Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Objectivism too difficult to follow?

Rate this topic


RSalar

Recommended Posts

RSalar, do you ever ride in a car? That entails a certain amount of risk to your body. Do you ever come in contact with other people? That entails risk of germs. Do you ever eat? That entails risk of food poisoning.

If you do these things that involve risks, why do you do them?

A physical sensation is a fact. When I eat macaroni and cheese, I get a pleasing sensation. Fact. When I eat broccoli, I get an unpleasing sensation. Fact.

So, I have to decide what to eat. I want a pleasing physical sensation. My choices are broccoli and macaroni and cheese. If I want a pleasing physical sensation, would you say there is a correct answer to the question "What should I eat?", i.e. an objective answer?

This particular discussion reeks of the "context makes certainty impossible" argument. If you are not familiar with it, it states that because everything requires context, one can not be certain of anything. For example, I see a leaf and say, "It's green." A proponent of this argument might say, "Well, YOU see that it's green. A lemur does not. It sees it red. Therefore certainty is impossible, because you could be mistaken in your sensory interpretation."

This of course is hogwash. It is precisely context that makes certainty possible at all. When I say, "It's green," there are many underlying assumptions there that give the statement context.

Basically I'm saying, "It's green to human eyes," or perhaps, "It's green to my eyes."

In the former statement, further investigation would be required before complete certainty could be achieved. I would have to find out whether all human eyes saw it as green. Clarification might also be required. For example, I might learn that some people were colorblind. Then I would have to clarify to say, "It's green to most human eyes."

In the latter statement, there is complete, irrefutable, absolute certainty.

So look at my macaroni and cheese thing again. The chain begins to go together like this:

1. I like feeling good.

2. Macaroni and cheese makes me feel good.

3. Broccoli does not.

4. Therefore, macaroni and cheese is the objectively superior choice for me.

There is no subjectivity there. Every one of those four statements is an ironclad fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the person is healthy and not already terminally ill -- yes that is what I am saying. But as I have said, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it. Can you come up with a good reason why a healthy person with a normal life expectancy should value smoking cigarettes (the consistent, daily, long-term act of inhaling cigarette smoke)?

Some people have smoked well past 90 years old (there is a lot of evidence that genetics determines the lethality of smoking). And some medical conditions can be alleviated by smoking. These are not the usual case, but the same necessity of context applies to cigarettes that applies to motorcycles or skydiving or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSalar,

First and foremost I was straightening out the issue of you claiming I knew something that I never said nor alluded to.

I do not think that motorcycling is necessarily dangerous, though certain conditions or types of motorcycling can be dangerous.

Here is one of the definitions of 'dangerous' from dictionary.com;

full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.

However another definition (that is more likely to apply to this conversation) also referred to "likely to cause serious injury or death". I think the general connotation of "dangerous" is in line with this last definition suggesting that something is likely or probable to cause serious injury or death, not simply an increased possibility however so slight.

I've put more miles on motorcycles in the last year than some people do their cars, roughly 12,000 miles, with 8,000 of those during the last 4 months, the "driving season". A substantial amount of those times is in moderate to heavy traffic or at night or in the rain, or in any combination of those factors and some others. I have not been injured once. Is it relatively more dangerous than a car? Statistically speaking yes, but that does not make it "likely to cause serious injury or death".

