Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?

Rate this topic


tjfields

Recommended Posts

dream_weaver,

 

I agree with everything that you wrote in post #13. I agree that man must think to remain alive and that man's mind is his basic tool of survival.

 

But this did not explain how morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality.

 

 

True enough. By itself, it does not explain how morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality. Neither is a house built with one brick or 2 x 4.

 

She goes on to say:

 

But to think is an act of choice.

- Again, turning to introspection, examine the act of thinking. Examine what is required to examine the act of thinking.

 

The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness.

- Again, presenting a conclusion, in the form of another fact, to be developed.

 

Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct.

- This concurs with the act of introspection performed earlier.

 

The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not.

- This gives you additional material to contrast it with.

 

In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort.

- It is an on-going process.

 

But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'

- She wraps this up by indicating how this adds to the previous paragraph.

 

Again, this is not the entire case - she is pouring the foundation, if you will - laying down a solid footing to build upon.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... then you have confirmed my argument that morality is not objectively derived from the facts of reality and is subjective.

 

To understand what Rand means by "objective knowledge" you must understand the historical philosophical position(s) that she was challenging.

 

She was fairly unique in that she showed how an individual, human brain can derive objective knowledge from the data of it's senses.  This is an extremely radical position in philosophy.  It also does not imply that an individual man's knowledge is omniscient or infallible.  It is perfectly possible for an individual man to OBJECTIVELY REACH A CONCLUSION that he later determines to be FALSE.  Note that I said "an individual man" and not "man" --  It's important to grasp this distinction.  Two individuals can reach different conclusions on a topic and both be objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #27 you wrote, "It is perfectly possible for an individual man to OBJECTIVELY REACH A CONCLUSION that he later determines to be FALSE. Note that I said "an individual man" and not "man" -- It's important to grasp this distinction. Two individuals can reach different conclusions on a topic and both be objective."

 

So when it comes to morality, if two different individual men come to different conclusions about a topic, one concludes that it is moral and the other concludes that it is immoral, is the topic moral or immoral?

 

Back to the cliff example from the original post. Two different individuals can reach different conclusions about the consequences of falling from the cliff. However, it does not matter what conclusion (objective or not) the individual reaches, the consequences, and therefore the moral determination, remain the same.

 

Now consider the act of killing a man from the original post. If one individual reaches the conclusion that the act was done in self defense and hence moral and the other individual reaches the conclusion that the act was murder and hence immoral, is the act moral or immoral? Unlike falling from the cliff, the consequences of the act of killing a man, and therefore the moral determination of the act of killing a man, will be different depending on the conclusion the individual, or group of individuals, reaches. It is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Unlike falling from the cliff, the consequences of the act of killing a man, and therefore the moral determination of the act of killing a man, will be different depending on the conclusion the individual, or group of individuals, reaches. It is subjective.

 

It does not matter what a "group" thinks.  It only matters what you think.  If you are in a group of 12 people, and 11 take a position different from yours -- does that make you wrong and the group right????

 

Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism.  Individualism doesn't mean dressing different from others or liking a type of music that your parents or the "cool kids" don't.  Individualism means that it is existentially impossible for you to think for another person or have another person (or persons) think for you.  You are cosmologically trapped  in your own mind.  What others think, do and say is nothing more than sensory data that you must observe and process to determine whether it is true or not.

 

If I'm standing in front of a tree, and you are standing next to me, and I say, "That is a tree."  You might respond, "what tree? I don't see any tree, you are imagining things."  We'll how am I to reply to that?  Beat you up until you "agree" with me?  Or am I to doubt the evidence of my senses and defer to you?

 

You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #32 you wrote, "You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate."

 

Based on this post and the other posts that you made, it appears that you are making the argument that morality is subjective. Are you agreeing with the premise in the original post that morality is not derived from the facts of reality and is subjective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior.

- Observe what you and others do. Does everyone behave the same? Again, self-evident; look and see.

 

He needs a code of values to guide his actions.

- Again, this is a sub-conclusion, the premises and observations will be developed over the course of the next few paragraphs.

 

'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it.


- To ensure everyone is on the same page in the manner of using the term 'value'.

Look out at the world. Do you observe people acting to gain anything or keep anything? Consider the motivation of your actions. Are any of your actions geared to acquire or retain anything? Two kids tousling for a toy, people filling shopping carts in a grocery store, to the more elaborate less obvious acquisitions of an automobiles or houses.

 

'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?

- Note, a clarification or refinement to the concept of 'value'. It serves as a relationship, to an individual and for a purpose.

 

'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative.

- A further refinement. Depending on what is desired, different specific actions are required. Depending on what? The alternatives of what can be acquired.

 

Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

- This summarizes the paragraph.

 

While it is not explicitly mentioned in this paragraph, can you see how the requirement of some level of thought is required here?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

 

 

In post #32 you wrote, "You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate."

 

 

 

Based on this post and the other posts that you made, it appears that you are making the argument that morality is subjective. Are you agreeing with the premise in the original post that morality is not derived from the facts of reality and is subjective?

 

I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective.  You must understand that you are confusing "subjectivity" with "certainty".  It is not: subjectivity = uncertainty vs. objectivity = certainty.

