Does an absolute morality exist?

Ethics
1

If would like an objectivist view on some of the thoughts that I have.

I find it hard to believe that an absolute morality exists outside of our own subjective mind. Why would nature have an ethical component installed?

Suppose it has, then how do you access it? If you claim to know what is good and evil, you must know the answer to this. If it doesn’t, then that would imply that absolute and universal moral knowledge is impossible and that your thoughts and feelings with an ethical connotation will never be more than just opinions, ones that don’t have any absolute validity, as they have no referent, and no verifiability, as the necessary verifying instrument is non-existent in the natural world.

And wouldn’t believing in the existence of an absolute morality be similar to a religious belief in God? We have just as much proof for that.

2

You’re new to the ideas in Objectivism, aren’t you? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: Some key ideas in Objectivism you seem to not be familiar with yet are the three different categories of moral values as intrinsic, subjective, or objective and of absolutes as absolute within a context. What do these things mean? Most systems of morality believe values and morality are either built into reality entirely separate from whatever people need or want or think (the intrinsic view) or that these things are entirely products of the inner workings of the minds of people with no connection to the outside world (this is the subjective view), but Objectivism is the only one to hold that values and morality are a product of the interaction of the human rational consciousness with the world around us, that it is based on us using our rational consciousness to identify things in reality and determine what will aid our lives (there’s more explanation for how this conclusion is come to though if you do a little reading into Objectivist non-fiction literature, just right now I wanted to give a basic summary of the unique position Objectivism has as neither intrinsic nor subjective.) As for absolutes being contextual, it means that in any given specific context, what is, is, basically. For example, we don’t have absolutes without context like “killing is always wrong no matter what!” – what we have instead is recognition of things in specific contexts, like “Choosing to kill an innocent person when nobody is initiating force against you is wrong” and in that context of lack of force against you and innocence of the other person, then choosing to do so is wrong, however if the context is changed to be the case that somebody starts trying to kill you and you hadn’t tried to initiate force against anybody else to bring this upon yourself, then if you need to kill them to defend yourself it is ok. That’s a moral application of the idea of contextual absolutes, but perhaps a simpler illustration would be to tell of contextual absolutes as related to the way the inanimate works. Some people try to say there are not absolutes because they think an absolute means it must be so regardless of other factors, so gravity would only be an absolute if objects *always* drew together, and since we have things like magnetic levitation, gravity must not be absolute. However, a contextual absolute here means that gravity always works under certain conditions and if you change the conditions to introduce something like magnets repelling each other upward, it doesn’t change the fact that gravity exists and works certain ways under certain conditions. The idea of contextual absolutes arise from the recognition of causality as being rooted in the nature of objects and that Objects work in set ways depending on what exactly they are interacting with. A balloon is a balloon and will respond as a balloon would by expanding some in a little heat and contracting some in chillier temperatures, so it doesn’t just always expand or always contract, but if you repeat the same basic conditions you will always get the same basic result because the nature of the objects and situations involved remain the same, they don’t just start reacting in all kinds of odd ways, like sometimes the balloon will expand in response to a little heat and sometimes repeating the exact same scenario it will start barking.

So, morality can be absolute contextually too and we figure it out through the use of our rational consciousness to recognize the relation of ourself to reality, to see what is needed for a creature such as ourselves to flourish. Some things which all people have in common based on being people will remain the same, while other things will be different based on some differences in our personal lives. However, all the stuff, be it common to all people or unique to specific individuals, is not a product of exclusively the outside reality or just whatever somebody dreams up without regard to the rest of the world, it is always moral or immoral based on rational identification and response to the facts of both ourselves and the rest of existence.

So, as I expect you are not very familiar with Objectivism at all, what do you know of it so far for people here to get an idea of your existing knowledge base, so we can know what you may already know and what you haven’t read/heard/seen which may be good to suggest to you. Have you read any of Rand’s fiction or non-fiction works or anything else by any other Objectivist scholars or intellectuals? Have you just heard a little stuff second hand or in passing maybe through somebody you know? Or (guess based on your username) have you perhaps just gotten curious based on reading the Sword of Truth books and hearing the author supports Objectivism and come looking based on that without having yet looked into the original sources?

1 Like
3

I find it hard to believe that an absolute morality exists outside of our own subjective mind.

That is not a topic for Ethics, but for Epistemology. (your claim that we have “subjective minds”). The claim that Objectivist Ethics is objective is based on the premise that Reason, the faculty which integrates man’s senses is, if used properly, objective, and on the premise that the reality we do perceive is itself absolute.

The idea that our minds are subjective is based either on the assumption that we cannot perceive reality directly (because it doesn’t exist, or because there’s something wrong with us), or that we don’t have the capacity to understand reality, and its order, and everything we consider true is in fact just unreliable speculation (that our logic and concepts are all silly wordplay, meant to put our puny minds at ease). Which of these do you subscribe to, that made you say our minds are subjective, and what proof do you have of it?

