Objectivism Ethics

[Eiuol]

"How does pursuing any other value that involves personal risk not place ones "ultimate" value further down the list?"

Depends on how risky it is and the value in question. The word "risky" has all sorts of connotations and in a way makes uncertainty perfectly acceptable.

" If the man was a life guard jumping to save a swimmer in distress would you withhold moral judgement?"

I thought you implied suicide, as in he wanted to kill himself, not "died as an unfortunate consequence he couldn't foresee". I'd investigate what happened before judgment. I'll put it this way: 1) deliberate suicide is amoral, 2) acting without consideration in a "suicidal" way is immoral, and 3) the unforeseeable is not the fault of anyone so it might be moral when someone happens to die. Unforeseeable is something like it turns out a shark was in the water when there was no reason to expect a shark. He has the moral -right- to do any of the three, but only 3 might be -morally right-. Why? Because 1 disregards life anyway, and 2 is immoral because it's avoiding knowledge while at the same time wanting to live.

By the way, there is no "between" choosing to exist or not. Rand argues that the law of excluded middle applies here. Putting life at risk could be 2 or 3 above, but it's not a continuum of life pursuit in a specific choice. A continuum only exists when evaluating people in their whole character. I agree with Rand, as in I don't see a reason to evaluate specific choices as "in between".

[Devil's Advocate]

Thanks Eiuol, that helps a bit too.  I still have a problem with the idea that suicide is amoral but acting suicidal is immoral.  It's like playing russian roulette where every click is a penalty but a bang is no foul.  Anyway both you and Greg have been more than generous with your time, and I hope you both have a good weekend.

 

BTW, several references in the Lex made me think of this quote.  Not sure why, but I wanted to share it in appreciation for your time...

 

"Life is pretty simple: You do some stuff. Most fails. Some works. You do more of what works. If it works big, others quickly copy it. Then you do something else. The trick is the doing something else." ~ Leonardo da Vinci

 

... an early Objectivist??

Edited November 7, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

...

" If the man was a life guard jumping to save a swimmer in distress would you withhold moral judgement?"

I thought you implied suicide, as in he wanted to kill himself, not "died as an unfortunate consequence he couldn't foresee". I'd investigate what happened before judgment. I'll put it this way: 1) deliberate suicide is amoral, 2) acting without consideration in a "suicidal" way is immoral, and 3) the unforeseeable is not the fault of anyone so it might be moral when someone happens to die. Unforeseeable is something like it turns out a shark was in the water when there was no reason to expect a shark. He has the moral -right- to do any of the three, but only 3 might be -morally right-. Why? Because 1 disregards life anyway, and 2 is immoral because it's avoiding knowledge while at the same time wanting to live.

By the way, there is no "between" choosing to exist or not. Rand argues that the law of excluded middle applies here. Putting life at risk could be 2 or 3 above, but it's not a continuum of life pursuit in a specific choice. A continuum only exists when evaluating people in their whole character. I agree with Rand, as in I don't see a reason to evaluate specific choices as "in between".

 

"In the other thread, I explicitly said CHARACTER varies by degrees, but SPECIFIC ACTIONS are only good or bad." ~ from the 'other' other thread.

 

The point of the example was to compare Objectivist ethics against a baseline of volitional freedom, i.e., free-will, in terms of being sufficient to produce a moral judgement (as required by Objectivism) for a specific action.  As stated before, I intentionally limited your information to what you observed: a single act that resulted in the destruction of what Objectivism promotes as "the ultimate value"; the standard against which all moral judgement is based.

 

You initially judged the action as amoral, believing the action disregarded life.  When I pointed out a lack of certainty in that regard, you withheld judgement pending additional investigation.  That only delays the inevitable, because there isn't any additional evidence to be discovered; he was a stranger to you and his body is gone.  So you are left with two choices: declare a possibility, or withold judgement.

 

I suggest that the action was a moral choice, specifically because the man deliberately chose to step over the ledge, positing full control over the very thing Objectivism holds dear; his life.  There's no evidence to support that he didn't hold his life dear and was unaware of what he was doing, and at the very least chose to exercise control over the timing of his death.  What is certain is that it was his choice, and that is sufficient to judge that it was morally good for him.

[softwareNerd]

 What is certain is that it was his choice, and that is sufficient to judge that it was morally good for him.

Are you suggesting that a choice is good or that the process of making the choice is good? What do you mean by "morally good"? Do you mean, that the process of making the choice was the correct one? 

[Eiuol]

I suggest that the action was a moral choice, specifically because the man deliberately chose to step over the ledge, positing full control over the very thing Objectivism holds dear; his life.  There's no evidence to support that he didn't hold his life dear and was unaware of what he was doing, and at the very least chose to exercise control over the timing of his death.  What is certain is that it was his choice, and that is sufficient to judge that it was morally good for him.

That's how judgment works! There's got to be enough information in order to make a proper judgment. I'd have to say I don't know. It's dishonest to make a judgment only because you don't want to say "I don't know", then wave away most considerations to just say "he chose, therefore it was good". Your subjectivism is showing.

[Devil's Advocate]

Are you suggesting that a choice is good or that the process of making the choice is good? What do you mean by "morally good"? Do you mean, that the process of making the choice was the correct one? 

 

I'm suggesting that life qua man, subsumes choice.  Every reference to a man's "ultimate value" presumes an ability to choose this or that as a volitional being.  Therefore it's inconsistent in the evaluation of a man's moral action to exclude a deliberate choice that leads to death, as did Eiuol in the case of what she judged to be a suicide.  You might argue that a deliberate choice that leads to the end of ones life is immoral but you cannot claim it's amoral, such that acting suicidal is immoral but succeding is amoral.

 

When one chooses life as an ultimate value, one is implicitly valuing the choice to do with it as one chooses.  It follows then, that man's "ultimate value" is actually the preservation of choice.  Any particular choice may be good or bad, but impeding the ability to choose is the ultimate bad for a volitional (moral) being.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[Eiuol]

When one chooses life as an ultimate value, one is implicitly valuing the choice to do with it as one chooses.  It follows then, that man's "ultimate value" is actually the preservation of choice.  Any particular choice may be good or bad, but impeding the ability to choose is the ultimate bad for a volitional (moral) being.

Better not lie to those Nazis at your door, you're impeding their ability to autonomously choose to kidnap the family in hiding or to refrain.

[Devil's Advocate]

Better not lie to those Nazis at your door, you're impeding their ability to autonomously choose to kidnap the family in hiding or to refrain.

 

Who is the aggressor in that case, i.e., initiating an impediment to choice?

 

edit: BTW, I'm really not trying to pick on you, Eiuol.  It's just that you started me thinking, and now I can't stop ;o)

Edited November 15, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[tadmjones]

Who is the aggressor in that case, i.e., initiating an impediment to choice?

 

edit: BTW, I'm really not trying to pick on you, Eiuol.  It's just that you started me thinking, and now I can't stop ;o)

lol

Louie the agressor and DA the sanctioning victim