How did Ayn Rand deal with the is/ought problem? I’m sure I can find her solution in her writings, but I don’t have any of them, save the fiction, currently available to me. Also, what are the criticisms of her solution, and where might I find them?
Because it provides a context, you really have to read the entire “Objectivist Ethics” available online at ARI here
Here are a couple of quotes from that article:
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.” – Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 18
A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. – Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics, pg. 23
Thanks for the link.
Heres a great post from a while back.
j..
I would simply say she bridged the gap between is and ought with the conditional if - namely, if you choose to live, this is how you ought to live. She also ruled out other potential “ultimate values” alternative to life, and demonstrated that reason and ethics depend entirely on the initial choice to live.
So, if you offer someone guidance in response to the question, “what should I do?”, and their response is, “why should I do that?” - this is all within the context of reason and assumes the choice to live. For them to then say, “Why? The is/ought gap says everything is meaningless.” - they are asking for a reason (“Why?”), but demanding that you drop the context on which reason is founded.