If you want to demonstrate that a given person is subjectively choosing a given value or values, you would be better off pointing to facts of reality that they are evading as opposed to saying some other option is available or some other person would choose differently. Either that, or you must demonstrate that they are acting against the standard of "man's life", something that consists of more than mere physical existence or sustainance. As it appears to me so far, you deem "subjective" any activity that shortens the physical lifespan (regardless of how much) in favor of improving the happiness or enjoyment of life, without any regards to other contextual facts of reality involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either that, or you must demonstrate that they are acting against the standard of "man's life", something that consists of more than mere physical existence or sustenance. As it appears to me so far, you deem "subjective" any activity that shortens the physical lifespan (regardless of how much) in favor of improving the happiness or enjoyment of life, without any regards to other contextual facts of reality involved.
I have been doing more reading per your suggestion—specifically the book, “Viable Values,” by Tara Smith. I don’t want to get bogged down on this one topic but it appears that I am in agreement with Tara in the issues that we have been discussing, i.e., objective values (verses subjective values). For example on page 104 she says: “People seek myriad ends, but they are not thereby valuable because they are not necessarily life-promoting. To regard an end that a person embraces as a value would revert to subjectivism, deflating values into mere objects of desire.” Then on page 116 she says (this applies to the fact that you have ridden tens of thousands of miles without injury), “Living healthily does not guarantee long life any more than living unhealthily guarantees early death. Some people smoke for decades and celebrate a ninetieth birthday. But living healthily increases the likelihood of long life.” In regards to your idea that life is more than avoiding the morgue she discusses the concept of “flourishing,” which is another way of expressing the idea that life’s ultimate end is happiness. This is on page 145: “That a person thinks that he is flourishing is no guarantee that he is.” She continues the line of thinking on page 146 with: “It is easy to be confused about the status of flourishing because flourishing may seem a more appealing purpose than survival. At least in their colloquial connotations, flourishing seems a far more motivating aim. This should not lure us into supposing that flourishing is morality’s end simply because we like it or want it, however (which would render flourishing, and morality, a subjective matter of preference). [Now to the point I have been trying to make.] Flourishing is not the proper end of morality because it is more coveted or more popular than survival. While flourishing permits many attractive optional values, whether an activity contributes to flourishing is not determined by individual tastes. [Emphasis mine.] The acrivity of flourishing, no less than breathing, imposes objective requirements. A life well led (flourishing) is defined by the factual requirements of life. What contributes to a person’s flourishing is what contributes to his survival.”

Read that again: “What contributors to a person’s flourishing is what contributes to his survival.” The term “contribute” in this context means: To help bring about a result, which in this case is survival (or staying alive). So the activity you chose to enjoy that “makes life worth living” must also contribute to your continued survival if that activity is an objective value. If the activity you enjoy is likely to harm you then it is a subjective value. This is what I have been saying from the beginning. Nothing new here. The only area left for debate is whether or not riding motorcycles (in your specific case) enhances you chances of survival (it is difficult to flourish if you are dead).

Now I must leave for a few days of pursuing my other values. I will check back early next week. Thanks for your sharp mind and patience with this somewhat emotional issue. -- RSalar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(it is difficult to flourish if you are dead).

You can take judicial notice of the fact that as long as I keep typing on this forum, I'm not dead. :dough:

And kudos for reading more material.

whether an activity contributes to flourishing is not determined by individual tastes.
IF that's the point you have been arguing all along, it's not material to any position I have had. This is tantamount to summing up my position as, if I like, it must be good for me. Rather, I cited an example of an activity I liked, and then I rationally examined what net impact I think it has on my life. I didn't just stick to "I like it" therefore it's justified. The point I made about individual tastes is that the same reasoning may lead different people to different activities because of their individual tastes, not that the tastes in of themselves justifies anything. Nobody has argued that people cannot make mistakes in interpreting reality. Rather, we (or I at least) have argued that people can accurately interpret reality and apply it to their individual lives. In general, if one levies the charge of subjectivity on one's choice, it is encumbent on him to make the case that it is in fact subjective. I would say that typically, the individual knows vastly more about the context of his life than does the outsider pronouncing judgement.

So the activity you chose to enjoy that “makes life worth living” must also contribute to your continued survival if that activity is an objective value.

I have demonstrated how motorcycling does contribute to my continued survival. I reservedly note your disagreement.

If the activity you enjoy is likely to harm you then it is a subjective value.

Now this is a broad use of the word "harm". For instance, the stress relief I gain from motorcycle riding increases the chance of avoiding problems such ulcers, the build of anger, etc. etc. I could argue that if I did not pick motorcycling as one of my alternative forms of transportation (which is another survival benefit), I would carry around more stress that could have long term negative health affects that could shorten my life span.

That said, I wait for your case that motorcycling is "likely" to cause me harm, not simply what could essentially be (possibly a negligible) an increase in the risk of harm. I cited the relatively differences of problem with accidents with cars vs. motorcycles, that doesn't actually establish the actual chance I will be in an accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rsalar,

Allow me to attempt to clarify what RationalBiker has been attempting to communicate to you about the "risks" of riding:

If one rides with an extra degree of care vs how one drives a car, then riding is just as safe as driving a car. You have to leave more following distance, perhaps go slower sometimes, pay more attention to the task, and take other such precautions.

(correct me if I am wrong here, RB)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(correct me if I am wrong here, RB)

That's certainly part of it. I'm also extremely cautious at intersections since that is the area of most concern. Being seen is a big thing. I've got a big bike with lots of lights, particularly in the back. However, whatever actual added risk there may be, does not, in my view, make motorcycling "dangerous". And I've listed a number of benefits I have garnered from motorcycling beyond just "I like it."

Oddly enough, I saw a guy who came off his bike on the interstate at (he claims) 65-70 mph the other day. He was riding a sportbike and him and his buddy passed me earlier about two miles back, rather sedately, nothing wreckess or excessively fast. Next thing I know, I see a riderless motorcycle rolling down the highway bouncing off the center wall and righting itself several times. (Very surreal image in my mind even now) Then I stopped to call 911 and go back and check on the rider and as I pulled out my phone after getting off my bike, I see the rider RUNNING up to his bike. I'm thinking, no way! I went over to the guy when he caught up with his bike (which finally stopped after somewhere between a 1/4 and 1/2 mile of riding by itself) and asked him if he was okay. He had a slight limp, his jacket was chewed up on one side as were his jeans, and he had a small abrasion above one of his eyes. He told me that he got a leg cramp a ways back and as he tried to maneuver his leg he got the handlebar wobbles (a bad thing) and brushed up against the center wall. That knocked him off the bike. He hit the ground in a kind of tucked in position and slid a ways to a stop. While I have to agree he was fortunate, he did several things right. 1) Good riding gear. 2) He was physically fit (which helps for taking some falls.. 3) He knew how to take the "dismount". The bikes worst damage was from bouncing off the wall repeatedly, but all in all it wasn't too bad. He couldn't just ride it away, though he tried. I'm only offering this as an interesting story rather than as any evidence in my argument.

Edit - "worse" to "worst" regarding the bike damage- RB (man I was tired)

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you can come up with "reasons" does not mean you are being objective. Your reasons may be irrational!
I don't mean 'reason' as in an unsubstantiated excuse to do something. I mean 'reason' as in the faculty of reason. This is the difference between your usage of subjective ["particular to an individual"] and everyone else's usage of subjective ["without (the faculty of) reason"].

I also think your standards of objectivity are different from mine.

In considering an action, my standard is whether there is a possibility I will benefit (i.e. gain my values) from this action. Such a standard is subjective in your sense (dependent on my individual values).

It is not subjective qua without (the faculty of) reason - there is an reasonable/objective way to determine whether an action has a positive, non-arbitrary chance of success, and actions with extremely low probabilities of success that do turn out to be successful are properly considered to be objective means to values here.

Does my standard qualify as an objective standard of ethics? If it does not... what standard does?

Can you come up with a good reason why a healthy person with a normal life expectancy should value smoking cigarettes (the consistent, daily, long-term act of inhaling cigarette smoke)?
Yes. There is a possibility (ascertained through my faculty of reason) that I will benefit from smoking.

Are you saying that there is a way that a person can ride a motorcycle that makes it not dangerous?
Danger is not subjective in your sense (it is independent of volitional preferences).

It is subjective in terms of (the faculty of) reason qua rational principles - there is no reasonable way to determine what is 'too much danger', and 'danger' bases its normative judgements not on whether one succeeds, but whether one should have (according to probabilities) succeeded.

Does 'danger' thus qualify as an objective standard of ethics?

Read that again: “What contributors to a person’s flourishing is what contributes to his survival.”
That's ridiculous. Or to be more sporting, I should say that this is not necessarily true.

