Does man have an automatic code of ethics?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Salutations all.

I’m still very new to Objectivism, and have not yet had the chance to read many of the basic materials, so if this seems like a question with an obvious answer, I do apologize.

I’m currently taking a course on ethics, which I love. It only seems to be an overview of various absolutist theories (checking validity and soundness of the main argument of each), but since we’re covering about 9 different systems in 3 months, I don’t have a problem with that. Recently, our professor said something that somewhat made sense … but I don’t think it’s true.

To give a short background, we had discussed the various metaethical systems, with a short bit on Nihilism and Relativism. To date, we have also discussed Subjectivism, Divine Command Theory, Emotivism and two systems called “Psychological Egoism” and “Ethical Egoism”. A small reference was made to Objectivism during these last two, basically suggesting it was a very radical form (More on this below). Our professor outlined the argument of Psychological Egoism in the following way:

Observations about human actions are made.
Position: 1) All human beings are motivated solely by self-interest.
2) "ought" implies "can" (You cannot derive ought from is; cannot derive value from fact. Fact="is".. Value="ought")

This argument is then the basis for "Ethical Egoism", which then concludes:
3) We ought to act to maximize our own self-interest.[/code]





So, from this argument, it was posited that Ethical Egoism derives value from the "fact" of Psychological Egoism: "All humans are motivated solely out of self-interest". It was pointed out by the professor that this position (#1) is a non-falsified claim, not a fact, and therefore cannot be used to support Ethical Egoism. A student then asked, "If values don't come from fact, god, culture or nature, where [i]do [/i]they come from?"







To which our professor first stated that "ought" is autonomous. "Ethics," he said "works by itself".







It has been pointed out to me that Objectivism is "Rational Egoism". So I must assume that the arguments for P.E and E.E are not part of R.E. This leads me to four questions:



[b]1)[/b] Is the premise "All human beings [b]are [/b]motivated solely by self-interest" indeed a non-falsified claim? (Is it a non-fact, something which can neither be proven or disproved?)



[b]2)[/b] Is Objectivism based on this idea, or does it state that human beings [b]"should"[/b] be motivated solely by rational self-interest due to different axioms or observations?



[b]3)[/b] Is it true that you cannot derive "ought" from "is"?



[b]4)[/b] Are ethics and "ought" actually autonomous? Do they exist outside of our interpretation of them? (To me, this doesn't make any sense, as being sentient and rational beings, we "created" them in the first place. I could be completely wrong however.)











I may be missing some huge underlying idea here. Any help to sort out this conglomeration of ideas would be greatly appreciated.







(As a side note, after discussing Ethical Egoism for two days, our professor decided that it wouldn't even be on the test. When a student asked what he thought of Ms. Rand he said "I liked the Fountainhead, but she was not a very good philosopher." He didn't want to go into the rest of the defences for these two ideas in the book, and called them silly. So, I'm totally at a loss. It almost sounded like either, the idea was too difficult for the students to fully grasp (a lot of people are having trouble in this class) or that the philosophy is so totally invalid/unsound that it's not worth going into. A big disappointment for me. ^\_^ )
2

I think I’d be wasting both yours and my time if I said anything other than to go out and buy The Virtue of Selfishness (by Ayn Rand of course). It will thoroughly answer those questions specifically and many, many others besides.

3

There is way too much debunking to do there, deedlebee. I would suggest that you focus on ridding your mind of the is/ought “dichotomy.” This terribly false idea is rejected in full by Objectivism. Read Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s essay, Fact and Value (full text available online).

4

It almost sounded like either, the idea was too difficult for the students to fully grasp (a lot of people are having trouble in this class) or that the philosophy is so totally invalid/unsound that it’s not worth going into.  A big disappointment for me.  :slight_smile:   )

I’m sorry to say—having done more than my fair share of academic philosophy—that the answer is the latter of your alternatives not just with respect to your particular class but to almost every course you will take on philosophy at a university.

