"Objectivism" - A response to the Pornography Argument

[c0de]

This thread is a response to the multiple threads created by NickA on this issue,
and the ideas of "objectivism" on which he has founded his principle argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



@ NickA + SeattleGal


This isn't about sex-ed classes for the youth... and this isn't about "esoteric Christianity" either. Nick, your real foundation, is not in Simone Weil, or Plato, or Jesus (pbuh)... it is actually in Ayn Rand, the psudeo (pop) philosopher who is responsible for formalizing "Objectivism," a position which claims the right of man to define his own morality.


Nick said:

Porn is considered evil.

No... Porn is evil.

"Evil" is a term defined by an objective dictate that man is not capable of formulating himself. It is a logical fallacy (which Immanuel Kant proved) for you (and Ayn Rand) to claim that man can arrive at this objectivity himself. And this is exactly why Rand was never taken seriously to begin with. "Evil" can only be defined by an objective judgment, and according to the only objective source of morality i.e. God: porn, is evil.



SG said:

The old ways no longer fit today's situation, and the children are all too often left to fend for themselves when confronted by their hormones.

This is an invalid argument.

Did these hormones just appear overnight? Are you saying that Moses (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh) and Mohammed (pbuh) were not confronted by these same societal problems in their times???? Take a look at the historical records of societies into which each of these prophets of God were born and their utter debasement, especially with regards to sexual liberty. Egyptian worship of sexuality, pre-Islamic Arabia, and the harlots in Jerusalem can attest to the strength of the "hormones" of these societies.

Sexuality is not to be denied (true), but regulated according to the moral dictates of God. What you both are suggesting is that we re-formulate those dictates in light of our modern needs. But what you are forgetting is that there is nothing "modern" about these basic human instincts. They were always there, and they were the ones responsible for the downfall of man EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


From a philosophic point of view: the reason why the Police were involved is because a nude picture of a 15 year old is technically CHILD PORNOGRAPHY! It does NOT matter who took the picture. If that picture ended up on the internet and in the hands of a 40 year old child molester, would it only be considered pornographic then?!! No!! You know why? Because THAT WOULD BE MORAL RELATIVISM! (the foundation of utilitarianism) And that is what this "inner objective morality" actually is, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Philosophically speaking, it is just subjective morality, posing as objectivity. This is why Rand and her "objectivism" was always rejected as pop-philosophy in academic circles, not just because it is amoral, but because it is based on a logical fallacy which is proven by Kant (who Rand, naturally, hated).

From a religious point of view: the case is even more clear cut. Pornographic images sent by a 15 year old to her boyfriend are EVIL simply because according to God's morality, such an act should NOT be taking place. You can't just change the concept of "good" and "evil" because it is inconvenient. And that is actually what you Nick, are suggesting. So this is why, religiously speaking: you are the one who is advocating "political correctness." And if society starts walking down this road, pretty soon, there will be NO MORALITY and society will be ready to tear itself apart, and we will be back to the times when those Prophets were sent... only this time, we no one is coming to clean up our mess.

This is all a moot point anyway... because those like Nick,
have already won. Societal standards are non-existent really,
all the lip-service that society does to real objectivity is about
to fall apart and be thrown in the back-burner anyway...
So rejoice Nick, because philosophically, you are not part of
the minority... you are, in fact, the personification of the majority.

But still, this does not change the answer we should be giving to kids: we should NOT confuse them even more by throwing away an actual objective standard of morality and replacing it with a subjective "objectivism." If you think that would make the suicide rates go down then go and take a look at the suicide statistics of Japan, and you will find your answer (they are the highest in the world, probably the highest in human history).

 

[Bandit]

LOL!!! I cant believe you spent that much time on that. (that is a compliment)

according to the porn-o-nico- salvation:
If you feel, children should not be putting their nude pics in dangerous places for the creepy people, then you are the bad guy and suicides are your fault. The more nude pics there are of children for everyone to get ahold of, the better the world will become and suicides will stop. Amazing. it is the worse broken record(s) i have ever heard in my entire life.

Jimmy Swaggart just needed a young alley prostitue to make his world a better place. Ted Haggard just needed a male on the side to make his world a better place because his wife was not good enough. and of course the priests need lots of little boys and girls to make their world a better place...so just keep them moving around from parish to parish so they can always get fresh meat.

Children being exploited because they are too young to realize what is happening, is good. NOT!

You left out the righteous indignation and the obama album. They are broken too. I chalk it off as impossible people and keep the cell phone handy for 911 in case they come on my property and for suspicious activity in public.

 

[Paladin]

Code,

I see where you are going with this, and if I understand correctly what you are aiming at is worthwhile, but be careful of absolutes in your argument.
Using terms like "logical fallacy" in the context you are using it actually creates more fallacy.
Stating that another argument is invalid opens you up as well, because what makes an argument valid is the fact that it is arguable.

Understand I'm not refuting your content, just trying to help it be clear.

 

[Bandit]

If you think that would make the suicide rates go down then go and take a look at the suicide statistics of Japan, and you will find your answer (they are the highest in the world, probably the highest in human history).

soliders take their lives all the time. home owners take their lives quite frequently lately when they lose their homes. now if these people had some porn-o-nico- and shared nude pics of themselves as children right around puberty, they would be redeemed.

I don't know if japan is the highest in suicide but I do know they are also at the top of the list who care the least about this problem of exploiting children sexually.

 

[seattlegal]

SG said:

The old ways no longer fit today's situation, and the children are all too often left to fend for themselves when confronted by their hormones.

This is an invalid argument.

Excuse me? Please don't tell me that nine year old girls were getting pregnant with twins back then. You can google around to find the information documenting the earlier onset of puberty in these modern times.

Did these hormones just appear overnight? Are you saying that Moses (pbuh), Jesus (pbuh) and Mohammed (pbuh) were not confronted by these same societal problems in their times???? Take a look at the historical records of societies into which each of these prophets of God were born and their utter debasement, especially with regards to sexual liberty. Egyptian worship of sexuality, pre-Islamic Arabia, and the harlots in Jerusalem can attest to the strength of the "hormones" of these societies.

We are talking about children here, not adults? The bodies are maturing faster, but can the same be said about their minds?

Sexuality is not to be denied (true), but regulated according to the moral dictates of God. What you both are suggesting is that we re-formulate those dictates in light of our modern needs. But what you are forgetting is that there is nothing "modern" about these basic human instincts. They were always there, and they were the ones responsible for the downfall of man EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past.

Again, we are talking about children here, (not adults.) The way we approach raising our children needs to change, and we need to teach them earlier about how to deal with their hormones and their emotions earlier. Why do you think we are seeing a rise in violence among children? (There is plenty of scientific information documenting the link between violence and testosterone--google away! Personally, I think that this link between testosterone and violence lead to the regulation of sexuality, with women being owned as wives--to keep the testosterone-linked violence down.) Other research is being conducted linking other hormones with other emotions.

All of this is being foisted on the less-developed minds of children at increasingly earlier ages, and it is taking its toll. We have to find a way to address this problem and adapt to it. We've been trying to medicate our children out the problem, but is it working?

 

[Bandit]

Excuse me? Please don't tell me that nine year old girls were getting pregnant with twins back then. You can google around to find the information documenting the earlier onset of puberty in these modern times.

a rope & bars are needed.
and then there is little Lina a 5 year old mom

 

[Bandit]

It appears she wanted to tell young girls something meaningful about their bodies...don't send pictures to your boyfriend or anybody period.

This is the lesson, I don't care if it is the law, the law didn't kill her, the shame caused when her boyfriend sent out the pix. And her girlfriends, and classmates refered to her as a slut. This is not adults nor the law this is her peers.

The problem is solved, mitigated by teaching kids DONT SEND NUDE PIX OF YOURSELF TO ANYONE!! There are countless women who in their older years are ashamed of what they got themselves into as a youth.

