Monday, February 18, 2013
With Paul Kurtz, I admonish everyone to concern herself globally with the planetary ethic. It reflects my covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism.
Egoism reflects that smallness of heart of some. They think hermetically, closing off the interest of others as not their concern.
We, universalists on the other hand, find that concerns for others is in our self-interest as human being for our own eudaimonia- human flourishing that Aristotle and other ancients note. People practice altruism as say, doctors, yet are free and - gain wealth thereby. husAyn Rand puts forth the wrong definition of altruism and a false choice betwixt the individual and others.
Mutual altruism is you and I scratch each others' backs and pure altruism expects only the satisfaction of helping others
I disagree with Epicurus on egoism. Ayn Rand's egoism proffers that why, I earn my money and you yours, neither owing the other. Hardly.
We have that social contract whereby we each help each other through government. Actually, one can be both a maker and a taker: people lose jobs, thereby needing unemployment insurance. The federal government takes from the general tax fund to pay for that. That person has paid into it, so she gets in part her own contribution. Society wants its children to prosper, so aid to needy children helps the poor children, and also stimulates the economy.
Buffett gains with educated workers who spend their money to again to stimulate the economy. Thus, his self -interest can include the interests of other. Thus, egoism errs in this manner of claiming the taking from some to help others is at the formers' ruin and makes a slave of her. No, that is a false interpretation!
Her egoism would impoverish the many!
Ti's then not a conflict our own interests and those of others, but instead that prosperity for all that society through government makes.
Covenant morality requires the balance interests of all. This covenant- contract- requires that we do what we can to aid others. Some act supererogatory beyond the call of duty.
What do you think?
Friday, February 15, 2013
raig's God- Yahweh- would be a moral monster were He to exist. Craig claims that without God, we naturalists cannot ground ontologically morality, but, yes, we can on our own human nature. Our evolved moral sense reflects on morality as it backdrop the amount of empathy it can work with. Some people need to enlarge theirs to discern that rape is horrific and can happen no matter how a woman dresses or looks. Some need to enlarge theirs to rise above libertarianism to discern how laissez-faire principles harm the many.
Paul Kurtz admonishes us to practice the planetary ethic. I give to charity when possible not only to those nearby and in this Union but anywhere in the world. When this Union has to go to war, we must practice the just war, harming no more than necessary unlike what Bush-Cheney did to Iraq!
Craig's monster wants genocide and why, have all the foreign slaves you can have! And He love us so much, that He established Hell so that why, we'd want to love Him!
Craig would never endorse stoning children for cheeking but endorses the genocide. He and other theologians and apologists dwell in empty chambers of unreason that they find so reasonable!
He cannot fathom that morality binds putative God, finding Him evil for not putting us into a better situation per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven- that one-way street that only applies to Him. We'd owe Him nothing, and He'd have no rights over us!
He, Paul Copan and others can whale all they desire, but Yahweh would be that moral monster! They have no values worthwhile in the end for humans, because they see us as His pottery to do with as He pleases and to which to give His purpose, which blasphemes us! We have our ultimate meaning in ourselves!