Talk to the Rand

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sat, 2007-12-15 02:26

The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world.

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

[The virtue of Rationality] means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)...

A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon


( categories: )

Twisting at every turn

Richard Goode's picture

On one of these threads he implicitly bought the Oist ethics when he agreed that if one wants to live then it's necessary to eat.

I haven't bought into Objectivist ethics, either implicitly or explicity.

Eating is therefore good, according to Objectivism.

Eating is therefore good, according to Objectivism, but not according to me.

Wait for it...

Yes, I am still beating him.

Ptgymatic's picture

I thought you'd never ask!

"If God is dead, everything is permitted"

Robert's picture

Proves nothing other than Nietzche was looking for a moral validation of hedonism and nihilism. He was an idiot.

I accuse you of being dishonest because you deliberately talk in circles.

You quote Nietzche in the context of your thesis, wherein you state that you argued for the proposition that the essence of morality is obedience to God's decrees.

You appear to be stating that there is no morality without God. I say appear because you'd never do something as base as to affirm this belief (or anything else tangible) in a single definitive sentence. Far more fun to dance around the issue. You don't do this because you are shy, but rather because you like stirring up shit.

This is why I assert (it is no longer a question for me) that you are dishonest.

Richard

Leonid's picture

I could define 'man' as "image of God" instead of "rational animal" - or featherless biped as Sophists did. You drop essentials again. As I mentioned before this is your basic flaw. Besides, "image of God" is completely meaningless phrase. How incomprehensive undefined and unidentified non-entity could have image?

"Do you believe in essences?"-how do you mean "believe"? This is not a question of belief but the very foundation of concept formation. Without essences no language is possible, without it we wouldn't be able to conduct this conversation. You may not to believe in essences, but you use them all the same.

Goode-two-shoes is slumming here Linz

HWH's picture

I guess he craves the company of virtuous men, but would rather betray his soul than give up his second-handed aspirations to a pretense at intellectual superiority shared by the moral skeptics being spawned and cultured in modern philosophy labs.

He knows that should he consent to the validity of an Objectivist ethics, he will become a pariah among his fellows who also graduated from "slime gamete neuter" or whatever alma mater he had to suck up and into for however long it took him to get his PHD in the "vocab sudoku" that philosophy has become.

It seems he is willing to suspend his judgment for the sake of peer approval (what the fuck else could make one pretend to enjoy Slayer), and Rosie seems perfectly willing to suspend her judgment for the sake of the companionship at "Christians Anonymous"

I'm "pshychologising" here of course, but for the life of me I cannot find any other reasons why two seemingly smart people are practicing the kind of evasion that led to the fall of Rome, and now is toppling the USA.

In reality their souls don't belong here, and if they do they should make a choice as if their lives depended on it.

Kasper ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Don't make the mistake of thinking he's posting in good faith.

On one of these threads he implicitly bought the Oist ethics when he agreed that if one wants to live then it's necessary to eat. Eating is therefore good, according to Objectivism. Now, he purports to reject man's life as the standard of value, while being reluctant to jump off a tall building on the grounds that it would be bad for him. Bad, by what standard? He doesn't say. Morality is already here, according to him. Did God give it to us? He doesn't say, though he now tells us he did a thesis on morality's consisting of obedience to God's decrees. And of course, we have his spouse, a fundamentalist Christian full of hellfire and damnation. Does Goode agree with her? He doesn't say.

Getting Goode to say where he stands is like getting runs out of the Black Caps right now.

He is the Riddler, Kas!!

Jameson's picture

Smiling

RG

Kasper's picture

Don't respond asking me questions. Take what I have said and make a point of your own.

We know that morality does

Kasper's picture

We know that morality does not exist out there on its own. It is not an entity.

Therefore.

Morality is a human convention. [According to RG this makes it subjective]

What we can say is that morality is an evaluative concept, part discovoerd by identifying and integrating facts of reality, and in another part designed by the human rational faculty which asks these pertinant questions. A code of ethics is only for a living entitiy with a rational faculty. Life, rock or trees are not good or bad in themselves. A rational animal requires a code to quide the choices and actions of its life. Because ethics only pertains to us, humans, the purpose of it is to quide us so that we live. It must be life affirming. Otherwise it is no use at all. The measure is not trees, rocks, or kilograms. The measure is life it self. It is a bench mark, by which you then place in an ordinal manner where good or bad lies.

We have look at this.

Kasper's picture

Kasper: “We then demonstrated that evaluative concepts such as ethics were derived from the facts of reality including our distinguishable nature as human beings and that from that identification, we demonstrated the necessary standard by which to determine good or bad.”

Goode: No, you didn't.

Kasper: Ah, Yes we did. Look below.

