Simple questions of right and wrong

[tjfields]

StrictlyLogical,

 

Since I was asking questions based on what you wrote, I did not realize I was asking you too many questions. I apologize and will limit the number of questions that I ask you in the future. For this post, I will only ask three questions.

 

From post #145, “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.”

 

Are you suggesting that I dismiss the “ingrained subconscious feeling” about morality that I received by the world in which have been raised and currently live, and replace that feeling with the felling that Ayn Rand solved the Is-ought problem and found the true basis of morality?

 

What do you feel or believe is Ayn Rand’s solution to the “is-ought” problem?

 

When you asked what texts related to Objectivism I have read, are you suggesting that if I read these texts then I will get the correct feeling about morality?

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

Yes to the 1st question; yes to the 2nd if an animal is killed for no reason; no to the 3rd.

 

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?

No; preserving your live without wasting resources doesn't actively work against the ability of others to preserve their lives.

[Devil's Advocate]

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.".

Acting according to how one would want to be treated may or may not agree with whatever established rules exist, so I don't see how that is deontologically justified; and it's not suprising that Kant, like Ayn Rand, promoted some version of ethical reciprocity; they are in good company on that score and both can point back to Aristotle.

[Devil's Advocate]

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!!!"

There's a difference between coerced use and voluntary use; the former being ethically bad, and the latter being ethically good; the difference being a slave or contracted labor.  I don't believe the premise lacks traction, and I don't believe we're at odds on this issue.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

Please objectively define “happiness”

“Happiness is a warm puppy.” ~ Charles M. Schulz

[Eiuol]

Acting according to how one would want to be treated may or may not agree with whatever established rules exist, so I don't see how that is deontologically justified; and it's not suprising that Kant, like Ayn Rand, promoted some version of ethical reciprocity; they are in good company on that score and both can point back to Aristotle.

Rand didn't believe that ethical reciprocity was a moral principle to follow. Any amount of reciprocity is the value you get from another. Kant is an arch-example of a deontologist, and all of his ethical principles are deontological.  Acting how you would want to be treated is deontological because there is no reference to either consequences or the actor, the only reference is to presumably that no one should be used for one's own ends. There is simply nothing in Rand's writing that speaks of reciprocity. The "if you want your rights respected..." line is not reciprocity, it's that rights can only function as they should if I support the rights of others. Rights make a society better for yourself. Other than that, i know of nothing else that be construed as a principle of reciprocity.

[Devil's Advocate]

Rand didn't believe that ethical reciprocity was a moral principle to follow. Any amount of reciprocity is the value you get from another. Kant is an arch-example of a deontologist, and all of his ethical principles are deontological.  Acting how you would want to be treated is deontological because there is no reference to either consequences or the actor, the only reference is to presumably that no one should be used for one's own ends. There is simply nothing in Rand's writing that speaks of reciprocity. The "if you want your rights respected..." line is not reciprocity, it's that rights can only function as they should if I support the rights of others. Rights make a society better for yourself. Other than that, i know of nothing else that be construed as a principle of reciprocity.

Rand did believe ones words should be taken literally (a statement made during her discussion, Philosophy, Who Needs It?), which includes her own, so when I read...

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ ARL, Individual Rights

... I see all the elements of ethical reciprocity, e.g. do X, if you want X.  Her use of the word rights describing an obligation not imposed by the state, further clarifies the fact that she's referring to inalienable rights, and speaking about ethical parity, i.e. consistency of interaction between individuals.  This is, of course, my reading of her words, and I've yet to find it inconsistent with her or Kant's statements regarding individuals being ends in themselves, but I won't press this point further here.

[Devil's Advocate]

... I would add however, Eiuol, that it's interesting to me that you assert, "Rand didn't believe that ethical reciprocity was a moral principle to follow", in that Kant is also said to have distinguished his Catagorical Imperative from the Golden Rule...  Interesting that the words of two supposedly philosophical polar opposites could reflect the Rule so well and yet each author be shy about becoming associated with the source... ethical reciprocity.

[StrictlyLogical]

StrictlyLogical,

 

Since I was asking questions based on what you wrote, I did not realize I was asking you too many questions. I apologize and will limit the number of questions that I ask you in the future. For this post, I will only ask three questions.

