Reality is the only morality
On 04/18/2011 01:42 PM, Gary Forbis wrote:
On Apr 18, 7:47 am, "D. Peter wrote:
That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter
rubbish.
OK, I've rethought this. I agree that it could be done. I'm not in
a position to do so. I was introduced to Ayn Rand with the film
"The Foundainhead" when as a kid I would stay up late and watch
movies. I bought several of her books and read them. When I started
thinking about her philosophy I realized just how bad it was.
Everything we know we know through our senses. So far so good.
Some people are blind and some are deaf. The blind person cannot
know the color red in the same way the sighted do nor can the deaf
know middle C the same way the hearing do. The lack of a sense
doesn't change what actaully exists only our realization of it.
Radiation
existed prior to our ability to detect it.
There is some stuff we do due to our evolutionary heritage. Many
animals survive mainly on inate response to stimulii. We think of
ourselves as thinking beings so when we act without thought we
will try to explain our actions as if rational even where there's
nothing rational going on--evolution selects behaviors based upon
survival; thoughtful action isn't necessarily the most efficient.
Reality has no morality. Even when we discuss morality we limit
it to human actions. This alone should put the lie to it. If
morality
had an objective existence then it would apply to all of reality not
just humans.
Reasoning can improve our survivability. While I'd like to say our
existence proves this I cannot do so directly because traits neither
selected for nor against will randomly drift. I must instead suggest
each look into himself or herself and look for situations where prior
thought has lead to survival. I believe all of us can find such
cases.
We are social animals. Social animals benefit from predicting
the behaviors of one's fellow societal members. This doesn't
make one behavior moral and another immoral. We can modify
our behavior based upon our predictions of others' responses
and we benefit from doing so.
The range of human behaviors is quite large. By restricting those
behaviors with the social context we reduce the complexity in
predicting others' behaviors and responses to our behaviors.
Myths, such as morality, serves to restrict the range of behaviors
we can expect and this aides our survival.
I suspect I've said enough for now and you can find stuff with which
to disagree. Hell, you'll probably discount it yet again becuase
I don't like Ayn Rand's characterization of her philosophy as
"Objectivism" when nothing could be further from the truth.
|