If 'survival' refers to physical existence in reality, then some acts of flourishing are not necessarily conducive to staying in the non-spirit realm. Giving one's life to save a loved one is not conducive to one's physical existence. Asking your dictator to give you liberty or give you death is not conducive to one's physical existence. Telling your slavemaster that your name is not Toby is not conducive to one's physical existence.

I suspect that 'survival' here refers to more than mere physical existence... but that'd take away from your argument.

Now I must leave for a few days of pursuing my other values. I will check back early next week.
*has no qualms whatsoever about demolishing RSalar's argument in absentia*

*...kinda enjoys it :dough:*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSalar,

Here's an additional quote from Viable Values, pg. 127;

My intent in saying that the proper end of morality is flourishing is not to pronounce some bill of particulars as the combination of activities that constitutes flourishing (e.g. reading these books, pursuing these hobbies, earning this income). No fixed set of specific pursuits constitutes flourishing for all human beings. Across and within species, the particulars of individual's needs vary. Having observed the legitimacy of optional values in the previous chapter, it should be apparent that people can flourish through different actions as a result of largely their own tastes, abilities, and circumstances. As with optional values, however, the requirements of flourishing are not determined by anyone's arbitrary declaration. Reality dictates flourishings requirements. The demands of life determine when a person is living well by determining whether a person's activities further his existence.

As she alludes to above, I note that there is more along this line in a preceeding section regarding "optional values".

I'll also throw in this quote on suicide, pg. 143;

Rather, the reason suicide can be morally allowed is that life is not intrinsically valuable. Life is not to be maintained at any cost, like it or not. A life-based code is not a sentence to live, saddling people with the obligation to endure, however painful the circumstances. Life is the standard of value and source of moral obligation if it is a person's goal, but it is up to the individual whether to embrace that goal. Nor is it the case that if life is a person's goal, it must interminably remain his goal nor that, once chosen, life may never be unchosen. the only alternative to abiding by a life-based code of values is death, but that is the real alternative that suicide offers.

It stands to reason (IMHO), that if she understands why suicide can be moral if one is not satisified with the quality of one's life (which she says must also be factually supported), then it's not necessarily immoral (or subjective) that one can assume some increased degree of manageable risk despite safer options if the facts of reality dictate that the activity in total is likely to add to the quality of the person's life. As an example, she notes that one man can "afford" a $100 meal while another cannot. But one could argue that it's (generally) more likely to be more life-enhancing to spend less money on a meal that would provide the same sustenance to one's (physical) life and thus leaving more money left over for other "necessities" or contingencies as opposed to "wasting" that money on perhaps taste or atmosphere. Generally speaking, having more money fluidly available to a person represents less risk than having less money. This is directly analogous your argument of driving a car instead of a motorcycle with the only variation potentially being the degree of increased risk involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stands to reason (IMHO), that if she understands why suicide can be moral if one is not satisfied with the quality of one's life (which she says must also be factually supported), then it's not necessarily immoral (or subjective) that one can assume some increased degree of manageable risk despite safer options if the facts of reality dictate that the activity in total is likely to add to the quality of the person's life.
I think the critical issue here is whether or not a decision to do something "that makes life worth living" is consistent with the objective facts that determine what activities aid and abet survival. Quoting Harry Binswanger (http://www.hblist.com/files/A8mngd.htm): "In regard to the base of ethics, few will disagree that life or death is *an* alternative to consider. If a person is considering taking heroin or jumping off a cliff, the survival-significance is clear to everyone. But only Ayn Rand realized that *every* choice is pro-life or anti-life. She rejected the "common sense" idea that life or death is an issue that only comes up in extraordinary cases. When one picks a movie to go see, that is either done rationally, in focus, or irrationally, out of focus--and *it matters*. The fact that one can make an irrational choice of movie (perhaps by acceding to social pressure) and live to tell the tale does not show that life or death is not the basic alternative in that choice.

"The failure to take causality seriously is one reason why people have difficulty understanding and accepting Ayn Rand's validation of her moral code. They don't see life or death as the *fundamental, all-embracing alternative*, the alternative faced in every choice. They think, "Survival? Yeah, sure I want to survive. But that's kind of a given, as long as I eat three meals a day and don't step in front of an oncoming truck. What does survival have to do with justice or integrity or art or love?"

"Of course, survival has everything to do with those virtues and values, but that isn't apparent to a mind unaccustomed to thinking in principles.

"But Darwin did think in principles. He took causality seriously. He realized that every variation was either profitable (significantly that's the term he used) or unprofitable to the organism. Every little bit mattered, he realized."

As you (RB) have stated there is an objective survival rate difference between riding motorcycles and driving automobiles—this is not only factual but also fairly obvious. So your choice to ride is based on the premise that riding makes your life worth living. Is your premise objective (factual)? Let’s examine the suicide scenario: If suicide is moral when one is “not satisfied” with the quality of one’s life there must be an objective standard to determine what constitutes the degree and legitimacy of the dissatisfaction that warrants suicide. Otherwise suicide would be moral in times of temporary dissatisfaction due to conditions that might be remedied by rational action. Dissatisfaction with life can be subjective just as satisfaction with life can.

The critical issue is whether or not your satisfaction with life is consistent with activities that also aid and abet your physical survival. Since the conditions that promote physical survival can be objectively determined and are fairly well established by medical science, I would think an Objectivist would only find satisfaction in the activities that are consistent with these established facts. To find satisfaction in activities that lessen your physical survival chances does not seem to be consistent with a life promoting morality.

What is objective about a person finding satisfaction (joy, happiness, pleasure, fulfillment, etc.) in an activity that is known factually (objectively) to decrease his chances of physical survival (especially when there are safer alternates that would fulfill the “reasons” for participating in the activity)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is objective about a person finding satisfaction (joy, happiness, pleasure, fulfillment, etc.) in an activity that is known factually (objectively) to decrease his chances of physical survival (especially when there are safer alternates that would fulfill the “reasons” for participating in the activity)?

I see that you have not yet responded to a post I made several days ago. You are not, of course, required to respond to something merely because I ask it. However, I would very much like to hear your response to the question I posed. It explores a crucial point.

I'll add another question. Would you agree that some foods are riskier than others? For example, certain meats carry a risk of substantial illness. I am not aware of any such risk in, say, peanuts (assuming one is not allergic). Do you dispute this?

Do you eat meat? Because that would be finding satisfaction in an activity known factually to decrease your chances of physical survival, and there are safer alternatives that would fulfill the reasons for eating it. Clearly peanuts have nutritional value, and have some protein content. Any other nutritional deficiencies between peanuts and meat could be compensated for in vitamins. And peanuts and vitamins would be cheaper than many meats. So if you eat meat, then you're decreasing your chances of physical survival solely for a sensation from your taste buds.

Finally, when someone puts something in quotation marks, that often means the person intends to belittle what he puts in the quotation. RB has done a marvelous job of laying out his reasons in extensive detail. While I don't know whether I think he is making the correct decision (and I really don't care to spend my time on it), he at the very least makes out a plausible case. If you did intend to belittle him, I think that was highly inappropriate and merits an apology. If you did not intend to belittle him, what was your intent in placing the word "reasons" in quotation marks? I can not conceive of another intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The critical issue is whether or not your satisfaction with life is consistent with activities that also aid and abet your physical survival. Since the conditions that promote physical survival can be objectively determined and are fairly well established by medical science, I would think an Objectivist would only find satisfaction in the activities that are consistent with these established facts.
If you presuppose that physical survival is one's utmost goal, then everything you're saying is perfectly valid. Problem is, no one is operating under that premise in this thread ... except for you.

As you (RB) have stated there is an objective survival rate difference between riding motorcycles and driving automobiles—this is not only factual but also fairly obvious. So your choice to ride is based on the premise that riding makes your life worth living. Is your premise objective (factual)?
You think that morality by probability is objective? That, given a positive chance of success, it ethically matters what that exact chance is?

You're implying something along the lines of

  1. a 90% chance of gaining/keeping value X is objectively (i.e. mathematically, not necessarily ethically) better than a 10% chance of gaining/keeping value X
  2. ???
  3. therefore, in seeking to gain/keep X, it is objectively (i.e. ethically) better to choose the 90% success action over the 10% success action

Legerdermain aside... no one's going to argue with it #1, but it doesn't logically lead to #3. I would agree that if X is your ultimate value, then you ought to act to gain/keep it.

