.

Give me a day or two for a more comprehensive reply.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 4/26, 12:20pm)


Post 41

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alright Wolf, get some rest and consider taking 1 gram of vitamin C, along with a zinc lozenge, every two hours while awake.

No rush.

Ed


Post 42

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Of course, there are always conditions where justice is thoroughly perverted and these kind of people get away with far more without incurring the negative costs. I still wouldn't view them as happy, but certainly they have a better opportunity to live an irrational life without paying for it.
Whether or not you view them as happy, does not change how they feel about themselves.  But we agree that living an irrational life is relatively easy.  Unfortunately, there is always someone to pick up the slack.
 


Post 43

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

So don't give me pessimistic crap about everyday folks. Everyday folks are better people than the toothless old hag of the 1200s -- calling out from the crowd for her daughter-in-law to be burned as a witch.

Humans are probably 99% unrealized potential, Wolf. Most of them just need proper education, that's all.

Sorry you are looking at life through rose colored glasses.  The old hag of the 1200s is alive a well.  Check statistics on hate mail and death threats.

As to Psychology, it is useless.  It can not be applied universally and is therefore not a science.


 


Post 44

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf,

Would you please choose a completion to the following sentences?


On the whole, humans today are ...

a) ... more moral than the humans of the 1200s
b) ... less moral than the humans of the 1200s
c) ... equivalently as moral as the humans of the 1200s 



On the whole, humans today are ...

a) ... more moral than the humans of the time of Hammurabi (1800 BC)
b) ... less moral than the humans of the time of Hammurabi (1800 BC)
c) ... equivalently as moral as the humans of the time of Hammurabi (1800 BC) 



On the whole, humans today are ...

a) ... more moral than the humans that entirely supplanted the Neanderthals 20,000-40,000 years ago
b) ... less moral than the humans that entirely supplanted the Neanderthals 20,000-40,000 years ago
c) ... equivalently as moral as the humans that entirely supplanted the Neanderthals 20,000-40,000 years ago

Curious.

Ed


Post 45

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 7:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sticking my two cents in, Ed, am inclined to say - in the context of the times, all are about the same respecting being moral....

Post 46

Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaargh, Rev'rend! THAT was NOT the answer I was fishing for!

Ed


Post 47

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

My answer would be c in every case.  Morality is not arbitrary as we know, and yet the majority of mankind has always treated it that way.  Witness the entrenched believe in multi-culturalism in American society today. 

As to your belief that people can be educated, some can but never enough.  Take note for example that the Enlightment lasted barely a 100 years before being thoroughly trashed by the likes of Hume, Rousseau, Kant and Hegel.


Post 48

Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, you are tough to tangle with -- which is probably why they call you Wolf.

Let me try again ('cause I'm a tough-cookie, myself) ...

What about the enlarged pockets of peace -- isn't this undeniable phenomenon evidence of moral progress?

At the time of the Neanderthals, the only peace to be found was within small bands (of 5-10 families) of people. War with other bands was common. And just prior to the time of Hammurabi, the only peace to be found was within tribes of 200-1000. Now, -- with more than 400 times more people on the planet -- we have as many as a billion people living together in peace.

That looks like moral progress to me. What do YOU have to say about THAT, hmm?

Ed


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 6:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

At the time of the Neanderthals, the only peace to be found was within small bands (of 5-10 families) of people. War with other bands was common. And just prior to the time of Hammurabi, the only peace to be found was within tribes of 200-1000. Now, -- with more than 400 times more people on the planet -- we have as many as a billion people living together in peace.
Anything said about Neanderthals is pure speculation, nor do I subscribe to the theory that early man was ignorant and child-like.  I believe early man to have been pretty much like men today, some superstitious and some curious enough to try to determine the why of things.

As to your argument, numbers do not encumber.  It is a matter of percentage.   We have a billion people live together not in peace, rather not yet at war.  Man is quarrelous by nature.  A violent disagreement between two individuals is just as much a war and a violent disagreement between nations.  The number of individuals involved does not change the basic nature of the conflict.

As for freedom, there is only one bastion of freedom in the world today, the US, and that may quickly be changing.

Rand says the following:

"Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience--on the implicit principle of: "The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler's edicts are its voice on earth."
This was true under all statist systems and under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. "The Divine Right of Kings" summarizes the political theory of the first--"Vox populi, vox dei" of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god--the unlimited majority-rule or democracy of Athens-the welfare-state run by the Emperors of Rome-the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages-the absolute monarchy of France-the welfare state of Bismarck's Prussia-the gas chambers of Nazi Germany-the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.
All these political systems were expressions of the altruist' collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the feel that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim-worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of ~n amoral society. The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society, to moral law.
The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system-as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may he revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.
A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
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.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
The right to life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature."



