Reason, as the Basis for Morality

Atlas Shrugged


This country—the product of reason—could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts. It could not stand on the mystic split that divorced man’s soul from his body. It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved.
P3C7

It is important to keep in mind that one's work is one's own effort to "survive" and sustain one's family. Whatever one chooses to do to earn resources to support their family, must be personal/private property. Otherwise, Statists will "use" it for those that circumvent the nation's economic viability and the taxation that goes to underwrite such programs always is wasted and wasteful.
 
"Cause and effect", which is the way our mind seems to "work", is affirmed in a society where people are rewarded for their work, by compensation.
 
Today, people are trying to "sell" compassion, so the State has a means to support a system that undermines the productivity and creativity of its own people.

Enough Said.....

Ayn Rand


To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living.
For the New Intellectual, 128

Man and His Creative Mind

Ayn Rand


‎"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'"
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58

Ayn Rand on Her Philosophy

About:


“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
 
A Representative democracy/Republic is the only way that this philosophy can be valued, as it allows for liberty, diversity and individuality!

Man's Reason Is the Reason for Good Government

Good government is based on its limitations upon itself and others, so that the individual can have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual's reason alone is to be responsible for the values that are to be held most dear. And these values are formed within the contexts of the individual's life, not the tribe, or State. Both the State and the tribe err as to authority. The tribe errs on the mystical, religious, while the State errs on another's reasoned "program", "Production" or Purpose". The individual himself is the ultimate end, not the State, the community, the tribe, or society. The individual's life is his own.

Without good government that allows freedom of thought and freedom of action, then there is no development of reason. Reason is stymied, suppressed, or subverted. Students must not be spoon fed, but be given a good dose of academic freedom to pursue interests that might prove to be a "life calling". Otherwise, students are "formed" or "shaped" into whatever the propaganda delegates as the necessary "need" for/of the moment. The intellectual elites are those that have such agendas. And those so duped to follow mindlessly into the trap of alturism, are being sacrificial "lambs" on the altar of a liberal agenda.

Good government is like good leadership; less is better.

Individual Choice, Social Contract, and Freedom

Our individualism in America has its roots in Protestantism. Protestantism is a "protest" against the Church and its abuses of power. But, the Protestant Church found itself split again and again over questions about the sacraments and Church government. Church government was understood to maintain the social structure of the "elect", in however that was understood. America, on the other hand, was born to undermine "election" and give room and voice to each and every citizen.

America was founded on principles of the Enlightenment; reason, natural law, and an understanding of "moral principles" that guided civil society, which was the basis of the "rule of law". The Founders were not evangelical believers, but men of reason, who desired to create a "more perfect union" that gave the individual a voice about their life and their pursuits.

While America's tradition was undeveloped and never gained the traditional strength of traditional cultures, it did have "order" and structure that was based on equality of opportunity, which underwrote justice and liberty. The limited government that the Founders created was to "value individual" rights, while forbidding the sanction of any one religious tradition.

Their understanding was that government was to protect the people by providing a military and maintaining order by balancing power between the states. Centralization was debated by Hamilton (?), but not all of the Founders understood the government's power in such a way. Centralization became more prevalent when socialized programs started to provide and over-rode the individual and State's right to liberty. The social contract became underwritten by the government, instead of the government respecting the 'other party' in the contract.

I think that this is the very "pivot point" to our understanding what is happening with globalization and nationalism today. Where the State had the right to "hold property" which were the slaves that helped maintain economic stability in the South, government's moral "voice" determined through war that slavery was universally wrong. Human rights and "nationalism" were born.

Modernity is based on man's reason, which is developed within certain paradigms. It is not usual, except in free societies and liberal families that people are exposed to "more than one way of understanding life". Worldviews, which are reasonable explainations about life and how reality functions are ways in which people identify. But, reason is not the epitome of reality, although it is useful for living in constructing "a more perfect answer" for faith.

I think that without freedom, individual choice, and social contract, the world is a dark and forboding place that subverts justice, limits freedom devalues the human. I don't choose to live in such a world and most people who have a choice (and know that they have a choice) would not either.

Questions and Quandaries About Faith and Reason

It has been a number of years since I sat in or read my husband's course on Science and Faith, as it affects society. He won a John Templeton award for it a number of years ago. So, I don't remember many details, as I have been doing my own thinking and coming to terms with faith and reason.

I think coming to terms with one's faith, is addressing many issues that concern one personally, as well as the meaning of these concepts. How these all "fit together" is a quadmire of "mystery", at least, to me.

