Morality101.net

from the Dharma Press:  http://thedharmapress.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/objectivist-morality/

[This fits in nicely with our 3 pages: Morality, Force, Sacrifice.]

November 25, 2009 by alively87 at Dharma Press

Many people disagree with Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy, especially when it comes to the issue of morality. How can there be only one true moral code, when people have such different values? The answer is through reason.

As rational human beings, we can all agree that it is immoral to kill and to steal. Why? Not because our parents told us it was wrong, or because religion threatens us with punishment for these acts. It is immoral because we are depriving someone else of their natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” Through reason, we strive to achieve our own happiness (a selfish act which Ayn Rand labeled as a virtue) without hindering that of others. Killing and stealing clearly violate this principle, and can therefore be regarded as immoral.

It may not be so black and white when it comes to other situations: making the right moral choice falls between a few shades of gray, and the decision becomes harder. Ayn Rand argued that through reason, and by staying true to reality, we can follow the universal moral code and clearly distinguish between right and wrong (or black and white). Happiness is attainable through honesty and truth.

Let’s take the example of drinking excessively and/or using drugs. According to objectivists, drug abuse is immoral because: 1) it is an artificial “happiness” 2) it hinders one’s sense of reason. Some people don’t think twice about it and just go along with the crowd. These “irrationals” have not given any thought as to whether or not using drugs is moral. The rest of those who consciously choose to abuse drugs are looking for a quick fix for their happiness. They are aware of the long-term consequences and deliberately ignore them. They have made a rational decision to act “immorally.”

The moral code is supposed to be a path to true inner happiness. Sacrifices are essential in the short term (studying, working, etc.), but the path is a successful one. Although drugs merely offer an “escape” from reality, the reality continues. The escape is only temporary, and the instant gratification from these external substances elicits diminishing marginal returns. As time goes on, one must increase the doses to get less and less of the original effect, making it harder to embrace reality and become truly happy.  Integrity has been compromised for a few instances of artificial happiness.

Now that we have established the immorality of substance abuse through reason, it is important to note that Ayn Rand was a fervent individualist. It is not anyone’s duty to monitor adherence of the universal code. This is up to the individual, as it should only be followed willingly. Unless it is endangering the lives of others (i.e. while driving), it is no one’s job but your own to decide whether or not you live a moral life.

Ayn Rand, contrary to popular belief, was not telling the world to live a certain way of life. She merely stated that there is right and wrong, which can be explained through reason. Sometimes when faced with making a decision, we fail to see all that is around us, making us “irrational.” In order to achieve happiness, the objectivist principle advocates staying true to ourselves and aware of the reality around us. Happiness is the ultimate goal of humankind which can be attained by following moral values. We are only human, but we can strive to become, what Ayn Rand calls, the “ideal” person.

What with the Obama Administration’s frantic push for socialized medicine, a lot of people have come up with some unique ideas to justify its passage.  One unique idea that strikes me is the old canard:  The federal government is responsible for the “General Welfare” of its citizens, and having the government provide for the health care is in keeping with that responsibility.

I am in perfect harmony with our Constitution, and, yes, it does charge the federal government to insure its citizens “General Welfare”.    BUT…..

I accessed the CONSTITUTIONAL DICTIONARY
(see  http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html)

I searched for ‘General Welfare’, and here are the results of that search:

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

NOTE: (according to the Constitutional Dictionary)
Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is NOT the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think people do not understand much about our government because our politicians have denigrated and misused words and meanings so often and so vocally that they have created a populace that is totally confused.  The sad part is that, in many cases, the politicians’ misuse of words is NOT deliberate, and this leads me to believe we elect some very, very dumb people to represent us and write laws for us, all of which deny us liberties we would otherwise be enjoying.  Please do not misunderstand when I say dumb.  I am not referring to education – I am referring mostly to character and sincerity which will lead anyone running for public office to learn the Constitution backwards and forwards.

