I'm lost

[garion888]

Don't forget "tend the garden..."

[J. Stew]

Examine the thing inside of you that tells you you are confused. Don't let all the competing ideas of what is right sway you from the thing inside you that knows something doesn't feel right. The thing inside you that knows you are confused is the thing that is right IMO. The confusion stems from everybody else's opinion of what is right but you already know what is right, you know something doesn't feel right, right? That is why all these ideas about what is right seem so confusing. I hope this isn't more confusing, I just meant to say take a hike and drink some hot chocolate [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Junior in college and I've now take two philosophy/ethic courses and they've confused me. I understand the subject matter, it's my beliefs that are confused. I feel like there's something wrong with my beliefs now because for every reason I give on believing something there is easily a counter argument. I have this feeling that I need to justify my beliefs now with things other than "because it's right, or good". Is this bad?

Maybe I'm just persuaded easily, I'm unsure. Are there any ethical views that are widely accepted that are not based on religion? I could go on and on with questions I have now, ugh.

Sorry if this rambling, just a little confused now.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont have a problem. The first time anyone has their beliefs challenged by 2500 years worth of intellectual study they should become confused.

It gets better, once your beliefs have been through philosophical laundering they will come out sparkling.

chez

[Darryl_P]

I think it's time for a Unabomber moment to put things into perspective. It looks to me like you are conferring too much blind respect on people who have high status in institutes of higher education.

The system is designed to make you think these people are better at answering the bigger questions of life than you are. My advice is:

1. Go on a morning hike and drink some hot chocolate

and

2. Recognize that society wants you on a leash and that, in order to keep your personal dignity, you should do your best to stay off of it.

[ QUOTE ]
89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.


[/ QUOTE ]

Full text here

Edit: Technically philosophy is not the same as science but the above is just as applicable to those professors as well.

[jthegreat]

To the OP, despite RJT's assertions, there are objective moral facts.

Check out Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for an introduction to Objectivist ethics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's time for a Unabomber moment to put things into perspective. It looks to me like you are conferring too much blind respect on people who have high status in institutes of higher education.

The system is designed to make you think these people are better at answering the bigger questions of life than you are. My advice is:

1. Go on a morning hike and drink some hot chocolate

and

2. Recognize that society wants you on a leash and that, in order to keep your personal dignity, you should do your best to stay off of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. Philosophy demands no respect, in fact if anything it demands the reverse. No philosopher want you to believe them because they are cleverer. They do not want you on a leash.

You're confusing education with religon.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
To the OP, despite RJT's assertions, there are objective moral facts.

Check out Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for an introduction to Objectivist ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quotes from:

www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/jraibley_faq-virtue-selfishness.asp


[ QUOTE ]
To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

All human beings have objective biological needs.

But, all humans don’t have the same biological needs and they are not always in the same proportion from one individual to the next. E.g. Gay and Straight. We all have sex drives (needs). Without getting into the make-up of whether this is biological or psychological and to what degree any mix might be: Obviously here the “need” of a straight person is not the same as for a gay person. And we all don’t have the same level of sex drive (need). There is no objective standard in talking about biological needs.

Nor must we “succumb” to any objective standard even if all were the same for everyone. We still have the option whether to become subject to these needs or we can simply refuse to let nature rule our lives. People with anorexia do it all the time.

The case of no objective standard is even more apparent when one talks about psychological needs.

[ QUOTE ]
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rand subjectively uses as her standard “…selfishness is the moral ideal.”

Rand’s Objectivism philosophy is as subjective as any other.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Rand subjectively uses as her standard “…self-sacrifice is the moral ideal.”

[/ QUOTE ] Care to edit it again, RJT. Rand uses survival as the moral standard.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rand subjectively uses as her standard “…self-sacrifice is the moral ideal.”

[/ QUOTE ] Care to edit it again, RJT. Rand uses survival as the moral standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Typo. Changed to selfishness. Selfishness or survival (I think we are talking the same thing anyway) it is still a subjective goal in choosing how to live one's life.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
But, all humans don’t have the same biological needs and they are not always in the same proportion from one individual to the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making the same mistake that Kip was making. Differences in specifics between individuals don't disprove the fact that the general principles are objective and universal.

[ QUOTE ]
Rand subjectively uses as her standard “…selfishness is the moral ideal.”

Rand’s Objectivism philosophy is as subjective as any other.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. She didn't arbitrarily choose survival as the starting point. She realized that no moral system makes any sense without survival as the starting point. If it's not, the concept of "values" winds up being meaningless.