Free Republic

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

Thank you for your response. I apologize for the lateness of my reply, but I have been giving your words some thought.

Your answer to my hypothetical question confirms a long-standing suspicion I have had regarding Christian belief — namely, that what is of utmost importance in Christianity is the *intellectual/emotional* acceptance of God, rather than what one does in the physical world. I understand that the Christian believes that the two go hand in hand and that the latter can be a manifestation of the former — yet it still seems to be the case that a person cannot gain salvation even if in his outward actions he follows (to the best of his ability) the moral laws allegedly put in place by God.

This paints a picture of God that is rather strange to me. Why would an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient being — who knows that he exists — require affirmation of his existence from a weak, limited, fallible human individual? Would it not be much more important (to a reasonable God) that a man obey God’s plan through his actions? After all, I do not care if the manufacturers of the products I buy know that I exist or believe in my existence — so long as they continue to supply me with the things I need to live my life according to my plan. Similarly, could God not see certain individuals as much more useful than others in accomplishing his plan, irrespective of whether they believe in him?

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

Thank you for your interesting response.

I, personally, would not wish to sacrifice my life under any circumstances - including the most extraordinary pain and the most extreme oppression.

Here is why.

Let us presume, for instance, that I were enslaved to a brutal totalitarian regime. I would prefer such enslavement to death because circumstances could always change in the future. The totalitarian regime would not be permanent and would fall eventually, as history demonstrates. I would wish to bide my time and wait for the collapse, perhaps slowly undermining the regime from within.

There are numerous circumstances where I would be willing to fight and to place my life at risk - but not to renounce it outright. If the lives of my family members were endangered or the territory of my country invaded by a large army, I would certainly endeavor an active defense. But I would not be *giving away* or *sacrificing* my life in doing so. Rather, I would be doing my best to *survive* and *destroy* the menace. In the words of George Patton, the objective in such situations is not to die for one's for one's country, but to make the enemy die for his country.

A person's loved ones or squad-mates or country would indeed all be better off if that person *lived for them* rather than died for them, and in fighting to protect them, and individual ought to seek to preserve his life in order to achieve the most effective performance in sustaining *all* his values.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Thank you for your clarification regarding Christian views regarding actions and how they serve as an expression of one’s beliefs.

I have a question for you that has always puzzled me, and I wonder if you could shed some light on it.

There are two people:

Person A calls himself a Christian and proudly displays his Christianity before the world. However, he does not wholeheartedly follow through on the actions that would display a consistently Christian belief. Instead, he merely talks about Christianity and goes through the socially acceptable religious rites. He commits what Christians would call sins on occasion and always repents in words, though his chances of committing further sins are not diminished by this.

Person B is an atheist but one with a firm moral code which coincides with Christian morality on most issues. Indeed, in his outward behaviors, he is virtually indistinguishable from a good Christian. The sins he commits are few, rare, minor, and sincerely regretted so as to reduce their likelihood in the future. He never talks about his ideas on morality with anybody but merely attempts to act according to his best moral judgment. But he does not believe in any God and considers Jesus to have simply been an influential human being with many good things to say.

Where actions are concerned, Person B is thus in far greater accord with Christian values than Person A.

But, from your best judgment as a Christian (if your beliefs can possibly allow to make a prediction on this matter), which of these two people would achieve greater favor in the eyes of God?

Thank you for your interesting response.

You wrote: “People can and do logically choose non-life.” It is true that many people choose non-life; I contend, however, that they do not choose it *logically*, because the choice entails making a contradiction in the sense that the goal (non-life) requires its direct opposite (life) in order to be obtained. So unless people drop dead without any effort on their part, it cannot be said that they *consistently* choose non-life. It can only be said that they pursue mutually inconsistent behaviors and thus that their behaviors cannot be called moral, because morality requires logical consistency.

Furthermore, the very question of what is moral is only necessary for living beings. A dead person has no possibility for action, so morality is a moot issue for him - just as it is a moot issue for an inanimate object. Only living beings can act deliberately and thus only for them is morality a consideration. Thus, whatever you might think of my argument regarding the justification for valuing life, it is true that *morality presupposes an individual who is alive* and therefore any moral system must presuppose the value of this necessary condition.

You wrote: “That means you still have to provide the proof for these values upon which you’ve conditioned the truth of the value of ‘natural law’.”

The values which I have listed are good because they are ultimately conducive to securing the life of every human being and creating conditions where this life in increasingly less subject to the perils of both the natural world and the world of other men.

So, if we take my argument far enough, we will find that it hinges on the following proposition: “Living life is superior to not living life.”

This is a proposition which reason itself compels all human beings to agree to — because it is a proposition which they implicitly embrace in the process of arguing or even in the process of living itself. If it is logically impossible to escape the implicit choice to live, then we have our basis for a rational, secular morality.

I illustrate why this is in “The Implicit Decision to Live: The Immorality of Suicide and Forced Termination of Life”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280318/the_implicit_decision_to_live_the_immorality.html

If life is good, then progress and peace and liberty are good, which implies that the natural law — which brings all these about — is good.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

You asked: "Why do you believe natural law is good?"

The word "good" needs to be defined in some specific context. That is, whenever it is used, it is essential to ask: "Good - to whom and for what?"

So, to whom is natural law good? It is good to human beings, because by following the natural law, human beings can achieve the most peaceful, prosperous, fulfilling, and happy lives conceivable - even by *their own definitions* of these terms. That is, if all honest people were aware of the natural law and followed it, they would restrospectively conclude that doing so improved their lives.

For what is the natural law good? It is good for minimizing conflicts among men, advancing technological progress, cultivating mutual goodwill and understanding, and establishing material and intellectual improvements in all spheres of life. Ask yourself the question: would you like to live in a world where all men respected the natural law, or in a world where they did not? If you prefer the former alternative, then this *by itself* is enough to conclude that natural law is good.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

You wrote: "Once natural law is abandoned, as it has been, then man is without a moral compass."

I, for one, believe firmly in the existence of a natural law - even though I do not believe in God. I simply see the natural law as inherent in the *natures of things themselves*. These natures were always there and did not have to be "conferred" upon things or upon people by any entity, human or divine.

I think it is quite possible to have natural law without God, and part of the aim of this essay has been to establish some foundations of such a natural law in ethics.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Thank you for your comments. They have been among the most intelligent and civil on this thread thus far, and I commend you for your exemplary demeanor; I also appreciate your perspective.

It seems that some of this issue regards the definition of morality. Some Christians *define* morality with respect to their God, which makes it quite easy for them to claim that anybody who does not believe in their God is somehow immoral.

Yet this is not what most other people - including some Christians - consider to be morality. For them and for me, morality is entirely a function of a person's *behavior*, and as such has nothing at all to do with the adjectives a person attaches to himself (Christian, atheist, conservative, socialist, etc.) or the kinds of sound vibrations his mouth produces in air. The morality of a person, under this view, is solely a function of the way that person intentionally affects his own life and the life of other human beings - and in the real world, a person's words and philosophical beliefs have far less of a role in this than most would think.

For the record, I am as staunchly opposed to socialism as one can get -- as even a cursory examination of my writings would show. Only in the contemporary United States is the mistake of equating a devotion to political liberty with Christianity made. Virtually at no other time or place in history have the two doctrines been seen as indistinguishable from one another.

Let this be a warning to anyone else reading this thread: if some elements of the right continue to marginalize and demonize people who *agree with them politically* but do not hold their religious views, then I can guarantee that the conservative movement will be dead, and freedom will be dead in this country quite soon.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

I am not surprised by the connection between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan. Of all the Republican candidates, I think Paul is the closest to Reagan in his ideas. Thank you for sharing.

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

Thank you immensely for making the change to the title of the article.

For some reason, the title of the article was not fully reproduced. Can you please change it to “An Analysis of the Ideas of Duncan Hunter”? I appreciate it.

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

Agreed in full. Thank you for the eloquent statement.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

See more of my Associated Content articles here. Subscribe to receive my new articles as they are published here.

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator

The way in which I use the term “collectivism” is indeed correct. Take a look at the following Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

“Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are often related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. Collectivism is widely seen as the antipole of individualism.”

Does the caste system stress the importance of a collective rather than the importance of individuals? Yes. It considers individual membership in a caste as more important than that individual’s personal qualities.

Does the caste system focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals? Yes. Individuals have been murdered in India because their goals and aspirations contradict the “caste goal” of rigidly adhering to one’s station in life.

Does the caste system entail seeing society as a whole as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society? Certainly it does. This is why advocates of the caste system are ready to brutally sacrifice those who rebel against it.

Collectivism, as I use it, is fundamentally a view of morality and of man’s place in the world that is diametrically opposed to individualism. The Wikipedia definition is entirely in agreement with such usage.

I am

G. Stolyarov II

http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

See more of my Associated Content articles here

I am

G. Stolyarov II,

Editor-in-Chief,

The Rational Argumentator