Why does man need ethics?

[ctrl y]

Rand starts her ethics by asking why we need ethics at all. She seems to believe that this question gives us a uniquely egoistic conclusion, since a person who acted at random would die. But I can't see how that question gives us a uniquely egoistic conclusion. A Kantian would say that we need ethics so that we can obey the CI, a utilitarian would say that we need ethics to reach the greatest utility, and so on for every moral code. So, could someone explain to me in what way it is revolutionary or even useful to start ethics with this question?

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[softwareNerd]

How would Kant explain why we should obey the CI?

I see the question as being the way to drill down the causal chain to understand the starting point of Ethics. So, we may end up with "if human life is your standard, follow Objectivism; but, if it is not, don't" and, in addition, we might end up with "if the 'CI' is your standard, follow Kantianism; but, if it not, don't". If one has drilled down asking "why this?", and one reaches a real starting point, then Ethics itself is not going to give you any further answer.

[ctrl y]

Thanks for your response.

How would Kant explain why we should obey the CI?

I think he said we should obey it out of awe.

I see the question as being the way to drill down the causal chain to understand the starting point of Ethics. So, we may end up with "if human life is your standard, follow Objectivism; but, if it is not, don't" and, in addition, we might end up with "if the 'CI' is your standard, follow Kantianism; but, if it not, don't". If one has drilled down asking "why this?", and one reaches a real starting point, then Ethics itself is not going to give you any further answer.

You seem to be saying the procedure goes like this:

(1) I have ends: Desires, goals, ambitions.

(2) For most ends, I can ask, "why do this?" and get a new, more fundamental end. This is drilling.

(3) If I drill an end enough, I eventually reach an end that I don't need to ask "why do this?" about. This is my standard.

(4) I need to construct a code of values to obey my standard. This code is ethics.

That makes sense, if I summarized you correctly. But it makes ethics subjective, since it depends on what people desire. I would also point out that we can't prove that everyone has the same ultimate standard.

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

You seem to be saying the procedure goes like this:

(1) I have ends: Desires, goals, ambitions.

....

That makes sense, if I summarized you correctly. But it makes ethics subjective, since it depends on what people desire

No, the if human life is your standard premise means that you cannot ethically justify that premise by reference to something else. Thus this does not refer to an arbitrary subjective choice. Another way to put that is via assumption -- "Given that human life is your standard". That matter is beyond the scope of ethics.

The argument is that the concept "ethics" or "morality" is only possible if you accept that standard. It is not even possible to give a well-formed definition of "ethics" without presupposing human life as your standard.

[softwareNerd]

But it makes ethics subjective, since it depends on what people desire. I would also point out that we can't prove that everyone has the same ultimate standard.

I think what you're saying is this:

• If life is the standard, then Objectivist Ethics follow
  
• If XYZ is the standard, then something else follows
  

... and that is true.

However, it does not follow that this starting point is arbitrary. It is not about asking "what should the starting point be?" but about asking "what is the starting point?" This is why Rand's explores the nature of values, the nature of living beings, and the nature of man. This is why she spends time in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics" speaking about these topics. Essentially, she is looking for a "naturalistic" standard, and induces that it is life.

Edited February 28, 2010 by softwareNerd

[ctrl y]

No, the if human life is your standard premise means that you cannot ethically justify that premise by reference to something else. Thus this does not refer to an arbitrary subjective choice. Another way to put that is via assumption -- "Given that human life is your standard". That matter is beyond the scope of ethics.

So ethics isn't subjective, because we're bracketing the subjectivity out of ethics. Ethics is basically this thing Objectivists do after deciding they like life as the standard. The subjectivity is there, but the ethicist can ignore it. That makes sense.

The argument is that the concept "ethics" or "morality" is only possible if you accept that standard. It is not even possible to give a well-formed definition of "ethics" without presupposing human life as your standard.

Well, right, but only because you've bracketed ethics thusly. A Kantian could make the same move: Ethics is what people do after they've accepted the CI based on awe.

[ctrl y]

I think what you're saying is this:

• If life is the standard, then Objectivist Ethics follow
  
• If XYZ is the standard, then something else follows
  

Pretty much, yeah.

... and that is true.

However, it does not follow that this starting point is arbitrary. It is not about asking "what should the starting point be?" but about asking "what is the starting point?" This is why Rand's explores the nature of values, the nature of living beings, and the nature of man. This is why she spends time in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics" speaking about these topics. Essentially, she is looking for a "naturalistic" standard, and induces that it is life.

