Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Definition of Principle

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ok, my main question that has been bugging me is the word principle. I don't understand its meaning and the aquesition of its meaning has only led to vague, or overly complex answers. So I am turning to this board: What is a principle, as seen in a quote from Ayn Rands book, Intro to Objectivist Epistemology:

"And the principle of unit-economy is one of that faculty's essential guiding principles." Page 63 paragraph 2.

Also can you give some sample 'principles' for me to see the simularity, or, essential common denominator. Thanks a bunch.

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember you being in chat when we were discussing this topic. The definition we came up with for "principle" was "A fundamental integration unifying and combining separate related generalizations." A principle does for generalizations what a concept does for concretes in other words. OPAR gives this on a principle:

"A "principle" is a general truth on which other truths depend. Every science and every field of thought involves the discovery and application of principles. Leaving aside certain special cases, a principle may be described as a fundamental reached by induction. Such knowledge is necessary to a conceptual consciousness for the same reason that induction and the grasp of fundamentals are necessary. [page 218, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand]

Here's this as well:

Leonard Peikoff's 'Why Should One Act on Principle?' - http://wcmedia.aynrand.org/aynrand/registe...onprinciple.wma

I'll provide some examples tomorrow if it's still necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition we came up with for "principle" was "A fundamental integration unifying and combining separate related generalizations." A principle does for generalizations what a concept does for concretes in other words.

And a generalization is a proposition that ascribes a characteristic to every member of an unlimited class however positioned in space and time. These propositions are of the type that describe causal connections between a entity's nature and the way it acts. For example, all generalizations describing the behavior of falling bodies and the orbits of planets can be explained by the principle of the law of gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember you being in chat when we were discussing this topic. The definition we came up with for "principle" was "A fundamental integration unifying and combining separate related generalizations." A principle does for generalizations what a concept does for concretes in other words. OPAR gives this on a principle:

Here's this as well:

Leonard Peikoff's 'Why Should One Act on Principle?' - http://wcmedia.aynrand.org/aynrand/registe...onprinciple.wma

I'll provide some examples tomorrow if it's still necessary.

At approximately at 6:25 Peikoff says "You must decide first wether you advocate the principle of free trade or the principle of protectionism."

Does that mean that a the principle of free trade is merely the concept of free trade? I mean, why is it the PRINCIPLE of free trade rather than the IDEA of free trade, or is that the same thing? Basically, the PRINCIPLE of freedom = what? Or the principle of justice = x. what is x?

Thanks,

Rob

And btw West thanks for your help. I remember the chat, but the answer found in there, as well as your answer on here, is way over my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a generalization is a proposition that ascribes a characteristic to every member of an unlimited class however positioned in space and time. These propositions are of the type that describe causal connections between a entity's nature and the way it acts. For example, all generalizations describing the behavior of falling bodies and the orbits of planets can be explained by the principle of the law of gravity.

Another answer over my head but thanks for trying.

Seems to me that you don't need the 'principle' part at all. You can just say, "falling bodies and orbits can be explained by learning the law of gravity". The principle part seems kind of arbitrary.

BTW isn't the 'principle' of freedom the same as, JUST freedom? Like, no real reason to put the principle part in there. Or is there a reason?

Edited by Hazmatac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another answer over my head but thanks for trying.

Seems to me that you don't need the 'principle' part at all. You can just say, "falling bodies and orbits can be explained by learning the law of gravity". The principle part seems kind of arbitrary.

BTW isn't the 'principle' of freedom the same as, JUST freedom? Like, no real reason to put the principle part in there. Or is there a reason?

The world is filled with facts. There are too many things to know, and not enough time to learn them.

But the facts of reality are not all isolated factoids, they are related to each other. Some cause others. Learning those facts, those principles, that explain the most other facts gives your mind a huge amount of leverage to cope with reality, to understand it and even manipulate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at it is that a Principal = Primary = First...

