I have found that a well-trained reasoning mind is a very important tool in the arsenal of any spirit. I agree with the quotes from Aya from a purely spiritual context, though I think in our 3D incarnations, for lack of a better term, that a sharp mind is something that is worth striving for.
seeker wrote:Hey morningsun. I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's view, and I've seen similar statements arguing that an objective morality stems from the survival of humanity or life itself. However, I think that's a big assumption. We aren't in a position to say that the protection or survival of life is moral, as much as that may seem "obvious" to some people. Such a position can only stem from our own desire or instinct for survival, which is subjective. Thus that view of morality is... subjective.
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?
seeker wrote: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?
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.