5

1) Is the premise “All human beings are motivated solely by self-interest” indeed a non-falsified claim?  (Is it a non-fact, something which can neither be proven or disproved?)

It requires a study of the behavior and philosophy of all the human beings on Earth.

2) Is Objectivism based on this idea, or does it state that human beings “should” be motivated solely by rational self-interest due to different axioms or observations?

Objectivism is a philosophy which provides a set of values which enable us to live a prosperous life. That is in fact the purpose of philosophy.

If a person wants to live a life, he/she has to be selfish. If a person is altruist and acts like one, his standard is death. Complete altruism can only be achieved by death as is eloquently explained in Atlas Shrugged.

I don’t know the official Objectivist position but if a person wants to live, he has to motivated by his self-interest. The question of “should” doesn’t arise. Either he chooses to live or he chooses to die.

4) Are ethics and “ought” actually autonomous?  Do they exist outside of our interpretation of them?  (To me, this doesn’t make any sense, as being sentient and rational beings, we “created” them in the first place.  I could be completely wrong however.)

If ethics and ought are autonomous, then even an electron should have a specific moral way to act? Do you think it is possible?

6

Salutations all.

1) Is the premise “All human beings are motivated solely by self-interest” indeed a non-falsified claim?  (Is it a non-fact, something which can neither be proven or disproved?)

2) Is Objectivism based on this idea, or does it state that human beings “should” be motivated solely by rational self-interest due to different axioms or observations?

3) Is it true that you cannot derive “ought” from “is”?

4) Are ethics and “ought” actually autonomous?  Do they exist outside of our interpretation of them?  (To me, this doesn’t make any sense, as being sentient and rational beings, we “created” them in the first place.  I could be completely wrong however.)

I decided I’m going to give your 4 questions four short quick answers.

  1. This premise is just plainly false, it is demonstrably false. Just look around for cases where it is false. Look at a person that smokes out of their neck. People that submit to peer pressure. Drug abuse. Look at the ascetics like St Francis, and the modern Muslims. Look for cases where it is obvious that the result of the action is not to one’s self-interest.

  2. Objectivism is not based on that idea. The premise rests on psychological determinism which is false. Objectivism does say that one should choose to act on rational self-interest. But, to give the explanation, I’d have to give you the entire ethics, something I am not qualified to do. Read VOS and the link Bowswer gave you.

  3. The short answer is no, it is not true. The shortest answer is that what man is-his nature-gives way to what he ought to do. Refer to the readings for the full answers.

  4. I’m not sure sure I understand this question. This could only be a premise, if I’m understanding it correctly, of a determinist view. If ought is outside of the field of ethics, then there is no ethics. There is no point of discussiong what a man ought to do if he has no choice in his behaviour.

They do not exist outside of our interpretation of them, nor are they merely constructs in our mind. They are facts of reality conceptualized by our minds. Meaning, they are not intrinsic in reality outside of us, nor are they merely mental stuff with no relation to reality.

7

This leads me to four questions:

1) Is the premise “All human beings are motivated solely by self-interest” indeed a non-falsified claim?  (Is it a non-fact, something which can neither be proven or disproved?)

Obviously the claim is inductively false. Just look around and see some of the self-destructive things that people do.

2) Is Objectivism based on this idea, or does it state that human beings “should” be motivated solely by rational self-interest due to different axioms or observations?

Miss Rand begins the investigation of ethics by asking the question “Why does man need a code of values?” (The Objectivist Ethics, reprinted in the book The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 14) In the full answer to this question Miss Rand identifies the metaphysical facts of reality which give rise to the need of man for an Objective morality to guide his choices. The essay itself is a brilliant exposition of the Objectivist ethics and it illustrates the need for asking the right questions in exploring any philosophical subject. Well worth reading.

3) Is it true that you cannot derive “ought” from “is”?

