Morality: Who Needs It?
I saw jdg's comment yesterday, and I thought this would make a great discussion. My point here is to distinguish Objectivist Ethics from Libertarian Ethics and Western religions' Ethics So, thanks jdg for sparking the topic, here's your comment:
"Morality *is* nothing more than taste -- each person defines his own. This doesn't mean no one should bother having one; it means we all should choose carefully, since your moral code determines how far (and by whom) you can be trusted -- and even if there is neither hell nor karma, there is reputation.
The philosophy of liberty implies assuming that other people are adults, who know this and can each handle its consequences for themselves. Christianity (and other western faiths), while they superficially seem to support similar moral views, assumes that we are all not adults but sheep, who need a shepherd to lead us. I find that view absolutely abhorrent."
and here is the Objectivist response:
"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride." Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged
The key here is that reason is man's only tool for knowledge, and that morality is objective. Certainly man makes choices, and he either consciously makes wrong choices or within his limited knowledge makes wrong choices. Objectivism rejects that morality is a "matter of taste." One could make the argument that man is always at the mercy of his limited knowledge and so therefore cannot know morality completely, therefore is destined to either fail or that morality cannot be properly defined so that it is different from one man to the next without some divine source bestowing morality onto man. To that, here is a response:
"Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it “arbitrary postulate” or “subjective choice” or “emotional commitment”)—and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one’s own or society’s or the dictator’s or God’s. Whatever else they may disagree about, today’s moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality."Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness
Is morality/Ethics objective or subjective? If objective, then can we gain knowledge of morality scientifically?
"Morality *is* nothing more than taste -- each person defines his own. This doesn't mean no one should bother having one; it means we all should choose carefully, since your moral code determines how far (and by whom) you can be trusted -- and even if there is neither hell nor karma, there is reputation.
The philosophy of liberty implies assuming that other people are adults, who know this and can each handle its consequences for themselves. Christianity (and other western faiths), while they superficially seem to support similar moral views, assumes that we are all not adults but sheep, who need a shepherd to lead us. I find that view absolutely abhorrent."
and here is the Objectivist response:
"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride." Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged
The key here is that reason is man's only tool for knowledge, and that morality is objective. Certainly man makes choices, and he either consciously makes wrong choices or within his limited knowledge makes wrong choices. Objectivism rejects that morality is a "matter of taste." One could make the argument that man is always at the mercy of his limited knowledge and so therefore cannot know morality completely, therefore is destined to either fail or that morality cannot be properly defined so that it is different from one man to the next without some divine source bestowing morality onto man. To that, here is a response:
"Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it “arbitrary postulate” or “subjective choice” or “emotional commitment”)—and the battle is only over the question of whose whim: one’s own or society’s or the dictator’s or God’s. Whatever else they may disagree about, today’s moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reason—mind—reality."Objectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness
Is morality/Ethics objective or subjective? If objective, then can we gain knowledge of morality scientifically?
That being said, the morality of my local culture says that it is immoral to not recycle, to be a climate denier, to endorse petroleum products. I dispute the essential 'good' of these moral objectives, but I do not deny that most of the people around me consider them a 'given'.
Let me take a pithier example: It is widely considered immoral to think that there are actually fundamental differences between the capabilities of different races or between genders. But scientific observation indicates that there are such differences: Asians are about 4 IQ points higher than Caucasians, for example. This is a case where morality is at odds with science.
Ethics, I think is more of a 'first person singular' decision: a physician could say, "I abide by the Hippocratic oath."
Jan
"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.
The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"
there is no distinction objectively
I'm not religious person, or biblical scholar, but I do believe there is value in that book (although I also believe some take it too literally which is what turns many people away from it).
Just considering the10 commandments, everything you just said was already written. Why is that not enough for our moral code?
Is the 10 commandments objective or subjective?
Hank Rearden committed adultery. Was he acting immorally?
Bottom line: the 10 commandments are...wait for it...commandments. They are not vetted in reason or objectivity. They are handed down by God to man. It is a lousy way of building a logical philosophy of life.
If someone telling you not to do something immediately raises the question 'why not?'; someone telling you what to do as your duty immediately provokes the question 'why' -- not just over the specific content but much more fundamentally, why submit to do any demand at all under a claimed rule of 'because your duty says so'. It ignores and negates an objective ethics based on knowledge of requirements for human life in accordance with the nature of man.
See Ayn Rand's explanation in "Duty versus Causality" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It.
'Do whatever you want because you choose to' versus 'do what you are told out of inherent duty' takes us back to the false alternative of the subjective versus the intrinsic discussed a few days ago as it pertains to rights. The false alternative is just as destructive as a basis for morality as it is for the basis of rights, and is the same issue at root because rights are moral principles and because both concern human conceptual knowledge. Rights are a moral sanction of freedom of action in a social context; morality pertains to all individual choices whether social or not.
The notion of duty ethics through supernatural commandments expressing commitment to the mystically intrinsic is one of the fundamental distinctions between Ayn Rand's ethics and Christianity.
Religious conservatives do not understand Ayn Rand's ethics even when sympathetic to some aspects of them because in part they are psychologically embedded in the duty ethics of the mystically intrinsic with no explanation or validation, supplanting objective knowledge and objective values which are neither subjective nor intrinsic.
