In a message dated April 3, 1998, DavidTietz writes:

The regrettable fact is, in context of AirwaveBoy's analogy, while there will always be Einsteins (human thinkers), there will always be snakes (those who pursue the unearned, we'll say). The problem is, some individuals choose to be 'snakes' when they reject reason and knowledge. When an individual takes this course - by choice - he harms himself primarily and directly. The detrimental effects of such a choice are virtually incalculable, but can be observed from the abject attitude about life and values that such a choice will always foster.

In an indirect way, all men potentially lose, for the presence of one irrational individual is a potential threat to the values of the rational individuals. Many of these people who choose not to think turn to crime, and thus become criminals. A criminal is a threat to all rational men.

Remember that man thinks by choice. And just as a man must choose to think in order to use his mind, so is not using his mind the result of choice. In any given situation, and in facing any mental challenge, one may choose to think, or he may choose not to think. According to the morality of rational self-interest, which deals with issues subject to alternatives (i.e., open to a set of choices), the individual should always choose to use his mind, and should never choose to turn his mind off. Thinking is what man ought to do.

When individuals choose not to think, not only does he lose - both in the short-term as well as in the long-term, to the degree at which he chooses not to think - but others lose also. If, for instance, I decided no longer to think, then there would be a lot of shop-owners in my area who could not benefit from my trade, and I know at least one employer immediately who would not benefit from my labor and effort, all of which are a product of my choice to use my mind. Most of all, I would not benefit; only an altruist can 'benefit' from others choosing not to think, and that benefit is never legitimate, but a moral fraud.

The main problem I have, however, is the prevalent immoralism that holds me financially responsible for those who choose not to use their minds in productive effort. This is not only a great insult to me - and to everyone who is held so responsible - but more importantly it is a great injustice. Here I refer to the welfare-state that America has become. Why should the 'Einsteins' - to continue with AirwaveBoy's analogy - be forced to support the 'snakes'? If that is the nation's policy, it sounds like the 'snakes' are getting the deal: they don't think - by choice, they don't put forth productive effort - by choice, and they do not produce values - by choice. However, I, who make the choice to think, to put forth effort, and to produce, am penalized - not only for my choice - but also for their choice, too, and all to their favor at my expense.

How is this a just system?

Such a system is the result of applying the morality of sacrifice to interpersonal relationships. That system is called: collectivism.

Man, the individual, is lost without reason. Only the priest is lost without religion.

I for one would not miss religion - and its consequences - if suddenly it were gone today. In fact, I would rejoice!

David, you call yourself a Christian, correct? (I may be wrong here, I don't know.) But you say you don't believe in an 'afterlife'? Are you saying that you don't accept the doctrine which states that your soul is eternal and that one day you will stand in front of your judging God?

Perhaps you reject that doctrine, upon which Christianity founds its essential purpose. I say 'essential purpose' because, as I understand Christianity, the whole point of worship and the religion itself is integrated with one's eternal salvation, and the doctrine of eternal foundation is founded upon the notion that man's soul is 'eternal'.

Your simile about the essence of the ocean finding itself in a drop of water and the essence of life in a moment of time is quite poetic, even poignant, but it hardly explains in objective terms what it is that you do believe.

I just wonder how you reconcile your rejection of the notion of an 'afterlife' with your other Christian views, if at all you do.

Just curious.

On the topic of the notion of an 'afterlife', it is my conviction that belief in an 'afterlife' can only cheapen man's value of his life on earth - as well as his value of everyone else's life. So long as one accepts the arbitrary claim "to hell with this life, I have one on layaway after I die" - how can he take this life seriously? How can he value it?

Again, such a belief makes no economic sense - or moral sense.

Tindrbox

_________________________________