Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Clarification of a point in The Objective Ethics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marc K,

 

Thank you for your post, I found it very interesting.

 

When you wrote, “… if/then statements … take the form: "If you want this certain outcome, then you must take this action" and “… the implied "if" is: "If you want to live"…” appear to provide some additional clarification to the quote from the original post.

 

Applying your explanation to the quote from the original post, it appears we can clarify it to read, “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others – and, therefore, that if man wants to live, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” 

 

However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?

 

If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacrificing violates the non dependency principle.

 

It seems your line of argument is more about trying to find in Rand's writing a semantic/linguistic trap , as opposed to not actually understanding the concepts involved, just a feeling.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?

 

If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?

 

Because sacrificing THE OTHER to yourself prevents THE OTHER from living for his own sake.  There are no double standards in Objectivism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a prohibition against sacrificing others, what is the basis for this prohibition and why is it correct?

The answer, as I already stated and as Craig24 has just alluded to, is: logical consistency.

 

Unfortunately this answer is somehow not enough for some people, which simply astonishes me. If you are interested in a more thorough argument search for a thread entitled "Prudent Predator".

 

 

However, with the last five words of the quote, “…nor sacrificing others to himself”, Ms. Rand appears to be placing a prohibition on sacrificing others. If this is a prohibition, it does not make sense given the rest of the quote since sacrificing others will not necessarily end your life. One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” While it may be true that man does not need to sacrifice others in order to live, sacrificing others will not necessarily end man’s life so why is there a prohibition against it?

There are many things wrong with the ideas expressed here. First of all, Miss Rand never spoke or wrote in terms of "prohibitions", that sounds too much like commandments, but yes, it most certainly would be wrong to sacrifice others to yourself. Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"? If not, and you are interested in Objectivism, you really should. 

 

Secondly, you are being a bit hypocritical by saying that "one cannot make a definitive statement such as [...]" and then following it up by saying "sacrificing others will not necessarily end man's life", which isn't definitive at all. It is hard to tell what you are trying to communicate by using "necessarily" there. It could mean anything. But even if all you mean is that sometimes sacrificing others will end your life and sometimes it won't, well that should be enough not to do it right there.

 

Thirdly, you have to discover what Objectivists (actually almost anyone you talk to) mean by "your life" or "man's life". We don't just mean the bare minimum of living day to day as a subsistence farmer, avoiding the grave for as long as our muscles will hold out. We mean, and most people mean, a happy, flourishing, fruitful, creative, joyous, productive, love filled, life. 

 

Hitler was alive and he sacrificed many people. Do you think he lived a happy, flourishing, fruitful, creative, joyous, productive, love filled, life?

 

To bring it back to "The Objectivist Ethics", Ayn Rand does answer your question there you just have to tease it out by understanding the essay fully and grasping all of its implications.

 

The first part of the paper discusses "value" as that which one acts to gain or keep and in the second part of the paper Miss Rand discusses “virtue” as the action by which one gains and keeps it. She explains how and why rationality is the cardinal virtue since reason is our basic means of survival. She goes on to enumerate six other basic virtues which are really just different aspects of rationality in different contexts of life. They are: Independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. She explains how practicing these virtues are requirements for a happy life. 

 

If you would sacrifice others to yourself could you consider yourself independent? You would be dependent on others. Could you have integrity if you didn't live by the virtues you espouse? Are you being honest with yourself when what holds for you doesn't hold for others? Is it just to treat others in a way that rationally different from the way you want to be treated? How productive can you be if you need to accept the sacrifices of others? Would you be proud to accept something from someone else knowing it is a sacrifice for them? Could you have any self-esteem knowing you are a hypocrite?

 

 

And to tad --  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is an excellent discussion.

 

TJ,

 

Beyond the ways in which each individual organism of a species and indeed the species itself exists as a dynamic end in itself, wouldn’t the reason that individual people ought to be treated by others as ends in themselves be because their intelligence and psyche is organized towards being an individual dynamic whole? That would be Rand’s stress on the circumstance that only individual minds can think, and from there comes the way individuals of our species and indeed the species itself can continue their organic end-in-itself existence.

 

There is at least one place where Rand wrote “Only man is an end in himself.” That was in an Introduction written for a 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead. From the context, I gather that Rand was not here denying the end-in-itself character as it occurs in other living beings. The contrast class was something else here. The full paragraph is: “But neither politics nor ethics nor philosophy is an end in itself, neither in life nor in literature. Only Man is an end in himself.”

