tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post550835909123841218..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: ‘Bigotry Motivated by Religion is Still Bigotry’—True, but Still an Individual Rightprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-63085235242242968802017-10-14T09:58:14.343-04:002017-10-14T09:58:14.343-04:00SJ,
Those are their opinions. I'd change my m...SJ,<br /><br />Those are their opinions. I'd change my mind if I was given reasons for changing my mind. Again, I know of no principle of Objectivism from which one can extrapolate homosexuality to be immoral—or, for that matter, moral. Objectivism holds that morality consists of pursuing one’s own long-term best interests and happiness in a way that respects the same rights as others. My experience has demonstrated that homosexuals are just as capable as heterosexuals of safe sex and meaningful long term relationships. If, by their judgements, that is consistent with their interests and happiness, and they’re hurting no one else (as Craig and Mullins are), on what basis can we conclude they’re not acting morally? <br /><br />As to Peikoff, who knew Rand intimately, I have great confidence that he properly properly represents Rand’s philosophy. Fortunately, Rand’s writings are readily available if I ever felt I needed to verify something about Peikoff’s evaluations. principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-35915897124930955312017-10-13T19:42:27.340-04:002017-10-13T19:42:27.340-04:00Not too long ago Leonard Peikoff said it was OK fo...Not too long ago Leonard Peikoff said it was OK for a man to leave his wife to marry his "gay partner."<br /><br />Do you believe Dr. Peikoff can still claim the mantle of Rand's "intellectual heir:?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-53444637700369109942017-10-13T19:37:19.606-04:002017-10-13T19:37:19.606-04:00Michael,
If Rand said homosexuality was immoral a...Michael,<br /><br />If Rand said homosexuality was immoral and a part of Objectivism, would you say Leonard Peikoff, et al are OK to say that homosexueality is moral, would you change your view?<br /><br />As I said before I'm not an objectivist. But I respect Rand enough to say that it's Objectivist teaching that it's immoral for a man to want to put his penis in another man's anus?<br /><br />Rand defines Objectivism, not Leonard Peiokoff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17224280484542390176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-30011780319271012662017-10-13T15:37:01.719-04:002017-10-13T15:37:01.719-04:00Steve,
I remember reading where Rand viewed homos...Steve,<br /><br />I remember reading where Rand viewed homosexuality to be immoral, but still an individual right. But Objectivism, like any philosophy, is an abstract set of views on the nature of reality and principles to guide one’s choices and actions. It is up to each individual to determine how those fundamentals apply to concrete life. This leaves plenty of room for disagreement among Objectivists on the application of the philosophy to myriad issues, including with Rand herself. <br /><br />As to the open Objectivism/closed Objectivism debate, I come down on the side of closed Objectivism. Two Objectivists can agree on a fundamental Objectivist principle but still disagree on any issue. But neither can simply alter, add to, or subtract from the basic principles of Objectivism in ways that Rand did not sanction, and still call it Objectivism and oneself an Objectivist. It’s her philosophy, after all. <br /><br />Thanks.<br />principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-51165973274814893742017-10-12T20:06:34.836-04:002017-10-12T20:06:34.836-04:00"You have to separate what Rand thought about..."You have to separate what Rand thought about particular issues from the philosophy."<br /><br />I'm not an objectivist so I have no dog in this fight. My understanding is that when Rand said something was "immoral" she meant "immoral from the perspective of Objectivism." Do you have any evidence that Rand used the term "immoral" to mean "not my cup of tea."<br /><br />It reminds me of David Kelley's "open Objectivism." <br /><br />-Steve<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-61483793671806840862017-10-12T15:53:30.745-04:002017-10-12T15:53:30.745-04:00"Well, Ayn Rand apparently thought otherwise...."Well, Ayn Rand apparently thought otherwise. . ."<br /><br />You have to separate what Rand thought about particular issues from the philosophy.<br />principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-48462626843078761492017-10-12T10:56:14.868-04:002017-10-12T10:56:14.868-04:00Look at it this way - the same sex couple are the ...Look at it this way - the same sex couple are the true bigots. THEY are using the coercive arm of the state to harass someone because of their religious beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me if they went to a baker they knew to be Christian first just to give them a hard time.