y_feldblum Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 How, specifically, does Objectivism claim to bridge the is/ought gap? Has the answer to do with ought being a concept of cognition, as opposed to a metaphysical fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielshrugged Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 I don't think that using 'ought' as a concept of cognition is sufficient to ground values in facts. One needs to show, not just that values are not facts, but also that values arise from facts. And yes, read The Virtue of Selfishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 The short answer: Objectivism rejects the "categorical imperative" in favor of the "hypothetical imperative." For instance, rather than "You must eat", "If you wish to acquire nutrition, you must eat." Morality is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: life. So the form of moral principles is ultimately: "If you wish to live, you must x." The specific content is filled out by observations of human nature and its requirements in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Hypothetical imperative. Beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Heh, it actually wasn't, now that I look at it again. I should try to remember to save that terminology for my professors. To put it more clearly: Objectivism rejects acontextual commandments in favor of causal identifications. Life is the end, morality is the means. Life requires specific values, and there are specific virtues which constitute means of achieving those values. So Objectivism says: "If you want to live, you must be rational, be honest, be productive... etc." Now, somebody will respond to this by asking why you ought to want to live -- and whether morality simply doesn't apply to somebody who doesn't accept life as their ultimate end. They'll say: "That's fine, if you're a person whose goal is life. But what if you're not? Can you rape, murder, and plunder?" This question tends to be a pretty explosive can of worms -- lots of Objectivists disagree about the answer. My opinion is that, to give a pretty brief answer, either life is your ultimate goal, or nothing is. Since value depends upon life, if you aren't at least implicitly working toward your own life (however screwed up your conception of how to do so might be), there's nothing to work toward whatsoever. The question then is what a proper life is and how is it to be achieved -- and that's where Objectivism has a lot of answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.