Tossing Around A Tautology

Kurt makes the following remarks to my points A and B:

This is a false dichotomy:

A) A human can create a moral system --typically the one that "fits better" to him. I think we can agree this is a false morality.

-> This I don't agree with, because you are conflating an Objectivist morality with a Nietzschean one. You describe it as purely what is best for me at this moment regardless of anyone else, wheras Objectivism looks at it from the perspective of a philosophy, not that fits better to one individual, but to every human being.

Well, morality is not the same as values. I stated their definition in post #164. In order to understand what I mean, you may take a look at it.

B) A human can recognize the existence of an objective, absolute moral system, not dependent of his being.

-> Then you get a philosophy in which your being is no longer important, such as Nazism where you are sacrificed for the Nation State, Communism for the Collective, or Religion for God.

Hey, I never stated that the human being is not important. (In fact, I see him as the reason of why materiality exists at all.)

With "independent of his being" I meant "independent of whether the human follows it or not."

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/07, 10:22am)

Post 201

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:41am

Joel,

=============
If we agreed that morality and reason are independent entities, you implicitly admitted that Objectivism has a problem.
=============

I said that we can mentally abstract and isolate them -- not that we could ever actually BE moral, while simultaneously BEING unreasonable. In reality, these 2 are inextricably intertwined.

Ed

Post 202

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 10:47am

Joel,

===============
you can live a long life without morality. There are examples.
===============

Okay. I'm thinking of Bertrand Russell (who made it to his 90s). A man who, by Objectivist standards, was immoral. His life was longer than average. But was the fella happy? Did he feel good about actualizing his human potentialities? This line of inquiry also goes for Mao and the rest. I don't think that ANY of these guys were ever leading a happy life.

Ed

Post 203

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:02am

Joel,

===============
would you say that that 'man's type of being' --his essence as a moral man-- is also eternal?
===============

Yes, in the "out of time" sense of eternal. Whenever the first human existed, and if ever there is a last human to exist -- the essence* will be the same, because of the type of creature man is.

*I take essence to be the unchangeable 'capacity for change' which is true of all things in virtue of their identity

===============
The tyrant Hitler died "relatively young" because the American people decided to act morally, not because evil is a sort of physical illness.

In example: the dictator Franco, Mao, or Stalin, who executed and promoted the suffering of innocent individuals, died in bed. True justice is individual justice, and they died without trial; those evil folks I mentioned apparently escaped "consequences of (their wrong) actions."
===============

Right, when good men act, evil men suffer (which is justice) -- good men just have to get up off of their butts more. I concede the point that 'length' of life is not 'necessarily' tied to immorality -- IN IRRATIONAL SOCIETIES.

===============
morality is not embedded in nature; the 'noble savage' is a myth; children need moral education in order to become moral, in order to become humans prepared for the pursue of their fulfillment.
===============

Again, if you abstract nature away from man (in nature), then you're right. But integrating man's nature with nature (all of existence) reveals a natural link. This can be seen in savage African tribal children -- who already understand a sense of fairness. I'm not talking about universal feelings like Michael Shermer does (in his book The Science of Good and Evil). I'm talking about a justice that is natural to man.

Yes, children need moral education, but this is to direct their morality -- not to create it ex nihilo. Morality comes from the inescapable human need for good.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/07, 11:07am)

Post 204

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:04am

Joel,

=================
Concepts are not eternal, the referent of the concept "morality" indeed is eternal.
=================

Concepts are out of time. They refer to referents across all time (past, present, future). For me, this qualifies in calling them eternal -- which I take to mean 'out of time.' That said, I agree, morality is eternal.

Ed

Post 205

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:07am

But was the fella happy?

Come on, Ed: you explicitly linked living with morality, not with happiness; see these words of yours:

But evil people fail to appreciate immaterial interests (justice, love, integrity, etc) and -- in the long run -- this ruins them. This is why Hitler died at a relatively young age.

Here you are saying that the life of an immoral human is shorter because of his immorality.

Post 206

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:11am

Joel,

I said that they failed to appreciate immaterial interests. And that is enough evidence to deduce that they failed to achieve a happy life. I've been rambling on about happy living from the get-go (and even recently conceded the point about life-span). So, please, don't put words in my mouth, in the heat of rivalrous debate.

