He (Hubbard) probably figured that nothing was more moral than protecting Scientology by any means necessary. This is the same basic justification that all would be dictators use. Respecting the rights of individuals always seems to be lost with these radicals.

We are the superior species on the planet, but we have genetic commonality with most other creatures. You may find the study of crows interesting, as they demonstrate a distinct capability to solve problems without human training. Crows are not only tool users, but they also construct tools and demonstrate the ability to discover solutions to mechanical and hydraulic puzzles. Such actions are impossible without a logical thought process and a degree of reasoning. To address your point about blurring the lines between humans and animals, brain scans show that crows use an entirely different part of their brain than we do when solving problems.

Observing that other species demonstrate an ability to think about the world and make choices is not an attempt to ascribe human behavior to them, but to better understand them. As the superior species, the moral choice is to care for the less capable species within sensible limits.

animals have a limited ability to learn new things, but they are not coming up with that on their own (outside a limited experience). and they forget easily those skills which they do acquire. this is one of the problems in trying to domesticate buffalo vs sheep. Pumas do not adapt to a vegetarian diet. Humans are the only volitional animal, the only rational thinking animal. that is not "god-like", that is A is A. Reality.
OTOH, I think people spend a ridiculous amount of time ascribing human traits to animals and elevating animals above humans to the point of crazy mystics like over-population and animals over Man. A gorilla is not worth a human, for example-but you would not know that on social media.

I understand that Rand's position is that man is a rational animal without instincts. I will admit to being dubious about this. To a degree, man is a rationalizing animal, making up rational excuses for what he wants or feels compelled to do. To a degree we are like the cat who, after doing something silly, acts like it meant to do that.

No criticism intended.

I am in the throes of writing a book on philosophy, with a riveted focus on morality and its inescapable consequence, politics. I am therefore "sensitive" to using precise concepts.

For your perspective I am attaching the book's introduction as it now exists.

Dave

THE FUTURE THAT AWAITS
I begin this intellectual journey with two powerful and relevant quotations. The first comes from a giant, perhaps THE giant of our founding.

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Smith.

The second comes from a contemporary source. One, it might be claimed, thought to be an especially arrogant one.

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, this arrogant contemporary imagines himself present as one of the representatives from the colonies. He is addressing the collection of delegates which represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time – perhaps at any time in history.

“Gentlemen: The political institutions you envision and have fashioned do not have the moral foundation to secure the sanctity of the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s marvelous Declaration. Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human beings right to their own life, creating political institutions to then secure same, while at the same time accepting a morality that a human being has a universal higher moral obligation to live their life in service to some other purpose, either to other human beings, or an imagined higher entity or abstraction. This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever individual rights may have been temporarily recognized in past societies without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of these rights, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2012.

This book is my attempt to demonstrate the moral foundation necessary to reverse America’s destruction. Destruction made inescapable by the inevitable political erosion of that which, lacking a proper moral foundation, was but temporarily bequeathed to the world by America’s founders.

Dave walden

When Scientology first appeared, I took the time to read Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard's exercise in establishing morality without divine direction. Hubbard described a "tree of survival" beginning with the need for the individual to secure its own survival, and stepping up to family, tribe, national, and species survival. At each point on the tree, Hubbard postulated an expanding necessity for ever more complex moral behavior. However this evolved to the bizarre cult that Scientology became, I have no idea, but it was a credible effort.

Adam Smith, best known as the father of capitalism, based on his Wealth of Nations tome, also took a stab at a natural derivation for morality in his less well known book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Like Hubbard, Smith sought to present a credible argument that moral behavior was a result of constructive social interaction that promoted the well being of the "good" individual. That's especially interesting when we recall Smith was the son of a minister, and very pious himself.

newborns lose those "reactions" very quickly

Animals learn new things, so they do "rewire" themselves. Humans are simply more complex animals, with a broader range of things that impinge on our choices. We do spend an inordinately ridiculous amount of time trying to prove some mystical, god-like separation between ourselves and lesser beings.I suspect that's driven by personal feelings of insecurity. The divide between anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic is synthetic, as we are on the same genetic spectrum, with the differences between ourselves and other animals not always as distinct as some of us are comfortable with.