The complete ignorance of collectivists who constantly promote Force and Sacrifice on Digg has finally gotten my goat.  I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna TAKE IT anymore!

powerlineblog.com — The Democrats aretrying to rush their health care “reform” bill through Congress before anyone understands what is in it. The bill is intended to be the precursor of socialized medicine, the “single payer,” national health system that Great Britain, Canada and many other countries have tried, with uniformly awful results.  [entire Digg thread}

Extracted from 53 Comments, the communists/collectivists are in pinko:

tasine

…the issue for many of us truly isn’t solely about “health care” though we do defend the fine system we have in the states. What I believe is a bigger issue is that we want smaller, less intrusive government. Our government has grown FAR too large, dealing with things not in their realm of responsibility, things that belong to the private sector or state. The more it grows, the less efficient it is, and the less control we as a free people have. Many of us believe that is true in all countries that usurp private enterprise, including Canada. Many of us in the states resent creeping socialism, communism, marxism, and all other isms that eventually lead to tyranny. Why keep adding to that when there is no need whatsoever?

@tasine

“we do defend the fine system we have in the states.”

You mean the fine system that left my mother with no way to buy health insurance after she had cancer because my family had lost our health insurance plan due to a life threatening latex allergy that forced my father to stop practicing dentistry? The fine system that will allow a child to die if his parents make too much money to qualify for assistance (which I’m guessing you don’t want tax dollars to pay for anyway), but not enough money to pay for life saving treatment? The system that causes my grandparents endless worry about being a burden to the family when they can’t afford necessary medications?

If it’s worked well for you, that’s great. Despite my family’s problems, it has worked well for me, too, though I’ve only had one hospitalization and surgery. There are plenty of people who are doing everything right, but who get thrown off a cliff. Not that I’d expect you to show much compassion for them. You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.

tasine

EIR, I’m sorry for your family’s difficulties. Yes, people do fall through the cracks with our system and with all systems and I’m sure all of us regret that. I would never make light of your family’s problems. I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?

“You know, you can be a ridiculously partisan republican who will hate any health plan that comes out of a democratic administration, and yet still admit that we’ve got a problem with health care in this country.”

That would be a funny comment were it not so silly. I WILL HATE ANY HEALTH PLAN THAT COMES OUT OF ANY US ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE HEALTH CARE IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. I do NOT WANT socialized medical care. I do not want anything socialized. Am I partisan? Yes, to the same degree most on Digg are. However, just so you know, I have resigned the Republican Party because they are so wimpy. I will carefully follow everything Obama does because I don’t trust him, I don’t like him, I don’t like his policies, I don’t like his philosophies – and it has nothing to do with the fact I was a Republican and he is a socialist. It has to do with my understanding what socialism is and what it will become eventually, NOT because I am smart, but because I know some history, I have a healthy skepticism, I follow no guru whatsoever, and I am a realist – NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world and I don’t want politicians trying to get votes by pandering mucking around with it. The primary problem we have in the health care industry is not a health care problem – it is a legal problem and for that reason will NEVER be solved. That problem is runaway lawsuits with no merit. What we NEED is NOT health care reform, but TORT REFORM. Know any lawyers or “legislators” willing to take a knife to that monster called ambulance chasing lotto? No, you don’t, and neither do I.

eir574

“I’m not trying to be nasty, but what makes you believe that had we had universal health care the same things wouldn’t have happened – or worse?”

Being entitled to health care is a big step forward for someone who couldn’t afford it at all. People complain about having the government decide what care you can and cannot receive, but this seems to be no worse, and perhaps better, than having an insurance company whose only motivation is profit decide what care you can and cannot receive. At least the government is technically responsible to the people. The insurance company is responsible to its shareholders. I have a better sense of what goes on in those companies since the only thing my father could do after losing his dental practice was to work in insurance.

“NO health care system is perfect, and what we have as we speak, is the best in the world”

It may be the best in the world for those who have access. If you don’t have much access to it, then it’s most certainly not the best in the world. Some like to paint those who don’t have access to good health care as lazy fools who aren’t motivated enough to provide for themselves. I wouldn’t call my parents lazy, though — just victims of circumstances that occur all the time in this country.

Did you know that a 2007 study showed that we rank 41st in maternal mortality among 171 nations studied (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/335391_maternal1 … )? One in 4800 women die from pregnancy complications, which ties us with Belarus and just barely edges out Serbia. Ireland came in first, with only one death in 47,6000. And that doesn’t even include other types of bad outcomes. Is that really such a fine health care system? Perhaps for the women who don’t die in childbirth.

