One-Size-Fits-All in Philosophy?

Ethics
1

Philosophy is that discipline and branch of knowledge which tells you what the world is like and how to live in it. It explains the nature of the universe, and how to live fully and happily.

But does the same philosophy hold for all people at all times?

It seems to, when it comes to metaphysics, epistemology, and logic. So too even politics and economics.

But what about ethics – the heart of philosophy? And what about sociology, aesthetics, psychology, and spirituality?

Does this vary from person to person based on such seminal issues as differences of age, locale, circumstances, and individual nature? Should a hated, ugly, stupid, poor, 80-year-old man in Lapland, who has extreme cancer, and is a manual laborer, practice the same philosophy as a beloved, pretty, smart, 15-year-old girl in Hawaii, who is healthy, and wants to be a poet? Would the same philosophy apply to Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Homo Erecti, and bonobos?

Maybe it’s different strokes for different folks! Certainly some level of improvisation, based on personal situation and individual nature, seems desirable and necessary.

2

First, unless you were being facetious about bonobos you’re going to need to correct your definition of philosophy. Animals do not live by reason.

Second, having the same philosophy doesn’t mean that people have to live in the same manner, choose the same things or have the same level of comprehension.

Your comparison of the wretched man and the happy girl for instance…

Perhaps if the man practiced the same philosophy as the happy intelligent beloved little girl (or as she is young the philosophy of her parents) he wouldn’t be so stupid, wretched and hated.

Anyone who is not so mentally deficient as to be considered handicapped or incompetent is capable of grasping the basics of philosophy.

Looks are largely an accident (morality is only an issue where there is choice) so they shouldn’t be a consideration philosophically.

Disease, well, cancer is awful but we’re all going to die of something. The girl could get hit by a car and die the next day and the man could still live several more years so proximity to death (other than by matters involving choice) shouldn’t matter that much either.

3

Why not spread your net even farther afield, outside Lapland and Hawaii, to, say, an advanced civilization out in Alpha Centauri. (I’m not being facetious. B) )

Wherever consciousness meets reality, there will be philosophy - the best of which, Objectivists would instantly recognise.

4

Everyone is different. Common sense indicates that different people in different circumstances need different approaches to life. This is the somewhat loose but general use of the term “philosophy.” However, perhaps the formal use of this term is appropriate too. Different people may need a different set of virtues in order to achieve their separate set of values.

5

Not everybody needs to, for example, groom dogs to achieve their best interests in life, this is true. There are lots of options for specifics in life that one adopts based on their own individual context. However, that said, the general principles of the philosophy of Objectivism are based on things that are part of the nature of reality and human nature. Those things which don’t don’t really go out the window from being relevant and important except under a select few types of circumstances which are elsewhere identified and discussed and which certainly do not tend to span whole normal human life times. Consequently, Objectivism is generally applicable for all human people as the ideal guide to running their lives and how to go about making their individual choices in their individual context, pretty much in any time and place, sans those few short time exceptions mentioned above.

6

I tried living according to Objectivist principles and it doesn’t float my boat. Why? Because it requires me to take certain ideals which I think are important to one degree or another, but jack them up higher on my priority than I’m comfortable with. It went against my every fiber of my being to live according to Rand’s philosophy. It made me feel unhappy and miserable trying to suppress values which came naturally to me. The only way I could sustain it was to fuel how right I was by demonstrating how wrong and immoral altruism was.

What values did it conflict with? I think it’s important to preserve the biosphere on this planet as much as possible, but Objectivism promotes not just a big foot print, but getting away with as much as possible by rationalizing and down playing the extent our foot prints have on this planet.

Economics, equality and ecology are in equal footing with me. The assertion that doing anything except making dollars the #1 priority in economics inexorably leads to disaster is laughable to me. The only way Rand could demonstrate how her axioms demand that one must make money a top priority in Atlas Shrugged is if she made all the altruists in her story extreme caricatures that sure don’t reflect me at all. Why aren’t they moderates? A moderate wouldn’t make the crazy decisions that James Taggart (et el) needed to make in order for her point to get across, thus undermining her entire premise.

