A MORAL SOCIETY WITHOUT GOD OR RELIGION

by fifi40 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry
    Terry

    I doubt few people will actually read what I am about to quote here. But, if you do, I can assure you it will give you the basis for a good discussion about the rational aspects of Morality.

    This quote is from an Objectivist who embraces Ayn Rand's work in rational philosophy.

    For thousands of years, people have been taught that goodness consists in serving others. "Love your brother as yourself" teach the Christian scriptures. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" preach the Marxists. Even the liberal Utilitarian philosophers, many of whom defended free market capitalism, taught that one should act always to attain "the greatest good for the greatest number." The result of this code has been a bloody trail of wars and revolutions to enforce self-sacrifice, and an endless struggle in society to achieve equality among people. Meanwhile, like the barnyard revolutionaries of George Orwell's "Animal Farm," the advocates of uniformity and self-sacrifice strain to prove themselves "more equal than others," so that they may determine how much love is enough, or what your ability is and what your needs should be. It seems loving our fellow man is a fine way to hate him.

    The Objectivist ethics rebuilds morality from the ground up. "You cannot say 'I love you' if you cannot say the 'I'," wrote Ayn Rand. According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

    Traditional moral codes have taught that social life is a war of dog-eat-dog and that people must restrain themselves through self-sacrifice and self-abnegation. "Live simply, that others may simply live," is their slogan. It is a doctrine suited to a world of peasant villages and rapacious conquerors.

    Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to define a code of values in support of one's own life, a human life. The values of Objectivism are the means to a happy life. They include such things as wealth, love, satisfaction in work, education, artistic inspiration, and much more. We choose many of our values, such as what work we enjoy and who are our friends and lovers. But we cannot choose the need for material goods or for friendship, if a happy life is what we seek. The ultimate choice open to us is whether we want life or not. Life is a choice we must make consciously and seriously, argues Rand, or else we may find that, by default, we have chosen the alternative: suffering and death.

    The virtues of Objectivism, then, define principles of action that lead to the achievement of objective values, considered in the full context of human life. The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices, but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions. A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue. The Objectivist ethics places industry and productivity in one's chosen work at the center of life's concerns. It is the code of a person who holds his head up with pride, in an objective appreciation of his merits and in aspiration to improvement in the future.

    Traditional ethics contrast the image of man as an animal with the ideal of man as an otherworldly monk. Man is by nature a ravening beast, on this view, and he must be taught self-denial and self-sacrifice to be angelic and meek. Objectivism holds that man lives best as a trader, acting rationally for his own sake and dealing with others by exchanging value for value. Traditional ethics extol courage in the face of death as a virtue; Objectivism counsels integrity in the long-term pursuit of happiness. Traditional ethics extol charity as the mark of nobility; Objectivism extols productive achievement, because no one exists merely for the sake of others. It is an ethic for those who want all life has to offer, consistently, over the full course of life.

    Related FAQ: What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue? by J. Raibley

  • fifi40
    fifi40

    Terry

    That sounds similar to that concept I spoke to you about before. That we shine to the best of our abilities, talents and all that we have been blessed with (good looks and a crooked nose) thereby giving unspoken permission for others to shine.

    Or in otherwords we use all that we have in a 'selfish way' to be the best that we can..........as for stepping on other people to better ourselves........well are we not right back to the basic problem!

    Sorry if I didnt get the point............but hey ho, dumb blonde in the building!

  • PEC
    PEC

    IMHO, Society would be more moral without religion, my view is tainted from being in a distinctive cult.

    Philip

  • Terry
    Terry
    Or in otherwords we use all that we have in a 'selfish way' to be the best that we can..........as for stepping on other people to better ourselves........well are we not right back to the basic problem!

    People (society) won't allow you to step on toes without retaliation of some sort.

    So, MORALITY is largely a matter of what you are able to do without getting pushed back.

    If you are rational; you learn not to do something that gets you spanked.

    If you are irrational; you become dysfunctional and your life is a mess.

