Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tjfields

Regulars
  • Posts

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tjfields

  1. To All, I believe that I have learned that that I wanted to learn. In regards to the original post, I have learned that if one uses the Objectivist definition of 'objective', then Objectivism is objective. Thanks to everyone who posted, I appreciate your comments.
  2. StrictlyLogical; I have never claimed that there is an intrinsic or mystical morality which is a property of reality or super-reality (the supernatural) and imposes real or supernatural duties upon man, nor do I think that there is one. I do think that man may discover and follow a set of principles and rules in accordance with his nature and the nature of reality, if he chooses to live.
  3. thenelli01, In post #119 you wrote, “If it is the latter, I am gonna need specifics -- what facts of reality did they observe, what method of concept formation did they use, what did the process of validation look like, and how EXACTLY are they different?” I am not asking you for a specific rundown on or a specific decision about which of two concepts of murder is the correct one. I am asking a general question about how you determine which of two, or more, concepts (not using the same word to denote two different concepts) is the correct one. If two people have formed a concept (by using their consciousness and observing reality and then using reduction to retrace the logical steps necessary to reform the concept and using integration to tie it back in to make sure that there are no contradictions with the rest of their knowledge) and these concepts are not the same (not using the same word to denote two different concepts), how does one know which one is right?
  4. Harrison Danneskjold, In post #115 you wrote, “The accurate definition is the one which reflects the actual facts of reality.” Given the concept of ‘murder’, what are the “actual facts of reality” that will allow one to know that one's concept is accurate?
  5. thenelli01, You asked in post #114, “How are they different, can you make it more concrete?” They are different because one is X and the other is Y. But if you wish to be more specific, for sake of example we will say that the two concepts are the exact opposite of each other.
  6. thenelli01, So you, using your consciousness and observing reality and then using reduction to retrace the logical steps necessary to reform the concept and using integration to tie it back in to make sure that there are no contradictions with the rest of your knowledge, you formed the concept of 'murder' as X, this concept is objectively derived and is therefore correct. Now, when someone else, uses their consciousness and observing reality and then using reduction to retrace the logical steps necessary to reform the concept and using integration to tie it back in to make sure that there are no contradictions with the rest of their knowledge, they formed the concept of 'murder' as Y, this concept is objectively derived and is therefore correct. Since these two objectively derived and correct concepts of 'murder' are different, how do you know which one is right? As for your questions of " So you apply this rule arbitrarily? Why did you decide to apply the fact that "man is not omniscient" in this context?" I do not know what rule I am applying arbitrarily and I was just asking a question which you answered.
  7. thenelli01, In post #110 you wrote, "Your unstated premise is that because man is not omniscient, he cannot know anything for sure." This is not my unstated premise. I know lots of things "for sure." For example, I know "for sure" that if you, me, or any human falls from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below with no means of stopping or slowing the decent, you, me, and every human will die. It does not matter how much introspecting I do or how much reduction and integration takes place, the result is the same. You also wrote in post #110, "Murder is a narrower concept or type of killing. Murder is when people kill other people under certain criteria vs. a different type of killing." So if you, using your consciousness and observing reality, formed the concept of 'murder' as X, this concept is objectively derived and is therefore correct. Then through the process of reduction and integration and by introspecting you form a new, or modified, concept of 'murder' as Y, this new, or modified, concept of 'murder' is also objectively derived and is therefore correct. Is this what you are saying?
  8. thenelli01, In post #108 you wrote, "The concept of murder is derived from reality, and the concept of "murder" requires a consciousness to form it." Can I assume that this means that you are and/or have a consciousness and you form the concept of murder? If so, since as you stated in post #95, "Man is not omniscient," does this mean that you do not know whether or not the concept of murder formed by your consciousness is the concept of murder that is derived from reality?
