StrictlyLogical

Entity: I have a code of morality I have adopted. It is selfish and supports my life. The word "ethical" means in accordance with my morality. "Ethical" X are therefore things in accordance with my morality, which I have and by which I am sole beneficiary and which I must follow once I have chosen to live. Whatever ethical "rights" are (you have told me what in reality they are), they must be in accord with morality. If you are wondering what your status is vis a vis myself, it depends on whether you are the same kind of entity as me (I,e, a rational, conceptual, creative, trader), if so I will 1. want desperately to deal/trade with you and in fact form (or invite you into) a society to facilitate as much 2. I understand because you are exactly like me the limits you will demand of that arrangement/society, and what factors are required to ensure you are a benefit to yourself, which is (most importantly) when you can be of most benefit to me (free from interference to follow your self interested morality). 3. Limits agreed to and required in the society are defined in this context If not I will determine: 1. on what level /how you can be of use to me 2. what factors are required to ensure you can be of that maximal use to me 3. decide at my option whether or not to bother with you for any purpose This IS the ethical since it is in accordance with my morality. When you state "convenient" you should be saying "selfish". It is more accurate. You ask "Has man become the final arbiter of reality?" not at all. Man IS the final arbiter of his action, the action either results in his benefit or detriment. In any case I have not said I was a man. You used the term "ethical right" please tell me what in reality you are referring to. You also said "life as a property" was inalienable.... I do not understand what fact of reality you are referring to. Life is created life is destroyed... as a property of reality matter takes on forms alternatively alive and dead (or inanimate)... it is not physically "inalienable" Might does not make right (i.e. define it). Right often requires might. Might does not always make wrong. In effect might is a tool which can and must be used ethically (in accordance with morality)" end of Entity comments

You missed the point 2) It is a consideration the first entity makes. It has to take into account what is neccessary in order to facilitate the arrangement with the second entity once it is determined to be of importance. The hamburger example is on point here. Maintenance of a relationship with an author for the benefit to the entity requires what the author demands and also needs to be an author, namely freedom from interference, life etc. Maintenance of the relationship with a hamburger for the benefit it provides to the entity requires only that it be kept refrigerated... if that is done ALL the benefit of a hamburger is provided. From this point forward I will act as the entity, please ask questions or attempt to pursuade me of what it is you are claiming to be a fact of reality.

This is not a statement of reality. Secondly, it is an invalid meaningless assertion of a set which cannot exist. The question does X contain itself, in this case involves a meaningless X, about which there is in fact no answer to the question. It is equally meaningless to answer yes to the question as it is to answer no. In fact rather than a paradox I would call it a reduction ad absurdum... it proves that the notion of any set containing itself is meaningless to begin with.

If a second entity will not or does not agree with nor abide by the limits satisfactory for the first entity, the first entity's life and or its ability to act in furtherance of it according to its code is threatened or actually harmed/impeded. A "criminal" entity who repeatedly ignores the requirements of the proper society would be one example. An other entity which would not or could not make any agreement with the entity, would not or could not recognise the limits of action and refrain from interference with the entity would pose no impetus for the entity's inclusion or invitation of the second entity... the interaction with the second entity would be lacking the great benefits of trading goods service, knowledge, company and would actually be a potential risk to life. In particular, what makes any second entity worth forming the special arrangement with, ties to its ability to make agreements, recognize limits of action and its ability to perform things which in fact require conceptualization, namely, that it is a rational conceptual entity capable of thought, creativity, production of value. Secondly what the second entity needs to be valuable to itself and the entity, to have that something special worth forming the arrangement with, is its freedom to act, think, and create on its own. The motivation, the reason (benefits to life) to enter into a specific kind of arrangement with the second entity would disappear without it providing these values. Furthermore, what value a second entity does provide is contingent only upon certain factors. If those factors fall below the requirements of the arrangement it makes no sense to include them. Simply put the entity will simply not enter into an arrangement or society with the second entity and it has no reason to do so. A hamburger is worth far more to an entity as a foodstuff than as a potential inventor of the lightbulb, a writer of plays, a chessmate, an entity to exchange thoughts and feelings. Moreover, in addition to the hamburger not being able to be an inventor, writer, chess player, confidant, the requirements for that hamburger to BE the most valuable (i.e. food) do not include freedom to act, think and create (as would be necessary for the writer, chess player, confidant) ... what is necessary for the hamburger is that it be unpoisoned, stored in a refrigerator, and consumed prior to spoilage. The above is hastily composed: but there are two main points. 1. What second entity is worth it for the first to engage with. 2. What are the requirements of the second entity for the benefits of the engagement to work. When the entities are of the same nature there is the case I described previously. This is about a second entity of a different nature.

