existential potential wrote:So the bottom line for JJ and David is that if you do not agree with objectivism, you are a psychopathic tyrant, with a criminal Jew mentality.
I would agree with you two if only you would stop calling right from wrong objective.
One can only guess why
JJ and
DH (hereinafter collectively referred to as
JenHen, for the two are as one) persist in asking "how do you determine right from wrong?" First of all, one's answer would depend on whether
JenHen is asking the question with regard to morality or ethics. That's the difference between asking "how do you determine right from wrong
in general?" and "how do you determine right from wrong
in this situation?" The answer to the latter is rather easy: "by referring to a moral code."
The answer to the former is a bit more complicated. I suppose
JenHen expects everyone to answer: "I decide for myself, based on my own preferences and desires -- and, moreover, I'm a Jew!"
JenHen wants to be the only one who adheres to an "objective" moral code, and it can't accept that there might be some people out there who also adhere to objective moral codes, especially if those codes aren't the same as Rand's "system" of morality.
But, as I pointed out before, Rand's "system" isn't terribly objective. Indeed, it is based on a
petitio principii, which doesn't make for a particularly good "system" of anything. Interestingly,
JenHen hasn't responded to my posts regarding Rand. My guess is that it doesn't know enough about Rand's philosophy to offer a coherent rebuttal -- depite the fact that Rand's morality is pretty simple (one might say
simplistic). It's much easier to repeat the same puerile attacks and slurs than to defend its position on its own merits -- be they ever so humble. In other words,
JenHen hasn't offered much beyond "A = A" because, in the end, it doesn't
know much beyond that.