Prudishness aside, whatever, if it comes back to haunt you we need to drill it into everyones head to protect them.Pardon me, but isn't this a ludicrous irrevelant statistic

...we'd be in one hell of a shape if kids were dying of diseases that are common with age stroke, lung disease, AIDS, heart disease, cancer, birth defects...wake up, most of these take decades of abuse to manifest and birth defects most of them would be already dead by 10. The suicide rate is appaling but using nonsense statistics makes fools of those who use them.

The other thread is a bunch of strawman, back pedaling foolishness so I bring you to this one with dignity

Now that is definately coming from a loving dad who knows the horrible consequences and the adolescent does not. It needs to be repeated here as well. THEY MUST BE PROTECTED.
I personally can say, I really never wanted grandkids to raise before I reached 26 (i can say that now), when then at 8 to 14, I did not understand what that responsibility was. Oh I knew how to get an erection at 7 with no problem, but the responsibility of that is a whole different ballpark that children do not understand.

Nice post, Wil.

 

[juantoo3]

it is actually in Ayn Rand, the psudeo (pop) philosopher who is responsible for formalizing "Objectivism," a position which claims the right of man to define his own morality.

I'm not Nick A nor am I Seattlegal...but I have read Ayn Rand, and I do agree with some of what she has to say.

I don't see where she suggests that it is a man's right to define his own morality.

Would you object (pardon the pun) to clarifying your statement?

 

[c0de]

Bandit + Paladin + SG


@ Bandit

LOL!!! I cant believe you spent that much time on that. (that is a compliment)

lol, dude its actually the first thing I did after waking up,
I was still a little drowsy actually... but I got some tea in me now
so im all set. (btw, you raise some good points).


@ Mark

I see where you are going with this, and if I understand correctly what you are aiming at is worthwhile, but be careful of absolutes in your argument.
Using terms like "logical fallacy" in the context you are using it actually creates more fallacy.
Stating that another argument is invalid opens you up as well, because what makes an argument valid is the fact that it is arguable.

Understand I'm not refuting your content, just trying to help it be clear.

Duly noted. I do tend to be a little absolute with my
statements I do realize that...




@ SG

Excuse me? Please don't tell me that nine year old girls were getting pregnant with twins back then. You can google around to find the information documenting the earlier onset of puberty in these modern times.

... actually they were.

SG it is a fact that the phenomenon of "adolescence" is actually a VERY RECENT development. Even as early as a century ago, there was no such thing as an "adolescent" boy or girl. Girls were married by the time they reached their teens, and boys were out working in the field and considered "men". Besides, I never said that kids should not be informed about sexuality. I did not even state that sexuality should be controlled. I said it should be regulated through proper moral etiquette. More on this below.

Why do you think we are seeing a rise in violence among children?

.... what "violence among children" are you referring to???
SG, in earlier times, teenage kids were fighting actual wars.
Not the ones in video games, but with real swords and shields.
And some still do in areas of the world in which there is no such thing as
an "age of majority". Case in point: the child soldiers in Africa.

We are talking about children here, not adults? The bodies are maturing faster, but can the same be said about their minds?

Exactly! Their minds are less mature then they used to be, which means they actually require more guidance. Adolescents in school have no responsibilities that their ancestors at the same age had. Our ancestors were already married and had their own families by the time they were my age (24).

Again, we are talking about children here, (not adults.) The way we approach raising our children needs to change, and we need to teach them earlier about how to deal with their hormones and their emotions earlier.

Again, I never said we shouldn't do this. But this does not mean that we should give them a free sexual license, or encourage behavior such as transmitting pornographic material through the internet/cell phones etc. Nor should the objective concepts of "good" and "evil" be changed. But unfortunately, all of this is, is exactly what is happening.

All of this is being foisted on the less-developed minds of children at increasingly earlier ages, and it is taking its toll. We have to find a way to address this problem and adapt to it. We've been trying to medicate our children out the problem, but is it working?

The "children" need to be told to self-regulate, not "explore and experiment"
Their instincts are the most powerful man possesses and if not properly
controlled, they will consume and destroy their souls.

(There is plenty of scientific information documenting the link between violence and testosterone--google away! Personally,I think that this link between testosterone and violence lead to the regulation of sexuality, with women being owned as wives--to keep the testosterone-linked violence down.) Other research is being conducted linking other hormones with other emotions.

