CriticalThinker2000

So what? Maybe other animals form simple concepts but no other animal is capable of moving beyond this and certainly isn't capable of conceptualizing on a level anywhere close to that of humans. This difference is what gives rise to the many many other differences between man and animal. As such, it's fundamental.

The term 'fundamental' has a specific meaning: that from which everything (or the greatest number of things) in a given context arises. Humans are definitely fundamentally different than other animals because we have a conceptual faculty and other animals do not. This conceptual faculty is absolutely fundamental to human beings. What?

Right. You could choose not to have values and you would die. So what is a value? Why do we have the concept 'value'? What is it about reality that gives rise to a need for the concept of 'value'? Yes, exactly! What facts give rise to the concepts of 'value' and 'morality'? The fact that man does not have an automatic course of action and constantly faces the alternatives of life and death. This is all covered in The Objectivist Ethics. Yikes! No, I didn't mean that I believe this. This is what the is-ought dichotomy says. It's a false dichotomy. The is-ought dichotomy is a result of the nature of deductive logic. That is, you cannot have a term in your conclusion (in this case, an 'ought') that was not in your premises. Therefore, the dichotomy says, you cannot get from premises that deal only with facts, to a conclusion that is prescriptive. This dichotomy assumes that you can only approach morality deductively. But when we look at morality and values and ask, what is it about man that gives rise to our need for these concepts? We are approaching morality inductively- by looking out at facts of reality and inducing principles such as: Life is the standard of value.

So you can just choose to not have values? The is-ought dichotomy says that you cannot derive an 'ought' from premises that do not also contain an 'ought'. So you can never get from facts to knowledge of morality. But this is only true if you approach morality deductively. The objectivist morality is an inductive approach- which is the root of your confusion as I've tried to explain several ways.

Where do you think the concept of morality comes from? Why does man even have values? This is classic is-ought dichotomy. There is no deductive proof of morality.

Lol! My frustration shows through. I get a little too familiar after 5 pages of going around in a circle. My answer has two parts: 1) define in essential terms what your question is and 2) the answer to the essential question. 1) Your essential question is, how do we prove knowledge obtained through induction (knowledge that is dependent upon an 'interpretation' of reality). 2) The answer is, Peikoff provides a theory of induction in The Logical Leap which you should read if you're concerned. I do not have a full grasp of it but some necessary elements include, identifying the induction using objective concepts, identifying the causal connections, and integrating your conclusion with the total sum of your knowledge. As your senses are your consciousness's connection to reality, all knowledge is ultimately based on induction and therefore no 'proof' that induction is valid is necessary. Even the concept of 'proof' means to reduce back to sensory data.

Found this great explanation and thought it belonged here (even though it's off topic from the original question).

I'm saying why you should be concerned is because reason is the method by which man chooses and creates values and you are a man. Rights protect your ability to use your mind. I'm agreeing with you I just think your cause is not fundamental because it depends on this cause. And so when you say, 'this is where rights come from', you should supply the fundamental cause and not just any cause.

I think that it's true that rational people often share the same values but that is not the fundamental that gives rise to rights, as your statement says it is. It's an effect of the fundamental I think. Wouldn't a better way to say it be: rights stem from the fact that all people, by their nature, acquire values using the same method, or: Rights stem from the fact that reason is man's means of survival. Or just something that would get across the idea that it's because man uses his mind to create values that we have rights- so our faculty of survival can function. The fact that people do have common values is itself also a result of man's nature. It's an offshoot of the fundamental. The more I understand Objectivist epistemology the more I've realized how important it is to think in fundamentals. I agree with everything you go on to say. I agree that it's true that it becomes clear to most people that there's no good reason to treat the criminal as if he's rational when he's clearly not. But accepting that as the explanation is just going to lead to later problems in your reasoning.

Bro, I don't know how many ways I can say this. An 'interpretation' of the nature of human beings and how they create values is an induction. You're asking for a theory of induction. If you're serious about resolving this conflict, I would recommend The Logical Leap and Intro to Objectivist Epistemology. It's evident that you don't have a grasp of the epistemology. There's nothing wrong with that- everyone is in different stages of understanding- but I'm not going to keep restating the same things.

This is silly. 'Sex organs' as a concept refers to the organs on your body with a sexual capacity- whether they're in use or not. Your car doesn't stop being a car when it's not rolling. Man doesn't stop being man when he quits using reason and goes to sleep. I don't think that the idea that sex organs aren't sex organs when they're not in use is consistent with the objectivist view of concepts. Yes, they also come in multiple colors. But so what? The characteristic that matters in the context of public nudity is their sexual capacity because it's this capacity that differentiates them w/ respect to whether you should show them to other people. Yes, but your genitals are obviously different than the rest of your body with respect to sex.