That every “is” implies an “ought” is a crucial part of the foundation of Objectivist ethics. You would do well to read the essay referenced above. In the meantime, there is much to be gleaned about this from the relevant sections of Leonard Peikoff’s essay Fact and Value, available online here.

4) Are ethics and “ought” actually autonomous?  Do they exist outside of our interpretation of them?  (To me, this doesn’t make any sense, as being sentient and rational beings, we “created” them in the first place.  I could be completely wrong however.)

A key theme found throughout Ayn Rand’s philosophy is her unique perspective on the concept of “objectivity.”

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). (The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 2, February 1965.)

So it is the facts of reality, as grasped by a rational man using a proper method, that form the basis of ethics. We look at the nature of the world and the nature of man in order to form the ethical principles that reality requires in order for man to reach happiness by achieving his proper goals.

I may be missing some huge underlying idea here.  Any help to sort out this conglomeration of ideas would be greatly appreciated.

We can help you out to some degree – there are many here happy to answer specific questions – but you really need to study the Objectivist corpus itself. Ayn Rand developed Objectivism as an explicit philosophy over a period of time, and there is nothing quite like reading all of her work directly. However, if you want a single source which presents a systematic introduction to Objectivism, you can do no better than Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

(As a side note, after discussing Ethical Egoism for two days, our professor decided that it wouldn’t even be on the test.  When a student asked what he thought of Ms. Rand he said “I liked the Fountainhead, but she was not a very good philosopher.”  He didn’t want to go into the rest of the defences for these two ideas in the book, and called them silly.  So, I’m totally at a loss.  It almost sounded like either, the idea was too difficult for the students to fully grasp (a lot of people are having trouble in this class) or that the philosophy is so totally invalid/unsound that it’s not worth going into.  A big disappointment for me.  :slight_smile:   )

There are wonderful inroads being made into academia by Objectivst scholars, and the future looks bright for continued success. Nevertheless, they still remain but a fraction of those who teach philosophy, and aside from Objectivist professors the best you can hope for as a teacher is a reasonable person who has still has some Aristotelean ties and who has not completely succumbed to what passes for philosophy by most modernists. Unfortunately, from your description, I would not be too optimistic about your current ethics professor.

8

Thank you all who took the time to answer my questions. Especially for directing me towards the correct readings. OPAR has been recommended to me before, but I have not had the opportunity to purchase it yet. I realize the original post is probably a “philisophical mess”, but I figured if I listed the context from which I heard the ought/autonomous statement, it might make more “sense”.

They do not exist outside of our interpretation of them, nor are they merely constructs in our mind. They are facts of reality conceptualized by our minds. Meaning, they are not intrinsic in reality outside of us, nor are they merely mental stuff with no relation to reality.

This makes a great deal more sense to me than the odd idea that ethics somehow just exist on their own.

  1. Objectivism is not based on that idea. The premise rests on psychological determinism which is false. Objectivism does say that one should choose to act on rational self-interest. But, to give the explanation, I’d have to give you the entire ethics, something I am not qualified to do. Read VOS and the link Bowswer gave you.

Will do! When listening to the positions of Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism, they didn’t seem to match up to what I had been told thus far with regards to Objectivism. It seemed like a sloppy place to lump the philosophy in the textbook. Even the premises the book states of Objectivism don’t seem right. This has caused me to be suspect about all the other information we have been taught.

Unfortunately, from your description, I would not be too optimistic about your current ethics professor.

He actually started off fine. Very unorthodox however. (Lots of cussing) I have this theory that by the end of the course, he’s going to try and get the class to “support” Ethical Agnosticism, since it’s the only area of metaethics we didn’t argue. The university which I am attending is extremely liberal. (Why I am there is another story, but suffice to say, I’m horribly disappointed) It’s basically situated in a bayou, with wildlife warnings everywhere. There are a few good professors, and other than the far-fetched idea that they might have taken a job there to try and combat the radical socialist teachings (the education department is the worst), I see no reason for them to be there. Of course, I am highly grateful for their presence!