How do you know murder is wrong?

[Peter]

Greg wrote: I've personally known many religious people in my lifetime, and so far not one of them has ever blamed (unjustly accused) God for the misery created by people who do evil. end quote

You’ve never read the bible Greg? I admit, its old news. Oh, Zeus, why hast thou abandoned me! I lost my job at the orange juice factory. I was canned because I couldn’t concentrate. OL and the Constitution say we should not support any one religion, not even Saint Ayn. What if your god is the mischievous Loki, or the Navaho/s rattlesnake god? Can I blame them? And admit it, Greg. The Great Flood, wldfires, and California mudslides are caused by the West Coast god Cannabis Detected. Would you mind stepping out of the vehicle?

Peter   

[anthony]

Again, that's a broad statement covering all religions by a man whose intelligence I otherwise quite respect. Betcha it was the Irish Catholics he got in a froth. Perhaps Fry could rather have blamed Socialism/etc.etc., for "such misery" of the world? Perhaps he could have aimed at Islamism? It recalls Nathaniel in an essay citing Fromm's "All alone and afraid/ in a world I have not made". NB's reply, "Why didn't you?" (If I have that right).

Point is, it was conjecture - Fry doesn't believe God exists--so whose "fault" is it, Stephen?

[BaalChatzaf]

25 minutes ago, anthony said:

Again, that's a broad statement covering all religions by a man whose intelligence I otherwise quite respect. Betcha it was the Irish Catholics he got in a froth. Perhaps Fry could rather have blamed Socialism/etc.etc., for "such misery" of the world? Perhaps he could have aimed at Islamism? It recalls Nathaniel in an essay citing Fromm's "All alone and afraid/ in a world I have not made". NB's reply, "Why didn't you?" (If I have that right).

Point is, it was conjecture - Fry doesn't believe God exists--so whose "fault" is it, Stephen?

Fry is reacting to cartoons of God painted by the various religions, churches,  sects  etc.  If there is a Real God (I cannot prove there isn't one) I seriously doubt that It is anything like the cartoons.  5000 years ago humans fashioned their gods from their fears and nightmares.  They did not know how the world really worked (this has been found out only recently)  so they were misguided and misled by their fears.  Hence the gods they fashioned were dreadful and fearful.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Quote

Justice is... the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions.

Greg

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Right, or: Justice is seeking and earning one's own justice in and from reality. 

In order to achieve your just ends, no person and no government can intervene. In there I think is the single, stripped down rationale behind government, or - its Justice protecting one's own justice.

Breathtakingly wrong. C'mon, guys, the topic is public justice, you know. Fair trial, etc.

Try again. Justice is ___ _____ _______ __ _________ _______.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Breathtakingly wrong. C'mon, guys, the topic is public justice, you know. Fair trial, etc.

Try again. Justice is ___ _____ _______ __ _________ _______.

the _____ defense __ innocent _______

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Breathtakingly wrong. C'mon, guys, the topic is public justice, you know. Fair trial, etc.

Try again. Justice is ___ _____ _______ __ _________ _______.

___ armed _______ of ________ liberty.

Mr Helpful

[Wolf DeVoon]

well, not the only definition (I hope!) ... I was legitimately asking others to define justice. I always assume I'm wrong.

Anthony's definition blew my mind. You can't use a term being defined in the definition --

"Justice is seeking and earning one's own justice in and from reality." Doesn't make a hoot of sense.

[anthony]

Yes I got that too, Brant. Quoting himself, would you believe it? ;0 "The armed defence of innocent Liberty".

Less elegantly, me and Greg said similar. More concretely, it is the individual's defence of his freedoms. He freely makes his own judgments - 'justice' - and actions, and must take all the just consequences, freely.

[anthony]

12 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

well, not the only definition (I hope!) ... I was legitimately asking others to define justice. I always assume I'm wrong.

Anthony's definition blew my mind. You can't use a term being defined in the definition --

"Justice is seeking and earning one's own justice in and from reality." Doesn't make a hoot of sense.

Two justices. Private and public. (One is the virtue, haven't you been reading?)

[Wolf DeVoon]

8 minutes ago, anthony said:

Two justices. Private and public. (One is the virtue, haven't you been reading?)