Goode said: “ethics isn’t derived from reality”. Lindsay explained: “For a morality to be rational it is not required to prove that morality exists in nature. It doesn't, in fact. Nature simply is. To say morality inheres in it, whether self-sufficiently or implanted by God—to say, in effect, that morality is metaphysical—is intrinsicism, which, every second post, appears to be Goode's position. To say that the existence of good and bad can't be proven by science is incoherent. Good and bad are evaluative concepts. Objectivists strive to derive those concepts from facts, not intuitions or revelations from ghosts.”

Kasper: So Dr Good, this leaves space for you to observe that you are alive, you live in a world, you are mortal and you are a rational animal. All those things which you identify, which we have discussed, provides for the below.

Lindsay: It [life] is the *standard* of the good. Life simply is. Life is here. *We* are alive. We have no control over that. "Good" doesn't come into that part of it. Life is the standard of what enables us to *remain* alive, which we must choose to do, and the "good" consists of those choices that are life-conducive. If we choose death, like your headbanging friends, we should be consistent and commit suicide, not linger and make appalling noises as a career.
So, Goode, back to my question: you have a priori knowledge of what is right, right?

Goode asked: Good and bad are mental integrations of... trees? Of what?

Kasper: No they are integrations of reality out there and man himself as a human entity. Integrations of those facts enable the derived evaluative concept of morality by a standard of human life. This is explained below here:

Kasper: [We identified, objectively as you have agreed was possible below that] Man is a being containing rationality and animality. However, to be rational requires an act of volition, a choice. To act in accordance with his nature in a manner that is life affirming or deminishing is a choice. Unlike animals who have instinct, man must acquire the knowledge necessary, by choice, so that he can make consistent and life affirming choices. The question is does an animal containing a rational faculty that is volitional need a code that guides his choices and actions? The answer is yes if he is to live. He must discover, by an act of consciousness identify, his nature as a human being, where he is, what he is to do and how to do it as requirement to live. More than that he also needs to identify that he is mortal that reality to be commanded must be obeyed. When you consider these identifications, this knowledge, you then derive a resounding YES to question of whether man needs ethics. You also see that good and bad require you, the agent, and therefore the standard is your life
The question: does man need a morality at all is a requirement because morality is an evaluative concept (not out there intrinsically). There is no such thing as morality or rights 'out there' in reality like a rock or biology.Man being hungry and wanting to eat is biology. What to eat and deciding to feed himself is a choice.

Mindy

Richard Goode's picture

Do I have spell it out?

You asked me

why do you characterize ethics in terms such as "stinking?"

You commit the fallacy of presupposition. You presuppose that I characterise ethics in terms such as "stinking". I don't. I never have. So I can't answer your question, as it stands, unless i rephrase it as

Do you characterize ethics in terms such as "stinking" and, if so, why?

to which, I answer 'No'.

Linz used the term 'stinking', but he was talking about Islam, not ethics.

What if were to ask you

Are you still beating your husband?

Let's see you answer that question with candor.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

If you go back through just mine and Lindsay's posts you will we had done this.

I don't believe you have. That's why I'm asking you to link to where you did the two things you allege you did which I allege you didn't. We can't take it from there if there's nothing there.

Richie's Blind Spot for Rosie's Blind Faith

Jameson's picture

Why won't you answer the only question on this thread that's directly relevant to your original post, Goode? Are you worried about losing access to those big boobs?

Once again: Rosie believes we should “Judge not, that ye be not judged”, which as you well know, Dick, is a total abdication of moral responsibility. She has repeatedly said, "I do not judge my fellow man," pointing her finger instead at a man's actions, as if an act could occur independently of the actor. And now she's made the most extraordinarily honest admission, "I can feel love for Hermann Goering," demonstrating her lethal inability to judge character (of course we already had our doubts on that score before she came out of the closet).

You believe - to your dwindling credit - that "the man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world."

For the umpteenth time, Goode, how do you reconcile that with the woman whom we presume is your highest value?

Either you're sleeping with the enemy, or you're in bed with it. Either way I'd say you're both well and truly fucked.

It is very difficult

Kasper's picture

to trust the remark: "take it from there" because you answer so late. If you go back through just mine and Lindsay's posts you will we had done this.

You've just said you have no problem with my statement that connects the knowledge with reality therefor making knowledge valid and objective. Okay so that means there is no severance between the inhere and out there as long as the inhere is non-contradictory and refers to reality. Fine.

"Stinking" said by Linz, quoted by Goode

Ptgymatic's picture

...but not made up. No need to answer the question, then.

However, you created two questions, and attributed them to me, yet I am not the author. You answered some questions you made up to allow you to give the answer you wish you could? Little girls play house with more candor than that.

Mindy

Wrong

Richard Goode's picture

We have shown you that it is scientific to posit objective moral values and have demonstrated that such ethics are possible.

No, you haven't.

We have demonstrated that a link can and does exist between the facts of reality and the conceptual realm in the human mind.

Well, I don't have an issue with that.