Ed

Post 207

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:16am

Concepts are out of time.

Yes, this is a very important point, Ed.

We humans are capable of relating to eternity. We are capable of being aware of supernatural existents.

The most incomprehensible point is that those immaterial existents are the most powerful tool to deal with our material world...

Something to think about.

BTW, all this is contrary to orthodox Objectivism.

please, don't put words in my mouth, in the heat of rivalrous debate.

No personal offense intended. :-)

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/07, 11:36am)

Post 208

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:24am

Ed said:

I said that we can mentally abstract and isolate them -- not that we could ever actually BE moral, while simultaneously BEING unreasonable. In reality, these 2 are inextricably intertwined.

Not correct: morality and facts are actually independent. Facts are bare physicality; morality is that eternal, immaterial entity we agreed exists.

You may be interested in the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' thread.

By the way, Ed: I agree with you 100% that a happy factual life is only possible pursuing the ideal of moral life.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/07, 11:39am)

Post 209

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 11:26am

Post deleted (it was repeated.)

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/07, 11:35am)

Post 210

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 6:30pm

Well, morality is not the same as values

"A code of morals.. is a code of values..." [Ayn Rand, Objectivist Ethics]

Post 211

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 7:58pm

Joel,

============
We are capable of being aware of supernatural existents.
============

By what means? Supernatural means??

============
The most incomprehensible point is that those immaterial existents are the most powerful tool to deal with our material world...
============

Not when you develop sufficient understanding of the type of creature that humans are (conceptually aware).

============
BTW, all this is contrary to orthodox Objectivism.
============

Let me get this straight. You're telling me, a 'level 7' Objectivist (on my new-fangled, hypothetical scale, where Rand was 9, and John Galt 10) -- that some of the stuff that I'VE SAID here is contrary to orthodox Objectivism?? Well, this confirms my suspicion that we're talking past each other (issues not joined). I'd agree that what you have been saying here is contrary to orthodox Objectivism, but you'll need a little more argument than mere conjecture -- to make that judgment about my expressed thoughts.

============
No personal offense intended. :-)
============

No offense retained.

Ed
[a level 7 Objectivist!]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/07, 8:00pm)

Post 212

Friday, April 7, 2006 - 8:17pm

Joel,

===============
Not correct: morality and facts are actually independent. Facts are bare physicality; morality is that eternal, immaterial entity we agreed exists.
===============

Disagreed. Some facts are inherently moral -- when integrated with the type of being man is. The fact that I require metabolically active cells in my body, in order to remain in existence (to perform moral acts, for one), and the fact that certain edibles on this planet would, necessarily, have to be consumed by me in order for this continued existence -- prescribes that food is a universal good for me (and everyone else, always and everywhere), and therefore, I must discover appropriate means to interact with reality (farmland, farmers, grocers, butchers, etc) in order to continue my contingent existence.

This fact of universally-necessary nourishment prescribes action in me as a moral agent. Morality is often a 'do-or-die' dynamic. It is ALWAYS a 'do-or-suffer' dynamic (where the agent's suffering is often only psychological, because willing victims have been found for the physical suffering entailed by each and every immoral act).

===============
You may be interested in the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' thread.
===============

We've been through this before, Joel (this thread, posts 136, 142, 144, 147), remember??

Ed

Post 213

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 8:53am

Replying to Ed,

By "supernatural" I mean the same as "a timeless immaterial". (We agreed that morality is timeless and immaterial, no?.)

"Some facts are inherently moral -- when integrated with the type of being man is."

Then, what you mean with "inherently moral": something we can sense in those facts?

Additionally, for the same sensory capacities, an amoral individual can sense the same bare *facts* as a moral individual.
(Edited by Joel Català
on 4/08, 8:54am)

Post 214

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 9:03am

"food is a universal good for me"

Here be aware that it is not *material* food what is the universal, but the (immaterial) moral idea that food is good --for you, and for all living being, of course.

(I thought) we agreed in the consideration that morality is an immaterial absolute, universal and timeless.

You don't need to beg the question of the existence of immaterial entities; if you think differently and maintain your metaphysical naturalism, no problem, and end the discussion here.
(Edited by Joel Català
on 4/08, 9:07am)

Post 215

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 5:48pm