tjfields
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tjfields
-
-
New Buddha,
Since I agree with you when you wrote in post #32, "You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate." and with you when you wrote in post #39, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself.", the answer to your question in post #52 is that each of the choices you listed decides and it is subjective.
-
dream_weaver,
No, I do not find anything to be subjective up to this point.
-
New Buddha,
In post #48 you wrote, "In the mind of each individual, each believes himself to be correct. Do you dispute this?"
I do not dispute this. I think that morality is subjective.
However, in post #36 you wrote, "I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective." Then in post #39 you wrote, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself."
You wrote that you are not saying that morality is subjective in one post, and then you write that each individual decides what is moral for himself in another post. I do not understand how it can be that morality is not subjective yet each individual decides what is moral for his or her self. Can you explain?
-
dream_weaver,
You may be as persnickety as you like and I reserve the right to do the same. I find the facts as presented so far self-evident. Please continue. Since I have read the work you are quoting from, as I implied in the original post, feel free to make your posts longer so as to save time.
-
dream_weaver,
I agree with what you have presented thus far.
-
dream_weaver,
I agree with your post #41. I also agreed with it when I read Ayn Rand work.
-
New Buddha,
In post #39 you wrote, "It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself. What other option is there? God? Or does might make right?"
So if I understand you, you are claiming that an individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral and another individual can gain objective knowledge from his or her senses and use that knowledge to determine what is moral and what is immoral, and even if these two individuals come to different conclusions, one concludes moral the other concludes immoral, they are both correct. Is this your position? Is this your perception of the Objectivist concept of morality?
-
New Buddha,
In post #36 you wrote, "I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective. You must understand that you are confusing "subjectivity" with "certainty"."
I have never stated that knowledge is subjective. Nor have I ever claimed that men, rational or not, will agree on all things. I agree with you that an individual can gain knowledge of the world.
But this does not address the issue raised in the original post. Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?
In post #28, I asked you, "So when it comes to morality, if two different individual men come to different conclusions about a topic, one concludes that it is moral and the other concludes that it is immoral, is the topic moral or immoral?" Can you answer this question?
-
dream_weaver,
You wrote in post #35, "...can you see how
the requirement ofsome level of thought is required here?"Yes.
-
dream_weaver,
I agree with your post #26.
-
New Buddha,
In post #32 you wrote, "You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate."
Based on this post and the other posts that you made, it appears that you are making the argument that morality is subjective. Are you agreeing with the premise in the original post that morality is not derived from the facts of reality and is subjective?
-
dream_weaver,
I concur with the quotes you provided.
-
New Buddha,
In post #27 you wrote, "It is perfectly possible for an individual man to OBJECTIVELY REACH A CONCLUSION that he later determines to be FALSE. Note that I said "an individual man" and not "man" -- It's important to grasp this distinction. Two individuals can reach different conclusions on a topic and both be objective."
So when it comes to morality, if two different individual men come to different conclusions about a topic, one concludes that it is moral and the other concludes that it is immoral, is the topic moral or immoral?
Back to the cliff example from the original post. Two different individuals can reach different conclusions about the consequences of falling from the cliff. However, it does not matter what conclusion (objective or not) the individual reaches, the consequences, and therefore the moral determination, remain the same.
Now consider the act of killing a man from the original post. If one individual reaches the conclusion that the act was done in self defense and hence moral and the other individual reaches the conclusion that the act was murder and hence immoral, is the act moral or immoral? Unlike falling from the cliff, the consequences of the act of killing a man, and therefore the moral determination of the act of killing a man, will be different depending on the conclusion the individual, or group of individuals, reaches. It is subjective.
-
New Buddha,
In post #17 you wrote, "The question should be broken into different perspectives:
- Is it moral to me to eat cyanide? (first perspective)
- Does my neighbor consider it to be moral for himself to eat cyanide? (second perspective)
- Is eating cyanide moral in some cosmological sense such that everyone must agree - and therefore, perhaps, justify the prohibiting others from doing so? (third perspective)
Existentially, the first perspective is the only one that you can influence. You have ZERO control over the second perspective. And the third perspective leads to either mysticism or materialism (both of which end in gas chambers)."
