Tea Party Needs New Morality, Claims Objectivist
February 25, 2010 at 9:18 am | Posted in Political, Religous, Society and Culture | 20 CommentsTags: ayn rand, morality, objectivism, tea party
by Walter Scott Hudson, contributing to the New Patriot Journal
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – The Tea Party must embrace egoism and reject the “false morality” of Judeo-Christian altruism if it hopes to effectively advocate for a capitalistic society, says a leading advocate of objectivist philosophy. Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It,” spoke Tuesday at an event hosted by the University of Minnesota’s Ayn Rand Study Group. His presentation was entitled “Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System,” and covered the fundamentals of objectivist philosophy applied to politics.
During a question and answer session, Biddle was asked about the Tea Party movement and how it might effectively advocate for capitalism. The answer delved into territory Biddle described as controversial. Biddle stated the Tea Party movement had reignited interest in Rand, citing increased sales of her book Atlas Shrugged. Biddle claimed the novel is commonly misread. “It is not fundamentally a political novel,” he told those assembled. “It is fundamentally a philosophical novel challenging Judeo-Christian ethics by advocating a morality of selfishness, and showing that morality [to be] what freedom depends on.”
Biddle opined the Tea Party should think beyond politics. “[The debate] is about ethics,” he said. “More fundamentally, it’s about epistemology and metaphysics.” The core issue is egoism versus altruism, or selfishness versus sacrifice, according to Biddle. If it is true that sacrifice is morally good, Biddle argued, you cannot defend capitalism, because capitalism enables selfishness. People who want to advocate capitalism have to “muster the courage to challenge the status quo morality.”
A summary of Biddle’s presentation: Capitalism is widely regarded as the most practical social system. Empirical evidence supports the premise that freer societies are also wealthier, and therefore better able to service their needs. Objectivist philosophy argues capitalism is also the only moral social system, because it is the only system which recognizes and protects the requirements for human life. In short, those requirements are rational thought and productivity; one must secure food and shelter to continue living, which is obtained through productive action guided by rational thought. The only thing which can prevent one from acting on their rational thought to fulfill a self-serving interest is force. Every alternative to capitalism relies upon force to prevent selfish action and compel sacrifice on behalf of the group. Sacrifice is the exchange of something of greater value for something of lesser value, a suicidal practice on a long enough timeline. This is why capitalism is both demonstrably more practical than any other system, and the only moral system.
Based on the above argument, Biddle claimed there is no reason to support the premise one should act altruistically. The difficultly in arguing for egoism, Biddle says, is that altruism is taught by religion, specifically from the bible. Tea Partiers need to “challenge what their mommy and the preacher told them” about morality, Biddle said. The stakes he presented were nothing less than existential. “Do we want to live and achieve happiness? Or do we want to suffer and die?”
“Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, and Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, and Jeff Jacoby, and all the people on the right who claim that they want capitalism and claim that they want freedom [are still] going to church on the weekends,” Biddle concluded. “You can’t win by ignoring [this issue]. You’re either going to challenge the false morality that’s caused this problem, and advocate the true morality that can solve this problem, or you’re going to go the wrong direction.”
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Follow & Contact:
-
As Seen On:
Become a fan on:
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Absurdity at it’s finest. I suggest all people interested look to David Barton and his organization The Wall Builders. They lay out historical and factual evidence of how capitalism and early American politics led to American exceptionalism. It happened BECAUSE of Judeo-Christian morality, not in spite of it. Biddle’s philosophy is what has led us to the current state we are in economically and politically. Everybody wants their piece of the pie without regard, and sometimes at the cost of, others. “”If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” -2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Comment by justjohn— February 25, 2010 #
“Everybody wants their piece of the pie without regard, and sometimes at the cost of, others.”
This misrepresents Objectivist capitalism that requires the government to remove physical force form human interrelationships, leaving each individual in each exchange of values to determine the cost he is willing to accept. There is no way in such a society to gain something from another except to offer something they value higher in exchange.
Comment by MichaelM— February 27, 2010 #
I intend to follow-up with an opinion piece on this subject later this week, Michael, and hope you’ll check it out. I perceive the Objectivist concept of altruism to be different from the common understanding of the word. I think, when you go after altruism, it strikes a negative emotional cord and invites a number of assumptions as to motive. I am interested in clarifying that and trying to reconcile Biddle’s Objectivist view with the Judeo-Christian view I and most others in this country share, to the point possible.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— February 28, 2010 #
In the course of one quick read I found about 4 or 5 false premises.
Craig Biddle = one more person trying to increase their status / influence through the Tea Party movemnt. … Yawn
“Leeders? We doan need no steenking leeders!”
Comment by Harry Heiny— February 25, 2010 #
“In the course of one quick read I found about 4 or 5 false premises.”
Is there a prize if we can guess them? Or is this just a run-of-the-mill cheap shot?
Comment by MichaelM— February 27, 2010 #
This is just flat out incorrect right from the start. Capitalism is the ONLY system that allows for true altruism, because it allows excess capital to be given freely by ones own will. Sure it allows selfishness, because it is supposed to leave choices to the individual, and the individual can be selfish or unselfish as they so choose. The difference is in society’s perspective on the issue. Society views selfishness as immoral when it is not necessarily so. But to blame that soully on religion is to completely ignore the social responses in Aethiest Communist Countries. They castigate selfishnes at every level they can. They use it as an excuse for failure. They are more anti-individual than any christian could ever be.
Communism takes the choice away, forcefully taking and redirecting capital to the interests of the top tier of society. I believe a true objectivist would understand that charitable giving is within the realm of self-interest. If giving is what brings you happiness then why shouldn’t an objectivist be free to give? If giving makes me happy, wouldn’t it be un-objective to not do so?
Objectivist today ignore everything that happens to the giver, when freely giving by their own choice. They see no gain in willfully assisting those in need even if it is the desire of a person to do so. They ignore the idea that charity can be personally transformational to the GIVER. It could benefit them in a hundred different ways in any number of personal relationships. The key difference is that government redistribution is neither charitable or altruistic. It is wasteful and counterproductive. It is forced.
The willful giving of anything is not inherently un-objective. Along with that, forced charity is not compassionate or altruistic. Its theft. This is a serious issue for me with modern- objectivists. They box in their own philosophy and couldn’t hold a candle to Ayn Rand.
Comment by Kris— February 26, 2010 #
“Capitalism is the ONLY system that allows for true altruism, because it allows excess capital to be given freely by ones own will.”
Giving freely is charity, not altruism and Objectivism does recognize it as potentially an act in one’s rational self interest. It is, of course always possible that some newbies to the philosophy do not get that and over define it. But the lesson in that is to never judge a body of ideas by the actions of those who either agree with it or do not agree with it. Focus on the ideas. They will stand or fall on their own merit.
Altruism is strictly giving un-freely out of a perceived obligation for its own sake. Altruism is the moral principle that demands one live first for the sake of others. It is inherently degrades the those who benefits from one’s sacrifices by reducing them to quasi-parasites.
Religions sugar coat altruism with the aura of simple charity to woo those who are suckers for undefined warm-and-fuzzy feelings. The unspoken motive is ulterior. To borrow a metaphor from Rand, Attila can only rule your life after the Witch Doctor has taught you that the lives of others are more important than yours.
“But to blame that solely on religion is to completely ignore the social responses in Aethiest Communist Countries. They castigate selfishness at every level they can.”
Rand did not identify religion as the enemy of reason, but rather mysticism — meaning any notion that there is some other source of knowledge than what one can gather from processing sense perceptions with one’s rational faculty. She equated the communists with the religious, because each holds that there is another source of truth — Gods, Popes, and priests for the religious, the politburo for the communists. Similarly there is the king for the monarchists, a Feuhrer for the fascists, and a simple majority for a whole host of lesser tyrannies.
Comment by MichaelM— February 27, 2010 #
Good discussion. I don’t want to get too ahead of myself, as I have a piece forthcoming to expound on the subject; but, I find value in the Objectivist distinction between charitable giving and altruism as Rand defines it. It may, in fact, be quite useful toward making the argument against entitlements.
