Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

VWA

Regulars
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

VWA's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. @DonAthos I am sure the majority of people are innately motivated to want to be happy. Ensuring survival and procreation of the gene is a evolutionary commandment. If our psychological pleasure and pain mechanism did not evolve towards that end, we wouldn't be here today due to natural selection. But what is interesting is that we also have evolved volition, an ability that allows us to choose whether to follow the stick & carrot of our evolutionary biology or to pursue something else entirely. @Eiuol And what is the teleological end of volition then? If we have the physical ability to ignore the call of our base biology, to pursue any goals of our choosing, what does that teleologically tell us? @2046 I'm sure the vast majority of actual suicide bombing in real life are motivated by other reasons and are not ends in themselves. For my example, I was talking about a specific hypothetical case where by suicide-bombing is an end in itself, or is that too much an impossibility for you? If you find that's too hard to imagine, then let's have a variation where the ultimate motive for this suicide-bomber been revenge. Killing those targets objectively achieves vengeance, and vengeance in this case is an end in itself as opposed to a means to achieve something else. @dream_weaver Why do you need a blueprint before you build a building? You do it because it promotes efficiency and effectiveness in achieving your goal. But I think what that question really is asking is "Why does men need a universal code of values". There really is only one universal value, and that's reason. If a man wants to achieve any goal he envisions, reason is the only way to get there. Every other values however are relative depending on what you ultimately want to accomplish.
  2. I mean ultimately subjective (intermediate values however are objective). And yes, if subjective, any end-goal just "is", no objective judgement can be passed onto them, at all. If a person who is masochistic, like the hermit in your example, choose suffering as their ultimate purpose in life, then it is just as "valid" as one who choose happiness along the line of Obj Ethics. If the hermit wants to live a long-life of suffering but was dumb enough to not take care of his health and dies early due to malnutrition, then it can be said given what he ultimately wants, his meal plan was objectively wrong.
  3. @Eiuol I agree Man is a "rational animal" as reason is our tool to shape the universe to our will. Living according to that nature logically entails one to observe, think, and plan, before acting, to achieve our purposes (rather than say just acting). That's it. Note, I never argued why should a person use reason as the method to judge whether an action will contribute to or go against an individual's chosen purpose; I am in complete agreement with Obj Epi in this respect. But reason is only a vehicle, a method, to get to places. It doesn't tell you where you should go, only how to get there. Living according to one's nature as a rational animal means using reason as the sole means to achieve your goals (as opposed to blind faith). Living according to this nature doesn't entail what specific final goals (happiness..etc.) you should have, only that whatever goals you choose, you need to use reason to get there.
  4. @DonAthos I don't think such an argument has been made or is even possible to make. (On the off chance there is such an argument I would be very interested in hearing it of course) But no, what bugs me is this view that happiness is a state that is somehow intrinsically all important, that it (and it's opposite, suffering) alone can serve as an ultimate scale to judge everything else. Any ideals subjectively selected by a human mind as his ultimate goal can act as a scale to judge everything else. And every action can be objectively judged as to be contributing towards that ultimate goal, or going against it. If the definition of Ethics is defined as a set of guidelines to guide an individual's action in life toward happiness, where by happiness is already embedded in the definition itself as the ultimate goal, then that's that. But if the definition of Ethics is defined as simply a set of guideline to guide an individual's actions in life, full stop (which is what most dictionary states), then Obj Ethics is wonky, and Ethics is ultimately, subjective.
  5. If the purpose of a goal/objective is to achieve something else, then they are intermediate. In these cases you can answer the question "why" with "because 'next step'" And also in these cases, reason can be used to pass down objective judgments of right and wrong based on whether these intermediate goals will logically lead to the "next step". If a goal/objective isn't chosen as a means to achieve something else, but an end in itself, then in this case that's a final destination/ultimate goal. For these you cannot answer the question "why" because there is no next step (they are "just because", or as software like to say "duh")
  6. @DonAthos The point I'm making is is that reason cannot be used to determine what the ultimate goal should be for an individual, only how to get there once a goal is chosen. The way you are passing judgement on the suicide-bomber presupposes he either already have picked happiness as his ultimate goal (whether in Heaven or on Earth), or that happiness is somehow an ultimate intrinsic value everyone should pursue. I'm not saying a suicide-bomber's objective should be respected. If your ultimate goal is something along the line of a happy life as proposed by Obj Ethics, then reason dictates that to achieve your goal, it is imperative to take out enemies that threatens such a goal with extreme prejudice. But the same logic applies to the bomber, or any other individuals with different aims.