It is the element or thing at the root of all the other things associated with it, be it an idea (freedom), or a scientific field of study (gravity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just freedom" would be the concept. The principle of freedom would be something on the lines of "freedom is good".

That would be the *evaluation* of freedom. There isn't just *one* principle of freedom because there are *many* courses of action that are necessary in order to achieve freedom, just like there isn't just *one* principle of business administration. I'm not even sure that anyone would *use* that terminology unless they were a mind/body dichotomist attempting to draw some sort of distinction between the "principle" of freedom and its actual practice.

What someone *might* say is "I am for freedom on principle", which means that they are an absolutist regarding freedom *and the actions necessary to bring it about*. Beware of people who say things like "I am for freedom *in* principle", however, because this is the same as saying "I'm for freedom in theory, but not in practice".

A principle of freedom would be something along the lines of "Freedom requires a government that is restricted to protecting individual rights." It's a general statement that prescribes a certain course of action: restricting a government to protecting individual rights.

Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example of identifying a principle:

Two nights in a row, I get only 4 hours of sleep. While at work, I'm exhausted and complete only two of the four tasks I was assigned. The next two nights, I get a solid 8 hours of sleep each night. The next day, I complete all of the tasks I was assigned. A generalization: I have more energy when I've gotten enough sleep. The principle to be drawn: adequate sleep increases productivity.

A more complex identification:

In the news, a group of environmentalists issue a number of separate statements that denounce as evil the use of oil to heat homes, the use of fur products, jewelry containing diamonds, off-road vehicles, sports cars, and perfume. An observation: all of the concretes are rational pleasures that are man-made. The philosophical principle to be drawn: pleasure is evil.

Principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action.

I'd amend this statement with "moral principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd amend this statement with "moral principles are generalizations that prescribe a certain course of action."

I disagree with that. A person may believe, for instance, that "we are our brothers' keepers," and base his decisions on this principle. In that case, both his principle and his prescribed actions are immoral.

You could, of course, argue that true principles are moral, and that "we are our brothers' keepers" is neither moral, nor a principle, because it is based on more fundamental assumptions that entail a contradiction. If all true principles are moral, however, then the insertion of "moral" into the statement is redundant.

I would argue that principles are not necessarily moral in and of themselves, but that the application of one or more principles to a particular situation entails a moral judgment, especially when the principles prescribe contradictory courses of action. A moral course of action may then either require that both principles are upheld, or that the dominating principle is chosen over the less important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "moral principle" does not necessarily mean a principle that is moral; it can also mean a principle in the realm of morality. I figure West was using the term in that latter sense, distinguishing them from principles that have nothing to do with morality: e.g. "one needs force to move an object".

I think the posts have lost sight of what the original poster was asking. He asked why Dr. Peikoff spoke about the "principle" of freedom, rather than the concept of freedom. Of course freedom is not a principle as such. Obviously, Dr. Peikoff was speaking in "shorthand" there, when he spoke of the principle of freedom. One would have to go back to the original context to see what he was referring to. It could be something like "freedom is good" or "man needs freedom to act" or any such principle that he was referring to.

Edited by softwareNerd
Fixed typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. A person may believe, for instance, that "we are our brothers' keepers," and base his decisions on this principle. In that case, both his principle and his prescribed actions are immoral.

You could, of course, argue that true principles are moral, and that "we are our brothers' keepers" is neither moral, nor a principle, because it is based on more fundamental assumptions that entail a contradiction. If all true principles are moral, however, then the insertion of "moral" into the statement is redundant.

I would argue that principles are not necessarily moral in and of themselves, but that the application of one or more principles to a particular situation entails a moral judgment, especially when the principles prescribe contradictory courses of action. A moral course of action may then either require that both principles are upheld, or that the dominating principle is chosen over the less important.

I was writing this post when I was notified in chat that sNerd had responded. sNerd answered it for me, but here was what I was typing already:

"I didn't mean 'moral' principles as opposed to immoral principles, but instead principles that pertain to the realm of morality (or ethics), which determines whether they are good or bad. The principle "we are our brothers' keepers" is an ethical principle that prescribes certain actions. I think we can agree on that."

