George Will On Religion and Founding Needs Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights

Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
455 comments | Share | Flag

"He even says explicitly that neither successful self-government nor “a government with clear limits defined by the natural rights of the governed” requires religion. For these, writes Will, “religion is helpful and important but not quite essential.”"

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 8.
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "When you give it up it's no longer yours. "
    This is an interesting question. Isn't being able to give something away if you so choose part of its starting out as yours?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Altruism is the stock rationalism for socialism to get people to go along with it. It is not "control of the few over the many" and nothing else. It requires sacrifice to the collective as a moral duty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know the Rand view of the basis of values, but some of it for me is axioms that don't rest on anything else. Maybe they were things people invented out of whole cloth and then I learned them from my parents. It's the exact same place religious people get their values.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The "primary mechanism" of religious morality of subservience and sacrifice has caused suffering and destruction for thousands of years. There is no "atheistic mechanism" for anything. Atheism means only a rejection of god, which says nothing about one is for. The obsession with attacking "atheism" for not providing a morality is an evasion of the positive beliefs that do. In particular you are supposed to know by now about Ayn Rand's morality instead of pretending it does not exist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    people are also learning. and they fight for their ideas. that's natural. posts like this get everyone's ire up. You are making good points. But as long as people are civil, use your influence
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When you give it up it's no longer yours. Worse is that the theology regards you that way to begin with.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He was trying to wrap Christianity up as the epitome of virtue. It isn't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And would evade identifying what they are. Names are for identification. It's not "name-calling" you oppose -- you explicitly and consciously do that yourself -- but rather identification.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some are obvious enemies of Ayn Rand here to trash her ideas; others have convinced themselves that they are some kind of "religious Objectivists", a contradiction in terms. They steal her ideas and her name while contradicting it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rejecting religious mysticism even while taking the time to provide rational explanations is not being an "ignorant blowhard", is indeed rational, and is not "bowing" to anyone. Your juvenile name-calling and deliberate personal insults are entirely inappropriate for this forum. You are repulsive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with @khalling.
    Moreover consider not starting with something like "that's complete nonsense!" I am not always successful at avoiding this, but I try. I'm not doing anything productive just by saying I think something is stupid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And there are many AR fanatics who are much more unyielding in their belief in her infallibility than most Christians.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    this is an introductory website to Objectivism. Your comments are important and instructive. Keep making them, but I disagree with you that these participants are not welcome here. It is clear that religion is not part of Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course not, down to the deepest level. It surrenders having a human life on earth, which is all there is, entirely. The opposite of Atlas Shrugged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not really. Many locations (check out the UK) where there are dense Muslim enclaves, have eschewed secular laws and legal system and instituted Sharia law solely. And the gov'ts accede to this breach of sovereignty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I want the discussion. Please consider not down voting in order to continue the conversation
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually there's quite a bit of logic in it. Adams new that it would be impossible, and foolish, to try to legislate all behavior. It requires a society that has a moral/ethical foundation that instills self-restraint.

    We now have a society that seeks increasingly to legislate all behavior, with the result the degradation of morality/ethical behavior because there aren't specific laws prohibiting various behavior. Plus, laws require getting caught, so no self-restraint is called for, merely the ability to shield oneself from getting caught.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo