Fundamental Contradiction

[libGommi]

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy. Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature.

If this principal applies to the entire Universe, let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

[hunterrose]

If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others.

Not necessarily.

[DavidOdden]

If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms...

Necessarily not. Morality is only for volitional beings.

[Capitalism Forever]

The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'.

If the fired employee is any good, he will soon find another job. If he is no good, then that is the negative thing, and you cannot blame that on his former employer. (And if he is good but still can't find a job, you can blame that on the statist politicians destroying the economy.)

[Lathanar]

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy. Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature.

If this principal applies to the entire Universe, let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

You skipped the first page of the essay

What is morality or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions

(emphasis mine)

In your firing example, you're ignoring the fact that a job is a contract entered into between an employer and an employee with the understanding that termination can and will happen at some point. If the person being fired doesn't have savings or such to last them till they find a new job, that's not the employers fault.

[Sherry]

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy. Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature.

If this principal applies to the entire Universe, let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

So how much of Rand's works have you actually read? I find that those that feel they have discovered a contradiction are usually those that have read maybe a couple of essays and perhaps skimmed a few critiques of the philosophy. That's why I ask.

[aequalsa]

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy. Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature.

If this principal applies to the entire Universe, let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

With regard to the example of the fired employee, you lack some context. The ethics are not properly described as "life is the standard of value"...the correct essentialization is that "your life is the standard of value for you" This should help you resolve the contradiction.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I have discovered a fundamental contradiction in the Objectivist view of ethics, and thus a flaw in the basis of the philosophy.

The ethics is not the base of the philosophy, the base is the metaphysics and epistemology. You are not off to a good start.

Ayn Rands states that: "An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 17)". What this implies is that anything which is truly beneficial to an individual, sustaining and advancing their life, is morally good by nature.

If this principal applies to the entire Universe,

It doesn't. it only applies to living beings...

let us examine it in the context of animals as an example. One creature kills another for sustenance, being a necessary process among organisms. While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms,

there isn't, ethics only pertain to one particular organism...

than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

This occurrence is more interesting and complex with humans. Let's presume that an employer fires his employees so as to increase profits, which sustains the empployer's life by allowing the company to exist and be successful in the market. The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'. Here, a large contradiction appears, and Ayn Rand states that no rational philosophies can contain contradictions.

There isn't a contradiction. Being a bad employee and keeping your job would be a bad thing for both employer and employee.

Edited July 10, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[ian]

While one creature surely benefits, the other's life ends. If there is only one objective set of ethics which applies to all organisms, than something which benefits one organism must have the same effect on all others. This of course is not the reality.

Objective is not the same as absolute. A thing can be objectively good from one entity's perspective and objectively bad from anothers at the same time. Objective means you start with the facts of reality and proceed logically.

[libGommi]

Objective is not the same as absolute. A thing can be objectively good from one entity's perspective and objectively bad from anothers at the same time. Objective means you start with the facts of reality and proceed logically.

Well, if you're now mentioning the existence and significance different perspectives, you have just contradicted the meaning of objectivism. The fact that there are different perspectives makes reality subjective to an individual's interpretation.

Objectivism is absolute, because "A is A", and as you have clearly stated, reality is not absolute. Thus, reality cannot be objective. Do you see logical inconsistency of Objectivism?

[LaszloWalrus]

You're falling into the instrinsic/subjective fallacy. An ocean is a good environment from a fish's perspective; it is a bad environment from a horse's perspective. This does not indicate that reality is not absolute.

[FeatherFall]

LibGommi, Objectivism recognizes absolutes. Objectivity is an orientation to reality that conceptual beings are capable of. Because conceptual beings are volitional beings, they will not always be objective. You have identified no contradiction, perhaps because you do not know the meaning of objective, let alone Objectivism.

I think the goal that brought you here would be more appropriately accomplished in the debate sub-forum.

[JMeganSnow]

A thing can be objectively good from one entity's perspective and objectively bad from anothers at the same time. Objective means you start with the facts of reality and proceed logically.

Things are not in and of themselves good or bad from any perspective; this is not a matter of "perspective", but of purpose. You mean, a thing can be good for one entity's purpose but not for another entity's purpose. It could even be good and bad for a single entity for different purposes: water is good for a man to drink, but bad for him to breathe.