Beyond that, the logic works like this: "All principles are ideas, but not all ideas are principles." Certain principles do prescribe certain actions. As JMeganSnow already indicated, the principle of free trade prescribes (and represents) actions that protect individual rights. The principle of protectionism on the other hand prescribes the infringement of individual rights. Examples are the Corn Laws between 1815 and 1846, Bush's 2002 Steel Tariff, or the Jones-Costigan act (Sugar). Identifying the use of governmental force as being the basis of these actions gives meaning to the principle of "Protectionism," and why it entails the infringement of individual rights. Using induction, you go broader to discover the common, primary fact underlying the examples (which is the means of identifying the principle in a context). When Peikoff uses the "shorthand" of the principle of free trade or the principle of protectionism, he is condensing and identifying the primary fact that underlies a ton of possible actions. This is why principles are so important--they allow greater manageability. The difference between a principle and a concept is the fact that a principle is the identification of a primary fact upon which other facts are based; a concept is the integration of two or more concretes. Both represent distinct forms of integration.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that only moral principles can prescribe a certain course of action. Dr. Peikoff specifically mentions principles of good public speaking in his "Why should one act on principle?" speech, like "motivate your audience" or "be prepared". So it doesn't have to be a moral issue in order to form principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that only moral principles can prescribe a certain course of action. Dr. Peikoff specifically mentions principles of good public speaking in his "Why should one act on principle?" speech, like "motivate your audience" or "be prepared". So it doesn't have to be a moral issue in order to form principles.

Are there human actions that do not pertain to morality? I thought morality dictates what course of action one should take, given that one wants to achieve certain goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there human actions that do not pertain to morality? I thought morality dictates what course of action one should take, given that one wants to achieve certain goals.

Breathing would be one.

There's a principle that man requires food periodically to survive, and one might use that principle to kill and eat the mailman. Morality would dictate evaluating the consequences, immediate, long term and philosophical, of following the available courses of action, and choosing the one proper to that morality. So, no, morality does not necessarily dictate what course of action one takes. Though I guess it does dictate the course of action one should take, given we agree that should implies morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breathing would be one.

There's a principle that man requires food periodically to survive, and one might use that principle to kill and eat the mailman. Morality would dictate evaluating the consequences, immediate, long term and philosophical, of following the available courses of action, and choosing the one proper to that morality. So, no, morality does not necessarily dictate what course of action one takes. Though I guess it does dictate the course of action one should take, given we agree that should implies morality.

Not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not; do I need to add: "Are there human actions that don't pertain to morality, given their properly delimited context?" ? Considering morality/ethics is normative, I would assume that the fact of breathing implies a certain relationship to life, and thus has moral implications since man can choose to breathe or choose not to breathe, giving rise to the question "should one to breathe, given the context?" Since we can agree that that "should" implies morality, and "should" derives from facts (is-->ought in the context and in relation to man's life), again, can we therefore not say that every human action pertains to morality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not; do I need to add: "Are there human actions that don't pertain to morality, given their properly delimited context?" ? Considering morality/ethics is normative, I would assume that the fact of breathing implies a certain relationship to life, and thus has moral implications since man can choose to breathe or choose not to breathe, giving rise to the question "should one to breathe, given the context?" Since we can agree that that "should" implies morality, and "should" derives from facts (is-->ought in the context and in relation to man's life), again, can we therefore not say that every human action pertains to morality?

Hmmm... "pertains to morality."... That's not the same as "is moral." Do you mean: every human action can be judged on the basis of its morality? Given that that judgment could range anywhere from "moral" to "immoral," with "amoral" in the middle somewhere... I'm not sure what this does for us. Can we say that every physical object pertains to size, color, velocity?