The case of sexual predators stands against this argument. Their testosterone levels are pretty high (I bet) and they are also violent. But are they "regulating their sexuality"? (obviously not).

 

[c0de]

p.s.

@ Juan

just saw your post after I already posted.
Here is a link to the wiki page for Ayn Rand:
check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
She says that man can use his own intellect (rationality) to arrive
"objectively" at a moral code... (an argument which was refuted by Kant
with his Critique of Pure Reason).

This exactly what Nick has been saying all this time and what his
concept of "inner objective morality" is based on. It is no different
then Ayn Rand's idea, except that Ayn Rand was an avowed atheist
while Nick holds a belief in a non-personal deity.

 

[Nick_A]

cOde

Objectivism makes the same error that Simone pointed out.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

Ayn Rand is speaking from within the cave where hypocrisy rules the day. Inner morality is impossible for cave life and only possible for those still in the cave but not OF it. Reason has nothing to do with it. We know one thing and do another. One day we are one way and another way on the next. It is the human condition. It is only through grace that a person can open themselves to objective inner morality - a knowledge that always was.

"Evil" can only be defined by an objective judgment, and according to the only objective source of morality i.e. God: porn, is evil

.

Where did God (not LORD God) express that Porn is evil? When God referred to evil it was only in the context of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that exists regardless of Man.. That is the only objective evil.

Sexuality is not to be denied (true), but regulated according to the moral dictates of God. What you both are suggesting is that we re-formulate those dictates in light of our modern needs. But what you are forgetting is that there is nothing "modern" about these basic human instincts. They were always there, and they were the ones responsible for the downfall of man EVERY SINGLE TIME in the past.

No, I am suggesting that regulation does more harm than good if it doesn't lead to developing inner understanding we know of as conscience which is a word that has really lost all objective meaning in modern times.

From a religious point of view: the case is even more clear cut. Pornographic images sent by a 15 year old to her boyfriend are EVIL simply because according to God's morality, such an act should NOT be taking place. You can't just change the concept of "good" and "evil" because it is inconvenient. And that is actually what you Nick, are suggesting. So this is why, religiously speaking: you are the one who is advocating "political correctness." And if society starts walking down this road, pretty soon, there will be NO MORALITY and society will be ready to tear itself apart, and we will be back to the times when those Prophets were sent... only this time, we no one is coming to clean up our mess.

I don't believe in the personal God and any sort of moral dictates. I believe rather that the purpose of scripture isn't to tell us what to do but rather to help us awaken and survive in the meantime.. External Morality only exists now because we've largely lost the capacity for inner morality.

The point is that I'd rather a young girl become able to understand what is meant by the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit in a common sense meaningful way rather then being told that God is pissed at her. It almost makes me want to take nude pictures of myself for spite except I have to lose twenty pounds first.

Of course societal standards don't exist since we've lost the capacity for inner morality and the religious influence has been secularized. But you want to impose the dictates of a perceived divinity to compensate and because we are in Plato's cave, it can only lead to disaster through hypocrisy.

So I'll stick with Simone's explanation of grace and gradually developing the new eyes and ears of Christianity to aid in allowing the inner experience of inner morality where people can become human rather than puppets following blind dictates in appearance while doing the opposite when no one is looking.

 

[c0de]

I don't believe in the personal God and any sort of moral dictates.

... yea, I figured that. And now we all know. (Thanks.)

Just make sure you post this interesting piece of information
on your resume if you ever apply for a job in which you
are trusted with the safety of any children.

Objectivism makes the same error that Simone pointed out.

Ayn Rand is speaking from within the cave where hypocrisy rules the day. Inner morality is impossible for cave life and only possible for those still in the cave but not OF it. Reason has nothing to do with it. We know one thing and do another. One day we are one way and another way on the next. It is the human condition. It is only through grace that a person can open themselves to objective inner morality - a knowledge that always was.