  9. thenelli01, In post #101 you wrote, "We choose what to relate by our ability to choose and to direct our awareness. "Regarding things through an active rearrangement and comparison, regarding things as similar, as members of a group, is * not dictated by reality alone nor consciousness alone, but by a volitionally established relationship between consciousness and existence." That is what Ayn Rand meant as objective. In other words, we choose what to relate, but reality dictates what relationships exist." In post #95 you wrote when talking about the difference between murder and self defense, "So who is right?: the one who corresponds with reality. Reality is the objective standard. If others don't see that your action really was self-defense and sentence you to death for murder, then all that means is that they were wrong. That doesn't make your action immoral just because the consequences ended up negatively affecting your life. Man is not omniscient." These statements implies that 'murder' is a relationship that exists in reality and that man can discover that relationship by an active rearrangement and comparison of things. Is this correct?
  10. Eiuol, In post #99 you wrote, “Look at my clarification to DA. Some people offer value, which for example may be music they create. I don't need to explain how that impacts your life, unless you think life means mere survival. If you mean that value is something only I create, that's not too far off from right. The thing is, you can for yourself figure out if, objectively, a value really does improve or enable living. Values are my own, but those can be objective, too.” I agree with you that what you value is your choice (“Values are my own”). If, for example, you choose to value music, then it is a value to you. However, just because you choose to value something does not mean that anyone else is required to value it. Someone who is deaf, or tone deaf, will not value music as you value it if at all. I will even agree that values can be objective to you. Once you decide upon the criteria that improve and/or enable your life (and beyond the basic necessities required by the nature of humans you make that decision for whatever reasons you want), you can objectively determine whether or not music, or anything else, meets your criteria. I have no issue with this. It is only the claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality that I question.
  11. Thenelli01, In post #95 you wrote, “The fact is that there is objective criteria to determine whether an act is murder or self-defense.” I agree that there can be objective criteria to determine whether an act is murder or self-defense. However, the criteria are not objectively derived from the facts of reality. Man has created the definition of ‘murder’; it is a manmade concept. By using the manmade concept of ‘murder’ as a starting point, it can be objectively demonstrated whether the act of killing a man meets the manmade definition murder.
  12. Regi F., In post #93 you wrote, “I'm not trying to convince you. If it is not reality, independent of whatever you wish, think, feel, or desire, that determines how you ought to live as a human being, what is it?” Reality, independent of whatever one wishes, thinks, feels, or desires, does determine what you need to do and what you should not do in order to stay alive. Beyond staying alive, reality, independent of whatever one wishes, thinks, feels, or desires, does not tell you how you ought to live. Reality does not tell you how “to live as a human being”; it does not tell you what career to pursue, or what books to read, or who to take as a lover. Beyond staying alive, how “to live as a human being” is up to you.
  13. Eiuol, In post #83 you wrote, “If you kill a person, you can't trade with them. That's not a man-made consequence.” I agree with you that you can’t trade with a dead man. It is an objective fact of reality that it is not possible to interact with a dead person, including trading with them. However, this objective fact applies to all dead people regardless of how they became dead. It doesn’t matter if you killed them, or if they died in an accident, or died of natural causes, it is not possible to interact with a dead person. What are the consequences of not being able to interact with a dead person to your ultimate value? There are no naturally occurring consequences to your ultimate value, only those consequences that you create and/or perceive.
