Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation

Rate this topic


DavidOdden

Recommended Posts

Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective.
You do not seem to understand the nature of morality. You seem to be wrongly presupposing that morality does not refer to particular facts. As a classic example of why that is completely wrong, it is a fact that some men are sexually attracted to men, and some men are sexually attracted to women. It is therefore immoral for a gay man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a woman, and it is just as immoral for a straight man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a man. The choice is not subjective, it is objective, and it is a function of the objective nature of the individual. Objectivism is never compatible with subjectivism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are moralizing.

Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective.

Don't be silly. Choosing an ice cream is absolutely within the realm of Ethics. Picking the flavor you enjoy is moral, picking a flavor you hate, or you're allergic to, is immoral. Just because people's tastes vary, it doesn't mean their choice is no longer based in objective value judgement.

And of course, taste has nothing o do with the OP's question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not seem to understand the nature of morality. You seem to be wrongly presupposing that morality does not refer to particular facts. As a classic example of why that is completely wrong, it is a fact that some men are sexually attracted to men, and some men are sexually attracted to women. It is therefore immoral for a gay man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a woman, and it is just as immoral for a straight man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a man. The choice is not subjective, it is objective, and it is a function of the objective nature of the individual. Objectivism is never compatible with subjectivism.

You frequently tell people (across forums) that they do not understand when it is you who does not understand.

And you have moralized more than once.

Ignoring your irrelevant analogy, you confuse Subjectivism with subjective (as in optional choices).

I'm certainly not saying that moral values are a matter of subjective choices. I'm saying that there are non-philosophical choices in life that are not objectively (via principles) determined. If you cannot agree with that, then the discussion is closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be silly. Choosing an ice cream is absolutely within the realm of Ethics. Picking the flavor you enjoy is moral, picking a flavor you hate, or you're allergic to, is immoral. Just because people's tastes vary, it doesn't mean their choice is no longer based in objective value judgement.

And of course, taste has nothing o do with the OP's question.

Read my last post. You also miss the point here. I can't believe you could think selecting a flavor of ice cream is a moral issue. That's moralizing.

"Ethics is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions" - necessary for his survival. That does not include subjective choices that have nothing to do with survival and do not tie to principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You frequently tell people (across forums) that they do not understand when it is you who does not understand.
I only extend that courtesy to people who actually demonstrate a lack of understanding of Objectivism or the facts of reality.
And you have moralized more than once.
Follow Jake's suggestion. Get a dictionay or two and see what the word means. Read Galt's Speech, p. 970. It's addressed at you.
Ignoring your irrelevant analogy, you confuse Subjectivism with subjective (as in optional choices).
That's just plain intellectually dishonest. You can't pretend that "subjective" means "optional choice".
then the discussion is closed.
Yes, please, do stop. You are confusing a serious philosophical discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who want valuable objective discussions:

David, as the moderator, has cancelled some of my posts because they conflict with his points of view, albeit he believes it is because I am not adhering to Oist principles. I am fully an Oist and have been attempting to make valid points here.

He loses his credibility when he controls the forum in order to make his views appear sacrosanct.

Edited by TLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, as the moderator, has cancelled some of my posts because they conflict with his points of view

He didn't cancel them, he moved them to the Trash forum. Anyone can go there and see that they were removed because they contain exactly zero statements about the subject of the thread, and several observations about the character and knowledge of the people participating in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't cancel them, he moved them to the Trash forum. Anyone can go there and see that they were removed because they contain exactly zero statements about the subject of the thread, and several observations about the character and knowledge of the people participating in it.

He inappropriately "deleted" them. I was responding to his arrogance in the previous post (which is apparently ok for the moderator) and then added valid content.

Then I reponded to your comment ("You do realize you used the word moralizing about a dozen times now without ever hinting at what it means?") noting your exaggeration and apparent lack of understanding of "moralizing."

I can admire you sticking up for your friend, but the 2 of you remain unwilling to accept valid points that don't suit you.

End result: those attempting to determine when receiving gifts is a moral issue remain confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not a single human choice which is exempt from ethical evaluation.

