Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

We've gone over this a thousand times, but I clearly haven't expressed myself very well.  I agree with y'all that morality exists, that it is very important, and that it must be grounded in something objective.  I am disgusted by most atheists, as they reject wholeheartedly any notion of objective morality.  Most atheists just reject God, and then spend no time asking what they actually think is true.  I don't like the term 'atheist' because it says nothing about what one actually thinks, I am an Objectivist.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor.  If I contract with someone, and I do the job as agreed upon, then I am owed the amount of money which we agreed to.  At the most basic, human rights are based upon the law of identity, A is A and man is man.  Every man has a nature, a human-ness if you will.  As a man, I have a decision to make, to live or not to live.  If I choose to live, my nature demands that I pursue certain values.  I must pursue food, water, shelter, clothes, and a host of other values in order to remain alive.  If I am to live, I must have the ability to make my own decisions, as I must use my reason in order to live.  I cannot live on instincts alone, like the animals.  This is the right to liberty.  I also must produce the things that I need in order to live, as I will not find them lying around on the ground.  I have a right to produce values, and those values are mine as I made them.  I have a right to property.  Why am I pursuing these values?  I am doing so in order to live.  The moral standard of value for man is his life.  Morality gives man a path to sustain and further his life.  This, of course, all revolves around the right to live, which derives from the law of identity.  It is in man's very nature to live, and if a man chooses not to live, morality has no purpose to him.  From the law of identity we can deduce the rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness comes from the fact that man's natural purpose in living is to be happy.  The answer to the question 'why should a man live?' is in order to be happy.  These rights are grounded in the law of identity, which is implied in the very act of perceiving the world around us.  The law of identity cannot be denied without implicitly using the law of identity in the attack.  This is how morality is grounded in objective facts, which is very important.

If you want to disagree with me, then take issue with what I wrote.  Read.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

We've gone over this a thousand times, but I clearly haven't expressed myself very well.  I agree with y'all that morality exists, that it is very important, and that it must be grounded in something objective.  I am disgusted by most atheists, as they reject wholeheartedly any notion of objective morality.  Most atheists just reject God, and then spend no time asking what they actually think is true.  I don't like the term 'atheist' because it says nothing about what one actually thinks, I am an Objectivist.

The ability to be owed comes from the right to property.  I, as a man, have the right to the product of my labor.  If I contract with someone, and I do the job as agreed upon, then I am owed the amount of money which we agreed to.  At the most basic, human rights are based upon the law of identity, A is A and man is man.  Every man has a nature, a human-ness if you will.  As a man, I have a decision to make, to live or not to live.  If I choose to live, my nature demands that I pursue certain values.  I must pursue food, water, shelter, clothes, and a host of other values in order to remain alive.  If I am to live, I must have the ability to make my own decisions, as I must use my reason in order to live.  I cannot live on instincts alone, like the animals.  This is the right to liberty.  I also must produce the things that I need in order to live, as I will not find them lying around on the ground.  I have a right to produce values, and those values are mine as I made them.  I have a right to property.  Why am I pursuing these values?  I am doing so in order to live.  The moral standard of value for man is his life.  Morality gives man a path to sustain and further his life.  This, of course, all revolves around the right to live, which derives from the law of identity.  It is in man's very nature to live, and if a man chooses not to live, morality has no purpose to him.  From the law of identity we can deduce the rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.  The pursuit of happiness comes from the fact that man's natural purpose in living is to be happy.  The answer to the question 'why should a man live?' is in order to be happy.  These rights are grounded in the law of identity, which is implied in the very act of perceiving the world around us.  The law of identity cannot be denied without implicitly using the law of identity in the attack.  This is how morality is grounded in objective facts, which is very important.

all youve said here (and Ive read it several times) is these things are true because I say they are true.

[Probius]

If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?

[james03]

I established this right above, which you clearly did not read.

I'll rephrase.  You are using circular reasoning.  It boils down to "Rights come from.....I have a right".