  14. Regi F., In post #91 you wrote, "Since you list the necessities of life as water, food, shelter, your list excludes what your first sentice [sic] declares is necessary, to learn what the basic necessities of life are. The first requirement of human life is knowledge determined by that fact of reality which is human nature." To be clear, in post #85 I wrote, in part, "... to learn what are the basic necessities of life that are objectively determined by the nature of man e.g. water, food, shelter..." The abbreviation 'e.g.' means 'for example'. So the sentence reads, "... to learn what are the basic necessities of life that are objectively determined by the nature of man, for example water, food, shelter..." It is not an all inclusive list as I could have included other things like oxygen. You then wrote, "Because all human behavior must be consciously chosen (determined by the fact of reality that humans are volitional beings)..." What 'behavior' do you mean? For example, if a man has a fear of dogs, developed since childhood because of multiple psychological reasons, and runs away from any dog that he sees, he is not consciously choosing to be afraid nor is decision to run necessarily a conscious decision as he is acting off of his fight or flight instinct. "...and no choice is possible without knowing what choices are available and which choices will result in which consequences (will eating this nourish me or kill me?), another fact of reality..." I do not agree that one has to know which choices will result in which consequences in order to make a choice. I will make a reasonable guess that the first human to eat a poisonous mushroom did not know the consequences of that action but still made the choice to eat it. "...and making a choice is a judgement [sic] requiring reason (another fact of reality)..." I do not agree that making a choice is a judgment requiring reason. I have personal knowledge of many people making choices that, in addition to having unknown consequences, were made without the use of reason. "...to fail to learn all one is capable of learning, and using one's best reason to make right choices in all matters of life means to fail in every aspect of life." This part does not make sense to me. How much is one capable of learning? Is it a measurable quantity? Does it matter what one is capable of learning, for example, if I am capable of learning to play a musical instrument but choose not to do so thus failing to learn all that I am capable of learning, do I fail in every aspect of life? What does 'fail' mean in this context? What are 'right choices'? You appear to be attempting to explain how morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality but your explanation is full of subjective terms and concepts. How does any of this demonstrate that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality?
  15. Regi F., In post #86 you wrote, “Is it not a fact of reality that human beings are rational volitional beings? Does not that fact mean that human beings must live by conscious choice, that their only means of making choices is by means of knowledge about themselves, their own nature and the nature of the world they live in?” I agree with your statement. You then wrote, “Is it not a fact of reality that all living things have a particular nature that determines how they must live, which does not mean simply to survive, but to successfully be the kind of organisms they are?” I agree with the first part of paragraph that reads, “Is it not a fact of reality that all living things have a particular nature that determines how they must live...” However, the phrase, “...but to successfully be the kind of organisms they are?” needs some explanation and a definition. What does it mean to successfully be the kind of organisms they are? If it means anything beyond surviving, that is achieving the basic necessities of life as objectively determined by the nature of the organism, then it is not objectively derived from the facts of reality it is subjective. You then wrote, “Does living as a human being mean simply keeping the human organsim [sic] alive or does it mean living as the kind of being humans are? If you believe that it is merely the perpetuation of protoplasm that "living" means, or Rand meant, than let's make everyone unconscious and put them on life-support systems.” I have the same question as I did for the last paragraph, what does “living as the kind of being humans are” mean? Again, if it means anything beyond surviving, that is achieving the basic necessities of life as objectively determined by the nature of humans, then it is not objectively derived from the facts of reality it is subjective. You then wrote, “If you cannot see that it is the nature of human beings as rational volitional beings that requires them to have a system of moral or ethical principles to live and that same nature that determines what those moral principles must be, than nothing is going to convince you. I'm not trying to convince you either. Just answering you honest questions as honestly as I can.” I will direct you back to the original post where I stated: It is the claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality that I am questioning. I am not criticizing Objectivism as a philosophy nor am I claiming the Objectivist moral theory is invalid. I am also not making any claims that there is no such thing as morality or that reality does not exist. All that I am questioning is the Objectivist claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality and is therefore not subjective.
  16. Regi F., I do not disagree with the quote you provided in post #81. Nor did I disagree with it when dream_weaver posted it or when I read it in Ayn Rand’s work. To sustain his life, his ultimate value, man has to learn what are the basic necessities of life that are objectively determined by the nature of man e.g. water, food, shelter, and he has to act to gain and keep those necessities. If man does not act to gain or keep those necessities, man will die. Anything that an individual believes is a value, or needed to live as ‘man qua man’, beyond the basic necessities is determined by the individual not objectively derived from the facts of reality. Now if you wish to define ‘living as man qua man’ in a certain way beyond gaining and keeping the basic necessities of life, and you wish to claim that the moral values one should live by can be objectively derived using this definition as a starting point, go ahead. For example, if you define ‘living as man qua man’ to be: living successfully and happily in this world, you can then objectively derive moral values based on however you define “living successfully” and “living happily”. I have no problem with this. It is only the claim that morality can be objectively derived from the facts of reality that I question.
  17. StrictlyLogical, I do not disagree with your “Drinking water is Good” statement in post #80. It is too broad to be of any use. However, once the situation is narrowed e.g. you are parched and dying of thirst or you are drowning, you can make an objective moral determination about the consequences of the action (how the consequences of the action affect your ultimate value) based on the facts of reality. When it comes to “action toward other men”, it is still subjective. It is subjective because, unlike the water example, there are no naturally occurring consequences of actions toward other men only manmade consequences based on man’s perception of the action. Once again consider the action of killing a man. You may claim that the statement is too broad or too general and wish to narrow it in order to make a moral determination. Even the attempt to narrow the action is still based on perception. Let’s say that you kill a man. In your perception of the action, you killed the man because he was trying to kill you and it was an act of self defense. The action preserved your ultimate value therefore the action was moral. If another man, or group of men (like a government), perceive your action of killing the man as murder, then, in his or their perception the act was immoral. Which one is it? If your perception of the action is accepted, there will most likely (but not definitely) be no consequences as a result of the action. If the perception held by others is accepted, there will most likely (but not definitely) be consequences that affect your ultimate value. Because the consequences of the action on the ultimate value are determined by man based on man’s perception of the action, it is subjective.
  18. StrictlyLogical, I like the analogy you wrote in post #78. And I agree with a lot of it but not all of it. If you wrote a book that told me how to meet the basic requirements of human life then I would agree that the book was capable of independent validation, and anyone can read the book and if knowledgeable enough about the nature of humans (or if they were so inclined would be able to perform endless experiments to test the advice of the book) would be able to tell if the book was valid, true to the claims with respect to consequences if certain actions are taken (in connection with human life). It is when you write a book that tells me how to improve my life that you enter into the realm of the subjective. Once you get past the basic requirements of life, requirements that are universal to humans because it is the result of human nature, what is considered ‘improvement’ is decided by the individual. You may think that something improves your life and you may even think that it will improve my life, but if I do not think it will improve my life, then it will not improve my life. To tie this back to the original post, the consequences of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff with no means of stopping or slowing the decent is death for all humans (objectively determined from the facts of reality). If part of the book you wrote about sustaining human life included a section that described the consequences of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff and stated that such action will be immoral if a human values his or her life, then I would agree that your book, or at least that section, was objective. The consequences of killing a man are not known because the consequences are determined by other men after those other men decide how to perceive the action. Therefore, how the consequences of killing a man will affect one human are not necessarily the same for other humans. If part of the book you wrote about improving life included a section that stated to improve your life it would be immoral to kill a man, then I would say that your book was subjective.
  19. Harrison Danneskjold, The definition of objective that I use is the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind. You wrote in post #75, "I think you should reexamine that definition and the way you've applied it. Our own minds set the terms by which we have any chance of understanding reality; if "identity" is mutually exclusive with "consciousness" (which is the meaning of the term "subjective") then there is nothing it could ever actually apply to." If I am going to reexamine the definition of objective, what should the definition be? How should this new definition be applied compared to the dictionary definition that I use? Where are you getting the terms "identity" and "consciousness"? I am using the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind. The terms "identity" and "consciousness" are not used in this definition. As for the hypothetical scenario you wrote in post #75, since I am taking the position that morality is not objectively derived from the facts of reality and is subjective, the answer to your question is that it subjective and can be moral or immoral depending on who is making the moral determination.
  20. Plasmatic, The Objectivist concept of morality appears to encompass only moral and immoral, not amoral. Since I am trying to learn about the Objectivist concept of morality, I am not considering amoral as a part of this discussion.
