genuineoriginal,
I didn't see the following post before having given up on you. I've decided its worth giving you another chance. Just please don't go all stubborn on me again. I actually do want to discuss this with whoever is willing but it has to be a real discussion, not a diatribe.
In the absolute sense, you are right in stating, "it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter."
Paul, on the other hand, makes a point in equating mortality to immorality.
Ephesians 2:1
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; |
Colossians 2:13
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; |
If immorality equals death and morality equals life, then what ability do the living have to determine what is immoral?
No, the living are concerned with both immorality and morality, and death or life is the ultimate consequence of immorality or morality, respectively.
Okay, lets define terms. When I refer to morality I am talking about the whole topic of ethics. That is to say that when I (or Rand) say "it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter.", I'm saying that "it is only to the living that issues of right and wrong apply or matter."
Thus the point you make and the passages you cite are making the same point that I am. It is because of immorality (wrong) that people are spiritually dead and it is because of righteousness (right) we are made alive.
Thus, as Rand put it...
"...that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."
That is a hasty remark from Ayn Rand, since it presupposes that anything done to sustain life is moral, whether it is working for wages or it is stealing food to survive.
No, morality is not morality based on surviving in this life.
Morality is morality based on whether it leads to life everlasting.
PRECISELY!!
Please keep in mind that I have not, do not and would not endorse Rand's philosophy. I merely am using her quotations because her philosophy attempts to be strictly rational and to the extent that it succeeds it remains close to the truth because God is Reason. She made a great many errors, not the least of which was her presupposition that God does not exist. We have not made that error and so by essentially the same line of reasoning Rand used in her atheism we can use in our theism to arrive at just what you said, "Morality is morality (i.e. the right) is based on whether it leads to life everlasting."
Matthew 16:25
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. |
It is moral to lose your life for the sake of Jesus the Messiah.
It is immoral to forsake Jesus the Messiah in order to save your life.
This is something that an Atheist can not understand.
You've got it exactly!
Again, I am not here promoting an atheistic worldview. I am merely using the same arguments an atheist used. The arguments Rand used were entirely valid, what she got wrong was the atheistic premise from which she started. Otherwise, she too would have seen that it does not profit a man to save his physical life and lose his soul.
It is moral because it is rational?
_____
rational
- agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible
- having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense
- proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning
- being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid
_____
This could mean it is moral because it makes sense, it is moral because it is derived from the logical process of reasoning, or it is moral because it comes from sane thoughts.
There isn't any better way to state that than the way I stated it.
That which is moral (morally good) is so
because it is rational.
Your argument appears to be that it is moral because it is derived from the logical process of reasoning, which is the argument that was destroyed in my earlier posts.
It is not possible to destroy an argument you never addressed. I can hardly believe I'm having to explain this to you but it seems necessary...
To refute an argument one must address the argument as it has been made. That is, you must demonstrate either than one or more of the argument's premises are false or that the form of the argument was fallacious or that the conclusion does not follow.
And here's the real key point - SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!
In other words, claiming that a premise is false is not proving it false, declaring the form of argument fallacious does not prove it to be fallacious and insisting that the conclusion does not follow doesn't force it to not follow. You HAVE to make an actual counter argument!
Claiming it is moral because it makes sense appears to be begging the question, not stating a tautology, and this thought would need to be developed further before it would be able to be presented as such.
Do you know what "begging the question" means?
Do you know what a tautology is?
This statement of yours seems disconnected from the rest of your post, as though you threw it in as an after thought.
I have made no argument similar to "the right is that which makes sense "to me"". Which is the only form of argument that this pseudo objection would apply to. I'm not making arguments suggesting that issues of right and wrong are matters of opinion or person preference, I'm saying that morality emerges rationally from a single premise - Life.
Claiming it is moral because it comes from sanity presumes that it could be proven that insanity by definition leads only to immorality and that no immoral act can be done by a person that is not insane.
Clearly this is not easily proven.
First of all I've made no such 'sanity' argument but even if I had your objection would not follow because no such presumption as you suggest would be logically necessary in any such argument. The only presumption MIGHT be that insanity is immoral but even that would depend on the actual argument being made. All of which is irrelevant as no such argument has been made in the first place.
The Law was given to the children of Israel by God as a list of rules that they were to follow because God determined that this list would produce a moral society if they were followed.
God Himself does not need such a list, as He is quite capable of determining what is moral and immoral.
God makes judgments about whether a person's actions are moral or immoral based on being able to read the intentions of a person's heart as well as know the circumstances surrounding a person's decision, and not whether the actions are on a list.
The purpose of the Law of Moses was multifaceted and can be discussed elsewhere. The point being that it was right to love your neighbor and wrong to murder him before the Law of Moses was given and thus morality is not defined by the Law. Indeed, it is quite the reverse.
You haven't quite made a good argument to claim that "rational equals moral" is a tautology.
Sure I have!
Morality is that which is consistent with life (i.e. promotes, extends or is in anyway proper to life).
God is Life.
God is consistent with Himself.
Therefore God is moral.
That is basically my whole essay in syllogism form.
You are claiming that an amoral being is non-rational, presuming that all rational beings have a sense of morality and immorality (knowledge of good and evil).
Romans chapter 1 says the same thing.
This is a one-sided argument that you have attempted to flip backwards.
The statement "all men are humans" is a true statement.
The statement "all non-rational beings are amoral" is also a true statement, since having a sense of morality and immorality is precluded on the ability to have rational thought.
The statement "all humans are men" is a false statement, since some humans are children and other humans are women.
The statement "all amoral beings are non-rational" is also a false statement, since it is possible for a rational being to be amoral.
In what way is a rational being able to be amoral?
Only living beings can be rational, by definition, and reason is that beings only means of survival. A living being that attempts to be amoral will die thus his attempt to be amoral is itself immoral because it leads to death. Thus an amoral, rational being is a self-defeating concept that cannot exist. Rand put it this way...
“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch – or build a cyclotron – without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
“But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs, or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival – so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to think or not to think.’ . . .
“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. . . Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer – and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. This was SO MUCH better of a post! If you continue like this, you'll quickly see what I mean when I say that my essay could easily have been three times as long! There is so much depth here its amazing! And we aren't far away from each other on these issues at all. This could turn out to be an amazing thread!
P.S.S. I've added the contents of post 68 (my essay) to the opening post of the thread to make it easier to find and reference in future posts.
