Posted on 07/29/2002 7:27:13 AM PDT by Gumlegs
Can't say, but the Deists had to work and go home for supper. Standby.
You don't fear an '84 type society?
But here's the truth: there's always been a Panopticon. Before technology, it was called God. But it's actually better than technology because God sees into our hearts as well.
For instance, I could do all kinds of immoral things if I wanted to, but I firmly believe that God is watching and judging my actions.
Let us hope this not the primary reason you don't. You could find He stopped looking or changed His mind.
Atheistic libertarians don't believe that.
You seem VERY positive about what libertarians believe. Who told you?
Either God is the Panopticon or the State is.
Again, many believe individual men are the masters of their fate. - Can you address that there may be other options?
Rand loved to fetishize 19th century America as the freest society that ever existed. What she neglects to mention is that there were no fewer than three massive religious revivals during that century, and America was heavily and devoutly Christian.
So what? They primarily only affected the freedoms of those involved. No?
Thomas Jefferson wondered how freedom could be purchased without virtue. Answer: it can't.
And too much 'virtue' has led us to evils like the current drug prohibition.
You can't prove evolution, put you can prove de-evolution. Law school: from human to primordial slime in three years.
what about people with genetically low I.Q.'s? Why is your intrinsic value as a highly educated professional the same as a derelict? The soul assumes ontological equality; materialism does not.
I submit that the compassion required to care for such individuals is solely a function of our free will. Wild beasts do not care for their infirmed, and Nature takes it's course in each instance.
But it is my compassion that allows me to view you as a fellow human - regardless of occupation. ;)
I'm also a fan of Nozick, who brought the quantum indeterminism argument to my attention when he noted that we cannot predict the decay of, for instance, U238. But beyond the most basic outline of this argument, I'm at sea. What I do know is that serious philosophical libertarians like Nozick advance this argument, but not convincingly because the nexus between human action and quantum mechanics is not established.
Second, steve_p is right that I'm with the materialists in arguing the merits of Christianity from pragmatism. But again, God is not falsifiable. The appeal to perfect reason put forward by "Physicist" is falsifiable; to wit: I'm sure he has all kinds of disagreements with his fellow, eminently rational scientific colleagues all the time. Yet Objectivists appeal to Reason in the same way Christians appeal to the Eternal Word of God. But reason is falsifiable; God is not. Now to atheistic collectivists. Atheistic collectivists appeal to, among other things, fairness.
John Rawls' books, first "A Theory of Justice" and then "Justice is Fairness", makes the case that because humans are born behind a veil of ignorance, and thus are unaware how their lives will turn out. In his formulation, people will choose the safest outcomes because they are ignorant of ultimate outcomes. In other words, people are risk averse; thus the proper approach to public policy is redistributionist economics i.e. socialism. However, this is falsifiable simply by going down to the local Quickee Mart on a Saturday night before a $100 million dollar lottery drawing and watching all the rednecks load up on lottery tickets they can't afford. People are not risk-averse, and when Rawls asserts "fairness" he encounters the same problem as Objectivists/radical rationalists: my version of fairness/reason is different from your version. By whose standard are we to judge? Usually the answer from both rationalists and radical egalitarians comes down to this:
People smarter than the hoi polloi.
Thus elitism, thus tyranny. Because, again, if we aren't all equal in an ontological sense, then exactly how do we justify Joe Six Pack having the same rights as Joe One Hundred and Eighty IQ? If we follow J.S. Mill and Bentham, both utilitarians, then maybe Joe Six Pack has .56 the rights of Joe Brilliant Guy. At what point does Joe Six pack slide into the "non-viable citizen" category? .53? .34? And who decides the ratios?
Finally, some practical notes. The Roman philosopher Seneca noted that in his day "we drown deformed and sickly children". Perfecly utilitarian. Perfectly logical. Why would you raise children that are going to be, net-net, a drag on society? Think this went out with the Roman Empire? USA Today ran a story a month or so ago about the 40 million surplus males in China due to the "one-child" policy there. Obviously, many families had female children first, but disposed of them in favor of males.
I'd like to ask the rationalists what would have happened to someone like Teddy Roosevelt, a sickly child; or Albert Einstein, who did not speak until age six, in such a society?
Christians took a different tack; all men are equal before God, all men (and women) are worthy of His redemption and thus it is the *obligation* of Christians to help them. Compassion is possible when the real equality of all men is recognized; if you believe that some men are naturally better than others, whither charity?
If free will is self-evident, why are we arguing about it?
"You assume that 'society' has some 'right' to establish a humans 'net drag' or plus? Why?"
Actually, I assume just the opposite. Society *doesn't* have the right to establish the relative worth of people. Rights come from the Creator, and thus are inviolable by the state. If you don't believe in the Creator, to what authority do you appeal to to guarantee rights?
"It does not take a belief in a god to know right from wrong."
Really? If you were born in atheistic China, you woudn't regard drowning your infant girl as wrong, would you? It's happened millions of times, according to USA Today. Why is drowning an infant child you don't want morally wrong? After all, if you're an atheist, it's nothing more than animate material. If you're a Christian, it's a unique sould from God...