Here is a simple way to look at morality. In any action will the end result, if taken to extreme, end in life or death. Using life to represent all things good, and death representing all things bad. Example: Saving money for a secure retirement. Good, therefore moral. Overspending to the point of dependence, bad therefore immoral. One can easily see how, if taken to extremes one is pro life while the other leads to unhappiness and death.

ok. here is Rand on humans as volitional-not instinctual: " Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it." Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged

the species of cat has a genetic choice. they can't rewire themselves. They are not born tabla rasa as humans are.

thank you. that is why I call it Metaethics. and biological organisms have choice, just at a genetic level. I am not arguing a volitional level. but a trees' roots make a choice. If they did not, all organisms would be the same. I don't see stolen concept here, I can find Rand on point, I was trying to avoid direct quotes, as I take some criticism over not stating these ideas in my own words

Humans are in fact born with certain instincts, demonstrated by newborns. They range from simple reflex actions such as suckling and grasping (the latter a holdover from our ancestors for newborns clinging to the mother's fur). We instinctively seek as much information about the world around us as we can absorb as a survival mechanism, even before we're taught such things. We have an instinctive cautionary response to heights, and a natural aversion to tastes that are typical of non-edible or toxic material. We are not born a "tabula rasa" (blank slate).

When a human runs back into a burning building to save her child at risk of her own life, you call this a moral decision. When a mother cat runs back repeatedly into a burning building to save her kittens, incurring terrible burns at risk of her life, you call this "instinct." I don't think I'm the one confused.

I was simply trying to comment on Ed75 statement of humans being the only living creature that can chose to act against his nature, resulting in an immoral act. He prefaced that stating that animals automatically react to their natural needs. I don't think that we can say categorically that if a human chooses to go against his nature then it is automatically an immoral act. I'm also not convinced that humans don't have natural instinct as you stated. We are still animals, albeit with an advanced brain capable of thought beyond survival.

We are trying to define universal ethics, and its origins. I do agree that ethics should be the same for all humans, but defining them is difficult. There is a part of me that thinks that I should not ever be surprised to be punched in the face if I am selfishly taking longer than necessary at a soda fountain while others wait. Obviously, as a rational individual, I would not want that to happen to me, nor would I do that to someone else, but where is this ethics/morality line, and how do we reconcile natural instinct and universal ethics?

Please keep in mind, I am new to this forum, probably much less educated than most on here, and have only read a small number of Rand's writings. I am a huge fan of what I have read and learned and only trying to build an arsenal of rebuttals to questions I think I might come across in dealing with non rational people.

you are confusing so many things. 1. you do not have "natural instinct" as a human 2. you aren't describing a universal Ethics. what you are describing a personal passion or desire. there can't be one set of Ethics for you and another one for me. It is based in science. If you agree to that scenario, then you would also have to agree that you would allow someone to punch you in the face. 3. you gloss over rational self-interest. You do not understand rational self-interest by your comment above.

Rand referred to "rational self-interest." "Best interest" does not necessarily mean rational interest.

The precondition for the concept of morality is choice. The choice to act destructively versus productively - productively defined as of benefit to the life of the biological entity acting.

Without the concept of choice, morality has no rational meaning. It becomes, as Rand (Branden?) cited, a "stolen concept."

Biological entities that lack the power of choice act on instinct. When said instinct is inadequate to deal with the reality confronting the entity, it dies - but it NEVER fails to act on its instinct(s). It lacks the capacity to derive ethics (morality).

I am not "quibbling" with you khalling, just being more precise. MORALITY IS THE KEY PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE THAT IS PRECIPITATING THE LOSS OF OUR POLITICAL HERITAGE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

you are making the classic mistake (we all do it) of ascribing human characteristics to a non-human-anthropomorphic

So you are implying that if my natural instinct is to punch the person in the face who is taking too long at the soda fountain in front of me, and I choose not to, then I am committing an immoral act? Yes, I get that it might not be in my best interest to punch the person, but what if I knew without a shadow of a doubt I wouldn't have repercussions? There are no witnesses, no video camera, the person is physically weaker than me, and I know I will never see them again.

Morality in its general sense is the body of acceptable actions and principles as applied to an individual or culture. But what many forget is that all moralities have in mind a goal or outcome which must be either substantiated or not before the individual principles may in turn be considered sound. The moralities of fascism, socialism, democracy, monarchy, theism, atheism, etc. all have their attending principles and general morality that in large part are separate and distinct as a large result of where they lead. So if you want to examine any particular moral philosophy, look first at its goals for they will determine the rest.

Human hubris at work as usual. Research and observation has shown that many animals make what we regard as moral choices, including charity, sacrifice, respect, honor, etc. To conclude that those arise merely from instinct implies that we also act only from instinct.

every animal must make choices to survive. Morality deals with choices, objectives. ( Metaethics). DNA made the choice long ago-pre-programmed, but still a morality. But I agree with the rest of what you are saying.

To be moral, one must act in support of his best interest. (Man at his highest potential) Being moral is an individual choice and an individual act.
Animals act through instinct, not making moral choices, but automatically reacting to their natural needs. Humans are the only living creature that can chose to act against his nature, resulting in an immoral act. Morality is the process of choosing to be moral or not.

Here is a David Kelley essay outlining Objectivist Ethis/morality. It is fairly long, but can be broken up for your reading: http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...