On the other hand, I do take issue with Objectivism’s conclusion there is no “other source of truth.” In a nutshell, I believe Objectivism shares the handicap of science in discerning comprehensive truth, because it relies upon the premise there is no “reality” beyond what can be physically perceived. This premise makes no more sense to me than a group of blind men claiming there is no such thing as light or color. Perception is the capacity to sense reality. Reality need not be perceived to exist. More to follow.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— February 28, 2010 #
I wrote a reply to you, but I wrote it as a new comment
Sorry, I didn’t realize I could responsd directly to your post here. It’s the comment dated March 1st 2010. I’d love to read your reply to it if you have time
Comment by Kris— March 1, 2010 #
I must agree with my fellow commenters. A moral system will still allow for immorality. I am morally obliged to respect the decisions of other parents over their children, even if that means I must allow parents to make immoral (selfish) decisions such as failing to watch them carefully. I can’t just kidnap the kids to prevent immorality any more than I can take their money and distribute it “fairly.” Point being, a truly moral system (like Christianity) will still permit freedom and free markets by obliging us not to interfere with private parenting and private property. One need not abandon Christianity just because it sets standards for how one uses his freedom, when Christianity provides at least one basis for respecting the freedom of private property in the first place.
Capitalism doesn’t require that people be selfish, only that they be free to be selfish.
Comment by Naturallawyer— February 26, 2010 #
“A moral system will still allow for immorality.”
This is the Objectivist position — the right to be irrational is the most sacred of all. But, without blaming Christianity for the sins of its every adherent, I cannot see any tenet that could motivate tolerance of drug use, prostitution, sodomy, and such if they would control a government. And what tenet of Christianity can save us from taxation and all that proceeds from it?
The Objectivist morality requires a politics that mandates all human interrelationships shall be voluntary. What does Christianity have to match the hands-off benevolence of that?
Comment by MichaelM— February 27, 2010 #
I don’t ordinarily get all that theological in a political discussion, but you’ve essentially asked for Christian doctrine, so here we go…
First, our Founding Fathers themselves recognized that Christianity was the very basis for civil freedom: “[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” –Noah Webster
The Bible itself confirms freedom:
“Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” Romans 14:4-5 [the meaning of this passage is that the Jewish Christians should not force the Gentile Christians to become Jewish as a prerequisite to becoming a Christian, but each should be free to follow his conscience as a Christian].
Freedom of conscience is a fundamental of the Christian faith. You state: “The Objectivist morality requires a politics that mandates all human interrelationships shall be voluntary. What does Christianity have to match the hands-off benevolence of that?” Well, the Bible, for one. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” –Romans 12:14 Peace between men cannot be forced; if somebody hates you, you have to allow it. But insofar as you are concerned as a Christian, you must be at peace with others, and hopefully they will revisit you with peace. Exactly what about that is incompatible with “voluntary” human interrelationships?
“And what tenet of Christianity can save us from taxation and all that proceeds from it?” I’m gonna go with the 7th Commandment…
If I may be so bold, I would suggest that you take greater pains to understand Christian doctrine before you criticize it. I believe Christianity is compatible with both libertarian and conservative forms of government. Christianity, and plain natural reason itself, demands that government rule in the common good. We can debate about whether it is in the common good to have a government that permits prostitution or punishes it (there are Christians that argue on both sides, even though almost all Christians would find the deed immoral). Christians find bad parenting immoral, but few (if any) would criminalize all forms of bad parenting just because it’s immoral. The question in every case is what is in the common good, and part of that will involve questioning what a government with the power to criminalize X would criminalize next. On that basis, a Christian can argue for the complete libertarian position. It is absurd in the extreme to accuse Christianity of being the source of bad government, or to recommend that anyone abandon Christianity for the sake of adopting a good political philosophy.
