Is stealing moral or immoral, and why?

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I think I am beginning to understand. Principles are absolute within certain context but are not absolute in other contexts. Therefore, stealing is absolutely immoral within certain contexts but is absolutely moral in other contexts.

 

Additionally, the use of force is “always in fundamental contradiction with your nature” but sometimes “it’s impossible to live according to your nature” so the use of force is alright when you find yourself in a context where it is impossible to live according to your nature.

 

So “daily life” is a certain context that has absolute principles and one of those principals may be that stealing is absolutely immoral or it may be that stealing is absolutely moral; it would all depend on how you define and determine the context of daily life. And, whether the initiation of force is immoral or moral would also depend on how you define and determine the context in which you find yourself.

 

Is this correct?

[StrictlyLogical]

StrictlyLogical,

 

I will attempt to rephrase for you. Some answers seem to hint at or suggest that there is some universal principal, or natural law, or something that exists that dictates that stealing is immoral therefore stealing is immoral, while other answers seem to suggest that the reason stealing is immoral is because of the negative things that will happen to you if you steal.  

 

Consider the universal principal or natural law of "causation". 

 

This exists as an inherent part of reality.

 

Now it does not dictate anything is immoral.  It dictates consequences, (i.e. effects) from your actions (i.e. that which causes the effects.. often through a long chain which involve context, and many parts of reality including others and society etc.).

 

Nothing can be immoral to reality, reality has no consciousness, no life, no wellbeing.  Things are, there are causes and there are effects.

 

 

Recognizing this fact of reality and your choice to live means you have a choice to either ignore reality (at your peril) or to see the causes and effects and how they would affect your life, IF you chose to act in certain ways versus acting in other ways.  Morality is what you are seeking to discover to guide you in that choice. This is the basis of morality.

 

The two things you seem to have identified (laws of nature, and consequences) are in fact the same single basis of morality.  The laws of nature necessarily entail consequences to your actions... and they either further your life or they do not.

Edited June 19, 2014 by StrictlyLogical

[FredAnyman]

StrictlyLogical,

 

This is all very good and easy to understand. If “The laws of nature necessarily entail consequences to your actions... and they either further your life or they do not” and this forms the basis for morality, I assume (and correct me if I am wrong) that if the consequences of your actions further your life, they are moral and if the consequences of your actions do not further your life, they are immoral.

 

This seems to work fine. For example, if I ignore the reality that humans need oxygen and I take the action of throwing myself into the ocean tied to a heavy rock with no means to get oxygen, then the consequences of my action will be that I will die and since that does not further my life, rather it ends it, then the action is immoral.

 

However, once one goes beyond simple examples like this, your basis for morality does not hold up as well.

 

Take the example of stealing. If I steal from you, there are no negative consequences from nature, e.g. my heart doesn’t stop beating; I do not stop breathing. There are only negative consequences if you, or others, choose to act. If you, or others, choose not to act or are unable to act then there will be no negative consequences. If there are no negative consequences that will affect my life, then stealing is moral.

 

This does not seem to sit well with a lot of people because it would mean, for example, that when the individuals that make up the government take your money away from you, you cannot do anything about it, therefore there are no negative consequences and it is therefore moral for the individuals that make up the government to take your money.

 

Further, to follow the logic of your assertions, if you take an action and other people cause negative consequences that do not further your life as a result of your action, then that action is immoral. Therefore, since the individuals that make up the government will cause negative consequences that do not further your life (e.g. imprisonment) if you do not let them take your money, it would be immoral for you to not let the government take your money.

[aleph_1]

Aleph_1,

 

Now let us change the context slightly. If you are a business owner who manufactures widgets and your competitor who also manufactures widgets has developed a device that will allow him to manufacture higher quality and lower priced widgets than you and will therefore drive you out of business, would it be moral for you to steal this device? Since you will not have “a thriving existence” if your competitor uses this device and it is in your interest to steal the device, it would be moral to steal it.

 

Your hypothetical assumes that I will not have a thriving existence without theft of the given device. This assumes that I do not have brain enough to produce the values that I need to have a thriving existence; that I have to forcibly take the product of someone else's mind and effort in order to have a thriving existence. I assert to you that thriving does not come through theft. The thriving life is the result of one's virtues. The consequence of virtuous living is self-respect. No self-respecting person lives through theft. You have dropped the context that I have more capacity to produce than I typically exhibit. This capacity is a consequence of the Law of Surplus Capactiy: Every creature must be capable of producing more than it needs to survive. If this law is not true for some living creature, then that creature would die out at the first famine. Given that the Law of Surplus Capacity is true, I deny the premise of your hypothetical.