 

Objectivism says that a single, individual man can gain objective knowledge from the evidence of his senses.  Subjectivism (and there are many schools of thought and variations) state that knowledge is either a priori, social, class-based, instinctual, fallible, rationalized, categorical, analytic/synthetic, etc. - in other words NOT derived from the evidence of the senses and thus, not objective.

 

Objectivism does not guarantee certainty, or that all rational men will agree on all things.  It just states that you, as an individual, can trust the evidence of your senses, and gain knowledge of the world in which you live.  This is, historically, an extremely radical idea in philosophy.

 

However, many who are new to Objectivsm, or who do not understand it well, tend to think that Objectivism guarantees that all rational men will agree on all things - and that if there is a disagreement, then someone is being irrational.  This is what both turns people on-to and off-of Objectivsm.  But this is not what Objectivism is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #36 you wrote, "I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective. You must understand that you are confusing "subjectivity" with "certainty"."

 

I have never stated that knowledge is subjective. Nor have I ever claimed that men, rational or not, will agree on all things. I agree with you that an individual can gain knowledge of the world.

 

But this does not address the issue raised in the original post. Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?

 

In post #28, I asked you, "So when it comes to morality, if two different individual men come to different conclusions about a topic, one concludes that it is moral and the other concludes that it is immoral, is the topic moral or immoral?" Can you answer this question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #36 you wrote, "I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective. You must understand that you are confusing "subjectivity" with "certainty"."

 

I have never stated that knowledge is subjective. Nor have I ever claimed that men, rational or not, will agree on all things. I agree with you that an individual can gain knowledge of the world.

 

But this does not address the issue raised in the original post. Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?

 

In post #28, I asked you, "So when it comes to morality, if two different individual men come to different conclusions about a topic, one concludes that it is moral and the other concludes that it is immoral, is the topic moral or immoral?" Can you answer this question?

 

 

It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other.  Each individual must decide for himself.  What other option is there?  God?  Or does might make right?

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #39 you wrote, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself. What other option is there? God? Or does might make right?"

 

So if I understand you, you are claiming that an individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral and another individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral, and even if these two individuals come to different conclusions, one concludes moral the other concludes immoral, they are both correct. Is this your position? Is this your perception of the Objectivist concept of morality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms.

- Look around you. Does this resonate with what you observe?

 

The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action.

- Contrast the activity of rocks, dirt, water, planets, etc., with plants, animals and people. Can you note the similarities and/or differences between these two classes?

 

Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist.

- Do you agree with this fact?

 

It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death.

- Do you agree with this fact?

 

Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action.

- Do you agree with this fact?

 

If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.

- Do you agree with this fact?

 

It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible.

- If so, putting the material covered this far will have your concurrence to this point.

 

It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

- Consider rephrasing this as: It is only to a living entity that things can be of value or disvalue.

 

How are we doing so far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions.

- Here, she provides a concrete example of the earlier claim of "Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action."

 

But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

- If a plant's root strikes a rock, the root changes direction. A plant's leaves grow toward the sunshine. If the conditions a plant is in cannot sustain its life, the plant dies. A plant's does not choose, it simply functions while conditions are sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dream_weaver,

 

You may be as persnickety as you like and I reserve the right to do the same. I find the facts as presented so far self-evident. Please continue. Since I have read the work you are quoting from, as I implied in the original post, feel free to make your posts longer so as to save time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

 

 

In post #39 you wrote, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself. What other option is there? God? Or does might make right?"

 

 

 

So if I understand you, you are claiming that an individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral and another individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral, and even if these two individuals come to different conclusions, one concludes moral the other concludes immoral, they are both correct. Is this your position? Is this your perception of the Objectivist concept of morality?

 

They are both correct?  In who's eyes?  Yours?  Mine? Ayn Rand's? Leonard Peikoff's?  Dreamweaver?  Or the Big Book of Objectivist Answers?

 

In the mind of each individual, each believes himself to be correct.  Do you dispute this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha,

 

In post #48 you wrote, "In the mind of each individual, each believes himself to be correct. Do you dispute this?"

 

I do not dispute this. I think that morality is subjective.

 

However, in post #36 you wrote, "I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective." Then in post #39 you wrote, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself."

 

You wrote that you are not saying that morality is subjective in one post, and then you write that each individual decides what is moral for himself in another post. I do not understand how it can be that morality is not subjective yet each individual decides what is moral for his or her self. Can you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil.

- There was a clip shown a while back that had a hundred sea turtles emerging from under the sand where the eggs were deposited and headed straight for the sea.

Other animals may require nursing or food deposited into open mouths till they grow to the point where they find food for themselves.

 

It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it.

- From bacteria to insects and mollusks, from the Kitti's hog-nosed bat to the Blue Whale, the observations are of animals adapting to the conditions they find themselves within.

 

In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies.

- We don't observe animals building climate controlled shelters to escape extreme hot or cold conditions. We don't observe animals manufacturing medicines to ward off sickness or even clothing to fend off the cold. In general, animals are found in climates they are acclimated to.

 

But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

- She sum's the paragraph up here.

 

Given your basic agreement with what Rand wrote, lets test this against the other objection you raise. In what has been parsed so far, and deemed to be self-evident, do you find anything to be subjective up to this point?

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...