I would not agree that one thus ought to to act to gain/keep it on the basis of mathematical probability, nor do I think you have provided sufficient reason as to why your statistical (percentages) is leads to an ought.

The Binswanger excerpt was a good find BTW.

If you did not intend to belittle him, what was your intent in placing the word "reasons" in quotation marks? I can not conceive of another intent.
He probably meant to reemphasize his point that a reason for doing something isn't necessarily reasonable. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I don't think it was meant to particularly be demeaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you (RB) have stated there is an objective survival rate difference between riding motorcycles and driving automobiles—this is not only factual but also fairly obvious.

I think part of the problem lies here. A statement of probability is a statement of ignorance about any particular situation, and only knowledge about aggregate activities. It is not a statement of complete knowledge. Therefore while it is objective in a sense, it does not completely characterize the situation at hand. It is not complete knowledge. Peikoff went into great detail on this in a discussion on certainly in one of his courses (Art of Thinking, I think?)

Causality is the ultimate determinate in all situations. Peikoff discussed that while .01% of planes may crash in general, if you understood the causal factors behind that figure, and evaluated your particular plane, that you could eventually arrive at 100% certainty that your plane would not crash. I think RB has given you much of his understanding of additional factors that he evaluates when he rides motorcycles. It is conceivable that he could assess his particular situation and depending on how he rides, have an accident record better than driving. It is not simply "randomness" that causes some motorcyclers to have great driving records. It is causality. He would not have to eliminate risk entirely, only make it comparable for the benefit he gains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you have not yet responded to a post I made several days ago. You are not, of course, required to respond to something merely because I ask it. However, I would very much like to hear your response to the question I posed. It explores a crucial point.

I'll add another question. Would you agree that some foods are riskier than others? For example, certain meats carry a risk of substantial illness. I am not aware of any such risk in, say, peanuts (assuming one is not allergic). Do you dispute this?

The post you reference is similar to this one in that it asks what I do. What I do, or do not do, has no relevance here because we have not determined if my choices are objective or subjective. Although I have studied Objectivism and believe I understand its most basic concepts I do not claim to understand and I certainly have not implemented 100% of the Objectivist principles that I do understand. You certainly know that the quantity and quality of the foods we eat affect our health. Just because I love chocolate does not make consuming 20 lbs per day an objective value. But why do you think it matters what I do?

As far as using quotation marks to surround the term “reasons” I used them because reasons can be either subjective or objective. The fact that an individual can state a number of reasons why he does something does not, in and by itself, prove that the decision to participate in the activity was objectively determined—nor does it prove that the activity is an objective value. Each of us on our own can go through each of the stated reasons and determine its objectivity—have you done this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you presuppose that physical survival is one's utmost goal, then everything you're saying is perfectly valid. Problem is, no one is operating under that premise in this thread ... except for you.
I don’t know what you mean by “utmost goal” but maybe you would benefit by re-reading the quotes from Tara Smith’s book that I provided. How would you propose to pursue happiness if you were not alive? How can one flourish if one is not alive? Objective values must be consistent with the values that help keep you alive. That’s the whole point of objectivity as it relates to values. No value is an objective value if it is leading you towards death.

What does it say about the person who is only happy while doing things that he knows are leading him towards death? He must have chosen death as his goal and is happy that he is achieving it. (I am not saying that RB fits into this classification. In fact, as I have already stated, I think life would be very boring if we only pursued those values that help us stay alive.) The issue at hand is whether or not Objectivism agrees. Sometimes I get the impression that some people try to warp Objectivism into something that supports their own beliefs and their own way of living. Objectivism is very strict—and may be too difficult to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Causality is the ultimate determinate in all situations. Peikoff discussed that while .01% of planes may crash in general, if you understood the causal factors behind that figure, and evaluated your particular plane, that you could eventually arrive at 100% certainty that your plane would not crash.
I agree that there are ways of reducing risks but there are some risks that remain inherent in the activity regardless of the operator’s ability. The above quote (if it is accurate—which I doubt) is obviously ridiculous. Driving skills or flying skills can be expert (or even perfect) but things can happen that are beyond the operator’s control. When a crash occurs despite the operator’s perfectly expert ability the amount, strength, and location of the steel surrounding his body is instrumental in determining the probability of survival. Automobiles today have all kinds of technology to help the operator survive a crash. I doubt that RB would claim that the likelihood of him surviving a serious crash is anywhere near as good on a bike as it would be in a modern automobile.

