The right way to make the argument, I think, is not in terms of defining a moral code this way or that, but rather to characterize what man needs for a particular purpose, namely existence.
Okay, I don’t know if this is what you were getting at, but I agree because different people have a moral code for different things, like we’ve just been over. Some people act according to a code of morals so that they can get into heaven, etc. I see it in terms of: Not everybody has consciously accepted existence as their purpose, but existence is ultimately what permits any other purpose (ie, it is the concept of life that makes the concept of value possible).
Here is how I would construct my argument, and tell me if there are points where you think it is flawed (because it might be going against what you suggested):
Man’s basic tool of survival is reason, and that tool does not come to man automatically, he is free to use it at any time or to avoid that effort (I’ll go into more detail as to why this is in the paper but I figure we all agree about it here) So, we can say that man is a creature of volitional consciousness whose primary tool of survival is his reasoning mind. This is the nature of man.
If this is the nature of man, if his primary tool of survival is something that he can use volitionally, then at any given moment of his life he is faced with the decision: life or death, or in other words: to think or not to think.
Now that this is established, let’s define “moral code” (which you said not to do, David, but I can’t see a way around this – how would you get around it?). To quote Ayn Rand: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action.” For all other living entities, that existence is automatic: A plant draws nutrients from the soil or opens up towards the sun, a wolf hunts, etc. None of these creatures make the choice to do so, it is instinctual. Considering how we defined man, that existence is NOT automatic. In order for man to SUSTAIN that existence, he needs a code of values to guide his choices and actions. Nor does that code of values come to man instinctually – he arrives at it through a process of reason. Since reason is objective, that is, derived from the facts of reality (Which I would have explained when I stated that man used reason as his tool of survival), we can say that man’s code of values is necessarily objective.
I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone has a moral code to sustain their existence – my best friend’s moral code is in place so that he can live a worthy life in the eyes of God, and Leonidas’ moral code was in place so that he could die in glorious battle for Sparta. I would call these “superficial moral codes” – everyone has one – which is to say, everyone has a different highest value – a different reason why they get out of bed every day and they have different lesser values that correspond to that.
But underlying each of these is an objective code of morals: Since it is the concept of life that makes the concept of value possible, everybody needs to sustain their life in order to keep valuing whatever it is they ultimately value.
Thus, a basic code of morals, that is defined as the values one accepts to guide one’s choices and actions, is objective, since the rules of reality do not change from person to person. On top of that, a person might consciously decide to live for whatever reason he wants, for whatever ultimate value he pleases. But this will not change the fact that in order to even HAVE that value, there are certain actions he will need to take – ie, use his reasoning mind to determine that he must drink water (that water is a value), use his reasoning mind to determine that he must eat (that food is a value). These are the same for all people in all cultures.
What did he say?