dakota

Hardly. I had specific questions, and most of the answers consisted of "read this". I don't regard that as much of an answer, for a number of reasons, some of which I enumerated. That some of you, as individuals, can't answer my questions does not mean that Objectivism does not provide answers. Two of my specific questions were at least partially addressed (thank you). The partial answers simply clarified what my reading over the years has suggested: Objectivism is simply situational ethics. It proposes a certain standard (a good one, by and large) but that standard is itself subjective (that is, it cannot be scientifically demonstrated). That's OK, folks -- don't get your undies in a bunch.

The questions I've asked have given no indication that I wished to discuss "alternate approaches to morality". Far from it. I am clarifying, by asking questions of Objectivists, just what their ethics "look like" on the ground as opposed to a neat theory on paper. That I mention it appears to be situational ethics does not indicate that I wish to discuss situational ethics. I mention it because it appears that Objectivism might simply be a newer/alternate name for something else. It has been a useful conversation.

I have read Rand, have read many if the threads here, and have yet to see it demonstrated that the code of ethics Rand proposed is anything more than her largely subjective code of personal ethics. I happen to think they constitute an admirable code of ethics, but simply are not objective in the ordinary sense of the word. But thanks -- the conversation has been interesting.

Hardly. Just hadn't looked at this thread in a while, having decided that it was pointless to engage in it anymore. But, just for you, I will respond to Dante: And this is what I see wrong with Objectivist ethics. It appears to be simply a fancy name for "situational ethics" or moral relativism. I did not ask, "does it further an individual's life to engage in cannibalism?", but rather, is it morally right, or morally wrong, to eat the dead or otherwise make use of corpses, perhaps even commercially? If not, why not? I did not ask, "Does it further an individual's life to engage in consensual incest", I asked if it were morally right, or morally wrong? If you maintain that the only question that matters is "does it further my life as an individual", then it is indeed subjective. This thread has been useful, I suppose, in clarifying that for me.

Actually, I can use your second sentence here to show why your first sentence is in error. We don't disagree here at all. However, Objectivists seem to classify as "irrational" all kinds of personal choices, ethical systems, and behavior, despite many of them having no demonstrable effect on the continuation of one's life. It's just her personal code of ethics, yet it is treated as if it were proven by the scientific method.

This is melodramatic, to put it mildly. Maybe your angst has more to do with your difficulty in dealing with people than it does from looking rationally at the world around you.

But this again posits an objective standard -- and where is the scientific proof of this? I have to say, the claims here smack of Catholicism, which does indeed claim an objective (transcendant, outside of man) standard, and then claims that other religions, to the extent they agree with Catholicism, are acting within reality and reason -- to the extent they disagree, they do not achieve their full potential. There is something oddly religious about the claims made here. As I understand it, there is a personal utilitarianism as well as the definition you provide: what works for me is what is best. Now, that may or may not have any impact on the "greatest good" (and how do you define the "greatest good"?), but it does serve (utilize) that particular person's wishes. I completely agree. This is where we disagree, though we both would likely agree that the scenario is not desirable. The difference lies between what is "reasonable" and what is "desirable". It is perfectly reasonable for a woman, desiring X (a large,stable family, in the example I gave) to pursue X , using reason, if that is her highest value. You and I might disagree with her highest value, or disagree with the means by which she might pursue this end, but unfortunately I see no scientific, empirical evidence to negate her reasoning. Your and my disagreement is not based on science, but rather on our personal views as to what best constitutes a good "sense of life". This was a very good and reasonable request on your part, though it doesn't really address the larger questions here. Nevertheless, it did force me to review the information that I had only vaguely remembered, and I think it's fair to say that it isn't quite as black-and-white as I remembered it: the main study (barna) showed only Christian denominations, and made no distinction between religious affiliation and actual observance. Nor did it take into account Muslims, Buddhists, and other religions. But nevertheless it did show that the rate of atheist divorce is the same as some denominations, and less than "born again" Christians (a sorry lot, in my book...). So -- I apologize for the generalization. However, it still is true that among observant Catholics (i.e, those practicing NFP instead of artificial birth control)the divorce rate is about 2%. Ditto for Orthodox Jews. No divorce stats were provided for adherents of Islam, which is now the dominant religious force in the world. But yes, large family size coincides with observant religious belief; observant Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims have large families. I could have used a different example, but the point is the same: not everyone values things as Rand did. I would likely side with Rand in most situations-- but I do recognize that unless objective science backs me up, it is just my opinion -- a well-reasoned opinion, yes, but ultimately an opinion, not a fact.

