I had assumed that the aphysical context of a thread on morality would make clear that I wasn’t talking about a muscle. Like so many English words, “heart” has different meanings in different contexts. I was speaking of the heart as in, “the essential or most vital part of something,” not as in “a hollow muscular organ of vertebrate animals that by its rhythmic contraction acts as a force pump maintaining the circulation of the blood.” (Both definitions courtesy Merriam-Webster.)
With respect to matters of the heart in proper context, it would indeed be speculation were I to apply my intellect to discerning it. Instead, I rely on the teachings of Jesus, whom I worship. The heart, He teaches, is the source of good and evil in man. The world around us is amoral. It is our hearts that give the world moral interpretation, and that cause us to do good and evil.
I’m glad you like me. I’ve always known that, despite your cholericism, you have a good heart.
Greetings, my friend. It has been a while since we have corresponded.
Interestingly, selfishness (or self-interest) is the base ethic of Objectivism, and is a vital part of my own Christian ethic. It is the ethic by which I accept my own salvation, and other gifts from God. It is the ethic by which the merciful receive mercy. If God exists and is moral, then it is in our own self-interest to be likewise.
Personally, I find the Golden Rule (in any of its many forms) to be inadequate as a basis for a moral system. The same is true for every other aphorism that I have come across. They might contain wonderful ideas. They certainy make fine bumber stickers. But they simply are not enough, by themseves, to define a morality.
Allow me to demonstrate with some inadequate thoughts of my own.
Self-interest is not a basis for morality. Morality, in fact, is best known in the times it conflicts with self-interest.
Morality is based upon the ability of an organism to extend value beyond the self.
Empathy is the trait which allows humans to extend value beyond the self. The limits of any moral system can be seen in the extent to which it fosters empathy.
Extending empathy more broadly does not make a moral system “better”, it makes it more comprehensive. There are real world consequences to extending a moral system to encompass more beings/ideas. At the extreme, these consequences are destructive to human beings. Empathizing with bacteria is unhealthy.
Finding value in self is easy. Finding value in all is suicidal. Finding value in others without destroying your self is discovering a personal morality.
I must disagree with your analysis. Selfishness and self-interest are not interchangeable terms. Selfishness by definition (see below) includes a disregard for others, which I do not think describes what you are speaking about (as opposed to the OP).
Main Entry: self·ish
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
Main Entry: self-in·ter·est
1 : a concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>
2 : one’s own interest or advantage <self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>
It is a small but critical distinction.
From the Ayn Rand website you listed.
You see, with the selfish base it is moral to sacrifice another for your own salvation. With a self-interest base this is not acceptable, but neither is it acceptable for you to sacrifice yourself for another’s salvation.
I stand by my statement, Lib, the writings of Ayn Rand notwithstanding. As Glitch’s quote s clearly demonstrates, the Objectivist position moves almost immediately away from self-interest by recognizing that others should not be sacrificed to my ends. If the morality were in fact based only upon self-interest then the consequences to others would be irrelevant in and of themselves.
Spiritus, I liked your post by the way. Inadequate thoughts … you crack me up.
My only issue with the Empathic rule (can we agree to summarize it is “Treat others as you would treat yourself, in conjunction with how you believe they would like to be treated”?) is that it really doesn’t tell you a whole lot because it almost requires an ethical person in the first place to do a proper interpretation of how another would like to be treated to result in an ethical answer.
Thank you, Glitch. You’ve edified me with your clarifications. It is an important distinction, indeed.
Spiritus, Ayn Rand’s writings can hardly be notwithstanding objectivism. It is, after all, defined by her writings.
I believe the distinction Glitch draws is important because it is not in your self-interest, assuming God exists and is moral, to aggress the self-interest of others, whom He loves equally as much as you. I see no reason why the self-interest of others should matter outside that context.
Lib, How on earth do you blend Objectivism and Christianity into a moral code?? Objectivism is ,in most ways, the antithesis of Christian morality. I can hardly imagine two more dissimilar doctrines and to somehow suggest you have combined them seems ridiculous.
Lib, I would appreciate an answer to this little problem from the perspective of your base ethic, self-interest.
Suppose you are an ex-soldier. Tired of killing you swear that you will never take another life ever. (Feel free to replace this with any other scenario you wish requiring a person to honorably swear never to kill). You decide to go on a cleansing pilgrimage, and come across a deserted man dying horribly of poison. The poison is slow and painful. Lacking any strength, he asks you to kill him. There is no possible way to save him, there is no possible way to ease his pain, there is no possible way to bring him to somebody else to kill him (you are too deserted).
