Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation

Rate this topic


DavidOdden

Recommended Posts

It's not up to the law to tell you how to live your life, it is only up to the law to protect you from force and fraud. It is not there to provide moral guidance.

It is not a matter of law. I have a natural right to preserve my life and I also have a natural right to commit suicide if I so wish. Law has little or nothing to do with the question.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a matter of law. I have a natural right to preserve my life and I also have a natural right to commit suicide if I so wish. Law has little or nothing to do with the question.

Bob Kolker

Please define "natural right."

What is a right outside of the context of human relationships (society)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about, like.. holding the door for someone? Picking up trash at a restaurant that is not your responsibility that some assholes left on the floor? I do these without necessarily thinking about the consequences of them.

Where I come from, that is called good manners. I started learning them as soon as I could talk. Among my earliest words --- thank you and please. Good manners is not a matter of law. One is either brought up with good manners or one is not. We learn a zillion "rules", conventions and customs which enable us to interact with others. Somewhere along the line we pick up (or we ought to pick up) some respect for the feelings of others, so we learn not to insult them gratuitously. It is all part of growing up.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please define "natural right."

What is a right outside of the context of human relationships (society)?

Right has two meanings (at least). One means morally or ethically correct. The other refers to a liberty of action required to be a human being. Such as the right of self defense (for example) or the right to think or believe as one chooses to. We all have the natural right to defend ourselves against harm from others. That is a freedom of action that derives from our nature, not a permission granted by law or custom. We also have a natural right to either kill ourselves outright or to stop maintaining our lives and health. For example, we have the natural right to starve ourselves to death (for example). Normal folk generally do not exercise that right when living is a greater value to them than dying. But the right exists whether it is exercised or not. Just a note here: any right has to be something that it is within our power to do. For example we do not have the right to go to Mars without any kind of physical transport. Why? Because going to Mars without the physical means of transport is not possible for us. We have not the power or ability to do it. So rights have to be liberties of possible actions. The right to x implies x is possible. But the converse is not true.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right has two meanings (at least). One means morally or ethically correct. The other refers to a liberty of action required to be a human being. Such as the right of self defense (for example) or the right to think or believe as one chooses to. We all have the natural right to defend ourselves against harm from others. That is a freedom of action that derives from our nature, not a permission granted by law or custom.

I was also referring to the "liberty of action" meaning, and I agree with the last sentence above. A right is a freedom of action, but freedom from what? The answer is other people. Rights derive from our nature including the requirements of living (according to that nature) with other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The exercise of a right cannot be immoral.

...

Please criticize the argument for logic and if you would be so kind, point out any error in it.

Bob Kolker

Freedom to act does not mean everything done freely is righteous. Ethics addresses the question 'What should man do?" If all actions are equally worthy, there is no use for ethics. And in fact all actions are not equally worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom to act does not mean everything done freely is righteous. Ethics addresses the question 'What should man do?" If all actions are equally worthy, there is no use for ethics. And in fact all actions are not equally worthy.

[/quote

Does a "should" or "ought" trump the exercise of a natural right? I think that is the critical point in my argument. Is there a natural right we have that we "should not" exercise? For example the right to commit suicide. Or the right to deprive ourselves of a pleasure. Put another way, is there a case where it is immoral or unethical to exercise a natural right.

It is on this very point that I part company with big O Objectivsim, however much I sympathize with the general political and economic thrust of Objectivism. (Sometimes I think I am more pro-Capitalist than some Objectivists). I take the Striker's Oath very seriously and I took that oath long before I read anything that Ayn Rand wrote (not in the exact words, of course, but in the essential intent). I am about as anti-altruist as one can be and still be a functional member of the society I live in. I detest altruism with a purple passion.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a "should" or "ought" trump the exercise of a natural right? I think that is the critical point in my argument. Is there a natural right we have that we "should not" exercise? For example the right to commit suicide. Or the right to deprive ourselves of a pleasure. Put another way, is there a case where it is immoral or unethical to exercise a natural right.

It is on this very point that I part company with big O Objectivsim, however much I sympathize with the general political and economic thrust of Objectivism.

Sounds like you're a mystic. You like pretending that nature contains abstract principles for you to follow, even though those principles were developed by philosophers like Ayn Rand, based on nothing other than "should"s and "ought"s (Ethics) derived from man's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a "should" or "ought" trump the exercise of a natural right?

If rights are properly formed, then no "should" would ever conflict with a natural right. Rights limit what I can do to you. For example, I am not allowed to physically prevent you from harming yourself. Egoistic morality tells me that I am not obligated to protect you from yourself, either; morality is not about me helping you. They coincide.

