Somehow I found this on a site about a group that studies and promotes the writings of Ayn Rand called Atlasphere. Ayn Rand was a Russian writer/philosopher who emigrated to the United States. According to her philosophy of Objectivism, Rand believed According to Rand, the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." She also "did not see charity as a moral duty or a major virtue and held it to be proper only when the recipient is worthy and when it does not involve sacrifice." (from Wikipedia) This, apparently, was her take on Thanksgiving...Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as “a typically American holiday ... its
essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a
producers’ holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant
consumption is the result and reward of production.” She was right. This country
was mostly uninhabited and wild when our forefathers began to develop the land
and build spectacular cities, shaping what is now the wealthiest nation in the
world.
It’s the American spirit to overcome challenges, create great
achievements, and enjoy prosperity. We uniquely recognize that production leads
to wealth and that we must dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of life, liberty
and happiness. It’s no accident that Americans have a holiday called
Thanksgiving — a yearly tradition when we pause to appreciate the “bountiful
harvest” we’ve reaped. What is today’s version of the “bountiful harvest”? It’s
the affluence and success we’ve gained. It’s the cars, houses and vacations we
enjoy. It’s the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build,
the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on. It’s the
good life.
How did we get this “bountiful harvest”? Ask any hard-working American; it
sure wasn’t by the “grace of God.” It didn’t grow on a fabled “money tree.” We
created it by working hard, by desiring the best money can buy and by wanting
excellence for ourselves and our loved ones. What we don’t create ourselves, we
trade value for value with those who have the goods and services we need, such
as our stockbrokers, hairdressers and doctors. We alone are responsible for our
wealth. We are the producers and Thanksgiving is our holiday. So, on
Thanksgiving, why don’t we thank ourselves and those producers who make the good life possible?
I found this article to be so sad. I know that not everyone shares my beliefs and my faith, but I thought this article was so self-centered and mean. By her argument anyone who does not have a "bountiful harvest" is what--lazy? I guess it fits in with her ideas about charity and people being deserving of any help.
Today a man who has been preaching in China since the 1970's spoke at church. He talked about life in the 70's during the Cultural Revolution, about the churches starting up again, about the people who waited for so long, who walked so far to be able to worship. He talked about churches that gave everything they had to help others during the earthquake relief efforts, and then raised money to help again. And again. How is it that Rand's response is better for the world than people who are willing to reach out and help?
I have so much to be thankful for--and after reading this I am doubly determined to direct my thanks to where I know it's deserved.
30 comments:
It should be noted that Rand's philosophy did not preclude charity to others, but rather saw that charity is not a duty. By no argument whatsoever is the productive human being somehow responsible for the non-productive. Indeed, it is only the productive human being who can afford to be charitable, but is not required to be.
It should also be noted that compulsory charity - the manner in which most people think and behave - is not charity at all. When one is pressured into generosity, it is theft, not charity. Generosity must be voluntary and of one's own set of values.
Rand said that there is no obligation to charity, however, to the rational human being, there is much reason to be charitable. There is no reason that he become a victim or pauper in need of charity himself to do so.
"By no argument whatsoever is the productive human being somehow responsible for the non-productive." There's a big judgment call in who's "non-productive."
I guess your point of view makes sense if you are of the belief that you and only you are responsible for you and only you. When I see people and systems that function that way, I see a lot of selfishness, a lot of trying to keep up or get ahead. It works fine when you're on the upswing, but if you've just lost your retirement savings and your college funds and your home, is that because you are less productive? If there was a natural disaster, would you sift through the mess for those "deserving" people to whom you would give aid?
I agree charity is always a choice. But for many of us it is a mandate. We are told that God is the provider of all that we have, that we are to be good stewards of the gifts He has given us, that we have been blessed to be a blessing to others, that we should give because we will be blessed that much more ourselves. I do feel a responsibility about giving, but it's not a burden.
Those are Christian words, but when I hear those sentiments expressed by Muslims, or Jews, I feel the same sense of optimism and hope. I feel like I'm part of a larger community. When I read Rand's words, I felt empty. And alone.
I felt lonely and depressed when I read those Rand statements.
