Simple questions of right and wrong

[tjfields]

StrictlyLogical,

 

In post #118, you wrote, “Morality is SELFserving, NOT self denying.  It is NOT a MYSTICAL source of IMPERATIVES floating in the cosmos.  Until you get a REAL feeling for this you will be playing around with definitions and worrying about who said exactly what etc. and wondering about the importance of things ONLY YOU can discover FOR your self. “

 

A “feeling” for what? From where do I get this feeling; where does it come from? How do I know that the feeling that I have is a “Real feeling”? Are you implying that you have a real feeling about what morality is therefore you know what is moral?

 

You also wrote, “Try to always keep in mind THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because".  There IS the choice to LIVE.  If you wish to do so to the utmost (you exist only once and only in reality) you need to understand REALITY and the consequences, all possible long range consequences, on your life.  If YOU CANNOT DEFINE what life is TO YOU and WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF IT... ONLY you are the one who suffers from that inability.”

 

What does it mean to live my life to the utmost? Is it possible for you to know “all possible long range consequences” of reality on your life? If you do not know all of the possible long range consequences does that mean that you cannot live your life to the utmost? How long is “long range”? Is long range different for you than it is for me?

 

You also state, “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”

 

What are the basic principals of morality? Where do they come from and how do we know that they are the basic principals of morality? Do I discover what these basic principals are or do I get a real feeling for them?

 

I do not think that I am on the verge of rationalizing anything nor am I asking you, or anyone, to tell me what is right and wrong. I am just trying to learn. I am confused by your answers and I am trying to make sense of your answers.

 

When you write, “…THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because", and “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”, it leads me to think that you know of some objective means to answer the questions posed in the original post. However, you then write things like, “Until you get a real feeling…” and “I tend to think of life as life and happiness, the whole issue of your existence including the quantity, quality and enjoyment of your existence, in a sense a sum a totality of flourishing or self-actualization” and other statements that are not objective but subjective.

 

I am asking for objective definitions because without objective definitions, we get what we have here: a collection of phrases that can and do mean different things to different people. I do not understand how you can answer the questions posed in the original post with certainty and then support that certainty with phrases that mean different things to different people.

[tjfields]

Devil’s Advocate,

 

In post #120 you wrote, “The issue you are scrambling to avoid is that the temperature of the water in the well IS known to you by pulling it from the well (that is your empirical evidence);  you are simply choosing to ignore that knowledge;  and if the well water means nothing to you, why are you pulling it from the well??”

 

In this situation, the temperature of the water in the well is not known to me with certainty. I pulled water from the well and the temperature of that water was hot. That is what I know with certainty. I do not know if the water was hot when it was in the well or if the water became hot during the process of removing it from the well or if the water became hot after I removed it from the well. The empirical evidence available would suggest that the temperature of the water in the well is hot and it is most likely the case, but I do not know for certain what the temperature of the water in the well is. I am not ignoring the knowledge that the water that I pulled from the well is hot, but I cannot rely on that knowledge alone to state with certainty that the water in the well is hot.

 

As to your question, “…if the well water means nothing to you, why are you pulling it from the well??” the water that I pulled from the well means something to me but the water in the well does not mean anything to me. For example, if the water that I pulled from the well represented all of the water that I would ever need or want, then the water in the well means nothing to me. Even if I did, at some point, need to draw more water from the well, it still would not mean that the water in the well means anything to me, it only means that any additional water that I take from the well means something to me.

 

How does this analogy relate to the questions asked in the original post?

 

 

 

[Devil's Advocate]

One reply might be "if I kill him the island won't change, and since he's unconscious, I won't know what I'm losing out on". Pretty standard idea that your ignorance of additional information can't ever hurt you. But that's wrong. What you don't know will hurt you. Not attempting to make any evaluation is equivalent to willful ignorance and evasion. You look at coconuts and figure out how to drink from one. You learn which fish are easiest to catch and then feed yourself. There's nothing about another person that makes the process any different, you should learn what another person can provide in terms of value. Perhaps he has a waterproof cellphone and can call for help. Maybe he'll help build a house. Who knows? You won't know until you ask. If you fear he'll take away your resources, that's bad reasoning - value isn't zero sum, not even on an island. An interesting point Rand made is that people are neither lone wolves nor social animals. They are traders.

"Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

 

I would go further and say that man is a moral animal based on all of the above.  It seems to me that Objectivism goes a long way in promoting this, but gets hung up in evaluating social vs solitary contexts.  Isn't it more likely that there's no social vs solitary distinction to be made in the context of being rationally selfish, meaning from the viewpoint of an individual looking for beneficial interaction with others?  A contractural animal benefits from identifying trading partners, specifically ones who trade according to some level of mutual respect, e.g., "respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized".  Would a rationally selfish moral animal behave differently??

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

Your response in post #125 seems to be saying that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I do not know what kind of value that person could provide. If I knew for certain that the person who washed up on the beach was going to wake up and attempt to kill me, it may be right to kill the person but because I do not know anything about this person and what he may or may not do and any value that he may provide, it would be wrong to kill him.

Have I summed up your position accurately?   

 

You wrote, “Objectivist ethics presumes that ethical actions help or improve your life and that you can make such decisions objectively.” In post #26 I ask a question that I will restate here. If the situation in the original post were to be changed to say that instead of a man washing up on the beach it was a hammer that washed up on the beach. I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island. Would this be ethically wrong?

[Devil's Advocate]

In post #26 I ask a question that I will restate here. If the situation in the original post were to be changed to say that instead of a man washing up on the beach it was a hammer that washed up on the beach. I saw the hammer, ignored it, went about my day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island. Would this be ethically wrong?

This is a good point to clarify.

 

A hammer is a utility, meaning useful, profitable, or beneficial.  Prior to the arrival of another, you routinely collected useful items that helped you to survive or enhanced your survival, and a hammer is certainly useful.  However a hammer isn't offended by misuse, or destruction;  a hammer wouldn't care if you went about your day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island;  a person would care, and that's the difference.

 

It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation, because whatever you pass on remains available to others.  Suppose however you went about your day collecting coconuts and pitching the ones you don't want into the sea?  Now you are actively working against the ability of others who may follow in your footsteps to preserve their lives.  What others you ask??  Ones like the fellow who washed up on the beach.

 

Your obligation, the obligation I believe Ayn Rand asserts, is not to impede the ability of others to preserve their lives.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[tjfields]

Devil’s Advocate,

 

From post #130, “…a hammer isn't offended by misuse, or destruction;  a hammer wouldn't care if you went about your day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island;  a person would care, and that's the difference.”

 

Does this ethical position apply to other things? An animal cares if I kill it, evidenced by the fact that the animal will fight or flee for its life if given the chance. Is it ethically wrong to kill an animal? If a person tells you that he or she does not care if you kill them, is it ethically wrong to kill that person?

 

You wrote, “It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation…”

 

How does this statement fit with all of your previous posts concerning value and the ethical considerations of not utilizing someone of value? Should your statement read: It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation but it would be ethically wrong not to utilize the value provided by other people? Is so, why is this true?

 

You wrote, “Suppose however you went about your day collecting coconuts and pitching the ones you don't want into the sea?  Now you are actively working against the ability of others who may follow in your footsteps to preserve their lives.”

 

What if I went about my day collecting and eating coconuts? Am I also actively working against the ability of other who may follow in my footsteps?

[Devil's Advocate]

How does this analogy relate to the questions asked in the original post?

The water in the well represents life in general; the water you pulled from the well is your life in particular;  it was offered to demonstrate your life as an approximation of life in general, and the empirical evidence provided by the former to evaluate the latter.  You may claim subtle differences that indicate the two aren't related, but I believe this amounts to differences of preference rather than differences of substance, i.e., if you pull water you can presume the well isn't filled with wine.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

You wrote, “It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation…”

 

How does this statement fit with all of your previous posts concerning value and the ethical considerations of not utilizing someone of value? Should your statement read: It wouldn't be ethically wrong not to collect useful objects in terms of self-preservation but it would be ethically wrong not to utilize the value provided by other people? Is so, why is this true?

I'm not supporting a morality of utility argument, because people are not utilities; which is why coercion, e.g., slavery, is bad, and voluntary cooperation, e.g., trading partners, is good.

[Eiuol]

 

 

A hammer is a utility, meaning useful, profitable, or beneficial.  Prior to the arrival of another, you routinely collected useful items that helped you to survive or enhanced your survival, and a hammer is certainly useful.  However a hammer isn't offended by misuse, or destruction;  a hammer wouldn't care if you went about your day and did nothing to stop the tide from taking the hammer off the island;  a person would care, and that's the difference.

A dead person doesn't care either. So if you kill him before he wakes up, you're all set.

 

I'll put it this way: to say you shouldn't kill (/steal/lie/etc) because someone wouldn't like it is to make a decision based on the feelings and beliefs of others (or it might be based on no beneficiary whatsoever). That's not egoistic at all.

 

TJ:

Yeah, it would be immoral to toss away a hammer without any evaluation of what it may be able to do. The only difference from a human, albeit a huge one at that, is the range of ways people can act to provide value is greater than that of a hammer.

 

You do sum up my position accurately. If you also had some reason to expect he'd kill you, for instance you thought he was a Somali pirate, then it'd probably be wiser to tie him up and take his weapons before he wakes up.

[Devil's Advocate]

A dead person doesn't care either. So if you kill him before he wakes up, you're all set.

Seriously?!  So killing people in their sleep is OK??  Go figure

 

Note to self:  Don't invite Objectivists to sleepovers...

 

I'll put it this way: to say you shouldn't kill (/steal/lie/etc) because someone wouldn't like it is to make a decision based on the feelings and beliefs of others (or it might be based on no beneficiary whatsoever). That's not egoistic at all.

And not my claim, which is you shouldn't kill because you wouldn't like being killed.  That seems fairly egoistic to me; to form ethical expectations of others on how I'd like to be treated

Edited August 22, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Harrison Danneskjold]

In post #82, in response to my request for a clarification of life and happiness as the ultimate value, you wrote, “Unfortunately, that's exactly what I can't do; I only have a rather fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value.  I know it's directly related to living as "man qua man" but, aside from acting in accordance with man's metaphysical nature (primarily your rational mind), I really couldn't define it for you.”

Let me clarify real quick.

I know what living as "man qua man" looks like.  If you give me any concrete example I could tell you whether or not it would fit.  I could describe it for you if you'd like, or give you a list of attributes (although this will simply be a list of Objectivist virtues); I just can't define it.  Yet.

Honestly, until this thread, it's something that had never occurred to me before.  Somewhere along the line I read that this Objectivist concept of human perfection was the best thing to strive for, I thought to myself "yeah; that makes total sense" and hadn't thought to analyze it since.

 

It just seemed obvious to me.

 

How can you base your ethical arguments on a fuzzy approximation?

Nobody is omniscient or immortal; everyone in the entire world has to make snap-judgments with incomplete data.  I will be looking into this sometime soon, because you're right; I should be able to define this. 

As for basing my argument on it, as I said:  It just seemed obvious to me.

 

If you only have a fuzzy approximation of this ultimate value then how can you make a statement that valuing solitude above human life is not rational and hinders the ultimate value?

I know enough to tell you what living as man qua man looks like, and that isn't it.  And I can tell you that anyone who values solitude above human life cannot achieve it.

 

If the ultimate value is the source of moral principals, and you have a fuzzy approximation of ultimate value, how can you have a firm grasp of moral principals?

I don't have a firm grasp of long-term principles.  I know what it would be moral or immoral to do, in any given instance; I have fuzzy approximates of what it's moral to be.

[Plasmatic]

In post #76 I said:
 

He has the right to life and this is inalienable and not given to him by any government or society. Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such

 
When others failed to keep context, I further elaborated in #79:
 

Please note, I am not answering the question asked of you, or the OP, as such. I have sought simply to show that the answers given are not consonant with Oism. Also, note that I have not advocated stopping at an out of context, "initiation of force is wrong". I have indicated the root of the answer to "why", when I said, "Ones knowledge of this is derived from the knowledge of ones own requirements and context of life and is dictated by mans nature as such.".

 
Others further dropped context by claiming I was stealing, reifying, or mystifying the concept "right", and proceeded to demand I break down all of their related errors of knowledge concerning Oism. (for me, a quote from someone who I thought held one idea directly contradicting that idea, is enough stimulus to go do my own homework...)  I explained further in  #81:
 

I advocate identifying that he has the right to life and then REDUCING backwards down the hierarchy to its base in life and value!