The Objectivist model for determining morality states that, all that is proper to the ultimate value is moral and all that which destroys the ultimate value is immoral. Since eating five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention will kill, and will always kill, a man (a consequence that can be objectively derived from the facts of reality), the action is immoral. It is immoral from every perspective because regardless of the perspective (or hopes, or wishes, or desires, or anything else) the consequence of the action is the same and that consequence is the destruction of the ultimate value.
If you wish to break a question into different perspectives in order to make a moral determination, and it is possible to do so, then you have confirmed my argument that morality is not objectively derived from the facts of reality and is subjective.
-
StrictlyLogical,
In post #16, you wrote, "His "not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention" is not an action of the man and cannot be evaluated morally as something "he should or should not do" because it is, technically, beyond his ability. As worded, this is something which simply does or does not happen to him. It does not form part of his actions."
The reason that the phrase, 'not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention' is included as part of the example is for clarity. If I simply wrote, 'is it moral or immoral to eat five pounds of cyanide in an hour' I would most likely get comments along the lines of, 'you can use that example because it is not certain that the man will die because maybe the man has an antidote or maybe the man built up a tolerance over the years'. The cyanide question is asked the way that it is so that the death of the man is certain. Since the death of the man is certain as a consequence of the action, a moral determination about the action can be made.
-
dream_weaver,
I agree with everything that you wrote in post #13. I agree that man must think to remain alive and that man's mind is his basic tool of survival.
But this did not explain how morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality.
We both agree that man must think to remain alive. So there appears to be two choices open to man when it comes to morality (if man chooses to live). The first, man uses his ability to think to objectively derive morality from the facts of reality. Or second, man uses his ability to think to decide what he wants and then uses his ability to think to create morality.
As I demonstrated in the original post with the example of the action of killing a man, the Objectivist model cannot provide a moral determination about the action because there is no objective phenomenon that will occur as a result of the action. Because there no objective phenomenon that will occur as a result of the action, man uses his ability to think to decide how that action will be perceived and what the consequences are going to be for that action. Since the perception of the action and the consequences for that action are the product of man's mind, it is subjective.
-
StrictlyLogical,
In post #8 you wrote, "Also, falling is not a volitional action to which moral status may apply... the individual is helpless but to fall... in fact it is not something a person does... it is something the earth does to the person."
If you do not like the example of falling from a cliff, the original post could easily be changed to read:
The Question: Is it moral or immoral for a man to eat five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receive, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention?
The Answer: The action of eating five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention is immoral.
The Reason: If a man eats five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receive, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention, the consequence will be the man’s death. Using the Objectivist Model, since the eating the cyanide will cause the man to die, thus destroying his ultimate value, the action of eating five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention is determined to be immoral.
The Explanation: The consequences of the action of eating five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention can be objectively derived from the facts of reality. Applying the knowledge about the nature of the human body e.g. how cyanide affects tissue, organs, etc., it can be shown that the consequence of eating five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receiving, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention will be, will only be, and will always be death for the man.
Conclusion: If a man's ultimate value is his life, then it would be an immoral action to eat five pounds of cyanide in an hour and not receive, or never having had received, any kind of treatment or medical attention
This however does not change the question about the morality of killing a man and the purpose of the original post remains unchanged.
-
softwareNerd,
In post #5 you wrote, "Where does Objectivism say this? Objectivism, as such, does not say that you must live or that you must prolong your life."
I never claimed that Objectivism says that you must live or that you must prolong your life. I repeated that Objectivism states that a man's life is his ultimate value. I acknowledge that a man can decide whether to choose life or death as his ultimate value. But I specifically stated that for the purposes of the post that it was assumed that man would choose life as his ultimate value.
-
New Buddha,
In post #4 you wrote, " Objectivism claims that an INDIVIDUAL's mind is capable of deriving objective knowledge of the world in which he lives. This is not to say that man's knowledge is infallible or omniscient -- nor does it imply that every "rational" man must reach the exact same conclusion."
