Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Closed Objectivism" and Human Nature

Rate this topic


rdenoncourt

Recommended Posts

Before you read what I am about to say, understand that when I say "Closed Objectivism," I am using a completely original term used to describe a drastically modified version of (lowercase o) objectivism as it is discussed by philosophers such as Boyd and Mackie. This is not Randian Objectivism, although there are similarities.

I am posting this abstract (the full paper is attached as well) because I am curious as to what people think of my ideas. This is a completely original idea and does not draw on the works of Ayn Rand, although I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and We the Living, and consider myself an Objectivist in the fullest sense. I am a junior at Colgate University and I wrote this paper for a class on Contemporary Moral Theory. "Closed Objectivism" is the idea that there exist objective moral properties outside of humans but not outside of humanity. Therefore, there is right and wrong, and ethics is not purely subjective. However, the moral properties exist because of human nature, not outside of it.

Read the abstract first. If you like it and feel like reading something more challenging, try the final version of the paper. Let me know what you think. Better yet, let me know how "Closed Objectivism" fits with Rand's Objectivism (the latter of which I hold supreme).

-------------------------------

Closed Objectivism and the Playground of Moral Properties

In this paper, I will propose a strategy for understanding moral properties as objective in the sense that they exist in a reality “colored” by human understanding, which I will use to refer to the collective understanding that humans use to understand their own unique selves and perceive their own individual stances on reality. While this view might seem projectivist, it does not succumb to relativist interpretations (i.e. one that would allows for a variety of projections upon reality) because moral properties are to be understood in light of one singular human understanding, rather than those of different cultures, groups, or individuals. This faculty of understanding reality is “closed” in that humans must necessarily use it to understand reality. There is no going outside of human understanding and any attempts to understand reality outside of this faculty would be impossible without reason, the defining characteristic of said faculty. Since this “closed” human understanding forms the background for all human thought and perception and is embedded within an unchanging human nature that has its own inescapable laws and norms, moral properties (such as values) must be objective.

One way to visualize how it is likely that moral properties have existed since the beginning of man and have influenced behavior is to look at the color red. Ancient man probably saw the color red much like we do today. Although he didn’t know how the eye worked to pick up light waves (at least on a biological level) and did not know that red was really just a portion of the light spectrum reflecting off of the object while other light waves were being absorbed, he did know that there were red berries and blueberries. This kind of discrimination probably helped him to learn which berries were for eating and which were poisonous. I argue that the same can be said about moral properties and that this is why human civilizations have consistently agreed on certain fundamentals of philosophical thought (i.e. that there is a difference between something being good and something being bad; that having a loved one suddenly die is bad and that achieving a goal is good). The faculty of human understanding may not give us what we need to know what these moral properties are or what they are composed of (just as ancient man did not know what the color red really consisted of or resulted from), but it has allowed us to interact with different moral properties to create moral norms that are fruitful. While it may be argued that there have been individuals and even cultures that have defied these norms, I claim that objective moral properties must exist (through the “lens” of human understanding) in order for the aforementioned ideas to persist throughout history and for philosophical debates concerning such fundamentals to exist.

I call my view “Closed Objectivism” because it is based on the idea that a moral property can be called objective even though such a property can only be “moralized” through Human Understanding. This may seem like a subjectivist view since I agree with Mackie that there do not exist moral properties outside of humans that are embedded in the universe. The reason I can agree with Mackie and still call certain moral properties objective is because I am pioneering a new way of considering what is objective based on what I understand of Human Nature. I base my claims on the idea (which I can confidently say is right as Deism has not been proved) that humans created morality (and not God, Martians, animals, or spirits) and that this morality has always been and can only be understood through the faculty of Human Understanding that created it. This faculty is “closed” (thus I get “Closed” Objectivism) because Human Understanding (and reality) cannot be understood without a dependence on Human Understanding. This circular reasoning is important because if Human Understanding cannot be escaped (except through non-existence) and there are properties that have been consistent throughout human history (such as the value of reproduction), we can safely say that through Human Understanding (since there is nothing else that we use to comprehend reality) certain properties are objective, namely moral properties.

Closed Objectivism claims that there are no objective moral properties that exist in the fabric of the universe. Such properties only come into existence through a shared Human Understanding, which all humans are subject to and depend on in order to understand reality, themselves, and morality. Unlike conventional subjectivism, these properties are objective in the sense that they exist outside of human beings, even if they do not exist outside of Human Understanding. Since individual humans and cultural groups cannot go outside of Human Understanding or change the fundamental world view that all humans share (which includes an interaction with set moral properties), it is necessary to admit the existence of these moral properties as being objective and unchanging. Such a view does away with any sort of nihilism or claim that morality is meaningless and arbitrary. Closed Objectivism allows for a fortified system of ethics that involves observing moral trends that have been consistent across time and culture and attempts to isolate fruitful interactions with moral properties, even if we cannot know individually what these properties are or what they are composed of. While many questions remain as to the nature of moral properties themselves, we must also admit that Human Nature and Human Understanding have yet to be perfectly understood and defined. Closed Objectivism offers a working framework that allows us to begin understanding the nature of morality as we continue to understand our nature and ourselves.

Closed_Objectivism_FINAL_PAPER.doc

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...