How can morality have an objective foundation?

[ZeusTKP]

It seems to me that I mostly agree with Objectivism. I think that the one issue that I have with Objectivism is it's stance on morality. Is there an objective moral standard? i.e. are some things good or bad regardless of what anyone thinks about them? My view is that there is no such thing as objective morality. So can I be called an Objectivist? (If not, is there another group of people that shares my beliefs?)

(feel free to ask me anything else about my other beliefs. I can't list everything, so I'll just respond to particular questions)

(Mod's note: Edited title to make it more descriptive of the topic. -sNerd)

Edited October 26, 2005 by softwareNerd

[Groovenstein]

Is there an objective moral standard? i.e. are some things good or bad regardless of what anyone thinks about them?

Welcome!

The simple answer to your question lies in the words themselves, particularly "moral." What are "morals"? Simply put (the forum members more versed in ethics will provide a more thorough answer, no doubt), morals are assessments about what is "right" or "wrong" about a particular action, right? Don't the words "right" and "wrong" presuppose an objective standard? Put another way, without an objective standard, how can you say something is "right"?

I think we'd be better off starting with your views about metaphysics, as this will provide some more general insight into your question. Specifically, what do you think about reality? Are things what they are, regardless of what anyone thinks? For example, if you are a person, but I wish you to be a cannonball, or a large stack of money with which to pay my bills, are you still a person? What if I don't wish, but actually genuinely think you are a cannonball, does that make it so?

I think this is the best way to begin to discuss your inquiry. Hope you enjoy the forum.

[Prometheus98876]

It seems to me that I mostly agree with Objectivism. I think that the one issue that I have with Objectivism is it's stance on morality. Is there an objective moral standard? i.e. are some things good or bad regardless of what anyone thinks about them? My view is that there is no such thing as objective morality. So can I be called an Objectivist? (If not, is there another group of people that shares my beliefs?)

(feel free to ask me anything else about my other beliefs. I can't list everything, so I'll just respond to particular questions)

Analyse the following (taken from the Objectivism Wiki section on Ethics);

Morality is the recognition of the fact that as mortal beings with a rational, volitional consciousness, we need to adopt and practice certain principles in order to live.

What you need to ask yourself is, are their objective principles that we need to adopt and practice in order to live? Can we live and prosper by arbitary means or are their certain actions that must be taken? Are their certain principles we must act on?

I would also suggest that you read through the Objectivism Wiki, especially the sections on Metaphysics and Ethics, use this link:

Objectivism Wiki

[softwareNerd]

Hi ZeusTKP, Welcome to the forum. Have you read any of Ayn Rand's books? I'm asking so that we have an understanding of where to start the explanation and what can be built upon.

I'd strongly recommend a single book: "Virtue Of Selfishness". Indeed, read just the first essay "Objectivist Ethics". It starts by asking: Why does a man need a morality? and it goes from there.

[ZeusTKP]

Welcome!

thnx

The simple answer to your question lies in the words themselves, particularly "moral." What are "morals"? Simply put (the forum members more versed in ethics will provide a more thorough answer, no doubt), morals are assessments about what is "right" or "wrong" about a particular action, right? Don't the words "right" and "wrong" presuppose an objective standard? Put another way, without an objective standard, how can you say something is "right"?

Yes. So does an objective standard of right and wrong exist?

I think we'd be better off starting with your views about metaphysics, as this will provide some more general insight into your question. Specifically, what do you think about reality? Are things what they are, regardless of what anyone thinks?

yes

For example, if you are a person, but I wish you to be a cannonball, or a large stack of money with which to pay my bills, are you still a person?

yes

What if I don't wish, but actually genuinely think you are a cannonball, does that make it so?

no

Analyse the following (taken from the Objectivism Wiki section on Ethics);

What you need to ask yourself is, are their objective principles that we need to adopt and practice in order to live? Can we live and prosper by arbitary means or are their certain actions that must be taken? Are their certain principles we must act on?

Is this how you define morality - "That which promotes my survival is moral"?

And what about "That which promotes the survival of my descendants is moral", and "That which promotes the survival of the human species is moral"?

I would also suggest that you read through the Objectivism Wiki, especially the sections on Metaphysics and Ethics, use this link:

Objectivism Wiki

k, I'll take a look.

Hi ZeusTKP, Welcome to the forum. Have you read any of Ayn Rand's books? I'm asking so that we have an understanding of where to start the explanation and what can be built upon.

I have read the summary of Atlas Shrugged. I've also read many random snippets about Objectivism from official and unofficial sources.

I'd strongly recommend a single book: "Virtue Of Selfishness". Indeed, read just the first essay "Objectivist Ethics". It starts by asking: Why does a man need a morality? and it goes from there.

Is just that part avialabe online?

[dondigitalia]

Is this how you define morality - "That which promotes my survival is moral"?

Well... that could be considered a very rough description, but it's not really a proper definition. In Objectivism, Ethics (or morality) is a science. Specifically, it is the science devoted to the development of a code of values to guide man's actions.

And what about "That which promotes the survival of my descendants is moral", and "That which promotes the survival of the human species is moral"?

The survival of one's descendants, or the species, may both be values one holds, but they aren't the essence of morality itself.

Is just that part avialabe online?

It is not, but the book is very cheap (under $10). You can get it very cheap by buying it used right here. At the time I'm posting this, the lowest price is $2.60.

I'll try to give you the best distillation I can, but keep in mind this is only a very rough outline.

The central concept of the Objectivist ethics is "value." A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. All living things pursue the values necessary for their survival (for instance, plants pursue water and nutrients from the soil). Value is inseperable from life. The human means of survival is reason, therefore our values must be chosen and pursued by rational thought. Since reason is a faculty of the individual, it follows that each individual must pursue his own values. Since life is what gives rise to the concept of value, this means that the individual's life is the objective standard of value. This does not mean his mere physical survival, but his survival as a rational being, and everything that entails.

There are some values which are objectively valid for all men. Since reason is the means of obtaining them, it is the fundamental value, which must be held above all others. Other fundamental values are purpose & self-esteem.

Since it is the individual's life, and not human life as such, that is the objective standard of value, different individual's may have a great variance in the values they hold, but this doesn't make them subjective, it just means they are personally objective.

An individual's pursuance of value means that he must not sacrifice his values to another (sacrifice is the trade of a value for a lesser or non-value), nor must he sacrifice others to himself.

That should give you a very basic idea of what the Objectivist Ethics is, but I understand that it isn't a full validation of the principles. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask, but keep in mind that we are not Ayn Rand, and the official statement of Objectivist philosophy is to be found in her books.

I hope that was helpful!

[Groovenstein]

So does an objective standard of right and wrong exist?

Yes. This standard, however, requires context. Something is not inherently right or wrong. It is only right or wrong when you consider all the relevant facts, i.e. the context.

For example, you may hear it said that "killing is wrong." From this premise, some people conclude that killing is wrong under all circumstances, against all entities, and so on. What about killing in self-defense? A professor of mine (a law school professor for crying out loud!) once said that we recognize the defense of self-defense because "killing is wrong but it's the lesser of two evils." This results from following the premise that killing is wrong without regard for context. From "killing is wrong," we may go to "killing is wrong, except in self-defense." (For reasons I have left out at this time.) Then we would consider other relevant facts and clarify the statement further.

Some say, "Well doesn't that mean there is no objective right or wrong? You're adding so many qualifications that it's just subjective and nonabsolute." Paraphrasing Dr. Peikoff from OPAR, context does not destroy certainty, rather it is context that makes certainty possible. This is not subjective, it is appropriately clarifying. It is unreasonable and ridiculous to demand that statements must hold true under all circumstances for them to be objective.

Hopefully, this has helped, and please continue to ask questions if you have them. I'll try to find the exact page from OPAR so that I can understand further what Peikoff was saying.

[ZeusTKP]

Yes, that's what I was asking - in a given context, are things right or wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

And I disagree. I don't think that objective morality exists. I think that's the main difference between my views and Objectivist views. However, the result is the same - I value selfishness.

[Edit: removed quote for "spring" cleaning. Cheers! Matt]

Edited November 6, 2005 by Groovenstein

[FeatherFall]

I think there is something you should read that may help clarify some things. It can be found at Capitalism Magazine. Look for Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil. It is split into five parts and, as of this post, only three are available. You will have to click on "view previous articles" at the bottom of the page to find the first one.

Dr. Bernstein will explain "the primacy of conciousness" in the third article. This is a metaphysical (not ethical) view that I think you will agree with, as you seem to apply it to your morality. Dr. Bernstein he will arrive at the primacy of consciousness by working backwards from three examples of it in morality - personal, religious and social. I believe your morality fits with the personal version. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Objectivist morality follows from the primacy of existence standpoint, not of consciousness.

Also, when reading these articles, do not take offense. I do not presume that you are a criminal, a drug addict, a fascist or anything else. I think this is a good way to find some material online that will spark purposeful discussion.

Edited October 24, 2005 by FeatherFall

[ZeusTKP]

I've just read through parts 1 & 2 and I just want to make the point that I don't agree that “cynical egoism” is not egoism or that it is not rational to enslave others.

Other than fear of retribution, why would you not take something by force from someone else. Why would you not enslave someone else?

On to part 3...

OK, I've finished part 3.

I do not agree with the primacy of conciousness of view.

"The primacy of consciousness metaphysics claims that consciousness in some form, controls reality"

I completely disagree with this.

The problem is that I think that "might makes right" IS objective reality, while Dr. Bernstein is saying that not exploiting others is the proper thing to do. But I don't see any justification in the article for why we must not exploit anyone else. He says that exploiters can't survive on their own. This is true, but it is possible to both exploit others and to be productive. It is also possible to exploits others, but no so much as to kill them. In these two cases, the exploiter can still survive.

Also it is implied that trying to survive is rational, and that not trying to survive is not. I don't think that this has been shown and I don't think it's true. I consider survival to be no more or less rational than suicide.

Also, when reading these articles, do not take offense. I do not presume that you are a criminal, a drug addict, a fascist or anything else. I think this is a good way to find some material online that will spark purposeful discussion.

It is very difficult to offend me. I am not squeamish and I make a conscientious effort to not get offended. i.e. not get emotional.

[Edit: removed quote for "spring" cleaning. Cheers! Matt]

Edited November 6, 2005 by Groovenstein

[ZeusTKP]

It is not, but the book is very cheap (under $10). You can get it very cheap by buying it used right here. At the time I'm posting this, the lowest price is $2.60.

Cost is not so much an issue as time and convinience. Anything in electronic form is easier to read and quote for me.

And in general, I would prefer to have a discussion with someone and have point-by-point back and forth rebuttals instead of replying to an entire essay which would require another essay as a response.

I'll try to give you the best distillation I can, but keep in mind this is only a very rough outline.

That's fine, we can take our time narrow it down to the specifics that we care about.

The central concept of the Objectivist ethics is "value." A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. All living things pursue the values necessary for their survival (for instance, plants pursue water and nutrients from the soil). Value is inseperable from life. The human means of survival is reason, therefore our values must be chosen and pursued by rational thought. Since reason is a faculty of the individual, it follows that each individual must pursue his own values. Since life is what gives rise to the concept of value, this means that the individual's life is the objective standard of value. This does not mean his mere physical survival, but his survival as a rational being, and everything that entails.

There are some values which are objectively valid for all men. Since reason is the means of obtaining them, it is the fundamental value, which must be held above all others. Other fundamental values are purpose & self-esteem.

I agree so far.

Since it is the individual's life, and not human life as such, that is the objective standard of value, different individual's may have a great variance in the values they hold, but this doesn't make them subjective, it just means they are personally objective.

An individual's pursuance of value means that he must not sacrifice his values to another (sacrifice is the trade of a value for a lesser or non-value), nor must he sacrifice others to himself.

This is where I have a problem. If someone is pursuing value, why can't that person take value from someone else?

That should give you a very basic idea of what the Objectivist Ethics is, but I understand that it isn't a full validation of the principles. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask, but keep in mind that we are not Ayn Rand, and the official statement of Objectivist philosophy is to be found in her books.

I hope that was helpful!

One more question I might have is whether you think it's possible that not all of Objectivism is correct.

[Inspector]

This topic actually goes a bit deeper than a simple question of whether someone can get away with living by the use of force. The Objectivist argument is rooted in the nature of man, the nature of his mind, and the nature of reality vis-a-vis the impossibility of contradictions.

I don't know of any easily accessable online source that goes into enough detail to cover this well enough to truly answer what you're asking. You're probably going to have to bite the bullet and wait for the books to ship to you.

In the meantime, I think there has been a topic on at least some of this before so you're going to want to search the ethics section and post in the appropriate thread.

One more question I might have is whether you think it's possible that not all of Objectivism is correct.

To answer that one quickly, yes. It's just that it is my judgment that Objectivism is in fact correct. That is a judgment made in reason and I am open to reason if you think you can convince me otherwise. Be warned, however, that I did not make this judgment lightly and I can easily say that I am certain that Objectivism is completely correct.

However, the rules of the forum state that such attempts must be made on the debate forum. The rest of the board is for asking questions about Objectivism, not challenging it.

[RationalBiker]

Cost is not so much an issue as time and convinience. Anything in electronic form is easier to read and quote for me.

If cost is not the larger issue, the Objectivism Research CD can be purchased here (among other places);

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...aitem=1&mitem=1

It is a searchable reference tool that contains a large amount of her work on the subject.

If someone is pursuing value, why can't that person take value from someone else?

Consider the logical consequences of the following concept;

"I have the right to violate the rights of others."

Since your rights do not exist in a vacuum outside of the rights of other volitional beings, they would in turn have the "right" to violate your rights. Thus, the recognition of anyone's rights would rapidly break down. Brute force would rule. Is it in your rational self-interest to promote a society where rights are not recognized, and brute force rules the day?

[dondigitalia]

Consider the logical consequences of the following concept;

"I have the right to violate the rights of others."

It's even simpler than that, really. Once you reach the point in Ethics where the concept of "rights" comes into play, you start bridging into Politics. An objective prohibition against initiating force can be selfishly validated without getting anywhere near politics.

If one is rationally pursuing values, and accepts reason as the fundamental value, it follows that no other value can contradict reason. Force is the negation of reason. In using force to obtain a value, you are effectively acting against reason, both yours and the other person's. You are temporarily shoving your own reason aside and pursing values by its opposite - force. You are actively preventing the other person from using his own rational judgment at all. That's one fundamental value that force negates.

Self-esteem is the state of mind that is achieved by achieving one's values. It is the evaluation of oneself that says: I am capable of surviving on my own effort. I have all the tools necessary for that survival, and I'm good at using it. If you force a value out of another person, you are implicitly accepting the idea that you cannot survive on your own effort, that you don't have the tools necessary to create values, and that your survival depends on leeching values from those who are able. That's two.

I currently have not examined the effects of force on the other fundamental value, purpose, so if anyone else has something to offer on that one, have at it.

[Marc K.]

The problem is that I think that "might makes right" IS objective reality

[...]

I consider survival to be no more or less rational than suicide.

Morality deals with human choice. A code of morality is a set of rules that enables us to choose between what is good and bad, right and wrong. According to your code ("might makes right"), it is just as good to choose to be a murderer as a doctor. Is this the outcome you would expect from an objective moral code?

I am willing to discuss the logical validation of an objective moral code but how will you evaluate my argument? If choosing to kill yourself is just as rational as choosing to live nothing I would say could overcome that kind of logic.

Perhaps you will add some context and say that in certain situations it is rational to kill yourself and indeed this may be true but according to your moral code anyone past their physical prime should commit suicide.

You really should read "The Objectivist Ethics" in "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand to understand how an objective code of ethics is derived. No need to write an essay in reply, just start at the beginning and the first thing that you come across that you don't understand, ask.

[dondigitalia]

Also it is implied that trying to survive is rational, and that not trying to survive is not. I don't think that this has been shown and I don't think it's true. I consider survival to be no more or less rational than suicide.

That depends on context. What are the reasons for suicide? There are some contexts in which a suicide might actually be a pro-life action. The following assumes that there is no such context:

If suicide means: taking no action whatsoever, which leads to death, then you are hinting at an important point. Such a choice is a-rational, or pre-rational. Reason only becomes relevant once one has already chosen life as the standard of value. In fact, pursing any line of rational thought whatsoever, presupposes this choice. If one takes no action to pursue any values whatsoever, which includes engaging in no thought whatsoever, then they are effectively denying life as the standard. I don't think it's possible to do this, though.

If suicide means: taking action do ensure one's death, then you have a conflict. Taking any action whatsoever presupposes a value-judgment, i.e. it presupposes that you are acting to pursue some end. You have already agreed that value is inseperable from life, and that because of this, one's life is the objective standard of value. Disregarding contexts in which suicide is pro-life, actively pursuing one's death involves a contradiction, and is definitely irrational.

[ZeusTKP]

I don't know of any easily accessable online source that goes into enough detail to cover this well enough to truly answer what you're asking. You're probably going to have to bite the bullet and wait for the books to ship to you.

If cost is not the larger issue, the Objectivism Research CD can be purchased here (among other places);

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...aitem=1&mitem=1

It is a searchable reference tool that contains a large amount of her work on the subject.

I want to clarify something. There is a number of reasons why I would rather talk to people in the forum than to read the books. Not just the cost in money or time.

First of all, I care what you think and not just what is cannon in Objectivism. For example, I think that GreedyCapitalist is at least ambivalent about morality, so our beliefs are very close. (I'm saying this based on the short amount of time I've spent talking to him in person). But this is not "true" Objectivism as I understand.

Second of all, I'm interested in a specific issue, namely morality. I have a specific opinion allready, but I want to make sure that I've considered all sides of this issue. For me, this requires a lot of back and forth discussion. I can't talk to a book and ask it questions.

Lastly, the amount of work that I would do researching the issue all on my own is not worth the benefit. It turns out that no matter who's right, I still live my life pretty much like an Objectivist. The reason I'm here is to figure out if my beliefs are close enough to Objectivist beliefs for me to associate with Objectivists. If not, I need to figure out what group out there DOES share my beliefs. Statistics say that out of 6 billion people at least some should.

However, the rules of the forum state that such attempts must be made on the debate forum. The rest of the board is for asking questions about Objectivism, not challenging it.

Well, I'm pretty certain that there is no objective morality of any kind. I'm trying to make sure that I'm not ignoring some argument against this position. But I still have to point out anything that does not make sense in any contrary argument. I can't just accept something if it doesn't make sense to me. So in effect I would be arguing against some concept in Objectivism. But my immediate purpose is not to challenge Objectivism.

[dondigitalia]

The reason I'm here is to figure out if my beliefs are close enough to Objectivist beliefs for me to associate with Objectivists. If not, I need to figure out what group out there DOES share my beliefs.

I'm wondering why this is such a concern.

[ZeusTKP]

Consider the logical consequences of the following concept;

"I have the right to violate the rights of others."

Let's stop here. This is not a statement that I would make. I don't think that "rights" exist.

I'm wondering why this is such a concern.

Which part? Figuring out if I generally share Objectivist beliefs or finding people who share my beliefs?

[dondigitalia]

Which part? Figuring out if I generally share Objectivist beliefs or finding people who share my beliefs?

I'm wondering why there is a concern with what others are thinking at all. Personally, I am concerned with whether or not my ideas coincide with reality, rather than whether or not others agree.

[dondigitalia]

Let's stop here. This is not a statement that I would make. I don't think that "rights" exist.

So, in your view, what Hitler did to Jews was perfectly ok? And the actions of serial killers are perfectly ok? And it's perfectly ok for me to sneak into your house when you aren't there and take all your stuff? And it's ok for the government to take a third of what you make and give it to some woman who makes her living by reproducing? And it's perfectly ok for me to accept payment in advance for a service I provide to you, and then refuse to follow through?

If that's what you think, then I wholeheartedly disagree, and the reason why is that rights do exist.

Rights are a consequence of the nature of human consciousness. The conceptual level of consciousness is our means of survival, but unlike other organisms' means of survival, ours must be exercised by choice. This means that each individual may choose to act in his best interest, or against it, and that it is up to each individual to determine what his best interest is. An individual can make these decisions based on a process of reason, summoning every known fact to aid him, or he can make them based on whim or dropped context. Rights are a consequence of the volitional means of survival. Since human survival must be pursued by choice, and will not operate in any other way, individuals must be left free to pursue those values. That is the right to life; it's not the right to be alive (which is completely arbitrary), but the right to pursue life by free, chosen thought. All other rights are consequences of this one.

Since this is a consequence of volitional consciousness, all men (and most, if not all, women ), have rights, which means that no individual has the right to take any action which infringes on the rights of another.

[ZeusTKP]

Morality deals with human choice. A code of morality is a set of rules that enables us to choose between what is good and bad, right and wrong. According to your code ("might makes right"), it is just as good to choose to be a murderer as a doctor.

We have to be very careful with our words at this point. When you say that something is good, are you saying that you want it to happen, or are you saying that it is good regardless of what anyone wants?

If you think the latter, then you are allready assuming that things are objectively good or bad regardless what any person thinks.

If you are using the former definition, then the answer to your question depends on the person. In my case, I want whatever will get me the most value and will make me feel good. In a civilized country, that's being a doctor. In a wild environment, that might be being a murderer.

Is this the outcome you would expect from an objective moral code?

I think that there is no such thing as an objective moral code. I'd bet that your moral code says that you should be a doctor, not a killer. I'd also bet that there are people who have the opposite moral code.

I am willing to discuss the logical validation of an objective moral code but how will you evaluate my argument? If choosing to kill yourself is just as rational as choosing to live nothing I would say could overcome that kind of logic.

Hmmmmmmmm

It is not rational to just stop living if you just feel like it? (not because of any hardship) I guess this is the problem, because I don't see why living is any more rational than dying. You will die anyway, so what is the point in living as long as possible?

Perhaps you will add some context and say that in certain situations it is rational to kill yourself and indeed this may be true but according to your moral code anyone past their physical prime should commit suicide.

No, no one should anything. That's the point. If they want to live, they will live. If they want to die, they will die. Neither act is rational or irrational.

I should say that I use a specific definition of what is rational and what is not. If given facts you draw the logical conclusion, then you are rational. If you draw an illogical conclusion, then you are irrational.

You don't have to have a reason for doing everything that you do, because ultimately, I don't see that we have any reason for living.

Hmmm, I want to say more, but I'll wait for a reply.

You really should read "The Objectivist Ethics" in "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand to understand how an objective code of ethics is derived. No need to write an essay in reply, just start at the beginning and the first thing that you come across that you don't understand, ask.

OK, I might do that.

[Inspector]

Zeus,

Rational or not, have you chosen to live? If so, do you agree that reason is the only means of carrying out that goal, once chosen?

[ZeusTKP]

I'm wondering why there is a concern with what others are thinking at all. Personally, I am concerned with whether or not my ideas coincide with reality, rather than whether or not others agree.

I guess that in the short term I'm looking for like-minded people to socialize with. In the long term, I'm interested in making the world a better place. I should probably talk to libertarians for that.

As far as refining my ideas about the real world, I need to talk with others. So I need to find out what they think. How are you trying to make sure that your ideas coincide with reality?

[dondigitalia]

In the long term, I'm interested in making the world a better place. I should probably talk to libertarians for that.

If that's your goal, then I submit that they are the last people you should look to for guidance.

How are you trying to make sure that your ideas coincide with reality?

By this process:

Observe-->Think--->Induce--->Apply

Basically, it isn't a process of coming up with an idea and then testing it by looking at reality. Looking at reality is the first step, before any conclusions have been made whatsoever.