"That's the purpose behind government and organization at all levels, down to the family... It is part of who we are."
The rational purpose of government, organization, or family is not the initiation of force, or the nullification of individual rights.
"Are you an anarchist?"
No, but that a government exists does not mean that government must exploit by force.
"You tend to oversimplify things by taking them to an extreme. Laws are maintained through force, technically, but that doesn't make setting a minimum standard evil."
Simplification and "extreme" do not necessarily require one another. A middle of the roader would consider either communism or capitalism extreme, but that does not mean there is anything simple about the concepts involved in communism and capitalism. If you mean, however, that I over-simplify by stating that capitalism is good, and communism is evil, that is incorrect, I have stated much more than just broad generalizations or simplifications, I have backed up my arguments with pages worth of proof, none of the principles I have stated have been refuted (and not for lack of trying).
"It's also the idea behind democracy. Go figure."
Democracy has nothing to do with attempting to avoid reality, which is what social subjectivism attempts to do by the will of "the people."
"A is A but what is A?
It depends on how you abstract it. Every human is a human. Every human is a collection of atoms. Every atom is an atom."
A is itself. You state that A is A, but then ask what A is; it *is* A. This is a concept, it means, a thing is itself (whatever the 'thing,' it is itself).
"So, it is evil to feed the mouths of others if it is at your expense, but it is good to let them starve, if it is not at your expense?
That's pretty stupid."
Not at all, you're assuming my philosophy has to be the opposite. It is perfectly fine to be charitable toward others, if you value their survival (if you are giving food for example, etc.) over whatever value you are providing (money for instance). There is nothing stupid about it, except your assumption.
Another for instance; if you value your wife, who is dying from cancer, and you can cure her by spending all of your fortune on medical treatment, there is nothing evil, immoral, or selfless about spending all of your money to save her (because in your value hierarchy, your wife is more valuable to you than the money spent saving her).
"But sacrifice requires great effort and compassion. Not sacrificing something might require less effort and compassion. If compassion is important to your moral code, then sacrifice is rational. "
Sacrifice does not require compassion; to sacrific someone else to your own whim does not require any compassion. Effort is not a gauge of morality; a robber may have to exert great effort to rob someone, whereas an individual working a very simple job may not have to exert much effort to earn a moral living.
Compassion does not require sacrifice. I can very easily be compassionate to someone without accepting a lesser value in exchange for a greater value.
Sacrifice means to take a lesser value over a greater value (death in exchange for life being the ultimate example of sacrifice); there is nothing rational about it, and in the history of sacrifical philosophy, there has never been a rational argument for sacrifice (because there can be no such thing).
"I don't need to clarify who "we" and "our" refer to.
At a certain level, we are irrational in our thinking. It's an abstract concept."
You certainly do need to clarify, if you wish me to understand why you were using such terms when discussing your own position.
And prove it, your statement has not done such. At what level does this occur, explain the level; what concepts are involved in this "level"?
"If you're stranded on an island with a weaker companion, but there is no alternate food source, would you kill your companion? Seems pretty rational does it? Very selfish (which, by your definition, is good.) Would it be irrational not to do so? By your thinking, yes. But in my thinking, it would be good, not evil."
No, there is nothing rational or selfish about it (killing that other individual). Your setup is typical of a statist: the basis is that one individual must always sacrifice another.
No, it would be irrational to kill that individual. It would not be rational because one cannot gain a value by destroying what makes the concept 'value' possible: life. An individual does not have a right to sacrifice that other individual to their self, because that other person's life is not mine or yours to take, regardless of how weak they are. My need for food is not a claim on his/her life, such that it would be my right to take it. Need is not a claim on anything.
"Things become more rational as you go deeper down, but with abstraction, things can seem irrational, but yet serve a function."
"Seem" and 'be' are not the same thing.
"Europe was largely the same even prior to the middle ages. During antiquity, what do you think was happening outside of what we normally call the "civilized world" in the deep dark forests of Europe? Even prior to Christianity, common folks in much of pagan Europe lived in a world of despair."
No, Europe was not largely the same. Europe was still influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle prior to the dark ages; during said ages, it was not.
Define "common folks," again you keep at it with collectivist concepts. There is no such thing as a common person, or an 'average' person.
"I'm sure the common man still had some fun in his life time, and could feel good. Faith may have been a significant part of the life of the common man in those times, and some people are capable of being extremely happy in the darkest of situations through faith alone. Wether their faith is true or not is unknown (is it rational? Is it not? There isn't enough evidence to say), but the fact of the matter is, people can be satisfied with it. And if it IS false, this means people are being sort of irrational, aren't they? Yet they can achieve happiness. But this might not be in accordance with reality. That doesn't make it evil.
Reality is not an absolute judge between good and evil because all of this is based on our perception."
Again, with the common man.
Faith is the negation of reason; faith paralyzes the mind's ability to think, because faith means to ignore the judgment of your own mind. Faith did nothing to end the dark ages; reason did end it however. People can certainly pretend they are satisfied by faith. No, irrationality cannot lead to happiness; happiness is the achievement of rational values, irrationality is itself not a value - irrationality requires contradictions, and contradictions cannot exist, thus they cannot be values. There is no such thing as "not in accordance with reality," there is no other option.
You're really beginning to show just how irrational you are.
Reality is the absolute judge between good and evil; your statement declares that perception is the determining factor: reality however exists independent of the mind and thus of perception. So whether one claims to perceive it to be so, that does not change whether it is or not.
"I haven't studied the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in detail, but he was probably not opposed to the concept of Original Sin, and that makes him evil doesn't it? So here we just might have an example of someone who is both good and evil... which is stronger?"
You say "probably not" and then proceed to base your statement on that you had said "was not." (because you then stated "that makes him evil doesn't it?")
Your statement is useless unless you can clarify your error.