    If you live all alone in the wilderness (or Unibomber cabin) you can do as you please until the F.B.I. comes to get you.

    Morality, in the final analysis, is a PRACTICAL MATTER and not a divine fiat.

  • fifi40
    fifi40

    A practical matter that in the objectivist view requires benevolence!

  • Open mind
    Open mind

    Terry:

    (I took about 15 minutes to write this & then just now read your last post. Now my phrase "THROUGH LEGAL MEANS" carries the most weight. Hope you'll have a go at this. Thanks.)

    Thanks for posting that. I listed Ayn Rand as an "influential" author to me on my Great Books thread.

    I'm not a great thinker or debater so please at least don some velvet gloves on your intellectual fists of iron if/when you reply to this.

    When I read Ayn Rand at around 19 yrs of age, she really rocked my world. As you stated on another thread, it felt like an act of "intellectual violence". It was appropriate though, since I was seeking it out.

    My biggest problem with her philosophy of "Objectivism" then and now is the tired old anti-atheist argument of: What will act as a restraint if not a belief in a higher power? I think the principles of humanism address this more than what I read from Ayn Rand.

    BTW, I'm agnostic/atheist and I really can't explain what it is that keeps me from being a horrific sociopath. The Bible believers will of course be quick to say it's my God-given "conscience" in spite of my non-belief. I can't explain it intellectually. But for me it's deep-seated and real to me.

    In a nutshell: if I buy into Objectivism 100%, then what is to stop me from grinding everyone in my path into dust? (through legal means, of course)

    A related nutshell: Is there any call for charity in Objectivism? I don't recall it being there. I just remember Ayn Rand ranting on page after page about how people would try to "out need" each other. Given her background in Soviet Russia, I can understand her hatred of this idea.

    I hope I've put these questions out there in an understandable manner.

    Thanks,

    Open Mind

  • smellsgood
    smellsgood

    "But for many alive today who do not hold a belief in God, is a moral and good life possible?"

    Of course. One question is though, from a humanistic point of view, can it really be said that mans "morals" are better than any others? Every man his own soveriegn sort of thing?

    "harm others?"

    No. This is unrelated to the homosexual questions, just the harms others questions.

    I'm talking bout drugs. I hear it alot "I'm not hurting anyone, sooo." Well in fact you are not beating baby animals, or knocking someone else unconscious with a roundhouse kick to the face. I think you are harming someone though :Yourself. And very often your family. You are a man absorbed with for instance on marijuana, cheetos and videogames or cartoons. Can't say I'm not the same way at times, but I digress. You are not thinking of others, in other words, your life is about Me when you are an addict. Of course, when you are an addict of a controlled substance, you are responsible for hurting others by stealing their flatscreens, vehicles, in my case someone stole my FABRIC for crying out loud, just to get your fix. Besides taking property to fuel your addiction however, you are just in a corner, tripping and zoned out. Not hurting a moth.

    For me, I'm a smoker, I don't smoke in the house or around the kids, or stub cigarettes out on any living thing. So, am I not hurting anyone? I'm hurting myself, I may become ill at some point down the road if I don't quit soon. In the meantime, I'm a person who could champion causes, help others, get freshwater to Africans and others who need it, in other words, as a human I can accomplish much for others. To cut off that kind of worthwile potential is cutting off helping others, not hurting them. So I think that if you are just a self absorbed pothead for example, you're not hurting anyone, but you certainly aren't going out of your way to help anyone. When the world needs every person to help.

    just my 2 cents.

  • bigdreaux
    bigdreaux

    i actually find atheists just as moral, if not more so than religious people. they do not feel the need to defend their position, and are usually more open minded than the religious class.

  • Shawn10538
    Shawn10538

    Socrates proved that there is no link between God and morality thousands of years ago. There is a great book by Christopher Hitchins called "god is not great" that is a really great read on the subject.

  • drew sagan
    drew sagan

    Qcmbr
    I was speaking in terms of peoples free choice with moral standards, not it's origins. I guessed I should have clarified.

    fifi40 Thanks for the link. ;)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit