Luke77

There is nothing in any of my statements above that talks about living according whimsical desires. I said nothing of the sort. Quit putting words in my mouth that were not said. The word "your" does not imply subjectivity and cannot imply "subjectivity" in this context, because I am not talking about how I personally feel. I am talking about life being the standard, I am saying that life is the standard of evaluation. I am not saying people should live according to whimsical desires and irrational urges. I am saying a person should control their life according to reason and objective reality, to pursue their rational self interest not their irrational drives.

Your life is the standard means life is the standard. Life is the standard, your life is the standard. Life is the standard. That is not a subjective pladitude. You are both irrational.

Ok I see. So "my" life is not a life. I don't exist objectively. Makes sense not. I am not a subjectivist. And you are irrational.

It cannot be subjective. Ayn Rand's objective basis for morality is not a subjective morality. It is not based on a mere opinion, it is based on what one should do in accordance to reason. Not on what one feels. Choosing to live is a pre-moral choice, after which, the question becomes "How?" This is the same as "What do I do?" One can either go about it randomly or with a methodology designed for success. That methodology is called morality. An explicit morality allows one to choose rationally among values. It makes the selection of values rational by providing a method to evaluate them. Values are compared to a moral standard, and prioritized according to how well they promote that standard. To make decisions easier, we develop virtues which are moral habits which tend to help gain values. Historically, the concept of morality has often been used negatively as a list of thou shall not's in check against ones actions. The stance taken is often that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't violate any moral edicts; but the source of these moral edicts is often mystical or arbitrary. A list of prohibitions, even if founded in reason rather than mysticism, is not a sufficient outline for success. Morality should be positive rather than negative. Not What shouldn't I do? but What should I do?. The problem with defining morality negatively is that pretty much anything goes provided one avoids a few problem areas. This is not useful because within the sphere of pretty much anything goes, there is no methodical way to choose which action is best, whereas positive morality sets forth habits which lead to the achievement of values and methods for choosing what to value which is the way to live and thrive. With ones own life as the standard of value, morality is not a burden to bear, but a prudent and effective guide which furthers life and success. If you say that Ayn Rand's morality is subjective. You are not a Objectivist, at least not by the estimations of her ethics is concerned. Man's interest is defined as that which benefits his life. It is an evaluation of the facts of reality. Since the nature of man's life has particular, objective requirements, determining whether something promotes his life is a statement of fact. One's interests should not be confused with one's desires. A desire is that which you wish to achieve or acquire. A desire can be subjective or irrational. One's interests, though, are objective facts of reality. They don't state what you want to achieve. They state what you should achieve to promote your life. A proper morality is based on man's self-interest. It is based on what allows him to live and flourish. Identification of his interests allows him to decide how to act, and what values to pursue. It is the measure of right and wrong. Its also the best moral system for happiness on earth.

Also my morality is not subjective. So I don't know what you're getting at. One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality. The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions. A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy. Moral subjectivity is morally bankrupt and evil period.

No I don't follow. The objective criteria of valueing oneself and pursuing ones happiness, does not include subjectivity and whim whatsoever. Acting in one's rational self interest does not include spur of the moment hedonism and trampling on others liberties. It follows from first principles of reason to act benevolent in ones trades and to always plan ahead for long term benefits. This implies controlling ones emotions and self-control not being some one of loose morality and brutish behavior.

1. Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived. >She was a human being, and human beings are flawed. Was she good? Yes. Was she the greatest human being to ever live? No. She is not a deity. 2. "Atlas Shrugged" is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world. > Its a good novel, but its not the greatest human achievement in human history. 3. Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth. > The virtue of selfishness stems from the primacy of man's reason, not solely from Rand herself. 4. Acceptance of Objectivist epistemology is essential to mankind's future survival on earth. > No. The epistemology of Ayn Rand is essential to the philosophy of Objectivism, and for Objectivists like myself, but not all of mankind is rational or rationally capable of understanding her epistemology, and humans have survived much without it throughout human existence. This seems also to be a manevolent universe fallacy of sorts, and why does human survival hinge on having a objective understanding of knowledge? This question made no logical sense. 5. Immanuel Kant is the most evil person who has ever lived. >No argument from me. 6. Immanuel Kant deliberately set out to cause the Nazi Holocaust. >The nazis justified their actions by his philosophical views, so yeah. 7. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are only slightly less immoral than Immanuel Kant. >Well no, but they aren't the best examples of moral uprightness. 8. James Valliant's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" is a profound, brilliantly argued expose of the above. >Never read it, so I can't comment. 9) Modern physics, such as Einstein's theories, are philosophically corrupt and must be urgently replaced by a new physics based on Ayn Rand's epistemology. >Objectivism is a philosophy of life. Physics is physics, lets keep it that way please. 10) Words have "true" meanings that are only available to superior Objectivist philosophers, whose job it is to inform those in lesser disciplines, such as scientists, of these true meanings. Where these special true Objectivist meanings clash with conventional dictionary meanings, those conventions are false and corrupt. >Again Objectivism is a philosophy, not the sciences of the scientific method. They are two separate and distinctive enterprises lets keep it that way please. 11) Ayn Rand invented a new, Objectivist super-logic which incorporates the standard bi-valent logic formalised by Aristotle, yet dramatically improves on it, solving among other issues Hume's problem of induction. >No argument from me. 12) Ayn Rand is the only true Objectivist that ever lived, and will ever live. Everyone else is merely a student of Objectivism. >Well, since she's the one who came up with the philosophy she was a true Objectivist yes in a sense, but there's plenty of others like Leonard Peikoff who in my view outlived her true Objectivist status in terms of its philosophical applications. So no.

