RoR: Forum

I found this to be profound. Every prescription being a description. I'd qualify it, though. Every 'objectively-viable' prescription is a description -- since there are those subjective, arbitrary prescriptions running amok (e.g. "Do what feels good.", "Do what the Lord, your God Almighty and Heavenly Father, commands", etc).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/19, 9:22pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 2:54am

Ed, this quote is a rewrite of the argument falling into the Naturalistic fallacy trap.

To quote from link:

"The argument tries to draw a conclusion about how things ought to be based solely on information about how things are in fact. The conclusion may be about moral duties or about ideal states of affairs [Ed's "'objectively-viable prescription"]; but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept things as they are."

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 7:49am)

Post 2

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:04am

Joel, in speaking of the naturalistic fallacy, you wrote ...

==============
... but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept things as they are."
==============

Well, actually, the false premise in this fallacy -- is that we must always accept things as they "first appear." In this sensationalistic sense then, one could look to the jungle and proclaim that a dog-eat-dog ethic is "right" or "good" (tacitly generalizing from the jungle to the city -- while failing to integrate that cities come from a "special" being on this planet; a "different" type of being, altogether).

Ed

Post 3

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:42am

Ed, in the sentence you quoted from my post,

"[...] but the unstated (and false) premiss is that we must always accept things as they are",

"first appear" is not there, so your anti-sensationalistic argument is a straw-man one: we agree that naïve realism is wrong.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/20, 10:46am)

Post 4

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 1:14pm

Joel,

================
... we agree that naïve realism is wrong.
================

... and naïve realism is the source of what error there is, in the naturalistic fallacy.

Hmf!

Ed
[hoping that stating the same thing, only more forcefully, will get my point across]

Post 5

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:19pm

I found this to be profound. Every prescription being a description. I'd qualify it, though. Every 'objectively-viable' prescription is a description -- since there are those subjective, arbitrary prescriptions running amok (e.g. "Do what feels good.", "Do what the Lord, your God Almighty and Heavenly Father, commands", etc).

Thank you, Ed, for the much needed qualification!

- Bill

Post 6

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:47pm

Bill, you are welcome, sir.

I knew that you knew what I knew when I said it. It's just that, what was implicitly acknowledged by you, was explicitly acknowledged by me.

Is that clear?

Ed
[sometimes I wonder if I'm being hyper-clear on things, or just getting hyper-eccentric]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/20, 4:48pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 6:03am

Ed wrote:

Joel,

================
... we agree that naïve realism is wrong.
================

... and naïve realism is the source of what error there is, in the naturalistic fallacy.

I don't think so.

"Naturalistic fallacy" is the name given to the mistaken inference from nature to ethics, from what factually is to what ought to be.

Indeed, that fallacy is rooted in Objectivist ethics, which alleges to stablish a (correct) absolute ethics by means of deduction from nature, namely, the perfect recipe for social Darwinism.

Correct deduction from facts provides knowledge in natural science, but can't provide (new) ethical values.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/21, 6:40am)

Post 8

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:10am

Joel,

What you are saying is that the derivation of ethics has nothing to do with facts.

Listen to yourself.

Ed

Post 9

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 9:25am

Ed,

What I mean is that ethics is not derived from (bare) facts. Derived from facts is natural science.

I hope that helps.

The formulation of the naturalistic fallacy, related to the "fact/value --or 'is'/'ought to be'-- dichotomy", describes this point.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/21, 9:37am)

Post 10

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:33am

It is indeed a fallacy. The argument to defend that fallacy is that humans have universal needs to be able to survive and that you can objectively derive from those needs what they "ought" to do. Now this may be true for example for the need to eat: if you want to survive you "ought" to eat regularly. But that is hardly an ethical issue. In fact what we call ethical issues are exactly those "oughts" that cannot be derived from the facts of nature, and that makes ethics such a tricky issue. Rand states that humans ought to do certain things to be able to survive, but then she switches from mere survival of man to "survival of man qua man", thereby introducing a subjective element, as it is clear what she means by it: survival by being a independent, productive person etc. - in short, by living according to the principles of Objectivism. But that is of course begging the question. People who live like parasites for example can also survive very well, and the only things you can prove is what kinds of behavior are necessary for mere survival and what kinds of behavior make survival impossible. You cannot prove that a parasite is not rational, in fact his behavior may be quite rational. Not that I want to defend parasitism: I don't like it and I'm against an ethics that would defend parasitism, but I don't have the illusion that I can prove objectively that it's wrong (i.e. that it contradicts the facts of nature).