Yeah, but she can't actually prove that. I might have a different standard than you. It's all about how our desires and goals are set up. If Jim's desires and goals turn out to be set up so that Jim's standard is the CI, Jim has a different standard than does Ayn Rand. There's no way for Rand to show that there is nobody like Jim, or at least it would be really hard. So she can't, or at least didn't, prove this premise. This way of approaching ethics makes sense until we say that everybody has this standard, at which point we're making an arbitrary claim.

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

Ethics is what people do after they've accepted the CI based on awe.

If I take that literally, then either the word "accept" doesn't have any independently-verifiable meaning, or else people do not have free will. It is the case that The Haj is a pilgrimage that Muslims do at least once. By analogy to your conclusion, we would decide that by being a Muslim, it is metaphysically given that you will perform the Haj. Clearly that's not the case; nor is it the case that by the act of accepting the CI, a person then involuntarily "does ethics" (and what that means depends on what you think the CI means). Surely you wouldn't believe that. Alternatively, you could adopt the "no true Scotsman" rule and declare that anyone who did not "do ethics" per the CI had not truly accepted the CI. Either conclusion is ludicrous; of course if your argument is that Kantianism makes a non-vacuous / non-circular definition of ethics impossible, that was my point.

Ethics is basically this thing Objectivists do after deciding they like life as the standard.

Nope, not close. Ethics follows from the primary choice, the choice to exist. It's quite a number of steps down the line, and it in particular does not depend on "liking life as the standard". The concept of an ethical standard is logically dependent on the concept "ethics", not the other way around.

[ctrl y]

If I take that literally, then either the word "accept" doesn't have any independently-verifiable meaning, or else people do not have free will. It is the case that The Haj is a pilgrimage that Muslims do at least once. By analogy to your conclusion, we would decide that by being a Muslim, it is metaphysically given that you will perform the Haj. Clearly that's not the case; nor is it the case that by the act of accepting the CI, a person then involuntarily "does ethics" (and what that means depends on what you think the CI means). Surely you wouldn't believe that. Alternatively, you could adopt the "no true Scotsman" rule and declare that anyone who did not "do ethics" per the CI had not truly accepted the CI. Either conclusion is ludicrous; of course if your argument is that Kantianism makes a non-vacuous / non-circular definition of ethics impossible, that was my point.

Ha ha, no, you shouldn't take it that literally. I just meant that they may do ethics using the CI as a standard once they've accepted it.

Nope, not close. Ethics follows from the primary choice, the choice to exist. It's quite a number of steps down the line, and it in particular does not depend on "liking life as the standard". The concept of an ethical standard is logically dependent on the concept "ethics", not the other way around.

But this brings up a point similar to the point I made in the OP. A Kantian could say that the primary choice was to follow the CI or not, a utilitarian that it is to pursue the greatest utility or not, and so on for all moral codes.

EDIT Actually, we could rest the doctrine that the primary choice is the choice to live on the fact that the fundamental alternative is the alternative of existence or nonexistence. But it seems like a utilitarian could also rest the doctrine that the primary choice is the choice to pursue utility on that fact. An argument like, "the fundamental alternative facing a species is existence or nonexistence, and each of its members must choose to either promote its existence or its nonexistence" seems like it would lead to utilitarianism.

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Life as the standard is a factually based standard due to the fact that if you don't do certain things to sustain your life, then you will die or live miserably. Ethics is not a multiple choice between the various ethics out there and which one do you choose to follow. The only ethics that will do you any good as a living being is that one geared towards sustaining your life as a living being. After observing living beings and realizing they do things in order to promote their own life, Miss Rand concluded that this is also a proper standard for man, since he is a living being. Any other ethic will necessarily lead to death and suffering, of not living up to your full potential, because any other ethic turns man's mind against himself -- against his factual nature. So, it is not an issue of having a standard per se, since I would say that every ethics has some sort of standard, but of deciding which standard is appropriate to man factually. What is it about the facts of reality that leads to the necessity of having an ethics (free will) and once he realizes he needs an ethics, how should have go about choosing the standard (reason). Using some arbitrary standard is not sufficient to call it a rational ethics, only if it is factually good for an individual man can he make that claim that this standard is correct, given the facts that can be observed or proven about man's nature.

[ctrl y]

Life as the standard is a factually based standard due to the fact that if you don't do certain things to sustain your life, then you will die or live miserably. Ethics is not a multiple choice between the various ethics out there and which one do you choose to follow. The only ethics that will do you any good as a living being is that one geared towards sustaining your life as a living being. After observing living beings and realizing they do things in order to promote their own life, Miss Rand concluded that this is also a proper standard for man, since he is a living being. Any other ethic will necessarily lead to death and suffering, of not living up to your full potential, because any other ethic turns man's mind against himself -- against his factual nature. So, it is not an issue of having a standard per se, since I would say that every ethics has some sort of standard, but of deciding which standard is appropriate to man factually. What is it about the facts of reality that leads to the necessity of having an ethics (free will) and once he realizes he needs an ethics, how should have go about choosing the standard (reason). Using some arbitrary standard is not sufficient to call it a rational ethics, only if it is factually good for an individual man can he make that claim that this standard is correct, given the facts that can be observed or proven about man's nature.

Aha, so the procedure would go

(1) Ask why we need ethics.

(2) Observe that all living things pursue their survival.

(3) Observe that survival is a need.

(4) Conclude that we need ethics to stay alive.

Well, it makes sense. But I'm confused. Others have said that we get to life as the standard by analyzing our desires and finding that we're really after life. How does that procedure fit in here?

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

I just meant that they may do ethics using the CI as a standard once they've accepted it.

But it's also true that they might not: in other words, there is no relationship between the CI and whether they "do ethics" or not. That's what's missing.

A Kantian could say that the primary choice was to follow the CI or not, a utilitarian that it is to pursue the greatest utility or not, and so on for all moral codes.

EDIT Actually, we could rest the doctrine that the primary choice is the choice to live on the fact that the fundamental alternative is the alternative of existence or nonexistence.

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

But it seems like a utilitarian could also rest the doctrine that the primary choice is the choice to pursue utility on that fact. An argument like, "the fundamental alternative facing a species is existence or nonexistence, and each of its members must choose to either promote its existence or its nonexistence" seems like it would lead to utilitarianism.

That argument fails because of the fact that a species is not a volitional being.

[DavidOdden]

Aha, so the procedure would go

(1) Ask why we need ethics.

(2) Observe that all living things pursue their survival.

(3) Observe that survival is a need.

(4) Conclude that we need ethics to stay alive.

Well, it makes sense. But I'm confused. Others have said that we get to life as the standard by analyzing our desires and finding that we're really after life. How does that procedure fit in here?

I think you're conflating "procedures of discovery" and "logical reduction". The latter applies to developed (but not perfected) philosophical systems. For example, the concept "existence" is logically the fundamental, but it is arrived at by observing various concrete instances.

I have not seen any Objectivist say that we get to life as the standard by analyzing our desires and finding that we're really after life. Maybe the confusion comes from mixing in conversations with other kinds of people.

[ctrl y]

But it's also true that they might not: in other words, there is no relationship between the CI and whether they "do ethics" or not. That's what's missing.

That seems obviously wrong to me. Believing in the Categorical Imperative does, in some sense, make me more likely to do ethics based on the categorical imperative.

Thank you for saving me the trouble.

No problem.

That argument fails because of the fact that a species is not a volitional being.

Okay, but we can talk about the sum of the desires of a species' members pointing to some object, as well as all of their emotions having the same general alignment. Then we could talk about the species as such freely wanting/pursuing/etc some object.

[ctrl y]

I think you're conflating "procedures of discovery" and "logical reduction". The latter applies to developed (but not perfected) philosophical systems. For example, the concept "existence" is logically the fundamental, but it is arrived at by observing various concrete instances.

Okay. So there are two procedures, one of which is applied to nature, and one of which is applied to imperfect philosophical systems.

In the former, we take life as the ultimate standard because we observe natural things taking life as the ultimate standard.

In the latter, we drill down the system's structure of ends until we reach the ultimate end, which must be life. That sounds implausible to me. It seems unlikely that the ultimate end of any imperfect philosophical system must be life. Maybe you were just talking about implicitly Objectivist imperfect philosophical systems, though.

I have not seen any Objectivist say that we get to life as the standard by analyzing our desires and finding that we're really after life. Maybe the confusion comes from mixing in conversations with other kinds of people.

Basically, I'd like to know what was going on here:

I see the question as being the way to drill down the causal chain to understand the starting point of Ethics. So, we may end up with "if human life is your standard, follow Objectivism; but, if it is not, don't" and, in addition, we might end up with "if the 'CI' is your standard, follow Kantianism; but, if it not, don't". If one has drilled down asking "why this?", and one reaches a real starting point, then Ethics itself is not going to give you any further answer.

~softwardNerd

[Zip]

It's pretty obvious that all beings choose to live regardless of their philosophy. The question is what they choose to live for.

The Kantian chooses to live his life for the CI, but in doing so he still must live, until he reaches the point (if he does) that his death serves the CI more than his living for it.

The Objectivist lives for himself always.

What the living is for is the moral choice.

[DavidOdden]

That seems obviously wrong to me. Believing in the Categorical Imperative does, in some sense, make me more likely to do ethics based on the categorical imperative.

Why? Is this just a statistical observation about human behavior, that you've observed CI believers and non-CI believers

Okay, but we can talk about the sum of the desires of a species' members pointing to some object, as well as all of their emotions having the same general alignment.

No, you can't talk about it, not if you want to talk sensibly. Suppose there was only one object in question and you wanted to know if "the species as a whole" wanted that object. Then you could ask each member to say how strongly they want the object on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the highest possible. You'd get a mean, and then what would you have? Nothing meaningful, given how badly people perform on these kinds of tests.

If you could pose the question "Which one of X or Y would you prefer if you are required to accept exactly one of these", then you could get a majority vote, but that is not an indication of a desire of the species, it is an indication of the majority of (expressed) desires of the individuals of the species who responded.

In other words, I can't figure out what "sum of desires" could refer to. Numbers can be summed.

[ctrl y]

Why? Is this just a statistical observation about human behavior, that you've observed CI believers and non-CI believers

No, I mean that a person is going to be more strongly inclined to build his ethics on the CI if he accepts the CI.

No, you can't talk about it, not if you want to talk sensibly. Suppose there was only one object in question and you wanted to know if "the species as a whole" wanted that object. Then you could ask each member to say how strongly they want the object on a scale of 0 to 10 with 10 being the highest possible. You'd get a mean, and then what would you have? Nothing meaningful, given how badly people perform on these kinds of tests.

If you could pose the question "Which one of X or Y would you prefer if you are required to accept exactly one of these", then you could get a majority vote, but that is not an indication of a desire of the species, it is an indication of the majority of (expressed) desires of the individuals of the species who responded.

In other words, I can't figure out what "sum of desires" could refer to. Numbers can be summed.

Okay, suppose you want a cookie. Your wanting the cookie creates a pattern of emotional commitments. You are committed to feel happy if you get the cookie, sad if you don't get the cookie, angry if the cookie is just out of your reach, and so on. If several people have the same pattern of emotional commitments, we can talk about them wanting/acting/feeling as a group.

As far as testing that goes, you could observe that the people in the group seem to have the same set of emotional commitments, or, more rigorously, you could give them surveys asking how they would feel given various outcomes. Even more rigorously, you could actually produce various outcomes and ask how they feel at the moment.

Edited February 28, 2010 by ctrl y

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Even more rigorously, you could actually produce various outcomes and ask how they feel at the moment.

Sure, you could do that, but it would be meaningless in the context of ethics because emotions are not tools of cognition. Man's emotions are not automatically geared towards his survival; the closest thing man has to some automatically geared towards survival mechanism is his pleasure / pain mechanism with the body -- that if you feel a pain in your body then something is probably wrong with it. But even this is not infallible, because getting a shot of some anti-biotic will cause you pain (getting a shot hurts) but with cognition one realizes that this pain is necessary to endure so that one can get the medication.

Because man has no automatic means of survival, no automatic guide as to what to do to live his life fully, he needs to have cognitive knowledge of what he ought to do to live his life. This cognitive knowledge -- not his emotional reaction to things -- is the root of an ethics. And to be cognitive, it must be based upon the facts in a rational manner (non-contradictory to the fact that he is alive and must do certain things in order to remain alive). A faulty ethics will turn a man's consciousness against himself, but Objectivism doesn't do this because it takes man's factual life as the standard.

So, we need an ethics because we don't have any automatic knowledge of what is good for us and what is bad for us -- and this is clear if you look at what people do and how often their ethics is against their life. If such knowledge was automatic, like it is for animals,then everyone would automatically be doing those things which would sustain their lives. Man has to use his mind in order to come up with an overall guide as to what to do in given situations, and this can only be done cognitively for man. That's why we need an ethics.