The act of eating the cyanide, as performed by the man, can be evaluated morally. 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. If you want a separate moral evaluation of others' action or inaction while observing the man die, that is a second and separate matter

The exercise does not require you to try to fit animals into the picture... it calls into question your understanding of what it means to "adopt" principles or folllow a "code of action".... In any case: Suppose this entity has identified that dealing with other entities falls within its code of action specifically that voluntarily trading goods, services, knowledge, company etc. can be of great benefit. The entity then decides not to isolate itself. It then ponders what kind of associations or arrangement with other entities it will enter into. It decides what kind of society to form... and exactly equivalent, decides what kind of society to join or to not to join. That kind of society is one that will not force the entity to do anything against its code of action, and more over must not be an external factor which acts against its life. As such the entity determines the limits of what those arrangements are, based on its nature, the nature of reality and its chosen goal of its own life. If a society abrogates those limits, or exceeds its place in relation to the entity, then the entity has formed or joined the wrong society and it would leave to create or join a proper one. Having decided that the proper society has certain limits that must be satisfactory for its participation, and being earnestly interested in forming and maintaining that society, and knowing that the other entities are by thier nature the same as it and by the nature of reality in the same position as it, it understands and encourages other entities to require and expect the same limits from society as it does. Still good?

While you are at it, what do you think the words: "intrinsic" and "objective" mean?

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.

I don't think any Objectivist (educated) does not accept "instinct" as a component of living things mental content, forces, urges, or motivations. Experiment has shown enough evidence of these which can be called "instinct" What is a clear position of Objectivism, is that instinct does not constitute "knowledge". Although day to day speak may imply "he just knows how to do X" with "X comes natural to him" with "X is instinctual" ... then again there are "he doesn't know he does it, he just does it" and "do it 'til you forget what you are doing and that you are doing it". All of these kinds of things are to be distinguished from "knowledge" which is conceptual, integrated, rational. If I recall, intuitions, feelings, physical urges (thirst, hunger), and the like also do not constitute knowledge. I may be wired by evolution such that I am afraid of falling through a plate glass floor of the CN tower. That does not constitute knowledge, whether the floor actually turned out to be insufficient and my fear was warranted or whether the floor was completely impregnable to anything remotely my size and hence the fear completely unwarranted. Fear can be a factor from which one may deduce knowledge - e.g. creatures have survived by avoiding death by falling sufficiently enough to create an instinctive fear. I digress... instinct is not knowledge

Imagine an entity with sufficient mental capacity to choose, and to live by principles. It chooses life as its fundamental overriding goal. It understands that reality and its own nature require it to define certain principles of action to support its life, and consistent with its goal, it adopts those principles of action. Those principles of actions it adopts, make up if you will its individual code of action and by definition (the content of those principles) the entity is the beneficiary of that code. So far so good?