I think that is the critical point in my argument. Is there a natural right we have that we "should not" exercise? For example the right to commit suicide. Or the right to deprive ourselves of a pleasure. Put another way, is there a case where it is immoral or unethical to exercise a natural right.

I think thinking about having a natural right to do this or that is the wrong way to think about it. Rights don't define everything we can do; they define what we can't do to others. If I'm talking about taking an action which affects only myself, it's not that rights permit me to do it; rights simply don't apply. Rights govern social interaction only.

If you're talking about possible actions that rights do not prohibit, that's simply any action I can take that would not impinge on the rights of others. There are infinitely many conceivable choices that I can make in that sphere; if you're saying that morality does not provide any sort of guidance whatsoever in any situation not involving rights violations, I'd say that's not a very useful or informative morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a "should" or "ought" trump the exercise of a natural right? I think that is the critical point in my argument. Is there a natural right we have that we "should not" exercise? For example the right to commit suicide. Or the right to deprive ourselves of a pleasure. Put another way, is there a case where it is immoral or unethical to exercise a natural right.

You have the freedom to tell many lies which are not crimes (Anti-honesty). You can waste your time in unproductive drunken stupors (Anti-productiveness). You can decide to be pro-capitalist and then keep it a secret except on the internet (Anti-integrity). You can regard all the unknown people around you as corrupt and stupid (Anti-justice). You live by freeloading off of altruistic relatives, or by other scams that take advantage of people's vices (Anti-independence). You can accept your faults (Anti-pride). You can avoid thinking about any of this bullshit (Anti-rationality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

You do not seem to understand the nature of morality. You seem to be wrongly presupposing that morality does not refer to particular facts. As a classic example of why that is completely wrong, it is a fact that some men are sexually attracted to men, and some men are sexually attracted to women. It is therefore immoral for a gay man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a woman, and it is just as immoral for a straight man to evade knowledge of his nature and pursue a sexual relationship with a man. The choice is not subjective, it is objective, and it is a function of the objective nature of the individual. Objectivism is never compatible with subjectivism.

Very clever, pulling out a quote from a different context.

This is no analogy to what I was referring here - to subjective decisions.

As an aside, you are making a huge assumption that it is a gay man's nature to pursue a relationship with a man; but that is for a different forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately (for all of us) David Odden has been inactive for a while now. Id trust his answer to your question more than most others. Its one Ive had a hard time with also.

It was not my question. But I believe it was David (and a couple others in an old forum) who showed himself as a moralizer - an error made by many Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define moralizing, please.

In essence, it is inappropriately applying morality to amoral actions.

Rand said: "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing,... moral judgment becomes moralizing.... The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, it is inappropriately applying morality to amoral actions.

Rand said: "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing,... moral judgment becomes moralizing.... The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive."

But this whole question is about whether there are any actions at all which are outside the purview of morality. If morality is a tool to further your life, and every action you take has either a positive or negative impact on your life (however slight), then you can evaluate every one of your actions positively or negatively. That is the argument that has not been successfully refuted in this thread.

The Rand quote you provided actually indicates a different definition of moralizing than the one you have used. She indicates that moralizing occurs because the moralizer has an ulterior motive, a preconceived conclusion about the subject of the judgment, which the moralizer seeks to reinforce. Thus, he/she is less interested in the truth and more interested in reinforcing their own opinions (hence the comparison to rationalizing). Unless you are positing that many Objectivists routinely make moral judgments in order to reinforce their opinions rather than in order to objectively employ the truth as they understand it, you are misusing the word. If you actually are positing that, I'd be interested to know where you got that generalization from. I find it's usually difficult to determine ulterior motives over the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this whole question is about whether there are any actions at all which are outside the purview of morality. If morality is a tool to further your life, and every action you take has either a positive or negative impact on your life (however slight), then you can evaluate every one of your actions positively or negatively. That is the argument that has not been successfully refuted in this thread.

The Rand quote you provided actually indicates a different definition of moralizing than the one you have used. She indicates that moralizing occurs because the moralizer has an ulterior motive, a preconceived conclusion about the subject of the judgment, which the moralizer seeks to reinforce. Thus, he/she is less interested in the truth and more interested in reinforcing their own opinions (hence the comparison to rationalizing). Unless you are positing that many Objectivists routinely make moral judgments in order to reinforce their opinions rather than in order to objectively employ the truth as they understand it, you are misusing the word. If you actually are positing that, I'd be interested to know where you got that generalization from. I find it's usually difficult to determine ulterior motives over the Internet.

There have to be actions outside the purview of morality; otherwise, moralizing would not be possible.