 
 
Since I am in a forum, the context of which is Objectivism, it is proper and reasonable to post in a way that is consistent with that context and expect others to realize that context is the standard. In other words here it is necessary to state if your view is not in agreement with Oism, because it is a forum dedicated to it. If I were in a forum dedicated to Kantianism I would have to post in a manner that respected the purpose of that forum and identify my self as a non-Kantian, because it is not the pretext for that forum. The only way to demonstrate that my points are consistent with Objectivism and others points aren't, is to quote the only author of Oism. (The issue of my own validation of those ideas is separate from this ! (fans of psychologism take note!... )
 
1. I maintain that Objectivism holds that all rights are individual rights, derived from the right to life, and that this is the condition for any other right, as well as the precondition for any society and government. Just as rights presuppose life and value, government presupposes the individual possessing that right and is the reason governments are formed to "secure" them.
 
   Ayn Rand said:
 

"You who've lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are a gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim—the source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life
...............
 

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.....

 

 
 
 Ms. Rand illustrated the fact that the individual right to life is not granted to one by society in Anthem by having Equality 7-2521 derive the concept of the individual introspectively within a social context that did not possess a concept for it.

 

Edit: Equality 7-2521 does not feel guilt because of there own introspective sense that the socially dictated "sins" were anti-life.  

 
 
The Island dweller can not escape the requirements of his own existence. He must discover the values required to live as man. His values must be in accordance with the full context of his life. This extends beyond mere metabolic requirements, man is an integration of mind and body.
 
Ayn Rand said:
 

There is no escape from justice, nothing can be unearned and unpaid for in the universe, neither in matter nor in spirit

 
The island dweller needs only know his own conditions for life as man, to grasp that he should not value murdering the unconscious man, and that the man has a right to his own life. The consequences for murder are not exclusively or primarily the destruction of others value and rights!
 
The importance of conscience in Objectivism is tremendously overlooked by many of its proponents. Psychological harmony/integration is essential to mans life and therefore plays an important role in Oist literature. The harmony of Galt's actions and premises with his own life/identity derived values, showed in his body/face. Rearden's path to inner integration required him to realize the he "placed pity above [his] own conscience" etc.

 

The selfish value of a man who lives with integrity, is because of what violating what one knows to be "right" does TO HIMSELF,  to his own conscience.

 

When a rationally selfish man doesn't cheat on his wife when no one would find out, it is primarily because HE would know!

 

EDIT: Fixed sentence below

 

The unconscious mans right to life is not predicated on his value to the island dweller as such. The island dweller doesn't violate this right because of the island dwellers value of himself! As a secondary he will rationally derive the respect for life in general from this knowledge.

 

 

As to the question of the hypothetical being a social context, the idea that it isn't is so obtuse I refuse to debate it further.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

Seriously?!  So killing people in their sleep is OK??  Go figure

 

Note to self:  Don't invite Objectivists to sleepovers...

 

And not my claim, which is you shouldn't kill because you wouldn't like being killed.  That seems fairly egoistic to me; to form ethical expectations of others on how I'd like to be treated

Then the important difference is not whether the other person cares. I'm saying that without reference to how your values are affected, it's just deontological justification. You pretty much paraphrased Kant, a deontologist: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.".

[Harrison Danneskjold]

If one can show that the behavior is not self-destructive then the killing of the man on the beach would not be wrong.

Absolutely.

 

If your argument is that it is wrong for me to kill the man who washed up on the beach because that action is self-destructive behavior, and it is self-destructive behavior because it negatively impacts the quantity, quality and enjoyment of my existence as you define it and you are assuming that I define these terms the same way, then would your argument change and be that it was right to kill the man who washed up on the beach because you learned that my definition of terms is different so it was not self-destructive behavior because it does not negatively impact the quantity, quality and enjoyment of my existence as I define it?

Think of it this way.  You choose your own values, much like everyone has their own eating preferences.  And a wide variety of these preferences are perfectly legitimate.

But no matter how you define or redefine poison, it will remain poison.

 

In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value death instead of life- but that won't make it good or healthy for you to pursue that value.