Whether to pee standing up or sitting down?

Ice cream flavor choice is a good example too.

Ethics would only come into these choices if they had some greater meaning, or if one chose based on some sort of outside influence or conformity.

If I am given a choice between two flavors of ice cream, neither of which I've had before, with no one trying to sway me either way, then in what way could my choice fall into the realm of ethical evaluation?

Edited by QuoVadis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am given a choice between two flavors of ice cream, neither of which I've had before, with no one trying to sway me either way, then in what way could my choice fall into the realm of ethical evaluation?

Can you afford the expense? Can you afford the calories? Do you have the time to spend agonizing over a choice or should you just flip a coin and get on with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you afford the expense? Can you afford the calories? Do you have the time to spend agonizing over a choice or should you just flip a coin and get on with it?

When choosing between flavors, I have to assume these questions have already been addressed. (I feel ridiculous here, this is really funny shit).

Can I assume you are implying this is not an ethical choice? Or are you, god help us(excuse the expression), implying flipping a coin is a reasonable way to make an ethical decision?

I only ask because of some of the other really extreme nonsense implied in this thread. (lots of funny shit)

Just want to be sure where everyone is coming from...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When choosing between flavors, I have to assume these questions have already been addressed. (I feel ridiculous here, this is really funny shit).
These "questions that have already been addressed" are ethical questions, so no matter what flavor you choose the decision presupposes ethical content and so is itself ethical. The alternatives here are equally ethical, not non-ethical.

Can I assume you are implying this is not an ethical choice? Or are you, god help us(excuse the expression), implying flipping a coin is a reasonable way to make an ethical decision?

No you may not assume that. The ethical meta-decision of "what is the best use of my time" can indeed justify flipping a coin to make some other decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These "questions that have already been addressed" are ethical questions, so no matter what flavor you choose the decision presupposes ethical content and so is itself ethical. The alternatives here are equally ethical, not non-ethical.

No you may not assume that. The ethical meta-decision of "what is the best use of my time" can indeed justify flipping a coin to make some other decision.

If you are choosing a flavor, you have already made a determination of ethical or not. The question of chocolate or vanilla is completely subjective.

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are choosing a flavor, you have already made a determination of ethical or not. The question of chocolate or vanilla is completely subjective.

Ayn Rand viewed ethics as a guide to everyday decision-making. Every choice can be potentially life-furthering or life-inhibiting. Thus, every choice needs reference to an ethics.

It is, of course, possible that two alternatives in a choice might be equally ethical. My choosing between chocolate and peanut butter cannot be made purely by reference to ethics (unless I am allergic to peanut butter; then one choice is clearly more life-furthering than the other). This is because switching from one to the other does not change the degree to which the result affects my life. I'm furthering life either way (presumably). This doesn't mean ethics is irrelevant to the choice, but it does mean that I can include my own preferences in choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand viewed ethics as a guide to everyday decision-making. Every choice can be potentially life-furthering or life-inhibiting. Thus, every choice needs reference to an ethics.

It is, of course, possible that two alternatives in a choice might be equally ethical. My choosing between chocolate and peanut butter cannot be made purely by reference to ethics (unless I am allergic to peanut butter; then one choice is clearly more life-furthering than the other). This is because switching from one to the other does not change the degree to which the result affects my life. I'm furthering life either way (presumably). This doesn't mean ethics is irrelevant to the choice, but it does mean that I can include my own preferences in choosing.

I want to be very clear. I believe that if I have determined that there is nothing immoral, unethical, irrational, or otherwise harmful to me by choosing to have an ice cream, then the choice of flavor is completely outside the realm of ethics. Therefore, none of the above applies to my choice of flavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are choosing a flavor, you have already made a determination of ethical or not. The question of chocolate or vanilla is completely subjective.

It is an ethical decision which is also subjective within a range, thus it is not completely subjective.

