Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mike82ARP

Reason and moral code

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I was watching an ARI YouTube video on “Reason vs Faith”. Dr Ghate made the comment, "we want man to live by reason alone”.

How does one develop a moral code based on “reason alone” without integrating other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness which would negate “reason alone”?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching an ARI YouTube video on “Reason vs Faith”. Dr Ghate made the comment, "we want man to live by reason alone”.

How does one develop a moral code based on “reason alone” without integrating other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness which would negate “reason alone”?

Thanks.

That's simple. One has to observe reality and to think. By doing so one identifies the source of value which pertains to reality , the standard of value and develops a moral code, that is-code of values which is compatible with the nature of man.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's simple. One has to observe reality and to think. By doing so one identifies the source of value which pertains to reality , the standard of value and develops a moral code, that is-code of values which is compatible with the nature of man.

OK, but whose reality? The individual’s, the culture’s, the society’s? Isn’t the rest simply subjective relativism since it is the individual doing the observing, thinking, developing and reasonong? Therefore, the individual, using reason, may develop his own moral code.

BTW, I am not a post-modernist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many objectively demonstratable realities are there?

I’m not sure I understand this question. Are you saying that all realities are objectively (as opposed to subjectively) demonstrable? Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure I understand this question. Are you saying that all realities are objectively (as opposed to subjectively) demonstrable? Please explain.

I would say the reality is objectively (as opposed to subjectively) demonstrable. Reason is man's means of deriving this. Other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness are not examples of negating reason, rather they are the product of trying to use something other than reason as the basis of their derivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the reality is objectively (as opposed to subjectively) demonstrable. Reason is man's means of deriving this. Other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness are not examples of negating reason, rather they are the product of trying to use something other than reason as the basis of their derivations.

If I am reading you correctly, then objective reality might be something like, “red is red” or "hot is hot”. My next question then: Is everything objectively demonstrable? It would seen that if it were, then there should be no dispute and reason would not be necessary. Does that make sense? Or is “reason" the process of assembling undisputed objective realities into a larger construct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching an ARI YouTube video on “Reason vs Faith”. Dr Ghate made the comment, "we want man to live by reason alone”.

How does one develop a moral code based on “reason alone” without integrating other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness which would negate “reason alone”?

Thanks.

Its so hard to answer this without leaving stuff out. So I am just going to say that the following is not anywhere near a complete picture of Objectivism.

I would say that the objectivist concept of principles is what divides Objectivism from pretty much any other ethical system. You are supposed to live your life by integrating your experiences into ideas and acting on your knowledge.This means we think perception and induction are valid means of discovery.

The big picture for objectivist ethics is purpose, a long term life sustaining (and hopefully life enhancing) goal. The day-to-day revolves around learning principles and how to apply them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching an ARI YouTube video on “Reason vs Faith”. Dr Ghate made the comment, "we want man to live by reason alone”.

How does one develop a moral code based on “reason alone” without integrating other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness which would negate “reason alone”?

Thanks.

You don't. First, you need to develop a method by which you asses reality. And even before that, you need to acknowledge the existence of reality. Then, you can apply your method to formulate some principles for men to adhere to, if they wish to live and prosper (in the real world, which is where we all live).

As for the specifics of how all that was done by Ayn Rand, your best starting point is a book called Objecitivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, written by Leonard Peikoff. Then, to further your understanding, you can read Ayn Rand's early works, her journals, etc. Then you can follow up by studying the life and work of the people she mentions influenced her (as well as various philosophers you yourself determine she must've been influenced by). If you do all that, you will have your answer on how an Ethics based on nothing but reason can come about.

On the other hand, if you're only interested in the results of that life-long process, Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness sums up Objectivist Ethics.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am reading you correctly, then objective reality might be something like, “red is red” or "hot is hot”. My next question then: Is everything objectively demonstrable? It would seen that if it were, then there should be no dispute and reason would not be necessary. Does that make sense? Or is “reason" the process of assembling undisputed objective realities into a larger construct?

While a thing is what it is, you would need to go deeper than "red is red" or "hot is hot". The referent of what is red, or what is hot demonstrates what in reality to what you are referring to that is red or that is hot. It might seem on the surface that if it were this simple, there should be no dispute, but your observation should tell you that there is plenty of dispute, not so much about stuff like pencils, podiums, chairs, tables, hammers and nails, but as you try to identify things other than the stuff you can point to and say "By this (pencil), I mean that (pointing to a pencil)".

To take your last construct - reason is the process - an identification of the steps required - to move from the undisputed identifications of things such as hammers and nails, to broader abstractions that do not have a simple entity to which you can point to as you refer to what you are conceptualizing, such as what we are discussing here, epistemology, the science of understanding how we know what we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but whose reality? The individual’s, the culture’s, the society’s?

Mike you seem to have the wrong concept of "reality". Ayn Rand once said something like "There is only one reality. Not two, nor four, nor ten".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×