Your error is no different then hers. She believed that man is
capable of using rationality to come out of the cave and achieve
an "inner morality", just like you. While there is no such thing as
"inner objective morality". Morality is defined by God, who is the
only objective source. It can not be reasoned or rationalized.

Case in point:

Where did God (not LORD God) express that Porn is evil?

This is what I was waiting for. Thanks Nick. I wanted you to
say this openly. Once again, you stand against revelation:


Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her,
he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Psalm 101:3 "I will set no unclean thing before my eyes."
Matthew 5:28 "but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS
on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
http://www.dianedew.com/porn.htm


And this is just from the bible... (and I am not even a Christian!)
But of course, you hold your own reason above revelation, rite?
This is why, for you, there is nothing wrong with Porn.
You can freely choose to create your own code of morality which
fits your own desires (just like Rand).

No, I am suggesting that regulation does more harm than good if it doesn't lead to developing inner understanding we know of as conscience which is a word that has really lost all objective meaning in modern times.

Yea... that is exactly the point Rand tried to make.
That man can reach such points of "inner morality"
through an "understanding." But this "understanding"
was already proven to be flawed by Kant. This is why
neither you, nor Rand's case stands on solid ground.

 

[juantoo3]

Here is a link to the wiki page for Ayn Rand:
check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Ummm, c0de...

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Objectivism (Ayn Rand in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Not sure what the malfunction is, but as it is this doesn't do a lot to help your case...

 

[c0de]

Ummm, c0de...



Not sure what the malfunction is, but as it is this doesn't do a lot to help your case...

wierd... the url isn't working. But just type "objectivism" in google
and go to the first article in wikipedia that pops up.

 

[Nick_A]

... yea, I figured that. And now we all know. (Thanks.)

Just make sure you post this interesting piece of information
on your resume if you ever apply for a job in which you
are trusted with the safety of any children.

Your error is no different then hers. She believed that man is
capable of using rationality to come out of the cave and achieve
an "inner morality", just like you. While there is no such thing as
"inner objective morality". Morality is defined by God, who is the
only objective source. It can not be reasoned or rationalized.

Case in point:

This is what I was waiting for. Thanks Nick. I wanted you to
say this openly. Once again, you stand against revelation:


Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her,
he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Psalm 101:3 "I will set no unclean thing before my eyes."
Matthew 5:28 "but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS
on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Pornography and the Bible


And this is just from the bible... (and I am not even a Christian!)
But of course, you hold your own reason above revelation, rite?
This is why, for you, there is nothing wrong with Porn.
You can freely choose to create your own code of morality which
fits your own desires (just like Rand).


Yea... that is exactly the point Rand tried to make.
That man can reach such points of "inner morality"
through an "understanding." But this "understanding"
was already proven to be flawed by Kant. This is why
neither you, nor Rand's case stands on solid ground.

Just make sure you post this interesting piece of information
on your resume if you ever apply for a job in which you
are trusted with the safety of any children

No, now that Obama is not required to reveal his birth certificate, it is agreed that we just create our own reality for job applications and write whatever we want to in respect to peace and love. At least we're entitled to some consolation.

Your error is no different then hers. She believed that man is capable of using rationality to come out of the cave and achieve an "inner morality", just like you. While there is no such thing as"inner objective morality". Morality is defined by God, who is the only objective source. It can not be reasoned or rationalized.

Inner morality is not reasoned but remembered. You've forgotten it so prefer to rely upon being told what to do.

Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Is lust evil or just a quality that denies a person with the aim of the goal of Christianity their aim?

A flat tire isn't evil because it postpones your ability to drive to the grocery store. It is just a flat tire.

Sin is not evil but just "missing the mark." Actually we are as incapable of evil as a dog is. To practice evil requires a quality of consciousness we do not have as creatures of reaction. If a dog bites you it isn't an evil dog but just a dog that bites.

Yea... that is exactly the point Rand tried to make.
That man can reach such points of "inner morality"
through an "understanding." But this "understanding"
was already proven to be flawed by Kant. This is why
neither you, nor Rand's case stands on solid ground.

Yes, inside the cave it is impossible, However outside the cave which is the direction of Christian re-birth and where inner morality is the norm is a level of reality we, in the cave, cannot comprehend but is man's evolutionary potential.

