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 2Page 3Page 4


Post 80

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"Morality is about benefit, and not about subjective and feeble satisfaction."

I really hate the sound of this. It sounds like something a collectivist would say.

Benefit by whose measure? I am the final arbiter of my own happiness, including judging what benefits me or not. Even if it is "subjective and feeble satisfaction". Morality is more about minding your own business.

Post 81

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"Morality is about benefit, and not about subjective and feeble satisfaction."

 
Never said it was; only said that it can't be derived from epistemology. 



We have gotten far afield. I have no comment on the rest.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 82

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

===============
Ed,

"Morality is about benefit, and not about subjective and feeble satisfaction."

I really hate the sound of this. It sounds like something a collectivist would say.
===============

I merely meant to decry vulgar (unprincipled) hedonism, Mike. Still hate it?


===============
Benefit by whose measure?
===============

[this is where it gets ugly, as I know that Mike can get awful angry with me, at times -- and I don't give a rat's rear-end about that, I'm going to say what I want to, anyway]

Mike, you are smuggling in a primacy of consciousness standard here -- and that is illegitimate. It's as if you deny objectivity as a whole, or merely a part of it (e.g. objective values).



===============
I am the final arbiter of my own happiness
===============

You are the only one who can know all of your own desires, and how well you're doing at meeting them -- but arbiters decide things, and you don't get to 'decide' on ALL of the things that would make you happy (you have to 'discover' some of it).

This relates to a recent discussion I had with Bill. I had taken YOUR side in debate (I was arguing that rational calculation -- and the subsequent consequence-evaluation -- is tantamount to making a 'decision'). Bill disagreed and got the better of me, we don't get to decide what's good -- the good is a relation of reality to man.

Here's some OPAR (p 207-) quotes showing that we don't 'get to' decide on ALL of the things that make us happy ...

===============
Ethics, according to the received wisdom, is arbitrary; it is a field ruled by subjective feeling, dissociated from reality, reason, science. In this view, there's no disputing about value-judgments; there are no objective grounds on which to choose between production and theft, ...

Ethics is a human necessity and a science, not a playground for mystics and skeptics.

Goal-directed entities do not exist in order to pursue values. They pursue values in order to exist.

By the very nature of "value," therefore, any code of values must hold life as the ultimate value.

The distinctively Objectivist viewpoint here, let me repeat, is not that life is a precondition of other values--not that one must remain alive in order to act. This idea is a truism, not a philosophy. Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and of all proper action.

Plants and animals initiate automatically the actions their life requires. [break] They can be destroyed, but they cannot pursue their own destruction or even be neutral in regard to it. [break] Like every other entity, man has a nature; like the other organisms, he must follow a specific course of action if he is to survive.

Moral laws, in this view, are principles that define how to nourish and sustain human life; they are no more than this and no less.

Morality is the instruction manual in regard to proper care and use that did not come with man. It is the science of human self-preservation.

An animal does not choose its goals--nature takes care of that; so it can act safely on any impulse. Within the limits of the possible, that impulse is programmed to be pro-life.

An animal cannot grasp or deal with the total of its lifespan and does not need to do so.

Every science and every field of thought involves the discovery and application of principles.

A moral principle, accordingly, is not something sui generis. Properly speaking, it is a type of scientific principle, identifying the relationship to man's survival of the various basic human choices.

For a rational being, principled action is the only effective kind of action. To be principled is the only way to achieve a long-range goal.

To state the point another way, "man's life" means life in accordance with the principles of human survival.

The Objectivist standard of morality is not a momentary or merely physical survival; it is the long-range survival of man--mind and body.

Every moral value entails a life-long course of virtue.

"For an animal," writes Ayn Rand, "the question of survival is primarily physical; for man, primarily epistemological."

Rationality, accordingly, is the primary obligation of man; all the others are derivatives of it.

Since man survives by thought and production, every man should live and work as an independent, creative being, acquiring goods and services from others only by means of trade, when both parties agree that the trade is profitable.

The essential fact to grasp here is that social existence is an asset to man in the struggle for survival.

Egoism, accordingly, does not mean that a man should isolate himself from others or remain indifferent to them. On the contrary, a proper view of egoism requires that a man identify the role of others in his own life and then evaluate them appropriately.

If a man is to qualify as self-sustaining and self-respecting, he must not help, let alone love, his enemy, or even his neighbor--not until he discovers who the neighbor is and whether the person deserves to be helped. As to helping a stranger in an emergency, this is moral under certain conditions.

The realm of facts is what creates the need to choose a certain goal. This need arises because man lives in reality, because he is confronted by a fundamental alternative, and because the requirements of his survival, which he does not know or obey automatically, are set by reality (including his own nature).

Existence, we say--the metaphysically given facts of reality, including the identity of man--is what demands of human beings a certain course of behavior.

