Three questions from Spain

[Yasio]

1. Why do you think that Objectivism has not been taken seriously by the academic philosophical circles? (or very few)

2. I think that is scientifically or rationally impossible to believe that there is an absolute morality, or even that they can "discover." Where does it going to discover the ethics or morality, if not exist in nature? You can not "objectively discover" something that is a purely human creation and purely cultural.

3. Finally, I want to know your opinion about Robert Nozick's critique in "Socratic Puzzles", which criticizes the argument foundational ethics Rand: "The proclamation of one's life is, for every man, the ultimate value because it is the value that makes all others possible. "

Nozick argues that Rand failed to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and have no value. According to this argument, the defense of Rand's egoism is a petitio principii fallacy, and the Rand solution to the problem of "being-should be "of David Hume is not satisfactory.

I want to clarify that I agree with many points of the Ayn Rand's philosophy, but in others fundamentals points I have still doubts. As you answer, I will post new questions or concerns in this post

Sorry for my bad English, I'am learning.

[DavidOdden]

1. Why do you think that Objectivism has not been taken seriously by the academic philosophical circles? (or very few)

Because almost all most Objectivist writing is published outside of peer-reviewed academic journals.

2. I think that is scientifically or rationally impossible to believe that there is an absolute morality, or even that they can "discover."

You are correct about an "absolute" morality, and I suggest learning about Objectivist ethics, which does not posit an "absolute" morality.

Where does it going to discover the ethics or morality, if not exist in nature? You can not "objectively discover" something that is a purely human creation and purely cultural.

Facts about man are not necessarily created by man; even so, "objectivity" refers to "the thing itself", as contrasted to "the discoverer". Morality is a fact about man, not a fact about the person who discovers morality.

Nozick argues that Rand failed to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and have no value. According to this argument, the defense of Rand's egoism is a petitio principii fallacy, and the Rand solution to the problem of "being-should be "of David Hume is not satisfactory.

He misunderstands the status of the choice to exist, and its relationship to the concepts "rational" and "value". If you're interested in an academic exposition of Objectivist metaethics, see Tara Smith's book Viable Values, which makes explicit why Objectivism does not engage in circularity. The choice to exist is the primary choice, and given the choice to exist, "morality" and "value" are made possible.

[gags]

3. Finally, I want to know your opinion about Robert Nozick's critique in "Socratic Puzzles", which criticizes the argument foundational ethics Rand: "The proclamation of one's life is, for every man, the ultimate value because it is the value that makes all others possible. "

Nozick argues that Rand failed to explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and have no value. According to this argument, the defense of Rand's egoism is a petitio principii fallacy, and the Rand solution to the problem of "being-should be "of David Hume is not satisfactory.

If one prefers death to life, why are values, morality and ethics (or anything at all for that matter) even relevant? If your highest value is death, then one can simply do nothing and you'll die in fairly short order. Why bother with ethics when death is what you seek?

By the way, where do you live in Spain?

Edited June 8, 2010 by gags

[kainscalia]

Yo también recomiendo la lectura de "Viable Values" por Tara Smith, la cual puedes obtener por Amazon.com. También recomiendo, por la misma autora, "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist"

[Marc K.]

You are correct about an "absolute" morality, and I suggest learning about Objectivist ethics, which does not posit an "absolute" morality.

Would you mind explaining this more so as not to give the wrong impression? You have the word absolute in quotation marks so I'm not sure how you are using it.

I am of the understanding that the moral principles of Objectivism are absolutely true. Do you disagree?

[Hairnet]

Would you mind explaining this more so as not to give the wrong impression? You have the word absolute in quotation marks so I'm not sure how you are using it.

I am of the understanding that the moral principles of Objectivism are absolutely true. Do you disagree?

Knowledge comes from a context, ergo, so do ethical principles. Ideas on how to live life only apply in a certain context, they are not SO absolute that people are expected to follow them no matter the situation a la Kant. (Never lie no matter what, because if everyone did, there would be no language).

[Marc K.]

Knowledge comes from a context, ergo, so do ethical principles. Ideas on how to live life only apply in a certain context, they are not SO absolute that people are expected to follow them no matter the situation a la Kant. (Never lie no matter what, because if everyone did, there would be no language).

Right, and the explicit context for the Objectivist Ethics is "if you want to live". Also explicit in the Objectivist Ethics is volition, which means that no one is "expected to follow" the principles of Objectivism, only if they choose to.

But given this context I believe that the moral principles of Objectivism are absolutely true, i.e., if you want to live, then you must choose to act a certain way -- rationally.

The fact that all knowledge is contextual doesn't negate the fact that certainty is possible or that contextual absolutes are still absolute. In fact it is a prerequisite of such knowledge.

(This is also the reason "never lie" isn't a virtue according to Objectivist principle but "always be honest", i.e., "never fake reality" is.)

