Worst-ever 'American Thinker' article?

Get a load of this.

Ed

Post 1

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 6:52pm

I stopped visiting American Thinker long ago.

I understand your dismay at the mischaracterization of Objectivism as a man-made and therefore relativist philosophy. You must agree, I assume, that politics does derive from ethics, that we do, indeed "legislate morality."

Post 2

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 12:07am

Mike,

Well, sure, when you put it in "scare quotes" like that. But you can do that with a lot of things. For instance, you could say: I was really "hog-tied" at the party and couldn't leave because everyone found my company to be so incredibly fascinating. Or you could say: Why don't you go "fly a kite"? In either case -- of flying kites or tying hogs -- you aren't really doing what it is that you are saying that you are doing, even though there is some rough sense in which it is true. But I live in Literal-ville. For me, the legislation of morality means one thing. It means violence-backed, 3rd-party enforcement of one brand or one flavor of one of the 4 main systems of ethics (subjectivism, deontology, utilitarianism, natural law/virtue ethics).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/17, 12:11am)

Post 3

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 5:40am

Objectivism denies natural rights?

Ed, I did not intend for the quotes to be scary, only citation markers. Also, you do admit that your fear of legislating morality comes from the most likely choices. In that, though, I found it curious that you include natural law with virtue ethics and fear both.

In the discussion of Paul Ryan's objective virtues, I mentioned listening to Kira Peikoff's blogradio interview of Yaron Brook. Brook said that Paul Ryan subscribes to a natural law philosophy of rights and Objectivism is not a natural law philosophy. But he was talking away from the microphone and has a bit of an accent from Israel and slurs his Rs. So, I let it go... but I am now convinced that he did indeed say that and truly Objectivists deny the validity of natural law as the basis for rights.

That bears some discussion because I think that most people here believe that our rights derive from our natures as volitional beings. Politics comes from ethics and ethics rests on epistemology.

As for the point at hand, you may well feel afraid that the legislation of morality brings coercion. But, is that not like the anarchist who says that government brings oppression? That denies the possibility of objective government. All legislation is based on morality. The important question is: "Which one?"

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/17, 5:44am)

Post 4

Friday, August 17, 2012 - 5:37pm

Mike,

Also, you do admit that your fear of legislating morality comes from the most likely choices.

What's with the "you do admit that" Jedi mind-tricks in the first place? Surely you do admit to not beating your wife?, etc. What's with this 'Argument from Intimidation' stuff?

In that, though, I found it curious that you include natural law with virtue ethics and fear both.

What the heck?! Mike, since you apparently don't, if you want to know how I feel about these 2 things read my article here.

truly Objectivists deny the validity of natural law as the basis for rights

There you go with the Jedi mind-tricks, again! What's with you, man?

you may well feel afraid that the legislation of morality brings coercion. But, is that not like the anarchist who says that government brings oppression? That denies the possibility of objective government

Mike, it's like you aren't getting it. Think about concrete instances of the legislation of a morality. Think, for instance, about the lawful disfigurement (or killing) of women by their relatives in some Muslim countries. According to the morality Islam prescribes, females aren't supposed to sleep around. If they do, it is within the scope of law for relatives to disfigure her with acid or boiling oil or whatever -- or to kill her outright. That is a concrete example of the legislation of a morality. In short, it criminalizes victimless behavior.

All legislation is based on morality. The important question is: "Which one?"

Okay, I think I can agree with this watered-down "based-on" theme. That's some common ground we seem to have.

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 8:35am

MEM: In that, though, I found it curious that you include natural law with virtue ethics and fear both.
ET: What the heck?! Mike, since you apparently don't, if you want to know how I feel about these 2 things read my article here. (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Thompson/The_4_Main_Kinds_of_Ethics_An_Introduction.shtml)

Right. I read that. It did not clear up my questions.
See my post here, differentiating ethics from morality.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1584.shtml

Post 6

Saturday, August 18, 2012 - 4:36pm