How can morality have an objective foundation?

[RationalBiker]

Man, where are all these freakin' people coming from lately????

In the vein of the immortal Quince from Jaws:

I'm going to need a bigger broom!

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.

To expound on what Inspector has pointed out to you, no one is asking you to accept anything that doesn't make sense to you. However, you must keep in mind the purpose and rules of this board should you wish to participate here. This does not mean that you can take sideswipes at Objectivism even though your immediate purpose is not to challenge Objectivism. When your words become challenges rather than inquiries, I'm going to be less concerned with trying to mind read your intent.

[Edit - Spelling Corrections - RC]

Edited October 25, 2005 by RationalCop

[dondigitalia]

Man, where are all these freakin' people coming from lately????

Talk to the boss; he invited this one.

[softwareNerd]

... 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.

No, you do not. Not unless a stopped watch tells the right time twice a day. I really cannot understand how you can say that you live like an Objectivist when you have no idea what Objectivism is all about. Regardless, I can almost guarantee that if you spend many hours on forums and Objectivist web-sites you will learn less about the Objectivist ethics than if you simply read what is perhaps less than 50 pages of the definitive essay that defines Objectivist ethics.

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.

You're probably beginning to realize that your views are further from those of Objectivists than you thought they were. If you honestly want a recommendation of people with similar beliefs, I'd suggest New Age Libertarians would be the best best. They're wrong, however.

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.

You're ignoring the seminal argument put forth by Ayn Rand in the main essay titled "Objectivist Ethics" in the compilation titled "Virtue of Selfishness".

For starters, it is not clear that you use the term "objective" to mean what an Objectivist means. When you say that morality is not objective, I do not know what you mean. For all I know, you could be trying to say that values are not intrinsic, in which case I'd agree. You could be saying that values are contextual, in which case I'd agree. You might be saying that lying is not always immoral, in which case I'd agree. Or, you might be saying that values and morality are completely subjective, and each individual simply makes it up as they go and that terms right and wrong and morality are completely meaningless, in which case I'd disagree.

Again, my suggestion would be: read the original essay. There is absolutely no substitute.

However, if you want to continue discussion without the advantage of having read the essay, start by making clear what you mean by the words you use. Otherwise, we'll all probably be talking about different subjects.

Let's take your proposition: morality is not objective. What does it mean? Are you saying that a particular person in a particular situation never has any way to decide if a particular action is good or bad for him? Are you saying all actions a person takes are simply whimsical, range-of-the-moment "decisions"? Or are you saying something else?

[Inspector]

Perhaps also, Zeus, you should define exactly what you mean by the term "morality." For all we know, you might mean something completely different by it.

[jrs]

... I would rather talk to people in the forum than to read the books.

Why should we waste our time answering questions from someone who does not care enough to read the most basic source ("Objectivist Ethics" in "Virtue of Selfishness") of our ideas on ethics?

[Inspector]

I was waiting for someone to ask that. It hardly seems fair that he wants us to do all of the work for him when it would be far, far easier for him to just read the books.

I mean if he just isn't convinced that it's worth his time, then that's one thing. But there comes a point where a reasonable man decides, "okay, this is worth my attention."

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

Edited November 6, 2005 by Groovenstein

[Ravane]

I was waiting for someone to ask that. It hardly seems fair that he wants us to do all of the work for him when it would be far, far easier for him to just read the books.

I mean if he just isn't convinced that it's worth his time, then that's one thing. But there comes a point where a reasonable man decides, "okay, this is worth my attention."

You assume he is a man of reason.

[ZeusTKP]

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?

OK and not OK are meaningless questions to me. You are presupposing that things are either OK or not OK. If you are asking me if I would be happy if you killed me, then my answer is no. I'm guessing that the Jews weren't too happy to be gassed because I wouldn't want to be gassed either.

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.

Hold on. Please define what it means that "no individual has the right to take any action which infringes on the rights of another." What does it mean that someone does not have the right to do something? If they are physically capable of doing something, then they are still able to do it regardless of whether they have a right to, correct?

What purpose is there in saying that someone has certain rights?

Zeus,

Rational or not, have you chosen to live?

yes

If so, do you agree that reason is the only means of carrying out that goal, once chosen?

Not according to my definition of "reason". A non-thinking creature can live. A person who is only sometimes rational can also live.

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

see http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=4836

[softwareNerd]

OK and not OK are meaningless questions to me.