  21. dream_weaver, In post #70 you wrote, “The problem with your analysis, on this specific, is that the action of the virus is amoral. Morality, as identified earlier and you agreed to, is a code of values accepted by a rational mind being conducive to the maintenance of his own life.” Man’s first choice of value is his own life, the ultimate value. Man must choose his own life as the ultimate value first and then he can choose other values that support the ultimate value. Once life is chosen as the ultimate value, man is able to make moral determinations of actions using the Objectivist concept of morality which is based on, I once again quote Ayn Rand, “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.” (emphasis added) It does not matter who or what caused the action and it does not matter why the action was caused. If the action destroys man’s ultimate value, his life, then the action is immoral. This appears to be drifting from the purpose of the original post. How does any of this, including your references to other threads in post #60, demonstrate that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality?
  22. dream_weaver, In post #66 you wrote, "Actions do not happen in a vacuum. Actions are caused by entities. The entity you speak of is man." Actions that can destroy the ultimate value are cause by something and not just man. Animals, bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, etc., can all cause actions that destroy the ultimate value. You then wrote, "Man is a unique entity in that he is causally efficacious, thus is morally responsible for only his own chosen actions, not the actions done to him which he is not the provocateur of." I have never claimed that a man is not morally responsible , or morally responsible, for anything; I do not even know what you mean by "morally responsible". The basis for the Objectivist concept of morality is "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil." If the action of a virus destroys the ultimate value, the action of that virus is immoral. If falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff destroys the ultimate value, the action of falling from the cliff is immoral. Claiming that a man is or is not "morally responsible" is irrelevant as the moral determination is based on the consequences of action on the ultimate value. You also wrote, "...you've got to discover the inter-relationships involved in determining the objectivity of anything that steps outside your narrow niche of 'only life's barest of necessities for survival.'" Are these inter-relationships objective and I discover them or are they subjective and I use my mind to create them? Can I discover the inter-relationships that objectively determine the morality of killing a man? If so, how? You then wrote, "If you want to make a moral case for killing another human being, rationalizing it as subjective is not the route, nor is expecting others to flesh out the full objective chain of reasoning for what is enshrined in just about every legal system almost universally as murder." I am confused by this statement. I have never tried to rationalize killing another human being. I maintain the morality of killing another human being cannot be objectively determined and the moral determination of killing another human being is therefore subjective. Consider what you wrote: killing another human being is enshrined in just about every legal system universally as murder. In the original post I provided three examples of killing a man: the man took the action of killing another man because he thought it would be fun to watch him die; the man took the action of killing another man because he thought the other man was trying to kill him so he acted in self defense; and the man took the action of killing another man because he is a soldier fighting in a war and the other man was an enemy soldier. Does just about every legal system universally enshrine each of those reasons for killing another human being as murder? Further, even if just about every legal system almost universally enshrines killing another human being as murder, it would still be subjective since legal systems are manmade and even the term 'murder' is a term to describe a manmade concept. To further point out that what is enshrined in just about every legal system is subjective, consider the historical fact that the legality of slavery, in some form or another, has been enshrined in just about every legal system of the past.
  23. New Buddha, It appears from post #58, and other posts, that you are under the impression that when I use the phrase subjective, that I am referring to some school of thought called Subjectivism. This is not the case. When I use the term 'subjective' it is defined as " characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind." So when you write, "But it's not subjective to each person who makes the choice." I say that this is subjective because it is not independent of mind. Each person is using his or her mind to make a moral determination so it cannot be objective; objective meaning independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind. As for your question in post #62, I refer you to the original post where I stated, in part: "Once men decide how they are going to perceive an action, the consequences, out of a choice of many possible consequences, will be determined. Since the consequences are determined by men, they are manmade. Manmade consequences, while real and will affect you, are derived from the minds of men and are not objective."
