Our moral code is out of date

What does guns and abortion have to do with this article?

directly nothing.
but being as abortion is a political matter (our policy that is representative of our morality) and it is argued not on legal or personal merits but moral ones it relates.gun control stands to show the disconect between both sides supposition of moral supremacy.

if the left were pro choice and pro guns a clear line of values would exist.ie we can kill those we choose.
if the right were pro life and anti gun they too would have a clear moral stance on the value of life.
ie our morality doesnt allow for the destruction of life.

being as both sides have contradictory stances on these issues as they pertain to valuing life, it shows in action that a void exists in our morality, as a culture.

not only is our moral code out of date, it has become contradictory from the void created over time.

(note: I don't normally frame things as "left" and "right" or this side and that, but I have done that to a degree in this response. This is for consistency and accessibility in regards to freecrack's comment.)

The abortion debate is not centered around the question about whether it is okay to a take a person's life. Rather it is about whether a fetus is a person therefore worth moral consideration and if so, at what point in its development. As you said, most people on the right, say a fetus is a person, or a potential person and worth moral consideration. Most people on the left say that a fetus is not worth moral consideration. In light of that, killing a person who is worth moral consideration is not the same as aborting a non-person fetus. So there is no contradiction in believing that people shouldn't kill other people and accepting abortions.

In reality, no such distinction even has to be made when talking about gun control. Owning or not owning a gun in itself is not a moral issue. It is how a person uses a gun that can be considered moral or immoral. Guns can be used to kill, hunt, protect, maim, scare away things and even for recreation. People on the right generally seem to think that the moral uses of guns outweigh the immoral uses, and many on the left believe the opposite. Also I am sure both sides would agree that there are acceptable reason's for taking a persons life. Such as self-preservation, or for saving many at the expense of the few. These exceptions are not contradictions, but rather ethical annotations to a generalized moral principle.

while i agree with you, you have some voids.
with abortion the pro life and choice side have no unified concensus.a whole shitload of religious zealots believe that life begins at the moment of conception.as rediculous as this is it is still the perspective the function from.others believe it is the murdering of potential life, as well as multitudes who have opinions across that spectrum.it isnt as clear cut despite them all sharing the same political tent.

as far as guns go, they serve literaly one function, to kill.unlike the myriad of items one may use whilst playing clue (the candlestick i always thought was a stretch) only the gun has an exclusive lethal purpose.i can take a knife and kill you with it just as easily as i can use it to cut an apple for a snack.guns have no alternative purpose than to kill.while that function may serve as a way to deter some one, or kill some one before they kill you, the fact remains supporting guns is to support the proliferation of death.human, animal, what ever.

im sure millions of us are both pro life and pro knife.i see no contradiction in that as knifes serve multiple purposes.but to find life so very precious that we should out law extinguishing life at its begining, but support proliferating a means by wich that same life may be destroyed later is a contradiction.

conversely mantaining that one should have the right to end a life at its begining, but try to prevent means by wich that life from being taken later is also contradictory.

i personaly see the nuance in preventing a life being different from taking a life, but im speaking to us as a collective.as conservatives and liberals,as democrats and republicans, our positions counter others that we revere as inherant.thus showcasing a huge gap in our morality as a people, together.

I think you are missing the distinction that most people make between all life and human life. I don't see it as a contradiction to say it is not alright to kill a human, but it is alright to kill a bug or cow. People against abortion but for guns can say, without contradiction, I am for shooting animals for food, but against aborting fetuses.

In the same way people also make a distinction between fetuses and human life. It is that distinction that makes behaviors related to each fall into their own moral category. I will use an admittedly far-fetched, but still very applicable example to illustrate how distinctions play a role in moral treatment of others. Many people would say that it is immoral to lock a person in a small cage against there will. Are those same people in contradiction when they place babies in cribs?

For both sides, I think you are being presumptuous if you assume that they do not take into account the same nuances and exceptions that we do,

the thing is with guns although the reasoning for its proliferation may be 100 percent based in sportsman endevours, guns kill people with equal efficiency.its ability to kill isnt exclusive to big game but us as well thus making the pro life stance, based on human life being valuable, a contradiction.if they truly felt life was so valuable as to create laws specificaly to protect it, they certainly wouldnt want to risk life by weaponizing the mass's.certainly not for the benefit of a hobby.

they must lack nuance, as they state proudly "gunsdont kill people" as people are being killed by guns.i say void in morality allowing contradictions to exist in lue of substative thought.

love the convo by the way, and i will admit y posistion is flawless on some plains of thought and useless on others.thanks though

"Saw that, stopped reading immediately."

You really should read it. Even if you have read and understand Rand's philosophy and disagree with it, you should still read articles supporting it. Not only will this make you better prepared to counter Randian arguments, but it may also give you insight on your own perspectives,

"'Morals" and "Ayn Rand" are antithetical. Nothing that woman said was ever remotely moral and nothing about her philosophy or the thinkers has anything valuable to say about anything."

