All those moral principles seem to involve yourself--rather than others?
This doesn't seem like a question. This seems like an assertion loosely wrapped in the form of question. Regardless, my answer is no.
These are senseless (it seems to me), as they allow people to mentally justify how they treat others without rationally justifying the treatment.
You asked me if I recognized any moral principles, but you didn't ask me to rationally justify any principles. However, I do believe that I can rationally justify them.
After reviewing you earlier post, you seem to have demanded to know if I recognize any moral principles, e.g.
I guess what I am wondering is simply this: you recognise any moral principles?
Above, you have italicized the word 'any' for particular emphasis. Later in the post, you bolded the same full question for emphasis.
I am simply trying to flesh out the answer to my question: Do you recognise any moral principles?
I took this question as 'give me at least one moral principle that you recognize.' I thought I was being generous in providing several principles which I recognize as being helpful. Nonetheless, you now seem to be annoyed with my examples because they don't completely answer your new list of issues regarding human relations. Apologies, but it was never my intention to provide a complete and fully rationalized list of moral principles. That would have required much more time than I had. I was only trying to answer, in good faith, your question about me having any moral principles.
Rather, don't you have any principles as to how others ought to act other than just doing what feels good to them?
I don't know how many examples you will demand of me to justify one of my principles, but I'll provide a simple one to start: maximize one's contributions even when it may not feel immediately good to do so.
You have several other interesting questions which I will try to answer in time (please remind me if I forget), but I would like to return to my original question that has intrigued me for over 30 years. What is the Objectivist understanding of evil? As a disclosure, I realized that I've had a male bias to certain words. This "word-bias" was an unconscious response during most of my life, and I had only become aware of it in the last decade.
I have not done a rigorous analysis of this, but I have noticed that women use the word 'evil' much more often than men. And more often than not, men seem to use other terms involving profanities. As an aside, another word that have I noticed women using much more than men is 'silly' and 'silliness.' I have never heard a straight man tell another man "oh, you're just being silly." More often I hear things like "why are you messing/f-cking with me?!" Also, I have never heard a boy say to another "stop your silliness!"
I have a working theory based on evolutionary biology. For men 'evil' is a threat that must be confronted, and with violence whenever necessary. Instinctively, we have a 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach to immediate threats. This also seems to be the source of the idea that violence begets violence, with men more likely being the progenitors of violence as well as the rapid responders of violence. This leaves women and children as the primary victims of violence, but of course, some men too. From a pure survival standpoint in a hunter-gatherer society, women must be especially attuned to dangers and quickly avoid threats to protect not just themselves, but also the children under their care. Here, a direct confrontation with the threat is a significantly worse option than avoiding the threat. A women carrying a young child on her back shouldn't confront a large predator because she may provide the beast two snacks for the price of one.
From the female perspective, a society must properly protect itself from evil depredations. From the male perspective, a society should eliminate a threat as quickly as possible with overwhelming force. The War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism are two recent examples.
america.aljazeera.com
Out of this theory, I have come to think of the word 'evil' and its connotations as a visceral response to a threat as it perceived by women. For men, an 'evil' person or beast evokes an emotional response such that the threat must be killed, sooner rather than later. So, if 'evil' is an emotional perception of a threat or actual depredation against us, then 'good' can be another perception of that which protects us -- from evil. Good also maintains or improves social cohesion and social development, whereas evil destroys cohesion and degrades social development. Think 'demon rum' and Carrie Nation during the Temperance movement for an ideation.
When I was using the word 'evil' I was asking about Objectivism to better understand Rand's mindset. I wanted to better understand the idea of evil with respect to organizations like Socialism and Communism and I thought you might have had some insight. I was not trying to be confrontational or evasive, but I didn't want to bias the discussion of Objectivism with my viewpoint until after I had a better understanding of that philosophy. This approach is Stephen Covey's principle of 'seek first to understand, then to be understood.'
Regards |