I thought we had already established the fact that if he drove a modern automobile with the same degree of skill that he applies when riding his bike he would be safer in the car. The question is, given the fact that it is more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than to drive a car, does Objectivist morality allow one to choose a more dangerous activity (when a viable alternative exists) in order to enjoy life more? And if so, where does Objectivism draw the line (or by what objective standard is that line drawn)? In other words when does an activity become objectively too dangerous (regardless of the joy, fulfillment, and happiness that one obtains from it) to be an objective value in one’s life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as using quotation marks to surround the term “reasons” I used them because reasons can be either subjective or objective.

You have stated this a number of times throughout the thread, and as yet, I don't think anyone has disagreed.

It appears that I have failed to communicate to you that my reasoning is well considered and objective with respect to my choice to ride a motorcycle. You are not convinced that I'm capable of determining reality in this situation, as well as the potential risk and the potential gain that I realize from riding and how it enhances my life. At this point I have no further interest in convincing you so I'll let my argument stand as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why do you think it matters what I do?

Why do you think it matters who rides motorcycles?

The fact that an individual can state a number of reasons why he does something does not, in and by itself, prove that the decision to participate in the activity was objectively determined—nor does it prove that the activity is an objective value. Each of us on our own can go through each of the stated reasons and determine its objectivity—have you done this?

You have either ignored or misunderstood the part of my post to which this responds. I do not wish to drop any more of my time with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are ways of reducing risks but there are some risks that remain inherent in the activity regardless of the operator’s ability. The above quote (if it is accurate—which I doubt) is obviously ridiculous.

The Art of Thinking, Lecture 6 - Certainty.

Statistics are not a form of cognition. They are a quantification of ignorance.... Knowledge of concretes [of a given situation]erases applicabiilty of statistical probabilities - whether that knowledge is direct or indirect (i.e. from experts)

Actually, your assertion is one that Peikoff deals with directly. "someone will come up to you and assert that there is always evidence for everything. 1 in 1000 planes crash, why not this one?"

I said nothing about the operators ability alone. I said, identifying all the causal factors.

I thought we had already established the fact that if he drove a modern automobile with the same degree of skill that he applies when riding his bike he would be safer in the car. The question is, given the fact that it is more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than to drive a car, does Objectivist morality allow one to choose a more dangerous activity (when a viable alternative exists) in order to enjoy life more? And if so, where does Objectivism draw the line (or by what objective standard is that line drawn)? In other words when does an activity become objectively too dangerous (regardless of the joy, fulfillment, and happiness that one obtains from it) to be an objective value in one’s life?

RB has dealt with this one just fine. I think you choose not to believe him. Your logic sets you on a slippery slope, especially when you discuss aspects of recreation. By your logic, Objecitivists will choose only the safest forms of recreation (say stamp collecting vs. handgliding) because there is no objective standard that would allow him to add risk simply to equally enjoy something. You are very much an intrincisist. Value is not intrinsic. It is contextual. It is possible for RB to value something a little more riskier enough to warrant doing it. Life is the standard, my life is the purpose. The context of my life is what determines value. Who are you to say that RB is taking "undue" risk in his recreational activities if you deny the context of his value judgements? Living, i.e. flourishing involves taking risk. By what standard do you think a risk is undue? And do you live consistently to that standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it matters who rides motorcycles?
I take this as an admission that you agree that it does not matter what I do and that your question regarding what I do has no relevance to the issue.