We then demonstrated that evaluative concepts such as ethics were derived from the facts of reality including our distinguishable nature as human beings and that from that identification, we demonstrated the necessary standard by which to determine good or bad.

No, you didn't.

Do us both a favour, Kasper. Provide links to where you did the two things (above) you allege you did which I allege you didn't. Then we can take it from there.

Wrong

Kasper's picture

We have shown you that it is scientific to posit objective moral values and have demonstrated that such ethics are possible. We have demonstrated that a link can and does exist between the facts of reality and the conceptual realm in the human mind. We then demonstrated that evaluative concepts such as ethics were derived from the facts of reality including our distinguishable nature as human beings and that from that identification, we demonstrated the necessary standard by which to determine good or bad.

It is a blatant lie to suggest otherwise. You have not put up a case for why you believe values to be intrinsic. Nor have you put up a case for your skepticism, namely your assertion for the severance between reality and the knowledge held in the human mind.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Your case for skepticism is where exactly???

I put up the crux of my case for skepticism in my first post on SOLO. "Even those of us who fancy ourselves rationalists and scientists," says Edward Slingerland, "rely on moral values - a set of distinctly unscientific beliefs."

It's unscientific to posit objective moral values.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Objectivist ethics is premised on a fundamental error, the error of identifying morality with rational self-interest. Morality and rational self-interest are not the same thing. Indeed, it's a commonplace that the requirements of morality and the requirements of rational self-interest often conflict.

Better now?

The rational self-interest of man is survival QUA MAN, not just survival.

You expose another fundamental error of Objectivist ethics... this "qua man" shenanigans. "Qua man" allows you to import anything you damn well please into your normative ethical theory. I could define 'man' as "image of God" instead of "rational animal" and I'd end up with a completely different, but just as arbitrary, normative ethical theory.

Do you believe in essences?

and.......

Kasper's picture

Your case for skepticism is where exactly???

Mindy

Richard Goode's picture

Do you have animosity towards morality and, if so, why?

No.

Do you characterize ethics in terms such as "stinking" and, if so, why?

No.

Why can't you read and understand what I actually said instead of making stuff up?

Robert

Richard Goode's picture

And I'm assuming that the first Chapter of this dissertation proved that God exists?

To assume is to make an ass of u and me.

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees? 'Yes' is a respectable answer, even for an atheist.

Do I have to spell it out? Will you think about it for a while, and perhaps bring to mind the Nietzschean slogan, "If God is dead, everything is permitted"? Or will you shirk the responsibility of thinking and accuse me of being dishonest, instead?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Objectivist ethics is premised on a fundamental error, the error of identifying morality with rational self-interest. Morality and rational self-interest are not the same thing. Indeed, it's a commonplace that the requirements of morality and the requirements of self-interest often conflict."

The basic flaw of your argument is that you omit essentials as you omitted “RATIONAL" in the second part of your statement. For example hunger strike could be essential for survival of man as rational being. There are many instances in which rational man would prefer to die than to live as an animal or slave. The rational self-interest of man is survival QUA MAN, not just survival.

"Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

"I argued for this conclusion in my doctoral dissertation."
So, your position is quite understandable. Religious believer has to omit "RATIONAL" since rationality and God are incompatible.

What about moral value of God's decree to kill everybody who urinates to wall?

“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarrelling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely to the incomprehension of the human mind".

Thomas Jefferson.

The Zimbabwe story--director's cut

sharon's picture

A further detail to your story:

And they sat around the dinner table, all of them--the killer's, the old woman and extended family--toasting, laughing, the killers regaling the old woman whose husband and sons died at their hands, about the details of torturing and killing of the woman’s husband and son. They then laughed, recalling the horror of the scene in their own mind, congratulating one another for having gotten off. They drank some more, to the point of drunkenness. Then the killers thought of how wonderful it would be to kill again.

Why the animosity towards morality, Goode?

Ptgymatic's picture

Leaving aside the logic of "faith" and the sufficiency of Rand's theory, etc., why do you characterize ethics in terms such as "stinking?"

Mindy

"Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?"

Robert's picture

And I'm assuming that the first Chapter of this dissertation proved that God exists? This one assertion (that God exists) being the load bearing trunnion upon which your conclusion pivots.

Am I naive for assuming that a credible University would have stipulated that you prove this proposition before building an argument upon it? Or has the study of philosophy in Universities slipped that far?

Glenn

Rosie's picture

I elevate love by stooping to love (in grace). Ah yet another eternal truth in paradox.

you and your non-judgmental ilk

All this tells me is that you have failed to understand the distinction as stated many times.

There are none so blind as those who can not see. Or maybe that should read "will not see".

Rosie Purchas: "I can feel love for Hermann Goering."

Jameson's picture

You are a monster, Rosie, and your ideas are despicable. You devalue love and elevate evil.

For once, your boyfriend speaks the truth: you and your non-judgmental ilk are "responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world."

