The Importance of Philosophy

I have a family reunion in a few weeks. We've typically published a collection of writings from family members at each one of these reunions, which occur every four years or so. Last reunion, we all wrote biographies. This reunion, the topic was wide open, and we could choose to write about whatever we wanted to. While arguing my points on the email list comprising this side of my family, I frequently encountered what seemed to be a disdain for firm principles and philosophy in general. I firmly believe that the fundamental ideas addressed by philosophy are what guide the course which societies, cultures, and all of humanity is taking. Philosophical ideas are crucial, so I chose to write my essay about "The Importance of Philosophy." It was a long essay, but I'm going to share it, in its entirety here. Here it is:



Not Castles in the Sky. Ivory Towers, on Earth.

Who needs philosophy? I'd like to use (quite) a few pages to make the case that philosophy is pretty darn important, for anyone. I suspect that there are many on the family email list that dismiss my arguments as ivory tower notions which have minimal validity, and even less practical application in reality. It's this disparaging attitude toward abstract ideas which I want to counter. I wanted to use this space to emphasize that philosophy is important, no matter your political views. In fact, it's actually a person's personal philosophy which determines his political views. More on that later.

Philosophy is the study of the "biggest ideas," the widest abstractions, possible to our minds. Philosophy is divided into three main areas of study: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence (example: is the thing which is in front of me right now a person?). Epistemology is the study of our mind's methods and ability to interpret existence (how am I able to know that what is in front of me is a person?). Ethics describes the proper way for people to live their lives, given the facts and nature of existence (what is the proper way to interact with the person in front of me?).

No human being could survive without some form of philosophy to guide him. Everyone reading these pages has a philosophy of some sort. Many people hold their philosophical ideas implicitly; many people get along quite well without holding explicit ideas on these subjects. Most people adopt these ideas from the people they have the most interaction with (parents, friends, teachers, etc.)... However it is that people acquire these ideas, people have them, and people rely on them for very important choices in life. Philosophy is crucially important because:

Ideas have consequences.

Philosophical ideas are the ultimate motivation for human action. Thus, they give rise to the most serious debates about the course which humanity is taking. This is why we can not regard philosophy as the province of silly academics, playing ivory tower mind games that have no relevance in reality (and it is why we should be concerned if this accurately describes what the philosophers of today are actually teaching!)... People's convictions with respect to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics motivate critically important decisions. The ideas which a person holds with respect to these subjects will change a person's fundamental approach to life.

When a person says, "There's no truth in saying God exists without evidence of his existence," that person is making a statement reflecting his metaphysical convictions -- his view of reality. Another example: our family email disputes, which originate in our differing views of ethics. Ethics heavily influences opinions on the proper purpose of government. Examples: when a person says, "Universal health care is a legitimate activity for government," one is making a statement based on his view of ethics. Similarly for the statement, "If Iraqis achieve their freedom, then the loss of American soldier's lives is justified," or, "Legislation banning abortion is just." All of these statements deal with current political debates... but an individual's stance on these issues is determined by his ethics, explicit or implicit.

But you might be thinking at this point, "Well that stuff is all well and good for academic debates. But why should I really bother with clarifying what's right and wrong in ethics, epistem-a-whatever, and that other one? It's far more practical for me to just be good at whatever I care about, like my job, and taking care of my family." People's views on ethics and morality do not just influence their conclusions about politics! People's chosen morality (their ethical system) is what determines what they will pursue in life: their values. Choices made regarding family, friendships, career, hobbies, and numerous other areas of life are chosen based on a person's morality. Morality and ethics are what answer the questions, "How should I live my life? What values should I pursue? Should I be friends with this person? Do I value having a family? On what basis should I choose a career? What do I feel justified in purchasing with my money? Does the will of God override my desire to sleep in on Sundays?" The morality we choose determines how we answer these questions.

Philosophical conclusions influence specific, concrete, day-to-day choices.

If we choose and achieve values which truly enhance our lives, our livelihood and happiness will be increased, and that is what I want to emphasize in this essay… A good philosophy can help you live a full and rewarding life. Great ideas have great consequences.

If you are with me thus far, you might think, "Hooray, this philosophy stuff might not be so boring after all; especially if it turns out that it could be a gnarly tool to help me live a bodacious life. So I'll just go out and get one." But -- where to start? There are many different philosophies to choose from and study. By what standard should you choose? How do you know if the ideas being espoused by a certain school of philosophy are worth adopting?

Philosophy is not different from any other field of knowledge: our job is to identify the concepts which best match the facts of reality. Philosophical concepts which clash with reality will not help anyone to live a good life! Just like any other endeavor, mistakes are possible, because humans are fallible. If the wrong philosophical ideas are adopted, disastrous consequences can occur; bad ideas have bad consequences. A person with a morality which permits valuing heroin will achieve different results than a person with a morality that values an enjoyable, productive career, and a stable family life which he or she really enjoys. In other words: what should be the ultimate value upheld by a proper philosophy's morality? As we'll see, this "ultimate value" has big consequences for the life of the individual who adopts it.

Historically, there have been two dominant schools of philosophy. One was religion, which was man's first attempt to answer philosophical questions. Religion held that the universe is the creation of God and is subject to His rules (metaphysics), truth (epistemology) is to be derived from "His word," and His edicts are how we should live (ethics and morality). The second broad philosophical school was subjectivism. It is the philosophy which has been dominant in academia (and our culture) for many decades. Subjectivist philosophy typically rejects God and derives philosophical ideas, particularly ethical and moral standards, from one of two sources: society or the individual. In "personal subjectivism," truth and morality are matters of personal opinion. "Whatever's right for me is whatever I choose. What's right for you, is whatever you choose." In "social subjectivism," truth and morality are determined by social convention; a moral behavior is whatever behavior agrees with and serves "the common good/the will of the majority/other-collectivist-slogan." I've said that philosophy can help you live a full and rewarding life. Will these traditional approaches to philosophy help you achieve that end? What is the "ultimate value" which these two schools regard as being paramount in morality?

Let's start with religion. To be truly moral, a religious person's choices must be in line with "God's will." This must be the ultimate authority and value for this person with no exceptions, if he is truly pious. But what if you discover some values which you think could improve your life measurably, but pursuing them would require defying God's commandments? Religion answers: your happiness and quality of life are not as important as God's plan; if you defy His word, you are immoral. Example: consider almost any iconic religious figure from history. Rejection of worldly pleasure in God's name, and consequent worldly pain, is almost always a virtue for the heroes of most religions. As we know, some religions call for even more than the sacrifice of specific worldly values which could increase your joy in life... Some religions call for the outright sacrifice of human life itself for the furtherance of God's wishes. Rejection of worldly joy is a hallmark of the pious religion man. This isn't unpredictable. This is the logical result of replacing the ultimate value of your own well-being with "God's will." Religion results in a life burdened by unnecessary anxiety resulting from living to standards created with little regard for human well-being on Earth... It appears that religion's axiom of "God's will before all," renders it incapable of satisfying our need to live satisfying, joyful lives.

Perhaps subjectivism holds the answer? How about this "personal subjectivism" stuff? If my goal is happiness, personal subjectivism tells me: "I should pursue whatever makes me happy. Therefore, whatever actions I take which make me happy are morally justified, simply because I want happiness." But what if my personal "happiness" was achieved by robbing banks, or if I feel "happiness" only when I am high on cocaine? Self-destructive or masochistic behavior of any kind becomes moral, if personal subjectivism is applied consistently. Personal subjectivism is a whim-ridden philosophy which no amount of reason can reign in. If it were truly adopted widely, it would lead to anarchy. Crooks, murderers, and rapists justify their actions personally by saying, "My actions were right -- to me." One cannot live a life of greatness via theft, murder, or rape; but personal subjectivism sanctions these behaviors by saying, "It was right -- for you." Personal subjectivism is a scary thing!

Religion demands the sacrifice of our worldly joy if it contradicts God's wishes, and personal subjectivism justifies horrific behavior. We're running out of options for guidance here. What about the purported last option, social subjectivism? Perhaps philosophers have found a set of ideas which could guide us in making good lives for ourselves, via social subjectivism. Social subjectivism is primarily a feature of ethics and is very similar to religion... Instead of regarding "God's will," as the ethical standard, it simply employs "the will of the people." Social subjectivists grant primacy in ethics to social norms. It is also similar to personal subjectivism in this way: instead of "Whatever I feel is right for me, is right," social subjectivists believe "Whatever the people/the minorities/the master race feel is right for them, is right for them." How does one interpret “the will” of this collective? The practical political answer to this question is: a majority opinion, or a dictator who alleges to know “what’s best for the people.” Social subjectivists bow to this authority and worse: they will make others bow to it against their will, since they believe the collective has primacy over the individual.

On a personal level, social subjectivism fails just as badly at furthering your life when compared to religion and personal subjectivism. Similarly to religion: what if something you value, which could legitimately improve your life, defies “the common good?” An example: what if a college freshman really enjoys her introductory engineering courses, but her sociology teacher tells her that “The truly moral people of the world ‘help people.’ Only selfish people pursue careers in industry. Industries are parasites on society and obviously their selfish behavior defies ‘the common good.’” What if the girl sacrifices a career she would have loved in order to ‘help people’? I personally know people who are now finding themselves in this position. They have already earned a college degree which did not teach them useful skills for the career they ignored -- because their teachers taught them, and they accepted, that it is their duty to “help people.” Their opportunity to get into a career they would have liked is gone, because they realized too late that social subjectivism fails to provide a life-promoting morality for the same reasons as religion and personal subjectivism: it replaces the ultimate value of your life and happiness with: the life of anyone but yourself.

It is worth commenting on the social implications of a wide application of social subjectivism because it is widespread today; it permeates most people’s morality, and is not even debated in politics. Today, slogans such as the “common good” are relied upon by social subjectivists with relative ease... These slogans are commonly accepted, unquestioned, and most importantly: are undefined and can mean anything to anyone. These catchphrases of the social subjectivist movement can therefore be thrown around to show that you agree with what most people agree with and are therefore “part of the crowd,” even though “what most people agree with” hasn’t even been defined. These slogans are always used to justify the position that beliefs which are “commonly accepted,” override the rights of individuals; “Individual rights are good, unless they infringe upon the common good.” In place of “common good,” a social subjectivist will insert whatever values he feels are worth getting – at the expense of his neighbor.

Many people today (and thus much of politics) are motivated by the morality of social subjectivism. The central virtue which is commonly accepted by most people today, and which allows social subjectivism to take its course is: altruism. Altruism is what not only allows the sacrifice of lives and liberty, but demands it. This virtue, the sacrifice of your interests to serve others, is ingrained into our culture, deeply. Both parties accept it, and can pass legislation which infringes rights by relying on a passive populace which believes, in some way, that it is their duty to sacrifice for the interests of others.

“The interest of others.” “Others” can take the form of God, King, tribe, dictator, or “the common good.” No one stops to ponder that sacrifices are immoral, that a just and ethical society wouldn’t require them, or that acceptance of the necessity of human sacrifices was what allowed every atrocity in history to occur. There were times when sacrifices to God, King, tribe, or dictator resulted in the slaughter of millions. The current slogans of the social subjectivists, who appear to have learned nothing from the millions of deaths resulting from societies built on altruism, still are willing to sacrifice their neighbor’s freedoms for "the common good." It is no longer God, King, or dictator which is used to justify the marginalization of individual freedom: it is "the common good," or "the little guy," or, "the poor." No definition for these terms, but it’s your duty to sacrifice to their interests.

It is important to note the methods which social subjectivists promote to achieve their ends. What they call for is not voluntary assistance in their cause. That would be inconsistent with the principles of social subjectivism: that would be saying that the "common good" does NOT have primacy over the individual. If they were asking for voluntary assistance, the individual could choose to NOT support "the common good,” and his right to freedom would be taking precedence over “the will of the majority.” Social subjectivists truly believe that the will of the majority has primacy over the individual, and they put this belief into political practice. They are not satisfied with donating their own time or money to their causes. They are not satisfied with reasoning with people to raise funds for their causes through voluntary philanthropy. What they want is political action. Political action fulfills two needs for the social subjectivists. One: it validates their motives; if they can obtain a majority vote in support of their cause, they have what vindicates any action for them in politics: a majority that agrees with them. Two: politics allows them to use the force of law to force non-compliant individuals to support their plan. They suffer no ethical qualms with this: to them, a majority has ethical primacy over any puny, insignificant individual. Some religionists and some personal subjectivists also are willing to employ force of a political or of a more immediate and personal nature to achieve their means at the expense of others… But the most damage stems from the force employed by the practitioners of the most widely adopted philosophy, which is social subjectivism.

