10.28.2009

The Essence of the Thing

It's of no special import to hear another Catholic (or any Christian) decrying the unholiness and selfishness of homosexuality. The arguments against it and gay marriage are as common as they are wrong, and don't need to be recounted here. Most of those who spew these ideas are equally unremarkable in their unthinking, anti-life views, and most also lead lives of terribly mixed premises. They may live in a somewhat self-interested mode implicitly (at least most Americans of this stripe), but when confronted with obvious questions of morality, espouse the altruism that has been spoonfed them since birth. These are the people you see every day.

However, some of them have really thought about it and try to apply the principles of altruism consistently, intellectually, like Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron. And occasionally, such a man will in the process expose the true heart of Christianity.

In what appears to be a position paper in response to a proposed domestic partnership law in Guam, Apuron said:
The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.
Let that sink in for a bit. And note the universality of what he said. Take out the references to homosexuality and replace them with "rational self-interest" or "individualism," because he is smart enough to see that the core of his argument is altruism vs. selfishness, not vs. homosexuality.

When you do this, you see that he understands the good-against-evil nature of the battle, and consistent with Christian teachings and altruism itself, in the name of what he upholds as the good, he sides with evil. As a refresher, let's look at the objective meaning of evil, from Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness:
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
As if to make sure we don't miss it, Apuron applauds the efforts of Islamists and suicide bombers in their fight against self-interested behaviors.

He then assures us that he doesn't support brutal repression per se, but that the self-interested actions of Americans really do make us deserving of the title "The Great Satan."
Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A, in particular is the 'Great Satan' is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U. S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the "Great Satan."
There is no room for compromise here. If you hold self-sacrifice as the good, it is you who are upholding a "culture of death." And like Apuron, if you wholly accept this view of man's life and morality, and apply it consistently, it won't be long before you're approving of violent deaths of those who disagree. "Crush the individual, for the good of God or the collective, but crush him nonetheless." There's your rallying cry.

Any proponent of altruism in whatever form -- be it social/collective or religious -- is this man's brother-in-spirit. Mr. Mixed Premises, when you meet him on the street, might recoil from the "extreme" views of our esteemed archibishop, but he would be wrong to do so. Apuron openly advocates the essence of the altruist ethics, and perhaps unwittingly makes the logical leap to the inevitable results of the code of self-sacrifice: death. His death eventually, but mine and any other proud, rational individual's death right now, violently, righteously. To not follow that reasoning is to willfully evade the true nature of altruism, which is all that is necessary for it to continue on its bloody course. As Ayn Rand said:
The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.

--The Objectivist “Altruism as Appeasement,” The Objectivist, Jan. 1966, 6.
Apuron may or may not be one of the small minority of "truly and deliberately evil men," but those who sit in his pews on Sunday and evade the horrific implications of his ideas form a cluture only a few baby steps away from a "culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers."

10.15.2009

Objectivist Roundup #118

Welcome to the October 15, 2009 edition of the Objectivist Roundup, your weekly dose of intellectual fuel and ammunition.

This roundup features posts by blog authors who are students and advocates of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She called it a "philosophy for living on earth" and further described it:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.


Considering the events of the day you may notice that most of the posts below deal with politics. But note that they all share a common philosophical grounding in Objectivism, and consistently promote individual rights and the socio-economic system of laissez-faire capitalism to protect those rights. Such is the value of this roundup—weekly commentary on crucial issues from a rational, individual rights perspective.

And with that, I am pleased to present Objectivist Roundup #118!



  1. Roberto Sarrionandia presents On Peace posted at Tito's Blog, saying, "A post on the cause of peace - and its betrayal by modern politics."

  2. Ifat Glassman presents Values without a valuer posted at Psychology of Selfishness.

  3. Stella presents The good news and the bad news posted at ReasonPharm, saying, "Insurers finally speak out against healthcare "reform" -- but they need to make the moral argument, not the practical one."

