| | 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
|
|