 

From post #145, “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.”

 

Are you suggesting that I dismiss the “ingrained subconscious feeling” about morality that I received by the world in which have been raised and currently live, and replace that feeling with the felling that Ayn Rand solved the Is-ought problem and found the true basis of morality?

 

What do you feel or believe is Ayn Rand’s solution to the “is-ought” problem?

 

When you asked what texts related to Objectivism I have read, are you suggesting that if I read these texts then I will get the correct feeling about morality?

 

I would suggest that if and when you truly understand and take to heart the correctness of Rand's ideas, that ingrained subconscious feeling will be dismissed, and you will have the knowledge that morality is simply knowledge, knowledge of a special kind for your own use and benefit. 

 

Ayn Rand starts by defining an Ought in a non-imperative, non-mystical way.  Clearly there is no way to arrive at a mystical prescriptive "fact" from descriptive facts (truths about reality) because the mystical does not exist.  Getting to an Ought which is reality based from an IS which of course must be reality based is thus completely logical.  the oughts Rand identifies are ones which are based on reality and the nature of man and are grounded in what is sought.  i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y.  Note: others have also provided solutions in other contexts, but Rand did in the context of her Objectivism. 

 

The books will provide you with knowledge, the feeling comes afterward.  "Think and then you shall feel".

[Devil's Advocate]

I would suggest that if and when you truly understand and take to heart the correctness of Rand's ideas, that ingrained subconscious feeling will be dismissed, and you will have the knowledge that morality is simply knowledge, knowledge of a special kind for your own use and benefit.

Well put; I agree.

 

Ayn Rand starts by defining an Ought in a non-imperative, non-mystical way.  Clearly there is no way to arrive at a mystical prescriptive "fact" from descriptive facts (truths about reality) because the mystical does not exist.  Getting to an Ought which is reality based from an IS which of course must be reality based is thus completely logical.  the oughts Rand identifies are ones which are based on reality and the nature of man and are grounded in what is sought.  i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y.  Note: others have also provided solutions in other contexts, but Rand did in the context of her Objectivism. 

I believe the ethical evaluation, "If I want to get X, I ought to do Y", implies reciprocity when Y is taken to promote X, e.g. I value honesty, so I will behave honestly.  I would argue that in terms of credibility, there really aren't any ethical passes on, "I value honesty, so I will behave deceptively."

 

The question, Is it wrong?, presumes wrong behavior to be bad, so it follows that correct behavior must be good; the eventual legitimacy of legally secured rights depends on this. Therefore a credible ethical evaluation, socially objective if you will, must address the interaction of ethical peers or it's a political nonstarter.  That's why I believe ethical reciprocity, in practice if not in name, lies at the root of a philosophy that promotes taking responsibility for ones actions, and judging the actions of others by ones own standard.

 

Rand's own promotion of, judge and be judged, depends on consistency of behavioral interactions that are objectively good; meaning mutually beneficial, and therefore ethically reciprocal.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[StrictlyLogical]

Well put; I agree.

 

I believe the ethical evaluation, "If I want to get X, I ought to do Y", implies reciprocity when Y is taken to promote X, e.g. I value honesty, so I will behave honestly.  I would argue that in terms of credibility, there really aren't any ethical passes on, "I value honesty, so I will behave deceptively."

 

The question, Is it wrong?, presumes wrong behavior to be bad, so it follows that correct behavior must be good; the eventual legitimacy of legally secured rights depends on this. Therefore a credible ethical evaluation, socially objective if you will, must address the interaction of ethical peers or it's a political nonstarter.  That's why I believe ethical reciprocity, in practice if not in name, lies at the root of a philosophy that promotes taking responsibility for ones actions, and judging the actions of others by ones own standard.

 

Rand's own promotion of, judge and be judged, depends on consistency of behavioral interactions that are objectively good; meaning mutually beneficial, and therefore ethically reciprocal.

 

I had you all the way up to interactions being objectively good meaning "mutually beneficial".

 

Interactions themselves (result of two parties behavior) as "good", rather than evaluation of an action by a party as being "good' in view of a goal: is a distinction I am not quite familiar with in the context of ethics.