Comment by Naturallawyer— February 27, 2010 #
Again, good discussion. This exchange highlights the potential for a reconciliation of purpose between Objectivism and the predominant Judeo-Christian culture. Biddle’s presentation was my introduction to Objectivism. I was impressed by its application of reason toward forming libertarian arguments, a necessity for secular political debate. However, I was taken aback by its hostility toward religion. I think Objectivism has definite value in making reasoned arguments. But I think its capacity to gain traction with those arguments is handicapped by an outwardly antagonistic tone toward people’s core beliefs.
Comment by Walter Scott Hudson— February 28, 2010 #
Naturallawyer,
It is not sufficient to show that there are passages of the Bible that are consistent with a politics that sustains individual rights or that some of the founders of this the freest of nations were Christians. That is not disputed.
.
Rather the point is that as a religion, Christianity is inherently mystical, and so without any objective reference to immutable facts of reality with which it must be consistent to be valid, its tenets, its Bible, its teachings, and its conclusions are inevitably ambiguous and contradictory. Subjective interpretation is therefore a necessity, and the resolution of differences requires an authority — an interpreter of interpreters. The authority, in turn, conditions and subdues the flock with the altruist ethic.
.
In Rand’s own words from a letter she wrote to a fan in 1946:
“Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.”
.
In the entire history of Christianity, the two high points of civilization, the Renaissance and the great American ‘experiment’, were the product of a philosophical reversal away from faith and mysticism toward the efficacy of human reason (perpetrated by Thomas Acquinas and the philosophies of The Enlightenment respectively). The founders of this country were the least Christian of all Christians — of those central to the founding, most were Deists. Christianity was far less the motivator of those seeking to establish a government of free men than it was their fatal flaw.
.
The subordination of the individual to the group that has become the road to ruin of America is a child of the altruism the founders failed to expunge from their own beliefs. That fatal flaw lives on in your own words:
.
“Christianity, and plain natural reason itself, demands that government rule in the common good.”
.
This is the inescapable collectivism of the altruist — the Christian, the communist, the fascist, the liberal, the conservative, who are in each of these cases, the statist. The first step is to place the group above the individual. Then, since there is no such entity as a group, and the “common good” is therefore a meaningless formulation with no referent, that demands an authority to dictate a meaning. Our present authority is the floating majority that has wrested itself free from the objective and inviolate principles that defined and protected our liberties.
.
The fatal flaw is your notion of “plain natural reason.” This is not the Objectivist’s reason that must be exercised consciously and objectively validated by non-contradictory identifications of the independent nature of existence. It is a rationalistic, intrinsic reason that can only be felt, i.e. faith. And faith carries a pretense of infallibility, the essential ingredient of any tyranny. It is only men who are both competent to know reality as it really is and fallible because they are volitional who need freedom from each other to pursue life by their own wits.
Comment by MichaelM— February 28, 2010 #
Walter,
Objectivism holds that knowledge is contextual. It is limited to that which can be derived directly or indirectly from the evidence of perceptions. Beyond that, it allows only for the possible and the probable for which there are degrees if some but insufficient evidence. It does not allow notions for which there is no evidence or those that contradict themselves or contradict existing evidence to be regarded as knowledge.
.
For instance, the notion that there could be living creatures in distant galaxies is useless without any evidence at all of their nature or even their existence. Until then it can be no more than mere speculation, and within the context of knowledge that can contribute to one’s life in any way other than the entertainment of fiction, they do not exist.
.
You cannot reconcile religion with Objectivism. At the limit of your possibilities will be a position like the Deists and the Thomists in which you assert the existence of a God that created you with a rational faculty as your primary tool of survival and then embrace Objectivism to devise and discern how to use it. But as one who crossed this line after 25 years as the strictest of Christians, be warned that Rand’s explanations of you, your nature, and your relationship to the rest of man and the universe are infinitely superior to those of any religion and can leave one with little need to delve further into the whims of a God.
Comment by MichaelM— February 28, 2010 #
“Giving freely is charity, not altruism and Objectivism does recognize it as potentially an act in one’s rational self interest. “
You are very correct in stating the difference between charity and altruism. I mispoke and concede the point.