Nevertheless, Objectivisim, for me, cleared up an annoying paradox in Christianity. If I am to be entirely selfless, then upon what ethical principle do I accept my own salvation? Why ought I even to care whether I am saved?
I like the four tenets of Objectivism as Rand espoused them standing on one foot. They blend beautifully with Christianity, so long as you ignore the unnecessary entity of atheism (see sig line), which she carelessly introduced. There is indeed an objective reality, and it is God. Reason is indeed the epistemology by which we study Him. Our self-interest matters because, and simply because, it matters to Him, i.e., our self-interest coincides with his. And freedom (or capitalism) is the same context in which He created us — as free moral agents.
My life is not in my cells. It is in my spirit. My cells are in the grips of inevitable entropy in any case, dying as I stand over the man. I am simply dying slower than he is and (presently) with less pain. Honor — which binds me to my oath — gives life to my spirit. It is in my self-interest to be alive.
Lib,
Ayn Rand’s writings are notwihstanding to my statement, not to Objectivism.
I find it amusing, BTW, that you embrace Rand’s philosophy by discarding one of its central tenets (which you say was "carelessly added) and replacing it with an antithetical position. This, of course, twists the other bases of Objectivism into a form which scarcely resembles the original.
Self-interest, in fact, disappears from the equation since you accept it only because you posit that it is important to God. Value for others disappears similarly. In fact, your morality (as I read what you have written here) reduces almost immediately to “whatever god wants”. It has no other basis. You simultaneously claim:
Again, neither you nor Rand have actually defined a morality based upon self interest.
I am confused, I must admit, why you would commit suicide in Glitch’s hypothetical case. It seems you value the stranger’s pain above your word and your word above your life. Is this correct?
Glitch,
No, my “empathic principal” does not reduce to the Golden Rule in any formulation. In fact, I fomulated it specifically to avoid such “act as if . . .” statements.
Empathy compels me to understand that other’s have value independent of my self. The more strongly I can extend that empathy, the more value I will place upon their desires, life, health, etc. I am limited in my ability to perceive the desires or needs of another. I am obligated to attempt to understand them when making an action which affects others, but this obligation is also limited by my abilities (and lifespan). In the absence of input from them, I may substitute my own suppositions. In the presence of input from them, I am incapable of not filtering through my own perceptions. After understanding their position(s) to the limits of my circumstances, I stil might place self-interest above them. Or not. Conflict will arise in almost any imagineable situation.
Does this lead to a nice simple rule of behavior. No.
The only honorable thing to do would be to kill him, then yourself. However, that example is precisely why I am incredibly hesitant to swear oaths like that. Now, what if you were traveling with a vial full of a cure for hundreds of people that you were taking to a city (you had not promised to deliver it, mind you) and that same situation occurs? In that case, I would kill the man, not kill myself immediately, deliver the cure, then commit suicide. I value my honor highly, but not above all, I guess, in the end. And more to the point, I believe there is a moral imperative upon me to consider the consequences of my actions; I highly doubt I would swear such an oath without putting “riders” in it to account for “mercy killing”. My life is of value, too, and I consider it immoral to not adequately think through the ramifications of such an oath and thereby harm my family and friends by my death.
Amen to that. I recall now your good criticism that my greatest omissions are those that seem to me obvious.
You’ve made the same point that Jesus made, when He said, “The Sabbath was made for man; man was not made for the Sabbath,” as well as, “You [religion politicians] take great care to observe the tiniest laws about eating and tithing, even as you ignore the far greater things like love and mercy.” Legalistic (i.e., intellectual) interpretations of morality always skew the view. It is dishonorable to break an oath made willfully and freely, for sure, but a far greater dishonor it is to ignore helpless people.
It is in our self-interest to be merciful because those who are merciful receive mercy.
I wish you had put it that way when we discussed means and ends. It would have saved an argument!
Spiritus
As you wish. But the statement you stood by, “the writings of Ayn Rand notwithstanding,” was this: “Self-interest is not a basis for morality,” based on my reaction that self-interest was indeed the basis of Objectivist morality, whereupon I linked you to her own writing about her own philosophy.
There, I thought the item, “Ethic: self-interest,” was sufficient evidence that the ethic of her philosophy is self-interest. You are entitled to disagree.
Do you mean when I listed objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism? I suppose you are entitled to opine that those do not resemble the Objectivist tenets of objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism.