 

By the way, the statement “Man is an end in himself” was apparently a common saying, at least among literati, a long time before Rand. In his 1853 work The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality, Nicholas Chernyshevsky wrote: “Artistic form does not save a work of art from contempt or from a pitying smile if, by the importance of its idea, the work cannot answer the question: Was it worth the trouble? A useless thing has no right to respect. “Man is an end in himself”; but the things man makes must have their end in the satisfaction of man’s needs and not in themselves.”* The point I note here is how the author put our subject proposition in quotes, indicating that it was a common current saying that man is an end in himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

As I understand the non dependency principle based on your explanations in posts 16, 18, 20 and 21, the principal states that part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so, I do not understand how the sacrificing of others violates your non dependency principle nor do I understand how your non dependency principle creates a prohibition against sacrificing others.

 

Let us assume that a man can exist as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. And a man does so. This man then chooses to sacrifice another man in some way for some reason, not because he has to sacrifice another to survive or exist but because he chooses to sacrifice another. How does this violate your non dependency principal? The man still exists as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. The man does not need to sacrifice another man in other to live as man qua man but nevertheless makes the choice to do so. There is no violation of your non dependency principal as the man is still a separate entity and his existence is not dependent on another man.    

 

Can you provide a further explanation of why sacrifing others violates your non dependency principal and how your non dependency principal creates a prohibition against sacrificing others?

 

Additionally, how far does your non dependency principle extend? For example, does eating meat violate your non dependency principal and is therefore wrong? Man can live a long, healthy, and active life eating only fruits and vegetables. Man does not need to eat meat in order to live. Or to put another way, man exists as a separate entity and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of an animal, therefore, it is wrong for man to sacrifice animals to himself because it violates the non dependency principal. Would this be another example of a violation of your non dependency principal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig24,

 

I do not understand from where the double standard you mention comes. You wrote, “… sacrificing THE OTHER to yourself prevents THE OTHER from living for his own sake.” This appears to be a factual statement and I agree with this statement.

 

As far as I can tell, the only way a double standard would come into play is if someone first stated that it is right for me to sacrifice you but it is wrong for you to sacrifice me (or something along those lines). If someone did make this type of statement, then I would agree with you that there is a double standard.

 

But that is not the case here. The quote from the original post says that “… man must live for his own sake…” and it appears that this is a statement of fact. Just as “… life is an end in itself…” and “… every human being is an end in himself…” appear to be statements of fact that are supported by arguments made earlier in the essay. A statement of fact does not, however, make, or imply, a judgment as to whether or not the fact is good or bad, right or wrong.   

 

The introduction of what appears to be a prohibition against sacrificing others supposes a judgment of right or wrong and good and bad. A prohibition against sacrificing others implies that it is wrong to sacrifice others. Hence my questions of what is the basis for the prohibition against sacrificing others and why is it correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

What do you think, TJ?

 

Care to share your views of the truth about self-interest and the rights of others? 

 

Like if you were talking to persons, not prosecuting or beating someone up.

 

(Note: principle, not principal.)

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

tadmjones,

 

As I understand the non dependency principle based on your explanations in posts 16, 18, 20 and 21, the principal states that part of man's nature is that men exist as separate entities and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of another man. Have I understood you correctly?

 

If so, I do not understand how the sacrificing of others violates your non dependency principle nor do I understand how your non dependency principle creates a prohibition against sacrificing others.

 

Let us assume that a man can exist as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. And a man does so. This man then chooses to sacrifice another man in some way for some reason, not because he has to sacrifice another to survive or exist but because he chooses to sacrifice another. How does this violate your non dependency principal? The man still exists as man qua man without being dependent on any other man. The man does not need to sacrifice another man in other to live as man qua man but nevertheless makes the choice to do so. There is no violation of your non dependency principal as the man is still a separate entity and his existence is not dependent on another man.    

 

Can you provide a further explanation of why sacrifing others violates your non dependency principal and how your non dependency principal creates a prohibition against sacrificing others?

 

Additionally, how far does your non dependency principle extend? For example, does eating meat violate your non dependency principal and is therefore wrong? Man can live a long, healthy, and active life eating only fruits and vegetables. Man does not need to eat meat in order to live. Or to put another way, man exists as a separate entity and the existence of any one man is not dependent on the existence of an animal, therefore, it is wrong for man to sacrifice animals to himself because it violates the non dependency principal. Would this be another example of a violation of your non dependency principal?