Glenn

Rosie's picture

I understand that what you are asking me to write would seem absolutely incomprehensible to you. You could not believe that anyone in their right minds could write that and mean it. When I read it at first, I thought, Can I say that and mean it? I looked into my heart and mind for the reason for my initial abhorrence at the statement. I realised that I had been thinking of love in the same way as I thought of love for my family and those dear to me whose values I love. I do not love Hermann Goering in this way. But love is wider than this type of love.
"Love that goes upward is worship; love that goes outward is affection; love that stoops is grace."
Grace is "love freely shown towards guilty sinners . . . It is God showing goodness to persons who deserve only severity, and had no reason to expect anything but severity." (J.I.Packer, 1972)
Love is also compassion.

So provided that the love I feel is confined to this kind of compassionate love or grace for someone who did not know, or act in, love or goodness or righteousness, it is a kind of sorrowful love, I can, without breaching my conscience, say that although I hate genocide and all that Hermann Goering did to the Jewish people I can feel love for Hermann Goering. The feeling of love cannot extend beyond these parameters and the minute I begin to test whether I can feel any other kind of love for him, I think of what he did and I feel sick and my spirit recoils.

"Spiritual justice loves the sinner"

Jameson's picture

With the risk of sidetracking you, Rosie, as a 'spiritual' person I challenge you to recite these words:

"I hate genocide but I love Hermann Goering."

Sharon

Rosie's picture

I disagree with you. The "free to go" bit is a sentence and tied up with the profession. There is earthly justice and there is spiritual justice. Spiritual justice loves the sinner but hates the sin. It is tied up with the idea that only he who is without sin may cast the first stone. You can judge the act - hate the sin - but you cannot judge the person himself unless you are free from sin. And this follows the idea of Judge not that ye be not judged - in the sense of the link I gave in an earlier post. If you are a Christian and feel the grace of God you have a changed heart and you perceive things differently. It just happens. And I can't explain it. It is also difficult to describe unless you have experienced it. For it is outside of a non-Christian's experience. This is another experience which confirms my knowledge of God's existence.

And this is where my story may help explain my point.

In Zimbabwe, a woman's husband and her only two sons were, over a period of time, brutally tortured and murdered - but not before watching the wife/mother raped several times by a couple of these brutal creatures in military uniform.

After a long time, things settled and white justice ruled again. These men were tried for (inter alia) murder of the husband and two sons. At the hearing the men were found guilty of all crimes against them. Before sentencing, the judge asked the woman what she would like to see happen to these men. The court was full of people, as it was much publicised, and a hush fell upon the court as they waited for the woman to speak. She hesitated for a moment, then spoke. "Your honour," she said, "these men did the most dreadful things to my husband and sons. For myself, I am now left, an old woman, with no family. No husband, no children and no hope of grandchildren. You have asked what I would like for these men? My answer is this: I would like them and their families to take the place of my family. I would like them to visit me every Sunday. I would like them to share their lives with mine. I would like them to treat me with the same love that my own family would treat me."

The judge granted her the sentence she requested. The men did as she asked. The men and their families embraced her in to their lives. She had spared them death and she gained a family. The relationship continued until she died. That is what is called grace.

"Your options are faith, delusion or nihilism. Take your pick."

Jameson's picture

And there is it, folks - the evil bastard leaves you no choice but to destroy your mind!!!!

Goode, do you have the integrity to read your original post again - the one above in blue - and reconcile that with this?:

Rosie: "I do not judge my fellow man."

Sharon...

Jameson's picture

you honestly think you'll find a straight answer in her next 2000 word parable?!!

Slippery tart

Jameson's picture

The question remains unanswered: HOW would you have arrived at that judgement (guilty) - as a judge or a citizen juror - if your principle prevents making such a judgement?

Jameson

sharon's picture

I said: If your “story” will prevent any further dodges, I’m all for it.

You want her to answer, right? I'm encouraging THAT, you fuck-wad statist. ;]

Objective moral values

Richard Goode's picture

What about those who are devoted to faith?

My belief in objective moral values does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I openly acknowledge this. It's the honest thing to do.

More to the point, your belief in objective moral values does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, either. You delude yourself, if you think otherwise.

As I already said, your options are faith, delusion or nihilism. Take your pick.

Fucksake, you masochist-anarchist!!! l: /

Jameson's picture

Why do you invite a punishment we all have to endure?!!

Yeah, I see your logic, but....

sharon's picture

Honey, you don’t have to be a judge in a court of law to answer Jameson’s actual question—which was:

“Since you judge the act and not the actor, in the case of Hermann Goering, you would have judged his acts of genocide as immoral, but you would not have judged the man himself; he would be free to go.”

See, at no point are you required to assume the role of this profession to answer the spirit of the question. If your “story” will prevent any further dodges, I’m all for it.

