moralist

Meanwhile... today over half the economy depends on the labor of whip driven slaves to their own credit cards, mortgages, vehicle loans and leases, equity lines of credit, and student loans. Is this what we already have?

...and the way to stand up to the state is not to oppose it as if it was the enemy, because it is not the enemy. It is simply to give up our need of it. For it is our own need for the state to make someone else pay our bills which is the only real enemy. Not needing the state is what robs it of our sanction to become its victim.

God bless Glenn. He puts his influence to good use.

I thought one of Rabbi Lapin's best points in that video was Jews regard making money as a virtue. Ayn Rand also shared that view as evidenced by one of the finest parts of AS, Francisco's inspiring money speech. The Old Testament also makes a strong clear connection between morality and prosperity: "I have been young and now am old, yet have I not seen the uncompromisingly righteous forsaken or their seed begging bread." (Psalms 37:25)

The introduction is a bit too long, it's over 7 minutes, so you might want to skip to the part where Rabbi Lapin starts. Don't worry about the length of the video. Rabbi Lapin speaks well and intelligently, is entertaining, gives clever examples and gets quite funny. I didn't listen to the whole thing yet (but I will) since I have listened to several Lapin videos, but I did listen enough to hear his shout-outs to Llew Rockwell, Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, and so on, and to hear him dig into a discussion about why Jews are better with money as a tendency than others. He elaborated on all this in his book, Thou Shall Prosper: Ten Commandments for Making Money, which I am currently reading. It's a great book, too. This lecture seems to be around the time the book was going to market. In short, the issue is not about race or Chosen People or Zionism or anything like that to the good Rabbi. It's a matter of principles anyone can learn. And he teaches them. This is so much better than bigotry as explanation for differences... I learned about Rabbi Lapin from Glenn Beck, but I have since concluded that I would have come across him one way or the other. I really, really like the way this guy thinks. If anyone likes this video, too, and wants more, just search for Daniel Lapin on YouTube and there are tons of videos. Michael I love Rabbi Lapin... ...and am currently reading his fascinating book "Buried Treasure". In it he describes how the wisdom of moral values has literally been embedded into the Hebrew language. Greg

Greg, Or, unlike other cultures over the centuries, Jewish people valued and fostered education in practical matters, creativity and production more than power. This, to me, is available to anyone. And notice when people have done that, the blessings flow. (Look at the USA, for example.) I don't believe in God (at least not in any form, rhetorical or metaphysical, I think you would relate to), but if I did, I would say we are all God's chosen people. We just get to choose what we want to do about it. Michael What I like most about the Jews is their moral values are behavioral rather than doctrinal. They were the original conduit through which moral law entered this world. America's secular government was built upon the foundation of Judeo/Christian values, and was specifically designed to work only for decent people who uphold those values. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's design for the Great Seal of the United States was a depiction of the Jews leaving the slavery of Egypt. These words from the Torah are cast into the Liberty Bell. Proclaim Liberty throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X This is why America has such a strong spiritual bond with Israel. It is the bond of shared moral values.

The totally out of proportion blessings that such a tiny group of people as the Jews have brought to the whole world is no mystery to me. They're God's chosen people. Greg

I can understand how his family feels. My Dad died of a heart attack at 50. Gandolfini is fortunate in that one perk of his career is that his image will endure over time long after he's gone. Never saw Sopranos as I don't watch television, but I do watch movies and two of his best roles are in "The Mexican" and the hilariously profane "In the Loop". Both are well worth your time to watch. My wife and I have both on DVD and thoroughly enjoy watching them over and over.

He sure does, Michael. Glenn is offers his opinions based on moral principles rather than on politics... which is why I'm likely to resonate with his words. On details he can be as wrong as anyone else... ... but on ascertaining the vector of events, he's proven himself to be as accurate as an experienced sailor out on the open seas with a good sextant on a clear starry night. Greg

That's another topic entirely and rather than following your lead into a political discussion, I'd rather reference values in a more universal context than just one point on a compass. Perhaps a thread in the political section might be a better setting. Greg