To be considered a member "in good standing" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are required to pay a ten percent tithe. We are strongly encouraged to also donate a fast offering every month. Paying tithing has been a tremendous blessing in my life and I can't imagine not doing it. Because it's probably blessed me much more than the "needy," does that make it selfish altruism? Maybe. But really, isn't obedience to all commandments ultimately selfish? The more we obey, the more we are blessed.
The arrogance of Rand's statement about our material blessings being of our own making is outrageous. For one thing, all we have ultimately comes from God. We only return to Him what was already His. Also, this assumes that material wealth is our ultimate goal. We're not taking any of that with us to the eternities. This Thanksgiving I will be giving thanks for physical blessings, but moreso for spiritual.
Malachi 3:10--10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Amen, Calandria. We are also taught to tithe 10% percent and I know that many churches require that before you can hold offices or leadership roles within the church. Whenever someone asks me about it, it's a lot when I look at the dollar amount and yet I don't miss it month to month.
I know that as people of faith, we have a different perspective on charity. Or at least our sense of purpose derives from a different place. I know many people who never step into a church or temple and don't take what sounds to me to be such an arrogant attitude. I spent some time thinking about the poster's comments and trying to figure out how to respond--to find an response that wouldn't result in someone saying, "Well, the whole problem with your argument from the beginning is believing in something as irrational as God." But I couldn't. To me, I can't step outside of what I believe.
I do appreciate the poster's comments, though. I find that when I'm so completely opposite of a person's viewpoint, it does help me to clarify and articulate my own beliefs and values.
Well, as I said, Rand held that there is no obligation to be charitable, however, there are plenty of reasonable arguments for generosity if one wants to be. In fact, I would say that Rand had more supportable arguments for charity than do any of the traditional religions or philosophies. The interconnectedness of all life not being the least of them. Charity isn't argued against in her philosophy - far from it - as much as the idea of "compulsory charity" which, as I said, isn't charity but rather theft. The individual must be free to be charitable or not charitable because the individual owns their life and no one else. I understand that many religions or philosophies argue that the individual does not belong to themselves and therefore whatever they produce is not their property. There are various reasons given for this thinking, none of which is supportable. If the individual does not own themselves, they can own nothing at all. This means they also cannot be charitable. One cannot give away what one does not own by right. Christianity, among other religions, preaches that all belongs to "God", including the self. In that sense, you cannot be charitable. All one can do is give to others what belongs to "God". In that case, it is not you giving but rather you passing along what was not yours. You cannot achieve virtue by giving away what did not belong to you in the first place. What you are really doing is obeying the commandments of your assumed master. Virtue is impossible to you. You can either obey or disobey. For you, there is only one good - obedience to the will of your master. To those who think like Rand, the good must be adequately defined and, if one works toward that good and achieves it, one is virtuous by one's own hand and none can take your virtue from you. You belong to you, what you achieve is your achievement, what you own is your property by right and what you choose to give away is your gift, not that of another. When you are charitable, you have a right to the feeling it gives you to do so and a right to the smile it puts on your face.
If all you are doing is passing along what belongs to "God", you have no right to feel good about your obedience nor a right to a smile for that obedience. You have not done "good", you have merely done as you were told to do.
Well said, Rick. Why is distinguishing between the freedom to give and giving as an obligation so difficult for many people?
It is true that the charity we practice as Christians is a pale imitation of the Lord's, for the reason you say. Everything belongs to God, and it is really just giving back to Him. However, God has made us stewards of His earth. He's given us physical property, talents, and time. He has commanded us in what manner we should use these gifts (to bless the lives of others) because He knows that will lead us to greater happiness in this life and the next. Obedience is a virtue. It requires faith, another virtue.
The divide is so large between what Rick appears to believe and what I believe, it's hard to engage in any real debate here. I recognize that we're operating on two vastly different philosophies.
Actually, I think the difference is between what Rick knows and what you believe. Rick's position is based on rational observation, but you're committed to a belief for which there is no objective basis--no evidence whatsoever, except that you feel that it's true. So you're right: as long as your position derives from and depends on a belief that the rest of us can't observe for ourselves, we're going to have a great philosophical divide. Just bear in mind which philosophy is based on reality (Rand's), and which is based on fantasy (yours). You've made a choice to believe what you believe; you're free to do so, but don't confuse your leap of faith with knowledge.
Yes, I choose to believe and so do you. Everyone believes in something greater than themselves. Everyone worships something. I choose God and you choose something else. Agreed.
Well, I don't think we are "agreed," because what I "believe" in (and I wouldn't characterize it that way) is reality. I don't have to "believe" in reality (in the sense of having faith) because reality is self-evident--one need only open one's eyes. It is not a matter of choice. The question is whether you choose to believe in something beyond what is knowable; you do, I do not. And I have no idea what you mean when you say that "everyone believes in something greater then themselves"; I simply believe in what is; which includes me, but is not "greater" than myself (unless you just mean literally larger, but you & I both know that's not what you mean). And if by "worship" you mean something like "sanctify and place above oneself," then no, not "everyone" does that. However I do think that reason is man's only means of survival, and while I don't "worship" reason, I do think it's a bad idea to undermine it with arbitrary concepts like "God."
You are free to believe what you please, just don't confuse it with knowing anything. I would defend your right to your beliefs with my life. But please, don't try to turn me into a mystic just because that's how you see things.
Hmm. I don't seem to be the one who is trying to convert people. I think you and Rick would make some fine missionaries for the gospel of Ayn Rand. :)
I'm not trying to convert anyone; I've already said that I respect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe.
To answer the question you posted and then apparently deleted, no, I do not believe in God. I see no evidence to support such a belief, and I fully recognize the errors that have led others to believe in Him. I also do not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, nor do I believe in ghosts or goblins-- just as I presume you have chosen not to believe in many "former" Gods such as Ra, Zeus, Apollo, etc. You've narrowed it down to one; I've narrowed it down to zero.
In your original post (Blog #23), you attack Ayn Rand's philosophy without understanding it. I do take exception to that, not because I "worship" her or her philosophy, but because her philosophy does offer a rational approach to living on earth as a human being--sans mysticism--and I don't care to see it mischaracterized. If you want to criticize Objectivism, that's your right, but I would ask that you first take the time to understand it.
So Rick and Chuck, I am guessing that you don't believe in miracles? That is sad indeed, I have seen many in my life and they all came directly from God. This is something that I have personal witness of, you may call it what you will. I don't see how someone can say that God isn't reality when they themselves have not witnessed acts of God, or felt the presence of an angel. It is like trying to describe flavor to someone, to you a strawberry tastes like a strawberry, but how do you know that it tastes like a strawberry to me? You trust that we are experiencing the same flavor. I trust that my God is that same as the Muslim God, the Baptist God, the Hebrew God. Just because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Ave: "I have seen many [miracles] in my life and they all came directly from God."
Says you. People claim all kinds of things; that doesn't make them facts.
Ave: "I don't see how someone can say that God isn't reality when they themselves have not witnessed acts of God"
And I don't see how I could conclude that God does exist when I've seen no indication of Him. Would you have me believe in anything that another person claims, just because they really, REALLY, believe it with all their heart?
Ave: "It is like trying to describe flavor to someone, to you a strawberry tastes like a strawberry, but how do you know that it tastes like a strawberry to me?"
Incorrect. Assuming that your taste buds are functioning within normal human range, they will respond to the chemical structures that produce strawberry flavor just as mine do. That is also why it's possible to artificially create flavoring that the average person will respond to as "strawberry." The combination of chemicals that produce the flavor most people identify as "strawberry" is an objectively quantifiable existent.
Ave: Just because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
For the sake of argument, let's assume I believe that aliens infected Hitler's brain and that's what caused him to murder Jews. Prove me wrong.
What I just did is offer an arbitrary assertion. There is no way you can prove it wrong. Of course, it's ridiculous--but that's how I view your arbitrary claim of God.
Look, I know you believe this with all your heart. But one of us can prove the validity of his concepts and one of us can't. That's why they call what you have "faith." I don't have it. But don't feel sad for me. I have a terrific life, love my family, love being alive on planet earth. And I wish you well. But I have no need for your outdated myths, and I defy you to actually prove that any "miracle" you have personally "seen" could only be explained by supernatural causes or divine intervention.
I removed my comment because I decided to no longer clutter my friend's blog with this discussion. I know Mama Ava personally and I originally commented to agree with what she had said about Ayn Rand's thoughts on Thanksgiving. I have not read nor have I had any desire to read Rand's books. I don't care anything about her philosophy. If you have chosen that as your religion and feel defensive about it, well so be it but I do wonder why you would spend all this time debating with someone you do not even know. You say you have a happy life and I will take your word for it. Enjoy.