The history of evil committed in social subjectivism’s name, the list of communities which sacrificed the lives and freedom of their fellow men to their “societal norms,” is long. The majority of human history is barbarism. The majority of human history is slaughter and rape justified by, “our tribe is superior to yours.” Less than a century ago, Germans justified their machinations for global dominance with this same reason. There was an era when whole towns of people agreed that it was okay to kill people, based on accusations of witchery coming from teenage girls. Within the last half century we have witnessed the utter collapse of socialist nations. The results of this ‘social experiment,’ were piles of corpses on top of which socialists erected the banner of the “common good”… Yet our politicians and my family members still justify their goals with these same exact words. There was an era when the majority in this country thought that it was right for blacks to be slaves. The philosophy of social subjectivism has blood on its hands. The atrocities committed in its name cannot be washed away by, "the community agreed it was okay," or, “we had the best intentions!” Especially now. Socialism is the most recent and popular variant of social subjectivism. Socialism is also, as a philosophy which promotes human well being, dead. The regimes founded on its principles collapsed because those principles did not respect what man needs to survive: freedom. Millions of lives were lost so that we could learn that lesson. Clearly: social subjectivism does not supply us with better principles to run our lives – not when social subjectivism has permitted more crimes against the lives of humans than any religionist or petty crook ever could.

As you know, the ridiculous philosophy of subjectivism gets me mighty worked up, and it terrifies me that it is still so rampant in our culture. I’ve adopted a philosophy which holds the improvement of life as its central value and it is hard to mask the emotions incited by the number one violator of that value. Like the fat kid at the pool who unsuccessfully hides his obesity with a t-shirt, I fail at hiding the rage I feel against the barbarism of subjectivism; and the ludicrous fact that it’s proponents state “it’s for the common good!”

Ok, I’m done now. So, assuming we do not live among people who regard us, our lives, liberty, and our well-being as their means to whatever ends they choose: how do we employ philosophy to make our lives better?

Subjectivism and religion have been shown to be not-so-efficacious in promoting our well-being, since they explicitly place something besides our well-being in the place of our “ultimate value.” One important thing to note about religion and subjectivism (personal or social) is that they cannot even be adhered to consistently, even if we were to adopt them. People have varying degrees of commitment to whatever morality they adopt. An individual's integrity exists on a spectrum. If his life is his ultimate value, then his life will benefit to the degree of his integrity. If his morality upholds anything besides the betterment of his life as his ultimate value (pick your poison: religion or subjectivism), his life will suffer to the degree that he adheres to this morality.

If a religious person were to put God's interests before his own life in all matters, he would quickly die from a lack of attention to his basic requirements for survival. Similarly painful results would occur for the social subjectivist (who sacrifices the values which could have promoted his life for "the good of the community" instead of "God"). And a personal subjectivist can choose to adhere to whatever ideals he wants -- but he won't survive long if he doesn't recognize that there are facts demanding that his survival requires he live in a certain way. If there are facts related to how we can survive, and possibly even thrive, as human beings -- could this be the starting point for another form of morality?

What if, instead of saying reality is a plaything of a God, or that being moral is what most people agree it to be, we formed a philosophy based on facts. A morality which doesn't clash with the facts of human nature could be mighty powerful in promoting our life! In short: to better our lives, we must uphold our own lives as the paramount value -- and recognize the facts which promoting our life requires. Our lives will benefit if we actually do what it takes to promote our lives -- not when we irrationally uphold the whims of God, self, or majority.

First: if we recognize in metaphysics that reality is an absolute, then all entities - everything within reality - has a specific nature. The nature of the entities, their specific attributes, determine both what the entity is and how it behaves. Examples: a pillow’s material makes it soft, while steel is stiff. The attributes of the pillow determine that it cannot behave like steel, and vice versa. Entities have a specific nature, and cannot behave differently. Humans, as entities within reality, can be no different -- we have a specific nature, and our requirements for survival are facts of nature. Well then, what attribute do humans possess that allows them to survive, and even thrive?

Living creatures all have varying actions they must engage in, in order to survive. In order to survive, birds fly. Their nature demands that they do so, or they will perish. Fish swim. People -- must think. People must use their minds to create all the values which allow them to survive, on any level of subsistence. From the most rudimentary hut and food gathering method, to iPods and space flight, everything we have and use in order to survive was the product of thought. Our very nature, the facts which make us what we are, are the proper starting point for a decent, life-enhancing morality. At the base of this life-improving morality, we already recognize the importance of the mind in man's survival; we see that the primary virtue a moral human who values his life must practice is the exercise of his mind. This primary virtue, the method by which our minds perform the process of identifying and integrating the facts of reality is: reason. The ability to use reason in order to form abstract thoughts is what makes us human; therefore it is reason which is at the foundation of a rational epistemology.

