anthony Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said: 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. Tangentially, I was thinking now that I sometimes hear and we hear coming on board at OL, a type of individual for whom relating and dealing with others, "selfishly", is what "comes naturally and easy" and therefore, "grasping and immoral". He will then say or imply, that the hard (read, "virtuous") part is to do one's duty to others, self-lessly. I have always found this exactly reversed. To be rationally selfish takes hard effort. One first has to be rational, it has to be earned. One can't (truthfully) announce one day, "I'm an egoist now!" To have good dealings with other people at large, I found to be the easiest thing in the world. Once "duty" is eliminated from a mind, you take them as they come, and view each an individual with a life story and unique character. If rational, we should never need to consider their individual rights and worry about transgressing on them, in order to know what "is right" for human beings and lend them the best of one's attention - implicitly asserting that one merits the same back, justice - for justice. And then, not every person deserves one's continued efforts it transpires eventually. Many you have to walk away from for your own good. For either form of justice to both persons, one needs objective judgment, what else?. I must say I hardly ever derive and deduce from Rand's novels. I don't think that's their main value. Otherwise you made sense, though you misinterpret justice. And: It is never "too late now". Moral action, one forms oneself by commitment to convictions (belief); contrary to what you state, it does not and should not "form" one, when young or ever. An objective morality is a means to one's ends - quite. Where do you see in the Universe anything "holier" than man's existence? Apologies, I notice now you were addressing Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now