Uh-huh. Even if you restrict the definition to ethics, excluding public justice, you can't use the term being defined in its own definition.

So, justice is what? A kind of what, distinguished by what?

I submit that justice (private or public) is an action, doesn't happen automatically.

[anthony]

16 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Uh-huh. Even if you restrict the definition to ethics, excluding public justice, you can't use the term being defined in its own definition.

So, justice is what? A kind of what, distinguished by what?

There's times I think Rand is taken literally, when she was being metaphorical. And the reverse.

Everyone has seen this passage, I wonder if many readers think she was being over-fanciful. But it's the living truth about a consciousness.

"...so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity within the courtroom of his 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". VoS, 71.

'Private' justice: The courtroom of the mind.

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

'Private' justice: The courtroom of the mind.

I guess. The mind should be rigorously engaged in all sorts of subject areas, not uniquely in judging the moral stature of others, surely.

And in any case, it exemplifies how blithely Ayn Rand ignored due process ("No man should judge his own cause" - Madison)

[anthony]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

... rationale behind government, or - its Justice protecting one's own justice.

Wolf, I indicated the "two justices" earlier in one sentence. To try to clear this up, put a lengthier way, the system of law and Justice has as its purpose the protection of the actions resulting from an individual's moral and objective judgments - as well, the punishment of immoral acts from irrational judgments of reality by individuals. The Justice system defends 'the just' and penalizes 'the unjust'.

[Wolf DeVoon]

6 minutes ago, anthony said:

Wolf, I indicated the "two justices" earlier in one sentence. To try to clear this up, put a lengthier way, the system of law and Justice has as its purpose the protection of the actions resulting from an individual's moral and objective judgments - as well, the punishment of immoral acts from irrational judgments of reality by individuals. The Justice system defends 'the just' and penalizes 'the unjust'.

I guess it's better to say simply, I do not understand you, neither the above, nor earlier remarks quoting Rand about a courtroom of the mind.

[anthony]

23 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I guess. The mind should be rigorously engaged in all sorts of subject areas, not uniquely in judging the moral stature of others, surely.

And in any case, it exemplifies how blithely Ayn Rand ignored due process ("No man should judge his own cause" - Madison)

Oh no. Put on those readers, you're getting the whole Lexicon page.

Moral Judgment

¶

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

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.

“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 71

¶

If people did not indulge in such abject evasions as the claim that some contemptible liar “means well”—that a mooching bum “can’t help it”—that a juvenile delinquent “needs love”—that a criminal “doesn’t know any better”—that a power-seeking politician is moved by patriotic concern for “the public good”—that communists are merely “agrarian reformers”—the history of the past few decades, or centuries, would have been different.

“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 73

¶

The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”

The opposite of moral neutrality is not a blind, arbitrary, self-righteous condemnation of any idea, action or person that does not fit one’s mood, one’s memorized slogans or one’s snap judgment of the moment. Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion. To declare that “everybody is white” or “everybody is black” or “everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,” is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment.

To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, “instincts” or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer “Why?” and to prove one’s case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer.

“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 72

¶

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. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life . . .

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist.

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 173

¶

Morality is the province of philosophical judgment, not of psychological diagnosis. Moral judgment must be objective, i.e., based on perceivable, demonstrable facts. A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious. His psychological problems are his private concern which is not to be paraded in public and not to be made a burden on innocent victims or a hunting ground for poaching psychologizers. Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults.

This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are—not psychologically, i.e., as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning. One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”
The Objectivist, March 1971, 5

¶

It is not man’s subconscious, but his conscious mind that is subject to his direct control—and to moral judgment. It is a specific individual’s conscious mind that one judges (on the basis of objective evidence) in order to judge his moral character.

. . . The alternative is not: rash, indiscriminate moralizing or cowardly, evasive moral neutrality—i.e., condemnation without knowledge or the refusal to know, in order not to condemn. These are two interchangeable variants of the same motive: escape from the responsibility of cognition and of moral judgment.

“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’,”

[moralist]

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Right, or: Justice is seeking and earning one's own justice in and from reality. 

In order to achieve your just ends, no person and no government can intervene. In there I think is the single, stripped down rationale behind government, or - its Justice protecting one's own justice.