<br /><br />Too bad they didn't go to Muslim cake bakers. The Muslims would get more sympathy.<br /><br />-SJ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-72221731854984876822017-10-12T10:50:36.608-04:002017-10-12T10:50:36.608-04:00"It's not as if there aren't dozens o..."It's not as if there aren't dozens of people who would willingly bake them cakes."<br /><br />I'm not sure what the Supreme Court will decide. If the couple asked the baker to write something on the cake like "same sex marriage is great" then I imagine the decision would be 9-0. I don't know the facts of this case.<br /><br />-SJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-560300372233681902017-10-12T10:38:30.343-04:002017-10-12T10:38:30.343-04:00Generally speaking I wouldn't discriminate aga...Generally speaking I wouldn't discriminate against same-sex couples either. That being said, I find the homosexual movement to be extremely militant -- for example getting the government to sue Christian cake bakers. It's not as if there are dozens of people who would willingly bake them cakes. Do cakes taste better when made by "homophobes"?<br /><br />-SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-46315319044248418732017-10-12T10:23:49.962-04:002017-10-12T10:23:49.962-04:00"I know of no principle of Objectivism from w..."I know of no principle of Objectivism from which one can extrapolate homosexuality to be immoral."<br /><br />Well, Ayn Rand apparently thought otherwise, although she didn't develop her reasoning. I imagine it had something to do with her view of male/female relationships. If the essence of womanhood is to look up to a man (more or less her words) then it's hard to justify homosexuality.<br /><br />Rand was operating on an fairly extreme "blank slate" psychology which we now know is wrong.<br /><br />The issue of homosexuality to me is like adult consensual incest. I find it "just wrong." Say I want to marry my sister and we use two levels of contraception to ensure that no children result. Is it wrong?<br /><br />-SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-3570987634789220582017-10-11T20:50:05.377-04:002017-10-11T20:50:05.377-04:00Steve,
The First Amendment specifically protects ...Steve,<br /><br />The First Amendment specifically protects the right “peaceably to assemble,” which has been interpreted (correctly, in my view) to mean a broad right to freedom of association—a right that, unfortunately, has been under attack for some time, as the law being challenged in this case indicates. What is a peaceable assembly, if not voluntary association? Beyond that is the Ninth Amendment. I can’t imagine how the case can be made that the freedom to associate with whom one pleases, or not, is not integral to the individual’s unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence—the starting point of American political independence and the philosophic blueprint for the Constitution. It’s not that freedom of speech (or religion) is not important here. It’s that if you can’t express those rights through your contractual (associational) relations with others, what good are those rights?<br /><br />“Why is it bigotry to oppose homosexuality?”<br /><br />I consider it bigotry because homosexuality is not in and of itself a threat to others. Neither is same-sex marriage. Hence, discrimination against gay couples is not rational, and therefore is bigotry. However, I acknowledge that this point is arguable. I also respect a person who stands up for his beliefs, even if I disagree with that belief, which is why I stand with the Christian baker. That’s what makes this case so infuriating: This man is being denied the right to live by his own conscience even though he’s hurting no one. <br /><br />I, too, am repulsed by the thought of man-to-man sex; not philosophically, but literally, physically, nauseatingly repulsed. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t treat same-sex couples the same as other couples. My wife and I have friendships with same-sex couples. And I wouldn’t discriminate as a businessman. I once plumbed a house for a male gay couple. What two consenting adults do in bed in no way threatens me. Neither does their marriage.<br /><br />I know of no principle of Objectivism from which one can extrapolate homosexuality to be immoral.<br /><br />Thanks.<br />principled perspectiveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-40431286292509615352017-10-11T11:16:14.291-04:002017-10-11T11:16:14.291-04:00There is no freedom of association mentioned in th...There is no freedom of association mentioned in the constitution so you've got to back door it through freedom of speech (as the Supreme Court did when it overturned NJ's ban on the boy scouts because of homosexual ban).<br /><br />I hear lots of Objectivists and libertarians say how great the constitution is or that the founders were great champions of liberty, but it's a stretch.<br /><br />-SJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com