Yes, we agree on both points. And we would probably agree on what that ethical code consists of. I get the impression from this forum (I'd be happy to hear that my impression is erroneous) and my contact with Objectivists over the years, that they view their particular standard (as laid out by Rand) to be the definitive, final, and (this is where it gets problematic for me) scientifically verifiable standard. Disagreement with this standard constitutes a crime against reason itself. And yet people do indeed live and thrive despite non-adherence to the Objectivist standard. Yes, of course. If one values living, then one must secure food and drink in order to sustain life. This is a scientific fact. If one values health, then one must not engage in any number of activities (heavy smoking, heavy drinking, promisciuty) which science shows will adversely affect one's health. That's easy...but beyond these scientifically verifiable values, ethics would appear to be very subjective. For example, if I were a woman who valued and desired having a large and stable family life, reason would dictate that, based on data, I should marry a very religious person. Data shows that very religious persons (Orthodox Jews, observant Catholics, Mormans) have large families and relatively few divorces. Reason is being applied in this situation, but yet this scenario is one that I gather, from Objectivists, to be undesirable. Why? Probably because it reflects utilitarianism values, not Objectivist values. Yet I suspect that that the vast majority of people in this country do live according to utilitarian ethics in one form or another. They live according to what best suits their particular purpose...which is very subjective. Please understand: I am not a relativist, nor am I a multiculturalist (multiculturism is, in my opinion, one of the most poisonous "isms" around). But beyond very basic and scientifically verifiable values, this appears to be subjective. I am also confused by the comments on this thread: to read this forum is to get the idea that most of humanity is stupidly ignoring Rand. And yet a poster tells me that she doesn't know anyone who happily lives on the public dole or off the wealth of others. Well, which is it?

No, I didn't forget. However, if this completely objective standard of LIFE is to be accepted, then failing to live according to this standard would necessarily mean a shorter life expectancy. Everything else is quite subjective -- it is difficult to measure and rate happiness, and different people are made happy by different things and goals at different times in their lives. I don't think it makes for a good life at all, but I will acknowledge that this is my subjective OPINION. If it were to cease being my opinion, and become an objective standard, then I would expect that those who don't meet my standard would die. That would be the natural outcome of poor choices. But that's not what happens -- the dependent claases in Europe and here continue to live day in, day out. I would guess that happiness or at least self-esteem would be higher amongst self-made men, but who knows? Maybe the dependent classes have concluded that they're happy enough. Maybe a life of security is what makes them happy (not everyone likes risk...), or a life of ease. I'm not happy about that, as you and I would agree on what makes for a "good" life, but it is not objective.

That's amazing. That suggests that you're either quite young, and/or have social skill problems which keep you isolated. It would also suggest that you haven't paid much attention to the societal trend in Europe and in this country, which is for increasing numbers of people living off of others via government handouts. Actually, I offered two, just for the sake of brevity. If you want, I could list more....but would that make my point any better? But to scientifically demonstrate the assertion made here that such parasites can't be happy, you would need to conduct "extensive interviews" of the whole welfare population and those who are living off of the inherited wealth of other people's labor. Have you done that? And that's my point: unless and until you can demonstrate that parasites and looters simply die or have short, miserable lives due to their sense of life, then it's just a subjective standard -- a good standard, mind you, but ultimately just an opinion (Rand's opinion) of what a "flourishing" life looks like. Certainly I've seen a hell of a lot of angst amongst the Objectivists posting here: the "self-improvement" forum frequently has topics such as "I'm depressed again", and so on. According to your standard, they ought to be happy because they're living the life Rand sees as optimal, right? Maybe if you spent less time on the Internet, and more time observing the world around you, then you might wouldn't have to admit, "I know of NONE such people".