 

Secondly: What would be the difference between a philosophy whose core was "rationally mutually beneficial"  ethics versus Rand's "rational selfishness"?  This is likely not insubstantial a difference but I am curious what your opinion is?

[StrictlyLogical]

 

 

When you asked what texts related to Objectivism I have read, are you suggesting that if I read these texts then I will get the correct feeling about morality?

 

The motive for my question was to assess the knowledge of the "audience".  When trying to answer questions and discuss issues understanding the level of knowledge of the person with whom I am communicating is very important.

 

I also asked the question as an indirect way of suggesting that you read some of the material.  The original authors and official and/or professionals in the field of Objectivism will almost invariably provide you with better knowledge, and as is often the case if you are sharper than I you may catch on to things I am still learning!

 

 

 

If your motive was genuine and directed to understanding something in which you were interested I hope we have given you a really good head start on your journey!

 

Edited August 26, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Eiuol]

DA, I wasn't planning to get into a discussion about how what you're talking about is deontological. The quote you stand by is fine, but it's easy to misconstrue or misinterpret to take as stating a principle of  reciprocity, which is by nature a deontological principle if taken to be an essential of moral action. Sure, some degree of reciprocity is expected when trying to trade with others in terms of trust, but the difference with Rand is that reciprocity is besides the point. You're missing the egoistic part, where you should get value from others, or perhaps even "use" people to your own ends, i.e. *your values*. I think what Rand's quote is getting at is that for rights to function as intended, it must apply to everyone. That then implies a moral obligation that everyone includes you. So, if you want a state of society that is most beneficial, you must assure that all rights are respected. That's the consistency demanded.

Yup, perhaps some elements of recirocity, but it's not there if you focus on the egoistic context. Being honest because you want to be treated honestly isn't a good argument, at least not on egoistic grounds, because that implies two general possibilities for accepting it as a good argument. One is that morality rests upon what sort of actions help you get by without others hurting you in the process. That's a consequentialist reasoning, so I don't think this is your position. Another way to go at a deontological angle, which Kant did. Your principles would be arrived at by use of reason and internal consistency - the consequences don't matter, what matters is that my system of morality developed by reason is internally consistent and remains true universally. The issue for egoistic (Objectivist) ethics is that we also need references to what happens, not just our moral strength to follow a code (which would be Kantian notions of duty).
 

 

Secondly: What would be the difference between a philosophy whose core was "rationally mutually beneficial"  ethics versus Rand's "rational selfishness"?  This is likely not insubstantial a difference but I am curious what your opinion is?

I know you asked DA, but I would say the difference is that the former is a deontological standard. Somewhat Aristotelian in this case yet still elevates morality to a level beyond or beside oneself.
 

 

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?

I wouldn't say a person can be "no" value whatsoever, so let's leave the question at people of actively negative value to you. An easy case is someone trying to kill you, just kill them first. But then there are cases of people being verbally cruel people or people who lie to you. Those people are disvalues, it wouldn't justify murder though. My thinking is that unless someone is going as far as to use force, you are always able to ignore another person, yet still extract some value from because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life. This is premised on the idea that the only way to be outright denied values is by force (and/or fraud, just in case you didn't consider fraud to be force really). Keep in mind that we can abstract here to start considering what rights are, but since the topic is about only two people, we don't need to go down that road. If you do though, I've got book recommendations.

*Because* you don't know anything about this stranger, you don't know if the person would be a value or even a disvalue. The rational and therefore moral thing to do would be to learn more about them. This isn't a battlefield where you have only seconds to make a decision - the stranger is unconscious.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Eiuol

[tjfields]

StricklyLogical,

 

In post# 159 you wrote: “I would suggest that if and when you truly understand and take to heart the correctness of Rand's ideas, that ingrained subconscious feeling will be dismissed, and you will have the knowledge that morality is simply knowledge, knowledge of a special kind for your own use and benefit.”

 

I do not understand how substituting one feeling that cannot be define or understood with another feeling that cannot be defined or understood gets you any closer to being able to answer the questions posed in the original post. Can you explain it to me?