You can try not breathing, but your physical pain response will probably make it tough. Even if your will held out, very soon you would lose consciousness and commence breathing, so I'm pretty sure breathing does not count as a moral act. (note, in Objectivist terms, you are conflating biological life with philosophical "life." Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former)

I believe morality implies not just a relationship to sustainment of biological life, but a rational decision that supports one's values. Photokinesis is not a moral act; resisting tyranny is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West, you've driven us into a swamp. First you go out of your way to insist that there are moral principles vs. some other (unspecified) type of principles, then you say that *all* principles are, by definition, moral principles so basically the term is redundant. You're going to have to make up your mind if you want us to be able to have some sort of sensible discussion, because the way things stand it's impossible to either agree or disagree with what you've said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... "pertains to morality."... That's not the same as "is moral." Do you mean: every human action can be judged on the basis of its morality? Given that that judgment could range anywhere from "moral" to "immoral," with "amoral" in the middle somewhere... I'm not sure what this does for us. Can we say that every physical object pertains to size, color, velocity?

You can try not breathing, but your physical pain response will probably make it tough. Even if your will held out, very soon you would lose consciousness and commence breathing, so I'm pretty sure breathing does not count as a moral act. (note, in Objectivist terms, you are conflating biological life with philosophical "life." Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former)

I believe morality implies not just a relationship to sustainment of biological life, but a rational decision that supports one's values. Photokinesis is not a moral act; resisting tyranny is.

Thanks, agrippa. This: "Morality pertains to the latter, but not necessarily to the former" is exactly the answer I was looking for. I agree.

West, you've driven us into a swamp. First you go out of your way to insist that there are moral principles vs. some other (unspecified) type of principles, then you say that *all* principles are, by definition, moral principles so basically the term is redundant. You're going to have to make up your mind if you want us to be able to have some sort of sensible discussion, because the way things stand it's impossible to either agree or disagree with what you've said.

I do insist that moral principles are separate from scientific principles, economic principles, principles in medicine, principles of literature, principles of... do I need to continue? I didn't say that *all* principles are by definition moral principles; I asked if all human actions pertain to morality (agrippa cleared this up). The only reason why you'd think I was offering two opposing viewpoints is because you grant yourself that all principles prescribe a certain course of action, which I disagree with. Not every principle is normative--the principle of gravity does not prescribe any sort of action. It just is.

edit: to clarify - I do agree that there are principles outside of morality that prescribe a certain course of action, but disagree with the conclusion that every principle prescribes a certain course of action.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Principle is a concept from epistemology. Epistemology is prior to morality in the hierarchy of knowledge, so it is not correct to say all principles are moral principles. However principles, like all knowedge, have some value assigned to them to the extent they enable effective action and this is how they gain their moral dimension. Only principles that are about morality are properly considered moral principles.

The theory of gravity is a principle that explains why mass has weight. It would be unprincipled and immoral to build a bridge that neglected gravity in its design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of gravity is a principle that explains why mass has weight. It would be unprincipled and immoral to build a bridge that neglected gravity in its design.

Morality is never that easy... Suppose it was a bridge built by slave laborers that would be used to transport enemy troops to the front lines? Then it would be principled and moral to build such a bridge.

It's one's understanding (and willingness to understand) of the total context of a situation that makes a course of action moral, not any one of the principles that feed into that evaluation.

on edit:

I believe a principle provides you a tool for evaluating the consequences of an action, but your rational evaluation of those consequences determines the morality of the action. The more abstract the principle, the more useful it is to quickly evaluate your actions in a complex situation, but the less fidelity it might have than a rational evaluation of all of its subsumed principles.

For instance, in the recent credit mess, some used the principle that "free markets regulate risk efficiently" to justify lax regulation of the GSE's and mortgage industries. Had they considered the components of that principle, that is, considered whether what they had was a free market, or what their definition of "risk" was, they might have come to a better understanding of the situation and realized that the principle does not necessarily apply to a market that is heavily subsidized by a government policy with implicit guarantees.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...