 

Concerning government (and other) takings, the initiation of force is evil whether the perpetrator gets away with it or not. The victims have the right to respond with equal force--a right that comes from their very existence. Since the unique power of government is the lawful weilding of weapons against the populace, the power of government should be carefully limited. Government may quickly become an agent of evil. You say that a government's actions are moral if there are no consequences, the implication being that "might makes right". This is context dropping in that it assumes acquiescence is the same as being moral. The people reserve the right to overthrow their governmental oppressors as George III learned in America. If this is a rare instance, it is because we are a primitive and unevolved species, slow in understanding objective morality, frame-bound by our primitive conceptions of morailty.

 

The Law of Surplus Capacity implies that no creature need steal in order to provide for its daily sustenance and thriving. Since theft is an initiation of force, it is evil in most circumstances. The more governments steal from their citizens, the more they should be afraid of an internal revolt. (Vitae et ratiocinari.)

[FredAnyman]

Aleph_1,

 

You stated, “Concerning government (and other) takings, the initiation of force is evil whether the perpetrator gets away with it or not.” But then you state “Since theft is an initiation of force, it is evil in most circumstances.” So the initiation of force could be evil or it could not be evil, correct?

 

As for your denial of my hypothetical, your words can be used to deny the premise of your hypothetical concerning stealing a nuclear detonator from a terrorist: “Your hypothetical assumes that I will not have a thriving existence without theft of the given device. This assumes that I do not have brain enough to produce the values that I need to have a thriving existence; that I have to forcibly take the product of someone else's mind and effort in order to have a thriving existence. I assert to you that thriving does not come through theft. The thriving life is the result of one's virtues. The consequence of virtuous living is self-respect. No self-respecting person lives through theft. You have dropped the context that I have more capacity to produce than I typically exhibit. This capacity is a consequence of the Law of Surplus Capactiy: Every creature must be capable of producing more than it needs to survive. If this law is not true for some living creature, then that creature would die out at the first famine. Given that the Law of Surplus Capacity is true, I deny the premise of your hypothetical.”

[CriticalThinker2000]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I think I am beginning to understand. Principles are absolute within certain context but are not absolute in other contexts. Therefore, stealing is absolutely immoral within certain contexts but is absolutely moral in other contexts.

 

Additionally, the use of force is “always in fundamental contradiction with your nature” but sometimes “it’s impossible to live according to your nature” so the use of force is alright when you find yourself in a context where it is impossible to live according to your nature.

 

So “daily life” is a certain context that has absolute principles and one of those principals may be that stealing is absolutely immoral or it may be that stealing is absolutely moral; it would all depend on how you define and determine the context of daily life. And, whether the initiation of force is immoral or moral would also depend on how you define and determine the context in which you find yourself.

 

Is this correct?

 

Yes, that is more or less correct. Suppose you're a Jew in Nazi Germany and the government has made it such that life as a human is impossible- by which I mean that the circumstances are such that you cannot live by your mind because values are not obtainable. That would be one such circumstance where I think stealing to physically survive would be morally justified. This is because the principles necessary for a flourishing human life presuppose that the action necessary to attain values is possible.

 

This is different than being poor in a free (or semi-free) society where you may not have an opportunity you desire but you are not physically excluded from the attainment of values.

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

You wrote, “Suppose you're a Jew in Nazi Germany and the government has made it such that life as a human is impossible- by which I mean that the circumstances are such that you cannot live by your mind because values are not obtainable. That would be one such circumstance where I think stealing to physically survive would be morally justified. This is because the principles necessary for a flourishing human life presuppose that the action necessary to attain values is possible.”

 

Your statement seems to imply that “life as a human” is defined somewhere and somehow. I would agree with you if you are referring to the requirements necessary to keep a human alive, e.g. water, food, etc., which are determined by the nature of every human being. However, you then add the statement “a flourishing human life” which implies that you are not just defining “life as a human” to be staying alive.

 

If you are not defining “life as a human” to mean staying alive based on the nature of every human being, then how is “a flourishing human life” defined? Is it defined somewhere by something or does each individual define what it means to have “a flourishing human life”?

