There's a whole segment of the population for whom the threat of eternal supernatural punishment is the only thing that causes them to consider morality a valid construct. That's scary shit, but it's been made clear by many people many, many times that this is how many religious people think. Terrifying.
Another one of those Christian Fundamentalists with American citizenship, in the back woods, planning their next terror attack that represents all of Christianity.
He doesn't have to represent all of Christianity to be terrifying. He's an extreme example, but it's not uncommon at all to hear from the religious the sentiment that if God isn't real, then morality isn't either.
He doesn't have to represent all of Christianity to be terrifying. He's an extreme example, but it's not uncommon at all to hear from the religious the sentiment that if God isn't real, then morality isn't either.
That was the reason for the wink, I don't truly think that.
There's a whole segment of the population for whom the threat of eternal supernatural punishment is the only thing that causes them to consider morality a valid construct. That's scary shit, but it's been made clear by many people many, many times that this is how many religious people think. Terrifying.
Yep. Like how many of them are homophobes who think being gay is a choice, because they've had gay thoughts and "chose not to be gay" so why can't everyone else?
So Randian Libertarianism is where you're living off of Social Security and Medicare and complain that other people are too dependent on the government, right?
Ayn had a point up to a point. Let me say again: up to a fucking point. "Greed," I.E., the pursuit of wealth, has increased the standard of living and life expectancy of humans, and brought generally positive outcomes. Generally. Where Ms. Rand fell off though, is that that greed has generally been tempered with the desire to make life better, rather than purely for greed's sake. Gates, Jobs, and Wozniak all started their computer businesses to enrich peoples' lives, and make money doing so.
Charity is always beneficial, but I don't see it as evil to desire to profit off of improving the human experience. I don't agree with Ms. Rand that all-encompassing greed and self-absorption are morally superior, however.
When people start talking about what a great dude Bill Gates is I just tune out. I'm sorry, I understand what he's done lately. I also understand what he started out like and the type of personality he's got, and strongly suspect that atonement figures big in his charitable contributions in the previous decade or so. Hooray for his generosity with all of his ill gotten wealth, and all, but the people he ruined and the markets he sapped might have done even greater things with those resources if he hadn't, well, stolen them.
About greed: sure the desire for more and better is a compelling force but when it rises to the level of sociopathy we've got problems.
Pursuit of wealth, totally ok. Saying poor people don't deserve love, not ok.
Nobody deserves love. Entitlement is far worse than greed in it's effects on society. Desiring more is what drives progress. Thinking we deserve anything is what drives division and inequity.
Thinking that society bears no responsibility for suffering is sociopathic. You can't have your industry and your markets and your concept of currency without bearing any responsibility.
Depends on whether or not society caused the suffering or if said suffering was self inflicted.
Example: someone has way too much student debt.
A) society told them that the specific course of study they pursued would lead to employment that would easily pay off the debt yet when they graduate no such employment exists. Society is responsible.
person went into a course of study that they warned against because employment would not be there after graduation. Society not responsible.
Again, it all depends on how they got there. If their troubles are self inflicted then society has less of a responsibility if any responsibility at all.
Let me put it this way. If you hand two people bowls of food and the first person looks you right in the eye and drops their food in the dirt while also knocking the other persons food onto the ground are both people equally deserving of a replacement bowl of food?
I am not pointing to real world statistics. What I am pointing out is that as a general rule societies obligation to the disadvantaged is not absolute and those who squander their advantages are less deserving of future assistance. Which is counter to your apparent belief that societies obligation is the same regardless of circumstances surrounding the nature of the disadvantage a person is suffering under.
Comments
F this guy.
Charity is always beneficial, but I don't see it as evil to desire to profit off of improving the human experience. I don't agree with Ms. Rand that all-encompassing greed and self-absorption are morally superior, however.
About greed: sure the desire for more and better is a compelling force but when it rises to the level of sociopathy we've got problems.
Example: someone has way too much student debt.
A) society told them that the specific course of study they pursued would lead to employment that would easily pay off the debt yet when they graduate no such employment exists. Society is responsible.