 

[greymare]

OH HO... we are incapable of evil????????????????????
Mate, come on, are you serious... You know a little about human history, yes??

Now, i wonder if by saying that we are "incapable of evil"... does that make the atrocities that we as humans have commited in the past, acceptable? or are we just not responsible?
And I am not talking about God or religion here, i am talking about historical fact!

 

[Bandit]

OH HO... we are incapable of evil????????????????????
Mate, come on, are you serious... You know a little about human history, yes??

Now, i wonder if by saying that we are "incapable of evil"... does that make the atrocities that we as humans have commited in the past, acceptable? or are we just not responsible?
And I am not talking about God or religion here, i am talking about historical fact!

unless you do not allow your children to pass nude pics around of themselves, then you are the evil one (me too you know) this is like a sick comedy sketch. eh?

 

[c0de]

Inner morality is not reasoned but remembered. You've forgotten it so prefer to rely upon being told what to do.

"remembered" implies an external source.
In which case there is nothing "inner" about it.
Also, on the other hand "remembered" can
never be objective because memory is subjective.

Both these descriptions of morality are wrong,
in the religious and philosophic senses anyway.
As a truly objective morality exists independently
of any human "memory" of it.

Is lust evil or just a quality that denies a person with the aim of the goal of Christianity their aim?

Did I say lust was evil? I said pornography was evil.

Actually we are as incapable of evil as a dog is. To practice evil requires a quality of consciousness we do not have as creatures of reaction. If a dog bites you it isn't an evil dog but just a dog that bites.

Refer to Greymare's comment above.

I would add that since you do not believe in the moral dictates
of God, I question your judgment on the issue of good and evil entirely
as your morality has no real foundation in anything, and will always
ultimately devolve into moral relativism.

 

[Nick_A]

OH HO... we are incapable of evil????????????????????
Mate, come on, are you serious... You know a little about human history, yes??

Now, i wonder if by saying that we are "incapable of evil"... does that make the atrocities that we as humans have commited in the past, acceptable? or are we just not responsible?
And I am not talking about God or religion here, i am talking about historical fact!

Consider life in the jungle and how life is governed by the law of the survival of the fittest. There is a tremendous amount of suffering in the jungle. Does that make the jungle evil or just a fact of life? There is nothing conscious in man's slaughter of itself through war. If we were conscious we would be incapable of war. But we are not self aware in relation to our source so wars continue. That doesn't make them evil but rather normal for the fallen human condition. When Jesus said "Forgive them for they know not what they do," he was speaking the truth.

 

[Nick_A]

"remembered" implies an external source.
In which case there is nothing "inner" about it.
Also, on the other hand "remembered" can
never be objective because memory is subjective.

Both these descriptions of morality are wrong,
in the religious and philosophic senses anyway.
As a truly objective morality exists independently
of any human "memory" of it.

Did I say lust was evil? I said pornography was evil.


Refer to Greymare's comment above.

I would add that since you do not believe in the moral dictates
of God, I question your judgment on the issue of good and evil entirely
as your morality has no real foundation in anything, and will always
ultimately devolve into moral relativism.

Wisdom always was and inner morality is an expression of wisdom. Wisdom is speaking:

(Proverbs 8:22-33)

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

What is rememberd is soul knowledge which isn't reason or dictates but that which is a rememberd unconditioned expression of our being.

Did I say lust was evil? I said pornography was evil.

So since God creates the body of a fourteen year old girl that is pornographic by having a picture fall into the hands of a forty year old guy, it means God is a pornographer since he created this potential.

I would add that since you do not believe in the moral dictates
of God, I question your judgment on the issue of good and evil entirely
as your morality has no real foundation in anything, and will always
ultimately devolve into moral relativism.

To the contrary, inner morality has the firmest foundation possible since it is objective inner knowledge and an expression of the depths of our being. Simone gives an interesting test for inner morality for those that have experienced it yet few would be brave enough to take it during a moral crisis:

[SIZE=+2]There Comes[/SIZE]

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.