 

 

If each individual defines what it means to have “a flourishing human life” it would appear that the definition changes with the circumstances. It would be hard to think that the definition of “a flourishing human life” would be the same for someone living in 5^th century India and for someone living in 21^st century United States.

 

If the definition of “a flourishing human life” can change as the circumstances change, then as soon as the circumstances change, the definition of “a flourishing human life” changes and, while “the action necessary to attain values” under the old definition of “a flourishing human life” are no longer possible, the actions necessary to attain values under the new definition of “a flourishing human life” are possible.

 

So, if the actions necessary to attain values under the new definition of “a flourishing human life” are possible, and stealing, as you stated earlier, “is immoral because it destroys your capacity to value in a fundamental sense”, how could stealing ever be moral?

 

To continue your example of a Jew in Nazi Germany, the Jew had defined “a flourishing human life” in a certain way. Now, because of the actions of the government, the circumstances have changed. Therefore, the Jew’s definition of a flourishing human life has changed. While the actions necessary to attain values under the Jew’s old definition of a flourishing human life are no longer possible, the actions necessary to attain values under the Jew’s new definition of a flourishing human life are possible, therefore stealing is still immoral because it destroys the Jew’s capacity to value in a fundamental sense.   

[CriticalThinker2000]

Your statement seems to imply that “life as a human” is defined somewhere and somehow. I would agree with you if you are referring to the requirements necessary to keep a human alive, e.g. water, food, etc., which are determined by the nature of every human being. However, you then add the statement “a flourishing human life” which implies that you are not just defining “life as a human” to be staying alive.

 

If you are not defining “life as a human” to mean staying alive based on the nature of every human being, then how is “a flourishing human life” defined? Is it defined somewhere by something or does each individual define what it means to have “a flourishing human life”?  

 

Flourishing life means the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of values.

 

 

If each individual defines what it means to have “a flourishing human life” it would appear that the definition changes with the circumstances. It would be hard to think that the definition of “a flourishing human life” would be the same for someone living in 5^th century India and for someone living in 21^st century United States.

 

Each individual picks amongst certain optional values but the requirements of a flourishing human life were the same in the 5th century as they are today because they're derived from man's nature. Certain values didn't exist in the 5th century but the values people chose to pursue back then still required the same virtues to achieve. Rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, justice, and pride were as necessary 1500 years ago as they are today.

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

If the definition of a “flourishing life” is: the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values and because “Certain values didn't exist in the 5th century…” then a person living in the 5^th century would pursue different values and therefore a “flourishing life” for that person would be different than a “flourishing life” for a person living in the 21^st century even though both people could achieve a “flourishing life”. Even if same virtues are always required to achieve a “flourishing life”, what one is using those virtues to achieve changes with the circumstances.

 

So, a flourishing life is the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values (and virtues are required to attain the values), under a certain set of circumstances that determine what values to pursue and attain. Once the circumstances change, a flourishing life is still the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values (and virtues are required to achieve the values), but under the different set of circumstances that has determined what different values to pursue and attain.

 

If circumstances change then the values that one pursues and attains change. Therefore, the actions necessary to attain values is always possible and so a “flourishing life” is always possible, then how can stealing ever be moral?

 

To continue your example of a Jew in Nazi Germany, the Jew picks among certain optional values to pursue and attain in order to have a “flourishing life”. Now, because of the actions of the government, the circumstances have changed and certain values do not exist any longer. Therefore, the Jew picks among certain optional values to pursue and attain in order to have a “flourishing life” under the changed circumstances. The Jew will have a “flourishing life” because a “flourishing life” is the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values. Because the Jew has a “flourishing life” stealing is immoral.

[CriticalThinker2000]

If circumstances change then the values that one pursues and attains change. Therefore, the actions necessary to attain values is always possible

 

Could you expand on what you mean here because I'm not following your reasoning?

 

 

To continue your example of a Jew in Nazi Germany, the Jew picks among certain optional values to pursue and attain in order to have a “flourishing life”. Now, because of the actions of the government, the circumstances have changed and certain values do not exist any longer. Therefore, the Jew picks among certain optional values to pursue and attain in order to have a “flourishing life” under the changed circumstances. The Jew will have a “flourishing life” because a “flourishing life” is the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values.