In the context of an essay on O'ist ethics , the phrase man qua man means ' man as is appropriate to be man, or man as per his nature'. Would you dispute the fact the men exist as separate entities? If not, then when deriving a set of principles to guide man's actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man'.

You ask if a man ,existing as man qua man, can then sacrifice another without violating a principle that reflects man's nature. I am not sure how to answer this. If you mean to ask why can't a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual , I would say he can. Would that be moral, is what I would ask you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marc K,

 

Regarding post #30, my question is why is it wrong to sacrifice others based on an implied prohibition in the quote from the original post. You stated that the answer is logical consistency and then expressed astonishment that your answer is not enough for some people. Your answer is not clear to me and does not appear to answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others so I continue to ask. Please explain how “logical consistency” answers my question.

 

You then ask if I have read “Atlas Shrugged.” Is the implication in your question that if I read “Atlas Shrugged” that my questions will be answered? If so, please reference the specific parts of the book that will clearly answer my question (if your inclination is to say “see Galt’s speech” or something similar, that is not specific enough so please provide specific paragraphs and lines).

 

You then state that I am being a bit hypocritical by saying that "one cannot make a definitive statement such as [...]" and then following it up by saying "sacrificing others will not necessarily end man's life", which isn't definitive at all." I do not understand why you would think that I am being hypocritical unless you think that I was stating or implying that one must always make definitive statements. I did not state that nor did I imply it. My statement from post 27 was, “One cannot make a definitive statement such as, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.” I made this statement in response to your post (#25) where you stated that Objectivist if/then statements contain an implied “If you want to live” statement. The statement I made is a true statement because one cannot make a definitive statement that if man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself. Perhaps it was the wording of my statement that is leading you to think that it is somehow hypocritical. I will restate it as, “One cannot make the definitive statement, “If man wants to live, man must not sacrifice others to himself.”

 

You then state, “But even if all you mean is that sometimes sacrificing others will end your life and sometimes it won't, well that should be enough not to do it right there.” I do not understand this statement. Is this the basis for ethics and morality, the idea that if something bad could happen to you as a result of your actions then you should not do it? Or did you mean something else?

 

As for the rest of post #30, as far as I can tell, the talk of virtues does not answer the question of why is it wrong to sacrifice others. If it does answer the question, please explain how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boydstun,

 

Regarding post #31, based on the logic that Ms. Rand presented in the essay, I agree with the concept that life is an end in itself and every living human being is an end in himself. Additional arguments such as your argument that man should be treated as an end in himself because his intelligence and psyche is organized towards being an individual dynamic whole, would, if true, serve to bolster the case for man being an end in himself. However, the fact that man is an end to himself does not answer the question of why it is wrong to sacrifice others.

 

As to your question in post #35, my views about self-interest and the rights of others are still being formed. The reason behind the question in the original post and the reason for every one of my subsequent posts has been the desire to learn. I am seeking knowledge and have no other motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TJ,

 

If justice is treating people as the kinds of beings they are, and they are ends in themselves in the human way, justice would include treating them as ends in themselves. At least that would be the just thing prima facie. Sacrifice of others and exploitation of others in the negative senses of those concepts would be inconsistent with treating them as ends in themselves, wouldn't you think? Treating gasoline as water would be a performative inconsistency; that is the kind of inconsistency relevant to ethical theory. Do you think Rand's arguments for the virtue of justice are wanting?

 

I am still learning and developing my views on some aspects of ethical theory as well (e.g. a, b, c).

 

I'd like to mention for everyone a couple of papers pertinent to the issues TJ has raised, essays now online:

 

Human Rights as Game Strategies

SB

 

A Perfectionist-Egoist Theory of the Good

Irfan Khawaja

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

In regard to post #36, I do not dispute the fact that men exist as separate entities. That is a statement of fact just as each living entity exists as a separate entity whether it is a man, a lion, an ivy plant, or an amoeba.

 

You stated, “… when deriving a set of principles to guide man's actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man'.”

 

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. If the set of principles that you are deriving to guide man’s actions are statements of fact, e.g. a man must consume nutrients in order to live, then I would agree with your statement since the principal could not be that a man must not consume nutrients in order to live as that would be contradictory to the identity of the entity of man.