First, I wouldn't characterize this discussion as "clutter," and by making such a comment I can only assume that you thought everyone who posted here would simply agree with your and Mama Ava's assessment of Rand's position. It seems to me that these are rather important issues for human beings to discuss.
Second, Objectivism is not a religion; it contains no mysticism, requires no sacrifice, makes no demands other than rationality. I'm not being "defensive," I'm just setting the record straight.
What is a bit sad is that you're not even interested in learning about a philosophy you know nothing about--you'd rather just criticize it without understanding and assume you're right. That's the difference between us, because I have studied your religion; I was raised as a Christian, and have studied all of the major Eastern and Western religions over the years. What I would ask you to consider is whether or not it's reasonable to reject something that you haven't even taken five minutes to understand. Are you so uncertain of your beliefs that you are afraid they might be shaken by reading a book? Or--are you so certain of your beliefs that you don't think there's any need to learn anything new? If the latter, think where we'd be if no one had ever bothered to question the assumptions that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that keeping slaves was okay. If we're ever going to live in a world where people aren't constantly killing each other, we're going to have to actually start listening to each other, and stop closing our eyes and covering our ears and hoping that the people who don't think like us will just . . . go away.
I'm ready to discuss such issues. Feel free to write back once you've done some homework.
Ave, Although I cannot speak for Chuck or anyone else who admires the thought of Ms. Rand, let me say that I have observed and expect to observe more such experiences that many call "miracles". I happen to call them serendipity, or rather happily beneficial and completely unexpected events. I know how they make me feel and I think of them as no less than miraculous. The difference between my experiences and those who believe in a supernatural deity is that, although our experiences seem to be similar, I do not attribute such experiences to a deity whereas a believer does. I can understand why a believer does so, however, I feel no need to jump to such unsupportable conclusions as they. To me, the experience itself is enough without the need to invent explanations to complete it. Sometimes, a reasonable explanation reveals itself, often it doesn't, but it is no matter. The experience is what it is and I'm always thankful for it.
As for "worshipping" Ayn Rand, although I admire her thinking greatly, she nevertheless made some rather silly mistakes and didn't go far enough in her thinking in some places in her philosophy. There are those who think of her as infallible and her philosophy complete. They seem to worship the woman in some sense. I am not one of them.
At any rate, I hope you come away with an understanding of what I've said on my and her behalf - charity, although not in anyway supportable as a duty, can be factually and reasonably argued as a wise act. I support charity when I am able and in need of that feeling generosity brings to me, however, I am adamantly opposed to the pressures human beings put on one another to be generous or charitable with rather mean-spirited and often violent consequences if one isn't. What they wish isn't charity. Theirs is an act of irrational envy causing them to demand what does not belong to them. Theirs is arrogance regarding property they believe ought not be held by the one who earned it. Theirs is tribalism. Theirs is jealousy. Theirs is socialism. Theirs is the way of brutality posturing as compassion for others.
The competent or productive are in no way responsible for the incompetent or non-productive. The strong are not responsible for the weak. The healthy are not responsible for the ill. They can choose to be responsible, however, to force that responsibility onto them removes all chance of authentic charity and authentic compassion or empathy. Force and/or coercion undeservedly demotes some to slavery and undeservedly promotes some to that of lord and master.
"Compulsory charity" removes all authenticity from human relationships. It destroys civilization. It suppresses love in favor of loathing - those who are forced to give for the receiver, and the receiver for the giver.
The question was asked - "How is it that Rand's response is better for the world than people who are willing to reach out and help?"