 

Additionally, I have heard similar arguments from advocates of religion: I can’t define what God is or what God means, it is fuzzy, but I feel that what God says is correct and if you read our holy book(s) you will feel that God is correct and you will believe. Based on what you have written, it appears that you have simply replaced the Bible with Atlas Shrugged and Jesus with Ayn Rand. Is this the case?

 

You also wrote in post# 159” Ayn Rand starts by defining an Ought in a non-imperative, non-mystical way.  Clearly there is no way to arrive at a mystical prescriptive "fact" from descriptive facts (truths about reality) because the mystical does not exist.  Getting to an Ought which is reality based from an IS which of course must be reality based is thus completely logical.  the oughts Rand identifies are ones which are based on reality and the nature of man and are grounded in what is sought.  i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y.  Note: others have also provided solutions in other contexts, but Rand did in the context of her Objectivism.”

 

How the merely stating that something is non-mystical make it non-mystical especially when you provide no basis for this statement other than Ayn Rand said that this is what she did and you feel it is correct?

 

What is the meaning of “i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y”? How is this related to the is-ought problem? “If you want to achieve” something is not the same as something “is”. How does changing the question and then answering your changed question provide an answer to the original question?

[tjfields]

Eiuol,

 

In post #163, you wrote:

 

“I wouldn't say a person can be "no" value whatsoever, so let's leave the question at people of actively negative value to you. An easy case is someone trying to kill you, just kill them first. But then there are cases of people being verbally cruel people or people who lie to you. Those people are disvalues, it wouldn't justify murder though. My thinking is that unless someone is going as far as to use force, you are always able to ignore another person, yet still extract some value from because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life. This is premised on the idea that the only way to be outright denied values is by force (and/or fraud, just in case you didn't consider fraud to be force really). Keep in mind that we can abstract here to start considering what rights are, but since the topic is about only two people, we don't need to go down that road. If you do though, I've got book recommendations.

*Because* you don't know anything about this stranger, you don't know if the person would be a value or even a disvalue. The rational and therefore moral thing to do would be to learn more about them. This isn't a battlefield where you have only seconds to make a decision - the stranger is unconscious.”

 

So do I understand that your answer to the question in the original post is that it would be wrong to kill the man who washed up on the beach because I do not know how they will be of value to me but I know that they have some value? If so, I will ask you what I asked others in previous posts, if I am able to, “extract some value from [someone] because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life” then can I not stretch the definition of value to such an extent that it covers everyone therefore, it would be wrong to kill anyone because he or she has some kind of value?

[Devil's Advocate]

I had you all the way up to interactions being objectively good meaning "mutually beneficial".

 

Interactions themselves (result of two parties behavior) as "good", rather than evaluation of an action by a party as being "good' in view of a goal: is a distinction I am not quite familiar with in the context of ethics.

 

Secondly: What would be the difference between a philosophy whose core was "rationally mutually beneficial"  ethics versus Rand's "rational selfishness"?  This is likely not insubstantial a difference but I am curious what your opinion is?

Taking the second part first, I'd say rationally mutually beneficial describes the logical outcome of Rand's rational selfishness, or the former is the effect of the latter.  Presuming two individuals interact rationally selfishly, the resultant trade would be mutually beneficial, yes?  ... as in a good trade.

[Devil's Advocate]

I know you asked DA, but I would say the difference is that the former is a deontological standard. Somewhat Aristotelian in this case yet still elevates morality to a level beyond or beside oneself.

I disagree to this assessment because ethical reciprocity evaluates interaction between ethical peers; the focus of moral scrutiny being oneself; the implication being that what is good for oneself is mutually beneficial to others.

 

I believe Eiuol is correct as to the deontological standard attempted by Kant's Catagorical Imperative, however it's worth noting that Kant distanced himself (as apparently Rand does) from ethical reciprocity in the form of the Golden Rule.  Nevertheless, both authors promote ethically reciprocal evaluations in the form of obligations to consider the consequences of ones actions towards others as being ethically consistent with ones own values in order to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

@ Eiuol & StrictlyLogical,

 

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Rand

 

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." ~ Kant

 

Do not both obligations express the idea of consistent/non-contradictory ethical behavior towards others?