An indirect consequence of Objectivism would be how education would be approached. The way education is taught in society reflects the end goals of the education. In the case of a staunch capitalist society, the goal would be to produce people with agentic qualities and who excel in very narrow academic measures. Why would such a society care about someone like me, autistic and diagnosed learning disabled early on? The only reason I hadn’t fallen through the cracks is because of government programs which seek fairness in society by helping people like me. “Charity” is often thrown in as a quick addendum to fill in a crack without much after thought given to it. Who would fund a charity? Well, only those who have a vested interest in the problem. That would be the parents. But how would such individuals fit in a society? A leaning bus exposes children to “broken humans”; Clearly, a person like me has no place in an Objectivist society.

Inflicting pain on animals for sadistic reasons, while frowned on due to sociopathic tendencies, is in itself considered moral in Objectivist ethics. Abhorrent, and I can make that moral judgment free of Rand’s axioms. (A lot like how atheists condemn the Bible’s morality despite rejecting the Bible’s moral authority.)

A great Mark Twain quote that I like goes something like this: “I will live my life in a way that will kill anyone else.” By that he meant every person has their own way. There is no way in hell all 6 billion people would happily accept Objectivism “if only they understood it.” There’s no way everyone on this planet will be a Christian, muslim, atheist, etc. Plauralism is endemic to human nature and there’s no way around that.

7

Zedic, Not sure where to start, almost every paragraph in your post is strawman caricature of Objectivism. You’re right to move on; just go!

1 Like
8

It’s not about being right or viewing Objectivism from an angel that sits well with your sensibilities. It’s a demonstration of a false assumption Objectivism makes. It’s simply not for everyone. She didn’t solve Hume’s is-ought problem. No one “ought” to be an Objectivist in life. It’s a matter of what appeals to you as an individual.

9

Wow. Here are just a few comments.

Economics, equality and ecology are in equal footing with me. The assertion that doing anything except making dollars the #1 priority in economics inexorably leads to disaster is laughable to me. The only way Rand could demonstrate how her axioms demand that one must make money a top priority in Atlas Shrugged is if she made all the altruists in her story extreme caricatures that sure don’t reflect me at all.

If you seriously think she advocates this, you should reread The Fountainhead, especially the portion where Roark passes up a huge contract to go work in a granite quarry in order to preserve his integrity.

Inflicting pain on animals for sadistic reasons, while frowned on due to sociopathic tendencies, is in itself considered moral in Objectivist ethics. Abhorrent, and I can make that moral judgment free of Rand’s axioms. (A lot like how atheists condemn the Bible’s morality despite rejecting the Bible’s moral authority.)

It should be legal. It’s certainly not moral. There’s a huge difference.

A great Mark Twain quote that I like goes something like this: “I will live my life in a way that will kill anyone else.” By that he meant every person has their own way. There is no way in hell all 6 billion people would happily accept Objectivism “if only they understood it.” There’s no way everyone on this planet will be a Christian, muslim, atheist, etc. Plauralism is endemic to human nature and there’s no way around that.

Rand began her exploration of ethics by examining the nature of life itself. The conclusions she drew from this apply to all living organisms (the agent-centered nature of life-sustaining action as the basis for values). The specific virtues that she advocated are all drawn from facts that apply to all human beings, by virtue of human nature. I’d recommend re-reading that section of Galt’s speech; especially where she identifies each virtue as “the recognition of the fact that…” For example, “Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it - that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life…” Who, exactly, does this not apply to? The virtues are courses of action that are required by certain facts that are true about all human beings; this is why they are general virtues. The application of each of these virtues to each person’s life is different, but they are all necessitated by fundamental facts of what it means to be human. This is the basis of her defense of her system as a rational and objective code of morality.

1 Like
10

Just to tack on re: the animal rights issue, and this is pure heresay of course, but I thought it was interesting that according to an interview with Barbara Branden, Rand felt strongly about animals (she owned cats), but just was not able to find any justificaiton for any natural rights for them:

Liberty: Okay… What did Rand think about animal rights?

Branden: Here she was very honest. I remember her a few times

saying that she would love it if someone would come along

with a proof for animal rights. She wasn’t able to prove it. But

she would be thrilled if somebody could. It was something she

felt quite strongly about. But she herself was not able to find

proof.

Source: http://mises.org/journals/liberty/Liberty_Magazine_January_1990.pdf

11

What values did it conflict with? I think it’s important to preserve the biosphere on this planet as much as possible, but Objectivism promotes not just a big foot print, but getting away with as much as possible by rationalizing and down playing the extent our foot prints have on this planet.

Straw man. Objectivism the philosophy has nothing to say directly about the biosphere - but it does say that one must always live and act long term. Objectivists are not in favor of destroying the environment because that is inherently self destructive. There is disagreement about what constitutes destroying the environment - yes - but that is addressed with rational proofs concerning the environment, not by attacking the philosophy which, if your premises are correct, would *require* Objectivists to accept your conclusions.

The assertion that doing anything except making dollars the #1 priority in economics inexorably leads to disaster is laughable to me.

Another straw-man.

If you’ve only read Atlas Shrugged you do not understand Objectivism’s position on money.

Atlas Shrugged is a primer, not a bible. The characters are 1 dimensional to illustrate a point - and not the point you seem to think is trying to be made.

Why would such a society care about someone like me, autistic and diagnosed learning disabled early on? The only reason I hadn’t fallen through the cracks is because of government programs which seek fairness in society by helping people like me.

Define fair. Define society. What is society but a collection of individuals?

“Charity” is often thrown in as a quick addendum to fill in a crack without much after thought given to it. Who would fund a charity? Well, only those who have a vested interest in the problem. That would be the parents.

False assumption. I have no children, nor am I likely to. I fund charities that help children, that look for cures to disease, that help people who need a hand up and deserve one.

I am an objectivst. I do these things because I VALUE them. They do not contradict my Objectivist principles in the slightest.

Inflicting pain on animals for sadistic reasons, while frowned on due to sociopathic tendencies, is in itself considered moral in Objectivist ethics.

You are again posing a straw man. If you search my post history, you will find that I have labored to find a rational argument for laws requiring “humane” treatment of animals. I have never found an O’ist who thought animal torture was MORAL.

12

Maybe it’s different strokes for different folks! Certainly some level of improvisation, based on personal situation and individual nature, seems desirable and necessary.

Maybe not all humans need air to breathe and nutritious food to live. Maybe it’s different strokes for different folks. My personal situation and individual nature is such that I like to eat rubble and drink propane and breathe methane. Silly Objectivists, thinking that certain facts about human nature and reality give rise to the need for certain generalizations and principles.

13

If you seriously think she advocates this, you should reread The Fountainhead, especially the portion where Roark passes up a huge contract to go work in a granite quarry in order to preserve his integrity.

I understand that principles come first. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged (and I’m familiar with the general plot outline of The Fountain Head). But perhaps I was mistaken. Objectivism is more concerned about how we impact the environment or about homeless people falling through the cracks than it is the dollar, no?

I’d recommend re-reading that section of Galt’s speech; especially where she identifies each virtue as “the recognition of the fact that…” For example, “Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it - that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life…” Who, exactly, does this not apply to?

I can agree with those basic values. On a day to day basis I probably share a lot in common with other Objectivists than not. But when those values are applied to something bigger than myself, such as society or animal welfare, it simply doesn’t work for me.

14

I understand that principles come first. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged (and I’m familiar with the general plot outline of The Fountain Head). But perhaps I was mistaken. Objectivism is more concerned about how we impact the environment or about homeless people falling through the cracks than it is the dollar, no?

