tjfields

Boydstun, I would not exclude as outside the realm of logic and reason the opportunities for enhancing the struggle for existence and the enjoyment of existence by doing what I could to help the washed-ashore man survive. I admit that the possibility exists that had I not killed the man, my life on the island would have been improved. However, this does not tell me whether or not it was morally right or wrong to kill the man. Unless the basis for morals and ethics is the determination of whether or not another person or persons can benefit you, i.e. it was morally wrong of me to kill the man who washed up on the island because that man may have been able to benefit me in some way but it would not have been morally wrong of me to kill the man who washed up on the island if I had determined that the man would not have benefited me in some way. Is this what you are suggesting? I do not think that bringing facts into a decision about what course to choose is automatically unreasonable. Facts do provide guidance about what you ought to do and I think that facts serve as the basis for any and all decisions to be made. However, as I tried to explain, while facts may provide guidance about what you ought to do, those facts do not, as far as I can see, tell you whether or not what you ought to do is morally right or wrong. Since you mentioned it, let us continue with the fact that man must consume nutrients in order to live. Does this fact tell you what is morally right or wrong? Does the fact that man must consume nutrients to live mean, by the merit of being a fact, that it is morally right to consume nutrients? I am not sure what you mean by, “Just say No to prosecution.” But I will share my thoughts on the scenario that I presented. My first reaction would be to say that it was morally wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach. However, at this point, I cannot tell you why it is morally wrong. I have been indoctrinated for many years, starting at birth, with Judeo-Christian ethics which claim that God said killing is wrong therefore it is wrong. Additionally, I live in the United States were the legal system prohibits murder and the culture, also heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics, states that murder is wrong. So, I do not know for sure if my judgment that killing the man who washed up on the beach is morally wrong is based on logic and reason or if it is based on years and years of conditioning. I am searching for the answers. I would say that pleasure and absence of hurt are reasons for selecting certain actions and not others. I am not sure in what way you are using the word “good” in your question so I cannot say that pleasure and absence of hurt are good reasons for selecting certain actions and not others.

Thank you all for the discussion and your input. I appreciate the time and effort that you have made. However, I am still struggling. Please allow me to restate my questions and the clarification that I seek of the quote in the original post. I will use the following scenario: I live alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. I am completely alone on the island. How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island. The island and the ocean immediately around the island provide a wide variety of resources. I use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning the resources available to me into those things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter. Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the resources available to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment. I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself. One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way. I do not perceive any kind of threat or danger from this man. I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life exactly as I did before the man washed up on the beach. Given the scenario, I ask the following questions: Was it morally or ethically wrong for me to kill the man on the beach and if so, why was it wrong? Now, if I presented this scenario and questions to a Christian, I would expect the Christian to say that it was morally wrong for me to kill the man because the Bible says that it is wrong to kill another and the Bible is the word of God. After a few more questions from me concerning the validity of the Bible and the existence of God, the Christian will inevitably state something to the effect that he knows his position is correct because he has faith. At this point, the discussion is over because the Christian has shut down his mind and no amount of logic or reason will do anything to alter the Christian’s moral and ethical position which is derived from a belief in a supernatural power. I present this scenario and the questions to the Objectivists on this forum in the hope of getting an answer supported by logic and reason. The answer that I have received to these questions in the past has usually been: yes it was morally wrong to kill the person because man is an end in himself and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself (see the quote in the original post). This is not clear to me. It is not clear to me how one goes from the facts presented in the quote and the morality implied in the quote. I have come up with this scenario to, hopefully, simplify the process. Any help with this issue will be appreciated.

Craig24, You wrote, "Ok, what is the alternative. What does have ethical implications?" I do not know. That is one of the questions to which I am seeking answers. I asked this question in this forum because, based on reading what some Objectivists have written and personal interactions with Objectivists, it appears that the philosophy of Objectivism provides its adherents with answers to my questions. If the philosophy of Objectivism does provide the answers to my questions, that would be wonderful as my search would be over. While I have received some well thought out responses thus far, I am still not satisfied that my question has been answered, therefore, I continue to ask.

tadmjones, While I thank you for providing an answer to my question, I do not understand your answer in post #48. To me, your answer is not specific, it is open to interpretation, and leaves me no closer to understanding how one derives ethical principles from facts.

tadmjones, An answer to both would be wonderful.