Post 50

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf,

===============
Anything said about Neanderthals is pure speculation,
===============

Wolf, that's not entirely true. Old human skeletons with spear marks in their ribs means something. You can't just turn a blind eye to what evidence does exist.

Even so, if we look at the tribes existing in the 20th Century, what do you think we'd find, Wolf -- gentle, nonviolent people? Wrong. Murder is almost always the number one cause of death. Tribal (primitive) societies are morally inferior -- ie. made up of individuals acting in inferior ways. Here's an example, excerpted from an anthropologist interviewing one of the Iyau from New Guinea:

===============
"My first husband was killed by the Elopi raiders. My second husband was killed by a man who wanted me, and who became my third husband. That husband was killed by the brother of my second husband, seeking to avenge his murder."
===============

"Equivalently moral", Wolf? I think not. But I think you're a pretty tough sell -- so I'm going to continue on with another example (fom: Stone L. (1979) The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. London:Penguin.) ...

===============
"Such personal correspondence and diaries as survive suggest that social relations from the 15th to the 17th-century tended to be cool, even unfriendly. ... The most trivial disagreements tended to lead rapidly to blows, and most people carried a potential weapon ... The correspondence of the day was filled with accounts of brutal assault at the dinner-table or in taverns, often leading to death ... Brutal and unprovoked assaults by gangs of idle youths from respectable families, such as the Mohawks, were a frequent occurrence in eighteenth-century London streets.
===============

"Equivalently moral", Wolf? And I haven't even brought up slaves yet. The issue of slavery is a no-brainer -- isn't it?And also, did you know that in the code of Hammurabi, if your slave states to you that he is not your slave, then you are to cut off his ear? C'mon, man. That's not as moral as now. Don't you agree?

What about the Inquisition? What about the famous dictum from that priest (or bishop): "Kill them all, and let God sort out who is innocent"? We don't talk that way anymore (except for those who 'haven't' morally advanced along with the rest of us, such as the Islamofascists, etc).

Ed


Post 51

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Context, Ed, context..... before ye can run, ye gotta learn to walk.... within the context of how morality was understood in those days, they were as moral as any could be - and no, this does NOT mean morality is relative, but it DOES mean it is contextual.... individualism is a relatively new notion in the history of humankind, and understanding the morality which is required for the flourishing of the individual human is an even more new notion...  just as ye canna use the prosperity of the wealth of thi land as a yardstick for the wages of the third world, so ye canna use the knowing of morality of today in the context of the ancient times.....

Post 52

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rev',

You sound wise like a sage when call me out to 'keep context' -- but I'm not buying what you're selling. There is something in the context that isn't changing here -- the nature of man as man. The nature of man as man is the benchmark for morality, anything else, in spite of your dictum, invites moral relativism. Yes, it's true, more than simple rule-breaking is needed (context is also needed), but if I am to swallow your statements in total, then 'murder' (something that has dropped to less than 5% of what it used to be) has become 'more immoral' than it used to be (and that's relativism).

Is that a fair interpretation of the words you had stated?

Ed


Post 53

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do not confuse murder with killing.... there is a difference... second, with the growth of understanding of how best to deal socially, less violence is usually the consequence, not that  more see it as immoral, only as less practical...


Post 54

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I don't know why you are talking about moral relativism.  I think our disagreement is a simple one.  You see in mankind a linear progress from less moral to more moral.  I do not see that progress. 

As I tried to point out, we in America do exhibit and express a higher morality than most civilizations of the past; but look at what opposes us.  The rest of the world with the possible exception of a few European nations are bastions of immorality, e.g. the Middle East, Africa, SA, China, SouthEast Asia, Russia.  Did I leave anyone out?


Post 55

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rev',

==============
not that  more see it as immoral, only as less practical
==============

But morality and practicality are not different things for me (be honest, did you see that one coming, Rev?). A moral-practical dichotomy must be true for your reasoning (as heretofore stated) to hold firm.

Ed


Post 56

Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf,

==============
I think our disagreement is a simple one.  You see in mankind a linear progress from less moral to more moral.  I do not see that progress. 
==============

Agreed.


==============
As I tried to point out, we in America do exhibit and express a higher morality than most civilizations of the past; but look at what opposes us.  The rest of the world with the possible exception of a few European nations
==============

This is actually a pretty good point that you have, but I do have a rejoinder to it -- the UN Universal (ie. worldwide) Declaration of Human Rights.

In my mind's ear, I can hear you know: "But that's just a piece of paper, real blood is still flowing like a river -- in Darfur, place X, place Y, etc." To which I'd retort: "Another pretty good point, Wolf!" But did you hear the story of the woman I met in Nottingham? She lamented about how, in 1949, it was socially-acceptable for fathers to "break-in" their daughters. Is it acceptable now? Hell no! But why not? BECAUSE OF MORAL PROGRESS.

Ed


Post 57

Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolf, One question: Are the majority of individuals on this planet more practical now -- then the majority was a millenia ago (in the Dark Ages)?

Ed


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Monday, May 1, 2006 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Any hope you have for the UN I believe is misplaced.  One only not only has to come to terms with issues such as the, most recent, spectacle of Iran as a member of the non-proliferation committee; but come to terms as well with the fact that the UN is built upon the false premise of Democracy, i.e. in the General Assembly the opinions of Niger and North Korea carry a weight equal to the US, and although there is a tempering of that authority in the Security Council, you still have Russia and China on an equal footing with the US. 

America is not by accident a Federal Republic rather than a democracy. It is so by design. Our form of government was purposefully crafted as a collaboration of autonomous states headed by a deliberately shackled Federal government.

The Founding Fathers were deeply suspicious of Democracy. When government is based on the desires of fifty-one percent of the people individual rights are not secure. Your right to vote does not grant the right to violate someone else’s rights.
 
They gave us a Constitutional government that did not grant rights, but guaranteed them. It is no oversight that neither founding documents, the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, contain the word democracy. James Madison, sometimes called the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

In Essay No. 10 of the Federalist Papers he continues,
"democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. ''

Alexander Hamilton said,
``Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy.' A republic is a government under a Constitution established to solidify the rule of law, not of men"; and the erasable Ben Franklin quipped:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." This later paragraph is speciously attributed to Alexander Tyler.

This brings me back to the UN and to the question of sovereignty.  The UN is a step toward a world collective or one world government; a romantic notion particularly popular with egalitarians who by some stretch of the imagination are able transmogrify the US the finest bastion of freedom in the world into a fascist dictatorship. Their faith in the synergy of collective action makes an independent American foreign policy anathema to them. For this Hate America First crowd the collective UN is a totem; untouchable and beyond reproach.
 
The ostensible complaint and incessant rant against America involves the issue of state sovereignty. According to their understanding the most hideous regime, no matter its record on individual rights, is entitled to immunity from outside interference based upon the concept of national sovereignty, clearly a misunderstanding of proper governance. What Hate America Firsters must assiduously ignore is that a dictatorship has no claim to sovereignty, the case for sovereignty can only be made for those States that derive their power from the consent of the governed. Noam Chomsky’s arguments are based entirely on this evasion.
 
Sovereignty is the prerogative of democratic nations. Claims of jurisdiction or sovereignty by totalitarian states are preposterous and should be dismissed out of hand.

The problem with the UN starts and ends with its qualification for membership. There is no rationale for a club that includes every nation irrespective of its politics, as if it were a collection of figurines one had to complete. Any despot anywhere in the world is eligible for membership in the UN and welcomed with the same dignity and respect due legitimate nations. This single absurd prerequisite for eligibility demeans and renders ineffective what is benightedly called most prestigious organization in the world.  

Does sound judgement require the opinion Ayatollahs? Should North Korea or Myanmar be members of an organization dedicated to freedom and human rights? Of course not. The only benefit derived goes to the illegitimate nations who profit from an undeserved veneer of respectability.  Here a perfect of example of Rand means when she says that in a compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that benefits.
 
The hopes and aspirations of humanity are the province of free nations, thus the UN should go the way of the dinosaur.  It should be replaced by a new organization of united free nations, a UFN if you will. Then and only then would the organization have real prestige. A membership there would require the petitioner to accept the responsibility for protecting individual liberty, and it would be an association in which nations could aspire to and be proud to join. Dictatorships would need not apply.
 

------

As to the question as to whether the world is more practical today.  You would have to define 'practical'. 


Post 59

Monday, May 1, 2006 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent rejoinder, Wolf. And I love your UFN idea! You closed with ...

=============
As to the question as to whether the world is more practical today.  You would have to define 'practical'. 
=============

What I meant by 'practical' is 'useful' (a term without the inherent ambiguity that 'practical' has). And a definition of 'useful' is (m-w.com) ...

=============
Main Entry: use·ful
Pronunciation: 'yüs-f&l
Function: adjective
1 : capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose
2 : of a valuable or productive kind <do something useful with your life>
=============

Though I prefer number 2, I actually think either of these 2 would do here -- so (if inclined) just pick one, and respond to your pick.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.