How I have come to understand "morality' is as follows:
Man has "free will." He may exercise this powerful capacity as he chooses. This capacity gives rise to the very concept of morality. Take away his will and his freedom in its exercise, and the need for such a concept as morality logically vanishes.
Morality then defines responsibility. If Man must choose between alternatives that range from the furtherance of his life to its destruction - both materially and spiritually, then he is responsible for the choices he makes. If he is responsible for the choices he makes, then he must have the right(s) necessary to fulfill this responsibility - qua man.
The above reasoning is why I always tout responsibility prior to "rights."
You accuse Biddle of “retreating to safe abstaction(s),” of engaging in a “defensive maneuver,” of asserting “philosophical authority” while avoiding the contradictions you revealed in his thinking, of purposely discussing morality in general terms in an effort to avoid discussing said contradictions. That is to say, you know his motives, you know he is aware of his contradictions and that he knowingly tries to get around them by certain maneuvers.
There is not an ounce of good will in how you choose to frame the delivery of your critique of his work and his choice to not engage it. This was the same spirit in which you addressed me—the same one I find in virtually all your online exchanges.
I’ve expressed some of my differences in perspective with Biddle’s ideas—and he has chosen not to acknowledge them. So what? Maybe he just enjoys writing and doesn’t have time to engage his readers. I don’t bulverize the man. I don’t know hik. But from hearing him lecture and debate, it seems pretty self-evident that he is a lovely man.
To quote Dennis Prager, “religion is the ship that holds all the moral cargo.”
While the good can be discovered by the mind apart from religion—something Prager acknowledges—people seem to prefer it or some national narrative (ex: Japan) to philosophy. And since academic philosophy has failed in its charge to furnish the world an objective morality, religion remains the essential vehicle tasked with that goal, which is truly a pity.
You raise many important points. You should expand and clarify and put this into a book. If you carefully build and illustrate these points, you could make a significant contribution to morality in general and objectivism in particular.
A small point about higher and lower pleasures. A back rub releases endorphins and maybe dopamine, what we call pleasure. But reading philosophy, while it also has this immediate effect, is different. It leads to long term improvements in your life and thus more releases of dopamine. This is why it is considered a "higher" pleasure.
You accuse Biddle of “retreating to safe abstaction(s),” of engaging in a “defensive maneuver,” of asserting “philosophical authority” while avoiding the contradictions you revealed in his thinking, of purposely discussing morality in general terms in an effort to avoid discussing said contradictions. That is to say, you know his motives, you know he is aware of his contradictions and that he knowingly tries to get around them by certain maneuvers.
There is not an ounce of good will in how you choose to frame the delivery of your critique of his work and his choice to not engage it. This was the same spirit in which you addressed me—the same one I find in virtually all your online exchanges.
I’ve expressed some of my differences in perspective with Biddle’s ideas—and he has chosen not to acknowledge them. So what? Maybe he just enjoys writing and doesn’t have time to engage his readers. I don’t bulverize the man. I don’t know hik. But from hearing him lecture and debate, it seems pretty self-evident that he is a lovely man.
As usual, a powerful article!
How I have come to understand "morality' is as follows:
Man has "free will." He may exercise this powerful capacity as he chooses. This capacity gives rise to the very concept of morality. Take away his will and his freedom in its exercise, and the need for such a concept as morality logically vanishes.
Morality then defines responsibility. If Man must choose between alternatives that range from the furtherance of his life to its destruction - both materially and spiritually, then he is responsible for the choices he makes. If he is responsible for the choices he makes, then he must have the right(s) necessary to fulfill this responsibility - qua man.
The above reasoning is why I always tout responsibility prior to "rights."
You accuse Biddle of “retreating to safe abstaction(s),” of engaging in a “defensive maneuver,” of asserting “philosophical authority” while avoiding the contradictions you revealed in his thinking, of purposely discussing morality in general terms in an effort to avoid discussing said contradictions. That is to say, you know his motives, you know he is aware of his contradictions and that he knowingly tries to get around them by certain maneuvers.
There is not an ounce of good will in how you choose to frame the delivery of your critique of his work and his choice to not engage it. This was the same spirit in which you addressed me—the same one I find in virtually all your online exchanges.
I’ve expressed some of my differences in perspective with Biddle’s ideas—and he has chosen not to acknowledge them. So what? Maybe he just enjoys writing and doesn’t have time to engage his readers. I don’t bulverize the man. I don’t know hik. But from hearing him lecture and debate, it seems pretty self-evident that he is a lovely man.
John, you have a good mind, but bad form.
-James
This was an excellent article.
To quote Dennis Prager, “religion is the ship that holds all the moral cargo.”
While the good can be discovered by the mind apart from religion—something Prager acknowledges—people seem to prefer it or some national narrative (ex: Japan) to philosophy. And since academic philosophy has failed in its charge to furnish the world an objective morality, religion remains the essential vehicle tasked with that goal, which is truly a pity.
You raise many important points. You should expand and clarify and put this into a book. If you carefully build and illustrate these points, you could make a significant contribution to morality in general and objectivism in particular.
A small point about higher and lower pleasures. A back rub releases endorphins and maybe dopamine, what we call pleasure. But reading philosophy, while it also has this immediate effect, is different. It leads to long term improvements in your life and thus more releases of dopamine. This is why it is considered a "higher" pleasure.
John,
You accuse Biddle of “retreating to safe abstaction(s),” of engaging in a “defensive maneuver,” of asserting “philosophical authority” while avoiding the contradictions you revealed in his thinking, of purposely discussing morality in general terms in an effort to avoid discussing said contradictions. That is to say, you know his motives, you know he is aware of his contradictions and that he knowingly tries to get around them by certain maneuvers.
There is not an ounce of good will in how you choose to frame the delivery of your critique of his work and his choice to not engage it. This was the same spirit in which you addressed me—the same one I find in virtually all your online exchanges.
I’ve expressed some of my differences in perspective with Biddle’s ideas—and he has chosen not to acknowledge them. So what? Maybe he just enjoys writing and doesn’t have time to engage his readers. I don’t bulverize the man. I don’t know hik. But from hearing him lecture and debate, it seems pretty self-evident that he is a lovely man.
John, you have a good mind, but bad form.
-James