In that case, this thread has been an utter waste of time, hasn't it? It's closed.

Originally, I closed this thread primarily because I took "OK and not OK are meaningless" to imply that any answer by members would also be considered meaningless. I now realize that you were asking for a meaningful argument demonstrating that morality is meaningful. [in retrospect, while I closed the thread for the wrong reason, and am sorry if it seemed that argument was being unduly terminated, I am actually glad I did close it for a while; I think the tone was going downhill. In re-opening it, I'm hoping for the best.]

The question "how can one justify morality" is sometimes referred to as the "Is-Ought" question.

It asks: I can see that certain things are true or false ("Is"); but, how does one go from true and false to good and bad ("Ought")?

Instead of assuming that you agree with the first part (the "Is"), let me ask a quick set of questions. Would you be willing to answer "yes" to these, at least for the purposes of this thread:

• Does reality exist?
  
• Are human beings capable of figuring out that reality, with ever increasing success?
  
• Do things have identity and follow certain laws of cause and effect?
  

I'll stop here. Better to get a clear understanding of where you stand on the underlying issues, before going ahead.

Edited November 3, 2005 by softwareNerd

[ZeusTKP]

The question "how can one justify morality" is sometimes referred to as the "Is-Ought" question.

It asks: I can see that certain things are true or false ("Is"); but, how does one go from true and false to good and bad ("Ought")?

Instead of assuming that you agree with the first part (the "Is"), let me ask a quick set of questions. Would you be willing to answer "yes" to these, at least for the purposes of this thread:

• Does reality exist?

yes

Are human beings capable of figuring out that reality, with ever increasing success?

yes (but not all of them)

Do things have identity and follow certain laws of cause and effect?

You would have to elaborate on what you mean by identity.

I'll stop here. Better to get a clear understanding of where you stand on the underlying issues, before going ahead.

Why should we waste our time answering questions from someone who does not care enough to read the most basic source ("Objectivist Ethics" in "Virtue of Selfishness") of our ideas on ethics?

I was waiting for someone to ask that. It hardly seems fair that he wants us to do all of the work for him when it would be far, far easier for him to just read the books.

I mean if he just isn't convinced that it's worth his time, then that's one thing. But there comes a point where a reasonable man decides, "okay, this is worth my attention."

You assume he is a man of reason.

The day the thread was locked I checked online if the bookstore near me had "The Virtue of Selfishness" available, and was planning to pick it up after work. I was going to take Marc K. up on his offer.

Edited November 4, 2005 by ZeusTKP

[ZeusTKP]

If you honestly want a recommendation of people with similar beliefs, I'd suggest New Age Libertarians would be the best best. They're wrong, however.

I actually tried to find info on "new age libertarians" but couldn't. Do you have any links? What's the difference compared to regular libertarians?

[dondigitalia]

You would have to elaborate on what you mean by identity.

Without trying to put words in The Great Nerdy One's mouth, I'll elaborate for now, and he can express disagreement later if he wants.

Identity, as an axiomatic concept isn't really subject to formal definition, so bear with me here. The Objectivist concept of identity is really the concept of existence looked at from a different perspective. Existence says: Something exists. Identity says: Something exists. A thing is itself. Identity is that something that a thing is.

Basically what it all boils down to is the Law of Identity: A thing cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, anything other than what it is. A is A.

[jrs]

The day the thread was locked I checked on-line if the bookstore near me had "The Virtue of Selfishness" available, and was planning to pick it up after work. I was going to take Marc K. up on his offer.

I especially recommend chapters 1 & 4. Let us know when you have read it.

[FeatherFall]

I'm glad this thread was re-opened. I was bummed when it was terminated and I can't quite remember why... I think I was going to post a reply, but I like where the recent posts are going, so I'll just lurk for a while.

Edited November 4, 2005 by FeatherFall

[softwareNerd]

ZeusTKP, Thanks for returning to this thread and (even more) for buying VoS. With the latter, we might have a convert before the year is out . Okay, now... back to the subject. Good to see that we agree about fundamental metaphysical issues.

Moving on to the subject of morality, I suggest we do not start with an attempt to validate Objectivist morality. Rather, I suggest we should explore the notion of morality -- any morality. That means exploring questions like: What is it? and why do people have it?

Let's start at the level of a specific action: getting up and going to work. This is an action I take every working day, so it is something of which I can ask: is it okay or not okay that I do this? At this point, I am not trying to consider if everyone in the world should do this, just me. Also, for starters, I'm not even looking for a final answer of yes or no: merely an answer that explores the immediate "okayness" of getting up and going to work.

So, I might conclude: I go to work because I need to earn money. I need money so that I can buy food, send my kid to college, etc. In other words, in order to acheive an effect I consider a value, I have to enact some cause. One might question whether eating, sending kids to college etc. are values; that's fine. Also, there may be many options in the cause: I could go to work or steal money from a bank. However, would you agree with just this much: to acheive a certain value, a person has to enact certain causes (with the understanding that there are many optional causes from which he can choose)?

[gags]

Moving on to the subject of morality, I suggest we do not start with an attempt to validate Objectivist morality. Rather, I suggest we should explore the notion of morality -- any morality. That means exploring questions like: What is it? and why do people have it?

I think your's is a good approach. It would also be a good thing to define morality. "Morality," in Ayn Rand's definition, is "a code of values accepted by choice" - and man needs it for one reason only: he needs it in order to survive. Moral laws, in this view, are principles that define how to nourish and sustain human life; they are no more than this and no less. Morality is the instruction manual in regard to proper care and use that did not come with man. It is the science of human self-preservation. (OPAR, chpt. 7)

[ZeusTKP]

Without trying to put words in The Great Nerdy One's mouth, I'll elaborate for now, and he can express disagreement later if he wants.

Identity, as an axiomatic concept isn't really subject to formal definition, so bear with me here. The Objectivist concept of identity is really the concept of existence looked at from a different perspective. Existence says: Something exists. Identity says: Something exists. A thing is itself. Identity is that something that a thing is.

Basically what it all boils down to is the Law of Identity: A thing cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, anything other than what it is. A is A.

hmmmm, I would say that "A is A" is self-evident, and I don't see the difference between saying: Something exists. and Something exists.

Should I hammer out this topic before reading VOS?

However, would you agree with just this much: to acheive a certain value, a person has to enact certain causes (with the understanding that there are many optional causes from which he can choose)?

yes

[softwareNerd]

Well ZeusTKP, seems like we agree about a lot

We agree that to create an effect, man must enact a cause. Therefore, would you also agree that regardless of the nature or morality of the effect, man has to figure out the cause and effect relationship? To take a bit of a leap, regardless of what man is trying to achieve, he needs to use reason. If yes, can we agree that -- given the rest of the context (the assumed metaphysical assumptions), reason itself is a value? Indeed, wouldn't reason would be a basic value, underlying the achievement of anything?

Edited November 6, 2005 by softwareNerd

[JMeganSnow]

I would say that "A is A" is self-evident, and I don't see the difference between saying: Something exists. and Something exists.

There was a fashion among certain kinds of philosophers to declare that being preceded any characteristics. . . i.e. that you could have existence without any existents, that "things" could exist that had no features. Try for a moment to imagine something that has no features. About the best you can do is a kind of shapless gray blob, right? But even that has features! It's blobby! It's gray!

Objectivism throws this out wholesale by saying that existence is identity. Existence merely means that there is a something. Identity means that there is a something. I.e. that it is a particular thing, possessing particular characteristics . . . that in order for a "thing" to exist, it has to have characteristics, it has to have a nature, it has to have an identity.

This is important because if there can be a something that isn't necessarily anything-in-particular then the law of causality (which states that things can only act in accordance with their identity) can have exceptions. Now, imagine for a second what this would mean. It would mean that in some instances, you could not know what the effect of a given cause would be. You couldn't know ahead of time whether if you dropped a glass it would fall down or float in midair or turn into an elephant.

Think about what this would mean to what SoftwareNerd was telling you. If there was no way to know (not just you don't know, but you could never discover) what would happen, then your reason would be worthless! And since you have to enact causes to get effects in order to survive . . . your survival would be impossible! Every moment you'd be standing on the brink of an abyss, that abyss being your inability to know whether your house would suddenly become a pumpkin or a demon would shoot out of your fireplace and eat you!

So, the question becomes, how do we know existence is identity? Well, you said it yourself, and good for you, it's self-evident! A is A. Look around you! Do you see or have you ever seen or experienced a something that has no characteristics? Some people have claimed that they have and they "know" about it, but isn't there a problem with that statement? How can they know something about which knowledge (which is simply discovering the identities of various things) is impossible? It has no identity! There's nothing to know! So clearly they're lying, either because they don't understand or they are trying to shake your certainty for malicious purposes.

See how easy that is?