"We have developed philosophies through reason, not through faith in a soul, imo"
Wait a sec. You're reasonable, right? I'm reasonable, I think. We're disagreeing. Who's right? Why?
Now, now. You're the one who came looking for me.
Rand put a high premium on reason. Again, what about people with genetically low I.Q.'s? Why is your intrinsic value as a highly educated professional the same as a derelict?
You're baiting me. If you've read anything by Rand, you know that value is (by definition) not intrinsic. The value of a human life is different from the value of anything else, in that the value of each individual's life is given to it by the person that holds it. There's no objective reason why a person should value his life less because he's stupid.
So, yeah, I know all kinds of ugly little contradictions that Rand put up. Here's one:
Please. The writings of Rand are not received wisdom. I said before, reason stands--or falls--on its own merits. Rand held some loony ideas and some brilliant ones. Just because the core of her philosophy withstands my intellectual scrutiny far better than does Christianity, it doesn't mean (unlike a Christian) I'm obliged to accept every word of every book in my canon.
But if you deny God, where do your rights come from? The state?
When you say such things as this, I have to assume that either you are taunting me, or that you are completely unfamiliar with Rand, despite your claim to the contrary. I haven't the time or the inclination to type in an entire course in remedial Objectivism.
And what about charity? What is the objectivist justification of charity? As I remember, there isn't any.
Read again. Charity (true charity, not pity-based handouts for the indolent or needles for junkies) is the expression of one's valuing of his fellow man. It is utterly laudable and perfectly compatible with Objectivism. But there I go with the remedial lecturing.
By the way, can a heroin user be an Objectivist?
It's a pretty inconsistent Objectivist who commits such an evasion. A junkie can be a Christian, as long as he repents and sins no more. So, too, with an Objectivist, I would say. (I don't know what Rand would say.)
Thomas Jefferson wondered how freedom could be purchased without virtue. Answer: it can't.
Completely correct, but Jefferson wasn't confusing prudery with virtue.
(Sorry for the inadequate responses, but I had no time for more.)
Why are two people equal before the law?
It's self evident that we all have free will, and the ability to learn to avoid violating anothers rights, lest we have our own rights violated.
- We use reason to establish that we should grant each other equal rights.
If free will is self-evident, why are we arguing about it?
I'm not. - Apparently you agree with my statement. - Thanks.
By your lights, the society of Jefferson's time was filled with prudes. Be that as it may, this "prudery vs. freedom" argument seems to be a relatively recent development that has grown at approximately the same rate that Christianity as declined as a moral force in American society.
American society was originally devoutly Christian, and its laws reflected that fact. Things like pornography, prostitution, adultery, and a variety of other vices are directly at odds with Christian morality, and as a result they were quite often illegal, and remained so well into the 20th century. What this reflects is a belief that the laws of a state ought not to contradict the will of God. Judging by what they said, the Founders in large measure agreed with this position. (E.g. John Adams famously observed, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.)
I somehow doubt that Jefferson would have been opposed to local laws that outlawed such vices. If that makes him a prude, so be it.
To a different topic: in practical terms how does a deist differ from an atheist in being able to define objective moral truths? Of what practical worth is deism as a moral concept?
For example, if I say that "Might Makes Right" is a valid and objective morality that is both completely logically consistent, and in perfect concord with observations of nature, how are you (or Rand) going to demonstrate that it's wrong? Rand's answer boils down to "because I said so" -- which is really quite unsatisfactory for somebody whose philosohpy is allegedly based on absolutes. How would a deist answer?
Why is someone with Down's syndrome be equal to you, a highly trained physicist? The person with Down's syndrome is a net drag on society, whereas you are a net plus.
You assume that 'society' has some 'right' to establish a humans 'net drag' or plus? Why?
We have given neither state nor society such power. In fact, we deny them such power under our constitution.
Actually, I assume just the opposite. Society *doesn't* have the right to establish the relative worth of people.
Then, as Physicist noted, you are just baiting. - Not nice.
Rights come from the Creator, and thus are inviolable by the state. If you don't believe in the Creator, to what authority do you appeal to to guarantee rights?
My own reason and that of my fellow men, banded together in our constitutional republic. - Your 'creator' will not help you if the constitution fails. - Trust me on that.
You've made an unwarranted logical leap here.
The existence of free will does not require recognition of and respect for the rights of others.
Free will can just as easily justify my killing you for your belongings if I think I can get away with it. Or, if you're stronger than me, from my choosing to run away when you try to take mine.
That's how all of nature works, after all, and from the atheist perspective our power of reason is evolutionarily no different from the Cheetah's speed, claws, and teeth, which result from the fact that the cheetah's very survival is predicated on its ability to initiate deadly force.
Indeed, evolution provides no mechanism that requires humans to forego the initiation of force -- in a materialist world it's merely a choice I can make, but by no means the only one. The atheist has no rational basis for telling me that I am morally different from a cheetah, and thus they have no rational basis for saying that it's wrong for me to hit you over the head if my Free Will urges me to do so.
Putting it bluntly, your insistence that your rights nevertheless exist is something that can only have been borrowed from a theistic worldview. The claim cannot be justified through application of reason alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.