By the standards of a morality validated by reason, a successful person is someone who employs reason to pursue values which enhance his ultimate value: his life. Virtuous actions are those which serve to enhance your life. The choice of specific values for a rational individual is a matter of personal choice and varies widely for individuals… But to live successfully, the values a rational individual selects must be chosen with respect to the facts of his existence – his values can’t change the fact that he has to use his mind to create the values he needs to live. The “happiness” of a drunkard, who numbs the mind that could have allowed him to achieve true happiness, is most certainly not the same as the happiness of the people who choose values which bring them true happiness… True happiness is the result of living a productive life, by achieving values which you enjoy and which do not contradict life.

When you hold these values explicitly, for reasons you can define, the meaning of your life will be strengthened. Your achievements will be enriched by reinforcing the fact that you have gained what you chose to pursue. By holding values explicitly, you will be more capable of identifying what it is that you need to do in order to achieve your values. No sacrifices will be necessary, if you can define your values in a hierarchy. A good philosophy can also help you remedy your mistakes in a more expedient manner. When most people will just be able to say "I’m a little uncomfortable with the situation I am in right now," a person who has an explicit philosophy will be able to more readily define what it is that is bothering him about the situation. Then, he can either modify his ideas if he had faulty ideas to begin with, or correct his behavior so he can succeed. As I said, you can get by without considering philosophical questions... But when your life is motivated and directed by your fundamentally chosen values, why wouldn't you want to give philosophy and morality some consideration?!!? In short, you'll be in far better control of the direction you will take your life if you live a rational philosophy, and choose viable values by a process of reason.

But this philosophy smacks of a word which most people recoil at, and that word is: "selfishness." The philosophy I promote is selfish – if selfishness is defined as "in your own interest." But the term "in your own interest," does NOT imply any moral evaluation! The problem with the word selfishness is the negative connotations that most people associate with the word... And here we have an example of social subjectivism in action! The commonly accepted virtue of altruism HAS resulted in an implied moral evaluation of the word ‘selfish,’ in most people's minds. Because so many people hold altruism and self sacrifice to be a virtue, it is commonly accepted (social subjectivism...) that altruism's opposite - selfishness - is inherently evil. Living implies selfishness; everyone must take action for themselves in order to survive. How long can a society last, when it tells people that the virtue which allows them to survive and achieve happiness by living "in their own interest" is evil!?!?!

"In your own interest," does not imply deceitful, irrational, backstabbing thievery, or any of the other negative connotations of the term... The philosophies that are truly irrationally selfish are the militant religionists, and their complete misnomer subjectivist counterparts: the politically active "do-gooders.” What could be more "selfish" than what they politically advocate: forcing their neighbors to fund their ideals, and then forcing them to live by them? THEY are the ones who aren't respecting people, deny their rights, and infringe on people's lives to achieve their own ends. The philosophy I promote is one of justice, one of fairness. It does not allow some to benefit at the expense of others against their will. It results in a society based on free association, where coercion is banned. Free communication and trade rule the day, not violence and repression. The philosophy I promote does not permit sacrifice of the lives or rights of some to others; it rejects altruism on principle and will not allow it to take its violent course when it is applied to politics.

Mankind's promotion of reason has a long and tortured history. Aristotle was the first to promote it, the religion of the Dark Ages repressed it with consequences for people’s quality of life during this era, The Renaissance reinstituted a worldly approach to philosophy and we are still basking in the afterglow of the era of the age of reason, The Enlightenment. Our nation's birth during this era is why Americans hearken back to these principles so much. The most recent consistent advocate of the effectiveness of a rational morality based in reason which could promote human life was the philosopher Ayn Rand.

My concern lies not with those who don’t concern themselves with the seriousness of philosophy. For the intellectually honest, please consider the ideas I've addressed here. Is morality a matter of personal whim, God, or a polling of the masses? Or can the facts of reality suggest what is best for our lives? When considering advice, whose justifications can be trusted? And, just as importantly, who is most likely to correct their mistakes if they have erred? Is it those who state, "DO it. Because GOD says so." Or those who say, "DO it, because I said so!" Or perhaps those who claim, "DO it. Because SOCIETY says so!"??

How about considering the philosophers who are now saying, "Well, what do the facts warrant?" I am excited to say that there ARE philosophers who DO live by that last question. They could represent what might turn out to be another prominent step forward in man's history -- a step forward, towards a future where fewer people will suffer the results of futile attempts at defying reality.


