RoR: Forum

Post 20

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 9:23am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Jordan,

But perhaps it's better for me to be a clockwork orange who gains and keeps his values, rather than a moral agent who more greatly risks not gaining and keeping his values.

By the objectivist definition of morality, if you are not gaining and keeping your values, then you are not acting morally.

Of course, the legal system will also prevent me from moral and immoral action. I, too, will be rendered amoral in a great many of my actions...

I don't see how it would prevent you from doing anything. You can still act out behaviors moral and immoral to your values/goals. With a minimum government that protects freedoms, your values/goals may change (given that some actions may result in new consequences that didn't exist before), and so may the process you will need to achieve them change.

Do you think such a government would increase or decrease your ability to achieve your goals?

Post 21

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 10:55am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Dean,

By the objectivist definition of morality, if you are not gaining and keeping your values, then you are not acting morally.

I think this might be slightly inaccurate. If you gain and keep your values because they are forced on you, and not because they are the product of your moral choice, then I think Objectivists would say that you're acting amorally, even though you are benefiting in the sense that you're gaining and keeping your values. In other words, the law might help you toward your values by forcing you to them, but being forced into your values is not the same as - and is, to Objectivists, quite the opposite of - pursuing your values as a result of your unforced moral choice.

I don't see how it would prevent you from doing anything. You can still act out behaviors moral and immoral to your values/goals.

The law can prevent you from doing something just as any force-using agent can prevent you from doing something. And like I said in my first post, Objectivists don't think you can have moral ability (i.e., the ability to act morally or immorally) when forced.

Jordan

Post 22

Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 9:38am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Dean -- Thanks for answering my question. You've saved me a lot of clicking around!

Jordan -- You asked, "[A]re you suggesting that the moral person is the one who ignores the law, at least where the law poses non-imminent threats?"

Yes, I would say that the moral person is someone who does what's right because he's concluded that it's right, not simply because it's "the law" or "the rules" or "what I was told to do by so-and-so [Pope Benedict, Sean Hannity, the editors of the New York Times, Ayn Rand, take your pick]." So the law is there to keep the amoral or immoral or poorly informed or poorly reasoning people from interfering (beyond normal human pushing and shoving) with the moral people who are better informed and better able to reason about things. (I probably crammed too much in there in my effort to make a complete statement.)

And you're right, I'm a lawyer (I'll check to make sure that's in my profile here). I practice corporate law in a big firm on the East Coast (of the US). Congratulations on making it into your third year! Hopefully, you're taking some classes you enjoy; otherwise, third year can be pretty dull.

Thanks for your encouragement re wealth-maximizing utilitarianism. I've been thinking about writing & submitting to SOLO a discussion of the chapter where Richard Posner lays it all out in The Economics of Justice. It would be neat to know what the heavy-duty Objectivists think of it.

Are law and morality compatible?