 

Interact with others in a manner that is consistent with the pursuit of ones own happiness.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Devil's Advocate

[Leonid]

"Interact with others in a manner that is consistent with the pursuit of ones own happiness."

And what is it?  What if one is a sadist and his pursuit of happiness is consistent with a torture of others? Or he is a racist? Or anti-Semite? Kant simply paraphrases the Golden principle of rabbi Hillel which is a subjective standard of value. 

[Devil's Advocate]

"Interact with others in a manner that is consistent with the pursuit of ones own happiness."

And what is it?  What if one is a sadist and his pursuit of happiness is consistent with a torture of others? Or he is a racist? Or anti-Semite? Kant simply paraphrases the Golden principle of rabbi Hillel which is a subjective standard of value. 

Ones own happiness is self defined but the pursuit, as interaction, is ethically bound to not aggress against others.  Ethical reciprocity, as a interactive starting point, simply extends the benefit of the doubt to strangers.  A victim of unprovoked aggression will recognize (by the same evaluation of ethical reciprocity) that the aggressor is behaving unilaterally and defend themselves accordingly.

[StrictlyLogical]

StricklyLogical,

 

In post# 159 you wrote: “I would suggest that if and when you truly understand and take to heart the correctness of Rand's ideas, that ingrained subconscious feeling will be dismissed, and you will have the knowledge that morality is simply knowledge, knowledge of a special kind for your own use and benefit.”

 

I do not understand how substituting one feeling that cannot be define or understood with another feeling that cannot be defined or understood gets you any closer to being able to answer the questions posed in the original post. Can you explain it to me?

 

Additionally, I have heard similar arguments from advocates of religion: I can’t define what God is or what God means, it is fuzzy, but I feel that what God says is correct and if you read our holy book(s) you will feel that God is correct and you will believe. Based on what you have written, it appears that you have simply replaced the Bible with Atlas Shrugged and Jesus with Ayn Rand. Is this the case?

 

You also wrote in post# 159” Ayn Rand starts by defining an Ought in a non-imperative, non-mystical way.  Clearly there is no way to arrive at a mystical prescriptive "fact" from descriptive facts (truths about reality) because the mystical does not exist.  Getting to an Ought which is reality based from an IS which of course must be reality based is thus completely logical.  the oughts Rand identifies are ones which are based on reality and the nature of man and are grounded in what is sought.  i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y.  Note: others have also provided solutions in other contexts, but Rand did in the context of her Objectivism.”

 

How the merely stating that something is non-mystical make it non-mystical especially when you provide no basis for this statement other than Ayn Rand said that this is what she did and you feel it is correct?

 

What is the meaning of “i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y”? How is this related to the is-ought problem? “If you want to achieve” something is not the same as something “is”. How does changing the question and then answering your changed question provide an answer to the original question?

 

It has become abundantly and inescapably apparent that you are beyond the reach of my reason.

 

I leave to others, better than I, to help you see that if you wish the answers you seek, the task is yours and yours alone to accept reality as it is and to think.

 

SL

[Eiuol]

It has become abundantly and inescapably apparent that you are beyond the reach of my reason.

The questions you are being asked don't sound at all like a refusal to think. I don't know where you're getting the idea from even, as a lot that's being said is that your answers are fuzzy and not all that clear. You basically said "if you understand Rand's words, only then will you know what is truly moral!" Sounds like someone saying "if you understand the meaning of Jesus' words, only then will you know the Truth!" The point it sounds like you want to make is that one's thoughts eventually leads to habits and emotions, in a very Aristotelian way, and that's where a feeling of murder being wrong comes from. That's too far ahead though, since what's needed is an explanation of what's wrong in the first place. Murder is wrong because it is psychologically harmful is a reason based upon moral intuition, as in all people innately know it's wrong to murder. Psychological harm makes sense in terms of self-esteem or one's relationship to others, but as far as I saw, what matters to your position is that murder violates some inherent principle built into you, therefore any violation will harm you. Basically, this is backwards. establishing principles is first, followed by integration, making principles into habits, which after enough time, will become ingrained enough that only then will your psychological well-being and moral behavior be intertwined.

