Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Stealing to live Justified According to Objectivists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

To DA earlier: you tend toward altruism: you would give up your life to avoid doing something that would be immoral in a rational situation.

You mix moral situations with immoral ones - fallacy of false comparison.

I don't appreciate your assumption that I may choose to avoid such discussion because it is "too difficult." Eioul answered that comment.

In your last post, you started by softening your argument: of course morality is a guide to action.... But you are ignoring the fact that the "lifeboat" situation does not contain of choice of action - there can be no guide! Further, you then change the scenario to talk about killing someone of high value to you; that has never been the issue. It is this changing and rehashing of issues and ignoring many times what has been said to demonstrate the difference in our views that makes me bow out of this absurd path of conversation.

Good luck Eioul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DonAthos said:

As for my own... I guess it falls out like this: I see morality/ethics as a "guide to action." Even in emergency situations (and even in "lifeboats"), people must act, and I think that we can still be guided in those actions by our values.

No, you know as well as I do that morality is a guide to -leading- a flourishing life. Your point about a spiritual self, choosing to die (I don't mean that you -happen- to die) would also ruin your capacity for joy... Remember, though, we distinguished earlier between situations of duress, and obliterating life's context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TLD said:

To DA earlier: you tend toward altruism: you would give up your life to avoid doing something that would be immoral in a rational situation.

This does not describe my argument; I am not convinced that you have undertaken the necessary effort to understand my argument.

The statement that I "tend toward altruism" is absurd. I am the one arguing that one may yet take rational action for the self, even in an emergency. And this, too, puts the lie to the idea that you believe that there is any such thing as "amorality"; in saying that I "tend toward altruism," you are pronouncing moral judgement on the actions I would take in an emergency. But if it were truly the case that such emergencies were "amoral," this should not be possible.

(I am also pronouncing moral judgement on the actions you would take, but that is consistent with my position, contra yours.)

7 hours ago, TLD said:

You mix moral situations with immoral ones - fallacy of false comparison.

Since you seem keen on trying to identify errors in logic, I should note that this is "begging the question."

"Immoral situations"! :)

7 hours ago, TLD said:

I don't appreciate your assumption that I may choose to avoid such discussion because it is "too difficult." Eioul answered that comment.

I did not say that these discussions are "too difficult" for you, per se, but that the frustration of having people disagree with you may be too difficult for you to bear, and that this is the reality of a discussion board. I think this is borne out by the majority of your posts in this... "blog," including the one to which I am responding.

However I will add that if you continue to rush to reply to arguments before taking the time necessary to understand them, then yes, it will be difficult to offer something worthwhile in response.

7 hours ago, TLD said:

In your last post, you started by softening your argument: of course morality is a guide to action.... But you are ignoring the fact that the "lifeboat" situation does not contain of choice of action - there can be no guide!

Ah! We are discussing situations where the participants have no "choice of action"?

In that case, I concede. Truly, if there is no "choice of action," there is no morality.

Well played!

7 hours ago, TLD said:

Further, you then change the scenario to talk about killing someone of high value to you; that has never been the issue.

In a conversation, various participants may introduce their own examples in order to develop their arguments and/or express their position/thoughts on the subject. #DiscussionBoardLiving

7 hours ago, TLD said:

It is this changing and rehashing of issues and ignoring many times what has been said to demonstrate the difference in our views that makes me bow out of this absurd path of conversation.

Good luck Eioul.

It is apparent that we could all use some good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The problem is repeatedly going over the same points, and anyone so far I argued against repeats things already said. It is frustrating to ask questions, then see responses taking a step backward apparently in shock that someone could possibly say the context merits no moral answer. I don't expect people to change their mind quickly, so if you'd like to move this forward, just respond to SL's elaborated hypothetical of mine. I'm being told there are indeed moral answers to be found even there, so I'd like to see a demonstration. I am glad to discuss it.

First off, there’s nothing in O’ist literature that supports amoral lifeboats per se.  I get the claim that you might have to commit an immoral act to survive but that’s hardly evidence that moral situations become amoral just because you might have to do something you normally wouldn’t.  Under normal circumstances you might feel you have to commit an immoral act.  It doesn’t become amoral to do so.

The OP presents an immoral, lifesaving act which you and TLD claim is amoral because you don’t have a moral, lifesaving option.  I’m sorry, you don’t get a moral pass just because your immediate choices are limited to immoral ones.  Ayn Rand recommends the use of precise definitions to evaluate ethical emergencies; immoral doesn’t mean amoral by any definition.  So much for TLD’s claim.

Your claim has more to do with the apparent moral contradiction of surviving a lifeboat by immoral means.  Actual events in the Andes and on Donner’s Pass have been presented by both of us as evidence of real lifeboats.  You are looking for a moral solution to posit morality and have already lured StrictlyLogical into the Andes… never to be heard from again (sorry, couldn’t resist that).

Both examples involve individuals determined to survive an emergency event; by choosing life.  Let that sink in for a moment…  Prior to the event they were pursuing life (a moral choice) and during the event they continued pursuing life.  At what point does the moral context switch to an amoral one?  Because the moral choices became harder?!  No, those who survived the ordeal didn’t do so in a moral vacuum.  Choices, especially hard ones, imply morality, not amorality.

I believe there are more interesting aspects to examine regarding the interplay of moral and immoral actions in lifeboats. However we can’t get there so long as advocates for amorality cling to a position, they repeatedly claim has already been resolved to their satisfaction, that has yet to provide a credible moral to amoral transition from normal survival to emergency survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

This does not describe my argument; I am not convinced that you have undertaken the necessary effort to understand my argument.

The statement that I "tend toward altruism" is absurd...

LOL, that may have been directed at the other DA as well, but equally absurd given that I was primarily attracted towards Objectivism by Ayn Rand's position against altruism.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
ambiguous address
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

No, you know as well as I do that morality is a guide to -leading- a flourishing life.

Certainly we seek to lead a flourishing life, and morality is our guide to that. However we all may be, to some extent or another, and at various times, constrained in our choices. Some of these constraints may make "flourishing" impossible to a greater or lesser extent, or even survival itself. So-called "lifeboats" are certainly extreme examples of this, but also too is being shipwrecked and the lone survivor on a desert island. Yet I would suspect that Ayn Rand would say that such is a situation in which "morality," as a guide to action, is crucial.

You have elsewhere discussed "dictatorship" as a situation where morality is rendered impossible. If we allow that the USSR was a dictatorship, does that mean that from 1917-1991, among the millions upon millions of people living there, there was not a single moral person? Not a single moral action? Were Ayn Rand's actions (including the decision to leave) under that dictatorship morally equivalent to those of a murderer (in that we pronounce them both "amoral")? Or can we distinguish between them morally?

Dictatorship is, again, a form of constraint. Yet we must all endeavor to do the best we can, where we are, with what we have (to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt); we must make the best of a bad situation, should we find ourselves in one; we act to achieve our values, insofar as we can, for our selves. I argue that this is morality, and as Rand had it in "The Ethics of Emergencies," when in an emergency situation, "the standard and the basic principles [of ethics] remain the same."

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Your point about a spiritual self, choosing to die (I don't mean that you -happen- to die) would also ruin your capacity for joy...

As "conquering death" in the literal sense is not yet available, I recognize the fact that I must one day die. But in the moments before my death through misadventure (as in an emergency), knowing that I have taken action to preserve those things which matter the most to me, I may yet experience a kind of joy (even in my final conscious moments) which is worth far more to me than the experience of a prolonged survival knowing that I have destroyed those same things.

I find that this current conversation somewhat reflects an earlier one on the subject of Eddie Willers, where you considered his final act in trying to preserve the train as immoral and self-sacrificial, where I said that I found it "heroic."

Right or wrong, at least we're consistent. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Were Ayn Rand's actions (including the decision to leave) under that dictatorship morally equivalent to those of a murderer (in that we pronounce them both "amoral")? Or can we distinguish between them morally?

Morally, no. Their sense of life, yes. It becomes a matter of evaluating by different standards, in this case by aesthetic ones (or as Rand would say about aesthetics, a reflection of what one sees as important). That's how bad dictatorships are. Life is rendered moot and impossible.

Epist showed us the quote from Rand on dictatorships (but apparently to tell us that we should ignore that she said it...?). The other quote is a different context, it's not about the OP's question. It's about rescuing or saving other people in danger, thereby putting yourself in danger.

I am not disputing you'd feel bad to end up murdering a person, or that it'd displease you, but moral answers require explaining how the decision allowed you to flourish. All you said is "I won't flourish later if I lived". Fine, but that doesn't tell me a method exists, if anything it's evidence that there is no specifically moral option. Avoiding one bad option doesn't make the opposite a good option, either.

I'll wait several days before replying more, I'm going to look for outside resources besides just the one essay mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

... Epist showed us the quote from Rand on dictatorships (but apparently to tell us that we should ignore that she said it...?)...

What she said: "...formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only -life- is the basis on which to establish a moral code..."

No one can tell you (prescribe) to choose life, but if you do you have established a moral code.  So long as you choose not to lay down and die, you are living by a moral code.  Are we to believe, against everything she says on morality and emergencies, that the survivors of the Andes and Donner's Pass did so by clinging to the hope that amoral actions would carry them through?!

Phui!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said:

What she said: "...formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only -life- is the basis on which to establish a moral code..."

No one can tell you (prescribe) to choose life, but if you do you have established a moral code.  So long as you choose not to lay down and die, you are living by a moral code.  Are we to believe, against everything she says on morality and emergencies, that the survivors of the Andes and Donner's Pass did so by clinging to the hope that amoral actions would carry them through?!

Phui!

 

Be very careful analyzing this statement.

Rand says, and she is always careful with her use of words in a way which conveys her exact meaning, that in an emergency "situation", "no one" could "prescribe" what action is appropriate.

She is not saying that the person in the context cannot or should not act nor that no standard applies.  She could have stated that in such emergency situations:

1. "No one can determine what action is appropriate."   She DID NOT.

2. "It would be impossible for the person in the situation to determine what action is appropriate."  She DID NOT.

3. "the standard of morality no longer serves as any guide for what action is appropriate."  She DID NOT

Her answer to all lifeboat "questions" ... [[note these are more often than not contextually incomplete, treating the particular person as though he/she were an "any man", as if there were ONE right answer to such a question]]... is that

"Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only -life- is the basis on which to establish a moral code..."

Rand here is speaking in the context of moral principles, like any principle, e.g. scientific etc. is meant to have general application to a large number of contexts.  This is why such any particular principle exists.  Such achieves, under normal circumstances, a degree of mental economy.  A principle as part of a code (a limited number of prescribed - i.e. determined and set down "previously" - rules/principles) enables an actor to assess a common situation as falling within the prevue of the principle so as to apply it without over complicating the decision.  Principles are absolute contextually

Principles are useful, in fact indispensable because not every scientific or moral context should be approached de novo, not every problem is a dilemma and need to be strenuously though through from scratch. A man would be brought to his mental knees if he had to proceed without principle and rethink everything in every context all the time... this is why codes and principles are rational and useful.  Having principles for general application to common contexts does not however obviate the necessity of rationality and contextual judgment in contexts where the principle is no longer applicable.  There still scientific and moral dilemmas, not unanswerable questions but ones for which the answer requires more than simply referring to wrote principle.

Note, Rand here does NOT say that it is impossible for a person in the situation to ACT in accordance with rational application of the standard of morality, only that the context does not admit of PRESCRIBED moral principles or codes... whose establishment as mental shorthand is only useful for common general application in common general contexts and in any case would be cripplingly numerous if one were to attempt to write a rule for every situation.

This crucial difference between a principle or rule and the contextual application of morality is illustrated well by the discussion in OPAR surrounding the principle or virtue of honesty.  It is part of the moral code, i.e. "don't lie" it is a moral rule or principle generally applicable because it supports self-interest in the commonest and most general context of -life-.  WE KNOW that one however is not selfishly morally obligated to tell an intruder where the location of one's child is, and in fact we KNOW it is selfishly MORAL to LIE to the intruder to selfishly save a precious value. [[please excuse the redundancy - to be moral is to be selfish]]  But "Why?" asks the rationalist is it moral to LIE?  If lying "is wrong", continues the rationalist, it is always wrong.. isn't it?... or does this simply mean morality itself does not apply when the man lies?  NO it does not.  It means the context for application of the general principle of morality simply is not present... principles are absolute but only in context... this is an exceptional context which requires a man to act in ways in accordance with that exceptional context.  Morality is NOT an intrinsic duty, it is NOT following rules for the sake of following rules. Morality is contextual and the principles are not to be multiplied ad infinitum to take into account every exceptional context.  One cannot literally write out every possible course of action in response to every possible context, determine what serves self-interest and call that a code of morality. It would be a concrete bound crippling mess. 

The standard of morality does not disappear, and rationality can be used to determine (as best one can in the situation) the moral course of action... this IS a moral dilemma not because there is no answer, but because it is not one which is easily arrived at by simple reference to prescribed rules.

The general moral principle of honestly, in the form of "do not lie" does not disappear, it is not applicable in the context.  Morality does not disappear either, not for a man who as chosen life and must choose and act in order to live as best he can.  Here what is moral is "to lie to the intruder to save the your own and or your children's lives"

This is my response to DA and is not to be construed as anything else.

 

I still intend to respond to Louie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you do get to the response, I'd like clarification on this: "Rand here does NOT say that it is impossible for a person in the situation to ACT in accordance with rational application of the standard of morality, only that the context does not admit of PRESCRIBED moral principles or codes."

How is saying "moral rules cannot be prescribed" not also the same as saying the application of moral rules is not possible? It's one thing to say rules are so far undetermined, it's another to say a rule cannot be determined. I read it as "moral rules cannot prescribe what to do". This isn't an argument, your statement just didn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Be very careful analyzing this statement...

Very pleased to see your return and appreciative of you comments, if not entirely in agreement with them.  I don't accept (yet) that moral evaluations can be manipulated to achieve a, well for lack of a better description, a greater good.  I'm much more comfortable with accepting the immoral (but perhaps necessary) temporary effect of an action directed at survival.  Sometimes life bites, and the only rational thing to do is bite back.

Your reference to honesty has been discussed by myself and Eiuol before, and in that case he shared your view and I did not.  I advocate silence in lieu of lying as an effective means of not divulging the truth to someone bent on using it for destructive means.  But that's me...

7 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

... I still intend to respond to Louie.

I look forward to it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Eiuol said:

When you do get to the response, I'd like clarification on this: "Rand here does NOT say that it is impossible for a person in the situation to ACT in accordance with rational application of the standard of morality, only that the context does not admit of PRESCRIBED moral principles or codes."

How is saying "moral rules cannot be prescribed" not also the same as saying the application of moral rules is not possible? It's one thing to say rules are so far undetermined, it's another to say a rule cannot be determined. I read it as "moral rules cannot prescribe what to do". This isn't an argument, your statement just didn't make sense.

I'll take a shot and try and sort out my own thoughts on this point.

The fundamental aspect for me is the viability of choice; is the choice real or forced?  For example, if I am in a burning house I can choose to flee unharmed or to remain and burn to death.  Is the choice real or forced?  I think this  is the jump off point for advocates of amoral lifeboats; if I choose to remain it cannot be a moral choice because I am choosing to die.

It is correct to say my choice cannot be prescribed in a normal context that doesn't include finding yourself in a burning house, but being in one what am I to do?  If I rely on morality to guide my actions and morality no longer applies do I simply lay down and die??  There may be a reason to remain in the house, e.g. a loved one who is in another room.  If my life is the moral priority why do I care?

Because that  loved one is part of my moral life.  I cannot say that in a burning house I ought to risk death by searching for a loved one, because I don't know that I can save them and the risk may go unrewarded; we may both die... but it remains a real moral choice left for me to determine based on how I want to live that moment in time.

So Eiuol, in that circumstance I find a possible moral application that cannot be prescribed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality exists where choice exists. In such a case of a desert island, if the man has no choice but to steal, and if it is nothing big, then it is quite understandable and excusable. Circumstances of man have to be taken in view before deciding verdict on him or else it will be like the case of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2016 at 2:53 PM, Eiuol said:

Morally, no. Their sense of life, yes. It becomes a matter of evaluating by different standards, in this case by aesthetic ones (or as Rand would say about aesthetics, a reflection of what one sees as important).

Are there objective aesthetic standards? If you want to say it comes down to aesthetic preference and sense of life, are you saying that it's purely subjective, based on however you feel, for whatever reasons you happen to feel that way? Or would you agree that there are objective standards of aesthetics, and your preference can be right or wrong for objective reasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are objective standards when evaluating aesthetics. Aesthetics is about things deemed to be important, which we could look at to see how a person views existence. It's not just random or arbitrary. There would be right or wrong reasons to say something is beautiful. Aesthetics don't and can't inform you what to do for your flourishing, though. If you are in an emergency situation, as I've defined it, I'd say all you could do is measure how empowering or beautiful your actions would be. If you want to get into -that- idea, I'd say start a new thread. It'd be cool to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On January 8, 2016 at 11:38 AM, TLD said:

First, Objectivism does not "justify" itself; it is what it is and one can accept it or not.

Second, philosophy does not deal with such emergency ethics questions. Thus, acting as one must to save his life in such a situation is not a moral issue. That would not mean that one life is more valuable than the other.

This post made me reflect to a time I once spent in a psychiatric unit in a bare bones hospital. After requesting the nurse several times for food, juice, and Valium to calm my anxieties, my attention was drawn to the agonizing pleas of a patient who's leg was severely disfigured in a car accident.

The nurse kept insuring me that my needs were as important as any other patient, and that they pride themselves on deviding their attention equally to accomdate all patients.

I protested that although I was suffering and required some form of attention, that the lady in the room next to me, may benefit from more attention and provided with pain killers or the likes, or something!

She assured me that all patient's needs were being addressed. I just felt like the woman was constantly screaming for the doctors help and no one was doing anything to ease her tension or agonizing pain.

I think that when balancing someone's life with one who's life is in less danger, the more important person is the one that appears more critical, for whom sacrifices can be made. Logic probably dictates this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 1/17/2016 at 0:26 PM, TLD said:

Some in this blog have confused "emergency" with "lifeboat" situations; i.e. emergencies where choices are still available and others where one's life depends on acting irrationally according to obj. principles. ...

When in a situation without choice and providing no choice, a rational person may need to steal from another while not liking to do so. He would be aware of doing so and would not need to evade or re-define "theft."

The italics are mine, to underscore what seems to be one of the primary points of contention, here (at least the biggest point I'll tackle after midnight).

 

To behave rationally is to know what your own priorities are and to act accordingly; always attempting to secure the highest ones possible. This relates directly to SL's comments on the choice to live.

 

I know that if I ever had to choose between stealing and starvation, I would enthusiastically choose theft. I wouldn't be conflicted about it and I wouldn't be ashamed of it, either; it's not even an issue for me. I know exactly how I prioritize that.

So, you're right: I wouldn't need to evade or redefine "theft" to ease my conscience, any more than I'd need to evade the very real choice I'd made (the choice to live).

 

And if I knew that I had made that decision in accordance with my own priorities, wouldn't that have made it rational to steal - under those circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2016 at 6:59 PM, Eiuol said:

How is saying "moral rules cannot be prescribed" not also the same as saying the application of moral rules is not possible?

In choosing which flavor of Ice Cream to eat, which is the moral choice - Vanilla or Strawberry?

It's an invalid question; nobody could ever rationally determine either flavor to be the moral choice, in every conceivable situation, for all time and eternity (and not just because the correct answer is Chocolate).

 

However, if I know that Chocolate is my favorite flavor then that's clearly the moral choice to make; the choice that ultimately maximizes my own enjoyment of my own life.

 

So while nobody can ever know which flavor of Ice Cream to be the best for everybody, for all time and eternity, I know perfectly well which one is best for me.

 

Life is full of such issues (which is part of what makes Individualism so important); the OP happens to name one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In choosing which flavor of Ice Cream to eat, which is the moral choice - Vanilla or Strawberry?

It's an invalid question; nobody could ever rationally determine either flavor to be the moral choice

...so some moral choices are by nature non-rational? Sure, there isn't The Flavor, and there might not be enough time to reach the right answer, but if rationality cannot be applied to some moral choices, then you've completely undermined Objectivist ethics. You'd be saying rationality is not always your means of survival, or that there are more means of survival than rationality. Or that some moral choices are just about emotivism (which Hume believed)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

...so some moral choices are by nature non-rational? Sure, there isn't The Flavor, and there might not be enough time to reach the right answer, but if rationality cannot be applied to some moral choices, then you've completely undermined Objectivist ethics. You'd be saying rationality is not always your means of survival, or that there are more means of survival than rationality. Or that some moral choices are just about emotivism (which Hume believed)...

Values are contextual, objective but contextual.  Ice cream having some flavor leads to an infinitesimal increase in flourishing, as a psychological reward, a concretization of having achieved and created values  some of which has been exchanged for the ice cream - and it's value is objective to the person who enjoys it.  If people differ regarding which flavor are of the kind which lead to flourishing in this way, then the rational choice is the one which provides the most value, i.e. the particular flavors which serve as the best psychological reward and concretization for achieving value and pursuing life.

No one is asserting anything subjective or non-rational.

 

For reference see the quote from the AR lexicon on Values from "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation"

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html

and Tara Smith's "Viable Values"

and read some of Rand's fiction... her characters are not shown specifically as avoiding or pursuing ice cream, but are shown enjoying various aspects of life as values, i.e. in furtherance of life itself.

 

 

 

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Ice cream having some flavor leads to an infinitesimal increase in flourishing, as a psychological reward, a concretization of having achieved and created values  some of which has been exchanged for the ice cream - and it's value is objective to the person who enjoys it.  If people differ regarding which flavor are of the kind which lead to flourishing in this way, then the rational choice is the one which provides the most value, i.e. the particular flavors which serve as the best psychological reward and concretization for achieving value and pursuing life.

This is a type of moral rule here, and a rational one at that. Harrison said there is no rational answer that is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...so some moral choices are by nature non-rational? Sure, there isn't The Flavor, and there might not be enough time to reach the right answer, but if rationality cannot be applied to some moral choices, then you've completely undermined Objectivist ethics. You'd be saying rationality is not always your means of survival, or that there are more means of survival than rationality. Or that some moral choices are just about emotivism (which Hume believed)...

Yeah, Hume said so; I also hear that Stalin liked Oxygen, tovarisch. B)

 

Seriously, though, you seem to be struggling with what it means to behave "rationally" - just as TLD was, in the post of his which I just responded to.

Does that post make sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with TLD, but I also disagree that some moral choices are non-rational (making rationally indeterminate decisions means rationality failed, therefore such decisions are non-rational). I'd say 1) rational decision-making in a strict sense isn't only for moral reasoning, 2) all proper moral choices are rational, 3) rational thought obeys rules, 4) rational moral rules require being in contexts where flourishing proceeds by induced rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

This is a type of moral rule here, and a rational one at that. Harrison said there is no rational answer that is possible.

No he did not.  He is pointing out that there is no rational contextless answer, i.e that the supposition that there is only one specific type universally applicable to everyone or to anyone specifically for all time is not rational:

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 1:42 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In choosing which flavor of Ice Cream to eat, which is the moral choice - Vanilla or Strawberry?

It's an invalid question; nobody could ever rationally determine either flavor to be the moral choice, in every conceivable situation, for all time and eternity (and not just because the correct answer is Chocolate).

Note, although maximizing "enjoyment" of life is not specifically claimed as supporting flourishing and life itself in the following, it is implicit in the claim that it is a "moral choice" rather than merely an arbitrary preference having no consequences whatever:

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 1:42 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

However, if I know that Chocolate is my favorite flavor then that's clearly the moral choice to make; the choice that ultimately maximizes my own enjoyment of my own life.

 

So while nobody can ever know which flavor of Ice Cream to be the best for everybody, for all time and eternity, I know perfectly well which one is best for me.

 

HD, can you confirm?

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...