Philosophy in the Bible

[drewtam]

In general, one can rank different human governments based on the liberty they permit.

For example, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Emperors, Soviet Communism, and Central/South American dictators are particularly despotic regimes controlling many aspects of the subjects. The opposite extreme (anarchy) has a few examples in history. A step away from that extreme, is a popular philosophy called anarcho-capitalism.

[Aside, the difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism: the anarchist wants no police/power to exist. Anarcho-capitalism would have communities defended by privatised security forces. Other differences exist, but I digress.]

Anyway, I lean toward a libertarian view of things. Mostly because I view a government powerful enough to enforce morality to be a government powerful enough to enforce the wrong morality at whim. I distinctly perceive the danger of the tyranny of the majority. (Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Constitutional Republics are supposed to set limits on what kind of laws a majority can create.)

So it should be no surprise that I recently read "Atlas Shrugged". It is a very powerful and thought provoking piece of literature on the value of love, the basis of morality, philosophy and economics. It is also, unfortunately, written from an atheistic point of view. Parts of the book are clearly blasphemous. One of the central tenants of the book can be summed up in one quote, "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

What this basically means is that "I leave you alone, and you leave me alone". So this rules out murder or theft or other basic active harm or contact.
Only by mutual consent do we agree to do some business together. And no one else can bother us about that business. Whether our business is buying food, guns, property, water, etc. Furthermore, this quote and book proposes the end to all forced interaction, i.e. taxes. And would end all limits on business, i.e. drugs, prostitution, selling organs, etc. And it distinctly ridicules hand outs, which would include charities. Of course, such a society wouldn't outlaw charity, because they would not interfere. It would just be looked down on...
The mature person should read this book for deeper understanding of this important topic, and to challenge their thinking.

Anyway, the essence is very materialistic. Yet the principles the book espouses I find both condemned and supported in various biblical readings.
On the one hand, the goal of life is not to accumulate wealth according to the bible. This book is directly saying that that is the primary duty of life. In turn, God has given us dominion over nature and earth. We are required to use our minds and create prosperity for our very survival. In another place, it is written that if a man will not work, then do not feed him. Again in Proverbs 31:31, the worthy women deserves to keep the prosperity she creates; the worker is worthy of wages he has earned is a repeated concept in the bible. Even more, Jesus gave a parable about being content with the wages you agree to work for, regardless of what anyone around you gets paid for their work.
But in those very same passages, God will mention the value of charitable work to Him. It is held up as a moral good.

So I align my political philosophy with these biblical principles. Charity is not immoral (as an anarcho-capitalist or an Ayn Rand disciple might say); but it should not be forced. Otherwise its not charity, its not a free will offering. The owner of the wealth will be able to best determine where the resources should be invested, who should be helped, and how.

...

God is clearly the wiser one, and has based His interaction with man on His wisdom. (I am specifically thinking about the plan of salvation culminating in the death/burial/resurrection of Jesus).

The important piece missing in Ayn Rand's work is the method of grace.
In the word of God, I know that salvation is not based on works. Because by works, I would be found inadequate. No man would be saved.
At the same time, only a living faith will save a soul; which necessarily means obedience. [This is topic is mostly explained in James and Romans.] There is a delicate interaction of grace and repentance as one humbles himself and creates a new life.

Interestingly, Ayn Rand's work also has a hidden working of grace and repentance. I say it is hidden, because her philosophy is based on the logic of materialism. The focus of the book is bent on tearing down the idea of "something for nothing". But threaded throughout the novel is forgiveness given to the "good guys". There is no materialistic reason these main characters are forgiven. They (Dagny and Hank) did the most harm against the cause of John's liberty. They are forgiven and invited to take the oath of initiation based on their potential for 'good'. This is the very definition of "something for nothing". It is a working of grace and repentance. And it is a logical contradiction that flies in the face of the entire book's premise.




I am sorry for the long post, I hope it is coherent to you.

Let the thread drift begin...

[zahc]

There's a free market for charity just like there's a free market for anything else. Does Randian philosophy really say that charity is immoral?

[Perd Hapley]

Mostly because I view a government powerful enough to enforce morality to be a government powerful enough to enforce the wrong morality at whim.