The crux of your question is whether or not morality (and morality according to Objectivism) is subjective and you conclude that morality is subjective. You have NOT, however, defined what you mean by "subjective" nor offered to agree on a definition with which to work in carrying out your discussions. Since it is absolutely necessary for a rational conversation about the subject YOU have chosen... I strongly suggest your clearly and definitively describe and define exactly what you mean by "Subjective"

No... if you set out to do Gloop, the evaluation of whether you achieve it or not is like correctness. I am doing Gloop by buying house insurance... versus I am doing Gloop by stealing money from my cousin... or I am doing Gloop by eating nails, or alternatively carrots... or poison. All of these claims of doing Gloop are either correct or not.. if the actor wishes to "do Gloop" (i.e. achieve the goal of living etc.) again the attempt can be analyzed as failure or not. I did not introduce "doing good" into the analysis yet. I merely ask if "doing Gloop" is equivalent to "walking efficiently" in regards to its status in reality. i.e. not relying on anything arbitrary or unknowable or intrinsic or mystical etc.

Take the example I gave for walking efficiently, replace the goal with "living" replace the standard (120% or less distance) with the person's life as the standard. Replace "walking efficiently" with "doing Gloop". Objective observation and validation can confirm whether I am succeeding at "doing Gloop" whether the actions I take lead to my life in the long term, and if not, that I am failing at doing Gloop if the actions I take lead away from my life in the long term. "Doing Gloop" here is exactly like "walking efficiently" in regard to status in reality, except merely the chosen goal and what needs to be observed to validate whether any action succeeds or not. Do you agree?

What you have stated is clear. Things only got unclear when you asked "Are we clear yet".. I (due to my unclearness?) assume you will continue...? So far so good.

I am not ignoring your further remarks, I want to delay addressing them, which we can do later, until after we "really" decide which sandbox you want to play in. You stated: "The only difference I can see at this point would be the objective validation of a subjective POV." I may have misinterpreted. In any case I do not understand what you are getting at as to what actually IS, in your opinion, the difference between moral facts of reality and "walking efficiently" facts of reality. Walking Efficiently 1. We choose/define the goal or standard of walking efficiently in a certain way which is related to and based on reality 2. There are facts of reality which dictate whether or not any action we take falls within the definition and hence which actually fulfills the goal or standard of walking efficiently. There is nothing subjective about whether or not a chosen path is or is not proper for walking efficiently. This is purely Objective (not subjective and not intrinsic) Please describe how you see moral action as different. One hint for thinking like an Objectivist is to first strip the universe from all intrinsic mystical, non natural attributes and properties etc. additionally you can about the universe before any life emerged. Imagine no god or gods, no fate, no spirits, no karma, no perfect forms, no platonic reality, no intrinsic right and wrong, no Justice, no Truth, only entities, only stuff. From this base (and be sure you have exorcised any and every non material thing) imagine no change in the universe, except a complex natural system which is a human appeared suddenly...

Because?

So you argue that "walking efficiently" is capable of "objective validation" only from a "subjective POV ", by that I assume you imply "morally right action" also is capable of "objective validation" but from some other kind of view or perspective? 1. What in my definition of "walking efficiently" is subjective? 2 What in my definition of "walking efficiently" has something to do with a point of view? From your answers I see you do not consider "right" and "wrong" the same way as they are defined by Objectivism. It is no surprise, and I accept it. So which philosophical sandbox are we to play in when arguing/persuading/reasoning whether or not animal rights exist, the Objectivist one or some other one of your choice? If you choose your sandbox I will play and promise to diligently obey the rules (premises) of your sandbox, if you agree to play in the Objectivist sandbox I would expect the same from you. You, however, get to be the one to choose!

I understand you are stating that moral facts of reality are not facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" is a fact of reality. This is the CRUX of it all... we are so close... What is the difference?

I'm not clear on your answer. Not all facts of reality are "moral facts of reality"... of course. Not all facts of reality are "walking efficiently" facts of reality, not all facts of reality are "eating most nutritiously" facts of reality... this is obvious. My question is Are moral facts of reality facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" is a fact of reality?