 

But a statement of fact does not have an ethical implication, i.e. a statement of fact is neither good or evil it simply is. The fact that a man must consume nutrients in order to live, or a rose bush needs sunlight in order to live, or the sun rises in the East, is neither good nor evil, it just is.

 

It appears that you are implying that for principles to be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man' that somehow this establishes an ethical implication and determines whether the principal is good or evil. How can this be possible?

 

The quote from the original post implies an ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man. But there appears to be no logical connection between the statements that man is living being, man is an end to himself, and a man must live for his own sake, which are all statements of fact and, therefore, ethically neutral, and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man.

 

It appears that you are attempting to establish a logical connection between the facts about man and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man when you stated, “…why can't a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual…” You imply that by sacrificing another, a man will destroy his humanity and therefore it is wrong to sacrifice another. But what is the definition of humanity and how does one’s humanity get destroyed? If a man sacrifices another, the man is still a living being, is still an end to himself, and still must live for his own sake. The act of sacrificing another does not change any of these facts so how does the act of sacrificing another destroy his humanity? What is the logical connection between the statements of fact about man and the ethical position that it is wrong to sacrifice others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

In regard to post #36, I do not dispute the fact that men exist as separate entities. That is a statement of fact just as each living entity exists as a separate entity whether it is a man, a lion, an ivy plant, or an amoeba.

 

You stated, “… when deriving a set of principles to guide man's actions as would be appropriate to an entity such as man , those principles must be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man'.”

 

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. If the set of principles that you are deriving to guide man’s actions are statements of fact, e.g. a man must consume nutrients in order to live, then I would agree with your statement since the principal could not be that a man must not consume nutrients in order to live as that would be contradictory to the identity of the entity of man.

 

But a statement of fact does not have an ethical implication, i.e. a statement of fact is neither good or evil it simply is. The fact that a man must consume nutrients in order to live, or a rose bush needs sunlight in order to live, or the sun rises in the East, is neither good nor evil, it just is.

 

It appears that you are implying that for principles to be consistent with and noncontradictory to the identity of the entity 'man' that somehow this establishes an ethical implication and determines whether the principal is good or evil. How can this be possible?

 

The quote from the original post implies an ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man. But there appears to be no logical connection between the statements that man is living being, man is an end to himself, and a man must live for his own sake, which are all statements of fact and, therefore, ethically neutral, and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man.

 

It appears that you are attempting to establish a logical connection between the facts about man and the ethical statement that it is wrong for a man to sacrifice another man when you stated, “…why can't a man deny his humanity and wantonly destroy the humanity of another individual…” You imply that by sacrificing another, a man will destroy his humanity and therefore it is wrong to sacrifice another. But what is the definition of humanity and how does one’s humanity get destroyed? If a man sacrifices another, the man is still a living being, is still an end to himself, and still must live for his own sake. The act of sacrificing another does not change any of these facts so how does the act of sacrificing another destroy his humanity? What is the logical connection between the statements of fact about man and the ethical position that it is wrong to sacrifice others?

 I said the fact that man exists as individuals is an aspect of man' nature. There are others, one is the type of consciousness that man possess, the fact that man has volition means that he is not infallible. In order to live man must make choices, the first choice man must make is to think. By nature mans means of survival is reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

I agree with you that man is not infallible, that in order to live man must make choices, that man must think, and that man's means of survival is reason. These appear to be facts. As I stated in my previous post, facts do not have ethical implications, facts are facts. The question of how does one derive ethical principals out of these facts still remains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

I agree with you that man is not infallible, that in order to live man must make choices, that man must think, and that man's means of survival is reason. These appear to be facts. As I stated in my previous post, facts do not have ethical implications, facts are facts. The question of how does one derive ethical principals out of these facts still remains. 

 Is the question how does one derive ethical principles out of 'these' facts(a particular set of facts), or is the question how does one derive ethical principles from fact(s)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tadmjones,

 

I agree with you that man is not infallible, that in order to live man must make choices, that man must think, and that man's means of survival is reason. These appear to be facts. As I stated in my previous post, facts do not have ethical implications, facts are facts. The question of how does one derive ethical principals out of these facts still remains. 

 

".. facts do not have ethical implications, facts are facts."     Ok, what is the alternative.  What does have ethical implications?

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...