-delete-

Jameson's picture

irrelevant.

Sharon

Rosie's picture

Rosie one: “If I had been the judge I would have given him an earthly punishment that would fit the crime. Not death, however.”

Rosie two: "I do not judge my fellow man."

Rosie one: If I had been the judge...
Rosie two: I am not the judge

They are not inconsistent.

Is the popcorn eaten or do you want the story? Smiling

Jameson

Rosie's picture

If I am the judge of a court, then I am bound to judge and pass sentence according to the law.

You keep skipping over the crux of you post, Dick

Jameson's picture

"... but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."

What about those who are devoted to faith? What do you have to say about them?

The show must go on...

sharon's picture

Rosie one: “If I had been the judge I would have given him an earthly punishment that would fit the crime. Not death, however.”

Rosie two: "I do not judge my fellow man."

Popcorn is cracking, honey.

Huh?

Jameson's picture

"If I had been the judge I would have given him an earthly punishment that would fit the crime."

How does that work? How do you arrive at such a judgement when your principle is, "I do not judge my fellow man."

More memory loss from Linz

Richard Goode's picture

This reptile knows that he's the one arguing that morality is a superstition.

When I said that morality is a superstition, I meant 'superstition' in the sense of "a belief or notion, not based on reason," not in the sense of an "irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious," and not in the sense of a "blindly accepted belief or notion." I already said this.

And he knows that, given his own dictum that morality is obedience to God's dictates...

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees? 'Yes' is a respectable answer, even for an atheist. I already said this.

... and his bonking a nutbar fundamentalist Christian, there are grounds to think that he's a Christian.

You're the one who has the hots for Jesus! I already said this.

He and Libz deserve each other.

I'm no longer involved with Libertarianz. You already said this. Remember?

Am I dishonest? Or is it just that you're not getting it?

Jameson

Rosie's picture

You will need to provide the reasons why the judge let him go free before I can say whether I have a problem with the judge's decision. (I have said this already in the very long sentence of the equally long earlier post. Smiling)

If, however, you are asking me whether I, as the Judge, would let him go free, my answer would be no. If I had been the judge I would have given him an earthly punishment that would fit the crime. Not death, however.

Can I tell you a true story of a case in Zimbabwe that is analogous to this and illustrates my worldview? (Popcorn to the ready, Sharon!)

Well at least your replies are getting shorter

Jameson's picture

Perhaps you could address the posts before it with the same economy.

Jameson? Not Jameson at all!

Rosie's picture

Yah - zat ist becoz he iz ze Riddler!! He vill ask ze Riddlez!!!!

Out of ze closet, anuzzer! Goering lives! Zis iz vy he iz so vanting ze anza! He vants a safehouse!

Reed

Rosie's picture

This, Reed, is the entrance to a cyberspace sideshow of freaks, a rather clumsy mental Cirque de Soleil, on the road to Hades!

God’s decrees

gregster's picture

there is no valid concept here for deriving any "essence of morality."

A concept has to relate to others. God doesn't. God is out of reality. Nothing.

More dishonesty from this skunk

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What's the charitable thing to do? Assume that he thinks I'm a Christian, or assume that he thinks morality is a stupid, stinking superstition?)

This reptile knows that he's the one arguing that morality is a superstition. And he knows that, given his own dictum that morality is obedience to God's dictates and his bonking a nutbar fundamentalist Christian, there are grounds to think that he's a Christian. Whether he is or isn't, he's a thoroughly dishonest, dishonourable and reprehensible apology for a human being. I hope Libz are reading this and kick his hypocritical, supercilous unprincipled ass to the other side of the moon.

Actually, I don't. He and Libz deserve each other.

Dare I ask, Dick

Jameson's picture

What was your conclusion?

"You're right, it's not really an answer."

Jameson's picture

Yah - zat ist becoz he iz ze Riddler!! He vill ask ze Riddlez!!!!

Not really an answer for Sharon

Richard Goode's picture

Well, it isn't really an answer, Richard

You're right, it's not really an answer.

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

'Yes' is a respectable answer, even for an atheist.

(I see Linz taking another giant leap of illogic. What's the charitable thing to do? Assume that he thinks I'm a Christian, or assume that he thinks morality is a stupid, stinking superstition?)

Oh my!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

I argued for this conclusion in my doctoral dissertation.

Now they're both out of the closet. Adherents to a stupid, stinking superstition, both.

I see....

sharon's picture

>Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

"I argued for this conclusion in my doctoral dissertation."

Well, it isn't really an answer, Richard, I haven't read it and neither do I know where to find it.

Jameson

sharon's picture

Perhaps you’re right, but I don’t think Rosie would cover them all, and I would have her answer the question as she sees fit. Mind you, I very well could have said the “core” of ethics or the “purpose” of ethics, etc. Either way, the question is straight forward, calling for a clear answer. I, too, await her answer to your question just as eagerly.