It occurred to me I'd not responded to that question, so, here's my answer - put precisely as asked, Rand's response to charity is precisely the same, people who are WILLING to reach out and help. As I've said before, Rand believed and proved it is perfectly reasonable for one to voluntarily assist others when one is able and values doing so. What Rand opposed was the cultural expectation that one MUST give to others whether one wants to or not, whether one is genuinely able or not, whether one values those in need or not and, if one is not generous in the "right" amounts, with the "right" frequency and in the "right" directions as expected by others, one is subjected to scorn, denigration, censure and often even brutality. She rejected the tribal, the socialist, the communist notion that the individual and the value they own and produce exists only to serve the "common good". She rejected the notion the individual is secondary to the group, that "society" is above "person". She rejected it because, without the individual, there is no group. Without "person", family, society, culture, community, state, nation, and so on are impossible. Without healthy and happy individuals of value, owning value, producing value, the group is nothing and thus has no value. She reasoned that it is only the individual who can afford charity out of the value they are, the value they possess and create, and because the individual owns themselves and the value they have produced, currently produce and will produce, to be generous or not is their sole decision. No other human being can reasonably compel them to generosity against their will nor is any other human being within their rights to expect otherwise. To do so is not to expect charity - which is necessarily a contradiction - but rather to expect without debate that which one has not earned for no other reason than one "needs it" or "wants it".
To Rand, individual choice regarding one's person and that which one rightly owns or produces was everything. If the type of charity you advocate is entirely voluntary and without coercion of the potential giver of any kind, you are not in disagreement with Ayn Rand. If you believe the giving of value without value in return to others the duty of every individual regardless of their personal set of values as a result of or with the consequence of whatever coercion you deem fit, she and I adamantly disagree with your thinking.
You do not argue for charity, you argue for the supremacy among human beings of envy.
Okay. Taking a deep breath here. I chose to comment on Mama. Ava's. original. post. My comments addressed those Rand statements contained in the post. I made no sweeping condemnation of her philosphy. Go ahead and look back at my commments. Where do I criticize Rand's philosophy except for the statements in Mama Ava's original post?
Chuckbutler, you have been very condescending in your comments. You have mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. You assume, obviously, that I am an idiot because I am a Christian. This blog is open to comments and you are free to express that. But don't expect me to think you are interested in discussion that doesn't involved Christian-bashing.
It was the original post that opened the critique of one philosophy - namely objectivism, the philosophy as originated by Ms. Ayn Rand. If critique of one philosophy is permitted, however the critique of another - namely that of christianity - isn't permitted, it becomes a rather unbalanced discussion. It is true that there are many who follow objectivism who are abrupt in their debates of philosophical topics, but the same is true of every philosophy, christianity and a great many of those who consider themselves its followers being notably guilty of the same.
At any rate, I do not speak in defense of anyone in particular. Let it be understood, all of my comments are primarily to defend ideas which, in my estimation are merely truths which genuinely need no defense. Ayn Rand - and Jesus Christ - are both deceased. They too need no defense. What I'd hoped to engage in here was a friendly discussion of ideas and their truths and falsehoods. If we are not concerned with the legitimacy of our ideas, we cannot be certain of the legitimacy of our actions.
I continue to support the idea that generosity is a free choice and one's choices in the matter ought to and must be free of denigration and unfair coercion from others. I quite enjoy being generous with others and that generosity has absolutely nothing to do with feelings of obligation, duty or responsiblity. I do it because I value the lives of others and I value the experience of helping them when I can. If I did not value these things, I would not be generous.
As for gratitude at this time of Thanksgiving, I am grateful for a good many things. I show my gratitude by thanking those who are genuinely responsible for those things, be it myself or someone else. I refuse to offer gratitude to those who are undeserving of it, certainly not to alleged deities whose existence has not been adequately shown to be true by those who claim them.
What I'd hoped to show in all of my comments is the fact that, although generosity to others isn't my duty or responsibility, I can make a very good case for being generous without the need of commandments from "spirits" or from other people. I am generous completely independently of what others believe or desire of me and will continue to do so. I believe that is what Ayn Rand and many of her followers would do as well. As I said, Rand held individual value and individual choices as primary values. Some find objectivism to be lacking compassion for others, but they do so from a lack of real understanding of the philosophy, its ideas, its principles. I would recommend one reads much more of what objectivism teaches to dispense with misconceptions. I happen to believe objectivism is one of the few if not the only philosophy that provides sound factual and consistently logical support from its metaphysics to its epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics for compassion among human beings and for other forms of life versus the simple commandment or tradition to do so.
You can be certain, when one who calls themselves "objectivist" is generous and thankful, they do so and feel such for authentic reasons. Theirs is deep conviction you will find rare in most other ways of life. They need no coercion to do what is right and will suffer no coercion in any event.
You people all think too fast for me. By the time I figure out something to say, the conversation is way past whatever comment moved me to comment.
To the original issue of charitiable giving. Every year I ask my children to participate in holiday volunteering. They do it because I make them do it. I don't delude myself into thinking they are being truly charitable. I am just hoping that they will someday come to see the value in it themselves, as I do, and choose to continue the tradition on their own. (I am also reminded of a post you did once - or perhaps you told me in person - about Cameron choosing to use his own money to purchase gifts for his siblings, and how pleased you were that he was developing his own sense of generosity.)
I don't give because the Bible, or any other religious book or leader, tells me to. I do because I believe it is a worthwhile endeavor, to help others. It makes me feel like I am doing a good thing, which warms my spirit. On another blog (dooce) there was a post which asked people to chime in - it went something like this: A family has young children and no food, and the father is a crack addict. Do you give them money anyway, knowing that it may be used for food but it may be used for drugs? Overwhelmingly the responses from her readers was they would give the money anyway, because they believed it to be the right thing to do.
It may be semantics, but I agree that if you say the primary reason you give is because it is what your church tells you to do, well, that isn't selfless giving, it's following directions, or, as Calandria said, the more you give, the more blessings you receive. But it also reminds me of an episode of Friends where Phoebe is trying to find a way to give totally selflessly, but she can't do it. She ALWAYS ends up getting something in return -- because even when she finds a way to give without getting any good feelings in return (she does something she does NOT feel good about) she still gains because she seemingly succeeded in doing something without gain, but then she realizes that that, in itself, was her goal, so she HAS gained.
So does that prove that at a deep level, it is impossible to "selflessly" give? I can see and agree with that - and you know what, it really doesn't matter to me :-)
OK, longer than I expeceted, and now I have to take my kids to school.
"When I read Rand's words, I felt empty. And alone."
Yes, indeed you do as do all those whose "sense of life and justice" is not in their own 'self' but is owed to, and belongs to others.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted benevolence by regarding the giver as and object of immolation and the receiver as a helpless miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others; a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving people no choice but playing the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal.
I hope that I am not giving only because my church tells me to.
Hi Karen, I have to say I agree with much of your point of view. I've maintained for a long time that truly "selfless charity" is impossible.
Although I think it a good idea to set the charitable example for your children as long as it all comes with ample explanation of why you feel it good to do so, I must say I think it bordering on child abuse to force a child to do so. I'm not saying you intend abuse, however, to force the child to give before they fully understand why they're doing it teaches nothing but obedience and nothing of charity and the reasonable arguments for it. Once a children does understand the notion of charity, to force them to be generous is still wrong because, as I've said, compulsory charity isn't charity at all. Surely, there must be a more reasonable way to teach generosity without going the route of commandment and obedience. We want so much to teach our children to be independent and self-sufficient and yet time and again we teach them to value obedience above all else. You may not think this is so but, I assure you, upon close examination, you'll be shocked at how often what you want from them is obedience far more than independence of thought and action.
At any rate, I liked the things you had to say and get a good feeling your thoughts are in the right place. It's refreshing to see someone who thinks of themselves as Christian with an independent spirit.
WHO IS JOHN GALT?
:-)
One other thing. (I'm back from taking the boys to school.)
I get REALLY upset when people imply that religious people have a monopoly on charitable giving, or ethical living, or morality (note - I am NOT saying anyone here has said this, just in general) as if atheists cannot be kind, generous individuals. But I get equally upset when it is said that religious people do those things "only" because their faith tells them to. As if they are mindless robots who simply follow directions.
I believe the truth to be as simple as everyone makes choices on how they live, perhaps people are led to being generous because their faith community compels them to, perhaps people choose their faith community because it is in line with their personal philosophy of giving. And perhaps people find a philosophy or way of life that is meaningful to them without the inclusion of any spiritual beings, or perhaps they find meaning in many spiritual beings.
Depending on your definition of the word "know" you either are confident you "know" what is right and true, or you are able to say you don't "know" and that it is OK not to know.
People who believe in God and people who don't ... neither can prove to the other what is right or wrong. Each makes the determination which is right for themselves. Each can bring out science or miracles or rational observations or intense feelings of spirituality. And each can argue away the others' assertions.
My edict: Be at ease with the way you live your life, learn always, and be grateful for the diversity among humans.
Karen has spoken.
