The key ethical steps to a rational world:
(1) The foundation and starting point: Why does man need a code of moral values?
(2) Man’s nature is that of a rational being.
(3) Man has free will, and must choose to think (i.e., reason) in order to survive.
(4) Man is constantly faced with unlimited choices and alternatives, and must have rational values and principles to guide his decisions and actions across the span of his life.
(5) Because man’s life is the source of all values, man’s life must be the standard of value. The objective requirements of human life must be the standard for defining principles of right and wrong.
(6) Actions that promote man’s proper survival (e.g., productiveness, honesty, integrity) are rational and good; actions that thwart man’s survival (e.g., dishonesty, passivity, self-sacrifice) are irrational and evil.
(7) The mind is a property of the individual. Each individual must necessarily take responsibility for his own life—i.e., for his own choice to think and to be guided by his rational understanding and conclusions.
(8) Rational egoism is man’s proper moral code.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Gridiron Heroism of Peyton Manning
I have long admired quarterback Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts, ever since he played college ball for my alma mater, the University of Tennessee. He is the personification of everything good about the world of professional sports, a young man of enormous athletic ability who works hard to stay at the top of his game. Every season he seems to set new passing NFL records. Not only is he enormously gifted; his success derives as much from his intelligence and command of the game as from his physical skills. When the Colts visited San Diego last Sunday to take on the Chargers, I drove down from Los Angeles to watch him in person.
What surprised me most when I arrived at the stadium was to discover just how many people shared my adulation. Indianapolis is thousands of miles away, but the number of fans wearing blue and white jerseys with his name and number 18 on the back was amazing! They were everywhere!
Manning did not disappoint. The Colts' defense couldn't hold a ten point lead, but San Diego tied it up with 1:30 left. What were the Chargers thinking? Did they forget who was waiting patiently on the opposite sideline?
Peyton was facing fourth and inches with 27 seconds left at mid-field. Instead of a quarterback sneak, Peyton throws a 15 yard pass to set up the field goal that won the game. I couldn't believe he did that, but it worked. It was still another game-winning, last second drive engineered by Peyton Manning.
In a world full of irrationality, depravity, hopelessness and despair, witnessing such a display of superior ability is a genuine inspiration, a kind of emotional transfusion that reminds you about the possibilities of life. It was a rare thrill to watch him in action. This is a man who takes nothing for granted. He has truly earned all the accolades lavished upon him by his legions of fans, and I am proud to count myself as one of them.
What surprised me most when I arrived at the stadium was to discover just how many people shared my adulation. Indianapolis is thousands of miles away, but the number of fans wearing blue and white jerseys with his name and number 18 on the back was amazing! They were everywhere!
Manning did not disappoint. The Colts' defense couldn't hold a ten point lead, but San Diego tied it up with 1:30 left. What were the Chargers thinking? Did they forget who was waiting patiently on the opposite sideline?
Peyton was facing fourth and inches with 27 seconds left at mid-field. Instead of a quarterback sneak, Peyton throws a 15 yard pass to set up the field goal that won the game. I couldn't believe he did that, but it worked. It was still another game-winning, last second drive engineered by Peyton Manning.
In a world full of irrationality, depravity, hopelessness and despair, witnessing such a display of superior ability is a genuine inspiration, a kind of emotional transfusion that reminds you about the possibilities of life. It was a rare thrill to watch him in action. This is a man who takes nothing for granted. He has truly earned all the accolades lavished upon him by his legions of fans, and I am proud to count myself as one of them.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Guilt by Association
Much has been made of President-elect Obama’s past associations with the vitriolic American-hating Pastor Jeremiah Wright and terrorist William Ayers, which have been cited as evidence of anti-American tendencies in his thinking, as well as moral turpitude and poor judgment. I would agree with that assessment. On the other hand, a little historical perspective may be in order here.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Counterfeit Messiah
“Is there anyone out there who still questions that America is the land where all things are possible, that the dream of our founders is alive in our time?”
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Hold Your Nose and Vote for Obama
Prior to now, I have indicated my intention to abstain from voting for either McCain or Obama. Frankly, I despise both of them. After some extensive soul-searching, however, I have changed my mind. I will vote for Obama. Not as an endorsement of him or anything he stands for—but as a rebuff of everything his opponent stands for.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Voting for the "Lesser Evil"
An amusing letter-to-the-editor is making the rounds which offers a number of obviously sarcastic arguments for voting Democratic in the coming election. Allegedly authored by someone named Robert A. Hall, it offers such “reasons” as the following:
“I'm voting Democrat because Congress has done such a wonderful job under Democrat leadership the last two years, that I want a lot more of the same.“
"I'm voting Democrat because I want to get my health care from the same competent, efficient, cost-effective, customer-service-focused folks who run the US Post Office, the Pentagon, FEMA and the state Registry of Motor Vehicles.”
It is hard to believe that so many well-meaning people still believe that the Republicans represent the “lesser evil.” Here is an alternative (and equally sarcastic) “argument”:
I’m voting Republican because John McCain and George Bush are so obviously superior to the Democrats—they have done so much to curtail the size of government, the power it exerts over our lives and to further the cause of freedom—and such pragmatic “benefits” clearly outweigh the long-range cultural damage of promoting religion as the foundation of capitalism, which is the philosophy of the Republican Party (as symbolized by Bush and now Sarah Palin).
For the record: I am not voting for either, but if I wanted to vote for the lesser evil, I would vote for Obama.
Please don't miss Craig Biddle’s excellent article, McBama vs. America, in The Objective Standard.