Yes, it is. Your critique of moral knowledge applies to all knowledge. People had been dropping objects for thousands of years prior to Galileo. Galileo didn't just drop two objects and suddenly basic laws of physics started to crystalize or were suddenly obvious to everyone. The results of experimentation must be perceived and interpreted just like the facts that give rise to morality. I understand that given our advanced state of knowledge gravity is very easily understood and verified but back then it was the opposite. In fact, Newton had to come along to finish Galileo's work. The 'problem' you keep referencing, the fact that man must perceive and interpret facts to arrive at knowledge, is not specific to morality. Experimentation is an extremely useful technique for finding causal connections because it allows you to isolate variables. However, direct manipulation of variables is not the only way to determine causal relationships and arrive at knowledge of reality. Again, experimentation is not the only way to figure out causal relationships. We can observe thousands of instances of people stealing- does it appear to be a tactic for success and happiness? No. Rand identified the cause: you're contradicting your own capacity to value. You did not demonstrate scenarios where theft was moral. You described scenarios where you left out any downside and did not address the fact that you're contradicting the nature of human beings and the way we create values. If you want a theory of induction, I can't give you one. Thankfully you don't need one because the validity of induction is self-evident in that it is the source of all of the concepts you'd have to use to disprove it.

With a view on what sex is. Sex organs are personal because sex is personal, private matter. I don't think sex organs are 'inherently inappropriate to be viewed.' We were discussing a very specific context: public nudity- meaning casual nudity amongst strangers. Although all Objectivism says about sex is that it's good, Mrs. Rand had views on sex that I agree with. She rejected the false dichotomy of: All sex is wrong vs. all sex is good. Similarly I reject the false dichotomy of: we should be ashamed of our genitals vs. we should be comfortable displaying our genitals all the time. I think my view on public nudity is the view consistent with a belief that sex is, as Rand put it, "one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually." Yet that is exactly what you do when you stroll around in public with your sex organs hanging out for every person to see.

Because they're sex organs. Touching genitals and touching fingers are not comparable and neither are looking at someones genitals and looking at their finger. Seeing someones sex organs is an incredibly personal activity. Obviously there are times and places for it but this idea that we should be comfortable with everyones nudity is really odd to me.

It really depends on what you mean by 'discomfort.' Genitals, being sex organs, are not directly comparable to other body parts in this context.

What are you arguing? That it's irrational to be disgusted at the sight of certain naked people?

Yes, I understand your issue with respect to theft. You can just keep coming up with scenarios where the negative consequences of stealing are not apparent and the positive consequences are. And each time I can attempt to show you why you're wrong. That's why you need to understand what principles are, how they function, and why they are valid. Stealing is wrong in principle for the reasons I stated earlier regarding man's means of creating values. Your problems all appear to me to be with Objectivist epistemology and not ethics. What then would constitute a fact in your opinion? Perception of reality is the source of all knowledge. What you're saying, in essence, is that you can't obtain knowledge of reality because your consciousness has an identity (it needs to identify and integrate). According to your standards of knowledge, I could only say something was a fact if I didn't perceive it and didn't interpret it. Think of the implications of your view. You would have to ask: How can we say that the law of gravity is true if it requires perception and interpretation to validate? How could we say anything was true? The premise you're assuming is totally nonsensical.

OK but wait a minute. Now you want to argue about whether theft is moral or immoral. Have you resolved your more general epistemological problem regarding disagreements? That is what your initial question in this thread was and I want to make sure that you've answered it before we start debating whether theft is moral or not (on which there are many threads I'm sure). In my previous posts, I explained the following chain of reasoning to you: there exist facts by which we can judge whether an action is moral or not. You wanted to know what these facts were, I stated that they pertain to the nature of man's consciousness and means of survival. Right after the post where I explained this, you restated your initial question about moral disagreements and didn't understand how my post answered that question. So we've come full circle here. Is your initial question answered? Because if we start debating theft that is not going to answer your more fundamental question of, how do we decide what is moral/immoral when people disagree? Even though I'm not sure you're clear regarding your initial question, I'll answer this too. When I say that the determinant is 'the facts of reality' that is an incredibly general statement that encompasses all facts and does not make clear which facts are important to consider. So, when I said facts, what I was specifically referring to is the nature of man (which is a metaphysical fact). Human values do not exist in nature. How does man create them? What is man's tool of survival? Ayn Rand correctly identified that the fundamental source of all values is the rational faculty- our ability to think. She also identified that physical coercion negates this faculty. To propose that you can use physical coercion to gain a value is to propose that you can gain a value by subverting the very faculty that gives rise to all values- a clear contradiction. This is why initiating physical force (and theft is on variant) is wrong in principle. So take your example: you steal from me. Yes, of course you don't drop dead on the spot. This is why principles are an important tool of cognition. They allow you to see a whole range of consequences beyond what's immediately apparent. For example, it's often tempting to lie because it let's you get away with something in the near term. As a long-term strategy, however, it's disasterous. The same is true of theft. Yes, you get the money in your hand this instance but there are many negative consequences of your actions. Here are a few off the top of my head: you've undercut your self-esteem by implicity accepting the premise that you can't take care of your own life, you've denied yourself the chance of feeling the pride that comes along with earning something, you've provided all of the people in your life with a reason to not trust you, your business career will be destroyed, it's going to be difficult to find a job etc. Stealing is simply not a method for success any more than lying is a good tactic for dealing with your spouse. When Rand says that man's life is the standard of value, she really means man's life with full consideration given to the fact that man has a specific identity.

I'm just having a terribly hard time getting to the essence of your problem which I thought I'd already answered. Let's take a real world example: You think theft is moral and I think theft is immoral. We can try to convince each other of our respective positions but suppose we don't come to an agreement. Who is right? The determinant of who is right is reality- the facts- the way things are. Just like Newton believed in his laws of physics and his detractors did not. We look to the facts of reality to decide the winner of that argument as well. Just because Newton disagreed with others didn't mean that gravity both existed and didn't exist. Just because we disagree about the morality of theft doesn't mean it's immoral and moral. That would be a contradiction.

The same way we determine the truth of everything. Determine if it is logical and integrates with the totality of your knowledge. ?? I don't understand the source of your confusion. Apply the relevant principles which are logically derived from facts of reality. For example, it is a fact that pride and self esteem are pre-requisites for happiness. This is derived from looking out at reality (the nature of man's consciousness and the means by which we create values) just as evolution is proven by observing reality. Man creates values by the use of his rational mind. Initiating physical force to obtain a so called value not only contradicts what we know about how man creates values but it is a rejection of the mind- the very faculty that gives rise to his ability to value at all. This subject is discussed extensively in other threads because it is a popular point of confusion. But again, the facts that you would point to are facts about man's nature and his relationship to reality.

Just to answer your original question: You should re-read The Objectivist Ethics to get a better understanding of what Objectivism actually says about morality. First of all, morality properly defined is a code of values to guide your choices. The fact that we are volitional beings is what gives rise to our need for a morality. Our range of choices is wide open and since we lack instincts and automatic means of making choices; morality is there to provide guideposts for our decisions. Accordingly, you need to make a distinction here between an error in knowledge and an immoral action. Suppose you find out that a course of action you previously took was not actually in your own interest- that does not mean you acted immorally. Omniscience is not the standard of judgement! I don't see how the fact that other people have accepted different codes of morality is rellevant. It's just proof that morality is a code of values and is something that needs to be chosen. Now, what do you mean people's concepts of morality can change? Yes, a person can change their explicitly (and implicitly) held moral views but they cannot change the fact that they need a morality. The ethical principles of Objectivism are a result of man's nature. They are metaphysical facts and they are absolute within the context under which they were formed. They will always be true so long as man is man. No, Objectivism holds that reality is the final arbiter of who is correct. There is no contradiction here. One of you may be wrong, one of you may be right, or maybe neither of you are right. Again, morality only applies to the realm of choice. So long as you are open to correcting errors of knowledge, there is nothing immoral about making a mistake. This is really an epistemological question, not a moral one. There are many reasons people disagree about all sorts of things- not just morality. False premises, errors in reasoning (both deductively and inductively), etc. Stated in the widest formulation, the standard by which you judge whether someone is right or wrong is by asking, does this correspond with reality? So if two people disagree, so what? The standard is objective reality. OK, now you're getting to the root of your question. Do you see why your issue is not really about morality but about all knowledge in general? This would be an example of Ayn Rand's point about checking your premises. We can discuss morality all day but the root cause with your question is a deeper epistemologic premise. Your question, in essence, seems to me to be: Isn't omniscience necessary for certainty? No, certainty is contextual. It is a result of being able to define the relevant context under which the evidence in favor of something is conclusive. There are two separate issues here. The first is concerning your idea that new knowledge will contradict previous knowledge of which we were certain. New knowledge cannot contradict old knowledge provided you did not make an error and you properly defined the context under which you're certain about your conclusion. The second issue is an argument often offered by skeptics: How do you know you won't find an undiscovered fact that disproves your knowledge? Or how do you know you haven't made an error? Once again, these questions assume a standard of omniscience for all knowledge. You need to reject this. The fallacy they're committing is called the assertion of the arbitrary. The fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim with no connection to facts of reality and expects the claim to maintain the same epistemological status as a claim based upon facts. If I haven't answered your question, I'd really suggest that you explore Rand's theory of epistemology and more specifically the application of it to questions of certainty and arbitrary assertions.