A primary choice does not mean an "arbitrary," "whimsical," or "groundless" choice. There are grounds for a (certain) primary choice, and those grounds are reality--all of it. The choice to live, as we have seen, is the choice to accept the realm of reality. This choice is not only not arbitrary. It is the precondition of criticizing the arbitrary; it is the base of reason.

Ethics is conditional, i.e. values are not intrinsic. But values are not subjective, either. Values are objective.
==================

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/24, 4:33pm)


Post 83

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And here's Philippa Foot, on the objectivity of ethics in general and then, specifically, the objectivity of the value of Justice ...

==============
How exactly the concepts of harm, advantage, benefit, importance, etc., are related to the different moral concepts, such as rightness, obligation, goodness, duty and virtue, is something that needs the most patient investigation, but that they are so related seems undeniable, and it follows that a man cannot make his own personal decisions about the considerations which are to count as evidence in morals.
==============
'Moral Arguments', Mind (1958), p 510


==============
Is it true, however, to say that justice is not something a man needs in his dealings with his fellows, supposing only that he be strong? Those who think that he can get on perfectly well without being just should be asked to say exactly how such a man is supposed to live. ... If he lets even a few people see his true attitude he must guard himself against them; if he lets no one in on the secret he must be always careful in case the least spontaneity betray him ...

The reason why it seems to some people so impossibly difficult to show that justice is more profitable than injustice is that they consider in isolation particular just acts.
==============
'Moral Beliefs', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (1958), p 128

Ed


Post 84

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"Mike, you are smuggling in a primacy of consciousness standard here.."

This is completely absurd.

Your "morality is benefit" IS primacy of consciousness.

"The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality."
-Joe Rowlands

YOUR conception of "benefit" somehow creates reality for other people? And determines if they are being moral or not? That is one step away from imposing your decisions on other people "for their own good".


Post 85

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, thank you for the reply.

======================
"Mike, you are smuggling in a primacy of consciousness standard here.."

This is completely absurd.

Your "morality is benefit" IS primacy of consciousness.
======================

To remind, it was the following statement that I was referring to ...


=============
Benefit by whose measure?
=============

What this statement (question) smuggles is the concept that different folks must have different vantage points (ie. different 'answers' to what is moral). It is a blatant appeal to subjectivism. In actuality, it doesn't matter WHO measures the benefit -- as long as it is objectively measured. This is also true of measuring an inch. It doesn't matter WHO measured the inch -- as long as it was objectively measured.

In contrast, your question implies that it matters who's doing the measuring. And it is this aspect (of who is doing the evaluating) that smacks of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. My point was that it doesn't matter who does the evaluation -- as long as it is done objectively. This is also true of mathematics. It doesn't matter WHO does the counting -- as long as it is done objectively.


=============
YOUR conception of "benefit" somehow creates reality for other people? And determines if they are being moral or not? That is one step away from imposing your decisions on other people "for their own good".
=============

Mike, be sure, I would never think of imposing anything on anyone. Morality is an arena where individuals make rational decisions. It is not -- and should not ever be -- an arena where folks are told what to do. If, hypothetically, one who knows what's best tells others what to do -- then the others never really learn to think for themselves. And that is morally inferior (it is objectively good to learn how to think for yourself).

This is the reason that a 'benevolent monarchy' is incompatible with human happiness (ie. the reason that 'God' ruling man -- is an inferior alternative, not something to be yearned for). Because part of human happiness is to develop pride in one's thinking ability. I seek to persuade, not coerce.

Ed


Post 86

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"In contrast, your question implies that it matters who's doing the measuring. And it is this aspect (of who is doing the evaluating) that smacks of a primacy of consciousness metaphysics. My point was that it doesn't matter who does the evaluation -- as long as it is done objectively."

Here is where I suspect you are in error with respect to personal morality.

Given that I do not have perfect knowledge I may make a mistake in judgement about an action I take to achieve a value and in fact move farther away from my goal instead of closer. But I have not acted immorally. My purpose was to achieve a value. The real objective benefit of my actions does not equal the morality of my actions. Your sentence "morality is benefit" implied the opposite to me and is what I objected to. Your sentence, by the way, was and still is, the object of our discussion.

My view is far different from holding a primacy of consciousness view of reality which I certainly do not.

The danger hidden in what I perceived you were saying is that it justifies collective thought and "the end justifies the means" sort of thinking.

Best regards,

Mike E.


Post 87

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 2:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glad you like Philippa Foot.   I've said on various Objectivist websites that Objectivists ought to pay more attention to her.  I hope you start a trend.

One of the most interesting points she made against the is / ought dichotomy is that it turns its conclusion into a tautology.  Statements of fact are defined to be statements that don't mention any evaluative concepts.  Once you accept that, the rest falls out trivially.

(Now if only I could get this audience to start listening to Morton Lauridsen)

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 6/26, 10:41am)


Post 88

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike wrote:

Here is where I suspect you are in error with respect to personal morality.


What is personal morality?







Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 89

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, this is going to sound a little out-on-a-limb at first but ...

All morality -- is personal morality.