Life is the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action. Life requires action, and action requires values. Philosophy in general, and ethics in particular, attempt to answer the questions, "What do I do?" and "Why?" People study philosophy so they can know how to live their life. So that you can live life successfully and happily, you must learn which values to hold and how to achieve them -- this is your life as your moral standard. All moral questions (questions of right action) are questions of how to live happily and successfully, and all moral principles must be measured against how they promote and benefit your life and happiness. Your life as your moral standard holds all things promoting your life as the good. To every living thing, there is one primary choice, and that is to live or not -- to engage in the action required to further its own life or to engage in action that destroys its own life. The only other alternative is death. Choosing life as your standard of value is a pre-moral choice. It cannot be judged as right or wrong; but once chosen, it is the role of morality to help man to live the best life possible. The opposite of choosing life is altruism: the moral doctrine that holds death as its moral standard. It holds sacrifice as the only good, and all things "selfish" as evil. According to altruism, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as it does not further your life it is considered good. The more consistently a person is altruistic, the closer their actions are to suicide. The consistent altruist will give up every bit of food he owns to other people because that is what he considers good, and die because of it. Your life as your standard does not mean Hedonism -- the spur of the moment instant gratification, doing whatever you feel like. Your life as your standard means acting in your rational self-interest. Rational self-interest takes into account the long-term effects of every action. Your life as your standard does not mean trampling on other people to get what you want. This is not in your rational self-interest. It is in your interest to be benevolent. Nor does your life as your standard mean cheating people to get ahead, even if they don't realize it and you never get caught. Fraud is not in your rational self-interest because you lose your independence and you sacrifice honesty to an unreality that you have to maintain to perpetrate your fraud. This is self-destructive in the long run. In order to know what is good, which actions are objectively in a person's self-interest, we develop virtues which are principles of action.

On the contrary I would say the Bible has as much Objective truth in it as any other mythology. Which is zero.

I agree with everything you said thanks for the solid imput. I would like to also highlight that Anarchists also hold moral subjectivity in terms of their ethics which is also quite contrary to Objectivists who hold that morality is rooted in objective reality and man's faculty to reason. I am still learning how to go about articulating myself in a clear and concise manner. I am not sure though I want to debate with anarchists anymore, as I don't want to sanction their immoral beliefs, but thanks for the pointers anyway. I am in the process of taking courses on Objectivism, so my arguments might be a bit noob, but with time effort I will improve in that area.

Anarchism is immoral & impossible for namely three reasons. 1)There is no rule of law and no ban on the initiation of force and aggression. 2)You have to have the backing of the rule of law to stop the initiation of force and aggression. 3)A market on the use of force is objectively immoral and illegitimate. Anarchism merely confuses the objective distinction between proper government and improper government. A proper government is a government that upholds the rule of law and bans the initiation of force and aggression from entering the market. An improper government is a government that initiates force and aggression. The Anarchists will say all governments even the proper kind of government is objectively immoral, but this cannot be so. It is objectively immoral to initiate force and aggression, but the only body that can legally ban its use is a government formed by its proper functions of upholding the law and abiding to the law and banning the use of initiatied force and aggression. A market seperated by competitive defense contractor businesses cannot enforce the law, only the government can, which is subsequently why anarchy is a floating abstraction and fictional concept which can never work in objective reality. In practice anarchism is violence and aggression against individuals rights.

Hi there

Hello my name is Lukis.