This makes me think that you have not read her, or that you do not understand her philosophy. Rand's rational self-interest is a great moral philosophy. The philosophy has been described as centering around selfishness, even by Rand herself. But when she uses the word selfish, she does not mean it in the way that people normally think. What she means is "pursuit of happiness." While she despises Kantian altruism, she doesn't discount the fact that helping others is often in ones best interest. What she does argue is that one is in no way morally obliged to help others. This is to say, the ant who worked hard all summer foraging for food, has no obligation to feed the lazy grasshopper in the winter. To me this makes perfect sense.

Rand goes further in stating that we create moral obligations based on inborn values we place on individuals and strangers in our lives.This too is tied to personal happiness. Meaning that individuals assign more value to people that bring them more happiness. This is illustrated with the example of a drowning man. Many people would not risk their lives to save a the man if he was a stranger. On the other hand, if he was a loved one (someone the rescuer values, and would be less happy without) most people would risk their life to save him. Rand does go further, by saying that one should never risk their life for a stranger. In her opinion each persons own life is worth more than others. In essence, when a person risks his/her life for a stranger they are saying, "I am not as worthy as this person to live." This not an acceptable attitude to take in Rand's view.
There is much more to her philosophy than that, but hopefully this shows you that it is reasonable and should not be easily discounted.

Agreed. Most of what Rand says I actually already thought myself before I even read her books. More people need to be aware of her philosophy.

Did you even read the article? I don't think the author intentionally overlooked Eastern thinkers, but listed a few quick examples of great scientists whose ideas revolutionized the world. Also none of the thinkers he mentioned were pre-Renaissance, which is when Islamic science flourished. It had a sharp decline before the Renaissance and has not produced any revolutionary ideas since then. In addition, it would have been absurd for him to list every single person who every had an influence on science. Lastly, much of Islamic science during the Dark Ages was largely based on ancient Greek and other Western works.

"And these 'christians' that the article is blaming for holding back human accomplishment, were not really true christians and they were not a very moral lot; they made up things and superstitions that were not in scripture (like how they dealt with nudity)."

The Christians he is talking about are the Christians that get their morals from the bible. In fact the only people he mentions by name are Mother Theresa and Jesus. You can't get much more Christian than that. The authors are challenging the Christian concepts of renunciation and altruism. They are saying it is not how much money a person gives away that makes them virtuous, but rather that, that person was intelligent enough, resourceful enough and creative enough to make a fortune in the first place.

Good to see that chart and text here.
Our simple eternal task is figure out where we are first, and then, if we are able, try and help our friends and neighbors up the ladder to the next rung.

I am always surprised by how many don't know that evolution is a process that applies to everything and is always dynamic.

Evolution doesn't just get to a certain point and just stop, certain factors may slow or speed the pace but it is continually changing

With our other conversation going on I am suprised to see you posting Maslow. This is a good thing and you should apply his theories to our other debate, especially esteem and self-actualization. I really like the hiearchy of needs and in my opinion it is accurate in many aspects. That being said, the theory is not universally accepted and is not the majority percpective in psychology today. Psychological ideas, like everything else, evolve. Personally, I maintain the heirarchy of needs is very enlightening, but none-the-less incomplete and not all encompassing.

'Which moral code?" You ask. The author makes it pretty clear that he is talking about any moral code rooted in judeo-christian altruism. I have to agree that most people's moral codes are rooted in that context. Even if morals evolve, like you maintain, evolution can be a slow process. No greater values, moral codes or standards have universally arose for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Anyway, I am glad you posted the hiearchy of needs. Notice at the top, where it says morality. This doesn't mean discovering another persons morals or conforming to those morals you were raised with. Rather, Maslow is talking about the existential idea of creating ones own morals. The thing is, many people never reach self-actualization and many more have yet to reach actualization. These people are then subscribing to other peoples morals, which is most often in the form of judeo-christian altruism.

The mistake you continually make and fail to recognize is that it's two different levels and when you're operating only from a need for safety and security by using methods of force like those who use pyshical violence then self-esteem needs aren't even a part of your consciousness.

So proposing solutions from a self-actualization perspective will have as much effectiveness as trying to reason with a scorpion not to sting you.

I wasn't posing any solutions from the self-actualization theory. I was merely suggesting you examine you own place on the pyramid, where you are with your own actualization and how you can better fulfill your full potential. Namely, where are you at in regards to problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts, respect of others and respect for others.

The basic needs in the pyramid (the bottom four) are listed in order of potency not necessarily fulfillment order. Meaning, that people have the strongest psychological drive to fulfill physiological needs. This does not mean a person can not be loved and hungry, or confident and in danger. Furthermore, reaching ones full potential sometimes means sacrificing one or more basic needs. Examples of this are soldiers, astronauts, monks, or people who risk their loves to protest unjust leaders.

If you are suggesting that people subscribe to a different moral code based on what needs they are driven to fulfill, than you are mistaken. When Maslow mentions morality in his security needs, he means a prescribed moral code. This comes from family, society, religion, etc. When he mentions morality in self-actualization his is talking about choosing or creating your own moral code.

Also could you maybe quote me when you reply to me so I know exactly what part of my comment you are responding to. Thanks.

The dreaded Pyramid