About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 12:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordon, I feel like I'm playng chess. :)
 
Here are two approaches to ethics. The second one, I believe to be as you would describe it.
 
Approach 1
 
An individual chooses to live his life as a rational human being holding his life as his highest value. After such a choice is made, a moral code can be derived from the choice. That which is good is that which supports the choice. That which is bad is otherwise. Such a choice becomes the foundation for an ethical framework because the ethical framework is derived from this choice. It would be a contradiction for someone to act immorally because he would be acting against his primary choice. It would be like saying "I choose to live as a rational human being," and then saying "I choose not to live as a rational human being." Because the moral code is derived from the choice, it becomes rational and logical to follow it.
 
If an individual chooses not to live as a rational human being, then he lives a-morally, without a moral context. Such people usually (and should) end up in jail, or mental institutions, if they end up harming themselves or others. Likewise, people not capable of making such a choice are not treated like adult humans. They are (and should be) treated like children, like wards, or in extreme cases of brain injury or other dehabilitating problems, they are simply kept alive. For these people, no morality is possible, and they are not punished for improper behavior.
 
Likewise when one is deprived of the fruits and benefits of his choices, then no choices are possible, and no morality is possible. This is what happens when someone holds a gun to someone else's head. No choice is possible when the possibility of death is very high, from ones choices, and people in such cases are given (and should be given) extreme leeway if they are forced to engage in improper behavior.
 
Morality is derived from choice.
 
Approach 2
 
Morality is determined by human nature. The choices one should make in life, are determined by his nature as a rational human being. No choice is necessary to discover a moral code; such a code can be discovered by looking at each individual's nature as a rational human being. Whether an individual chooses to live or not, is irrelevant to this ethical framework. It doesn't even matter if an individual values anything in his life or not, he is still bound by this ethical framework.
 
Without the initial choice to live, then the first question I have is, why should one be moral? Let's say that 'eating' benefits an individual by supporting his life. Why should one eat -- even if it is the moral thing to do? If nothing matters to an individual; if it doesn't matter to him whether he lives or dies, then why should he act morally?
 
It seems as if you're making it a duty for people to be moral.
 
The second problem I have is that it's vague. How does one know what proper human nature is, especially in unusual circumstances? Two men (from the Titanic) find themselves alone in freezing water with an object with only enough buoyancy to keep one of them dry and alive. The other will be dead in 30 minutes. How do you determine the proper course of action? A moral code should be clear about how to act, especially in emergencies when time is fleeting and death may be imminent.
 
Craig
 


Post 41

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Craig,

I'd say approach one is backward:
Morality is derived from choice.
Choice follows from whatever morals a person adopts, morals being the choices people believe they ought to make. The utilitarian believes he ought to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number, so he makes choices in accord with that. The egalitarian believes he ought to maximize the benefit of the worst of, so he makes choices according to that. And the egoist believes he ought to maximize the benefit of the self, so he makes choices according to that. (To be sure, this is concerning positive morality - the morality a person has. This is not concerning normative morality - the morality a person ought to have. When we say, "X is being moral," we aren't saying he's doing what he thinks he ought to do; we're saying instead that he's doing what he ought to do.)

 
As for approach 2, it would help if you'd define what you mean by "value," or just use some other term. That said, I have trouble with approach 2 as well.
The choices one should make in life, are determined by his nature as a rational human being.
In the O'ist view, a person's choices ought to be determined by his nature as a rational human being. Like Rand says, what a person is determines what he ought to do. But the choices he does make are determined by whatever morals he adopts. 
No choice is necessary to discover a moral code;
One has to choose to discover anything. Indeed, to discover something implies that it already exists (otherwise, you'd be inventing it). If one wants to know which choices he ought to make, then he has to undergo some discovery process. The answer isn't automatic, and no one is duty-bound to undertake the discovery. The obligation to discover the choices one ought to make is contingent on the desire to know what choices one ought to make.
It doesn't even matter if an individual values anything in his life or not, he is still bound by this ethical framework.
Well, if he doesn't desire anything (let alone life), then morality is useless to him. Morality is only for people who desire something. But even if someone wants nothing that doesn't change what is and is not of benefit to him. That doesn't change what choices he ought to make if he is to live as a rational animal. Apathy changes only his motivation to make the choice. 

The second problem I have is that it's vague. How does one know what proper human nature is, especially in unusual circumstances? Two men (from the Titanic) find themselves alone in freezing water with an object with only enough buoyancy to keep one of them dry and alive. The other will be dead in 30 minutes. How do you determine the proper course of action? A moral code should be clear about how to act, especially in emergencies when time is fleeting and death may be imminent.
This is a problem I have with O'ism. I posted here awhile back asking for an empirical test that would establish when one's life was furthered. (You wrote on that thread, too). I did not get a satisfactory answer. But despite that, I still think we can address your emergency situation here under the traditional O'ist rhetoric. An essential part of human nature is life. We can't be human without first being alive. So in order to accord with our nature, we ought to choose life. So let's fight it out with our buddy. I think this would be the O'ist position. (I think a reasonable person might go the other way, but I'd rather not now rock this boat :P).