 

What nullifies the context under which stealing is immoral is not the fact that the values don't exist but rather that the specifically human method of achieving values (using the mind) is not possible. Flourishing under systematized coercion is not possible for this reason.

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

You claim that a flourishing life consists of the pursuit and attainment of values and the happiness that results from the attainment of those values.

 

You claim that each individual picks amongst certain optional values.

 

You claim (or at least have not rejected the assertion) that values can change with the circumstances.

 

You claim that when the human method of achieving values, using the mind, is not possible then a flourishing life is not possible.

 

You claim that when a flourishing life is not possible, then actions such as stealing can become moral.

 

(Please correct me if any of the above statements are not accurate)

 

So, I choose the values that I am going to pursue and then I have a flourishing life if I use my mind to pursue and attain those values and get the happiness that results from the attainment of those values. Because I can pursue and attain my values using my mind, I have a flourishing life and actions such as stealing would be immoral.

 

Now the circumstances change and one of two things happen. One, my values do not change due to the changing circumstances. Or two, my values do change due to the changing circumstances.

 

If my values do not change and the circumstances no longer allow me to use my mind to pursue and attain those values and get the happiness that results from the attainment of those values, then I no longer have a flourishing life and since I do not have a flourishing life, actions such as stealing could be moral.

 

If my values do change because of the changing circumstances, then the circumstances will not prevent me from using my mind to pursue and attain those values and get the happiness that results from the attainment of those values, and I will have a flourishing life and since I have a flourishing life, actions such as stealing are immoral.

 

So to continue your example, if the Jew in Nazi Germany valued a job with the government and he used his mind to pursue and attain that value, the Jew would have (in part) a flourishing life. Now, when the Nazi government makes it illegal for a Jew to work for the government the circumstances in which the Jew finds himself change and one of two things could happen. One, the Jew’s values remain fixed and do not change. He still values a job with the government, and the changed circumstances prevent him from using his mind to pursue and attain his value so he no longer has a flourishing life, therefore actions such as stealing could be moral. Or two, the Jew’s values change based on the changed circumstances. He no longer values a job with the government because it is against the law and the ability to have a job with the government no longer exists and now he values a job outside of the government. The changed circumstances do not prevent him from using his mind to pursue and attain his values so he still has a flourishing life, therefore actions such as stealing could not be moral.

 

So which is it? Do your values remain static regardless of the circumstances and you constantly determine whether or not you have a flourishing life based on your static values and the circumstances in which you find yourself? Or, do your values change based on the circumstances and you constantly determine whether or not you have a flourishing life based on your changing values and the circumstances in which you find yourself?

[CriticalThinker2000]

If my values do not change and the circumstances no longer allow me to use my mind to pursue and attain those values and get the happiness that results from the attainment of those values, then I no longer have a flourishing life and since I do not have a flourishing life, actions such as stealing could be moral.

 

I don't understand where you're getting this. The morality of stealing is not dependent upon whether you have a nice life or not. It's dependent upon whether living qua man (in accordance with your nature) is possible.

 

To quote my previous post:

 

"What nullifies the context under which stealing is immoral is not the fact that the values don't exist but rather that the specifically human method of achieving values (using the mind) is not possible."

 

 

So which is it? Do your values remain static regardless of the circumstances and you constantly determine whether or not you have a flourishing life based on your static values and the circumstances in which you find yourself? Or, do your values change based on the circumstances and you constantly determine whether or not you have a flourishing life based on your changing values and the circumstances in which you find yourself?

 

It's not dependent on whether you are flourishing. See above.

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

My quote you cite does not read “a nice life or not”. Rather it reads “a flourishing life” which you define as: “Flourishing life means the full pursuit and attainment of non-contradictory values and the happiness that results from the attainment of values.”

 

Is this not “living qua man”? It appears so since you have not stated that “living qua man” means just staying alive.

 

You state: "What nullifies the context under which stealing is immoral is not the fact that the values don't exist but rather that the specifically human method of achieving values (using the mind) is not possible."

 

You stated: “Each individual picks amongst certain optional values but the requirements of a flourishing human life were the same in the 5th century as they are today because they're derived from man's nature.”

 

If you choose your values, then the only way that “achieving values (using the mind) is not possible” is if you choose values that you cannot achieve using your mind in the circumstances in which you find yourself. If you choose values that can be achieved using the mind, then it is always possible to achieve your values in the circumstances in which you find yourself and therefore it does not nullify the context under which stealing is immoral.

