Do you think Ayn Rand had Asperger's?
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
No, she was a self-aggrandizing elitist dimwit who hated altruism or the slightest notion of common fairness with a passion. Opinions and attitudes can be immoral because opinions opinions and attitudes have consequences.
If I was of the opinion that child rape should be legal would you refrain from saying my opinion was immoral just because I have the legal right to have such an opinion? ..... So what is it? .....
I thought not.
If I was of the opinion that child rape should be legal would you refrain from saying my opinion was immoral just because I have the legal right to have such an opinion? ..... So what is it? .....
I thought not.
Think again. Everyone has a dead absolute right to an opinion on any topic. Opinions per se are neither moral nor immoral. Only actions are moral or immoral. Die Gedanken Sind Frei! Actions as consequences of opinion may be judged. But the opinions in and of themselves have no moral import. When you want to hold someone morally responsible ask them what they DID, not what they THOUGHT.
ruveyn
Nice dodge. You act as though calling something immoral is the same as crying for thought censorship. You can believe whatever you want and have whatever opinion you want but I have no obligation to consider it moral. You also have to be especially blind to not realize that all actions are brought about by ideas and thoughts. If Hitler had never risen to power and been able to commit real life atrocities would the words of Mein Kampf have been moral? What about verses in the Quran that tell the believer to "fight and kill the infidel"? Is racism moral?
marshall wrote:
Nice dodge. You act as though calling something immoral is the same as crying for thought censorship
No sir.. I am identifying the nature of an opinion. An opinion qua opinion is a private mental state and has no moral import whatsoever. Only overt actions can be judged on a moral or ethical standard.
To answer your other question: racist thoughts are neither moral nor immoral. racist actions might have moral import. Denying someone a liberty or access to which he is legally entitled purely on the basis of race is both illegal and immoral. Such a denial is an overt act which can be witnessed by a third party, whereas a thought or opinion cannot be witnessed by a second or third party because it is purely private. As soon as one overtly expresses an opinion, that -expression- can be judged morally, ethically, logically, epistemologically etc. Why? Because expressing something is an overt act.
That which is safely between your ears is exempt for the moral judgement of anyone who lives outside your skin.
ruveyn
