Xray

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experiences is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening. Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'. But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth.

But does true knowledge about these things automatically imply self-esteem? 'Self-esteem' also has an emotional component to it, imo it is more than mere cognitive awareness of one's capabilities (and lack of capabilities).

What is this elementary fact of human psychology? The fact that nobody acts with the intention of having a disadvantage from the act? In other words: individuals act, without exception, because they want to gain (seen from their perspective) from the act. The ethical discourse is about what they want to gain.

That prehistorical women lived in caves does not mean that they ruled in them and chose their mates.

According to Objectivist principles, the belief in god is irrational. According the the premsie that the irrational is always immoral, the belief must be "immoral" then.

Michael Stuart Kelly in post # 19 said: Absolutely. For trying to find out whether the email is genuine was an indispensable first step to take.

Good idea.

This might be a scam.

Hi KacyRay, welcome to OL. I have the feeling that what you really are concerned with is not so much volition, but reason. It was the thread about Neil Schulman that caught your attention ("Is Neil Schulman Justified (logically) in believing in God?"). Schulman has tried to logically make the case for God and in addition, even claimed that he "met God" and that his [subjective] experience 'proves' the existence of a god. Needless to say, Schulman could not make his case. For there is no way to conduct proof here. So maybe what you really want to know more about goes in the direction of: "Can the use of reason serve as a tool to separate fact from non-fact? Is there a way to examine arguments that claim "truth" whether they actually met the criteria?"

For example, to some people who have lost loved ones in a terrbible tragedy, the hope they might be with god now may be irrational, but can still give them comfort, and even strength to carry on with their lives. Or a more mundane example: each time I pack my suitcases for a trip, it is the same: I pack way too much stuff I won't need, my way of packing is pretty irrational, one could say. But it is no immoral action. Nor is the consequence 'bad'. I just squeezed in too much stuff, that's all. I could list many more examples. What speaks against dropping the "irrational = immoral" equation? This still would leave enough for rationality, without the rigidity of judging every irrational act as immoral. Aside from that - frankly, what's so bad about some irrational 'whims' to enjoy now and then? Isn't it often those whims that add pizzazz and fun to life?

I couldn't agree more, Carol .

Hasn't Atlas Shrugged Part II flopped at the box even more than Part I? . I fear the worst for Part III, which is the most difficult to film anyway. How for example will Galt's Gulch full of happy people look on screen? Imo the novel AS cannot be made into a convincing film at all, no matter how high the budget would be. But I'm fascinated by Agliaro's unwavering willingess to carry on.

Gods--or God--belong purely to the realm of epistemology (subjectivism) so it matters not the doctrine apropos that if that's what you believe. As a pantheist I don't believe in a Supreme Being, only the supremacy of reality--reality being my god--which I respect but don't worship. This is metaphysics accessed by epistemology and represents true objectification consequently, for I must adduce real evidence for this or that or admit I don't know or my knowledge is tentative. My basic attitude is scientific. --Brant The point I was trying to make: the idea of the Biblical god as the only possibility of an existing god was so deeply ingrained in Pascal's mind and soul that he did not even think of the theoretical scenario that the gods of other religions might exist (but his own god not). So while Pascal, in his wager, did list the theoretical scenario of 'no god at all', the theoretical scenario "no Biblical god might exist, but another god (or other gods) instead" is not listed. Pascal's wager rests on a purely "either - or" premise: if there is a god, it can only be the Biblical one.

But did Pascal, in his wager, even consider the posibility that other religions might have got it right? In that case, to have wagered on the Christian God would provide not only no gain, but possibly even a loss. A loss which Pascal said could not happen. According to his wager, you either gain all [in case there is a [Christian] God), or have lost nothing (in case there is no [Christian] God). Not true, for the 'other' god might be furious that you have not worshipped him.

Many happy returns of the day, George!

The basic thinking error lies in equating the rational with the moral, and the irrational with the immoral. By those archaic religious premises, maybe. Which instantly contradicts truthful thought. But you repeat yourself without any fresh argument - please offer an alternative morality, in depth. Morality by instinct? Even more archaic and primitive, and certainly anti-reason. Morality by collectivism? Most archaic, and anti-individual. Of course rationality should play a role when it comes to working out a sensible code of ethics. For example, it would be irrational to believe that oppressing people via a rigid moral code is going to work in the long run. Irrational is a cognitive category referring to the failure to assess reality. It is true that a 'moral code' which is downright unethical always has an element of irrationality to it. But the reverse does not apply: for irrational beliefs and actions are not automatically immoral.

The basic thinking error lies in equating the rational with the moral, and the irrational with the immoral.

From a philosophical perspective, it would interest me how deep the nihilism of your friend runs. Is it a 'cosmic' nihilism that denies any sense to existence as such? Or is it a kind of nihilism that is closer related to frustration/cynicism/sarcasm about the many horrible things that are happening in our world?

Speaking of an individual's "personal ethical preferences", was a statement of fact. It says nothing about how this person came to develop these specific values, and what kind of values they are. Nor does it sugggest that one set of values is just as good (or bad) as the other because they are just personal opinions. The actual task would be to examine the person's arguments re the moral values he/she has chosen.

Leonid wrote in # 68: Interesting point.

Tony, This is one of the double-speak things Rand sometimes does and it is a trap. This kind of trap is the result of a thinking whose "either - or rigorism" does not allow for "both .. . and" scenarios. From the premise that "rationality is man's basic virtue", it logically follows that irrationality must be man's basic vice and therefore immoral. Equating the rational with the moral is also an example of a thinking error: personal ethical preferences are presented as if they were undisputed truths.

Carol's sparkling wit and esprit are timeless anyway. Many happy returns, my dear friend Carol!! Angela

In his later years, A. Flew renounced atheism. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0 What happened to Flew that suddenly made him argue from a premise he had spent most of his professional life exposing as false?

I even supected the quote might be from Karl Marx, since he saw the workers as the real 'producers' of the capitalists' wealth.

How on earth do get the idea that "the fine gentlemen" on this board "go into full tonic-clonic seizure mode" when "ladies" reject governmental intervention into the above-mentioned "most private of private places" ?? Can you provide any evidence to back up your assertions? Or is this just an assumption on your part which you present as if it were a fact? From your profile: It would interest me how you have arrived at that personal opinion. Has Objectivism played any significant role in your life so far? There is one thing that stands out about Objectivism: it is always polarizing. Ayn Rand's ideas invariably provoke strong reactions, pro or con. There seems to be no in-between. Imo this is also the reason why some ex-adherents to Rand's ideas have later become harsh critics of Objectivism.