 

In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value killing- but that won't make killing good.

 

 and if the well water means nothing to you, why are you pulling it from the well??

Are you making an attempt at humor?  If so you're succeeding. 

[Eiuol]

 

The selfish value of a man who lives with integrity, is because of what violating what one knows to be "right" does TO HIMSELF,  to his own conscience.

 

Hidden premise: all people know that murder is wrong, so it would weigh on their conscience.

[Plasmatic]

Hidden premise: all people know that murder is wrong, so it would weigh on their conscience.

 

Nonsense! I have explained the context which the island dweller derives the knowledge and premises his conscience is based on.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm not supporting a morality of utility argument, because people are not utilities; which is why coercion, e.g., slavery, is bad, and voluntary cooperation, e.g., trading partners, is good.

This is a slippery premise.

Utility is simply another word for value, and people are immensely valuable utilities.  A friend, for instance, serves specific purposes and functions in one's life: they simply aren't the sort of functions one could ever buy.  Slavery is bad because of the principle of consent, which is the principle of recognizing the minds of others (including their decisions).

 

People use each other all the time and there's nothing wrong about it.  In the words of Leonard Hoffstader and Howard something-or-other:

"She isn't interested in having a relationship, so much as using men as tools for stress-release."

"SO?!  Be a tool!!!"

[Eiuol]

Plasmatic, this is the closest thing you said to that:

 

"The Island dweller can not escape the requirements of his own existence. He must discover the values required to live as man. His values must be in accordance with the full context of his life. This extends beyond mere metabolic requirements, man is an integration of mind and body."

 

So, let's discover why other people are important values. Your points didn't connect "I need to figure out that there are a whole variety of reasons to value the life of another in terms of my own life" with "violating rights would also be self-denial of my conscience". So, that connection what I was trying to explain earlier.

[StrictlyLogical]

 

The importance of conscience in Objectivism is tremendously overlooked by many of its proponents. Psychological harmony/integration is essential to mans life and therefore plays an important role in Oist literature. The harmony of Galt's actions and premises with his own life/identity derived values, showed in his body/face. Rearden's path to inner integration required him to realize the he "placed pity above [his] own conscience" etc.

 

The selfish value of a man who lives with integrity, is because of what violating what one knows to be "right" does TO HIMSELF,  to his own conscience.

 

When a rationally selfish man doesn't cheat on his wife when no one would find out, it is primarily because HE would know!

 

EDIT: Fixed sentence below

 

The unconscious mans right to life is not predicated on his value to the island dweller as such. The island dweller doesn't violate this right because of the island dwellers value of himself! As a secondary he will rationally derive the respect for life in general from this knowledge.

 

 

This is the content which needed explicit stating.

 

It is a gravely important factor amongst all, the everything, the totality that needs to be considered when evaluating such an action.

[StrictlyLogical]

StrictlyLogical,

 

In post #118, you wrote, “Morality is SELFserving, NOT self denying.  It is NOT a MYSTICAL source of IMPERATIVES floating in the cosmos.  Until you get a REAL feeling for this you will be playing around with definitions and worrying about who said exactly what etc. and wondering about the importance of things ONLY YOU can discover FOR your self. “

 

A “feeling” for what? From where do I get this feeling; where does it come from? How do I know that the feeling that I have is a “Real feeling”? Are you implying that you have a real feeling about what morality is therefore you know what is moral?

 

You also wrote, “Try to always keep in mind THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because".  There IS the choice to LIVE.  If you wish to do so to the utmost (you exist only once and only in reality) you need to understand REALITY and the consequences, all possible long range consequences, on your life.  If YOU CANNOT DEFINE what life is TO YOU and WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF IT... ONLY you are the one who suffers from that inability.”

 

What does it mean to live my life to the utmost? Is it possible for you to know “all possible long range consequences” of reality on your life? If you do not know all of the possible long range consequences does that mean that you cannot live your life to the utmost? How long is “long range”? Is long range different for you than it is for me?

 

You also state, “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”

 

What are the basic principals of morality? Where do they come from and how do we know that they are the basic principals of morality? Do I discover what these basic principals are or do I get a real feeling for them?

 

I do not think that I am on the verge of rationalizing anything nor am I asking you, or anyone, to tell me what is right and wrong. I am just trying to learn. I am confused by your answers and I am trying to make sense of your answers.

 

When you write, “…THERE IS ONLY REALITY, no gods, no ghosts, no commandments, no duty, no floating obligations, no MYSTICAL "just because", and “To the extent you are a human there are basic principles of morality based on that fact and all the facts of reality.”, it leads me to think that you know of some objective means to answer the questions posed in the original post. However, you then write things like, “Until you get a real feeling…” and “I tend to think of life as life and happiness, the whole issue of your existence including the quantity, quality and enjoyment of your existence, in a sense a sum a totality of flourishing or self-actualization” and other statements that are not objective but subjective.

 

I am asking for objective definitions because without objective definitions, we get what we have here: a collection of phrases that can and do mean different things to different people. I do not understand how you can answer the questions posed in the original post with certainty and then support that certainty with phrases that mean different things to different people.

 

Hello tjfields:

 

 

I'm trying to encourage you.  I apologize if it comes off as awkward.

 

You have asked a few too many questions, I will do my best with one or two at a time but perhaps others here have more clear cut answers which I simply am not prepared to proffer to you as these are context dependent.

 

 

As for the issue with "feel" this is a great divide which Objectivists needed to cross.  Ask almost anyone here and they will tell you how much of a struggle it was.  The reason is simple:

 

Every popular source in culture, every popular modern philosophy (other than Objectivism), every religion, and all socialists and communists alike believes (and I use that word literally because it is an assertion of faith in absence of reason or reality) in a Mystical, supernatural, "not based in facts or reality" kind of morality.  This is the IS-Ought problem never to be solved, this is altruism, this is acting from duty as such... it's everywhere.  Something is "right" just because. Morality is written in the stars or in our hearts/emotions or is created by the majority... it is an existent that must be obeyed, it is a duty.. if you do your duty you are good if you shirk your duty you are bad.  Pure and simple.  We were all brought up in this, we all have had our share of lectures from socialists, priests, teachers, books, hollywood etc.  so we already have an ingrained subconscious feeling that morality is floating, intrinsic, supernatural absolute divorced from reality or reason.   This feeling takes years to overcome, dismiss, identify even... and some have a hard time doing it even after they think they are Objectivists. 

 

So what feeling replaces it?  The one that throws out the irrational baseless idea of morality, accepts Ayn Rand's solution to the IS-ought problem, and the true basis of morality.  Morality IS an intimately personal thing and it is discoverable but it is not simple... I wont try to define it here.. but believe me there are good definitions/principles that others can provide.

 

Can I ask you what texts related to Objectivism you have read?  Atlas Shrugged?  Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand? 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Can I ask you what texts related to Objectivism you have read?  Atlas Shrugged?  Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand? 

The Virtue of Selfishness would probably be most relevant (also one I need to get a copy of; I haven't read it in years).

 

Tjfields:

I'm gonna take a wild stab at an answer for you, because I think I see what you're looking for.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

We are all human beings; human beings are mortal organisms.

Being mortal, there is one constant alternative which we are always faced with: life or death, existence or nonexistence.  This is the source of and the reason for all ethics; this fundamental choice.

 

To be or not to be, that is the question.

 

If you want to live then that is the fundamental value; all other values are judged according to their effect on that.  And while I haven't read this explicitly in any Objectivist's works, I think that living "man qua man" means to fully live.

 

It's somewhat weird and counterintuitive, but what if we conceived of "life" as having various degrees, such as the degree of health or sickness, which applied to someone's every single attribute?

 

For each and every detail we know about someone, we can gauge with relative ease how this impacts the possibility of their continued, contingent existence.  Think of Darwinian fitness.

Now, what if we were to judge the an organism's fitness, not by its hereditary traits, but by its choices?

 

If we judged the fitness benefit of any given value then we would appear to be making moral judgments.  And if we imagine the sum total of all maximum possible values- the perfectly fit human- we find "man qua man".

 

Notice that happiness has not entered into this line of reasoning; that was by design.  Happiness was a conceptual stumbling-block.

 

If we simply consider happiness to be another fitness value, but a DERIVATIVE value (much like the degree of one's health or sickness, while a value in itself, is derivative of a staggering number of biological factors), we find it perfectly analogous to the role of happiness in Objectivist ethics.