Boydstun, I do not know how to edit a post and I am unable to do so. If you can let me know how, I will edit my previous post. Thank you,

tadmjones, I agree with you that man is not infallible, that in order to live man must make choices, that man must think, and that man's means of survival is reason. These appear to be facts. As I stated in my previous post, facts do not have ethical implications, facts are facts. The question of how does one derive ethical principals out of these facts still remains.

Boydstun, I apologize for the spelling error wherever it may occur. I will attempt to correct it.

tadmjones, In regard to post #36, I do not dispute the fact that men exist as separate entities. That is a statement of fact just as each living entity exists as a separate entity whether it is a man, a lion, an ivy plant, or an amoeba. You stated, “… when deriving a set of principles to guide man's actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man'.” I am not sure what you mean by this statement. If the set of principles that you are deriving to guide man’s actions are statements of fact, e.g. a man must consume nutrients in order to live, then I would agree with your statement since the principal could not be that a man must not consume nutrients in order to live as that would be contradictory to the identity of the entity of man. But a statement of fact does not have an ethical implication, i.e. a statement of fact is neither good or evil it simply is. The fact that a man must consume nutrients in order to live, or a rose bush needs sunlight in order to live, or the sun rises in the East, is neither good nor evil, it just is. It appears that you are implying that for principles to be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man' that somehow this establishes an ethical implication and determines whether the principal is good or evil. How can this be possible? The quote from the original post implies an ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man. But there appears to be no logical connection between the statements that man is living being, man is an end to himself, and a man must live for his own sake, which are all statements of fact and, therefore, ethically neutral, and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man. It appears that you are attempting to establish a logical connection between the facts about man and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man when you stated, “…why can't a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual…” You imply that by sacrificing another, a man will destroy his humanity and therefore it is wrong to sacrifice another. But what is the definition of humanity and how does one’s humanity get destroyed? If a man sacrifices another, the man is still a living being, is still an end to himself, and still must live for his own sake. The act of sacrificing another does not change any of these facts so how does the act of sacrificing another destroy his humanity? What is the logical connection between the statements of fact about man and the ethical position that it is wrong to sacrifice others?

Boydstun, Regarding post #31, based on the logic that Ms. Rand presented in the essay, I agree with the concept that life is an end in itself and every living human being is an end in himself. Additional arguments such as your argument that man should be treated as an end in himself because his intelligence and psyche is organized towards being an individual dynamic whole, would, if true, serve to bolster the case for man being an end in himself. However, the fact that man is an end to himself does not answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others. As to your question in post #35, my views about self-interest and the rights of others are still being formed. The reason behind the question in the original post and the reason for every one of my subsequent posts has been the desire to learn. I am seeking knowledge and have no other motive.

Marc K, Regarding post #30, my question is why is it wrong to sacrifice others based on an implied prohibition in the quote from the original post. You stated that the answer is logical consistency and then expressed astonishment that your answer is not enough for some people. Your answer is not clear to me and does not appear to answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others so I continue to ask. Please explain how “logical consistency” answers my question. You then ask if I have read “Atlas Shrugged.” Is the implication in your question that if I read “Atlas Shrugged” that my questions will be answered? If so, please reference the specific parts of the book that will clearly answer my question (if your inclination is to say “see Galt’s speech” or something similar, that is not specific enough so please provide specific paragraphs and lines). You then state that I am being a bit hypocritical by saying that "one cannot make a definitive statement such as [...]" and then following it up by saying "sacrificing others will not necessarily end man's life", which isn't definitive at all." I do not understand why you would think that I am being hypocritical unless you think that I was stating or implying that one must always make definitive statements. I did not state that nor did I imply it. My statement from post 27 was, “One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” I made this statement in response to your post (#25) where you stated that Objectivist if/then statements contain an implied “If you want to live” statement. The statement I made is a true statement because one cannot make a definitive statement that if man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself. Perhaps it was the wording of my statement that is leading you to think that it is somehow hypocritical. I will restate it as, “One cannot make the definitive statement, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” You then state, “But even if all you mean is that sometimes sacrificing others will end your life and sometimes it won't, well that should be enough not to do it right there.” I do not understand this statement. Is this the basis for ethics and morality, the idea that if something bad could happen to you as a result of your actions then you should not do it? Or did you mean something else? As for the rest of post #30, as far as I can tell, the talk of virtues does not answer the question of why is it wrong to sacrifice others. If it does answer the question, please explain how.