Post 11

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:38am

Cal, you stated it perfectly.

Objectivism switches from mere survival of man to "survival of man qua man", and then begs the question.

And the example of the parasite is excellent.

Regards

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/21, 11:42am)

Post 12

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 1:23pm

Phil C., Rev', Wolf, John A., Michael D., Aaron, Sam E., Teresa S.I., Luke S., John D., Bill D., Roger B., Mark H., Bob P., Chris C., Andre Z., Dean M.G., Glenn F., Warren C.A.,

Will one of you guys "take care of" Joel's argument here (I'm too busy this afternoon, to annihilate his argument)?

Thanks (to whoever steps up to the plate),

Ed
[sorry if I missed any of you skilled 'scrappers' out there]

Post 13

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 7:21pm

Values are derived from nature. By the nature of an animal, it's main goal is to survive and thrive within nature. If the basis of morality is, "what man needs to survive," then eating regularly is an ethical action. If you are to continue existing as your animal nature compells you to, then the application of that into morality is that you must eat.

By any rational standards, a parasitic man does not survive. A conscious being must maintain not only his physical existence, but his mental existence. The code at the root of the moochers and looters is nihilism. That is no kind of mental life. A man cannot exist without his mind--it directs all of his physical actions. A parasite acts on the blind whims of the moment.

Ayn Rand effectively shows that evil parasites can only live when good people sanction their evil. When the sanction of good is removed, evil cannot exist. Any attempt at existing while despising existence, is inherently evil and contradictory.

Post 14

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:55pm

Thank you, Jack.

There is the way things are (ie. humans "needing" to think to survive well -- because of the kind of creatures they ARE), and there is the way things ought to be (humans thinking -- to survive well). The "is" directly implies the "ought."

Ed

Post 15

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:26am

Jack:

By any rational standards, a parasitic man does not survive.

On the contrary, there are many parasitic people who survive very well by any rational standards. It may not be the kind of life we aspire, but that is not relevant. That we wouldn't be happy in doing so does not automatically imply that they therefore must be unhappy.

A conscious being must maintain not only his physical existence, but his mental existence. The code at the root of the moochers and looters is nihilism. That is no kind of mental life.

That is your opinion. Opinion is not the same as proof, however.

A man cannot exist without his mind--it directs all of his physical actions. A parasite acts on the blind whims of the moment.

That is an arbitrary assertion. Where is the evidence for that? Why wouldn't parasitic people be able plan ahead and direct their lives in an efficient way? You shouldn't confuse the rather simplistic and wishful image that Rand created in Atlas Shrugged with reality.

Post 16

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 7:11am

Cal replied to the following Jack's assertion

By any rational standards, a parasitic man does not survive.

with these poignantly focused lines:

"On the contrary, there are many parasitic people who survive very well by any rational standards. It may not be the kind of life we aspire, but that is not relevant. That we wouldn't be happy in doing so does not automatically imply that they therefore must be unhappy."

The emotion of happiness appears when a person intuits the fulfillment of the values he embraces. In example, I don't have any doubt that Lenin and Hitler did have shots of happiness and even euphoria during their outrageously wicked lives.

The important think here is that feelings and emotions are independent from the validity of their moral source.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/22, 7:20am)

Post 17

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 7:25am

Sorry Ed,

I may be a 'scrapper', but I am with Joel and Dragonfly on this one.

This is the same debate I had with you over the difference between 'scientific method' and philosophy. It should be clear to you by now, from your mere participation on this and other Objectivist sites, that if Objectivism were a magic 'formula' for life and living there would be no disagreements.

Post 18

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 7:32am

The emotion of happiness appears when a person intuits the fulfillment of the values he embraces. In example, I don't have any doubt that Lenin and Hitler did have shots of happiness and even euphoria during their outrageously wicked lives

Move from being dazzled by Roark to a consideration of the goal oriented Toohey.

Post 19

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:52am