Ethics: Deriving Value from Fact

This is my first post so, first and foremost, hello! I have glanced through a variety of the threads on this discussion board, and I've been impressed by the high quality of the conversation. Hopefully, I won't drag you all down!

:-)

Anyhow, I believe that I have a good, amateur understanding of Objectivism, but being that I am not a professional philosopher sometimes I get “tripped-up” when I discuss very abstract issues with others. So, I apologize in advance if this issue is too elementary. In any case, I'm trying to clear up my understanding of how Rand derives value from fact.

If I had to condense Rand’s theory into just one paragraph for a “lay” person, how would I best go about doing it? Here’s what I might say: “Rand argues that there are two irrefutable observations when one studies ethics: 1) that one is alive and 2) that life is conditional. That is, being alive is conditional upon the volitional choice to be alive. From these two observations, egoism (i.e., the choice to pursue one’s life) seems to be simply a truism. That is, the choice to live is “built-into” the concept of morality. One must choose to be alive insofar that one can choose anything …insofar that there is such a thing as making choices …insofar that ethical questions/issues exist at all. One cannot -- in logic -- separate ethics from the pursuit of life.”

Would Rand agree with my interpretation? Are there any obvious important points that she would add or take out (without going into a lengthy lecture). Again, consider that I’m trying to communicate a basic knowledge of Rand’s ethics to someone who may or may not be interested in pursing the matter in more detail.

Also, I find it disconcerting that I have never heard a serious attempt to argue against Rand’s ethics. Frankly, this makes me suspicious. Is there some literature out there that makes a serious attempt to refute her position? I've scanned a few, but I have yet to come across something convincing.

 
Thanks in advance for your thoughts…

If I had to condense Rand’s theory into just one paragraph for a “lay” person, how would I best go about doing it?

To Elizabeth:

It was nice of you to take so much time to respond to me. Let me read the article you pointed out by Joe Rowland and get back to you (it might be a day or so). Right now I'm very backed up at work so I haven't had much time for posting.

You mentioned that there have been other similar discussions on this forum? Off hand, do you know where? You also mentioned another  “Yahoo” discussion forum. Do you have the address?

Kind regards,

Don

To Michael:

Hi. Thanks for responding to me and pointing out that the link. It's a good link, but I have already seen it.

 
I certainly know that Rand believed in egoism. But, I’m trying to complete my understandiong of WHY she believed egoism is true (or, HOW she claimed to validate this). That is where things get very abstract and difficult. This is where I get “tripped up.” Of course, if one can’t validate a "first moral principle," then all the moral principles that follow (i.e., honestly, integrity, reason, capitalism, etc…) come crashing down, and we are left with David Hume.
:-)
 
Don

But, how can one say that morality is built upon the choice to pursue life? If I were “Joe Skeptic,” then I might say: “Sure, IF you choose that the pursuit of life is the starting point, THEN certain actions are clearly consistent with its achievement. However, how do you validate that the pursuit of life itself is moral? If you can’t, then why can’t I just choose anything as a starting point?” These are the types of objections I’m trying to fend off.

The pursuit of life is the only reason anyone would need morality. Those that do not wish to live, need not concern themselves with the subject.

 
Rand explained it as follows:

Right and wrong, good and bad are concepts that imply choice in the face of alternatives. It is only living things that face choices -- it is only the concept "life", that makes the concept of good and bad possible. "It is only to a living entity that things can be good and bad." 

Rand clarifies this point by asking us to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot. Such an entity could not be harmed by anything and would therefore have no need of morality -- it would not matter what choices it made.

Morality, therefore, presupposes the existence of a living being that wishes to continue living.  The purpose of morality is to teach you how to make the right choices -- the choices that keep you alive. The good, therefore, is that which supports life; the evil is that which destroys it. (Rand goes on to make the crucial distinction that the "life" being referred to is the life of man the rational animal, not man the looter. See the Virtue of Selfishness for details.)

The choice to live is the only choice that gives rise to the whole issue of morality. Therefore, the choice to live must be its starting point.

Don,

Perhaps another relevant point of view would help illustrate this idea about the essentiality of using "life choice" (preservation) to ground the science of ethics in reality.  In a paper available at:

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/meng.pdf

... the author (Jude Chua Soo Meng) makes one of the most refined and clear cases I've seen.  Here is a relevant paraphrase of the ideas offered in summary (note: my wording is not exact - refer to the actual online copy if literary exactitude is desired):

1. Start with the precept that life is a basic good that ought to be preserved.

2. Then, attempt to deny this precept.

3.  Note the "performatory self-contradiction" (your actions persistently contradict #2)

4.  Therefore, it follows modus tollens (valid rule of inference stating: if p, then q, AND not-q, THEREFORE, not-p) that denying #1 is invalid; and, by implication, that "life is good" is a necessary truth

5.  In sum then, humans (who are, by nature, rational beings) should choose action aimed at self-preservation (it is the only valid - ie. logical - choice to make) and only those codes of ethics based on this sole rational choice are valid.  Other codes of ethics (non-egoistic) are invalid as they are not grounded in the reality of actual existence for a rational being of volitional consciousness.

Don, I wrote this quickly and with little proofreading - let me know if it sounds unclear/inadequate to you as a means of illuminating this ethical principle.

 
Ed Thompson