Craig24, I do not understand from where the double standard you mention comes. You wrote, “… sacrificing THE OTHER to yourself prevents THE OTHER from living for his own sake.” This appears to be a factual statement and I agree with this statement. As far as I can tell, the only way a double standard would come into play is if someone first stated that it is right for me to sacrifice you but it is wrong for you to sacrifice me (or something along those lines). If someone did make this type of statement, then I would agree with you that there is a double standard. But that is not the case here. The quote from the original post says that “… man must live for his own sake…” and it appears that this is a statement of fact. Just as “… life is an end in itself…” and “… every human being is an end in himself…” appear to be statements of fact that are supported by arguments made earlier in the essay. A statement of fact does not, however, make, or imply, a judgment as to whether or not the fact is good or bad, right or wrong. The introduction of what appears to be a prohibition against sacrificing others supposes a judgment of right or wrong and good and bad. A prohibition against sacrificing others implies that it is wrong to sacrifice others. Hence my questions of what is the basis for the prohibition against sacrificing others and why is it correct.

tadmjones, As I understand the non dependency principle based on your explanations in posts 16, 18, 20 and 21, the principal states that part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. Have I understood you correctly? If so, I do not understand how the sacrificing of others violates your non dependency principle nor do I understand how your non dependency principle creates a prohibition against sacrificing others. Let us assume that a man can exist as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. And a man does so. This man then chooses to sacrifice another man in some way for some reason, not because he has to sacrifice another to survive or exist but because he chooses to sacrifice another. How does this violate your non dependency principal? The man still exists as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. The man does not need to sacrifice another man in other to live as man qua man but nevertheless makes the choice to do so. There is no violation of your non dependency principal as the man is still a separate entity and his existence is not dependent on another man. Can you provide a further explanation of why sacrifing others violates your non dependency principal and how your non dependency principal creates a prohibition against sacrificing others? Additionally, how far does your non dependency principle extend? For example, does eating meat violate your non dependency principal and is therefore wrong? Man can live a long, healthy, and active life eating only fruits and vegetables. Man does not need to eat meat in order to live. Or to put another way, man exists as a separate entity and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of an animal, therefore, it is wrong for man to sacrifice animals to himself because it violates the non dependency principal. Would this be another example of a violation of your non dependency principal?

Marc K, Thank you for your post, I found it very interesting. When you wrote, “… if/then statements … take the form: "If you want this certain outcome, then you must take this action" and “… the implied "if" is: "If you want to live"…” appear to provide some additional clarification to the quote from the original post. Applying your explanation to the quote from the original post, it appears we can clarify it to read, “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that if man wants to live, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it? If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?

tadmjones, Your interpretation of the quote seems reasonable but I am still confused. Let us assume that Ms. Rand was stating a corollary of the fact that men exist as individuals and that there is no derivable principle of dependence between man qua man. If this is the case, then the language in the next part of the quote, "... and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing other to himself." becomes confusing to me. If Ms. Rand was simply stating a fact, men exist as individual entities and their existence is not dependent on the existence of other individuals, then the quote should be, "... and, therefore, that man can live for his own sake ..." The use of the word "must" in the quote implys that Ms. Rand is not simply stating a fact regarding men, rather, she is stating something that men are required, or must, do. The questions, just as in the original post, are what is the basis of this requirement or "must" and why is it correct?

tadmjones, "so therefore..." what? Please complete the sentence as I still do not understand what you are trying to convey.

tadmjones, I am not sure what you mean by dependence. The quote in the original post does not speak to dependence, rather that a living human being is not the means to the ends of others and must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.

Eiuol, Your first quote, from paragraph 48 I believe, talks about choice and how man must make choices, it does not address nor answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes. Your second quote, from paragraph 84 I believe, states that human good does not require human sacrifices. This does not answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others comes, rather it states that it is not good to sacrifice others or be sacrificed to others. In order to determine whether something is good or not it must be compared to a standard. The standard was established in paragraph 67 with the line, "...not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." Once this is accepted as true, then the your quote from paragraph 84 is correct because to sacrifice others or to be sacrificed to others would not be good becuase you are not the means to the ends of others. Your third quote, from paragraph 76 I believe, is just a restatement that life is an end in itself. Ms. Rand adds in the concept of the pursuit of happiness in this paragraph but no where does it answer the question of from where the conclusion that man is not the means to the ends of others come. You stated, "It would be more fruitful if you bring up points that you think don't make sense, don't follow, or are contradictions." In the original post I have asked the questions for which I would like clarification. I ask because I can not find the answers anywhere in the essay.