Well put, Tony.

In America today, justice is not an unearned entitlement...

... for it can only be enjoyed by those who are just.

Greg

[moralist]

4 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Breathtakingly wrong. C'mon, guys, the topic is public justice, you know. Fair trial, etc.

Being an amoral libertine secularist the only justice you will ever know is public litigation...

... which solely exists for people who fail to govern their own behavior to become prey of the legal system created by their own failure.

It's all self inflicted, Wolf...

...so there is no one else for you to rightfully blame...

...however you are perfectly free to wrongfully blame others for all the good it'll do you.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

I am not ignorant or forgetful of Rand's writings. You make the mistake she made, a metaphorical "courtroom of the mind" to judge others. Hard enough to judge physical reality by means of experiments, reliable instruments, observation, documentation. Something as simple as driving a car requires careful observation and judgment pertaining to roadworthiness and unexpected hazards -- not least of which is "defensive driving" because others might do something reckless or unexpected.

When it comes to assessing the moral character of another person, you are always welcome to flatter yourself, but bear in mind that unilateral fact finding and judgment is Napoleonic or inquisitorial, in contradistinction to Anglo-American adversarial justice in which both sides are heard, presumed innocent, and judged by an unprejudiced jury of peers. The role of a judge in France is indistinguishable from prosecutor and inquisitor. In England and America, the role of a judge is totally neutral, mindful of preserving fundamental fairness.

When you privately judge others you can anoint yourself Napoleonic High Inquisitor -- or involve a jury of peers who have no axe to grind. Whoever it is you are eager to condemn and punish should have equal opportunity to state his side of the matter with counsel of his own choosing. I'm talking about private matters, not courtrooms. At home you can be a tyrant if you wish. Terrible idea unless you intend to remain single and childless.

[Wolf DeVoon]

20 minutes ago, moralist said:

Being an amoral libertine secularist

Please stop being so stupid.

[moralist]

59 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Please stop being so stupid.

You share so many views values and behavior with amoral libertine secular leftists, Wolf. These affinities which unite the secular radical left to the secular extreme right, explain why justice to you only means lawyers and judges and legalisms...

...but not morality. 

 

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

You share so many views values and behavior with amoral libertine secular leftists, Wolf. These affinities which unite the secular radical left to the secular extreme right, explain why justice to you only means lawyers and judges and legalisms...

...but not morality.

Let's review what morality is. Same problem of definition. Morality is what? -- for what purpose, needed for what? I'm in agreement with Ayn Rand. Right and wrong in the conduct of one's life. Has nothing to do with others. Never a question of imagined "justice" unless you devote yourself to a public purpose, a war, to kill people and break things, or a humanitarian crusade, to save souls, feed the hungry, teach. Throughout human history people have devoted their lives to something external. They call it "compassion" and "patriotism" and "holy." It's particularly hilarious when politicians and bureaucrats call themselves "public servants." However, doing things for (or to) others is a comic book understanding of morality. If you know the story of The Fountainhead, that's why Wynand lost Dominique. Wynand spent his life doing things for (and to) others, incapable of love, soured to it by shallowness he saw everywhere. When he found a woman worth having -- and an architect capable of building a castle to keep her -- it destroyed him. Had nothing to do with lawyers and judges and legalisms, Greg.

How you direct your life, choose a path, undertake challenges, to risk your life is the essential business of morality. The moral coin is courage, but coin collecting is not an end in itself. Maybe you're courageous and think well of it. Maybe your comic book is holy. Too late now. Moral action forms us when we're young and strong.

[anthony]

On 2017/05/08 at 7:23 AM, Wolf DeVoon said:

I am not ignorant or forgetful of Rand's writings. You make the mistake she made, a metaphorical "courtroom of the mind" to judge others. Hard enough to judge physical reality by means of experiments, reliable instruments, observation, documentation. Something as simple as driving a car requires careful observation and judgment pertaining to roadworthiness and unexpected hazards -- not least of which is "defensive driving" because others might do something reckless or unexpected.

When it comes to assessing the moral character of another person, you are always welcome to flatter yourself, but bear in mind that unilateral fact finding and judgment is Napoleonic or inquisitorial, in contradistinction to Anglo-American adversarial justice in which both sides are heard, presumed innocent, and judged by an unprejudiced jury of peers. The role of a judge in France is indistinguishable from prosecutor and inquisitor. In England and America, the role of a judge is totally neutral, mindful of preserving fundamental fairness.