Answer for Sharon

Richard Goode's picture

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

I argued for this conclusion in my doctoral dissertation.

"Essence"? Bloody hell, Sharon

Jameson's picture

You gotta keep it simple - there's 500 words in the definition of that word alone. Now we'll have to endure another Rosie special before we get to the question she's been avoiding since last Friday - the one regarding her own moral judgement.

Having said that, her moral compass is so off true north I'll be surprised if she makes it back.

Question for Rosie:

sharon's picture

Is the essence of morality obedience to God’s decrees?

Jameson

sharon's picture

If there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, then how can we know right from wrong? ;]

Long sentence Mr Duck

HWH's picture

Reminds me of this courtroom blooper



Q. When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and
 were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on
her  not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning
you and  she, with him to the station?



MR. BROOKS: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here's another...couldn't resist



Q. Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to
a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?



A. No. This is how I dress when I go to work.





Microfilm scanner

Grab some popcorn and have a seat...

sharon's picture

...it is show time. Rosie knows she is being painted into a logical corner by Jameson's challenge, and there is no exist. Can you see the little droplets of sweat forming on her upper lip? ”Think, how can I answer this??”

A logical fête awaits us in her reply.

Generosity?! Don't you mean verbosity!!

Jameson's picture

My question is only incomplete, you twit, if you haven't heard of Hermann Goering! He was Hitler's right-hand goon who personally gave the order to exterminate the Jews! You seem to think this was a hypothetical question; it is not - I deliberately reworded the Nuremberg verdict to fit YOUR morality, which judges the act and not the actor!!

"You do not say whether the Judge has found him guilty of the crimes by which he is charged... how can I have a problem with a sentence when I have not been told what the verdict is"

Seriously?!!! Has blind faith made you completely blind??!! Here is the full context: "... 6 million Jews are snuffed out in Hermann's death camps, but before he can finish the job, moral humans - after a huge cost to themselves - stop him, put him on trial, find him guilty of genocide, and sentence him to death."

You're either being dishonest, Rosie, or completely dumb. So to avoid any more of your bullshit I'll make it a statement:

Since you judge the act and not the actor, in the case of Hermann Goering, you would have judged his acts of genocide as immoral, but you would not have judged the man himself; he would be free to go.

True or false?

Under a hundred words - for Christsake!!

'I will add, if I were

PhilipD's picture

'I will add, if I were expected to assume by the judge's declaration that Goering is unconscionably evil that the judge held a verdict of guilty (and there is no reason to make this assumption since I have heard Judge's make negative assertions about a person's character but, where the crime has not been proven, declared the respondent innocent of the offence and free to go) and let him go free, and your question in these circumstances is whether I have a problem with the Judge's sentence, the answer is that without being provided the detailed reasons for his judgement I cannot possibly pass judgement on his sentencing.'

Is this the longest sentence ever to appear on SOLO? Certainly it's one of the worst.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

I have given you charity in my previous answers in answering what I thought you were trying to ask me. What I answered, however, was not what you actually asked me. The question you asked me had logical flaws which I overlooked so as not to be a nit-picking logician. In short, I tried to answer your question in the spirit in which it was asked. I was being generous to you and did not expose the incompleteness of your question. Since you have not accepted my answer or even seen my charity towards your question, I will withdraw my charity with regard to your question. I will show you that on the facts you present I am not arguing the rational with the irrational. I will show you that you have actually asked me to judge the irrational with the rational on the facts that you present.

Let me explain why.

On the facts you present: (a) The judge states that the acts of Goering are "unconscionably evil" then says he is free to go. You do not say whether the Judge has found him guilty of the crimes by which he is charged. You simply say that the judge has declared him evil and that he is free to go. (b) Your question to me is not to ask me to judge Goering as though I were either the judge at the Nuremberg trials or God on Judgement Day. You are not even asking me to judge the morality of the so called Nuremberg judgement. You have asked me to judge whether I have "a problem" with the judge's decision (and this on a half baked set of facts). I concur with the Judge's decision that the acts of Goering were evil and I will add that they were immoral. I.e., I do not have "a problem" with this part of the judgement. Without being told whether he was then found guilty or not (there are a string of technicalities that must be proven) you ask me whether I have "a problem" about his being allowed to go free. You are asking me to judge the irrational with the rational for how can I have a problem with a sentence when I have not been told what the verdict is. Clearly if he were not guilty I would have no problem with his going free. That should be the end of the issue on your half baked set of facts but I can't help but give you more charity. I will add, if I were expected to assume by the judge's declaration that Goering is unconscionably evil that the judge held a verdict of guilty (and there is no reason to make this assumption since I have heard Judge's make negative assertions about a person's character but, where the crime has not been proven, declared the respondent innocent of the offence and free to go) and let him go free, and your question in these circumstances is whether I have a problem with the Judge's sentence, the answer is that without being provided the detailed reasons for his judgement I cannot possibly pass judgement on his sentencing. That would be irrational also.