The cost of lawsuits is a problem, of course, but you can’t get rid of them completely as some of them are quite valid. My sister once had complications after a surgical procedure to place a metal plate in her head, and the surgeon who went in to fix things up said he would support a malpractice claim. There were muscles that had been cut and hadn’t been sutured properly, there was a thumb print on the plate (??), and there were various other problems. Some claims are indeed valid. But, even if tort reform lowers the cost of health care, there will always be people who can’t afford the care they need for themselves and their families, and it will not always be the case that they’re simply lazy fools who would prefer to do nothing while someone else supports them.

Striker101

Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care.

Those who don’t work are not entitled to have someone else pay for it. That is what our private property rights are all about. Survival of the fittest is supreme natural law.

eir574

“Everyone, that is, who works and can write a check, can choose to buy health care. ”

Patently untrue. Did you not read my post above? After my mother had cancer, insurance companies no longer wanted her business. But, you’d probably say she deserves to die after having had cancer.

_____________.

Oh, maybe I get it. You think that once my mother became virtually uninsurable at nearly any price, she should just have become a high powered CEO or something so that she could afford health care out of pocket. Does the same go for children?

i cannot believe that people can be so easily duped into thinking that they don’t want free health care…I realize a lot of money is being spent to confuse people but seriously, how feeble minded do you have to be to believe that we are better off with out the same health care system that every other civilized nation gives to their citizens? Meanwhile we have the highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations…go figure.

Hate to tell you, sweetie, but there is no such thing as free health care. Even if it is a free clinic, a free ward, a free health fair, etc. IT IS NOT FREE. SOMEONE pays for it. If you work you will pay for it with taxes. If you don’t work you probably get your health care ‘free’ anyway, courtesy of the taxpayers.

Don’t believe for one second that any nation “gives” free health care to their citizens. Governments do not have any money except that which they extract from people’s pockets which they can then give to others and that buys them votes in the next election.

Is there some particular reason you believe it is more fair for me to pay for your health care than it is for you to pay for your health care? Inquiring minds want to know why so many Americans feel no responsibility for themselves. Have we wimped out this far? Maybe our wimpiness is what has resulted in what you call the “highest mortality rate of any of the first world nations.”

BillE3

Considering how poorly the government has done with running its own affairs, I can not fathom how congress is going to do a better job of running healthcare. What I can fore see is how the bureaucracy will eat up a lot of the money allotted for healthcare. Government payroll will take precedent over actual medical treatment. A government run system is going to be top heavy with administrations and administrators which will be paid for before any money goes to patient care. The same amount of care and quality of care are a matter of time and the government is going to make it go so slow, it will not be good. I guess to offset the problems of providing care, congress can pass a national suicide assist law and give us all an option.

Striker101

Not to be buried in 3rd-level response where most of my effort would be lost in the fog.

@eir574 “Oh, maybe I get it. You think…” You have no clue what I think, and you cannot frame any argument based upon whatever you think that I think.

Other than that you are “A 31 year-old person who joined Digg on May 21st, 2007″, who looks like a cat in a box, and who has written 6322 comments to date but has never submitted an article. Your comments are rarely if ever on top-level, your “thing” is stalking and attacking others for your Collectivist cause — a reactionary, IOW don’t act, react.

So next you move to “oh pity me” “…my mother became virtually uninsurable…” which is to be blamed on the fact that you don’t qualify to be some “high powered CEO”? What really happened — your folks didn’t read the policy, or didn’t pay the premiums, and became “virtually uninsurable”? So that justifies shifting the blame and responsibility shifts to that “fine system”, which would mean that millions of other citizens (including myself and everyone else here on Digg) should be FORCED to SACRIFICE their property, and thus perhaps their lives, for your family, while letting their own family go without or even die? Are your parents somehow more important than mine, or your neighbor’s, or your mechanic’s?

Now I will TELL you what I think — I think that all of your whining is disgustingly immoral and evil. So before you start sticking labels on me, know that I am not Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative nor liberal, because such labels cannot be clearly defined. I was not poured from a mold; I am ME; I insist upon individual sanctity. I think for myself and I am responsible for my own life and for the results of my own mistakes. I have no health insurance, but that’s not your problem. I refuse to be responsible for you, make that your problem.

http://morality101.net/blog/morality

Okay, that’s all for this one, you either get it or you don’t!