I agree with your statement that an individual's mind is capable of deriving objective knowledge of the world in which he lives. This happens all of the time even for everyday occurrences. Suppose you order a meal at a restaurant. When the meal arrives you observe that there are no fries on the plate. The fact that there are no fries on the plate is objective knowledge of the world as it is perceptible by all observers and is independent of individual thought.
I also agree with you that man's knowledge is not infallible or omniscient. Further, I agree with you that every rational man must not reach the exact same conclusion.
Your meal arrived and there are no fries on the plate. It does not matter if someone else does not know that there are no fries on the plate or that someone thinks that the peas on the plate are fries or that someone states that there are fries on the plate. The objective knowledge is that there are no fries on the plate.
You also wrote, "Too many people confuse "objectivity" with "certainty", which is what I believe you are doing."
I do not understand what you believe I am doing. I never claimed, for example, that one has to be certain that a fall from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent will kill a man. However, just because one is not certain does not mean it will not happen.
-
dream_weaver,
I desire to to learn that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality. Since you say that I should " seek to differentiate the self-evident basis for morality from the derivatives of the self-evident based on the examples provided", please help me to do so. I have read the quotes that you provided, and it is not self-evident to me that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality. Can you tell me the self-evident basis for morality?
-
StrictlyLogical,
You are correct that I did not provide a definition of subjective. I will correct that oversight now.
Subjective: When I use the term ‘subjective’ it will have the definition of ‘objective’ as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as:
characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
-
To All,
I think, based on the comments received, that I should clarify my intention for starting this thread. I am not necessarily asking about one moral issue, but rather, I am seeking an explanation of the general claim put forth by some Objectivists that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality and is therefore not subjective.
With the scenario cited in the original post, I put forth a fundamental moral question: the morality of killing a man. My hope was that Objectivists would be able to 1) provide an objective answer to the question and, 2) show how that answer was objectively derived from the facts of reality.
I used the scenario to limit the scope of the discussion to one issue, rather than asking a broad question, with the idea that if this one issue could be successfully addressed it would then be possible to address other issues in the same manner.
While I have received answers and comments, I have not received, in my opinion, explanations of how the answers are objectively derived from the facts of reality. I now realize that since my intention was not made clear, my expectations may have been unrealistic. I have, however, learned a lot from the answers and comments that have been provided, and I am thankful to those of you who provided them. Indeed, my question and the best means to ask it were not entirely clear to me until I posted the scenario and received comments.
Now that my intentions are clear and I have a better understanding of the issue I wish to discuss, I will dispense with the scenario and start another thread with a new post here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27074.
I look forward to your comments on the new post.
-
Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?
Objectivists (at least some of them) claim that Objectivism is superior to other schools of philosophical thought because Objectivism is objective and not subjective. Specifically, Objectivists claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality and is therefore not subjective.
I do not understand this claim and I wish to learn if this claim is true. To that end, I will take the following position:
Morality is not objectively derived from the facts of reality and is subjective.
Before I continue, please note that I am taking this position in order to facilitate the discussion. 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.
Before starting the discussion, I will provide the definitions and/or explanations of some of the terms and concepts that I will be using.
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. **
Action: Ayn Rand used the phrase “all that which is proper” and “all that which destroys” in her concept of morality. I will define “all that” to mean an ‘action’ and/or the ‘consequences of an action’ and will refer to actions and consequences of an action going forward. ***
The Objectivist Model: I will refer to the method of examining an action and/or the consequences of an action ("all that") and evaluating how the action and/or consequences of an action affects a man’s ultimate value ("is proper to" or "that which destroys") in order to make a moral determination as the Objectivist Model for Determining Morality or the Objectivist Model.
Objective: When I use the term ‘objective’ it will have the definition of ‘objective’ as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as:
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 ****
Moral Topic: In order to focus the discussion, I will be concentrating on, and relating the discussion to, one topic which I believe to be fundamental in any discussion of morality: the action of killing a man. It is my hope that if conclusions can be reached concerning this topic, then conclusions can be reached on other similar topics using the same line of reasoning.