[ggdwill]

libGommi,

I think both of the points that you made have been properly refuted in previous posts, however I don't think that they were refuted all that well.

Firstly, as someone has already said, morality is not a universal trait that applies to all creatures. A moral action, by definition, has to be the result of a choice made in the face of an alternative. If a situation arises where there is only one course of action, or where the actor is incapable of exercising choice and merely acting as a result of physical conditions or instinct, the resulting action cannot be properly thought of as moral nor immoral. It simply is the way it is because there was no other alternative. Since animals, physiologically are incapable of exercising choice, and act merely in response to inborn "knowledge" as well as impulse, your example of one animal eating another has nothing to do with morality. Simply because the concepts of good and bad are not universally applicable to all things, does make them a matter of subjective preference. It should be fairly obvious that these concepts describe relationships - the context in which they're thought of. As has been mentioned, a particular thing can be good for one entity but bad for another. This describes two independent, objectively existing relationships that are considered good or bad based upon the identity of the thing and how it' behaves in relations to the indentities of each of the entities individually.

Secondly, I believe that your example of the employee being fired, while thoughtful, is flawed aswell. Again, as someone has already said, the decision to keep a bad employee is good neither for the employee himself nor for his employer. The flaws in this employee's character or his incompetence will gradually degrade, if not immediately disrupt, the quality of the business' product or service - lowering the standard of living for both accordingly. Furthermore, I think it should be pointed out that even if the employer fires the employee, despite what he might think, this is not a good situation for him either. A successful business operates on the longest time frame possible to it and if it's managers are constantly having to hire, train, fire, and rehire a steady stream of employees, their business time frame will be shortened - preventing the quality of their product or service to improve over time and exposing them to competition which can put them out of business.

Conversely, even if it were true that that employee was initially hired in error, and upon further review it was determined that he was unessential the success of the business and was released, this would benefit both parties aswell. Obviously, as you pointed out, it would benefit the employer by lowering his costs and increasing his profits, but it would also benefit the employee - albeit less directly. Once he was let go, his former employer would be better able to produce its product and bring it to market at a cheaper price for him to consume; benefiting his personal finances. Also, it would present him with an opportunity to develop a truly valuable skill that he could sell to a new employer and begin producing something of the highest quality possible in the most efficient manner possible - lesseing his risk of being deemed nonessetial a second time.

- Grant

Edited July 14, 2006 by ggdwill

[ian]

Well, if you're now mentioning the existence and significance different perspectives, you have just contradicted the meaning of objectivism. The fact that there are different perspectives makes reality subjective to an individual's interpretation.

You see a contradiction because you are coming from a different model of consciousness than I am. In your model, consciousness is like a mirror that reflects reality. When it does so accurately, it is objective; when the image is tainted by the observer, it is subjective. This is the mainstream view.

In Objectivism, we hold that there is no mirror. The job of consciousness is to grasp reality, not reflect it. What it grasps is reality as processed by your individual brain and nervous system, but that does not make it a subjective reality. It is all the one reality (everything that exists), you are just seeing a different part of it. The terms "subjective" and "objective" therefore only apply to conceptual thought processes (when you are trying to work something out), where you can choose to stick to the facts or not.

So, back to the ethics, as others have been saying the same fact can be evaluated differently by a different entity, or even by the same entity at a different time.

[bell jar]

An organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil

If ethics can only be applied to humans, why Ayn Rand wrote this?

[Maarten]

Because only humans need a code of morality; animals still have a standard of value, but because they act automatically towards it there is no need to find out what they should do.

[mrocktor]

If ethics can only be applied to humans, why Ayn Rand wrote this?

Ethics apply to rational volitional beings. Beings that can make choices, and can understand the consequences of those choices. If there are other intelligent life forms out in space somewhere, ethics applies to them as well.

mrocktor

[Free Capitalist]

The effect this may have on the fired employee can be very negative, resulting in poverty, depression and insecurities, and is thus by the objectivist perspective ethically 'evil'.

There is no contradiction here, because it is not an evil, morally. Perhaps you could post a reference from the Objectivist corpus to corroborate your argument.