Money is just a symbol of one’s productivity, not that the more you have, the better of a person you are. All people need productivity to exist, but not all people do productivity in the same way. People vary in physical and mental capabilities, so there are necessarily different methods required to achieve productivity. One thing is required for all people though: reason. The environment should be considered to the extent it impacts your life. Helping people that have fallen through the cracks should be considered to the extent those people impact your life. Making those considerations requires using reason. Different facts need to be considered depending on who you are as an individual, the facts that make you unique compared to everyone else on the planet.

1 Like
15

Objectivists are not in favor of destroying the environment because that is inherently self destructive. There is disagreement about what constitutes destroying the environment - yes - but that is addressed with rational proofs concerning the environment , not by attacking the philosophy which, if your premises are correct, would *require* Objectivists to accept your conclusions.

That right there is the big distinction. Objectivism says it’s not in favor of destroying the environment, but in words only. If there’s ever a situation that pits human civilization against the continued health of the environent, Objectivism is always on the side of denying that we’re having any appreciable affect on this planet. There is decades of scientific research by thousands upon thousands of highly trained scientists about our impact on the environment and subsequently on ourselves. Yet Objectivism is miraculously still in denial.

If you’ve only read Atlas Shrugged you do not understand Objectivism’s position on money.

Atlas Shrugged is a primer, not a bible. The characters are 1 dimensional to illustrate a point - and not the point you seem to think is trying to be made.

I don’t claim to be any sort of expert in philosophy. I’m a physicist, philosophy is only a hobby so there’s always the possibility for misunderstanding on my part. But anyone can create 1 dimensional characters to make any kind point. It’s still not demonstrative of reality.

Define fair. Define society. What is society but a collection of individuals?

I think it’s only fair I’m given the opportunity to over come my disabilities to become a fully functioning adult. That can include accommodations provided by Institutions and protection against discrimination by laws such as the ADA. Those accommodations have served me well in life and I’m very close to being a 100% autonomous and contributing member of society. But early on there was no evidence that I could ever become a contributing member of society. In an Objectivist society that would of regarded the early me as a mental deficient, where would I of fit in? Would I of had a chance?

False assumption. I have no children, nor am I likely to. I fund charities that help children, that look for cures to disease, that help people who need a hand up and deserve one.

I am an objectivst. I do these things because I VALUE them. They do not contradict my Objectivist principles in the slightest.

The part I disagree with is the emphasis. That’s where I depart from Objectivism. I believe all people deserve compassion. I believe in finding the “divine” (I use that word symbolically) in all individual. It’s not always easy but it’s a personal conviction I can’t sever.

You are again posing a straw man. If you search my post history, you will find that I have labored to find a rational argument for laws requiring “humane” treatment of animals. I have never found an O’ist who thought animal torture was MORAL.

Yes, I was factually mistaken here. Correction: Objectivists do not find animal torture moral. But my contention is with anti-Animal Welfare. The fact that Objectivism can’t find a justification for animal welfare is proof (to me at least) of its moral failure. If it can’t find a reason to protect an innocent dog who can’t help himself, but must rely on human kindness for his very life, when he’s being brutally beat or mutilated then it fails to meet even a basic moral requirement. Peer pressure can work on someone who has a conscience. But for anyone who has ever worked with animals or done animal rescue (such as myself) knows for a fact that it’s largely useless in fighting abuse.

16

That right there is the big distinction. Objectivism says it’s not in favor of destroying the environment, but in words only. If there’s ever a situation that pits human civilization against the continued health of the environent, Objectivism is always on the side of denying that we’re having any appreciable affect on this planet. There is decades of scientific research by thousands upon thousands of highly trained scientists about our impact on the environment and subsequently on ourselves. Yet Objectivism is miraculously still in denial.

There is no “Objectivist position” on any scientific question related to the environment. The fact that the vast majority of Objectivists believe something does not make it part of Objectivism. You should make your own judgments based on the evidence; whatever conclusion you come to regarding, say, global warming would not make you more or less of an Objectivist.