One action does not have to be more positive or negative than another; and even if that was the case, that does not necessarily mean that it is more or less of a moral aciton; e.g. more "positive" does not always translate to more "right." I believe you are confusing terms. If an action cannot be identified as right or wrong for the actor, than it is not a moral one. I hold that if you forced every action to be a moral one, then you are rationalizing and/or moralizing (thus the relevance of the quote above - ulterior motive or not).

(It appears that you have switched forums, going back to a somewhat different topic than the one on which I was posting.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have to be actions outside the purview of morality; otherwise, moralizing would not be possible.

That's quite a rationalistic argument. In an objective epistemology, concepts (like moralizing) are only valid if they actually refer to existents. We decide which concepts are valid based on what exists; we don't decide what exists based on our previously-formed concepts.

...more "positive" does not always translate to more "right." I believe you are confusing terms.

If you are using a standard for morality that is something other than the life of the moral agent, then what you are talking about is not Objectivism. Otherwise, positive for the agent means life-furthering, which is another way to say moral.

Also, I don't know what you think I'm referring to in different topics.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence, it is inappropriately applying morality to amoral actions.

That's not what Rand meant by moralizing. She meant condemnation without judgment, which is the act of an irrational person, who's cognitive process has been corrupted. When moral judgment becomes moralizing, that has nothing to do with the subject of the condemnation, and everything to do with the mind of the person doing the condemnation:

"Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive."

She made it very clear that :

"One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment." and

"There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values;"

There have to be actions outside the purview of morality; otherwise, moralizing would not be possible.

Moralizing, in the sense you are using it, is not a bad thing. Ayn Rand didn't use it in that sense, she used it to mean irrational condemnation. Nowhere does she suggest that some choices are amoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to lay some new tile on my kitchen floor. The tile I like comes in two sizes, one a little larger than the other. They both come in the same material, color, etc. Both would cost the same amount of money. I like the finished look of both sizes equally. Choosing one size over the other could be immoral?

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to lay some new tile on my kitchen floor. The tile I like comes in two sizes, one a little larger than the other. They both come in the same material, color, etc. Both would cost the same amount of money. I like the finished look of both sizes equally. Choosing one size over the other could be immoral?
Of course! Objectivism says: the bigger the better. So, the smaller one is immoral. tongue.gif

No, you're right of course: if you've evaluated both and find they're both equally suitable, then choosing either is a moral choice. (Assuming that you're not spending the baby's milk money, and so on.)

And, both "sides" in this thread would agree: at least from the posts by David Odden and TLD it would appear that both would agree that either tile would be fine. I think the difference is that TLD would call it a subjective choice and David O. would say the call it an objective but optional choice; but, both would bless it, so you're good ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! Objectivism says: the bigger the better. So, the smaller one is immoral. tongue.gif

No, you're right of course: if you've evaluated both and find they're both equally suitable, then choosing either is a moral choice. (Assuming that you're not spending the baby's milk money, and so on.)

And, both "sides" in this thread would agree: at least from the posts by David Odden and TLD it would appear that both would agree that either tile would be fine. I think the difference is that TLD would call it a subjective choice and David O. would say the call it an objective but optional choice; but, both would bless it, so you're good ;)

If neither choice could be immoral, how could it be considered a moral choice?

Based on David's previous posts, I'm not sure he would agree!

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to lay some new tile on my kitchen floor. The tile I like comes in two sizes, one a little larger than the other. They both come in the same material, color, etc. Both would cost the same amount of money. I like the finished look of both sizes equally. Choosing one size over the other could be immoral?

I think you are misrepresenting the range of your choices. In reality, your choices are:

1. Pick form whichever pile is closest to the door.

2. Pick whichever size is farthest from the door.

3. Flip a coin.

4...(n-1): some other arbitrary method of choosing.

n-th choice: Spend more time studying your options until a criteria arises.

Depending on other circumstances (like whether your wife wants to be part of the decision making process or not), your rational choice is either 1. or the n-th. The rest of the choices are in fact irrational, and therefor immoral.

I also think that the fact that in reality, unlike in your fictitious scenario, the size of the tiles usually is important, might confuse the issue. That's why I propose a second, more realistic scenario, in which what the choices actually are is more apparent (it's always easier to work with a realistic scenario than with one where an unrealistic premise must be remembered and assumed the whole time).

My alternate scenario would be that you've chosen the texture, color, size etc. of the tiles, and now your only decision is which specific, pretty much identical tiles to buy. Then it becomes more obvious that your choices are between picking whichever tiles are on top, picking whichever tiles are at the bottom, coming up with a complex algorithm to decide which random tiles you want, bringing in an industrial grade sonar to make sure the tiles you're picking have no hidden cracks, etc.

Then it's more apparent that the right choice is to pick the tiles which are on top, discarding the ones with obvious defects.

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...