I understand how our environments are "supposed" to affect us, but how is it possible to assess that each and every individual processes information the same way? There are so many variables concerning our choices, understandings, and the prioritizing our values.

I think that if I spent the rest of my life trying to understand this subject, I would never exhaust the subject, but possibly I would exhaust myself. But, isn't the pursuit of truth what man was made to pursue? The reality is that it takes courage to face what one thought was "real and true" and universal is somehow questioned and questionable. This is the way of learning, and growing and enlarging oneself, so that one can "be" and "become".

I do agree that one's faith "fills in gaps" in a person's psychological make-up, if one has not been brought up to identify with a certain tradition. The basic needs of man are understood and met within the different frames of of understanding. This is where the psychology of religion meets the philosophy of religion, as it answer the question of how one understands or comes to "faith", at least this is how I am thinking it 'happens".

We all have early images that make up the meaning of life. These images are represented by "words". And since our experiences with these images and thier meanings have different understandings, depending on our "connections", then we react or respond differently to the same stimuli.

Reason understands things in "flat language", or "one dimensional language", as each discipline is "one language among many" and each language, even within a discipline has many "languages". It has almost become impossible to communicate between the specialties because of the difference of focus of the discipline.

Understanding an individual takes a lifetime, as any married person knows. There are so many aspects to the personhood of the person, that is negated and missed when one trivializes "meaning" and value. This is why it is so hard to bring about reconciliation between those that see things so differently, as each has their own reality and to deny that reality, is to deny a basic tenet that makes up their personhood and identity. But, how in the name of "reality" or "real history" is there to be a reasonable resolution to those who insist the Holocost did not happen. Or we ask those who have been denied a voice in their life to deny their very "need" for a voice, to deny it for the other? This is human cruelty, and yet, the world must function on some basis of understanding in formulating foreign and domestic policy.

I have found that the questions and quandaries are greater than any answer where it concerns faith and reason. But, it is a fascinating endeavor to pursue "truth" anywhere one finds it.

Group Identity and Prejuidice

Yesterday, in a class discussion on Wiesel's "Night", I asked the class what constituted "group identity". They listed many identifiers such as; clothing, food, beliefs, music, etc. It is in effect, culture. We talked about how we identified, if we did, with each of these identifiers. Then, I asked them how they 'judged" others based upon the differences in these identifiers.

We talked about authority , i.e., parenting, good government and what transpires when there is not good government. What responses should we take when a government is not a good one.

We then discussed how Nazi Germany saw the Jew. Did they know or have the experience of seeing some with "eyes of prejuidice". On what basis did they 'judge' the other and if that judgment was reasonable. We talked of the principle of scapegoating others, as a psychological response, instead of owning our own behavior and opinion. Prejuidice is not necessarily "bad", if their are reasonable reasons why one holds to a certain view, as we are all biased.

I asked them how they would "counsel" those who were going through suffering, as we had talked about what was important to do when someone suffered in our last class. When we talked about the reasons for suffering, I used Bart Ehrman's divisions in how Scripture understood suffering; prophetic (sin of the past, that results in present suffering), apocalytic (belief in God's sovereignty, and purpose for the future), and wisdom( cyclic view of history and an acceptance of "no reason"). I then, asked them how each of these views would be understood or felt by Wiesel, if they were "counselling" him. It was a good discussion.

I write all of this because I think it is an important discussion when the West is in crisis with understanding where proper boundaries must be defined and defended. We, in the West, have brought about our own demise in the political and philosophical arena where we have become so tolerant, that we undermine or devalue reason itself. As Christian faith has been based on personal commitment and conviction, the West can no longer hold any resistance to Islam's claim to equal "tolerance" and representation. Certain convictions cannot be tolerated when it comes to human rights. Human rights are undermined in Islam's claim on knowing "Allah's will". Allah becomes an all powerful "EGO" that over-rides rationality and demands obedience and the sacrifice of life to his "glory".

As a nation that believes in the individual's conscience and right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we must also stand for rationality when it comes to faith and faith claims...

The Church and The State

I have been thinking about the interface of Church and State, lately.

Today First Thing on the Square had a post on "The Real Problem With Bishops". In this entry, it was argued that Biden, Pelosi, and other Catholics in public office needed to represent the Catholic Church's stance on social issues. One bishop even took the stance of denying communion to politicians.

This intrigues me. On one hand, the Church wants public officials to represent Them in public office, excluding everyone else's conscience, while on the other hand, this one bishop felt that the political position itself was 'unholy" enough to deny communion.

