Quote Originally Posted by gypski
Please tell us more of this objectivist theory. Do you believe that morals and ethics are static and changeless? I know there are paths that believe they are in flux. i.e. one is good for one, is bad for another.

I've found this. Maybe you could give a synopsis on it from your perspective? I believe in the flux theory. Subjectivism. :smokin:
Hi Gypski... Glad to see interest in this. I am an economist. When the early economists started developing the models we use today they were known as moral philosophers. This study of morality and how people react on the margins of decisions is the basis of all economic thought.

Is morality static and changeless? Absolutely not. Look at fashion as an example. I defy you to find a belly button in any picture from the 50's, yet today this sight is not considered immoral, just sexy. And even the concept of being sexy is treated today as the norm, in later days it would have resulted in scandal. The study of morality is fascinating and not only changes with time, but also with culture. Consider justifiable honor killings in the east compared to how this is viewed in the western world.

Objectivism is based on two principles. The first is rational thought. If something can not be analyzed logically and rationally then maybe it is based on emotion or superstition or supposition and the conclusions drawn from this analysis may not be valid. The second concept is selfishness. I don't do things for other people. When you live your life for someone else, it reduces the quality of your own life. I do things because they make me happy. Sometimes it may look like I am doing something for someone else, for instance, growing medicinal weed to help my aunt with MS, but actually I do this because it makes happy.

I have found in my life that the concept of Karma works and that it enhances the quality of my life to do things that "increase my Karma." You may argue that Karma is not a rational belief and if used in a metaphysical way, I agree with you. I however look at this term as describing the interaction of two other well known principles that are based in rational thought, the concepts of "pay it forward" and "degrees of separation" combined. When you do something good or bad, it influences at least 3 people. Good or bad, the effects of what you do are propagated throughout society. Do I help out in the soup kitchen because I am altruistic and feel that it is my duty to help? No, I do it because I am selfish and it makes me feel good. I also know that the effects of this work pay off in networking contacts and good will from those whom I have helped.

Does this make me a bad person? Let's just say that I will never be nominated for sainthood for my altruism. But, because those things that make me happy tend to help and enhance those around me, I might look like I am a very nice person even though I know that the things that motivate me are based on selfish principles. It's all a matter of perspective.

I will close with my favorite quote from the Star Trek series. Remember when Captain Pike was captured by the Thelosians in his wheelchair and could only communicate with a blinking light? Captain Kirk came to rescue him and was convinced that this altruistic action was the correct one. He was eventually persuaded that the virtual life that the Thelosians offered Captain Pike where he could again be a young and fully capable person was the most compassionate choice, and the episode ended with this quote from the Thelosian leader. "Captain Pike now has his illusion, and you (Captain Kirk) have your reality. May you find your way as pleasant."

Live long and prosper,
Emmie