But, what objectivism does and does not recognize as potentially rational self-interest is irrelevant. “A is A”, regardless of whether A is a Universal reality (gravity), or a personal reality(the value of my family in my life). If giving freely is what I desire to do, and I have more then enough resources to give while still living comfortably, then how does that charity oppose my own self interest?
example:
If I were exceedingly wealthy and my Niece was going off to college: is it against my self-interest to buy her a laptop? It would provide me no benefits in life, but it would support her education. It will eliminate $1,000 of my personal resources, but improve her educational access. I will gain nothing in return except those “warm and fuzzy” feelings you mentioned. Am I acting irrationally even though the laptop costs very little in relation to my wealth?
You could argue that it is my niece who is being crippled by receiving the charity, but for arguments sake, let’s say she has never received anything for free. Her parents were hardcore objectivists and believed she needed to learn how to produce and consume what she could do on her own merit. Does the one laptop destroy her integrity, or the work ethic that got her into college?
How would objectivism answer questions that cause people to act contrary to self preservation?
I would take a bullet for my child at any time and without hesitation. This act would end my life, but I think most loving parents would do the same. I would also die for my wife because I love her, and she is more important in raising my children. But I would be dead, so why would I care?
If we follow objectivism to the letter of self preservation through rational thought, then I should forsake my family and continue to live. I can always find a new wife and have more kids. It wouldn’t be hard to do. I could even have a far larger family then I have now.
So, Why would I do these things if the survival of others were not important to my self-interests? I would not die for just anyone, but I would for those Important to me. Do these qualify as rational self- motivated acts? Or is my mind playing a mystic trick on me that makes me “think” I care about the survival of the ones I love? Can something that costs me my life co-exist within my own self interest? I think it can, because that is what I value, and I value it for selfish reasons outside of faith or philosophy.
Let’s look at Atlas Shrugged for a final hyppthetical: How would you feel about objectivism if at the end of “Atlas Shrugged”, Dagny Taggert and John Gault were shot at, and in an act of self-interest: Gault threw Taggert between himself and the line of fire—killing Dagny and ending the novel? Would you still say – “it’s only logical” or would you think it a despicable act of cowardice and a terrible ending to the story?
These are just hypotheticals, but I am interested in your response. I’m not trying to prove anyhting here. I am more curious about how an objectivist would answers these questions.
Comment by Kris— March 1, 2010 #
Kris,
I only mentioned that Objectivism recognizes charity as a potential act in one’s long range self interest to make unequivocally clear that the philosophy does not condemn it as it is so often accused of doing.
——————–
Re your question and hypotheticals, in the context of the role of reality as an ethical standard, there is no distinction between the universal and the personal. Ethical standards are abstract principles. To measure any concrete personal alternative actions, you must weigh them against the pertinent principles, that are themselves subject to validation.
The principles that define the kinds of actions that contribute to a human life are as universal as the principles operative for gravity. Likewise, given any valid principle, every concrete action will or will not be consistent with it and contribute to your life or not.
When you ask,
“If giving freely is what I desire to do, and I have more then enough resources to give while still living comfortably, then how does that charity oppose my own self interest?”,
I cannot say whether it is or is not in your self interest, because you have not identified the value you are seeking by the act. The operative principle of an ethic that holds your life to be your highest value is that the process of pursuing the good is to order all values in a hierarchy with those that contribute the most to your life at the top and that contribute the least at the bottom.
The task is to endeavor in every alternative to seek the higher value and forsake the lower one. That is the essence of egoism. Altruism obliges you to sacrifice the higher value in order to gain the lower value. The inescapable conclusion is that the default goal of altruism is death whether one recognizes it as such or not.
your example:
You say it provides you no benefit but that you did get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Which is it? Was the warm feeling justified? How? Do you admire your niece or despise her? Is she worthy of your gift or not? Is there a good chance she will make a contribution to the world in which you live, or not? Are you giving it to her to symbolically repay someone who gave you one at that stage of your life, but who cannot be directly repaid now because he died many years ago (I call this the exchange across generations). Ultimately, there are hundreds of possible benefits in one’s rational self interest. There are so many that your claim to have received none is all but irrational on the face of it.
