primemover Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I was wondering if anyone here could support the Objectivist view of ethics through induction. (this is not a challenge for debate. I realy want to know. thanks) (ie) premise.. premise.. premise.. conclusion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPW Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I was wondering if anyone here could support the Objectivist view of ethics through induction. (this is not a challenge for debate. I realy want to know. thanks) (ie) premise.. premise.. premise.. conclusion.. Here is the Objectivist ethics through induction: Stand in front of an oncoming truck and ponder the contradiction that is your choice to live, and the force of the truck slamming into your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearmint Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I was wondering if anyone here could support the Objectivist view of ethics through induction. (this is not a challenge for debate. I realy want to know. thanks) (ie) premise.. premise.. premise.. conclusion.. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, can you clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I'm confused. It sounds like you're looking for a deductive demonstration that ethics are inductive. Can you see why that's weird? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I was wondering if anyone here could support the Objectivist view of ethics through induction. Read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. If after reading these two novels you do not have enough information to induce the fundamentals of the Objectivist ethics, then we won't be able to help you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Matt is right - going from premise to conclusion is a process of deduction, not induction. I believe it can be deductively done, now that we have these principles thanks to the process of induction which Ayn Rand went through. However, your premises will still depend for their validity on induction (for example: premise - man is a living being, premise - man is mortal). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 From my logic class, I learned that induction works exactly by the scheme primemover described, namely, premise1, premise2, premise3, premise4 ----------- conclusion This is different from the deductive syllogism in a number of ways. Well, actually now that I think about it, I don't know a lot about how inductive syllogism (sic) works, but I can see at least one difference. In an inductive syllogism, all premises can be particulars for the conclusion to be valid, whereas in the deductive syllogism one has to be a universal. Also, there can't be more than two premises in a deductive syllogism, and the way the two premises are linked together is through the Middle. Again, either I forgot my lessons, or (most likely) they simply didn't teach me induction cus they know very little about it. But from cursory thinking, I don't think induction has a required Middle to link all premises together. Etc, there are other differences. But every logical argument has some premises, and some conclusion, regardless of inductive or deductive. Primemover, as you probably know, understanding of induction is very rare, as practically no discovery in that area has been done since Aristotle gave it a try 2,500 years ago. Dr. Peikoff, however, apparently has stepped on the path, and one of the results of his thinking is that he's produced a set of monumental lectures, where he proves the whole of Objectivism inductively. Moreover, he says that anyone who tries to do it deductively must necessarily be misunderstanding the philosophy. I'd recommend you get those tapes, if you're really interested, I heard they're very profound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 From my logic class, I learned that induction works exactly by the scheme primemover described, namely, premise1, premise2, premise3, premise4 ----------- conclusion That's not induction! Induction requires the observation and testing of reality. Induction is: I see this ball roll. I see this cylinder roll. They're both round. Maybe that's why they roll. Do any non-round things roll? Let's try this block. No. The flat sides stop it. Does the cylinder roll on the flat ends. No, only on the round part. Round things don't have any flat parts to stop them from rolling. "Round" is the same as not flat. Therefore, round things roll because they are round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 But this part is deductive: "Round things don't have any flat parts to stop them from rolling. "Round" is the same as not flat. Therefore, round things roll because they are round." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Induction is the upward version of reduction. Reduction is beginning with a principle and reducing it to the perceptual level. A helpful way to reduce is to ask the question what causes this principle, or what principle comes before this principle. Let’s say the principle you start with is “Reason is man’s basic means of survival”. Which is the most abstract concept? Reason is something you will reach after you observe that men survive. Before you get to reason you’ll discover that men produce things. And before this that men have needs. But the initial observation is that men are engaged in living action. Induction would begin with this simple observation as you abstract towards “Reason is man’s basic means of survival.” Somewhere in this upward process you’ll distinguish between men and animals; you’ll discover that “For conscious beings, consciousness is the basic means of survival.” The inductive process can take days, weeks, or years. What induction is is reaching conclusions by abstraction from observations. So you ask about ethics? Well, induce egoism (A man is the beneficiary of his own actions). You have to start with observing men living and acting. This is the main context of data when dealing with ethics in induction. But ethics is philosophy, so one will have to look at history to make sure that your principle is universal. The last step after the principle is reached is to integrate that principle with the rest of your knowledge. I.e. connect “Reason is…” to “Individual Rights” and “Romanticism is the school that recognizes volition” etc. Integration gives you the velocity and feeling of confidence in your principles. I began by talking about reduction. Reduction is not induction, just a helpful way to retrace an inductive process of someone else. This is what most of us do when reading Ayn Rand. The major and minor premises of a deductive syllogism can and should be validated by induction. Also, original discovery, is usually the process of induction. Often times we have induced without really knowing it, i.e., we reach a conclusion that feels so right, and then with reduction we retrace the subconscious steps that we must have taken. The other way to get to the greater and greater perceptual level is by the “genus-method” (Binswanger). For example the genus-principle of reason is man’s basic means of survival is “for conscious being, consciousness is their basic means of survival”. Why is the reason principle more abstract than the consciousness principle? Because there are more referents, or extensions, of conscious beings than there are humans. That’s all I want to say right now. Americo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Induction is the upward version of reduction. Reduction is beginning with a principle and reducing it to the perceptual level. A helpful way to reduce is to ask the question what causes this principle, or what principle comes before this principle. The approach I take is: What facts of reality give rise to [this idea]. A very good example of reduction is Ayn Rand's answer to the question of what facts of reality give rise to the concept of "value" in "The Objectivist Ethics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.