Michael Huemer's Critique on Objectivism

[Tryptonique]

http://www.lddebate.org/?go=essays&essay=heumer-rand

I'm posing this and freely admitting that I am just getting into O-ism. I have only read A.S, The Fountainhead, The Anthem, and I am just getting started on OPAR and the Virtue of Selfishness.

I was wondering what some responses to Huemer's attacks would be? Especially his assertion that ethics/etc are a priori?

(based on the justification he gives)

I hope I'm not posting something that has been posted a bunch of other places. Forgive me if this is a repeat.

Thank you,

-E.H.S

[MinorityOfOne]

You know, some of the parts of that essay puzzled me the last time I read them, which was probably about four years ago. (I don't know if they would now.) The part on ethics as a priori, though, is pretty bad. From what I've heard of him, Huemer should know better than to make an argument like that. He talks as though the choice to live is no different in principle than the choice to go to the movies. Could anything be more obviously wrong?

Though, skimming through the rest of it, I suspect that his knowledge of Objectivism is far slimmer than I had suspected. He writes: "If egoism is self-evident, that would be a reason for egoists' not offering any argument in favor of it... I am not saying an Objectivist egoist would appeal to self-evidence; I am just considering the possibility." If he knew anything substantial about Objectivism, he'd know that no Objectivist considers egoism to be self-evident.

Wow... Incidentally, what's his moral theory? I'll translate for you.

My moral theory is known as "ethical intuitionism". "Intuition", in Western philosophy, refers to the kind of direct awareness that reason provides us, i.e., foundational, a priori knowledge. It does not refer to a kind of supernatural sixth sense, it does not have anything to do with "women's intuition", it does not refer to an inarticulate sense of something caused by one's experience with similar situations. It is a technical term in epistemology.

Translation: "My moral theory is known as 'ethical intuitionism'. When I say 'intuition', I mean magic, but I don't want to tell you that. I'll tell you it's a technical term so I don't have to explain it."

In my view, value is a universal, a property that some things have, just as 'white' or 'length' are (see section 4). The term "good" or "value" can not be defined. There must be some terms that are indefinable, because every definition is in terms of simpler concepts, and there can't be an infinite regress. There is therefore no intrinsic difficulty when I say that 'good' is one of these indefinable concepts because it is absolutely simple; it does not have any constituents. In the same way, 'white', which you also can not define, is a simple concept.

Translation: "In my view, values are intrinsic. They'd exist even if there were no valuers. Since my theory is lame, I can't define normative terms and I don't care. I am very confused."

And since, in my view, the faculty of reason allows us to grasp universals as such and to understand facts about them, it also allows us to understand the relationships between this universal, goodness, and other universals, such as 'life' or 'happiness'. Ethics, in my view, is a body of rational, a priori knowledge, just as mathematics, logic, and metaphysics are.

Translation: "I don't understand how concepts differ from percepts. I don't think ethics has anything to do with facts. I also don't understand math, logic, or metaphysics."

If, as I believe, some moral principles are self-evident, then there is no need to derive ethics from biology, physics, or any other descriptive facts. This is how my theory resolves the is/ought problem."

Translation: "If, as I believe, I know about moral principles through magic, I don't have to think very hard or come up with good arguments."

[DPW]

I was wondering what some responses to Huemer's attacks would be? Especially his assertion that ethics/etc are a priori?

I am currently working on a refutation of Michael's attempted refutation. Keep an eye out on my blog.

Don Watkins III

[Bearster]

By an item of "empirical knowledge" I mean something that is known that either is an observation or else is justified by observations. A priori knowledge is that which is not empiricalþi.e., an item of knowledge which is not an observation and which is not justified by observations.

As Matt said, "magic".

One wonders if this guy has ever seen a newborn infant. A newborn doesn't even have the knowledge of how to pull its hand towards its mouth, or how to focus its eyes.

Note the word "justified". I do not say that a priori knowledge does not depend causally on observations. I do not say that the concepts required to understand it are innate or formed without the aid of experience. I only maintain that a priori knowledge is not logically based on observations. In other words, if x is an item of a priori knowledge, then there is no observation that is evidence for the truth of xþbut we still know x to be true.

In other words, "logic" means deduction only. Induction is magic.

[y_feldblum]

One must wonder, then, what it is that he deduces from....

[Capitalism Forever]

LOL Love your translations, Matt!

If he knew anything substantial about Objectivism, he'd know that no Objectivist considers egoism to be self-evident.

Whoops, in that case, it looks like I'm disqualified as an Objectivist...Egoism has always been self-evident to me. What's good for me is what's good for me--I never needed any proof for that!

[MinorityOfOne]

Sure, but it's not self-evident that you are the moral beneficiary of your own actions.

[Tryptonique]

I am currently working on a refutation of Michael's attempted refutation.  Keep an eye out on my blog. 

Don Watkins III

I look forward to reading it. I have checked your blog a couple of times, but so far...no dice .