Well, that's what reality is for. It renders the final impartial verdict by the just and deserved consequences of our actions to let everyone know whether they're actually doing good for others... or whether they only think they are. The human race has been bumping into things and going "ouch" long enough to deserve some real philosophical reasoning so as to not bump into things so much. I see your position as an adjunct to that, not any primary. There are too many cultural mores that I'd find repellant that make people--some people--feel good about themselves, which contradict basic human needs. So you get Muslim theocratic states that retard progress and subjugate women, etc. --Brant It doesn't take a whole lot of philosophical reasoning to learn from the self inflicted pain of doing wrong. All it really takes is some self awareness coupled with a willingness to learn from our own life experiences as well as the ability to impassively observe others. For some a gentle tap on the shoulder is enough, while for others it takes a two by four over the head. Reality provides both. Rotten "cultural mores" only exist where people fantasize themselves to be victims, and angrily blame (unjustly accuse) others for the just and deserved consequences of their own failure to do what's morally right. Everyone is subject to that law. The only difference between the decent and the indecent is that the decent love the law, while the indecent hate it. Every evil act arises from offended angry blaming victims of their own self inflicted pain..

Well, that's what reality is for. It renders the final impartial verdict by the just and deserved consequences of our actions to let everyone know whether they're actually doing good for others... or whether they only think they are.

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside. Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work). --Brant Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up. There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs. Doing good = Happiness Joan of Arc! --Brant (you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line) I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance. In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America. If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right. Greg The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.) --Brant the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky? Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me. We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences. The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own. Greg Now you've reduced the whole thing to an argument about you and one about me. I'm not aware of personally suffering, btw, from doing good. --Brant to the man? There's no argument here, Brant. I'm not certain why you were trying to bring politics into the discussion as is had nothing to do with the subject. Although that may have made sense to you as your political view must be an integral part of your view on morality and happiness for you to use it as your reference. Whereas mine isn't, which is why I didn't. I've only defined the differences between our two views: My view that doing what's morally right is essential to personal happiness... and your view that it is not. Since these two views are irreconcilable, it is sufficient for us to each state their own view and to describe how it contrasts to the other view. And that has already been done. Each of our two views was derived from our own life experience and from our personal observations of this world. Greg

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside. Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work). --Brant Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up. There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs. Doing good = Happiness Joan of Arc! --Brant (you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line) I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance. In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America. If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right. Greg The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.) --Brant the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky? Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me. We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences. The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own. Greg Now you've reduced the whole thing to an argument about you and one about me. I'm not aware of personally suffering, btw, from doing good. --Brant to the man?

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside. Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work). --Brant Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up. There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs. Doing good = Happiness Joan of Arc! --Brant (you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line) I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance. In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America. If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right. Greg The historical Joan--never mind the real Joan--thought she was doing right for France and the King of France (God talked to her), which made hers an altruistic endeavor. Objectivism bifurcates self interest and altruism while you, and she, don't. I mean, all it amounted to was, let's go fight the English. Today, let's go fight for oil in the name of fighting terrorism. (God talked to Bush.) --Brant the past ain't dead, only people, and your evidence of you is a pretty small sample example: she burned and you hummed--are you just lucky? Since I have no direct personal experience of either dead Joan, or retired Bush, and so can't speak on their behalf... you'll have to take up your political complaint directly with him yourself as that has absolutely nothing to do with me. We'll have to agree to disagree about the dead past, as in my own experience the only place things can actually happen is here and now in the present. Past and future are only intellectual constructs with which to deal with understanding causes and consequences. The evidence in my own life, as well as my observations of others, is sufficient proof for me that doing what's right is essential for personal happiness. From the nature of your comments, your own life is obviously different in that doing good causes you to suffer. Sorry, I can't do anything about that so you'll just have to work it out on your own. Greg

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside. Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work). --Brant Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up. There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs. Doing good = Happiness Joan of Arc! --Brant (you just got 4th-down sacked on your own goal line) I'm ok with that, Brandt. You can even do a victory dance. In your example from the dead past, no one really knows how Joan felt inside except Joan. This is why my view isn't based on assumptions about people who were dead long before I ever existed. Rather, it is based on my own present day real world personal experience right here in America. If, in your own personal experience, doing what's morally right is making you miserable, either you have a very good case that what I said does not apply to your life even if it applies to mine... or there is a flaw in what you regard as doing what's morally right. Greg

The government has become nothing more than peoples' demand that someone else pay their bills. My approach is simply to stand aside at a safe distance while they choke on their own creation just as they deserve. It's my own personal responsibility not to become collateral damage from other people's foolishness.

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside. Keep going; the more you say the better you sound. But you're still coming up short on this one, so keep going. For instance, I question "largely" (but prefer to let you do the work). --Brant Well, Brandt... that already just about summed it all up. There can be no morality without others, and doing right by them is a selfish act because it's done for my own personal happiness as well as theirs. Doing good = Happiness

The example has nothing to do with managing time. The specific consequence is that you remain the same person with exactly the same attitude towards failing to properly manage time that you have right now... and are no better now than you were before the experience. Denied causality guarantees repeated experience.

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others. Elaboration would be helpful. If true it can't be the only thing. The most important? --Brant That's right... "depends"... and even "largely depends"... but not "solely depends". There's a genuine inner delight in doing right by others. It's like tasting the sweetness of a ripe piece of fruit, which when swallowed feels good inside.

I never attributed any words or views to anyone except myself. It was a simple acknowledgement that others were participating in the discussion. In any case, all of this is irrelevant to what I'm discussing. Yes, my example is an "actual real world personal experience," not that it matters in the slightest to the concepts we're discussing. This was clear from how I originally presented the example, and it did not require further clarification. Thanks for making it clear that the example was your own personal experience. I had made the faulty assumption that it was not, and had addressed the previous comments in the third person. So now the same principle applies in the first person. In a situation such as you described, it's useful to examine the behavior which gave rise to it, because if that remains unobserved, the same situation repeats itself. To sum up... in your view you say there are no consequences, and in my view there are. In declaring that there are no consequences set into motion by the situation you described, you didn't realize that the situation itself was a consequence of behavior which preceded it. The consequence of denying the reality that there are consequences to your actions is that that you still remain the same person you were before it happened... someone who does not properly manage their time. And an opportunity to learn and to change was lost. However, another opportunity will come along soon enough. This doesn't even come anywhere close to what is generally known as "evil". It's such a small oversight, and yet the same moral principle applies, albeit on a very small scale.

My position, precisely That's because you define morality as a set of principles governing one's behavior toward others, instead of defining morality as a set of principles guiding one's efforts toward attaining one's own happiness. Ellen Our happiness depends on our behavior towards others.

Would you enlighten us as to what those consequences will be? Because I'm not seeing any, and, at this point, I have no reason to believe there will be any. Who is "us"? Have you become the self appointed spokesperson for an imaginary group? Only the person would have the opportunity to discover what the consequences would be, and that person's belief would have absolutely no effect on the consequences. Reality is what is... even if no one believes it is. "Us" refers to the participants in this thread. I would never presume to speak for them, but I can ask you to explain yourself for our collective benefit. You stated that there would invariably be consequences for violating a moral law. I asked for your evidence. You can provide none. I provided you with a counterexample, and you were unable to explain it within your framework, simply repeating your dogmatic assertion that there will be consequences. This is why I am calling what you are preaching here a religion. It is based on nothing, it is adopted on faith, and it's about as convincing as the last Jehova's witness on whom I had the pleasure of shutting my door. What odd behavior, Robert... First you declare that you don't presume to speak for others, and yet in that very same line of text, you do. Liberals commonly use collective groupspeak. I didn't believe you were one, but then again I could easily have been mistaken as on forums it takes time to "see" others. First off, I'd like to be clear on this. Is the example you cited an actual real world personal experience of your own, or is it just a hypothetical used only for illustration? After you answer, I'll be happy to respond to your comments. Greg

Would you enlighten us as to what those consequences will be? Because I'm not seeing any, and, at this point, I have no reason to believe there will be any. Who is "us"? Have you become the self appointed spokesperson for an imaginary group? Only the person would have the opportunity to discover what the consequences would be, and that person's belief would have absolutely no effect on the consequences. Reality is what is... even if no one believes it is.

baseball is a fact and it is all made up by people. It does not flow logically from the laws of physics. Like anything else that is possible or actual, it does not contradict the laws of physics either. The laws of nature/physics constrain human artifacts. It is impossible for a human artifact to contradict the laws of nature/physics. Morality is like baseball. It is all made up. Ba'al Chatzaf Individual rights are made up, morality is made up, philosophy* is made up, science is made up. All are human creations. They reference the human animal and its human nature. They reference reality. --Brant *Objectivism ... and reality is the final judge who renders the verdict.