“I'm voting Democrat because Congress has done such a wonderful job under Democrat leadership the last two years, that I want a lot more of the same.“
"I'm voting Democrat because I want to get my health care from the same competent, efficient, cost-effective, customer-service-focused folks who run the US Post Office, the Pentagon, FEMA and the state Registry of Motor Vehicles.”
It is hard to believe that so many well-meaning people still believe that the Republicans represent the “lesser evil.” Here is an alternative (and equally sarcastic) “argument”:
I’m voting Republican because John McCain and George Bush are so obviously superior to the Democrats—they have done so much to curtail the size of government, the power it exerts over our lives and to further the cause of freedom—and such pragmatic “benefits” clearly outweigh the long-range cultural damage of promoting religion as the foundation of capitalism, which is the philosophy of the Republican Party (as symbolized by Bush and now Sarah Palin).
For the record: I am not voting for either, but if I wanted to vote for the lesser evil, I would vote for Obama.
Please don't miss Craig Biddle’s excellent article, McBama vs. America, in The Objective Standard.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Dark Knight
I rarely see a movie more than once. “Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life” was an exception. Another was “Moulin Rouge,” which I truly loved. I have seen “The Dark Knight” no less than four times—and was totally thrilled and delighted each time. The intricate plot, the brilliant direction, the cinematography, the performances—most especially the breathtaking acting performance by the late Heath Ledger—all were nothing short of magnificent. To the extent that the story’s theme elevated evil to a level of metaphysical potency—and it did—I would certainly have to challenge its validity. But the essential romanticism of the story—the awesome portrayal of an intransigent hero’s refusal to yield to a vicious, nihilistic, irrepressible evil—was as inspiring as anything I have seen on the big screen in a long, long time.
Screwing the Pooch
Question: Is it possible that The Altruist Society finally grew some cajones and fired their pet Bulldog--Otto—for his gushing endorsement of Bible-thumping Sarah the Impaler and her running mate, John (“America is great for her sacrifices”) Mc Pain?
Answer: Probably too much to hope for. An organization that pretends to be Objectivist but endorses Christian “Just War Theory” and GW’s wanton sacrifice of 4000 innocent American soldiers in an altruistic crusade (the so-called Iraq “war”) has no fundamental principles, and is unlikely to be motivated by anything but pragmatism—i.e., their (well-deserved) financial troubles. Their slick, crypto-libertarian magazine (The New Individualist, previously edited by the pooch himself) had to drastically curtail its publishing schedule, and that’s probably a key reason underlying the split.
What a crying shame. This subjectivist goofball has such a pathetic, dim, garbled grasp of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. He and the unprincipled, dissipated Altruist Society were a match made in nether-nether land. But the good news is that, without TAS as a platform, Bulldog Otto will do much less damage to the long-range success of Objectivism.
Answer: Probably too much to hope for. An organization that pretends to be Objectivist but endorses Christian “Just War Theory” and GW’s wanton sacrifice of 4000 innocent American soldiers in an altruistic crusade (the so-called Iraq “war”) has no fundamental principles, and is unlikely to be motivated by anything but pragmatism—i.e., their (well-deserved) financial troubles. Their slick, crypto-libertarian magazine (The New Individualist, previously edited by the pooch himself) had to drastically curtail its publishing schedule, and that’s probably a key reason underlying the split.
What a crying shame. This subjectivist goofball has such a pathetic, dim, garbled grasp of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. He and the unprincipled, dissipated Altruist Society were a match made in nether-nether land. But the good news is that, without TAS as a platform, Bulldog Otto will do much less damage to the long-range success of Objectivism.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Is it a rational universe?
The complexity of the modern world can often seem bewildering. Terrorist bombings, mass murder, gang violence, governmental strangulation of the economy, confiscatory taxation, lame-brained conspiracy theories, faith-based ideologies, political demagoguery laced with cynicism and lies--all of these are so commonplace that we accept them as ordinary. Yet we also live in a world where science and modern technology open amazing new possibilities so fast we can barely keep pace. How is that possible? How can the startling achievements of the human mind co-exist with unconscionable brutality and evil everywhere we look?
How to make sense of it all? Should we just accept the fact that mankind is irrational and learn to live with ugliness, destruction, senseless death and depravity? Or are there cultural forces at work which explain the madness--ideas which undercut progress and make all the evils we see possible? And are there potential solutions which could offer a way toward a better tomorrow?
In other words: Is it a rational universe? Given certain philosophical and cultural sources, does the current day orgy of death and depravity have a certain logic behind it?
The basic premise of this blog is that there are very specific causes for the world we see around us--and very specific solutions. And the first step toward creating a better world--where happiness and success rather than ugliness and gore dominate the news--is to understand what those cultural forces are. And that requires a mind that is open to challenging the most fundamental beliefs we have come to live by.
Rational, independent thought is the pathway to clarity. And it starts with each individual mind. The world will not be saved by elections or mass demonstrations or revolutionary guillotines. It can only be saved one life at a time.
How to make sense of it all? Should we just accept the fact that mankind is irrational and learn to live with ugliness, destruction, senseless death and depravity? Or are there cultural forces at work which explain the madness--ideas which undercut progress and make all the evils we see possible? And are there potential solutions which could offer a way toward a better tomorrow?
In other words: Is it a rational universe? Given certain philosophical and cultural sources, does the current day orgy of death and depravity have a certain logic behind it?
The basic premise of this blog is that there are very specific causes for the world we see around us--and very specific solutions. And the first step toward creating a better world--where happiness and success rather than ugliness and gore dominate the news--is to understand what those cultural forces are. And that requires a mind that is open to challenging the most fundamental beliefs we have come to live by.
Rational, independent thought is the pathway to clarity. And it starts with each individual mind. The world will not be saved by elections or mass demonstrations or revolutionary guillotines. It can only be saved one life at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)