| | Dean,
The conversion of an is to a should is the heart of Ayn Rand's ethics. It is what makes ethics an objective (that's a lower-case o) discipline instead of a collection of whim-based assertions of what one should do or not do.
Here is what Ayn Rand said in "The Objectivist Ethics" It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” If you want an understanding of other ethical systems, beyond what is given in different pieces of Objectivist literature, then you can go to their sources, or to a comparative study, or take a history of ethics/philosophy approach.
It appears that you are making an approach that is really more about animal rights, or rights of entities other than humans - is that the case? Because Ayn Rand created an ethical system for man, based upon human nature. We are humans and that does seem to be the rational way to go for an understanding of how we can live together. It doesn't mean that other organisms can't be defined/discussed/valued/etc., but that it will be done so from the frame of reference of a human being. I.e., by what standard, in what context, and of what value to whom?
I'm a human. I can only value from my frame of reference, which is my life and not just some free-floating abstract of a living being but a living, specific individual who is a human being. Objectivist ethics are not just grounded in human nature, but are also individualistic rather than collectivist. Both of those perspectives (human nature and rational self-interest) are objectively derived - from the facts of reality - and contradict other ethical systems.
When you advocate for Objectivism to include an understanding of any ethical system, I'd say that it does... that is, it has a position on other ethical systems and it examines the different positions that can be taken. It declares some principles correct, and others wrong. A truly relativistic philosophy would hold that all philosophies might well be equally true under this or that circumstance. Rand and Objectivism would say that is illogical, impractical and undesirable.
You defined friends as, "By 'friend' I mean a person whom one respects their property via trade and abide by the NIoF principal with them." Then a few paragraphs later you say, "A person can have a different set of organisms whom they consider their friends (plants, wild animals, country, city, old, white, church member, rich, poor, productive, lazy, inept). Given that a person chooses a different set as friends than 'all humans', a person would have very different ethical implications on how they interact with other kinds of humans." This is confusing. By your definition and this last sentence, a plant or bacterium would be a potential property owner with whom one could engage in trade and abide the NIoF principle with.
|
|