When you privately judge others you can anoint yourself Napoleonic High Inquisitor -- or involve a jury of peers who have no axe to grind. Whoever it is you are eager to condemn and punish should have equal opportunity to state his side of the matter with counsel of his own choosing. I'm talking about private matters, not courtrooms. At home you can be a tyrant if you wish. Terrible idea unless you intend to remain single and childless.

Well, what is there to say? Plenty, actually but I'll try to keep it brief for now. If you don't know it, you or anyone are making judgments every minute. About every thing. More often about "things" in reality than about people. One needs to apply sharp focus in "the courtroom of the mind" to stay alive and to avoid suffering, let alone to thrive.

Moral judgment is also called - "choice". That, most will recognize and stomach better, I expect.

What remains is how objective one's choice/judgment is. Or, how influenced by one's emotions, by others' opinions, rumors, or one's subconscious desires and fears?

Judgment of people is a sub-set of the greater category of an objective judgment of reality.

I don't have to argue that other people have the potential of huge spiritual and/or material value to one. Some/many also have the capacity to be hurtful, harmful, destructive, predatory, etc., so wisely picking the right individuals in all spheres of one's life, from the most casual friends, to those one does business with, to the most intimate partner - is paramount.

I hardly see how I can "flatter" myself in assessing another person. It's not done in a hurry, by surface impressions or anyone's else's say-so. One looks and listens over a time. You know when some things are out of whack, when what they say does not match what they do - or simply, what they voice is pretty amoral or immoral (etc.) to begin with.  If he/she proves themself undoubtedly e.g. untruthful, you can't avoid it, you have to see it and know it. Do I want them in my life? No. He's a liar and untrustworthy. Would I marry a woman, say, believing that somehow her weak character will improve? No. Having said that, sure, I've also made emotional 'judgments' about certain people and always paid a price.

"Tyrant" at home? You're missing it. For one, I think it's far more critical - not to add, enjoyable - to see value and then make and speak out positive judgments, to gladly give credit where it's due, for someone's fine virtues and admirable acts. By this, secondarily, you "make a name for yourself". When one is clear and honest in all dealings with others, one attracts those who value that quality and whom one values in return. He/she knows the strong points of your character and takes selfish value from it too, since it's what they uphold. The opposite, compromising one's self with those of bad character, also holds true. Before one knows it, one becomes surrounded by only unsavory people.

You see, it's all "private" - to begin with. Moral judgment is primarily for one's own life. (How many of those do we get?)

[BaalChatzaf]

You wrote: Moral judgment is also called - "choice". That, most will recognize and stomach better, I expect.

But not all choices have moral import.  What shall I have for desert?  Peaches or pineapple?   This choice has no moral import whatever

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You wrote: Moral judgment is also called - "choice". That, most will recognize and stomach better, I expect.

But not all choices have moral import.  What shall I have for desert?  Peaches or pineapple?   This choice has no moral import whatever

Fair enough.

I'd paraphrase you: not all choices have ~equal~ moral import.

If one accepts a hierarchy of values, right down at the most physical level is the simple enjoyment of simple pleasures and tastes one prefers. They 'feed' that greater worth, the sense of living a good life. The animal remains integral in the "rational animal" and shouldn't be denied.

[moralist]

4 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Let's review what morality is.

Morality and ethics are bound together. People who are immoral are also unethical.

When Jesus said, "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.", He wasn't just telling people what they should do. It was also an axiomatic equation of objective reality. As you treat yourself you will treat others.

Treat Yourself = Treat Others

Being a secularist your focus is solely on legality because for you there is no greater power than your government. Your complaints of government oppression are only because your own failure to govern yourself. This is because the US Constitution doesn't work for people who fail to govern themselves. When a critical mass of people fail to govern themselves, the Constitution needs to be violated in order to govern them...

...which is exactly what has been happening, and is happening right now.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

--John Adams

The Consitution was created solely for the decent.

It does not work for amoral libertine secularists...

...regardless of whether they're on the radical left or the extreme right.

Greg