RE: Ayn Rand -Faith vs Reason
January 12, 2011 at 7:59 am
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2011 at 8:24 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Well, that wasn't my point, no. I'm drawing an analogy to show how wishing that something had not existed in the first place is not the same as wishing to eliminate it.
Because 'A' is more moral I think it would be morally better if the world had never existed in the first place, because all the pain in this world outweighs the pleasure. But that does not mean I wish an apocalypse on the world now that it already exists.
So likewise, just because I think that it would be better if the Bible had never been written, that doesn't mean that I wish that all Bibles should be burnt.
That's my analogy.
And so my point is, yes, I think the Bible itself has done harm in the sense that without it there couldn't have been any harmful interpretations of it (like there has been, very much so). So yes I resent it (as in I wish it was never written), but I don't think it should be burnt because I'm against burning books.
And although my original point wasn't to suggest removing all harmful tools... I do think that would obviously be ideal if it were possible. I mean, how would it be moral to have any weapon of any kind if not for defence against other weapons being used to cause even more harm? If no one had any weapons, and no one could have any weapons in future so there would be no reason for them to prepare themselves defensively, there wouldn't be a problem.
Obviously though, reality isn't like that. In the real world we can't be entirely moral idealists if we are to be moral, we also have to be moral realists. And by this I mean that, there's no point in subscribing something impossible. "Ought to" implies "can do" and since utopian ideals almost certainly don't (and may never) apply to the real world, a lot of moral ideals are more about what we want to move towards rather than actually aim for precisely. There's no point in telling someone that they should do "X" if they can't, but it's reasonable to say "Get as close to X as you possibly can".
Because 'A' is more moral I think it would be morally better if the world had never existed in the first place, because all the pain in this world outweighs the pleasure. But that does not mean I wish an apocalypse on the world now that it already exists.
So likewise, just because I think that it would be better if the Bible had never been written, that doesn't mean that I wish that all Bibles should be burnt.
That's my analogy.
And so my point is, yes, I think the Bible itself has done harm in the sense that without it there couldn't have been any harmful interpretations of it (like there has been, very much so). So yes I resent it (as in I wish it was never written), but I don't think it should be burnt because I'm against burning books.
And although my original point wasn't to suggest removing all harmful tools... I do think that would obviously be ideal if it were possible. I mean, how would it be moral to have any weapon of any kind if not for defence against other weapons being used to cause even more harm? If no one had any weapons, and no one could have any weapons in future so there would be no reason for them to prepare themselves defensively, there wouldn't be a problem.
Obviously though, reality isn't like that. In the real world we can't be entirely moral idealists if we are to be moral, we also have to be moral realists. And by this I mean that, there's no point in subscribing something impossible. "Ought to" implies "can do" and since utopian ideals almost certainly don't (and may never) apply to the real world, a lot of moral ideals are more about what we want to move towards rather than actually aim for precisely. There's no point in telling someone that they should do "X" if they can't, but it's reasonable to say "Get as close to X as you possibly can".