  4. Trey Givens presents Bones to Pick posted at Trey Givens, saying, "I was watching Bones and the writers did another one of their all-too-typical nods to mysticism. This is my rant."

  5. Kelly Elmore presents Classical Education: An Optional Value posted at Reepicheep's Coracle, saying, "This post examines my reasons for believing that a classical education, though it might be really great, is not necessarily the best kind of education for every student. The focus is on college level work, but I think this has applications for children as well."

  6. Paul Hsieh presents The Price of A Life in Massachusetts posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, "Massachusetts health care moves one step closer towards explicit rationing. Do we really want this for the rest of the country?"

  7. Jason Stotts presents On Marijuana posted at Erosophia, saying, "Some thoughts on the the reasonableness of the prohibition on marijuana."

  8. Stephen Bourque presents Dennis Prager: If There Is No God, Part 10 posted at One Reality, saying, "It is plainly not true that without God, there is 'little to inspire people to create inspiring art.'"

  9. Doug Reich presents Blogs Under Attack By Our Choice Architect posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "Internet freedom and more broadly, freedom of speech, is under attack and the government's arguments bear the horrifying philosophical fingerprint of an old nemesis, Cass Sunstein a.k.a. the "choice architect"."

  10. Brian Phillips presents Principles, Propositions, and Property Rights posted at Houston Property Rights, saying, "When an individual abandons principles he approaches each issue in isolation from other issues. He has no way to integrate or connect seemingly separate issues, and deals with each on a case-by-case basis. The resulting conclusions are often contradictory, as evidenced by two recent editorials in the Chronicle that take contradictory positions on property rights."

  11. Edward Cline presents The Ignoble Nobel Peace Prize posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "One searches in vain through the whole list of Nobel Peace Prize winners from 1901 to the present for a single laureate whose work measurably advanced the cause of peace. Why? The "peace" pined for is essentially a Kantian concept. It is disconnected from reality. Work for peace, urges the Committee, even if your efforts are spoiled by war and conflict. Peace is good for its own sake. Work for peace as though you wished it to become a maxim, a moral rule."

  12. Grant Jones presents Genocide in Sudan: It's the Jihad posted at The Dougout, saying, "Simon Deng, guest speaker at Kansas State University, tells his story of being enslaved by Arabs and the ongoing genocide/Jihad in southern Sudan."

  13. Ari Armstrong presents Media Panel: Discussion Continues posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "I joined a media panel also attended by the Denver Post's Greg Moore and others."

  14. Dan Edge presents Letter to Media Announcing Prelim posted at The Edge of Reason, saying, "My preliminary hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 15 @ 3:00pm at the Greenville Municipal Court (426 N. Main St)."

  15. Doug Reich presents Sacred Scriptures of the Human Race posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "The brilliant 19th century orator, Robert G. Ingersoll, provides an eloquent reminder of why religion is antithetical to liberty and human happiness."

  16. Greg Perkins presents The Irony, It Burns posted at NoodleFood, saying, "A recent PJTV commentary registers outrage at the deification of Obama, at the sacrilege of any comparison of him to a Christlike Savior. And indeed it is dangerous to give up our independent understanding and follow authority as if we live in some sort of yes-we-can world where believing makes it so -- yet conservatives miss the painfully obvious application of their criticism to the religious outlook itself."

  17. Myrhaf presents Secrets and Revelations posted at Myrhaf, saying, "This one is about fiction writing."

  18. Galileo Blogs presents Stealing the Commanding Heights posted at Galileo Blogs, saying, "The government's subsidies, guarantees against default, and promiscuously cheap credit created an atmosphere in which private bankers were rewarded for taking excessive risks, and made to look like suckers if they prudently restrained themselves. Yet the government blames the bankers for this mess and now wants to control their pay."

  19. Jason Stotts presents My First Nude Beach posted at Erosophia, saying, "A short essay about my first experience at a nude beach."