I think it’s only fair I’m given the opportunity to over come my disabilities to become a fully functioning adult. That can include accommodations provided by Institutions and protection against discrimination by laws such as the ADA. Those accommodations have served me well in life and I’m very close to being a 100% autonomous and contributing member of society. But early on there was no evidence that I could ever become a contributing member of society. In an Objectivist society that would of regarded the early me as a mental deficient, where would I of fit in? Would I of had a chance?

It is certainly desirable to have a society in which those with disabilities can receive assistance by others in overcoming or in dealing with their disabilities. However, the central question relevant to Objectivism is how such assistance should be funded. A system of assistance based on compulsory, coercive funding is premised on a society of servitude, a society in which we owe unchosen obligations to one another. However, a system of voluntary assistance is premised on a society of mutual respect for rights and autonomy, and benevolence towards those around us. Objectivism advocates the latter, and this is not at all synonymous with advocating eliminating all help to our fellow man.

There would be no central “Objectivist society” that would regard ‘the early you’ in a certain way. Thinking about society as this big lump is a mistake. There would simply be individuals who make choices regarding their wealth. All the voluntary organizations to help disadvantaged people would still exist, and people would still contribute. A huge number of Americans have had their lives personally touched by autism or learning disabilities, and this tends to instill a personal desire in those affected to help others who have faced the same thing. To draw a parallel to my own life, a few years ago I was very close to someone with Lupus, an incurable autoimmune disease. Since then, I have contributed to foundations which are set up to deal with the disease. Encountering something like that in your life generally makes you more willing to help others deal with it, and this is a perfectly rational and appropriate response. This is what I predict would happen in an Objectivist society.

The part I disagree with is the emphasis. That’s where I depart from Objectivism. I believe all people deserve compassion. I believe in finding the “divine” (I use that word symbolically) in all individual. It’s not always easy but it’s a personal conviction I can’t sever.

Not quite sure what you mean by finding the divine in everyone. It’s certainly true that every person has the potential to make moral decisions, to change the course of their life at any point in time. In that respect, you might decide that all human beings deserve something. However, it’s also true that most people have some characteristic manner of acting in different spheres of their life, and we can judge them on this basis. It’s important to take a realistic look at the people around you. On the one hand, you shouldn’t forget that everyone has the potential to live a moral life, but on the other hand people should be judged according to their actions. Making this judgment in any particular case is an individual’s responsibility, but I would urge realism above all in determining what people deserve.

17

I think it’s only fair I’m given the opportunity to over come my disabilities to become a fully functioning adult. That can include accommodations provided by Institutions and protection against discrimination by laws such as the ADA. Those accommodations have served me well in life and I’m very close to being a 100% autonomous and contributing member of society. But early on there was no evidence that I could ever become a contributing member of society. In an Objectivist society that would of regarded the early me as a mental deficient, where would I of fit in? Would I of had a chance?

The interesting thing is that your statements are undeniable proof of why Rand’s principled approach is so important.

Everything you are saying about what you are glad for having yourself is proof that you indulge yourself in the kind of selfish lack of concern for the lives of others that you accuse Objectivists of.

That many people have their rights violated and their property stolen via taxes for improper government programs.. that’s fine by you because it benefits you

The ADA laws which often keep small business people from living up to their potential because so many of them are ridiculous and almost all of them are prohibitively expensive for a small business to accomodate…that’s fine by you because thwarting those other people’s potential allowed you to live up to yours

The people who are out of work because their employer was unable to afford ADA modifications in their workplace.. that’s fine that the business is gone and the jobs with it… how dare someone make a living doing something that doesn’t accomodate you?!

That the school system is nogged down in an avalanche of lawsuits and redtape trying to accomodate every disability known to man real and imagined is in part responsible for the collapse of the school system… that’s fine by you because cutting budgets for all those necessary things benefitted you and those other kids that had Latin and formal logic and advanced classes taken away to make room for you don’t matter nearly as much as you.

There is a monster of deviant and irrational selfishness here and he is you.

1 Like