iago

I agree that life is the "only possible ultimate value around which to base a coherent value hierarchy". But if you leave aside "survival" as the ultimate purpose, then this "ultimate value" claim no longer means much. Life is the ultimate value, fine, but what is meant to be done with it? And most importantly, what does "life" even mean? Biologically speaking, we have always been alive. Before you were born you were a fetus, and before that you were a sperm and an egg, and before that you were multiple cells in the bodies of your parents, grandparents, etc... Life doesn't come from non life. Biologically speaking, reproduction can be understood as the "survival of 'life' beyond the individual organism". Biologically speaking, life is a constant transformation in which individuals appear, and its survival depends or reproduction.

I find it hard to believe that philosophers prior to Ayn Rand didn't realize that ethics was for humans, and not for cats, dogs and stones. Not doubt ethics is for humans, but then why "survival" as its purpose? My understanding of the Objectivist argument is that it states that since the natural purpose of life (in general) is "survival", then that's what human morality should aim at. The example of the mantis shows that this is not the "natural" purpose of life. Has anybody here ever read books about evolutionary psychology? The empirical evidence in favor of evolutionary psychology is just too strong. Evolutionary psychology studies human behavior as a given instead of defining what it "should be". I assume that everyone here believes in evolution. So, in the time of the cave what sense would this theory that sex is an expression of spiritual values make? Could it be that nature has programmed us with a desire that moves us towards successful reproduction? This is the only reason that I can think of why men, for example, are attracted to women with certain physical characteristics. Objectivists have evaded this question, but why are attractive girls simply attractive?

**Mod Note: Merged from separate thread. -Dante** Has anybody read David Friedman's criticism of the Objectivist meta-ethics, in which he gives the example of the mantis? I read it and it sounds pretty solid to me: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html Has Ayn Rand really disproved the is-ought dichotomy or did she just base her arguments on false premises?

It's not a matter of life not being the highest value. If you love something so much that your life would be meaningless without it, then it makes sense to give your life to defend it. Maybe you love your wife so much that your life without her would be a burden instead of a pleasure. It only makes sense to give your life for something if you are sure that you would not want to live without it. Still, even if you are willing to give your life for something, the concept of value is still derived from your own life. It doesn't mean that you love it more than your life because since anything's value depends on you being alive, it is not a valid comparison.

I was looking on the internet for the same subject and found this topic from a couple of years ago... Can't believe nobody mentioned Nathaniel Branden! He is not a full fled objectivist when it comes to politics, but his books are very good.

By evil I mean the intent of doing that which is destructive to other's lives or to one's own life or character. From a psychological perspective, if a person does evil believing it is good, then he is not to be pointed as the active source of that same evil. If we are all borne with no a priori knowledge, then what are the primary motives for evil, and to which point is a person capable of doing evil while knowing it as such... My question is about the psychology of evil.

yeah, maybe that was a wrong trip if you think of it as an "action plan".. It started when I asked myself "why would it be wrong to steal from the government?", and I couldn't find any answer. I still think that stealing "small items" such as a library book would be justifiable for most people, because they are not getting a lot of their money back... But I gotta admit that it's pretty petty way to go about it.. :-/ what makes more sense is to refuse to pay taxes in the first place, and refuse also to use the services.. If enough people did that, they couldn't just put everybody in jail. have you ever heard of Agorism?

I'm going to answer that question with an analogy: Suppose that you are very rich and so are 3 of you neighbors, which you are not friends with. I am an expert criminal hacker and I have been stealing from the 4 of you every month for 20 years and, since you were all people who didn't pay much attention to their finances, you never found out. One day I make a big mistake and the 4 of you find out at the same time. In court, the prosecution proves that all of my wealth came from the money I stole from the 4 of you and almost all of it was traded for durable goods. The jury decides that the goods should be distributed to each of the 4 according to the proportion of the theft from each. Now there is a problem: most of you are interested in the same goods and the market value of each good is hard to tell... Also, selling the goods would probably reduce their value in comparison to the value of use... If you are all 4 rational individuals, would you decide that since the values are not objective then nobody can take anything or would you make an agreement for each one to take what interests him the most? Now suppose 40,000 people were being stolen from and only 4 of you find you, and the jury also says that you can take the equivalent of what has been stolen from you... But now you have 10,000 times more goods to choose from... And what if the movement grew steadily until when it got to about 10,000 people and the crime stopped happening? Would the other 30,000 people benefit from not being stolen from, even if they didn't get everything back? To have the right to morally steal he would have to use only the services he cannot avoid... Then he would have the right to get back all he has paid, since the only reason he uses the sidewalk is that he cannot fly.

The amount of government property is so vast that when that starts to happen the country will be free a long time ago... If you have not choice weather to be provided with a service or not, then it matters not weather you receive that service. With the same logic, a company could paint your house without your knowledge while you were on vacation and then charge you for it, by saying you were provided with their service. If you assume that the government has that right while the private company has not, then you should have a reason for it. The fact that the government has the power to enforce that right while the private company does not is NOT a valid reason, for if it were valid then the government should have any right it is able to enforce. That's the same principle that the Christian political philosophy is based on: blind obedience.