And I'll rephrase the question:  You have a GOAL to live.  That is your want, not a right (from an atheist standpoint, obviously a Catholic would not agree).  That's really nice.  Now how can you make a claim on someone else?  For example, where does your moral sanction come from to say I can't take your property?

[Probius]

Of course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?  You seem to be just denying anything I say, because it comes from me.

What you describe isn't circular reasoning, it is grounding rights in reality.  You have to posit a proper basis for rights, if they are to be proven to be real.  Rights are bass on the law of identity.

You can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.

[Probius]

Here is a cartoon on the non-aggression principle.  Obviously, it is not scholarly, but it is funny and makes a good point.
The non-aggression principle is the basis of politics, and is based on the right to live.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?

Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.

[james03]

Of course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?

Where have you established that you have a right to pursue your goal?  Again, you are using circular reasoning.  I have a right.....because I have rights.  Of course a Catholic believes he has a right to live.  And he can establish it from first principles, because he believes in God.

You can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.

Now you have contradicted yourself.  If you can't make a claim on someone else, then you can't claim that they pay you.

[Probius]

If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?

Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.

Brilliant, thanks for finally saying it.  You will deny anything I say, because I don't believe in your God.  I appreciate your honesty.

[Probius]

Of course I have a goal to live, and I have a right to pursue that goal.  If you don't think that you have a right to live, why are you doing so?

Where have you established that you have a right to pursue your goal?  Again, you are using circular reasoning.  I have a right.....because I have rights.  Of course a Catholic believes he has a right to live.  And he can establish it from first principles, because he believes in God.

You can't make a claim on someone else.  You don't own other people.

Now you have contradicted yourself.  If you can't make a claim on someone else, then you can't claim that they pay you.

I don't make a claim on someone else when I trade with that person.

The right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

If you have read what I wrote, then explain why you think I'm wrong.  Do you deny the law of identity?  Do you deny human nature?  Do you deny that rights derive from the law of identity?  If so, why?

Yes I deny all of it because you deny the need for a creator of these things which is just moronic. If there is a law ANY law there MUST be a lawgiver. You deny this...that is insane.

Brilliant, thanks for finally saying it.  You will deny anything I say, because I don't believe in your God.  I appreciate your honesty.

No not what I said...you WISH I said that. I said you deny that there must be a lawgiver for a law to exist. That is insane.

[james03]

The right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.

It is easily denied.  If you believe this, stop eating.  Cows and plants are killed all the time so you can eat.

[Probius]

The right to live is an axiom, and it cannot be denied.

It is easily denied.  If you believe this, stop eating.  Cows and plants are killed all the time so you can eat.

The right to live is not the same as invincibility.  I can't fathom how you would confuse the two.  You have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature, you don't have a right to live forever because it is not in your nature.

If you believe that you don't have a right to live, then stop doing so.

[james03]

I'll repeat, of course I believe I have a right to live.  And as a Catholic, I can establish it.  Consider that point settled.  Catholics believe we have a right to live.

You have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature, you don't have a right to live

More begging the question, or if you prefer, circular reasoning.  You have a right to pursue life because it is in your nature to have a right to pursue life.

So why am I allowed to kill a cow?

[JuniorCouncilor]

Humans have volition, and therefore cannot be predicted.

I guess I shouldn't argue too hard with you, since you're right.  Nonetheless, I don't see how that fits otherwise with your worldview.  'The universe is ruled by laws, and is thus predictable and soluble.'  Well, humans are a part of that universe.  Arguably the most important (visible) part.  It's awfully strange to me to say that the universe is predictable and soluble but then the most important visible part of it isn't.

Besides which, this volition is based on rationality, no?  If so, then the decisions made should be rational.  This should also be true, again, because humans are part of the universe and thus subject to natural law, thus predictable and soluble (according to your worldview, as it seems to me that it must be in order to be consistent).

The reality, of course, is that we know that humans aren't always rational about their volition-- so why should we suppose they will ever be so rational as to solve the universe, which would seem to be a much more difficult problem?