Ed
[it is only ever individuals who 'act']


Post 90

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"All morality -- is personal morality."

Yes! How could I ever think you could be a collectivist! [I never did, of course].

Cheers,

Mike E.

Post 91

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

=================
But I have not acted immorally. My purpose was to achieve a value. The real objective benefit of my actions does not equal the morality of my actions. Your sentence "morality is benefit" implied the opposite to me and is what I objected to. Your sentence, by the way, was and still is, the object of our discussion.

[break]

The danger hidden in what I perceived you were saying is that it justifies collective thought and "the end justifies the means" sort of thinking.
=================

Mike, first of all, morality is not benefit by ANY means -- otherwise utilitarianism would ensue (and utilitarianism is measurably absurd). Secondly, when you say that "[t]he real objective benefit of my actions does not equal the morality of my actions." -- then it seems that there is a trade on an ambiguity.

It's true that [morality] = [benefit] as an absolute equivalence -- is wrong, because it fails to delineate the types of benefit (and alludes that some sum of benefit, some amount, is the evidence of morality). Things left out are things like the individuality of morality, the chosen means (which, themselves, have moral weight), and even the intention -- which you bring up.

One problem that I have with your statement however, is that it is intention-limited. If you have intended to do good, then you were moral (and, presumably, if you had ill intention -- even if your action made things turn out for the better -- then you were immoral). What I feel is lacking -- or given short shrift -- in your 'intentional ethics' is man's need of morality in the first place.

According to this theory of meaning well, man's happy survival plays second fiddle to man's intentions. I find this to be intellectually unacceptable.

Ed



Post 92

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

"It's true that [morality] = [benefit] as an absolute equivalence -- is wrong"

Thank you.

Now, isn't that sentence equivalent to my sentence:

"The real objective benefit of my actions does not equal the morality of my actions."

Therefore I'm baffled by the rest of your post. How can you read a whole list of intellectual errors into my criticism of a statement of yours which you have now retracted?

Never mind. Have a good week.

Mike E.

Post 93

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[shaking head] - What are you folk sipping over the weekend???

Post 94

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I was out digging trenches for my [well..Karen's] sprinkler system in 100+ degree heat. Then the odd Guinness or two...

Mike E.

Post 95

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan, in post #61 you wrote:
Jonathan, imagine they both have the money to pay the piece of real state, they both want it, and the price is fixed by law.
It's not rational for the price to be fixed by law, therefore your example is flawed.

Three points:

1) The example is not flawed: we are discussing about the rationality of the two individuals in a conflict of interests, not about the rationality of the law. Irrespective of the law, there is a conflict between two rational individuals.

2) The example is valid: irrational property laws, there are.

3) In case you don't like this example, Cal provided another very good one.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/26, 10:14am)


Post 96

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

      
 Crime isn't "rational" (as crime doesn't "pay").
(We have been there, so this is my last try with your argument.)

You are defending that values can be derived from factual reality.

But saving the life of a family of Jews in Nazi Berlin was irrational and moral at the same time. Agreed?

Ed, I know that Objectivism does not accept it, but can't you see that that moral feat can't be inferred from factual reality?

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/26, 10:17am)


Post 97

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 2:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, when someone who is not involved in a transaction attempts to dictate the terms, then it is no longer a voluntary transaction, force has been initiated. There is indeed a conflict, but it is not amongst rational men. And I addressed Cal's argument. How can he claim something that is not on his property and is not his to claim?

Post 98

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel,

============
But saving the life of a family of Jews in Nazi Berlin was irrational and moral at the same time. Agreed?
============

STAUNCHLY disagreed! This rule-based ethic of which you speak -- is NOT OBJECTIVE. As Peikoff says above ...

Ethics is conditional, i.e. values are not intrinsic. But values are not subjective, either. Values are objective.
The conditions surrounding Nazi Berlin -- were emergency conditions. As such, they do not apply to everyday life (ie. to that arena in which morality is MOST IMPORTANT). What's important in emergencies is damage-control -- and managing-the-mess. Getting back to normal (price, no object). As Rand put it: "Morality ends at the point of a gun."

If someone points a gun at me (ie. threatens my life), then all bets are off. This is not merely some boy-ish, bull-ish grand-standing. If you change the context THAT MUCH, then you've changed the very principles on which to act. Actually, please, let me take that back (I was in an emotional rant there). What you've ACTUALLY changed is the scope of actual acts that STILL conform to the original principles (without changing the principles).

In normal living conditions, in order to look out for my best interests -- I should exist as a trading partner with others, producing some value and voluntarily trading with my peers. In the middle of a battlefield, in order to look out for my best interests -- I should exist as a cold, killing machine; ruthlessly mowing down the enemy, not as if he was a being worthy of worship, but as if he was a poisonous blade of grass.

My goal -- to look out for my best interests -- did not ever change. What changed was what EXACTLY was IN my best interests -- in 2 different living conditions.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


User ID Password or create a free account.