———————
the ethics of emergencies:
This is a whole branch of ethics of its own, but operates ultimately on the same principles. I disagree with your choice of words, “I would take a bullet…” as it is a false alternative. In every such situation your goal is always to save both you and your loved one. There is never any need to choose your death. The choice is one of what risk you will take. That is a different choice even when your chances of surviving are microscopic.
That said, there is one instance in which one could choose death as an act in the interest of your life. That would be if it is self-evident that continuing your physical life would not constitute a human life as you hold it to be. Two examples: 1) You cannot conceive of living without a spouse or loved one your interaction with whom was the greatest contribution to your life (and even more so if some act of yours caused that loss.) 2) The couple that embraced and leapt from the World Trade Center shortly before the ball of fire would have incinerated them.
———————–
If Atlas had ended that way, then Rand’s enemies would have had a valid contradiction to discredit her with instead of having to make up all that stuff they hurl at her now. And we would not be having this conversation now, because the philosophy would have ceased to be interesting before the turn of the 60′s.
Comment by MichaelM— March 1, 2010 #
I agree with much of what you said. Obviously, hypotheticals are not the best examples when talking about ethics. There are too many variables that have to be explained and my comments are long enough as it is.
When addressing the laptop hypothetical: you mentioned how the values that drive the decision have a direct impact on whether the action can be deemed objective or moral. That was my whole point in my first post (addressing objectivism vs. religion in the Tea party movement). I was only trying to say that acts of charity are not necessarily un-objective or irrational . I made the argument with the wrong term (altruism) which is why I think we are still on the topic of charity. As you said in your response to the laptop issue:
“Ultimately, there are hundreds of possible benefits in one’s rational self interest.”
The entire premise of my first comment was exactly that: there are any number of selfish reasons a person might give charitably.
The original comment on the Tea Party movement implied that Christianity was in direct conflict with libertarian policy. While this is true for some sectors of Christianity, it is not true for the whole. Christians are as divided on political science as any other group of people. There are far left Christians, far right Christians, and libertarian Christians. Some Christians protest gay marraige, others advocate for it. Some want a less centralized government, some want a more centralized government. It is impossible to categorize that large of a group into a political ideology based ones experiences with Christians.
Force from government ( Atillla) does not constitue Charity or altruism by Christian standards. It is still force at the hands of those with power, and requires no action by those forced to give. The fact that the taxes are mandated by threat of force, also means that there is Zero opportunity for altruism.
The Christian religion does not support progressive taxation. Or at least, it is not inherent. Some may choose to think it does, but I would argue they are mislead. I am in no position to argue the finer points of objectivist philosophy (Although I do find it fascinating). But I think that objectivist are too quick to tight-cast religious people as mystics, when many are as grounded as any athiest.
Atheism is just as much a faith-based belief as any religion (I bet you really hate when people say that). You have nothing measurable to prove atheism is right, only lack of evidence for something else. You observe, and make your decision based on what you can see, and I am not asking you to see it differently-the author of the article is asking me to. At the same time, there are un-answered question about the universe. We do not know what created matter, or deceloped the single cell organisms, or created something–from nothing. We can make conclusions based on what we can observe, but there is nothing that wraps up all loose ends of our reality. This is not an argument for God, or any religion in particular. As Richard Dawkins says; “ why not just worship a giant spagetti monster”. Maybe Aliens made the Universe? No-one has the knowledge. We all have our ideas.
I am getting off track though, and I don’t want to argue about the creation of the world. What I am saying is that Christians who accept the moral code of the “witch doctor”, are not people I would classify as Christians. My faith is not the faith of the mystic. I believe that the individual is the most important aspect of out society. I believe a man has a right to the rewards of his labor. I believe in private property, and that a man should be judged on his merits and nothing else. I believe egoism is both good and bad, depending on whether or not it is used to control other individuals. I am not motivated by fear of an angry, vengeful God. No christians I have ever met spread their beliefs by preaching the fear of hell (althouhg, I know that some do).
The word of Jesus was simply to love others. A large part of that is respecting the individual and their rights. It also requires the ability to discerne the difference between love, and submission. Giving in to the demands of the less fortunate might be a loving act, or it could cripple them forever. It is circumstancial.
I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything they do not directly earn or produce. I believe religious witch doctors are all over the place in every form of religion, including atheism (see Bill Mahr). I believe that Atilla’s are likewise in every religion, ready to impose their faith by force and violence. I know christians who do both. I call it spiritual abuse – you call it christianity
The objectivist writer that sparked this exchange, believes that Christians must abandon their faith and embrace objectivism in the tea-party movement. I completely disagree.
Comment by Kris— March 2, 2010 #
Kris,
I agree that the label “Christian” covers a broad spectrum of beliefs and their interpretations across the board. It is also clear that you have sieved out that spectrum and out of what you understand libertarianism to be respective sets of beliefs that seem to be compatible. But “seem” is the operable word there, and actually, you are a long way from rebutting Mr. Biddle’s contention reported in the original post.
.
The devil is in the details! And the original presentation was (necessarily in both cases) short on those. So let me point out a few apparent discrepancies and see if a better overview emerges on the other side.
.
1) Keep always in mind that Objectivists, like Biddle, are libertarians, but not Libertarians, like Beck and Stossel and Paul, etc. The radical laissez-faire capitalism of Objectivism is rooted in the facts of man’s nature that are his specific means of knowing (epistemology) and the kinds of actions (ethics) that must be exercised in order to fulfill the potential of that nature. The Objectivist’s capitalism is, like his atheism, not a primary, but rather a natural, logical consequence of holding more fundamental premises regarding his nature.
.
2) The free-market capitalism (rarely as radical as Objectivists’) of libertarians is rooted in pragmatism towards the middle and traditionalism on the right. Other than those plagiarized from Rand, they have no philosophical arguments or proof to support their politics. The number one reason that they do not have that foundation is because they cannot cross the bridge to the atheism that is integral to Objectivism. And adjacent is as close as they will ever be, all current (and there are a multitude) attempts to reconcile religion with Objectivism notwithstanding.
.
3) The most significant barrier separating us is the epistemological issue of reason v. mysticism. One does not have to be an actual witch doctor to practice mysticism. It means only to hold or validate an idea based on something other than reason applied to the evidence of the senses — faith, feelings, wishes, authority, tradition, instinct, or any external influence or internal structure of one’s consciousness, etc. So “my faith is not the faith of the mystic” is a self-contradiction. Where it counts, they are one and the same.
.
4) Note that atheism is not a faith-based belief, because it is not a belief at all, but rather it is the absence of a belief. Lacking evidence to prove atheism is not a weakness, it is the very nature of non-existence that there is no evidence of it at all one way or the other. The idea of proving the non-existence of something is literally nonsense.
.
5) Unanswered questions about the universe are not evidence of anything. They are just questions. Knowledge is contextual — it is limited to what can be logically derived from available evidence. You may speculate. You may wonder. You may have ideas about the unknown. But you may not introduce those into the validations of your knowledge.
.
6) Words have specific meanings in specific contexts. As you appear to recognize that a selfish person is one who acts in his rational self interest in the long run, so you must grasp that egoism advocates the same. It cannot be used “to control other individuals.” That is not in one’s rational self interest. What you do to other human beings in principle implicitly condones other humans to do it to you.
.
Finally, your disagreement with Biddle’s advice to the tea-party movement is ill founded. Christians have had control of American capitalism since its inception, and its erosion has been constant throughout. It is not that you cannot pluck tenets out of Christianity to justify a semblance of capitalism. It is that such pales in comparison to the breadth, depth, and consistency of Rand’s identifications and proof of the principles of the politics of pure freedom and their foundation in the Objectivist epistemology and ethics.
Comment by MichaelM— March 3, 2010 #
[...] upon this, a commenter responding to a New Patriot Journal report of the lecture wrote: Objectivism holds that knowledge is contextual. It is limited to that which can be derived [...]
Pingback by Tea Party Should Shrug Off Atlas «— March 9, 2010 #