[Grames]

Basically, I'd like to know what was going on here:

I see the question as being the way to drill down the causal chain to understand the starting point of Ethics. So, we may end up with "if human life is your standard, follow Objectivism; but, if it is not, don't" and, in addition, we might end up with "if the 'CI' is your standard, follow Kantianism; but, if it not, don't". If one has drilled down asking "why this?", and one reaches a real starting point, then Ethics itself is not going to give you any further answer.

~softwardNerd

That is not an analysis of desires, and especially not an analysis based on accepting certain desires as unanalyzable primaries (intuitions) to be the given premises of the argument. It is an analysis of what are the facts. Learning how to do that properly is studying epistemology. There could not be an Objectivist (or any other school) ethicist whose career begins with and consists entirely of studying ethics, whatever he does employs some method of definition and analysis. Ethical reasoning requires knowledge of how to reason.

[ctrl y]

That is not an analysis of desires, and especially not an analysis based on accepting certain desires as unanalyzable primaries (intuitions) to be the given premises of the argument. It is an analysis of what are the facts. Learning how to do that properly is studying epistemology. There could not be an Objectivist (or any other school) ethicist whose career begins with and consists entirely of studying ethics, whatever he does employs some method of definition and analysis. Ethical reasoning requires knowledge of how to reason.

I don't understand your reply. It is not obvious to me that softwardNerd's post was about epistemology. It is not obvious to me that the process of drilling he referred to had nothing to do with desires, or with ethics. Could you explain your position a little more?

[Grames]

I don't understand your reply. It is not obvious to me that softwardNerd's post was about epistemology. It is not obvious to me that the process of drilling he referred to had nothing to do with desires, or with ethics. Could you explain your position a little more?

I am taken aback at how the summarizing statement "Ethical reasoning requires knowledge of how to reason." could be not understood. Not knowing where else to begin, I'll just respond to the literal questions you asked.

"It is not obvious to me..." Why should it be obvious? Are you employing some expectation of obviousness as a standard of truth? Not everything which is true is obvious. Knowing how to reason is not obvious. The process of drilling is reasoning, the subject matter being reasoned about is ethics. Prior epistemological conclusions are being applied.

The second question is about desires or ethics, as if those were the same kind of thing. What is the subject matter of ethics? Ethics is about action, it is the answer to the question "what should man do?" Since behavior is under willful control, the question of ethics has an equivalent in "what should man want to do?" Assuming that any particular desire is valid or good begs the question of ethics. Ethics must address and inform the issue of desires, but it cannot be founded upon them.

[ctrl y]

I am taken aback at how the summarizing statement "Ethical reasoning requires knowledge of how to reason." could be not understood. Not knowing where else to begin, I'll just respond to the literal questions you asked.

I understood most of your post. I didn't understand how it related to softwareNerd's post and to the earlier discussion.

"It is not obvious to me..." Why should it be obvious? Are you employing some expectation of obviousness as a standard of truth? Not everything which is true is obvious.

Okay.

Knowing how to reason is not obvious. The process of drilling is reasoning, the subject matter being reasoned about is ethics. Prior epistemological conclusions are being applied.

Maybe.

The second question is about desires or ethics, as if those were the same kind of thing. What is the subject matter of ethics? Ethics is about action, it is the answer to the question "what should man do?" Since behavior is under willful control, the question of ethics has an equivalent in "what should man want to do?" Assuming that any particular desire is valid or good begs the question of ethics. Ethics must address and inform the issue of desires, but it cannot be founded upon them.

What you're saying here makes sense, but I was not implying that desires and ethics were the same kind of thing.

[Grames]

Maybe.

Why only maybe?

[DavidOdden]

No, I mean that a person is going to be more strongly inclined to build his ethics on the CI if he accepts the CI.

You didn't answer the core of the question, which was why acceptance of the CI would have a correlation to a particular pattern of behavior. With Objectivism, there's a clear logical relationship between the axioms of existence and identity plus the primary choice on the one hand, and the derivation from ethical principle and actual action. This connection simply cannot be made in a deontological philosophy that says "We arbitrarily claim allegiance to the CI". Kantian imperatives are not imperative, they still must be chosen, and choosing to follow them is irrational in that they are completely arbitrary. (If I say as a categorical imperative "It is an imperative that you liquidate all your assets and send them to me", would you do it?)