So let us consider the claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality and is therefore not subjective.
To start, I will demonstrate the process of making an objective moral determination by first, asking a question; second, using the Objectivist Model to provide an answer; third, provide an objective reason for the answer; and fourth, provide an explanation of how the reason is objectively derived from the facts of reality. I will then attempt to use the same process to make an objective moral determination about the action of killing a man.
The Question: Is it moral or immoral for a man to fall from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent?
The Answer: The action of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent is immoral.
The Reason: If a man falls from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent, the consequence will be the man’s death. Using the Objectivist Model, since the fall from the cliff will cause the man to die, thus destroying his ultimate value, the action of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent is determined to be immoral.
The Explanation: The consequences of the action of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent can be objectively derived from the facts of reality. Applying the concepts of physics such as gravity, terminal velocity, etc., and by applying knowledge about the nature of the human body e.g. how much force bones, organs, etc. can withstand, it can be shown that the consequence of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent will be, will only be, and will always be death for the man. *****
Conclusion: If a man's ultimate value is his life, then it would be an immoral action to fall from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent.
Now before moving on, I know from past experience that some people may wish to discuss why the man fell from a 10,000 foot high cliff, e.g. did he jump off, did he slip and fall off, did his parachute fail after he jumped, did someone pick him up and throw him off, etc., and may even claim that one cannot make a moral determination about the situation without knowing why it occurred. While I am not dismissing the question of why an action occurred and will discuss it later, for now I will point out that the Objectivist Model for Determining Morality does not need to have an answer as to why an action occurred in order to make a moral determination about that action. The only information needed is how the consequences of the action will affect the ultimate value.
Now, let us consider the issue of the action of killing a man in the same manner as the action of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff.
The Question: Is it moral or immoral for a man to kill a man?
The Answer: The action of killing a man could be moral or it could be immoral.
At this point, the Objectivist Model for Determining Morality does not provide a definite answer to the question because the consequences of the action and the affect of the consequences of that action on the man’s ultimate value are not known.
The reason that the consequences of the action of killing a man are not known is because there is no objective phenomenon that will occur as a result of that action - no law of physics or aspect of human physiology or anything similar will cause any consequences as a result of the action.
The only consequences which occur from the action of killing a man are a result of man’s perception of the action. This is where the question of ‘why’ enters the picture+. The question of ‘why did the action occur’ (or a derivative of that question) is used to determine the perception of the action.
For example: A man took the action of killing another man. The question is asked: “Why did the man take the action of killing another man?” One possible answer is that the man took the action of killing another man because he thought it would be fun to watch him die. Another possible answer is that 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. Another possible answer is that 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. Even though the action, killing another man, was the same regardless of the answer as to why the action occurred, the perception of the action could be, and for most people is, different depending on the answer as to why the action occurred.
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.
Depending on how the action is perceived, the manmade consequences can be different. Consider some of the various manmade consequences that can occur based on how men choose to perceive the action of killing a man - doing community service, a term of years in prison, life in prison, execution, and no consequences at all.
Again, consider the act of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent. The question is asked: “Why did the man fall from a 10,000 foot high cliff onto the rocks below without any means of slowing or stopping the decent?” One possible answer is that the man fell from the cliff because he slipped. Another answer is that the man fell from the cliff because he jumped. Another answer is that the man fell from the cliff because someone pushed him. Even though the action, falling from the cliff, was the same regardless of the answer as to why the action occurred, the perception of the action could be different depending on the answer as to why the action occurred. However, the consequences of the action are independent of the perception of the action and remain the same. Regardless of the perception of the action, the affect of the consequences of falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff on the ultimate value is the same and regardless of the perception of the action the moral determination of the action remains the same.
So, is the action of killing a man moral or immoral? The answer will depend on how that action is perceived by men and what the consequences men decide there will be for the action.