[softwareNerd]

Would you mind explaining this more so as not to give the wrong impression? You have the word absolute in quotation marks so I'm not sure how you are using it.

I am of the understanding that the moral principles of Objectivism are absolutely true. Do you disagree?

When a non-Objectivist speaks of "moral absolutes" he means principles that are not contextual at the very highest level. Take "thou shalt not kill". Most sensible Christians understand that they cannot follow it as written, so they re-interpret it in various ways, which amount to "thou shalt not kill ...within the following contexts". If one asks why, they will probably point to a more abstract principle, probably ending up with "God wishes it", or at least "God wishes people to live in peace". At this high level of abstraction, they have no alternative, no reasoning, no "because". That moral principle just "is", as an absolute.

In contrast, Objectivism shows the need for a specific morality in order for a human being to act, and Objectivism draws its principles from that need to act qua human being. So, it is "vulnerable" to an argument which goes: "but what if I don't want to act? what if I just want to die right now?" It is always a purely theoretical question, but Objectivism sees it as a choice that logically precedes morality, and forms the context of morality. People seldom even pose this choice: "should I live?" It is so natural for a living being to pursue life, that only a philosopher would seriously ask the question.

Of course Objectivism is not really vulnerable to that counter-argument, because it never makes the argument that "thou shalt live and act". Instead, it says: in order to live and act, you need the following type of morality. Once one accepts the context, the rest is absolute, that's not what non-Objectivists are typically asking about.

[Marc K.]

When a non-Objectivist speaks of "moral absolutes" he means principles that are not contextual at the very highest level. Take "thou shalt not kill". Most sensible Christians understand that they cannot follow it as written, so they re-interpret it in various ways, which amount to "thou shalt not kill ...within the following contexts". If one asks why, they will probably point to a more abstract principle, probably ending up with "God wishes it", or at least "God wishes people to live in peace". At this high level of abstraction, they have no alternative, no reasoning, no "because". That moral principle just "is", as an absolute.

I agree with you but the OP asked this question:

2. I think that is scientifically or rationally impossible to believe that there is an absolute morality, or even that they can "discover." Where does it going to discover the ethics or morality, if not exist in nature?

Which seems to imply that he does understand that absolutes (in the Objectivist sense) do exist and how to discover them.

[DavidOdden]

Would you mind explaining this more so as not to give the wrong impression? You have the word absolute in quotation marks so I'm not sure how you are using it.

Meaning, "with no reference to context; without any antecedent conditions". I would be happy if the OP understands the contextual nature of morality, but I won't assume he does until I've seen clear proof of that. I think his problem resides in not fully grasping the "if you want to live" antecedent. So I presume that he agrees with us in rejecting Moral Absolutism / deontology, but not that he understands how subjectivism is also false.

[JayR]

An easier way to put it would be to say, in the Objectivist sense, ethical norms are contextual absolutes.

Added on edit: Marc K. mentioned that already in post 7. oops, disregard.

Edited June 8, 2010 by JayR

[Hairnet]

Right, and the explicit context for the Objectivist Ethics is "if you want to live". Also explicit in the Objectivist Ethics is volition, which means that no one is "expected to follow" the principles of Objectivism, only if they choose to.

But given this context I believe that the moral principles of Objectivism are absolutely true, i.e., if you want to live, then you must choose to act a certain way -- rationally.

The fact that all knowledge is contextual doesn't negate the fact that certainty is possible or that contextual absolutes are still absolute. In fact it is a prerequisite of such knowledge.

(This is also the reason "never lie" isn't a virtue according to Objectivist principle but "always be honest", i.e., "never fake reality" is.)

Absolute morality usually means something along the christian/kantian morality, thou shalt not steal, never lie, etc. No context is given, and they would consider it noble if you followed these rules to absurdity.

[Marc K.]

Absolute morality usually means something along the christian/kantian morality, thou shalt not steal, never lie, etc. No context is given, and they would consider it noble if you followed these rules to absurdity.

That's fine, and I understand what DavidOdden was getting at now.

But just to be clear, you understand that the Objectivist Ethics is absolute in the proper sense of the word, right?

[L-C]

Absolute morality usually means something along the christian/kantian morality, thou shalt not steal, never lie, etc. No context is given, and they would consider it noble if you followed these rules to absurdity.

It doesn't stop there...

You shall not kill, if you are not a murderer. You shall not steal, if you are not a thief. You shall not lie, if you are not a politician.

[Hairnet]

That's fine, and I understand what DavidOdden was getting at now.

But just to be clear, you understand that the Objectivist Ethics is absolute in the proper sense of the word, right?

Except during emergencies.

[Marc K.]

Except during emergencies.

Correct, and this is part of the context too. The statement "if you want to live" implies that life is possible.