DA: Thinking... or have you "lost interest"? BTW, there is a typo,where I say: "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not." I mean "one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total distance difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not"

This is such a subtle point I will need to change my tack a bit. Consider the following: Two points or locations can be traversed along an arguably infinite number of curves. Of all of the curves connecting the points there is one which has the least length (this happens to be a straight line). These are facts of reality, specifically of the distance which would be travelled as a consequence of traversing certain curves. Suppose I wish to walk between two locations on a flat surface say, while travelling the least distance. I call this goal the goal of walking least. Since no one is perfect I also call a secondary goal "walking efficiently" and define it as walking at most 120% the least possible distance. It is a fact of reality that in traversing between any two points either I have sucessfully acheived walking efficiently as I have defined it or I have failed. In this sense whether I have "walked efficienty" is a fact of reality, verifiable by observation and validation, one need only determine the length of the straightline and whether or not the total difference I travelled is less than 120% of it or not. There is no "walking efficiently" reality. No table of curve definitions and length values somewhere in reality along with a little label saying "efficient for walking" or "not efficient for walking". It is not written in the stars spacetime or the possible curves themselves. In fact "walking efficiently" is not an inherent state, property, attribute, or quality of anything in the universe whatever. The facts of reality are: 1 that I have chosen a goal and a classification for "walking efficiently" 2 that for any single path I have, or propose to traverse, it is or would in reality fall within the classification of "walking efficiently" depending upon the nature of the path, specifically the distance traversed (or would be traversed) along it going from between the two points being equal to or less than 120% of the distance of a straight line between the points. Fact 2 is independently observable and verifiable by any rational observer. Does "walking efficiently" as defined here have the same status as any moral action? I.e. are all "right" and "wrong" moral facts, facts of reality in the same way "walking efficiently" or "not walking efficiently" is a fact of reality?

Please reread carefully. I am not suggesting both statements are true, in fact I ask what kinds of facts of reality would you need to observe and validate to conclude WHICH of the two statements is true. Obviously both cannot be true. Moral statements of facts of reality like any statement of facts of reality can be true or false. eg S1: The ball has property J, which causes K, when under the influence of L. This is a statement of facts of reality which may or may not be true. Statements 3 and 4 are contradictory, only one could be true.

Don't jump the gun. We'll deal with what informs rights later... we still need to determine what rights are which depends on the sandbox (philosophy) we are actually playing in. This is why I posed my last question: by capable of observation and verification I am getting at the sense that no statement of fact of reality can be asserted true while at the same time asserted as being outside the ability for a rational being to verify through observation. This is to distinguish between a statement of a fact of reality and a statement of the arbitrary/imaginary. For Example: We have been able to describe and detect neutrinos, which are so incredibly fast and so lightweight (perhaps massless?) such that it would be hard to say they exist at all except for the fact that we know they exist and in fact one is bound in every single neutron (with a proton and an electron) of matter! Also we have verified how vast the universe is. These are facts which although require painstaking direct-indirect observation, experimentation etc. can be validated by any rational being willing to look at and analyze the data rationally. "Moral reality" as you put it, makes it sound like you are reifying moral truths or morality itself. Yet you seem to agree moral statements are statements of facts of reality. So I will need to investigate further. Statement 3: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was wrong. Statement 4: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was right. Since each of statements 3 and 4 are statements of facts of reality, and all facts of reality are capable of observation and validation by any rational being, Q: What kinds of observable and verifiable facts of reality would you need to observe and validate in order to conclude which of statements 3 or 4 is true? Assume you know X, Y, and Z, how does the analysis proceed?

Let me add to the last post the following question: Are all facts of reality in principle capable of independent observation and validation by any rational human being?

Not bad but you glossed over a number of specific questions... that's Ok though because the following should clear things up: Statement 1: Person X, did Y, in context Z. Statement 2: Person X, did Y, in context Z, and it was wrong. Assume statement 2 is a statement of a fact of reality which is true, and that statement 1 is also a statement of fact which is true. What are the factual differences between Statement 1 and Statement 2? i.e. What kinds of facts of reality does statement 2 make beyond the facts of reality of statement 1.