[CriticalThinker2000]

If you choose your values, then the only way that “achieving values (using the mind) is not possible” is if you choose values that you cannot achieve using your mind in the circumstances in which you find yourself.

 

So if someone stops you from attaining food you can choose to value sand and eat that instead?

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

Absolutely not, that would be ridiculous because a human, by the nature of being human, needs to eat food and not sand in order to survive.

 

Your question implies that values are simply based on what will or will not end the life of a human being. However, you do not seem to agree with that since you took such care to define a “flourishing life” as more than just staying alive.

 

So, if we remove death as the deciding factor for what constitutes values, then my statement that you quote is correct.

[CriticalThinker2000]

Your question implies that values are simply based on what will or will not end the life of a human being. However, you do not seem to agree with that since you took such care to define a “flourishing life” as more than just staying alive.

 

So, if we remove death as the deciding factor for what constitutes values, then my statement that you quote is correct.

 

The alternative of life or death is at the root of the concept value. It's what gives rise to values so you cannot remove that as the basis of values. That would be a stolen concept. I agree that you can argue all sorts of silly things if you remove that which gives rise to the objectivity of values. But given that life is the ultimate value, eating sand in pursuit of life is an objectively dumb idea.

 

Yes, flourishing life is a concept I used to differentiate between merely surviving which is what people immediately think of when you say 'life'. But 'life' is a concept. I've noticed that several times you've replaced a word (a concept) with the definition of it. But concepts and definitions are not interchangeable (a la Oist epistemology). There is more to being a man than having a rational faculty (we have two legs, 10 fingers, experience emotions etc) even though the definition of man is, the animal with a rational faculty. Similarly, there is more to life than a beating heart. Life is surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man.

 

Now suppose someone stops you from attaining the other values Rand outlines in The Oist Ethics. What if someone forcibly stops you from being productive (creating material values)? You can choose to steal, just as you can choose to eat sand, but both contradict your nature and consequently end with your destruction.

Edited June 26, 2014 by CriticalThinker2000

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I agree with you that the alternative of life or death is at the root of the concept of value. However, that root only goes so far.

 

I realize that when you write “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” a particular concept comes to your mind. But, this same concept does not necessarily come to my mind or to anyone else’s mind. We each have our own concepts that may be very similar or may be very different. Once your concept of “life” moves beyond physically staying alive versus being dead, your concept of “life” becomes a matter of your opinion; an opinion that is formed by many factors including (but not limited to) the culture you were raised in, the way your individual senses and brain receive and interpret data, your personal psychological issues, and what you want and desire.

 

So when you say stealing is immoral because stealing ends with your destruction, I understand that you mean the destruction of “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” as you construct the concept not because stealing results, necessarily, in your physical destruction. And, because stealing does not necessarily result in your physical destruction only in the violation of your concept, this is your opinion.

 

And if someone else says stealing is moral because stealing does not end with your destruction, it means stealing does not destroy “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” as they construct the concept because stealing does not result, necessarily, in your physical destruction. And, because stealing does not necessarily result in your physical destruction and does not violate their concepts, that is their opinion.

[CriticalThinker2000]

Once your concept of “life” moves beyond physically staying alive versus being dead, your concept of “life” becomes a matter of your opinion; an opinion that is formed by many factors including (but not limited to) the culture you were raised in, the way your individual senses and brain receive and interpret data, your personal psychological issues, and what you want and desire.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second/dp/0452010306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403816708&sr=1-1&keywords=introduction+to+objectivist+epistemology

 

But seriously, you're going to end this whole thing with, 'your concepts don't mean what my concepts mean'?

 

Life is a process of attaining values and as a human being living means attaining values in accordance with your identity as the entity you are: a man. That is a statement of objective fact whether you choose to recognize it in conceptual form or not. It's not a matter of my opinion vs. your opinion. It's fact buddy.

 

 

And if someone else says stealing is moral because stealing does not end with your destruction, it means stealing does not destroy “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” as they construct the concept because stealing does not result, necessarily, in your physical destruction

 

Yeah, it's just an opinion that life requires the creation of values and man creates values in a specific way

 

I can't believe I wasted so much time under the pretense that you were honest. Oh well, lesson learned. Gotta love the interwebs folks.