JayR, You stated, "A mans life is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others because he has rights, specifically the right to his own life and property." However, it appears to me that the concept of rights within Objectivism has as its starting point the concept embodied in the sentence, "...every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or welfare of others - and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." This sentence, to me, means that you have rights because you are not the means to the ends of others. Without the concept of man as an end to himself and not the means to the ends of others, rights are meaningless. If it is true that you are the means to my ends, then you can not have rights. It is only if you are not the means to my (or anyone else's) ends that you have rights. Since it appears that rights arise out of the concept embodied in words 29 through 39 of the quote in the original post, is a reason I asked the questions of where this concept comes from and why is it correct.

Eiuol, I have finished reading the essay and have read it many times. Can you point me to the paragraph(s) in the essay where Ms. Rand explains and her conclusion that man is not the means to the ends or the welfare of others?

JayR, I took the "just as" to mean: a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay that demonstrate that life is an end in itself. The sentence could have been rewritten to state, "...just as life is an end in itself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay, a living human being is an end in himself for all of the reasons stated earlier in the essay..." It appears to me that Ms. Rand is pointing out that since man is a form of life and she already established the reasons that life is an end in itself, it logically follows that man is an end in himself. Can you please provide more information on the distinction between life in a general sense and man's life? Is it simply that man has rights? If so, from where do man's right come?

JayR, I used the example of a cow in the previous post for simplicity when it could have been any form of life. That is part of the question. If a living human being is not the means to the ends of others because a living human being is an end to himself and a living human being is an end to himself because a living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, does this logic work for all living things i.e. A living thing is not the means to the ends of others because a living thing is an end to itself and a living thing is an end to itself because a living thing is alive and life is an end in itself? If not, why not?

softwareNerd, If it is the case that because an individual is an end in himself, and an individual is an end in himself because he is alive and life, as Ms. Rand argued, is an end in itself, then, continuing your question, how can life be a means to some other end? Or let me put it another way: A cow is alive and since life is an end in itself, the cow is an end in itself. Ms. Rand's quote could then be rewritten as, "...just as life is an end in itself, so every living cow is an end in itself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others..." Then to rephrase your question: How can the cow be a means to some other end? The answer is that a cow can be the means to an end. As evidence, one can witness cows being consumed as food by humans and by other animals around the world. Therefore, a cow can become the means to an end; the end being the life of another. So life, which as Ms. Rand stated is an end in itself, can and does become the means to the ends or welfare of others. The fact that life can be the means to the ends of others is what caused my questions in the original post. My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?

In her essay The Objective Ethics, Ayn Rand states: “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” (this quote is from the 67th paragraph, approximately, of the essay) Assuming that we accept the premise that life is an end in itself based on the arguments that Ms. Rand laid out earlier in the essay, we can then agree with the first 28 words of the quote because every living human being is alive and life is an end in itself, therefore every living human being is an end in himself. My questions arise out of words 29 through 39 of the quote, “not the means to the ends or the welfare of others…” What is the basis for this statement and why is it correct?

Nicky, If, as you state above that "The use of non-retaliatory force, in honest error, is impossible to avoid, because government is done by humans, and humans are not omniscient. Even a perfectly moral person will err, due to not being omniscient." and "I think it is impossible for 10 out of 10 governments to formulate perfectly identical, perfectly objective laws." then were does the honest error come from? If 10 or more groups of people can not formulate identical objective laws, then each group will formulate and then seek to enforce their concept of objective laws claiming that the other concepts are not objective and constitute the use of non-retaliatory force. When one group succeeds in enforcing their concept on the other groups, the use of what the other the groups consider non-retaliatory force would not be a 'honest error' on the part of the enforcer rather it would be acceptable under the concept of objective laws being enforced. You could not avoid the use of non-retaliatory force on principle because the principle is being defined by the concept of objective laws that is currently being enforced. Does this problem have a solution?