Yes indeed, this is getting a bit off my beaten path, but is surely related in a different way.  This issue has churned around in the back of my little head for some years now, and now I guess it’s time.

The trigger was reading that the USA has 5% of it’s population in prison, and that is the highest percentage of any country in this whole WORLD!  (so this is a “free country”, huh?)

Five percent of 330-some million people, geez, that 16,5 million prisoners in our “free country”!  All those prisoners cost the remainder of we “free” citizens $30,000 each per year.  My calculator doesn’t have enough digits to compute the total, but it’s humungous!

My purpose here was not to look at the reasons for so many being in jail, that would be for another post another day, and will take some further research, as have all my writings here.  But “crimes without victims” certainly do count up.  Now I’m not into drugs, but both drug-dealers and drug users are many amongst those filling our jails to overflowing. I don’t see the users as “criminals”, and they should not be in jail.  However, I also disagree with the bleeding hearts that we have some responsibility for the rehab of drug-users.  Drug users are responsible unto themselves for the consequences of their own choices.  If those are minors, their parents are responsible; the taxpayers are not.

But back to my purpose.  Obviously the total number of real criminals is much smaller, and eliminating those convicted of crimes without victims would help alleviate the burden.  Surely there are others who don’t belong in prison, but that still leave a huge prison population.  Why do the bleeding hearts prevail, protecting the criminals who have been so violent or stealing from the good citizens?  So how to we refuse to support the baddies and zero the bill?

Whatever I should choose to say from here on is largely brainstorming.  I’d doing this because we need solutions based on freedom, and we need to have ideas on the table from which to build solutions.  So we need some fresh perspective, because what we’re doing does not work, it does not reform, and does not rehabilitate, so those are bad ideas we need to abandon.

Question 1:  Does the criminal owe a penalty to “the State”, or rather, to his victims?  Can we turn the criminal over to his victims, and let them determine the penalty, and to own the criminal’s life until the debt be repaid?  Of course we can, and I believe we should.

Question 2:  Should the criminal, once convicted, be held responsible for the value of damages he caused, or the life he took, or the cost of his trial?  Of course he should.

Question 3:  Are we (the ‘public’) responsible in any way for the care and feeding of criminals or for the welfare of criminals?  Do you have the guts and honesty to answer NO?

So do we build them prisons, and furnish utilities and guards and food and libraries and food?  Of course we don’t.  All we need do is prevent those criminals, who possess traits dangerous to others, from disappearing back into private society to repeat their dastardly deeds.

As we get from history, Australia was populated by England shipping it’s criminals there, dropping them off the boat, and leaving them to fend for themselves.  Have you noticed that Australia has evolved into a fine upstanding country and neighbor despite the genetic origins of it’s citizenry?  To a lesser extent, early American immigrant settlers included many of the same, from England as well as escapees from Germany, Ireland, Spain, France and other countries.  Nobody shouldered the burden for these emigrants.  It became necessary for them to find some niche in their new society where they might survive, and learn the necessary social skills and honor by which they could be acceptable to their new neighbors, and go forth and multiply, and prosper under newfound freedoms.  Of course many would have failed in many different ways; probably they did not survive, usually because they were unable to adapt to a moral social structure.  Those are not amongst the heroes of history, neither memorable nor remembered for anything of value.

Such islands today are not available, we can only designate a space where the criminals may park and strive to survive and to heal.  They must pay for the space they occupy, and paying for any of the services provided from outside their environment.  Both the Federal and State governments have huge holdings of such land; there is no shortages of land which might render this unfeasible.  If they wish to escape the sun or the snow or the wind, they can and must build their hut or cave as they see fit, and cooperate with others of their kind to create a social order in which they might survive progress.  They can do all these things only by producing within the free market, trading for goods and services, and learning how to survive and prosper by being responsible for themselves and cooperating with their fellowmen.  Their refusal or failure to learn these necessary moral postures might result in their death, but that would be of their own choosing, and is a social responsibility of anyone not directly involved.

At some point I may come back to this page to fine-tune and/or elaborate, but for now I want to publish this and get some action or reaction, either way.  We are all feeling our way on this issue.  Thank you.