I see your point, but of course all governments enforce morality of some kind, to some extent.  That's all they ever do.  Maybe, by morality, you meant something like "private morality" or "private, consensual interactions"? 

I wish I knew a better way to word it.

[seeker_two]

If you want to see what God's ideal national government is like, read the book of Judges....decentralized gov't where God's law is the law of the land....judges (similar to the Roman tyrant ) appointed in times of crisis to lead the army....think decentralized theocracy....

...it wasn't until the people demanded a king "like every other nation has" that personal freedoms and income were encroached.....see 1 Samuel 8:10-22....

....and notice how they sound like Obama supporters now.... 

[MechAg94]

I see your point, but of course all governments enforce morality of some kind, to some extent.  That's all they ever do.  Maybe, by morality, you meant something like "private morality" or "private, consensual interactions"? 

I wish I knew a better way to word it.

I was thinking there is a difference between a system of justice with laws necessary to help maintain a free society versus a system of morality/behavior.  A moral system generally includes a whole lot of things that you really don't want laws for. 

[makattak]

I was thinking there is a difference between a system of justice with laws necessary to help maintain a free society versus a system of morality/behavior.  A moral system generally includes a whole lot of things that you really don't want laws for. 

Really? A moral system that says it's wrong to murder, steal or cheat?

You will need to be far more specific in what you believe to be a "moral system". I tend to think things like "murder is wrong" are part of a moral system.

[Iain]

All things to all men. Perhaps the reason for the success of Christianity.

Biblical, moral and divine justification claimed by the religiously socialist and proponents of prosperity theology.

[zahc]

Ian, i tried to extract meaning for that post but couldn't.

[MechAg94]

Really? A moral system that says it's wrong to murder, steal or cheat?

You will need to be far more specific in what you believe to be a "moral system". I tend to think things like "murder is wrong" are part of a moral system.

Sure, everyone generally agrees that murder is wrong.  A lot of people also include pre-marital sex in their moral code, but I bet you don't want that outlawed.  Homosexuality might be another one.  Look through all the sins in the Bible.  Not all of them are illegal, but many of them are things most people would frown on.  Drunkenness is a sin, but it is only outlawed in certain circumstances.  There are a lot of things that society deems generally wrong or bad which don't have laws against them and shouldn't.  They should be enforced through social pressures.  Anyway, that is what I mean by a difference between a justice system and a moral system. 

[makattak]

Sure, everyone generally agrees that murder is wrong.  A lot of people also include pre-marital sex in their moral code, but I bet you don't want that outlawed.  Homosexuality might be another one.  Look through all the sins in the Bible.  Not all of them are illegal, but many of them are things most people would frown on.  Drunkenness is a sin, but it is only outlawed in certain circumstances.  There are a lot of things that society deems generally wrong or bad which don't have laws against them and shouldn't.  They should be enforced through social pressures.  Anyway, that is what I mean by a difference between a justice system and a moral system. 

And you really did nothing to explain a difference between a justice system and a moral system.

Your argument seems to be: when everyone generally agrees something is wrong it should be outlawed. Unless most people don't think it should be outlawed.

You simply want your own moral beliefs codified. Mind you, I'm not faulting you for that; I'm simply pointing out that your argument is faulty.

Incidentally, I quite agree that many things should be prohibited by social disapprobation. This, too, is part of a moral code.

[Perd Hapley]

MechAg,

My point was simply that every law is an imposition of morality.  That is, any law you can think of has a moral basis.  That doesn't mean that every moral idea is enforced by law.  It just means that there's no such creature as a government that doesn't "enforce morality." 

If you want to see what God's ideal national government is like, read the book of Judges....decentralized gov't where God's law is the law of the land....judges (similar to the Roman tyrant ) appointed in times of crisis to lead the army....think decentralized theocracy....

...it wasn't until the people demanded a king "like every other nation has" that personal freedoms and income were encroached.....see 1 Samuel 8:10-22....

God warned them about having a king, yes.  But why do you say that the Judges situation is God's ideal? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I was thinking there is a difference between a system of justice with laws necessary to help maintain a free society versus a system of morality/behavior.  A moral system generally includes a whole lot of things that you really don't want laws for. 

