[MD] Re the intellectual level

[X Acto]

________________________________

From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:00:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Re the intellectual level

Ham:
Your assertion that objective reasoning necessarily lacks moral integrity is unfounded.  Even "intuitive reason" is based on relational principles.  I've been dealing a lot lately with metaphysical propositions and tenets, and I can assure you that the greatest impediment to expressing them logically is that all reasoning is relational.  Both Morality and Ethics are rational systems founded on relational values.  If morality were absolute (indigenous to the universe), there could be no such thing as individual freedom.

Ron:
Even if individual freedom IS morality? True reasoning is relational but what relations make all the difference in the understanding of the term in context.

Ham:
I won't comment on your suggestion that a former Federal Reserve Chairman was motivated by "hedonism sans moral integrity" in his efforts to keep the economy working, because such a slanderous charge only reveals your bias against capitalism.

Ron:
My comment was toward Rand, whom Greenspan was/is a devotee, in Greenspans testamony he cited that he had misplaced trust in the CEO that they would
act in the best intrests of the share holders . He was wrong. I have nothing against capitalism, but I as you, dislike the idea of the monoply of power and wealth
due to the exploitation and bias of a system for individual profit, unethical advancement like this is seen as evil in communism yet defended as the individuals
freedom to keep what one has earned, ethical or not. I ask, what makes one system evil and the other o.k.?

However, you are right that the values on which man acts are his free choice, and intellectual ability is not "equally distributed".  Nonetheless, I would submit that such choices determine the course of history, and man (individually and collectively) has the potential to achieve the moral system that his value-sensibility drives him to accomplish.  Freedom is a double-edged sword.  That's what is so challenging about an amoral universe. We can be misguided by ideologies and doctrines that lead to disastrous consequences (i.e., the "unpropitious" application of rational value). That's why a fundamental belief system that resists indoctrination to manipulative agendas imposed by power-seekers is an important part of our reasoning.

Ron:
And this is the subject of MUCH debate, good point, we must delve into this further..






But we can also be enlightened by moral precepts that lead to salutary results.  When we do so, our "moral integrity" serves as an example for others who will see our behavior as a reasonable model to emulate.  Thus, the incremental progress of mankind can be understood as the process of balancing individual values against universal reasoning.

Ron:
Agree, great conclusion, when I have some time, I'd like to take this up in depth.

Thanks Ham!


Hi Ron --


[Ham said]:
> Reason IS confined to being informed by the objective world.
> That's what reasoning is. To intellectualize is to reason objectively.
> Can anyone deny this?

[Ron]:
> I can, To intellectualize can be to reason intuitively, that is,
> In action, reasoning involves a conscious attempt to discover
> what is true and what is best.-wiki ...
> [quoting Ham]:
> Thus, for the Essentialist, the "moral imperative" is: Rational,
> self-directed Value. (And it doesn't even require a knowledge
> of levels or patterns!)
> 
> Thus Allen Greenspan's dilemma, no "moral" guidance,
> Rational, self-directed value is Hedonism sans moral integrity,
> Intellectualism without ethic is tantamount to evil for one may
> "rationalize" anything to justify that self directed value. This is
> why this current rational is meeting with disaster.
> In other words Rand supports the fleecing of the populace
> (AIG bailout) to the greed of the few. Is'nt this what is so
> repulsive about soviet communism and the like?