Jordan



 



Post 42

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello again!

As for approach 2, it would help if you'd define what you mean by "value," or just use some other term. That said, I have trouble with approach 2 as well.

I'll get back to Approach 2 later. I'm late for work now, but wanted to make a quick comment. Approach 2 is the approach I think that you would take, so I need to read over again the things you've said about it, to clarify my view of your view of a moral approach.
 
But here's what I want to ask now: Approach 1 is the Objectivist approach. Do any other objectivists disagree with this?  Is anyone else reading this thread?

Craig
 




Post 43

Tuesday, December 7, 2004 - 7:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Craig,


Approach 1 is the Objectivist approach. Do any other objectivists disagree with this?  Is anyone else reading this thread?

See, I don't think 1 is an O'ist approach. And it won't be hard for me to dig up Rand quotes that support that conclusion. But I too would be curious to see who else is reading this thread and whether they agree with you. I suspect Rowlands is disgusted with me for dealing with his animal example as I did. <shrug>.

Jordan


Post 44

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is my view on the whole thing. I'll break down my logic behind it mostly because I've never done it this way and it will help me concretize my thoughts. It will also serve for people to pick apart and show any flaws I may have to aid in the improvement of my understanding.

Existence: Reality

.Existents: A is A (An existent -in this case an individual human- is a single complete unit with relationships to other existents)

..Perception: Senses observing A being A

...Knowledge: The sum of what has been perceived and organized into concepts (abstractions of the laws of reality)

....Values: The worth of that knowledge in usefulness or importance to the individual

.....Choice: Based on valuation, the correct actions to be taken

......Society: A group of individuals attempting to engage in mutually beneficial relationships.

.......Morals: A common set of rules that must be followed abdicating choice in certain decisions to facilitate the trust required by individuals engaging in relationships.

........Rights within Society: Conforming to justice and laws that (are supposed to) protect those engaging in relationships normally based off of a common morality.

Morality is a choice. Reality however does not require nor care if humans have it. Individuals do not need morality unless engaging in relationships with others.

Regards,

Jeremy

Post 45

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jeremy,

The contentious part of your run down is here:
.......Morals: A common set of rules that must be followed abdicating choice in certain decisions to facilitate the trust required by individuals engaging in relationships.
A few questions to test this view. If a rule is uncommon, then it's not moral? Why must the common set of rules be followed; in order to do what? By "abdicating choice" do you mean (1) choosing the option that is not immediately as beneficial or desirable, (2) being physically forced into an option, or (3) something else?
Morality is a choice. Reality however does not require nor care if humans have it. Individuals do not need morality unless engaging in relationships with others.
This is a popular view. The actions one takes in isolation are often reffered to as matter of prudence, whilst interaction are matters of morality. But several O'ists reject this. O'ists view morality as some sort of code to guide one's choices and actions. And from this several O'ists will argue that if one is to choose and act, then one needs morality be it on a deserted island or in the city. Morality doesn't vanish when we're alone. I find this view persuasive.

Jordan


Post 46

Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan, good questions and I knew I would have to answer them sooner or later. I wanted to lay the groundwork first though.

You asked, "If a rule is uncommon, then it's not moral?"

This depends on where in the process you place morality. If it is up in the individual choice area (before or after) then your morals can be uncommon to someone else. If it is down where I think it belongs then the morality of two individuals in a relationship better have a common morality because if I can't trust in some way that my "Thou shalt not kill" is common to you and that your moral code isn't "I'll kill when and where I please" then we will probably not engage in a relationship.

Also, "By "abdicating choice" do you mean (1) choosing the option that is not immediately as beneficial or desirable, (2) being physically forced into an option"

In choice one I think that the valuation stage takes care of what is good for me now compared to what may be more good for me in the future. It doesn't require morality only knowledge, valuation and then choice based on the valuation. So number two is more like what I was talking about. My understanding of morality is that it is a way to tell people what is good and bad (i.e. Religious morality, O'ist morality). Someone (other than you) says this is the way it is and that is that. This is good and that is bad and you must follow it to be a moral person and get your gold star. This in itself is against the laws of reality in that individuals have the ability to choose and value based on knowledge. That is primary and any rule or law that abdicates this process is against reality. In other words a morality before valuation and choice is impossible unless you believe that someone has a right over your life.

Regards,

Jeremy

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.