A system of justice and laws in support of a free society is a system of morality.  It takes personal liberty as its fundamental moral value, and the rest of the system of laws and practices and customs is derived from the pursuit of that moral value.

[Perd Hapley]

That too.  Whatever you want your government or legal system to accomplish, there's a moral "ought" lurking back there somewhere.

[drewtam]

I agree with HTG and fistful, that law is codified morality. I am not sure how to explain what I really meant, other than in terms of freedom enough to choose religion. But not free enough to do grossly immoral things. The trap, of course, is that there is wildly different standards for morality. Which is why I see wisdom in the federal government not being involved in criminal laws. The states and lower seats should have more power to control these things. Tangentially, I think this issue is why John Locke said atheism is the only religion that should not be tolerated.


Yes, I am pretty sure Rand's ideal objectivism found charity to be immoral. The charitable one necessarily requires that in part, he is living for the good of another man. In the utopian Galt's Gulch, no one ever 'gives' anything. Such a behaviour is taboo. Dagny and John could not even borrow a car, they had to rent it from their friend.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, I am pretty sure Rand's ideal objectivism found charity to be immoral. The charitable one necessarily requires that in part, he is living for the good of another man. In the utopian Galt's Gulch, no one ever 'gives' anything. Such a behaviour is taboo. Dagny and John could not even borrow a car, they had to rent it from their friend.

One-sides transactions are a no-no in Rand philosophy.  Value should only be given for value. 

It gets messy, though.  In Rand's utopia nobody would be coerced to do anything, especially not coerced into giving away anything valuable.  So in Rand-world, any charitable givers would be giving because they wanted to.  As such, their charity isn't really a one-sided transaction anymore.  The act of giving is self-serving, it allows them to satisfy their desires to give.  So they're exchanging their charitable gift for a pile of warm fuzzies.

In Rand-world, the notion of a voluntary one-sided transaction is self-contradictory.

[Perd Hapley]

I agree with HTG and fistful, that law is codified morality. I am not sure how to explain what I really meant, other than in terms of freedom enough to choose religion. But not free enough to do grossly immoral things.

I think what you're looking for is a government where violation of rights is the only evil that is punished by law.  Thus, all (or most) private and/or consensual behavior is legal. 

This still leaves you with the question of who has which rights, of course. 

[zahc]

Dagny and John could not even borrow a car, they had to rent it from their friend.

That seems strange. When I lend someone something, it's out of goodwill and the possible future possibility of borrowing something else from them. Mutual borrowing is simply barter of favors. And it is barter, because people that borrow from me constantly without reciprocating in any way are cut off. Surely barter isn't immoral in Rand Land.

Or, as already pointed out, sometimes I give without expectation of return, except that it satisfies me in other ways. Just like people like to do drugs or quilt or run marathons to fulfill their own personal drives, charity can do the same thing. So I can agree both that nobody does anything altruisticly, and that charity is not immoral.

[Regolith]

It gets messy, though.  In Rand's utopia nobody would be coerced to do anything, especially not coerced into giving away anything valuable.  So in Rand-world, any charitable givers would be giving because they wanted to.  As such, their charity isn't really a one-sided transaction anymore.  The act of giving is self-serving, it allows them to satisfy their desires to give.  So they're exchanging their charitable gift for a pile of warm fuzzies.

That's how it is now.  Rand was merely pointing it out.

People don't donate to charity out of some vague sense of selflessness.  They do it because they are rewarded in some way by it, either because it makes them feel good or because their culture or society encourages it, thus helping their social status.  Granted, it's not often thought of this way, but that's the reality of it.

Note, that there is nothing wrong with this.  Charitable giving should always be encouraged.  But it's delusional to say that it's only a one-sided transaction.

What is truly wrong is forced charity (aka redistributive taxation).  That truly is a one-sided transaction, with one side (the government) taking from the "donor" to be given to someone else, with no value exchanged.  It's theft.  And that's the point Rand was trying to make.