You have either ignored or misunderstood the part of my post to which this responds.
A third option is that your post did not adequately address the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB has dealt with this one just fine. I think you choose not to believe him. Your logic sets you on a slippery slope, especially when you discuss aspects of recreation. By your logic, Objecitivists will choose only the safest forms of recreation (say stamp collecting vs. handgliding) because there is no objective standard that would allow him to add risk simply to equally enjoy something. You are very much an intrincisist. Value is not intrinsic. It is contextual. It is possible for RB to value something a little more riskier enough to warrant doing it. Life is the standard, my life is the purpose. The context of my life is what determines value. Who are you to say that RB is taking "undue" risk in his recreational activities if you deny the context of his value judgements? Living, i.e. flourishing involves taking risk. By what standard do you think a risk is undue? And do you live consistently to that standard?
I have never said that I do not believe him. I believe that he has reasoned out why he chooses to participate in an optional activity that has a relatively high degree of risk. I also believe him when he says that he is being objective. We just disagree about what an objective value is. I believe a value is an objective value only when it is consistent with the facts of reality governing what it takes to stay alive and flourish.

This question: “Who are you to say that RB is taking "undue" risk in his recreational activities if you deny the context of his value judgements?” indicates that you believe that value judgments are and should be subjective. You see KendallJ, who I am or what I think about this does not change the objective reality that certain activities do not aid and abet (promote) human life. It doesn’t matter what RB thinks either or how many reason he comes up with. No amount of thinking and reasoning can change the facts of reality. This is what Objectivism is all about—you must eliminate this idea that you seem to have that this is about my opinion verses RB’s opinion. Our opinions DO NOT change the fact that riding a motorcycle on roads and highways with other traffic around is a dangerous activity. This discussion is not even about the fact that riding is dangerous (that’s a given) it is about the Objectivist concept of what constitutes objective values.

If someone can prove to me that doing something that is dangerous (when there are safer alternatives that accomplish the same goal) is or can be an objective value to person’s life I would love to hear from them, otherwise I will have to follow the lead of RB and Groovenstein and discontinue this discussion because at this point we are just going around in circles.

PS: Do you have any empirical evidence to back up the allegation: "You are very much an intrincisist."? Or are you just stating your subjective appraisal as a form of argument from intimidation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSalar, my main sticking point is that I have no idea what you consider an acceptable risk. From what I have read, you have not offered any helpful standards. I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong.

Some foods are riskier than others. Must one always choose the safest food? Or must one go even further and consume only vitamins?

Some cars have certain features that others lack. Say I have $10,000 to spend on a car, and I can choose a car with better safety features or a car that gets better gas mileage. Is choosing the better gas mileage irrational because it is less safe?

Some people must make medical decisions involving a certain degree of risk.

And so forth.

We agree on the principle that pursuit of one's values should be governed by objective criteria. What I do not understand is how you think risk should be assessed. Living life involves risk. It is not enough to say that a certain activity is more risky than another and therefore irrational. Further analysis is required. On this point, we are not going around in circles because I have not seen you address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSalar, my main sticking point is that I have no idea what you consider an acceptable risk. From what I have read, you have not offered any helpful standards. I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong.
I would like to make it clear that I respect RB’s decision to ride. As I mentioned earlier I consider myself to be a rational person yet I fly small planes. In light of today’s crash in NYC, flying single engine planes can obviously be a dangerous activity. I don’t fly because I need to in order to get places, I fly because I love to be up in the sky and free. Maybe this activity is not an objective value (on a objective risk reward basis) and maybe I will be killed in my plane—but I still plan on continuing to fly as long as I can. My goal with this thread was not to put down anyone’s choices but rather to chew on some of the finer points of Objectivist ethics and to see if I could agree with what I believe Ayn Rand meant by objective values. That said, I would like to thank everyone who added to the discussion.

Now to your point: I do not know the objective standards that should be used to assess risk and reward. There may not be any objective standards—in which case there would be no objective way to determine if the risk is worth the reward. Then again there may be objective standards that can be applied ... but if so, I would think those who argued for them would have stated what they are. The fact that I cannot state what these objective standards are only supports my contention that some value judgments must be determined subjectively. (My gut tells me that I hope you can prove me wrong--or at least alleviate my fear that this one issue might bring down the entire Objectivist theory of morality.)

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...