I could draw an analogy of this latest scenario to an earlier posting on SOLO about the case of the Maori people who killed the 14 year old girl whilst trying to perform an exorcism. Someone posted a criticism of the Judge's sentence. (In that post, the writer did not even say what the verdict was!) As it turned out, the judge held the perpetrators guilty of manslaughter and held a sentence of, inter alia, community service. Putting aside that the writer failed to say what the verdict was, thereby leaving the reader to postulate and make presumptions about this important fact since it is this which would lead to a range of permitted sentences, the post was persuasive and pushing a certain view. The writer of the post thought the Judge was showing racial prejudice/bias. He had not read the Judgement however. He passed moral judgement on the judges sentence and his reasons for it without reading the judgement i.e., on his limited knowledge of the facts and without even examining the judge's reasons!

With my knowledge of the court system and my respect for the excellent Judges we have on our benches, I suspended judgement of the judge's sentencing until I read the judgement which I then posted on SOLO. I hope that anyone who read that post was rational and sensible enough to read the full judgement before they were persuaded by the writer's allegation of racial bias in our court system. After reading the judge's judgement I was able to fully apprehend and understand what I suspected to be the position in relation to these people and I fully support the Judge's sentence. But all this is an aside.

Don't forget Philip:

sharon's picture

This child’s earthly woes are one thing, but according to Christian cosmology, he may very well be a prime candidate for the everlasting punishment of hell—a place where any earthly suffering is infinitesimal by comparison.

I wonder what this little

PhilipD's picture

I wonder what this little bastard did to offend God? Must have been something really bad for him to be condemned to working twelve-hour days slogging the streets, without shoes, but with a heavy basket strapped around his neck. And when his handler decides that he can finish work he sleeps, still hungry, on the street.

Rape, murder, armed robbery? He seems kinda young for any of those things. What did he do...?

God's plan?

Rosie you disgust me.

Not even almost owed

gregster's picture

"on my last post my inference that Mr No Goode was dishonest was incorrect."

You take me out of context, your dishonesty™ stands from previous and this attempt.

Apology owed

Richard Goode's picture

my inference that Mr No Goode was dishonest was incorrect.

Ms Purchas

gregster's picture

I didn't click Hilton's link so on my last post my inference that Mr No Goode was dishonest was incorrect.

Scientology is a real life satire of christianity, by the way, and I'm not joking.

Rosie

HWH's picture

That's all hunky dory that you're in the Christians Anonymous group for togetherness and comfort, but I'd certainly reccomend getting a dog instead if you're too lonely.

I am troubled by the fact that you are willing to suspend your critical judgement for the sake of mere companionship. Surely you're smart enough to understand how damaging it is to your consciousness in the long run.

What is it with you?

Rosie

reed's picture

Is this a parody website?

Sigh all you like, Rosie...

Jameson's picture

... so long as you argue the rational with the irrational you'll have to endure the frustration for the rest of your life.

"I do not refuse to pronounce moral judgement on an act! (I thought I made this clear!) I do not judge God's judgement or my fellow man. I do judge an act as moral or immoral."

What you're not getting here is your magic separation of the act from the actor. Fine, if that's how you're going to pronounce moral judgement then you'd have no problem with this Nuremberg judgement:

"Hermann Goering, the act of genocide was unconscionably evil. You're free to go."

Right?

silly me...

sharon's picture

Rosie: "...I qualified that the OT sinners were destroyed but not without warning (see about two-thirds of the way down)."

Ooooh, the children were destroyed and were given a warning--that makes it a-okay. Righty-o.

Glenn, Glenn, Glenn!

Rosie's picture

I do not refuse to pronounce moral judgement on an act! (I thought I made this clear!) I do not judge God's judgement or my fellow man. I do judge an act as moral or immoral.

This may help you out. Read it to the end....

And also, please note the context in which I said it. I wouldn't wish you to context drop (if that is the expression!). I was gently teasing Linz (with a joke against myself in a way) about what he was saying about his fellow Objectivists. It was kind of funny. Well, meant to be anyway... Sorry to have to explain the joke..... The Germans took lessons in understanding English humour I believe. They thought it would help them win the war. Smiling

Conclusion: your second premise is incorrect. Here endeth the syllogism's accuracy! Sigh.

"This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists"

Robert's picture

Nope. This atheist has no problem in saying: I don't know, but I'm willing to look into it.

As to the scientists you mention, these are rationalists who are attempting to make too much stew out of one tiny onion. For instance:

"Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time."

A mathematical equation is not evidence. It is a statement that is used to explore the relationships between actual things. Hawking et al. are assuming that the assumptions that Einstein made when he invented the theory of general relativity will still apply when the equations are extrapolated backwards. While this is a perfectly valid means of coming up with a theory to explore by experimentation, the equations themselves do not constitute proof of anything other than: chalk dust adheres to a blackboard.

