From "This is John Galt Speaking" -
"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent
contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of
choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth,
he has no will, no power to change it;.."
Poppycock. These objections of Rand's have been brought up
and dealt with long, long ago. They are only original to her because
she has not done her homework. Under the doctrine of Original
Sin man still has free-will, only he lacks complete mastery of
his own faculties. In other words, he cannot gain perfect
control over them. There remains no doubt that man can gain
some control over them, however you may measure it, be
it 1% or 99.99% control. That 1% to 99.99% is still volitional.
Furthermore - once you understand that Original Sin does not
completely detract from volition, but only explains why volition
does not completely rule over the faculties, you can see that
IT IS THE VERY NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN TO MAKE
MORALITY NECESSARY due to the percentage of his
being that is still not under control of his free-will.
There is yet another point, which was mentioned by Kant
in his ethics. The Original Man (Adam) apparently, according
to the Doctrine, had the ability to see or envision God. This
capability is now gone - a factor which also makes moral
theory, or religion, a necessity, as man now lacks direct
knowledge of the good.
As usual, Rand had it completely upside down and backward.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The concept of Original Sin assumes some force exists over man either before he himself exists or simultaneously existing with man. Regardless of timing the major point is the same, that there is a force powerful enough to control man and therefor man does not really have control. He has as much control as he is allowed by this mystical force. Since there is no contract guaranteeing minimal or consistent interference one can assume that it is due to fluctuate independently. I would say this falls within Rand's meaning.
When man is compelled against his will to commit a sin, is he morally responsible for committing that sin from which he could not refrain?
Post a Comment