  20. Jim Woods presents Evaluating Teacher Proficiency posted at Words by Woods, saying, "Jump starting flat student math scores requires testing the teachers."

  21. Doug Reich presents Iran Builds Bomb, America Bombs Moon, Obama Gets Prize posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "The real reason Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and why it will lead to war."

  22. Finally, I present Stop Thinking You're So Great, a brief look at an op-ed that perfectly describes the views driving Obama's need to apologize for America.





That concludes Objectivist Roundup #118. Next week's host will be The Rule of Reason. Submit your blog article to the Objectivist Roundup using our carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

10.14.2009

Stop Thinking You're So Great

If you've wondered what could have prompted Obama's worldwide apology tour, or gave the Nobel Committee impetus to award him the Prize, look no further than this Boston Globe op-ed: One nation, under illusion.
THE HOARIEST and most oft-repeated cliche in American politics may be that America is the greatest country in the world. Every politician, Democrat and Republican, seems duty bound to pander to this idea of American exceptionalism, and woe unto him who hints otherwise. ... As if this weren’t enough, Jimmy Carter upped the fawning ante 30 years ago by uttering arguably the most damning words in modern American politics. He called for a "government as good as the American people," thus taking national greatness and investing it in each and every one of us.

... The fact of the matter is that whenever anything really significant has been accomplished by our government, it is precisely because it was better than the American people.
The columnist, Neal Gabler, has laid it out pretty clearly right there. "Who the hell are we to think we're great?" he asks, and then says that the only "significant" accomplishments of the government have come in spite of the American people. To his credit, he seems to get that he's operating under a very specific value system and that he's using it to decide what "great" means. He asks, "By what standard is one nation any greater than any other nation?"

He displays his standard of value in the examples he lists. Gabler faults the US for income inequality, citing the egalitarian Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. He cites the UN's "Human Development Index" which lists the American standard of living 15th behind that of the welfare states of Europe. He refers to the WHO's "quality of care" rankings which listed US health care 37th. (To which Richard Ralston said, "When you hear this, always ask, 'Ranked by whom and how?' ")

Gabler's standard of value is quite obviously the same as that of UN and all the organizations he cites: altruism-fueled egalitarianism and cultural relativism. When he asks "By what standard is one nation any greater than any other nation?" he's not looking for an answer. He's implying that it is impossible for one nation to be any better than another. Well, except that the US is actually worse because its welfare programs aren't up to snuff, but let's not split hairs. Still, he assures us, he's not saying that America is bad, per se:
The point of all this isn’t that America doesn’t have a lot to be proud of. It does. The point is that just about every country has a lot to be proud of, and America has no more right to assume it is the greatest nation in the world than does France, Switzerland, China, or Russia. [bold added]
China? Russia? Really?

As I alluded to earlier, this view is exactly why Obama has the Nobel Peace Prize. This is why he felt compelled to take a Global Apology Tour. He and Gabler firmly believe that America has no right to think itself better than proto-dictatorial Russia, dictatorial China, or theocratic-totalitarian Iran.

I've said it before, and will keep repeating it because it's unassailably right: the only criteria by which to judge a government is the extent to which it protects individual rights. In this light, all of Gabler's conclusions are completely wrong. Despite the fact that people like him and Obama are trying their damnedest to drag the country into European welfare statism, America is still the freest, most moral, greatest country in existence. It is not "arrogance", "hubris", or "overweening pride," as Gabler called it, but a cold, rational statement of moral judgment.

But because of our hubris, Gabler is concerned that the Gods will visit their wrath on us:
A nation that brooks no criticism, a nation that feels it is always better than any other, a nation that has to be endlessly flattered and won’t face the truth, a nation whose people think they possess some special moral exemption and wisdom, a nation without humility is a nation spoiling for calamity.
He's right that we're headed in the wrong direction, spoiling for calamity. What he doesn't understand (or is evading) is that it is precisely the ideas he champions that are leading us there.