[Edit: I just mentioned that your ‘subjective mind’ claim pertains to epistemology because it’s necessary for my explanation, not to imply that we’re in the wrong section of the forum or anything]

Suppose it has, then how do you access it? If you claim to know what is good and evil, you must know the answer to this.

If it is your assumption that Objectivism holds morality to be a concrete part of the natural world (like some list of commandments edged in our DNA, or a tablet in a cave, whatever), that is false. Morality is an abstract concept.

You “access” (in reality determine, not access, since Ethics is the creation of the human mind) it by applying logic to what your senses tell you. Through an objective process of rational thought (which is defined in Objectivist Epistemology), Ayn Rand determined what is the metaphysical necessity of a man’s survival qua man. The result is Ethics, objective, and just as absolute as the reality of our existence as men. You don’t have to take her word for it that she is correct, you can read her reasoning. In fact it is required that you do, instead of accepting the results blindly, to have any use for it.

4

‘Is the concept of value, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality—or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence? (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles—or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims: of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations—or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury—or an objective necessity?’

Read more: “The Objectivist Ethics” from The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

5

Things don’t have innate values. That notion of “absolute morality” was contrived by religious mystics. Things have values for people, or other living creatures. The term “value” only makes sense in the context of asking, “of value to whom?”

The alternative of life or death creates a value system by which everything - every object, every potential action - can be morally judged. The standard for this moral system is one’s life, and reason/rationality should be one’s guide for determining values and goals, and deciding how to promote and fulfill those values and goals.

Because we can rationally examine others’ values and goals, and rationally decide if their actions fit their goals, morality is absolute. So long as reason is the guide, and one’s life as a human being is the standard, everyone’s values, goals, and actions can be objectively judged to be good or bad, right or wrong.

I think you would enjoy reading Viable Values by Tara Smith, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. She systematically destroys irrational and incoherent notions of “absolute” morality and sets the stage for Rand’s philosophical system.

6

Why would nature have an ethical component installed?

You need to check this premise right off. Who says “nature” has an ethical component “installed”?

Objectivism certainly does not. Objectivism holds that man’s morality is derived by from man’s nature, but that is not the same thing. Objectivism also holds that morality is something that has to be learned; it isn’t just there by default. It might also help if you provide us with a definition of what think morality is and what purpose it is supposed to serve.

And wouldn’t believing in the existence of an absolute morality be similar to a religious belief in God?

No. Objectivist morality is derived from facts of reality whereas a religious belief in a god is derived from arbitrary notions.

7

I find it hard to believe that an absolute morality exists outside of our own subjective mind.

So do I. Objectivism does not choose between what it calls intrinsicism and subjectivism in morality. It advocates objectivity, the willful adherence to a proper method of gaining knowledge and acting upon it. Objectivity is a valid method to link the inner to the outer, within a particular context (a particular person’s life).

Why would nature have an ethical component installed?

Nature only gains an “ethical component” in relation to life, things in themselves don’t have an ethical dimension or attribute.

And wouldn’t believing in the existence of an absolute morality be similar to a religious belief in God? We have just as much proof for that.

It would, so don’t go there. But there is such a thing as human nature, humans are not each so unutterably unique that no generalizations can be made about ethics which apply to all men. What is essentially human is man’s volitional, conceptual consciousness.

8

I find it hard to believe that an absolute morality exists outside of our own subjective mind.

I don’t blame you, consider how much the concept of morality has been corrupted by modern day culture.

Why would nature have an ethical component installed?

It doesn’t. The science of ethics only apply when an organism with free will is added into the mix in addition to nature. Ethics is essentially the study of what an organism with free will should do in order to achieve the end goal of living in the environment. If you are an organism without free will, like normal animals, then there’s no point designing any ethic code for you, since everything you will do is automatic and based on instincts. But if you are a volitional organism like a human, and you choose to live, then you need the science of ethics to guide all the choices you make in life so that the choices you make are actually moving you toward the goal of living instead of toward death.

The Objectivist Ethics is a ethical code specifically designed for the volitional organisms called human, and for the end result of living well on earth. If there is an alien race out there who are also volitional, then they’ll need a different ethical code designed for their survival.

And wouldn’t believing in the existence of an absolute morality be similar to a religious belief in God? We have just as much proof for that.

Believing in absolutes doesn’t automatically mean you are believing in the arbitrary. It depends on where your absolute came from. The belief of the absolute that 1+1=2 by a mathematician and the belief of the absolute “God exists” by a priest are complete separate things. The mathematician’s absolute came from rational observation, while the priest’s came from blind faith (ie fantasy).

A simple example of absolute morality would be “thou shalt not ingest cyanide”. If you are a normal human and your goal is to live, then this eithical code applies to you, absolutely :slight_smile: