Humility: Good or Bad?

[ResRev]

Okay, that's only funny 'cause it's true.

[Probius]

What my family taught me growing up corresponds most closely with John Locke, Frederick Bastiat, and Ayn Rand.  What about you?

[ResRev]

Mine were more proximate and less philosopher. Hazlitt, Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman, the Federalist papers, even haha PJ O'Rourke. I never got into Rand. She seemed abrasive and unnecessarily insulting. Militaristic, almost. Not my style. But even though I think these writers are amazing mini-philosophers for lack of a better term, I don't see them as products of the so-called enlightenment. I'd call it more of the real dark age; despite these men, though, not because of. I'll leave it at that, though. I've got a baby on my chest that wants attention, I feel more like stating than debating.

[Probius]

Mine were more proximate and less philosopher. Hazlitt, Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman, the Federalist papers, even haha PJ O'Rourke. I never got into Rand. She seemed abrasive and unnecessarily insulting. Militaristic, almost. Not my style. But even though I think these writers are amazing mini-philosophers for lack of a better term, I don't see them as products of the so-called enlightenment. I'd call it more of the real dark age; despite these men, though, not because of. I'll leave it at that, though. I've got a baby on my chest that wants attention, I feel more like stating than debating.

I am a big fan of Rothbard, Hayek, and Friedman.  I don't know Hazlitt and PJ O'Rourke.  You're right that Miss Rand wasn't the most cuddly of all philosophers.  I love her ideas, but she could have done a better job of selling them to the public.  Friedman did a great job of this, he was very funny and approachable.  Have a nice day. 

[m.PR]

This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think. 

Sure. But how do arrive at Truth? There are some first principles which you develop in order to get at Truth. Why do you accept them?

I can see you and some people here are speaking right past each other regarding "authority". Your definition is kind of an odd one. People in the United States do have an authority. . . it's themselves, or rather, the majority. That's the Enlightenment concept of popular sovereignty. The people make laws, and these laws, in themselves, have authority. The people also name public officials to make and uphold laws, who in turn may name other public officials; these people too have authority. Even colloquially we call them "the authorities."

But that only scratches the surface of the meaning of authority.

For instance, given that most of us have not observed the stars and made a careful study of our own observations in order to reach conclusions about the movement of the stars - we accept what we know about astronomy on the authority of our teachers.

People have authority over others as a function of their roles. For example, a project leader has the authority to tell his teammates what they may wear at their presentation. He does not, however, have the authority to tell them what TV shows they may watch after they get home from work (unless it's somehow relevant to the project).

Also, as you said, sort of, when a person creates something, he has a certain author-ity over it. It thus follows that God has authority over us all.

You're missing something from your formula. It isn't "I have no authority" but rather "I have no authority but myself." The Enlightenment man believes that he has all the authority over himself when he is born, but that he delegates some of it as he sees fit for his convenience; therefore, only the authorities that he recognizes are the legitimate authorities. The social contract. Of course, it turns out he delegates authority all over the place.

For the Catholic all legitimate authority comes from God. Authority lies beyond each person.

[Probius]

This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think. 

Sure. But how do arrive at Truth? There are some first principles which you develop in order to get at Truth. Why do you accept them?

I can see you and some people here are speaking right past each other regarding "authority". Your definition is kind of an odd one. People in the United States do have an authority. . . it's themselves, or rather, the majority. That's the Enlightenment concept of popular sovereignty. The people make laws, and these laws, in themselves, have authority. The people also name public officials to make and uphold laws, who in turn may name other public officials; these people too have authority. Even colloquially we call them "the authorities."

But that only scratches the surface of the meaning of authority.

For instance, given that most of us have not observed the stars and made a careful study of our own observations in order to reach conclusions about the movement of the stars - we accept what we know about astronomy on the authority of our teachers.

People have authority over others as a function of their roles. For example, a project leader has the authority to tell his teammates what they may wear at their presentation. He does not, however, have the authority to tell them what TV shows they may watch after they get home from work (unless it's somehow relevant to the project).

Also, as you said, sort of, when a person creates something, he has a certain author-ity over it. It thus follows that God has authority over us all.

You're missing something from your formula. It isn't "I have no authority" but rather "I have no authority but myself." The Enlightenment man believes that he has all the authority over himself when he is born, but that he delegates some of it as he sees fit for his convenience; therefore, only the authorities that he recognizes are the legitimate authorities. The social contract. Of course, it turns out he delegates authority all over the place.

For the Catholic all legitimate authority comes from God. Authority lies beyond each person.

You're defining authority rather broadly and vaguely here.  What I mean by authority is someone else who can use violence to force me to do something against my will.  You can argue about the definition all you want, but what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.

[Probius]

Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.

Haha, yes.  I would rather be ruled over by the mafia than the government, if I have to be ruled over at all.

Hey Voxx, we actually agree on something!  Right on.

[m.PR]

what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?

You are right that I was talking about authority under a rather broad definition. In my defense I was trying to counter your overly narrow "someone who is the law" à la Louis XIV. Also, it seems to me that some people have asked you about what authority do you accept and then get frustrated when you appear to dodge the question (perhaps because you didn't understand what was being meant by authority).

Here you are talking about Max Weber's concept of the State's monopoly on legitimate violence.

An obvious difference between the government and the Mafia is their ends. The Mafia works for the Mafia families. The government is supposed to maintain law and order, enforce contracts, resolve conflicts, defend its people from outside threats, etc., generally defending the common good - for the whole community. We may say that a corrupt government works very much like the Mafia in that public officials start working for themselves only. But that does not mean we should get rid of government or render it powerless. I have a feeling this has been discussed here before. Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

What I don't understand is how you can both assert that there are Laws which are based on Reality which stands outside of you and that nobody should "dictate your life" as you put it. What if you break the Laws? What if you don't know what the Laws are because your use of reason is deficient or you just haven't thought about a particular subject? Shouldn't somebody tell you -- and shouldn't somebody stop you from breaking Laws -- and shouldn't there be a mechanism to stop people from breaking Laws without the situation devolving into family feuds at best or absolute chaos at worst? I honestly do not know what you mean. I thought you were a libertarian, not an anarchist. . .

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Yes the Mafia is actually effective and less intrusive in the lives of the citizenry.

Haha, yes.  I would rather be ruled over by the mafia than the government, if I have to be ruled over at all.

Hey Voxx, we actually agree on something!  Right on.

We agree on alot...unfortunately none of it will save you from hell.

[Probius]

what I mean by this is that no man has a rightful claim on my life.  No man may initiate force against me.  And, no man may dictate my life, I make my own decisions.  The government uses force against me, and this is horribly immoral.  Just ask yourself, is there really any difference between the government and the mafia?

You are right that I was talking about authority under a rather broad definition. In my defense I was trying to counter your overly narrow "someone who is the law" à la Louis XIV. Also, it seems to me that some people have asked you about what authority do you accept and then get frustrated when you appear to dodge the question (perhaps because you didn't understand what was being meant by authority).

Here you are talking about Max Weber's concept of the State's monopoly on legitimate violence.

An obvious difference between the government and the Mafia is their ends. The Mafia works for the Mafia families. The government is supposed to maintain law and order, enforce contracts, resolve conflicts, defend its people from outside threats, etc., generally defending the common good - for the whole community. We may say that a corrupt government works very much like the Mafia in that public officials start working for themselves only. But that does not mean we should get rid of government or render it powerless. I have a feeling this has been discussed here before. Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

What I don't understand is how you can both assert that there are Laws which are based on Reality which stands outside of you and that nobody should "dictate your life" as you put it. What if you break the Laws? What if you don't know what the Laws are because your use of reason is deficient or you just haven't thought about a particular subject? Shouldn't somebody tell you -- and shouldn't somebody stop you from breaking Laws -- and shouldn't there be a mechanism to stop people from breaking Laws without the situation devolving into family feuds at best or absolute chaos at worst? I honestly do not know what you mean. I thought you were a libertarian, not an anarchist. . .

There are a lot of anarchists in the Libertarian party.  I know a few other anarchists in the local Libertarian party.  Anarcho-Capitalism is one strain among many in libertarianism.  I have mentioned the non-aggression principle here, but not yet anarchy.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  If a man uses aggression against another man, aggression may be used against him to stop him.  A man may use aggression in self defense, or aggression may be used in bringing about justice.  Neither of these acts are initiating force.

The government does state that its end is proper, but even if this were true it wouldn't matter, as the ends never justify the means.  The government uses force to achieve its ends, which cannot be deemed acceptable.  I haven't heard of Max Weber, I was speaking of Murray Rothbard.  Stephan Molyneaux has some good things to say on anarchy as well, and he is brave enough to call himself an anarchist.  I find that inspirational.

[Non Nobis]

...
I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

You think pride is important. Isn't pride only in the mind?  Is it perfectly OK (morally) to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally); or for others (morally and legally) to humiliate you to any degree?

It is legal for a man to voluntarily debase himself, it is his life, but it is an awful thing to do.  And for others to humiliate you depends on what you mean by humiliate.  They may legally say nasty things, but they may not physically hurt you or your property.  To speak ill of others is to act immorally, but no illegally.  They also may not slander or libel your character, if these things be lies.  So, they couldn't lie and write a column which states that you stole money when you didn't.  That sort of humiliation is illegal and immoral.

To act immorally is to act in a way which I think is bad, but which violates no rights and therefore cannot be stopped with force.  To act illegally is to act in a way which violates another's rights and can be stopped using force.  Force is a terrible evil and must only be used in defense of one's self or loved ones.  The non-aggression principle is at the heart of all of this.  A man may not initiate force against another.  If you use the law to stop someone from acting immorally, then you have initiated force upon one who has used no force himself.

You say it is "awful" to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally).  Doesn't that qualify for immoral action, or is "awful" different than "bad"?  Aren't these things only in the mind?  Isn't it possible to have immoral thoughts, as the Church teaches?

Of course 'bad' is whatever you want it to be, so you have an easy out.  Atheism does give you easy ways out of moral problems. At least it feels easy.

[Probius]

If a man debases himself mentally, he lessens his self esteem.  It is not a matter of morality in the Christian sense, I don't say he is a bad man for doing so, I don't judge him.  His self debasement will not lead to happiness, which is man's purpose in life.

I may be up late tonight as there is a tornado moving through town.  Stupid nature.

[Probius]

Yesterday was the two year anniversary of the 2011 tornado that did so much damage, how ironic.

[Probius]

I was discussing materialism earlier (I forget where) and I have read some more on this topic.  I stated that materialism wouldn't necessarily deny the mind.  Well, I was wrong, materialism does deny the mind.  So, clearly I must reject materialism, as it leads to absurdity.  I don't always like admitting when I'm wrong, but I must in this case.