Call It 'Atlas Snubbed'

Wall Street Journal ^ | 7/17/2011 | Al Lewis

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Love for Ayn Rand goes unrequited. Libertarians love her, but she rejected them as "emotional hippies of the right." Conservatives love her, but she opposed Ronald Reagan, saying, "His likeliest motive for entering the Presidential race is power lust." Right-leaning Christians love her, but she was an atheist, an abortion supporter and a champion of the anti-Christian ideal that selfishness is a virtue. She also called religion a "sign of a psychological weakness." Her fans -- including Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, talk radio's Rush Limbaugh and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- would be crushed to learn she might never love them back, either. Ms. Rand has been dead since 1982, but today she's as loved as ever. Her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" champions laissez-faire capitalism and individual achievement. She vilifies communism, socialism and unionism. She dubs government redistribution of wealth immoral. Some of her ideas are central to the American Dream. But Ms. Rand did much of her writing while hopped up on amphetamines and nicotine. And like most people who abuse this combination, she went too far. She crafted philosophical arguments and wrote bizarre works of fiction to prove their premises. Then, in the delusional grandiosity that only chemicals can inspire, she declared herself, "the most creative thinker alive."

[Gondring]

Without God who defines it (moral behavior)? Without a Supreme arbitor/law giver, the whole concept of morality/immorality becomes one of relativist nuance.

If God exists, then He will judge. If God does not exist, the question is moot.

Even with God-defined morality, there are "relativist nuances" when humans are involved (and we're discussing human behaviour), based on interpretation if nothing else. If God gave us inherent morality, then why can't evolution give us inherent morality? Why can't we define morality ourselves (e.g., "acting in a way that we believe will lead to the greatest good for the most people" [admittedly, a poor definition :-) ]), just like one might define it as, "acting in ways that are pleasing to God")?

[Joe 6-pack]

"Why can't we define morality ourselves (e.g., "acting in a way that we believe will lead to the greatest good for the most people"

LOL...Define the term 'greatest good.' There are those who believe (or at least advocate) that euthanasia or genocide are for the 'greatest good.' Without an objective baseline, the term 'good' (or 'evil' for that matter) is entierely meaningless.