On this Valentine's Day, I thought I'd share this quote about love by Ayn Rand, "Ayn Rand
"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32
One must value themselves and their own values, before they can choose freely and be responsible for those commitments of value. Understanding oneself is of necessity to evaluate and proritize, so that one can act responsible and principled. Otherwise, one will be prone to act to "please" without negotiation. One's life will be an enslavement and co-dependency. And it will not be healthy!
So, on this Valentine's Day, "Know Thyself", so that you will be able to stand against those that would want something that you do not want for yourself!
Showing posts with label diversity of values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diversity of values. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Atheist and Moral Virtue
In my last post on the "Church Justifies the Moral Ought", I made a statement that got me thinking along the lines of atheistice morality. The statement was, " Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life."
Moral choice is the ulitmate value for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist would agree that the child needs superintending influences in his/her life. And the child comes to an age of accountability when he/she has develope the ability to make responsible choices. Responsible choices define "moral virtue".
I would ask, then, what are we responsible for? Are we are responsible for others? Or are we responsible for ourselves? This is where political views about the place of government, law, and society become debates about what "should" define a particular society! This is the level of policy debate. And it is the place of interest for those that want to be good citizens!
The Atheist allows for liberty of conscience regarding diversity of values, if they are consistent with thier value of "moral choice", as being of ultimate value to/for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all citizens!
Moral choice is the ulitmate value for the atheist. Therefore, the atheist would agree that the child needs superintending influences in his/her life. And the child comes to an age of accountability when he/she has develope the ability to make responsible choices. Responsible choices define "moral virtue".
I would ask, then, what are we responsible for? Are we are responsible for others? Or are we responsible for ourselves? This is where political views about the place of government, law, and society become debates about what "should" define a particular society! This is the level of policy debate. And it is the place of interest for those that want to be good citizens!
The Atheist allows for liberty of conscience regarding diversity of values, if they are consistent with thier value of "moral choice", as being of ultimate value to/for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all citizens!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Reading on Dictatorship and Democracy...
I have been picking up a book the last few weeks (which I would suggest doing in "one sitting", as it is more conducive to process fully), called, "Democracy and Dictatorship", by Zevedei Barbu. It is a fascinating book, but the part of it that refers to what I have been addressing today is on unifying and diversifying elements within democracy. These are elements of value.
On page 66-68, he refers to the diverse values of
1) Religion is a defining value in a democracy, which is characterized by a "feeling of supra-individual and transcendental order". Religious values via anthropological studies show that religious values bring cohesion in behavioral standards. These values create social norms.
2)Aesthetic values are based on the concept of form. These values do not bring cohesion, even in the relgious realm, because the individual must create his "own world" of meaning through experience.
3.) Scientific values are based on analytical analysis of what works. It is integrative only as long as it establishes relationship between facts, but disintegrates the answers to life with only questions.
4.)Political values are integrative, as they help to form group dynamic, so goals can be accomplished.
5.)Moral value is integrative as moral action is taken as long as there is a consciousness of being a part of a group or society.
6.)Economic value is disintegrative in modern societies, as the individual seeks ownership.
Since the Renaissance, there has been a tendency for these values to undermine religious value and a tendency for autonomy in each cardinal value. A balance among the integrative and disintegrative values are important for democracies.
I think that this is the "fix", public debate and discourse concerning these values within the context of historical development after the Renaissance.
On page 66-68, he refers to the diverse values of
1) Religion is a defining value in a democracy, which is characterized by a "feeling of supra-individual and transcendental order". Religious values via anthropological studies show that religious values bring cohesion in behavioral standards. These values create social norms.
2)Aesthetic values are based on the concept of form. These values do not bring cohesion, even in the relgious realm, because the individual must create his "own world" of meaning through experience.
3.) Scientific values are based on analytical analysis of what works. It is integrative only as long as it establishes relationship between facts, but disintegrates the answers to life with only questions.
4.)Political values are integrative, as they help to form group dynamic, so goals can be accomplished.
5.)Moral value is integrative as moral action is taken as long as there is a consciousness of being a part of a group or society.
6.)Economic value is disintegrative in modern societies, as the individual seeks ownership.
Since the Renaissance, there has been a tendency for these values to undermine religious value and a tendency for autonomy in each cardinal value. A balance among the integrative and disintegrative values are important for democracies.
I think that this is the "fix", public debate and discourse concerning these values within the context of historical development after the Renaissance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