If Hawking et al. are stating -- as absolute, irrefutable proof -- that their mathematical modeling (remember that phrase from the Global Warming debate?) proves (as opposed to suggesting) anything, they are being foolish.

One needs only to look at the work of Newton. His equations and laws are perfectly true for large objects. But they do not accurately predict the relationships that occur between atomic and sub atomic particles. How could they? When he invented his laws, he had no clue of what constituted an atom. And so it will prove for Einstein. The general thrust of his work will remain correct, but it will need modification to incorporate new knowledge gathered by techniques that even he could not conceive of. That is the nature of the business.

But let us say that Hawking et al. are correct. They could very well be to a point. Where, in their equations does the answer: "God did it," pop out? I browsed those papers and didn't that conclusion once. Could it be that you are extrapolating their work further than even they dare to?

Hilton

Rosie's picture

I haven't joined any Christian websites so I can't point you in any direction tonight, I am afraid. I will try and find a good one for you though. I know someone who is likely to have this information.

I am more of the "first church" type. I.e., small group of friends, at least one theologically trained from a Bible College (as well as a university degree), meet at each other's homes, when the children were little we would meet during the day but now that they are older, and most of us work, the meetings are at night, we discuss a topic of interest each week or follow some prescribed course, one person has to lead the group each week (i.e., do most of the research) sometimes on esoteric points if something crops up in someone's life that is of concern to them, or if anyone has any problem they wish to discuss then that is discussed towards the end. Non Christians are welcome. Most of them end up joining but there is no pressure to be a Christian. It is interesting spiritual food for anyone. And we have fun. No fire and brimstone!

I'll be damned

HWH's picture

I was subjected to a fair dose of "Dutch Reformed" fire and brimstone where I grew up , and this site ticked of all the boxes for being a variant of this kind of crap I despise.

They behaved so true to form...If only the mystic crap millions of kids are still subjected to was a parody I would have felt a huge sigh of relief.

Rosie, if you can point me in the direction of one honest bunch of mystics I'll eat your witches cloak

Sharon

Rosie's picture

I believe in the same post I qualified that the OT sinners were destroyed but not without warning (see about two-thirds of the way down).

Hilton, Sharon, Gregster

Rosie's picture

Do you not believe it, Greg? This is a satirical website. A hoax.
An honest, albeit ironical, mistake for the rational objectivist to make, Hilton. Smiling
I am sure there are plenty of genuine Christian websites to pierce with your insight though. Eye

I know you like syllogisms, Dick

Jameson's picture

Perhaps this will encourage you to answer...

1. The boyfriend believes the man who refuses to pronounce moral judgement is the one "responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world."
2. The girlfriend refuses to pronounce moral judgment.

Therefore, Richie thinks the Rosie is "responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world."

No Goode's

gregster's picture

dishonesty ™

Hook line Hilton and sinker Sharon

Richard Goode's picture

Then they are hypocrites. Whatever.

They're satirists.

Let's put it in a nutshell, Goode

Jameson's picture

Your girlfriend has repeatedly told us that she is not prepared to judge. So, what is your judgment of her? [edit to disambiguate]

>And they mean it... "And

sharon's picture

>And they mean it...

"And you think Christians are gullible?!"

Then they are hypocrites. Whatever.

Landover Baptist Church

Richard Goode's picture

And they mean it...

And you think Christians are gullible?!

And they mean it...

sharon's picture

Mutton: "you probably would have been one of the first to light the fire should you have lived in the days when heretics were roasted as a matter of routine."

Christian meek: "What do you mean by "should we have?" The Bible tells us not to suffer a witch to live. Some of us still take the Lord's commandments seriously."

Blessed are the meek...asif :)

HWH's picture

I have a google alert running on "Ayn Rand", and occasionally when I
need to let off  steam I charge into these Rand trashing blogs
with a bug swatter. Heres an example of a recent
encounter with a Baptist pastor from the Landover baptist church.



You'll see my alias was changed to "Mutton" and I was kicked off from
posting further comments, but note the comments from these psychos who
by their own admission follow the word of God to the letter.



No meekness to be found from these thickos here now Rosie...would
you've been any different.



Like Ingersoll remarked : Many people think they have religion when
they are troubled with dyspepsia.



document scanner

The results have always been blood

sharon's picture

I wonder if the more mild and meek among the Christian flock have ever morally judged the more rapacious among the Christian cadre—those who have appointed themselves as God’s earthly representatives, and who have spilled blood in the name of God. And given that the Christian meek praise “faith” (an epistemological standard when following the dictates of the Christian rapacious) why should they doubt the claims of these individuals, or rationally question them? Oh, let us not judge too harshly those self-appointed Christian elite when they do terrible deeds in the name of God, for who are we to judge?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.