I have also read where there is academic understaking of how the Jews/Judiasm identified themselves in ancient history.

Why all of this quadmire? Because the Church can't define itself in today's climate of globalization, and individuality.

While I can understand and agree that the Church on one hand must define what it means to be a part of the Church, how does that affect a member's participation in the "world"?

I think Niebuhr's model of the cultural interface, and the Quadralateral hold some promise of understanding and starting the dialogue across the spectrum of beliefs in the Church.

Niebuhr understood the call to the Church to be "in the world but not of it" in four ways....
The Christ IN Culture is the Scriptural part of the Quadralateral. This represents the Christ figure's role in the world. This challenge is not without understanding the Church's place within the Jewish Tradition and understanding its connection to other religious traditions.

The Christ OF Culture is Tradition's role, as far as understanding the values of the Church.

The Christ ABOVE Culture is Experience's role, in affirming that God is still above the world.

The Christ AGAINST Culture is Reason's role of critique in and of the Church.

While understanding that the Church must have a voice, the Church must alos allow difference to other voices. This means that there would be a stark difference between the Church and Islam in regards to "Law" and opennes to other traditions, understandings, etc. The Church is not called to oppress in the name of religion, nor to become a Kingdom of this World and its Systems and understandings of itself. The Church is not God, but an instrument of God.

The Church, as a political institution, should not forget its first mission and call to alleviate the suffering in the world. This first call is multi-dimensional.
Any Christian is called to this position,.
The individual's alleviation of suffering is found within the Church's doors, whether in counselling, charitable service, pastoral ministry.

The Church should also not forget it's call to permeate the public discourse so that its voice is heard loudly, boldly and clearly. These are those whose call is to the political or public service areas of mission and service. These are offices of public service.

In a free society, such as America, the Church should not just beome political in its understandings of itself. A political institution does not bring a redemptive message to those who have no hope. This mission is a domestic and foreign mission of charity, and human rights. Therefore, the Church and State should remain in separate spheres of influence, otherwise, those who disagree in regards to conscience, could not disagree, for fear of intimidation from the Church. The Church should always have an open ear to others.

The Church's message must be open to change, so that its message is accommodating to reason's challenges. Reason is the Church's friend, for reason is universal in scope and should be a mission of development in education.

The sacred and secular realms should understand themselves as opened before each other and influencing the other in growth and pertinence and relavance to society. The American Experiment is, after all, a unique one.

A New Theology from LeRon Shultz...What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

I just read a review on Jesus Creed and some responses about LeRon Shultz's new book on theology. One point stood out to me...

No longer is theological frames of understanding to be based on "law" or reconcilliation, but on atonement...

While I like and agree with the universal aspects that his philosophizing emphasizes, I disagree with the ethical implications to his "view". Understanding atonement as community is nothing less than socialism or communism in political terms. What is problematic with this view is that community cannot ignore boundaries of the individual without de-valuing one of the most unique understandings of the Judeo/Christian faith, i.e. individuality. The person is uniquely created in God's image, as well as the community. It is the community that defines what the faith of the individual means. And the individual's commitment and identification is boundaried by that specified community....This is an emphasis on Faith...But, radicalized faith is not appropriate in today's climate of religious zeal.

While faith is necessary in faith communities and is important in understanding one's faith in a specific community and practicing faith within that community, faith does not develop Kant's understanding of the moral law. I think this is problematic, as Kant's understanding underlines what we know as character development within the individual, which is based on an anti-realist view (values clarification), which must be individually assessed. While the book of Hebrews may be viewed as an attempt to bring character development into a Christian frame of reference, it was also an attempt to conform individuals into a religious tradition...which again is not based on reason, but faith....

The Jewish Law was fulfilled by love as exemplified by Jesus life. While this is a good "model", we cannot agree with the implications of it, practically speaking....Those who took Jesus' life were not "loving" him, no matter what their reasons were...It was a power play against how he chose to live his life. His life threatened the religious...and fostered questions in the political realms. Therefore, though community is important, surely in Western society, we understand that community cannot exert power over the individual's freedom and right to worship God in the way he deems fit...Faith cannot be defined by someone else. It must be a personal commitment of heart.

"Law and Order"?

The Afghan government is holding a 23 year-old journalism student for "speaking against Islam". There is a petition out by the Center for Inquiry against his imprisonment. What did he do?
He distributed information about the oppression of women under Islam. And some think that we can "reason" with people who hold Islamic Law above reason. Faithfulness is not an option in a regime that maintains power in the name of God.