We the people, famous words, defining the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, and led to the creation of our republic. With the chains taken away from the lives of the citizen-farmer-soldier, our country became the dynamo for the world engine of freedom. In the 1st 100 years of existence, science, engineering, and medicine, flourished as if a new renaissance had begun in this part of the world. Oh, to be sure, the birth of any great culture is a painful, and laborious process. A new culture emerged, along with slavery, the inhumane genocide of the native American peoples, and the annexation of land, from those very same people. All of your liberal elitists, want to turn back the pages of time, and somehow make it right to correct all past mistakes, as if it were an obligation to do so. Lyndon Johnson’s “great society welfare program”, should enable any rational person, as to the legitimacy of such an endeavor. Like pouring money down a rat-hole, it turned the inner cities into the ghetto’s and war zones they are today. Social welfare is not the answer to ignorance and poverty! Now, as in no time before, this republic stands on the edge of a cliff. Some say it will be financial collapse, that will cause us to fall over the edge into an abyss. Others say, the dynamics of a once vibrant culture are no longer with us. In the dying days of the Roman Republic, the ruling class started hiring mercenaries to do the policing of the state. Now we have the same situation here, with our ruling class, hiring police, firemen, soldiers, and private security forces(actually mercenaries), in huge numbers, in order to insure, they will stay on top of the ant hill, if that is any way to put it. Its a very true adage, that history always repeats itself. This culture has not produced a true genius in the last 3 generations. Vibrant cultures always produce a genius every generation, and is a proven statistical fact. Is this culture on the decline? Some say yes, some say, better days are ahead. This author believes we are in a decline. A republic that creates state secrets, on a need to know basis, and assumes it knows best as to what the people should know, is doomed to failure, and will perish, in the trash-heap of history. In the last 100 years of our republics history, our federal government has created agencies with unwritten or un-legislated agenda’s, that repress human knowledge, murder heads of state, overthrow governments, and most important, created a military industrial complex, that perpetuates itself through fear and intimidation. Does anyone question this, or even oppose this? The mental institutions, and prisons are full of people who commit deviant behavior, but you can be sure some of those inmates are in there for purely political purposes. Some say this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, a coming of age spiritually and morally, and physical maturity of the impulses that drive the id. Boy, is that ever a pipe dream, and really shows, that humans have only one path to walk, and that is the acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions. You buy it, you got it, whether you like it or not, its yours. This republic for which it stands, is a joke in the face of reason, and will fail and fall just as the Roman culture, not because of financial turmoil, though that is one of the outward signs, but because of the one reason we were once the beacon of freedom, and that is the value of a single human life, which is no longer of paramount importance……….

Our Forefathers fought against the British for one reason, when they started a revolution. Taxation without representation.

Here we are 300 years later. No one really owns property in this country. Your property taxes are a first mortgage, quit paying, and your living on the street. Quit filing taxes as I have for the last 5 years, and guess what, you get put on a special list, for immediate prosecution of a federal crime.

My point being is, how does it feel to be a slave??????

Are you angry, upset, going to keep paying, so an illegal immigrant can use your money to live here, expecting the same social benefits, you are supposed to receive. Or better yet, wait for your local legislator to extend the retirement age, so that when you are 99, you might receive a dollar. All the while these same people you and I vote into office have the best medical care, a retirement system, which allows them to quit working at age 58, and then of course lobby for the corporate sponsors, who got them on the payroll to begin with.

Do you really believe you are free to express your view at a political rally????? Try it, hope you like the jail cell provided for you, and the corn dog lunch.

Andrew Jackson gave a speech, on the porch of his house, talking to his friends and neighbors, on a 4th of July, about the idea created in the country’s political process and life. He stated to his peers, that bow for the first time in the world, the idea of free thinking people in a country was totally new to the human experience. He then told his peers to do just that, become free thinkers. I am truly a free thinker, and a Jeffersonian radical anarchist. Oh my, anarchist, does that mean guns and bombs, no not at all. What it means is the least government is the best government.

Like the sanctuary in Atlas Shrugged, I am looking for that valley, with a whole other bunch of free thinkers. If you know where it is, please give me a call………. Thank you for your time