By the way, that intertwining part, that's essential to teleology. For both consequentialism and deontology, your moral principles are all  that matter - if morality makes you feel bad, well, too bad, deal with it. For Objectivism, if morality makes you feel bad, then something is wrong - something is negative to your life. Keep in mind though that feelings won't alone say something really is going wrong, but it sure is important to take seriously.

What is the meaning of “i.e. IF you want to achieve X, you should do Y”? How is this related to the is-ought problem?

Do you mean Hume's is-ought problem? If so, his problem is literally unsolvable, there really is no solution. What Rand does is not using an "is" to define an "ought", what she does is explain a goal of life is to live based on the fundamental choice between your existence or nonexistence. Death needs no action, so morality for that just... makes no sense, it takes no planning, nothing is even required as a code of action. Life needs action, so a code of action is required there. Some may say that there could be third options even, but without getting into a lot of detail, there is no middle for "life" and "not life". With a goal of life requiring action, one would need to take actions that will further one's life. In reality, only certain actions will further life, so that's where you can get a non-subjective answer to what one ought to do. In other words, it's deriving an ought from a goal of life, not simply a descriptive fact/statement.

If so, I will ask you what I asked others in previous posts, if I am able to, “extract some value from [someone] because all of their sustaining efforts for their own life” then can I not stretch the definition of value to such an extent that it covers everyone therefore, it would be wrong to kill anyone because he or she has some kind of value?

I said that you would not know at all if the stranger will be a value or not, but you'd never find out either way  if you just go off and kill them just because you slept on a rock the night before. Like anything in life, usually acting on an impulse without any thought is just plain irrational. It's a good, positive thing to find out because at best, other people may be a great value to you, and destroying them accomplishes absolutely nothing except an irreparable loss. You are almost right about what I said, I'd just clarify that it's short-sighted to make *any* assumption of the value others is or might be before gathering any information. As you said in the scenario, nothing at all is known, so it would be foolish to kill them - other people existing is not a threat to you. I hope you can see how you might reason from here to think about rights in a much larger social context.

Notice I'm not saying anything like "they'd be grateful, so that's why I'll let them live" or mutual backscratching, I'm saying it's good for you specifically, what the other person thinks is not my concern. Incidentally, this is good for both of you, it is mutually beneficial, but it's not at all the primary reason. What counts is that you get a benefit. Think of the difference like this. Some may say capitalism is good because it helps mankind, which assumes that only mutual benefit is moral, so if another person doesn't benefit, it's not moral. It may in fact be true that capitalism benefits mankind, but for egoism, that's not essential to the question *why* capitalism is good. Replace "capitalism" with "an action", and my meaning still remains. Edited August 27, 2013 by Eiuol

[Devil's Advocate]

Leonid,

 

Thanks for the pointer to Hillel; a most interesting fellow...

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Tjfields:

If I asked you to explain the mechanics of gravity, given enough time and detail, we would find fuzzy approximates in YOUR knowledge as well. This doesn't make them invalid.

You're comparing a half formed but rational concept with blatant irrationality.

And thank you, by the way, for expecting my omniscience.

---

You choose your own values but all of Objectivist ethics is based on the premise that life is good.

If you value death then you're already immoral. Period.

---

As for objectively defining happiness- NO!!

You've officially depleted my patience with that request; nobody who speaks English needs such a definition.

---

I will attempt to clarify anything else you legitimately want to know.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Devils advocate:

Your post about utility was slightly ambiguous, if you meant to imply consent as an integral factor. But if you recognize that then i agree.

About ethical reciprocity:

Morality is almost invariably used, nowadays, in a social sense. Ie: ethics is about how to treat other people.

That's not how Rand conceived of it and that's the source of this intransigence you're seeing.

---

I get what you mean about it because I've also seen ethics as a social matter for most of my life. But Objectivist morality isn't about how to treat other people; it's about how to treat yourself.

Ethics is a game with only one player. Politics is social.

That said, if you apply ethical reciprocity to politics (which is how i think you mean it) you'll find it directly in line with individual rights.

It stems from the recognition of objective values; those preferences (such as oxygen or property) which are universally moral.

---

Its a political matter. But as a political matter i really can't imagine how that could contradict rand.