Now, I am not stating that the Objectivist Model for Determining Morality does not work. On the contrary, the Objectivist Model works very well when the consequences to the ultimate value are known. If, for example, you know for certain that if you kill a man you will be convicted of murder and executed, then you can use the Objectivist Model to determine the morality of the action. In this example, since the act of killing the man results in your death, the destruction of your ultimate value, then the action of killing the man is immoral.
If the Objectivist claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality is true, then just as falling from the cliff is immoral and is always immoral because the consequences of the action are always the same despite any perception of the action, if it is determined based on the facts of reality that it is immoral to kill a man, then it should always be immoral to kill a man regardless of the circumstances and the consequences of killing a man should always be the same regardless of the circumstances. But this is not the case. Depending on how men perceive the action of killing the man and what consequences men decide there should be, the act of killing a man could be moral or immoral.
Since the act of killing a man could be either moral or immoral, morality is not objectively derived from the facts of reality. Morality is subjective.
Notes:
*For the purposes of this writing, it will be assumed that a man’s ultimate value is always his life and not death unless stated otherwise.
** Ayn Rand appears to use the terms, ‘good and evil’, ‘right and wrong’ and ‘moral and immoral’ interchangeably in her writing. I will consistently use ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ even if a particular sentence would read better using one of the interchangeable terms.
***It is, in my experience, very common to describe something (a person, or thing, or idea) as moral or immoral when it is the actions and/or the consequences of those actions taken and/or caused by something (a person, or thing, or idea) that are either moral or immoral. Consider the phrase, ‘Joe Smith is immoral’. Does this mean that the actions taken by Joe Smith are immoral and he is therefore immoral for having taken those actions, or does it mean that Joe Smith is immoral and therefore any actions taken by Joe Smith are immoral because they were taken by Joe Smith? Based on my reading of Objectivist thought, I think that an Objectivist would conclude that it is the actions of Joe Smith that are immoral not Joe Smith qua Joe Smith. For the purposes of this writing, moral determinations will be made for actions and/or consequences of the actions not people, things, or ideas.
**** The term ‘sensible’ as used in the definition of ‘objective’ will be used as defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary: as perceptible to the senses or to reason or understanding.
*****I realize that with the statement, “…will always be death for the man” the conclusion could be challenged with some future looking statement like, ‘At some point in the future, man may live on another planet were the gravity is different than Earth and a fall from a 10,000 foot high cliff on that planet would not kill the man so you cannot claim it will always be death for the man therefore your whole argument is discredited’. While I do not think that these types of criticisms either add value to the discussion or discredit the discussion, I will state that for the purposes of this discussion, we are referring to Earth and it is assumed that the conditions on Earth as they are at the time of this writing with regard to the natural laws that govern those conditions will remain the same indefinitely.
+ The term ‘why’ in this context is used to determine the reason the action occurred not an attempt to understand why an action is what it is or why the consequences of an action are what they are. If, for example, someone is ignorant of the laws of physics, or has never seen someone or something fall from a cliff, that person may not know why falling from a 10,000 foot high cliff with no means of stopping or slowing the decent will kill a man. In this context, asking the question why is used differently that asking why an action occurred. When the question of ‘why’ is used in the case of this post it is assumed to mean that the question is being asked to determine the reason the action occurred.
-
Harrison Danneskjold,
In post #37 you wrote, "Tj fields: You are clearly too intelligent to not grasp the answer yet, and I won't help you waste your own intellect."
Will you please clarify that which you are referring? The answer to what? To what post are you referring?
You then wrote, "I will, however, mention that you are doing exactly that and that it's tragic to see."
What am I exactly doing? Not grasping the answer (to something) or wasting my intellect? How does one waste his or her intellect?
You then wrote, "And if you don't take your own ideas seriously then neither will I."How did you arrive at the conclusion that I do not take my own ideas seriously?
How does this post relate to the questions and issues raised in the original post?
Is morality objectively derived from the facts of reality?
in Ethics
Posted
dream_weaver,
I agree with your post #53 and #54 and do not find them subjective.