[FredAnyman]

CriticalThinker2000,

 

I never stated that your concepts don’t mean what my concepts mean. I stated that the concept of “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” is a matter of opinion and could be different from one person to the next.

 

Nor have I ever disagreed with “Life is a process of attaining values and as a human being living means attaining values in accordance with your identity as the entity you are: a man.” All I have noted is that different human beings can choose to attain different values. Once you get beyond those values that keep you alive due to your nature as a human being, then human beings do choose different values to pursue and attain.

 

I also never stated that “it's just an opinion that life requires the creation of values and man creates values in a specific way”. I agree with you that “life”, that is staying physically alive, requires the creation of values and man creates values in a specific way. I also agree that in order to achieve what you, in your opinion, consider to be “life”, or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man”, requires the creation of values and man creates values in a specific way. What I do not agree with is that your concept of “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man”, has to be the same as my concept of “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man”. The creation of values could be different as each act to meet the requirement of “life” as we each conceive of it.

[softwareNerd]

... ... “life” or “a flourishing life” or “a productive life” or “surviving in full accordance with your identity as a man” is a matter of opinion and could be different from one person to the next.

Can it be completely subjective though? In other words can any arbitrarily-selected goal become desire and feel like a flourishing life?

[FredAnyman]

softwareNerd,

 

What does a “flourishing life” feel like? Your question suggests that a “flourishing life” has a standard that humans can discover and then compare an individual’s life to in order to determine if the individual’s life is flourishing. Unless the definition of “flourishing life” is limited to staying physically alive, then the definition of a “flourishing life” is a matter of opinion. The goal or goals to achieve a flourishing life are not arbitrary; they can be rational and logical and objective. It is the concept of a “flourishing life” that could be arbitrarily selected.

[softwareNerd]

What does a “flourishing life” feel like? 

I've always assumed it just means a life that brings happiness. This might be a casual "definition", perhaps even non-standard. 

[DonAthos]

softwareNerd,

 

What does a “flourishing life” feel like? Your question suggests that a “flourishing life” has a standard that humans can discover and then compare an individual’s life to in order to determine if the individual’s life is flourishing. Unless the definition of “flourishing life” is limited to staying physically alive, then the definition of a “flourishing life” is a matter of opinion. The goal or goals to achieve a flourishing life are not arbitrary; they can be rational and logical and objective. It is the concept of a “flourishing life” that could be arbitrarily selected.

Hi Fred,

I'm glad to see that you continue to probe these issues.

Others may disagree with me -- they often do -- but the specific area you're questioning in this post and line of thought, as to what constitutes a "flourishing life," and the relationship such has with Objectivist morality, speaks to debates that I believe continue to be discussed within the Objectivist community.

For instance, you may be interested in examining David Kelley's discussion of this very topic here (specifically, Chapter 2 under "Flourishing and Survival"). There are also a number of essays floating around attempting to address the issue, such as this.

Those discussions may (again) help you to frame your further questions.

[Spiral Architect]

Flourishing Life.  I would quantify it with two basic Objectivist standards:

 

1.  To live is to live in the full context of a human:  To Thrive

2.  Happiness is the purpose of ethics

[New Buddha]

From FredAnyman Post #18

 

"....it implies that there is a standard, or universal definition (or the like) for “a thriving existence” that applies to everyone...."

 

Fred,

Objectivism would never claim that there is a UNIVERSAL definition that applies to EVERYONE -- for the sole reason that it is the responsibility of each individual to determine what is moral and immoral.  There is no Big Book of Objectivist Ethics which we can all turn to for the "right" answer for everything.

 

Furthermore it is existentially, physically and ontologically impossible for any one individual to force any other individual to believe anything.  Each individual MUST choose for himself what is right or wrong.

 

If you chose to believe that rape, pillaging and murder are in your best interest, then have at it.  I can't force you to believe otherwise.  But it's not going to get you very far in life -- because there are many others who believe otherwise, and will do their darnedest to stop you.

 

My reply is shaped to address a common misunderstanding that many people new to Objectivism hold.  Objectivism does not claim that objectivity means that every person must reach the same conclusion on every issue.  Objectivism says that it is possible for an individual to obtain objective knowledge from the evidence of his senses.  But objective knowledge is not omniscient knowledge - it is always contextual to the knowledge that an individual possesses at the moment.