This is such an odd statement, I barely know where to start... You are conflating "reason" with "knowledge" and/or "applied knowledge". A person living in the Middle Ages was just as able to use his reason as a man living in New York City today. Reason inolves the application of logic and facts to situations: an orphan living in the slums of Calcutta is just as able to use his reason to survive as any other person, regardless of the his circumstances. What does differ are the circumstances and difficulties that individuals in different historical periods and/or economic conditions have to apply their reason to. On the other hand, the increase in life span has largely to do with better hygiene (applied knowledge). This in turn was based on knowledge of disease and the role bacteria; etc.; that is the accumulated knowledge advanced over centuries. (Much of the pioneering studies in the sciences were done in the Middle Ages.) To claim that "most people are living by reason today" is to claim that man's nature has somehow changed, in a very short period of time. That's quite a claim. There is simply no scientific basis for that claim.

I was merely answering a question someone here had asked: "For your uncle: Would he have described himself as happy? Did he ENJOY his life?" We agree -- it is a good standard. However, it is subjective, because it is merely a personal standard. It is not objective: if it were objective, then all who failed to live by that standard would die, or live shortened, unhealthy lives. However, people can and do thrive by living off of others; by merely floating along rather mindlesly (to judge by the contemptuous comments here on this forum, one gets the impression it is the vast majority of the human race); etc.

I think it's reaonable that people may not want to spend the time answering questions regarding specific situations -- I can accept that. No, I'm not engaged in some kind of Socratic teaching, but rather I am interested in what kind of world Objectivist ethics would lead to (since there's little likelihood they would ever be adopted on a any kind of large scale, in that sense my interest is admittedly academic), using specific examples. The initial discussion had to do with peaceful coexistence of science and theology. It became quite clear that the posters here, for the most part, thought this coexistence impossible or at least undesirable, as it was asserted that all questions of human value can be answered scientifically. My questions, then, were quite specific so that someone could, in giving me a reasoned response, show whether or not this is a valid assertion. I can understand if some, or even the majority of people here do have better things to do with their time; that no one will answer my specific questions ("read this" is a cop-out, in my book) suggests that the posters here simply can't. That's OK -- it's been an interesting conversation nontheless, and it was comical to see how this progressed in such a predictable manner. Enjoy the evening, folks.

I have. I find it interesting that no one here can answer the questions I raised.

Is that a historical or scientific fact? Since those living lives that don't meet Rand's standard have always been part of humanity, and are certainly part of it now, on what basis do you KNOW that they'll "run out of victims"? This seems highly unlikely. It makes for a nice theory, but it appears to be only that -- a nice, albeit subjective, theory.

Granted, but this isn't trigonometry. It ought to be possible for someone, anyone, here to be able to support the assertion made, which was that all human values can be explained scientifically. I gave specific examples which I would like to see the scientific explanation, whether wrong or right, given. Someone, anyone here ought to be able to do this using plain English. Here's a hint: one could start by saying, for example, that "It is not wrong for the parents of an unwanted mentally retarded child to kill it because...." and give scientific reasons for that position (if that is indeed what Objectivist ethics would conclude). I'm not asking that much -- if assertions are made by posters here, I assume that means they possess the knowledge to back up those assertions.

Being happy, enjoying the details of one's life, great and small. Being able to get what one wants in life... Yes, he was happy, and he enjoyed his life. And until you can prove to the contrary scientifically, you can't make the assertion (as someone did here) that, "People do survive for a PERIOD of time by being parasites and looters. But such people do not live optimally. In order to survive long-term, and even live in an optimal condition, requires use of reason." Again, I have no problem whatsover with the standard that you posit as the ideal way to live -- I simply don't see that it is anything but subjective. Great -- but subjective. You might very well be right, but you can't PROVE that she'll feel miserable. It might very well be that she ends up happy and content with her lifestyle choice.

Yes, but I am interested in hearing the philosophy, especially as it would apply to the hypothetical situations I cited, explained by YOU. A bok is unlikely to address those specific situations. The claim was made here that all questions about human values can be answered scientifically. I am merely asking for someone here to support this using the examples I gave. If you don't want to spend the time -- that's fine. But understand that that refusal can reasonably be interpreted that you can't.