Atheism is an unnecessary entity with respect to Objectivism, particularly since God is the only objective reality there is. I did not “replace” anthing, but simply removed something that was unnecessary.
Only? Only because it is important to God?
He is the Owner of the heavens and the earth. If you visited my home, would you discount the rules of my house, citing that they are important only to me? And if I said that, in my home, you will value others as much as you value yourself, would you then opine that my wishes in my home disappear — simply because they are mine?
Of course there is no other basis than what God wants. Why would there be?
Well, I never claimed to. Perhaps you misread my statement that self-interest is “a vital part of my own Christian ethic,” as saying that self-interest is “the basis of my own Christian ethic.”
As for Rand, I suppose it is possible that by “Ethic: self-interest,” she meant something else, like “Ethic: not self-interest.” But I think you’re really stretching for that interpretation.
Perhaps you interpreted my statement “It is in my self-interest to be alive,” to mean, “I do not value my life.” I assure you that is not the correct interpretation.
There is no life in the cells. Evidently, you are confusing electro-chemical entropy with life. Cellular “death” is irrelevant. It is spiritual death that is cause for concern. Have someone you know and trust, with a faithful heart, to read my post to Glitch and explain its context to you.
Have them also explain how I view the amoral universe with my brain, which interprets it through my God-given senses, while at the same time I act out a morality within its context, using the spirit He breathed into my heart.
For what it’s worth, I was unable to find the two Atheist Religion threads, where atheist morality (and many other heady topics) was explained in meticulous detail by honorable and eloquent atheists, who helped lead me to a greater intellectual understanding, as well as a greater spiritual empathy, of the whole nature of atheism.
Maybe I did something wrong in my search. I hope so. It would be a shame to have lost those two threads.
I know I made it sound as if their was zero value in the consequence to others but I really don’t think this is the case. If I were friends with someone I know it would make me feel bad to steal from them and that would make me unhappy. Whether or not it makes me unhappy for logical reasons I will still be unhappy. There is not really anything I can do to make myself feel happy after stealing from a friend. However to steal from an enemy would make me happy. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek but I don’t think this is valid. If we continually turn the cheek we will continually get slapped.
So in this there is value in the consequences to others but it depends on who the other is. Friend or foe.
By the way I think almost all moral systems are based in some sense on selfishness. Many (not all) Christians follow their religion because they want to be saved. I have heard many say that if they didn’t believe in an afterlife they would simply become depressed and feel as though they had no reason to live. By following the golden rule people act to others just because they want others to act nicely to themselves.
As for the golden rule and many other moral systems if I believed in these i would feel the need to give all my possesions away and devote my life to helping others. And it seems other followers of these rules/systems should do the same. If I beleived in God and followed the laws of Christian religion I would have to become a missionary and spread to word to the world.
Honestly, that’s not really why I try to do good things. I don’t expect to get any mercy simply because I myself am merciful, although I note that it is likely that if I treat people respectfully and honorably that they will do the same for me. My goal is to be proud of who I am, and die knowing I tried very hard to improve the world as best I could and did not do unneccesary harm. No matter what, I’m going to die, whether I was happy or sad, good or evil. If my life has made the world better–since I care about people and the world they inhabit–that seems like the ultimate goal to reach for. It’s self-interest, I suppose, in that anything we do is self-interest; we wouldn’t do anything we didn’t choose to do, and we wouldn’t choose to do it unless it seemed the best choice for us at the time. However, this makes it impossible for us to ever do an act that is not self-interest.
It seems like the conflict between you and Spiritus is like so:
A woman makes great sacrifices to care for her dying mother.
Spiritus: She is is putting her mother’s well-being above her own, this is empathy, a degree of selflessness. Libertarian: She is doing this because it makes her feel good to do so/out of desire to be rewarded (by God)/etc.; this is self-interest.
Now, while I can see your point that you would not do anything that you did not decide/wish to do (and therefore you choose only those things that offer the greatest benefit to you), I feel I must object to your automatically classing it as self-interest since, as I noted, you cannot then have anything that is not self-interest, which makes the whole debate rather meaningless. Pure self-interest as a moral code beyond utilitarianism seems to depend on a previously established morality; it is in your best interest to care for your mother if you have already accepted that caring for your mother is a good thing to do, therefore making you happy when you do so. If do not believe that caring for your mother is a good thing, then caring for her will not make you happy, therefore self-interest will not goad you to care for her.
Side note: “Unnecessary entity of Atheism”? What entity do you say I add to my world-view by lacking belief in God?
Only because it is important to God?