Like I said to 3,7,127, not everything is black and white. There's a lot of gray area. Every situation has different circumstances, so each situation needs its own independent assessment. Let me use your examples of thievery and murder: For one, I don't view property ownership as a valid concept. I don't believe things can be owned, by anyone. So thievery, to me, is just a human invention. However, someone may take something that you need to use or wish to use. In our society, we assume people either need or want all the things that they own. But this isn't necessarily the case (think of all the junk in your parents' basement ). Suppose I need something, such as food, that someone else owns, more than they need it? See, nothing is black and white, and each scenario has its own unique circumstances. To me it's more a matter of free will and, in the end, allowing the greatest freedom for yourself and others, without violating one another's free will. And as you can see, even this is a subjective viewpoint. I highly doubt 4D STS entities tend to respect the free will of others when making a decision and taking action.

Consider also, murder. You may say, I'll never kill anyone or anything. But suppose someone who's suffering from horrible physical pain asks you to end their life, in order to end their suffering? In this case their will is to die, and you can serve their will by assisting them. You may never thought it was possible to both hurt someone and help them at the same time, but in some cases these apparent contradictions may exist. Again, this is a gray area that goes against common law condemning murder.

The whole matter of morality, and making the "right" choice, is obviously a very delicate and complicated subject, which is why I stress the importance of not making black/white blanket judgements.

"All there is, is lessons."

I suppose you could make the argument that ANY code of ethics, morarity, philosophy or spirituality is subjective in some way.  But I think the core of Rand's argument is that we have a right to live ... and morality can thus be logically derived from that initial principle based on objective criteria.   Now, if you reject that initial idea, then there's no point in debating subsequent details of the philosophy. 

From a larger, universal view, perhaps there is no morality, and everything just is, as suggested by the Story Waters quotes Andy posted.  However, everything I know in my mind, and, more importantly, everything I feel in my core of being, tells me that simply by virtue of being alive, we have a right to protect that life, doing whatever is necessary is sustain and secure it.  All of our instincts, such as hunger, thirst, fear, and sex are all derived from the fundamental, intrinsic need of living things to survive.    If we don't hold survival as the prime objective, than I don't see how there could be ANY morality of any sort... but then again if that's the case, then we shouldn't worry about morality anyway, and might as well just blow our brains out right now ... why bother living if survival is not valued anyway?

No doubt, I'm sure there are holes to pick.   I would suggest, though, that our nature as creatures with the capacity for rational thought allows us each the control of our thoughts, emotions and actions.   And I disagree that seeking revenge is in our nature; I think to "seek revenge" presupposes a rational mind, a mind which can make judgements and thus be bound by the concept of morality.  Therefore, a morality based on survival will have to recognize the rights of others to survive as well, so I think revenge fails to meet the requirements of morality. 

I'll offer a concrete example of how this would apply in practice.   A real criminal, say a thief or murderer,  obviously needs to be jailed.  But, if "revenge" is not moral, then on what basis could he be put in jail?  The correct way to view this would be to recognize that a murderer is a direct threat to the lives of others and therefore can be restrained from the activity of killing, for the protection of others.  A thief or any sort would also represent a threat to the survival of others, but in an indirect manner.  Since the right to life must include the right to seek out and secure the means of survival, property rights must exist, the primary ones being food, water, and shelter.   Without protection of these, we'd have chaos and gang warfare, with powerful groups fighting for control of resources.  Therefore,  restraining thievery in all forms is equally a moral action. 

So, I think morality is both a valid concept and a necessary one, if we respect each other's right to exist.

Anyway I definitely recommend obtaining a copy of Messiah Seed. I think it's now available from Amazon or you can do what I did and order a signed copy from his website http://www.limitlessness.com

Andy

I'd be willing to have a friendly civilized debate about this if you'd like. There are a lot of holes to poke in Rand's writings. For example, in this case, Rand says that morality is based on man's nature. But it's our nature to get jealous and seek revenge. Is this moral then?

Since there can be no objective morality

I think Ayn Rand did a great job of arguing exactly the opposite.

If interested, more on this at http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/moral1.html

You just have to do what comes natural to you. Just follow your "heart" and pay attention to your feelings of empathy. My own personal ethics are based on the "golden rule" ie: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule tends to work as a good guideline because justification for your own behavior can only come from your own knowledge and experience.

I think the most important thing to remember, when it comes to morality or ethics, is that every situation is different, and every scenario has different circumstances. For that reason it's a bit short-sighted to lay out rules for yourself and say, "I won't ever do such and such." You MAY need to do such and such one day when suddenly it's feels like the best choice at that moment.

Just kidding.

I think you just have to do the best you can.  It's hard at first to not have something point you in the right direction, but, in the end, it's all perspective.  Like I said in another thread, do your best to make life good for those around you without making it miserable for yourself.  If you honestly fail, it's okay.

Sounds like atoms, zonabi.  If we had no electrons wouldn't the protons either all fly apart or bond with the neutrons?

"evil" / "negative" is holding back

z

I think I'm starting to get it.
There are things we choose to do and things that we can actually do.  We should not force or manipulate what people choose to do and believe because that is violating freewill.  Good is what helps create life and evil is what helps to ultimatly destroy life.  Even natural death that creates more life is good.  Unless something else chooses to allow you to do something, you should not be trying to force it to allow you to do it.
Did I get the idea?

We all have fredom of choice and speech but if our action can influence another person freedom and that that person does not conscent, then for me this is morally wrong.

Now some may say that these people have to learn from it, it cant be any other way. But I have seen for myself that when someone is not ready, no matter how much you try they will not listen. So instead of waisting energy I continue on my way. They will learn at their own pace. Doors will be closed for them until they understand.

I think we all try to much to show to everyone what is right or wrong. So much that many do not even listen anymore and forgot the basic idea. Live and let live.

meaning do what you have to do, but if it means stepping unto someone else toes, then find another way. There is always another way

I formyself much prefer to be patiant and find a peacefull way to meet my goals instead of hurting many people on the way let it be either physicaly, emotionnaly or psychologicaly.

p.s. even as raising kids where this can prove to be a little difficult to achieve. But instead of telling them what is right or wrong or punishing them, we can help them to think for themselves and show them how to learn by seeing the consequences of their actions. They will then developpe their own moral self that will follow them the rest of their lives.

With that in mind, I guess you can say that I think most "crimes" that one can get in trouble for are pretty stupid and many actions that society has determined as being "bad" is just silly social conditioning.   To determine which label a crime or action should get (good or bad)  line it up to my above description of good and bad, then see where it falls.   Most "crimes" and actions don't fall in either category, they're just neutral actions which society has labeled.   

For instance:   Bank robbing.   Is this "good" or "bad" ?  It's neither pro-life nor anti-life, and has nothing to do with the Creator Source when you really think about it.  It's just a neutral action at best.   Final verdict:   Not bad!   Not good either.  It just is.   

So there you go.............

What do you guys believe is right and what do you believe is wrong?