Interesting comment on the child abuse angle, it made me recall a radio show I heard earlier this year where the topic was Bristol Palin's wedding. It had been rumored that the wedding would occur before November 4th, and a caller in to the show said that amounted to child abuse, forcing your teenager to get married for political reasons. The majority of people, including the radio personalities, vehemently disagreed with her. Me, not so much.
I do talk a lot with my children about why I make the choices I make, and why I ask them to participate. I do allow them to disagree with me, though I certainly admit to using a bit of motherly guilt at times! But I do the same thing to get them to do other things which keep them healthy or safe, and I think it is the parent's responsibility to do so as the child forms their own ability to make decisions for themselves. I encourage them to observe people around them and then make their choices based on what they see -- and as I am the person they see the most, and know the best, it is not unexpected that they choose to follow my example quite often.
Oh, and just for the record, I never referred to myself as Christian.
Karen, one of my favorite sayings is that people are good or bad human beings most often and quite in spite of the philosophy or religion they profess to hold. I've seen it too many times for it to be otherwise.
From something else you'd written, I meant to say this: I think in quite a few cases, people do what they do or say what they say and then explain why with whatever it is their religion or philosophy teaches, however, the real reasons for their doing or saying it is this: they felt is was the right thing at the time. Because Ayn Rand has been a central topic here, I will tell you that she called this a person's "sense of life". What she meant by this was whatever it is in a human being that leads them along the way to choose this belief over that one, or this set of beliefs over another set. Why like to posture that we choose because of deep thinking and well-thought reasons and facts but, more times than not, our choices are made according to our basic character, our "sense of life" in general. I believe this is why some people are simply good people and some are simply bad regardless of the religion or philosophy or politics they claim. Because this is true, there are bad christians and good atheists ... and vice versa.
All in all, most of us live by what feels right at the moment. Maybe it ought not be that way but, there it is all the same.
Typos, typos. I shouldn't try this with no sleep.
At any rate, Karen, pardon the misunderstanding on the "christian" label. It was an unintentional assumption.
Also, many thanks to the owner of this blog and the interesting post. It's not often I get to speak on these topics and its afforded me something of value to do this day. Because the topic was gratitude, let me finally say I'm so very grateful for the opportunity for discussion and to "meet" some new voices. As I've said elsewhere, "hijacking" was not the intent nor has it ever been to silence any opinions - quite the opposite.
My hope is I've not given offense. None has been intended.
A Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Calandria: "I [give] because I believe it is a worthwhile endeavor, to help others. It makes me feel like I am doing a good thing, which warms my spirit." Additionally, others have made comments about the good feeling of giving.
I wonder how many realize that some moralists would consider this immoral? Immanuel Kant and Auguste Compte, for instance. Also, some of the teachings of the Catholics. Why is it wrong to go for that "good feeling?" Because you are motivated by "inclination." This is considered no less selfish than to give nothing, or to take. Instead one must adopt a truly uninclined state of mind. It ends up being duty -- duty without pride, satisfaction or enjoyment of performing the duty.
That is rather hard to visualize, isn't it? Ayn Rand thought so, and she built up a case of it in her fiction. In The Fountainhead there is a character "Catherine". She is the daughter of Elsworth Toohey, the 'bad guy' of the novel. At the beginning she has a rather light-hearted happiness and delight in things. She is hungry for learning. She has a giving spirit. Through a series of events and through the direct indoctrination of her father, she is transformed into the embodiment of the someone uninclined. She goes about performing duty with no selfishness in it, no reward. It is hard to watch.
The majority of the world: "That's not the real way giving happens, you are exaggerating and totalizing."
Ayn Rand: "Am I?"
I believe that Ayn Rand would support and validate that something that "warms your spirit" would be a good indicator of right action, although she would do a lot of checking to see if you also had something that sets your "spirt on fire" and drives your chosen life of creating value open to others who are doing the same. She would not support anyone who had no self-driven purpose who only lives to get that jolt of helping others. Many people disagree with that, saying the "Magnificent Obsession" of filling one's soul with giving is Love and the route to God.
Unfortunately, in the modern era, private giving (inevitably with warm feeling attached) has been trumped by coerced government collection of wealth from some to be distributed by need to to others. Unfeeling detachment of uninclinded duty is thus obtained.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Post a Comment