Thank you for the clarification. However, the assertion was made here that "man has no choice about his objective standard of value" -- that's quite a claim, really. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for scientific evidence for such a support. But there's the rub: there's ample evidence that people can and do thrive and live long lives despite being dishonest and unproductive. I don't think one has to strain to find such as examples. A few from my own experience come easily to mind: a deceased uncle of mine inherited the money his father worked long and hard for. This man gradually squandered it all in the living of an elaborate lifestyle for himself and his family. He was a pompous ass, but nevertheless the money lasted until his death, providing a lavish lifestyle and college educations for his children. He produced NOTHING, but enjoyed the life his father sacrificed to leave him. Another example is of a gal I know (daughter of a friend) who embraced Objectivism completely. She was active in Objectivist circles in New York. She is now planning on becoming a welfare mom, because she wants to have children. Though she is already now on the public dole, she is happy and delighted -- and considers herself an Objectivist still. Yes, I understand that and have no problem with it. What I do not understand is how it can be asserted that this is not subjective. "Reason" suggests, to the Objectivist girl I mentioned, that the New York welfare system will make it possible to get what she wants: to be be a stay-at-home mother. And she's correct.

That's an intelligent, thoughtful answer....not. You can choose to see it as "laziness" if you will (attacking the questioner; name-calling; these are the usual defenses of those who are evading an uncomfortable discussion). I choose to see it as your inability to explain or express the philosophy you adhere to. This is hardly uncommon, though it is regrettable.

Ahhh...situational ethics. Relativism, in other words. Yet another suggestion to go and read about the subject elsewhere. Can none of you here explain your philosophy and answer questions on your own?

Thank you for your response. However, people do indeed survive -- and not just for a period of time, but for the same life-span as others -- despite being on welfare; merely carried along the cultural stream; living a life of ease off the labors of others; etc. "Optimal" would appear, then, to be subjective: it is Rand's idea of optimal, not one that scientific evidence supports. Not that her idea of a flourishing life doesn't constitute a good standard -- I believe it does -- but it is subjective. I'm sure, with even a very little thought, most here can think of examples around them. Obviously there are activities that science can show have a life-shortening effect for most people: heavy smoking, heavy drinking, promiscuity, over-eating. As I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I have learned, as a teacher, that a person cannot be sure of just how well they have absorbed information or a body of knowledge until they have attempted to teach it or explain it to others. YOU need to provide an "in-depth counter" to my argument; do not fall back on "read this book".

Ahh, deafening silence....my request that my specific examples of human behavior that ought to be (as claimed) proven scientifically, has gone unanswered. It's amusing, by the way, that the standard "answer" seems to be "Read this book/essay by Rand". It's curious that, about a dozen years ago, the exact same response was given to me by a die-hard Objectivist who is now comfortably sucking at the government's teat. If you Objectivists here who have engaged in this thread can't explain your philosophy or answer concrete questions without resorting to "read this", then maybe you ought to be a bit more circumspect in your claims as to its infallibility.

The problem I have is that there is ample evidence to the contrary, at least so far as Rand defines "life". Yes, it is true that unless a man secures food and drink, he will perish. But Rand seems to posit an entirely subjective, though much more lauditory "standard" of life, which is where everything seems to bog down. Yes, man is a rational animal with volition, but in order for her "standard" to hold objectively true, individuals would necessarily die if they do not adhere to this standard. But countless millions do indeed physically survive though they do not live lives that would meet Rand's standards of "man qua man". If there was indeed such an objective mechanism, whereby those who were parasites; retarded; looters; etc., simply died, then that would constitute objective proof that "a man has no choice about his objective standard of value". But there is no evidence to suggest this. Frankly, if it did, this would indicate a severe reduction (at the very least...) of the concept of free will: if everyone died who did not live as Rand thinks they ought to, then free will has been curtailed.

I taught at the High School level for a few years -- maybe that's why. However, some teens can and do make good choices, as I saw time and time again. Nevertheless, they are not self-sufficent and thus do not bear any of the responsibilities of providing food, shelter, education, clothing,....on and on and on. Therefore, as hard as it is for a young person to accept, their parents are the ultimate authority and until they are providing for themselves they ought to respect that authority regardless of whether they agree or disagree. Not if they are in conflict with the wishes of one's parents. They're paying the bills and are legally responsible for you -- you can indulge your thoughts and feelings, if they are in conflict with your parrents, when you're not living off of them.