---

 

VOILA!!

 

Rational selfishness is a volitional fitness function, the ultimate value is to maximize one's own fitness and to live as "man qua man" is to actually achieve the ultimate value.

It's all based on the choice to live, and all of its implications.

---

 

Gentlemen:  You are welcome. 

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Forget everything I just said about happiness!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ayn Rand said:

Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. . .

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. . .

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

 

Happiness is NOT another factor in this teleological fitness function; it is the goal and the final product!

Emotions are subconscious value judgments; what you value is what you want.  You choose your own values by your thoughts and ideas, over time.

Thoughts create emotions VIA values!

Since ethics is the science of choosing and judging values, it is the business of ethics to tell you how you should feel about any given thing [directly relates to Eiuol's statements about intention].

 

You cannot be happy if you want to die.  If your values or your morality are irrational, life is an obligation and death is indulgence- and life without happiness isn't worth living, while corpses simply can't be happy.

 

Rational selfishness isn't about survival vs. happiness or survival with coincidental happiness; rational selfishness IS being happy ABOUT LIFE!

Be happy THAT you're alive, and find the best way to continue living as much as you can- happiness is derived from and corresponds to health!

 

Ayn Rand also said:

The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

 

---

 

Rational selfishness is a teleological fitness function which evaluates your values [including emotionally, once fully integrated] according to the ultimate value of life.

 

Accordingly, it would be immoral to kill the stranger (because it's Objectively unfit)- specifically because the desire for murder is irrational, because it pits happiness against survival.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

From post #134, “Yeah, it would be immoral to toss away a hammer without any evaluation of what it may be able to do. The only difference from a human, albeit a huge one at that, is the range of ways people can act to provide value is greater than that of a hammer.”

 

I will ask you a question that I asked others earlier, if your determination of moral or immoral, or right and wrong, is based on the value that someone or something provides you, then if you determine that someone is not a value to you, or if they are a threat to your values, then it is right to kill them, or at least not ethically wrong?

 

To the original post, if I determined that the man who washed up on the beach provided no value to me, it would not be wrong to kill him?

 

Now, based on other responses received to similar questions, do you think that because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine all of the ways that another person could be valuable to you, it would be wrong to kill the person who washed up on the beach?

 

If so, then how does this position differ from a form of faith in something i.e. I do not know all of the ways that this person may be of value to me, I do not know how or when this person will be of value to me, but I believe, or have faith, that this person will be of value to me so it is wrong to kill the person?

[tjfields]

Harrison Danneskjold,

 

From post #136, “I don't have a firm grasp of long-term principles.  I know what it would be moral or immoral to do, in any given instance; I have fuzzy approximates of what it's moral to be.”

 

If you do not have a firm grasp of long-term principles but you can tell me what would be moral or immoral to do in any given instance, how is this different than saying: I feel that this is moral and I feel that that is immoral? To the questions in the original post, your answer seems to be: it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I feel it would be wrong. Or, conversely: it would be right to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I feel it would be right. Do you agree?

 

From post #139:

 

“Think of it this way.  You choose your own values, much like everyone has their own eating preferences.  And a wide variety of these preferences are perfectly legitimate.

 

But no matter how you define or redefine poison, it will remain poison.

 

In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value death instead of life- but that won't make it good or healthy for you to pursue that value.

In exactly the same way, you could declare that you value killing- but that won't make killing good.”

 

If I choose my own values and I choose to value death i.e. I want to die, then why would it not be good for me to pursue that value and die?

 

Please explain why killing is not good if I choose my own values and I value killing (“you could declare that you value killing- but that won't make killing good).

 

From post #148:

 

“Happiness is NOT another factor in this teleological fitness function; it is the goal and the final product!”

 

“Rational selfishness isn't about survival vs. happiness or survival with coincidental happiness; rational selfishness IS being happy ABOUT LIFE!

Be happy THAT you're alive, and find the best way to continue living as much as you can- happiness is derived from and corresponds to health!”

 

“… it would be immoral to kill the stranger (because it's Objectively unfit)- specifically because the desire for murder is irrational, because it pits happiness against survival.”

 

Please objectively define “happiness”