login about faq

Seems like people are more than willing to discuss about politics but when it comes to moral code it's a no-no.

asked May 18 '13 at 21:14

Humbug's gravatar image


edited May 30 '13 at 21:02

Andrew%20Dalton's gravatar image

Andrew Dalton ♦

Depends on the changes. If the politics are irrational, and the moral code is irrational, and if the person doesn't worry about the contradictions (rationalizes them, lies about them, evades them), then I guess you can mix and match pretty much any political and moral philosophies.

If you're asking if someone can come to a substantially correct political philosophy without having a substantially correct moral philosophy, I'd say the answer is no. Without the moral philosophy you wouldn't be able to adapt the political philosophy to new situations.

(May 18 '13 at 22:34) anthony anthony's gravatar image

For a bit of what Ayn Rand had to say about this, you should read up on what she had to say about the Libertarian Party. It's a great example of what happens when people try to follow Rand's politics without (necessarily) the moral philosophy.

(May 18 '13 at 22:38) anthony anthony's gravatar image

The question asks:

Is it possible to change someone's politics without changing their moral code?

It would be easy to reply simply, "No." But then the next question might be, "Ok, so how can I change a person's moral code? It seems like a daunting task." The problem here is that you can't change anyone's mind. Only he can do that, and only if he wants to. A philosophy of reason means treating others as independently rational, thinking beings. The most that one might be able to do by way of persuading another person to change is to expose him to ideas he may not have considered before, if he is open to considering them. That may not seem like a very sure way to change an entire culture, and by itself it isn't. The greatest cultural change occurs when a philosophy of reason is picked up and upheld by the culture's leading intellectuals.

For those who may be interested in Objectivism's view of the role of philossophy in man's life, a good initial overview can be found in The Ayn Rand Lexicon under the topic of "Philosophy." There are far too many excellent excerpts in that topic to quote verbatim here, but happily the Lexicon is readily accessible online. If I had to pick just one or two brief excerpts as most applicable to this question, here are two good candidates (originally from PWNI), arranged back-to-back in the Lexicon:

The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.

The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them -- from schools, colleges, books,magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default.
[. . .]
Philosophy is a necessity for a rational being: philosophy is the foundation of science, the organizer of man's mind, the integrator of his knowledge, the programmer of his subconscious, the selector of his values.

answered Jun 02 '13 at 12:49

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Share This Page:



Asked: May 18 '13 at 21:14

Seen: 925 times

Last updated: Jun 02 '13 at 12:49