I only use the the word subjective here in the sense of personal. It is true that no principle of virtuous behavior, such as honesty or justice, will distinguish between two flavors of ice cream. But the ultimate justification of those virtues must also be personal if they not to be meaningless abstractions, so there is only a difference in scale and scope between large decisions and small, not a difference in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be very clear. I believe that if I have determined that there is nothing immoral, unethical, irrational, or otherwise harmful to me by choosing to have an ice cream, then the choice of flavor is completely outside the realm of ethics. Therefore, none of the above applies to my choice of flavor.

I would agree with that statement. The overarching point is that you need ethics in order to identify it as morally neutral in the first place; you must be able to distinguish both vanilla and chocolate ice cream from, say, heroin, or poison, and choose among the morally superior options with whatever criterion you like.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I assume you are referring only to moral choices? If so, I agree.

Not quite, I would say.

If a choice you make is morally inferior to another possible choice, then that will have negative repercussions to your character. If you are choosing between two morally neutral options, then either route would have the same effect on your character; this is not to say they would have no effect on your character.

Let's say I am trying to make a morally neutral choice between being a college professor and a businessman, for example. It is not that my eventual course of action will have no effect on my character. If I become a college professor, every day's work that I put in reinforces the importance of productivity and helps my character. If I become a businessman, the same thing happens.

I would say that every choice (that I can think of right now) has an effect on moral character, even if two possible alternatives would have had the same effect. If you would like to offer a choice which you think has no impact, I'll tell you what I think.

To use the chocolate/vanilla ice cream example, if you earned the money to buy the ice cream, then either choice you make, chocolate or vanilla, will result in you enjoying a delicious reward for hard work, which reinforces the moral virtue of productivity and furthers your happiness. If you stole the money or don't deserve it, the pleasure of the ice cream reinforces the idea that you can benefit without desert (heh, no pun intended) and undermines your character. Either choice you make (between flavors) has a positive impact on your character. The moral neutrality between the two comes from the fact that the benefit from either is equal.

EDIT: Pronoun agreement.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the choice to live a moral choice?
No: it is the choice from which concepts of morality are made possible.
When choosing between flavors, I have to assume these questions have already been addressed.
That's a totally invalid assumption. These are some of the most important morally-relevant questions that you have to answer in order to answer the question. But even if you have made the decision to have ice cream, moral evaluation is still necessary.

If you hate chocolate, it would be immoral to order chocolate. If you are allergic to chocolate, it would be immoral to order chocolate. It's up to you as the agent of evaluation to know what is and is not relevant in morally evaluating the choice. If you are not allergic and like chocolate and vanilla equally, and there are no other facts which show that one flavor is worse than the other, the two flavors are morally equal. This is a conclusion that you reach after objective moral evaluation.

I only ask because of some of the other really extreme nonsense implied in this thread. (lots of funny shit)
Yeah, some people do ask really stupid questions or have really stupid answers. It they offend you, or of the discussion that actually engages the issue offends you, you could simple not look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every choice you make affects and alters your moral character. One of the most important positive benefits of acting virtuously is the effect it has on building your character, and making it easier for you to act morally in the future. Accepting something you know you don't deserve, even if others think you do, undermines the connection in your mind between acting virtuously and gaining values.

This is something I've only recently begun to realize and work on. I've agreed with Objectivism for years, but ideas are one thing; moral character based on consistent action upon those ideas has taken more time and effort than understanding and agreeing with the ideas ever did.

If you stole the money or don't deserve it, the pleasure of the ice cream reinforces the idea that you can benefit without desert (heh, no pun intended) and undermines your character.

I find it fascinating that I'm understanding and appreciating this ever more clearly. It is so contrary to the Swedish mentality, exemplified by the local saying "free (of charge) is good". But I can really see what you mean and I agree with it fully.

This goes for people who steal goods, pirate software or recieve unearned gifts. Look at how they treat "their" belongings. Compare the enjoyment they get out of them to that of people who earn their stuff.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you afford the expense? Can you afford the calories? Do you have the time to spend agonizing over a choice or should you just flip a coin and get on with it?

But I didn't ask about chosing to have ice cream in the first place, your response addresses that... only which of two flavours.

I am just asking for clarification of the assertion that there is no choice that can be made that does not have ethical implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...