  7. And pray tell how do you discern what are intermediate destinations without a final one as guide?
  8. @2046 If a suicide bomber's ultimate aim is say something else, and blowing himself up to kill civilians is his means of achieving that, then yes, in this case it is very possible he is wrong, in that suicide-bombing won't achieve what he wanted. But what if his ultimate aim is to just kill those people, full stop? That's the point here. Objective judgement of right and wrongs can only be passed based whether an action will contribute to or go against an ultimate ideal/goal an individual picks. But there is no objective standard to issue a judgement on the near infinite number of ideals a man could pick as his ultimate ideal/goal. The sort of life a person achieves by following Obj Ethics is just one ideal among a sea of uncounted others.
  9. Reason is man's basic tool to achieve anything (survival included), I agree. Reason tells a man how to efficiently/effectively get from point A to point B. That's it, nothing more nothing less. Reason doesn't tell a person what the final destination should be, only intermediate destinations of how to get there. A fanatic suicide-bomber looking to take out as many civilians as possible with his life will also have to utilize reason to achieve that. But I doubt such an example would qualify as adhering to Obj Ethics.
  10. Okay, let's switch that scientist with a suicide-bomber, whose ultimate value is to assassinate 5 high-ranking infidels in his country. This man decides to leave his de-facto obj-happy life and brings down those high-rank infidels; dying in the process. Would you also say this guy is a hero as well? If not, what's objectively different between the two examples? Both are pursuing a subjective ideal of their choosing. Both are utilizing reason to achieve their ideals in the most efficient/effective way possible. And if there is no objective way to evaluate the near infinite number of ideals possible for a man to select as his ultimate purpose, then whatever "destruction" is caused by lack of consideration for Obj Ethics is a non-issue. Because in both cases of the Scientist and the Suicide-Bomber, unless Obj Ethics provide them a more efficient/effective way to achieve their ultimate goal, any breach is simply meet with a "So?".
  11. I agree physically-alive fits as an axiom. To take or plan to take any physical actions as opposed to non-action, you express a choice/preference to be physically-alive as opposed to be physically-dead. To stay physically-alive however, nutrients/hospitable environment are absolute requirements, Obj Ethics is not. Obj Ethics is one way to stay physically-alive in order to achieve some end result If you are looking to stay physically-alive to achieve some other result, then Obj Ethics isn't a necessity. There is nothing axiomatic about Obj Ethics/Obj-life.
  12. I say wonky because while Obj Meta and Epi is derived from self-evident, the root of Obj Ethics is not. Given the objective nature of reality and its laws, reason is there as a tool to tell us how to efficiently and effectively reach from our present state to the ultimate desired future state. Reason doesn't tell us what the ultimate desired future state should be. The root of Obj Ethics states/implies the ultimate desired state is happiness. Is that self-evident? So far the responses either takes this question for granted and imply yes, or give a false dilemma that if an individual's ultimate goal isn't happiness, it must be misery and death.
  13. Hmm, where have I see a similar argument before. "You think it's wonky to identify Bible as the proper standard of value? Wow." And that's why I don't take things for granted. I agree with what you said in the 2 previous paragraphs. But this last paragraph, just because an individual didn't choose the kind of happiness one would achieve by following Obj Ethics does not automatically constitute them actively seeking suffering and death. Suffering and death can be stumbled upon the path in the pursuit of any ideals, Obj included. Take this example: A devoted scientist has developed the ability to travel through a black-hole. He can pass through the singularity unscathed and safely arrive on the other side, which his theory tells him is another universe completely different from ours. But he cannot travel or communicate back in anyway, and it's almost guaranteed that he will die in a year's time once he gets to the other side due to running out of life-support. But to this man, to be able to glimpse and study the greatest mysteries of the universe is his ultimate goal. So he leaves Earth and the Obj-happy life he has, travels through the blackhole, studies the greatest mysteries of the universe, and dies to suffocation in a year. He didn't die happy, as he would if he stayed on Earth, lead a productive life, and raised a family (in accordance with his biological nature), but he died content knowing he achieved his own chosen purpose in life. Now, is this man actively pursuing happiness? Is he actively seeking suffering and death? Or is he seeking something else entirely?
  14. Well, I am in complete agreement with Obj Meta and Epi so I am not looking for any super natural explanations. It's the root of Obj Ethics that I find wonky.
  15. Let's use your definition then, the entire organic state (as opposed to just emotional) of an individual living a life in accordance with his organic requirements. Same question.
×
×
  • Create New...