  24. dream_weaver, In post #60, you wrote: 1. He has to hold his life as a value. 2. He has to learn to sustain it (his life). 3. He has to discover the values it (his life) requires and practice his virtues. 1. I agree that a man has to hold his life as a value. 2. To sustain his ultimate value man has to learn what are the basic necessities of life that are objectively determined by the nature of man e.g. water, food, shelter, and he has to act to gain and keep those necessities. Anything that an individual believes sustains his or her life beyond the basic necessities is determined by the individual not derived objectively from the facts of reality. 3. This answer is the same as number 2. Anything beyond the basic necessities is determined by the individual and not derived objectively from the facts of reality. You then asked the following questions: "Can you answer how killing (murdering) a man awash on |his| beach sustains his life?" Killing a man is not a basic requirement of life so it does not objectively sustain his life. However, since anything beyond the basic necessities of life is determined by the individual, if an individual believes that killing a man will sustain his life, then killing a man will sustain his life. "Can you answer how refraining from such an activity would be detrimental to his life (i.e., cause him to cease to live)?" Refraining from killing a man is not a basic requirement of life so it is not objectively detrimental to his life. However, since anything beyond the basic necessities of life is determined by the individual, if an individual believes that refraining from killing a man will be detrimental to his life, then refraining from killing a man will be detrimental to his life. "Can you explain how solitude is required to sustain life?" Solitude is not a basic requirement of life so it does not objectively sustain his life. However, since anything beyond the basic necessities of life is determined by the individual, if an individual believes that solitude will sustain his life, then solitude will sustain his life. "Can you demonstrate that a lack of solitude (though it may be desired) is by itself, detrimental to life?" Lack of solitude is not a basic requirement of life so it is not objectively detrimental to his life. However, since anything beyond the basic necessities of life is determined by the individual, if an individual believes that the lack of solitude will be detrimental to his life, then the lack solitude will be detrimental to his life. You then wrote, "As to the action of plummeting 10000 feet from a cliff, choice is instrumental in ascertaining the morality/immorality of the action." As I explained in the original post, choice is not instrumental is ascertaining the morality or immorality of the action. Ayn Rand stated, "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil." If an action destroys the ultimate value it is immoral - the cause of the action is irrelevant. If you need to ask why an action occurred in order to make a moral determination, you are trying to determine your perception of the action. Once you decide how you are going to perceive the action you then you decide the moral determination. At this point, it is not objective, it is subjective.
  25. dream_weaver, Everyone of your post leads up to the definition of Morality which I defined in the original post as: Morality: I will be using Ayn Rand’s concept of morality as she presented it in the essay ‘The Objectivist Ethics’ and in "Atlas Shrugged". Ayn Rand stated morality is a code of values accepted by choice, man’s life, which he must choose, is his ultimate value, and all that is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil. This is her, and hence Objectivism’s, starting point and basis for all discussion of morality. Therefore, the concept of morality is: A man’s ultimate value is his life. All that is proper to the ultimate value is moral. All that which destroys the ultimate value is immoral. All of your posts provided the background for that definition and I could have easily put all of them in the original post. I have not now nor have I ever contended that this definition of morality is subjective. It is a workable definition of morality and I even included the example in the original post of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff to demonstrate how this definition can be applied to make a moral determination of an action. I could have also included many examples of knowledge that man has objectively derived from the facts of reality that tell him what he should or should not do to maintain his life (the ultimate value) such as: do not eat cyanide, do not go without ingesting water for a month, do not try to breathe underwater without any equipment, etc. But these examples, and others like them, all have objective consequences that apply to everyone. The consequences do not depend on an individual's knowledge, or lack thereof, their perception of the action, their thoughts about the actions, or anything else. And if Objectivism stopped there and stated that moral determinations can only be made about actions that have objective consequences, such as falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below with no means of stopping or slowing the decent, then I would not claim that morality is subjective. But Objectivism does not stop there. Objectivism attempts to apply this concept of morality to actions whose consequences are not only unknown but are completely determined by men. In the original post, I provided the example of killing a man and showed that a moral determination about that action could not be made using the Objectivist concept of morality because the consequences of the action on the ultimate value are not known and will be decided by men. This is where the concept of morality becomes subjective. Your posts and the quotes that you provided, do an excellent job of explaining the Objectivist definition of morality. I am confident that for those who have not read Ayn Rand and did not know from where exactly I got the definition of morality that I provided in the original post, the quotes are helpful. However, your posts do not explain how morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality once a moral determination needs to be made concerning an action whose consequences are not objective. I still maintain that morality is subjective.
×
×
  • Create New...