Guarding the Tower

The philosophy I advocate has, as the goal of its morality, the promotion of happiness and human life. A wonderful life is possible, if the right ideas are adopted! A good philosophy will result in a better life for those practicing it; but what can prevent the people who have adopted a philosophy from putting it to practice?

There are ethical implications for the importance of reason in man's life. If a man were on a desert island and wanted to survive, he must be able to use his mind to create the values he needs for survival. The necessity of using his mind to survive does not change when he is surrounded by a society of people, either. Even those who survive on handouts rely on those who did think and did create the values necessary for life. The ethical question then is, "What could prevent people from being able to use reason to create the values they need to live?" Whatever it is that stops people from being able to live by reason, it must be banned from society. Society itself would not be possible if reason was infringed upon; reason alone enables the people of a society to survive in the first place.

There is only one thing which can stop a person from being able to use his mind: physical force. Reason is the opposite of force and the latter negates the former. Brute force does not heed logic, it smashes it without ever having heard an idea at all, and therefore force obliterates life. Reason is the method of civility, force is the method of barbarism. A man cannot live among people who employ force against him. The ethical and political implications of the importance of reason to man's survival (and force's threat to it) are straightforward: the initiation of physical force should be banned between human beings.

If government were in line with man's nature, it would be moral. Man’s nature requires protection from force, and thus government's moral role is to ensure that people are protected from physical force. Government legitimately should have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force against those who defy the rights of other citizens. Force comes in many forms; fraud, laws which violate his rights, robbery. The valid government institutes which can defend law abiding citizens according to objective laws are the police, military, and courts.

Property rights are also a natural extension of the importance of reason. It defies the facts of nature to suggest that humans could survive solely by thinking. If that were the case, we could be locked away with no sustenance, but be able to survive simply by thinking hard enough. Without being able to keep the products of their thought, humans would perish. This is why an individual’s property must be protected in a just society; and slavery is the name for political systems which deny this.

It's desperately important that our society recognizes that people need freedom in order to survive. We need freedom in order to live our lives guided by our minds. Our minds can only be used successfully when they are free. It is the evil of physical force that is what really gets me so fired up – and the casual attitude which most people take in electing officials to achieve their grandiose social engineering plans against the will, and at the expense of, others. I’m here to remind every one of these social engineers that they’ve dropped all pretenses at civility; none of them has called for voluntary association to achieve their ends… No: in true social subjectivist form, the proponents of these plans justify their plans by saying, "It's for the common good, and if the majority votes for it, then our actions are justified." They suffer no ethical qualms when faced with the fact that, in order to bring their visions about, the freedom and property of flesh and blood citizens has to be sacrificed. The metaphysics of these social subjectivists is even revealed by their stance; they disregard reality and substitute the will of the majority: "Who cares about freedom and property rights? I don't care if humans need them to survive, I've got a noble vision and the majority on my side, and the majority determines what is right!"

As I've detailed in innumerable emails, it is only in the last several hundred years that many Western nations adopted the idea that the government's proper role is the protector of individual rights. It is no coincidence that man's rise in living standards occurred in these centuries and in these countries alone. When it is reason that reigns in man's relationships (not political and religious barbarism), peaceful communication and life-promoting trade is the result. Social subjectivism and religion are dead philosophies, as far as they relate to actually promoting human welfare. The downfall of all the regimes in history based on these philosophies illustrates this. And we could be next. We still accept the altruistic collectivist premises which led to these society’s downfall. Our political leaders simply follow the fact that we have passively accepted this morality which has led to so much pain and death in the past.

The people who chose (and are now choosing) to disregard man's nature and form political systems around the goal of the "common good," actually achieve its opposite: "common death, slaughter, and starvation." Check the history books for the numbers of millions who died of starvation or were murdered outright by the regimes which forced “the common good” on the people. Death is the expected result when people deny man's nature: his need for freedom, so that he may use his mind to better his life.

The problematic results of implementing an impractical morality are strewn all across the world in macroscopic and microscopic form -- the political landscapes of various countries and the quality of life for their citizens, the troubled lives of individuals attempting to live lives which clash with what is required for their happiness, the whole history of humanity is a testament to ideas, to philosophy. As the widest of all of humanity's intellectual endeavors, it is expectedly that sweeping in its consequences. Hopefully, I have conveyed that it is critical for each one of us to employ reason in order to enhance the ultimate value of a rational morality: our lives. But before people can be expected to pursue the values which fill a great life, we also must recognize that people need the freedom to do it.