[Perd Hapley]

People don't donate to charity out of some vague sense of selflessness.  They do it because they are rewarded in some way by it, either because it makes them feel good or because their culture or society encourages it, thus helping their social status.  Granted, it's not often thought of this way, but that's the reality of it.

That may be your opinion...

[MicroBalrog]

The main problem with Rand's philosophy, IMO, that it requires you to be an Objectivist to be a moral being.

To wit:

A libertarian believes that anybody can live in accordance to libertarian moral principles. A Christian can be a libertarian. A socialist can be a libertarian - signing up to live in a voluntary commune with all your comrades is completely okay, just as long as its a voluntary commune.

But Rand went beyond believing in live and let live. She believed that to be a moral being, you HAD to be selfish. And if you were selfish, you had to draw the same conclusions from Rand's postulates as she did, because otherwise you were being illogical, and that was evil. Believing God told you to be selfish, or God told you that the free market was awesome is anti-Randian, and therefore bad.  Here's more detail.

Now, I don't mind Objectivists - I find that a lot of Objectivists are actually pretty nice people, and often go to incredible length to come up with excuses why their niceness is actually "selfish". But that is because I am a libertarian and not an Objectivist, I really don't care how people come to the conclusion of being nice.

Rand had many splendid things to say about human nature - her opposition to the concept of Original Sin, her defense of the Free market, her defense of materialism, and her criticism of moral relativism, many of these things were far ahead of their time. But it is important to realize that Objectivism carries immense amounts of incredibly creepy baggage.

Now, again, I love her novels. I love reading her stuff. I find Objectivism to be a superior philosophy to many mainstream ones [including, but not limited to, conservatism, some forms of Christianity and Judaism, leftism of course]. But to adopt the whole thing lock stock and barrel is downright masochistic.

Rand did a lot of good for mankind, but that doesn't make her the be all and end all of philosophy.

[seeker_two]

God warned them about having a king, yes.  But why do you say that the Judges situation is God's ideal? 

Because that's the one that He set up after the Exodus....and judges were only called by God....when there was no judge, Jewish law was administered by the local towns and priests...

...and there were no taxes or welfare state....the people gave offerings to the priests, and the priests distributed to the needy...no gov't confiscation involved...

...I'd prefer the judges system to anything that's come around so far....

[Regolith]

That may be your opinion...

No, it's simple human nature.  Like I said, people don't think about it that way, but that's how it works out.  We are social creatures, and in a way we are hard wired for this kind of behavior.  We may not be consciously thinking about how an action may benefit us in our social circle, or how good doing something that is socially encouraged makes us feel, but that built in reward is there nonetheless, and it is unlikely that someone would make that sacrifice unless that reward was there.

And again, there is nothing wrong with this.  I just think it's a bit delusional to pretend that a person who donates their time or money to charity doesn't get anything out of it.  I also think it's a bit sad that some people consider this to be wrong, that somehow if someone does get something out of it, even if its just a good feeling about what they did or general approval of their friends and family, that it's immoral.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A lot of people give simply because it's right to do so, not because they derive some pleasure or personal benefit from it.  The benefit to the recipient is all the benefit that anyone derives from the act, and yet that's enough to make it a proper thing to do.  Such a mindset is, I believe, incompatible with Rand-ism.

[Regolith]

A lot of people give simply because it's right to do so, not because they derive some pleasure or personal benefit from it.  The benefit to the recipient is all the benefit that anyone derives from the act, and yet that's enough to make it a proper thing to do.  Such a mindset is, I believe, incompatible with Rand-ism.

In other words, it makes them feel good.  When was the last time you gave to charity, and felt bad about that act?  I doubt that most people who donate don't feel anything when they do so.  And I really doubt they felt bad, because they wouldn't continue to donate unless they had some other reason (their religion expects it, they're expected to, etc.).

I'm approaching this a bit from the behavioral side of things, though.  What Rand did was recognize the behavior, and instead of simply acknowledging it, tried to build a moral structure on it.  This is probably where she failed.

[Perd Hapley]

seeker,
I was asking for chapter and verse.  The fact that it happened doesn't prove that it was God's ideal, or that He "set it up." 


Regolith,
Your theories on human nature are interesting rather obvious sophomoric cynicism, but you really can't know any of that.  Project much?