The government has no right to take from you the taxes that you pay. It all goes to the "collective whole" without the approval of the individual taxpayer, so that it becomes "public property" and NOT your property. So, if the act of making something "public property" is immoral, then you should have no respect whatsoever for the "property" status of anything that is "public". I believe it is morally right to take back from the government as much property as has been stolen from you, even if you have to "steal back" a specific item, such as a book. It is easy to calculate how much you have paid in taxes, now the hard part is to calculate how much the item you take back is worth... In the case of not returning a book, you should calculate the market value of that specific book and deduct it from the amount that has been stolen from you. The majority of the people don't even have to bother calculating it, because it's not gonna get near as much as what has been taken from them. On the other hand it is morally wrong to take social welfare, because it is a way to comply with the immoral system.

I think it's more like: 1. they start from an irrational presupposition which they assume to be beyond reason: "Bible = God = Truth". This is the only faith they have. 2. after presupposition 1 is accepted by faith, it's pure reason. They use reason the best way they can to make some sense out of the Bible, and to apply it with as much consistency as they can, and of course what prevails is the belief in a cruel and hateful god.

Come on, now am I the only one who likes the Westboro Baptist Church? Look at this: "God Loves Everyone, The Greatest Lie Ever Told" http://www.westborobaptistchurch.com/writt...veryone-lie.pdf This church worships a hateful god and tells gays that they are going to hell... They are consistent with the Bible. Nietzsche said that the moderate religions are the ones we should be the most severe with, because they hide their ugliness by compromising with more liberal views. If all Christians were as consistent with their beliefs as the westboro baptist church members, Christianity would be lost in history by now. People who have the strength of their convictions at least take ideas seriously, and take their lives seriously. Conviction doesn't make an evil idea a virtue, but I do have a lot more respect for the psychology of a westboro baptist church member than for a moderate Christian. more on the theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q4qvZWFqjQ (interview with a tv channel, gay leader supports the church and talks about the hypocrisy of other churches) (interview with the amazing atheist)

I thought about this when I was watching the Ayn Rand interview with Phill Donahue... There is a part when a woman accused Rand of trying to create an "elitist society" and gave the argument that "today this is just not practical" as her only reason for why an "elitist society" was a bad idea. Then Donahue (maybe unable to notice the emptiness of the woman's argument and that answering it would be a complete waste of time, or maybe just trying to keep his image in front of the tv audience by saying what he was "supposed to say" and defending the questioner) asks her: "So you are saying that all of those who disagree with you are not honorable?" Rand: "Not honorable in their ideas, I don't judge them personally or psychologically." Donahue: "But honorable is the worst kind of judgement..." Rand: "I have to know something about a person's knowledge an attitude in regard to his or her ideas in order to say 'this is honorable, this is not honorable'." (...) The essence of a person's character is formed by the rational faculty of his mind, which forms his most profound values. If all of a person's values are formed by this rational process, then wouldn't the source of an evil action ultimately be either lack of knowledge or the weakness of avoiding the truth? Could the notion of "evil" be applied to the essence of a person's character, which is the act of making judgments of right and wrong? Would it be possible for a person to know the truth and to choose to be evil with the full knowledge of its meaning? A person who does not know the truth is certainly not evil in his psychology. So, would real evil only be the same as weakness? Now how does that apply to our relation with people of evil philosophies, such as communism or racism? What amazes me most is the psychological strength with which people defend evil ideas... What keeps evil going on earth is the active intent of defending it. But at the same time, the defenders of evil are people with more independence of mind and a LOT more integrity than the great majority of the people, so I can admire them for that... Have you seen the movie American History X? There was a point in the movie when I realized I had a great admiration for the character Derek (played by Edward Norton), even after he split the black kid's head on the curb, because he lived exactly by what he believed and didn't make the slightest compromise to gain other people's approval... And when he came back from prison, not believing in racism anymore, he gave up his girlfriend, his safety and the social status of a GOD in order to be true to his new belief. This is a man of strong character. So I believe the world is divided mostly between two kinds of people: those who vigorously defend evil and keep the world moving on the wrong direction, and the followers whose lives are all worthless cheap copies of bad books written by people they do not know... So in terms of psychology what would be the greatest evil: the laziness and lack of love for one's existence of not exerting mental effort or doing other people the harm of convincing them of evil ideas? I think the evil leaders do achieve some sense of psychological greatness, so they do a lesser harm to themselves because they do live with a sense of greatness, even though it's fantasy-greatness... From an egotistical point of view a harm done to one's self is worst than a harm done to others... So the followers are certainly more evil than the leaders, and it's with the people who say that ideas don't matter that we should be the most harsh with, because they keep the intellectual vacuum in which the nonsense prevails.

Wouldn't that be a form of self-imposed duty then?

Great answer, thanks!