On the other side are a-philosophical "libertarians" who enshrine the subjective, rejecting contextually absolute principles of ethics, as they plunge immediately into politics with no base.
Neither side understands the objectivity of knowledge of reality as grasped by man's conceptual method of thinking, in this case pertaining to the requirements of human life making ethics a science, neither a decree nor a whim.
I only wanted the 4 corners of commandments to be the discussion.
that's why I was trying to be careful in clarifying that in my post.
I believe that a lot of wisdom is contained in at least some of those 'commandments' but, again, as "commandments" they imply forever and immutable and unarguable. I suspect Rand might not have gotten on board that train...
:)
It shaped our Constitution.
I agree, it's a dangerous train to catch.
But, I think it's nearly impossible to discuss "morals/ethics" without at least acknowledging them.
What separates man from animal? Was it that 5000 year old document?
It's origins and authority are not relevant. It exists.
A part of me also enjoys the spirited discussion :-)
Not that I want to whiz anyone off, I just like the exchange of ideas and thoughts.
There is a lot of smart, and enlightened people here.
So, if 'its origins and authority are not relevant but its existence is....' then we could easily be following the many Gospels published by Marvel Comics! Origins? Feh! Existence? Beyond any doubt!
Cheers!
Reminds me of the quote from Hillary about 'how much time she spent in the White House' as being a Qualification to run for President.
One wag replied that the Head Chef in the WH probably served there longer than she lived there... :) Get his name as a write-in in '16!
Have you been to a Star Trek convention??? It's a religion :-)
Hillary is qualified because she shares DNA with Bill. Everyone liked Bill, so she'll be liked as well. Scientific Consensus.
Substitute societal guidelines instead of commandments and then reconsider.
Also, as Heinlein put it in one of his novels I believe, a lot of them derive down to do not steal, something objectivism supports.
Seems as if few can do that.
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ten_...
"The Creator of the universe declares He is our God and our deliverer and asks us to demonstrate our love for Him by having no other God's."
"Gods" .... FIFY... pass it on.
The origin of the commandments for the purpose of this discussion, is not relevant.
Whether the commandments were heavenly, or mortal makes no difference. Just evaluate them for what they are.
I was watching a show on history or something that looked at this mainly from a Historical stance and showed how commandment 5-10 were transgressions by man on others that lead to a break down of society.
Coveting, leads to theft, which can lead to murder, etc.
I look at these and say, "respect each other".
Where commandment 1-4 were transgressions against god (regardless of your definition of god), I can look at that and say," respect the planet, remember your place in it, there is nothing more them me, don't idol it."
I really believe the "idol" clause is pretty much saying, the universe is it, there is nothing greater then it, don't pray to magical deities - there are none.
These 10 commandment (moral codes) made for a functional community.
Is "Commandment" (by definition) any different than "Law" that our police uphold?
A rose by any other name...
>Should you honor a bad mother and father?
I don't think that's fair. If your parents did not act honorably, then I would say, you are under no obligation.
>Hank Rearden committed adultery. Was he acting immorally?
Yes. Did it dishonor him, or his family? If it affected no one else, then it wasn't immoral.
Biblically (time, not text) Adultery could lead to offspring which could cloud inheritance and property rights. Which can be a big problem for a small village.
If the first son is a bastard, then who inherits their fathers property upon his death?
Getting caught with your neighbors with can get you killed also.
Of the simplest, of simplest laws can go, the 10 commandments achieve this, and it didn't require law degrees to interpret, it was easy for a village elder to make determinations.
Today, we don't have these problems, mainly because we consider ourselves educated and enlightened people capable of acting in a civil and responsible manner.
Instead of being ordained by a legislative body, they were cast in stone by some greater power.
Morally, ethically, and functionally, what's wrong with them as a "code of conduct"?
Forget religious interpretation (Remember the Sabbath and sit on a hard wooden bench for hours and listen to someone babble endlessly wondering why you ever gave up cutting yourself)
Everyone gets hung up over the religious connotations of the 10 commandments and I think that's wrong. It's just a law, just like our laws today. they just happen to be "moral" law.
We wouldn't ask our gov't to make a moral law (although they do). But in order to have a civil society, WE have to have a common code of conduct. Why doesn't the 10 commandments minimally fill that bill.
um, tell admin that. scott completely disagrees with you about the expressing part.. we're just learning together. reading Rand is important. you don't have to agree, but in order to say she's full of shit you have to read. welcome to the gulch. you put alot of skin in the game today. thanks. i appreciate it
By definition and practice, philosophy has nothing to do with religion nor is it comparable. They are two separate identities.
Definitions:
religion |riˈlijən| noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
philosophy |fəˈläsəfē| noun (pl. philosophies)
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Denial of words you actually write and attempts to confuse and conflate definitions of words used and their identities are perfect examples and demonstrations of the importance of moralities based on and formed from the philosophy of Objectivism.
The morality and ethics of an Objectivist can be measured and confirmed by and through actions and the reasoned and logically rational roots of those actions. His integrity is observed and measured in every statement and argument he makes.
An individual attempting to justify or explain his morality and ethics as commands from his superhuman 'controlling power' has no need to submit to such measurement and integrity question. His god said he had to. That's his reason and his only logic. God said, and he'll punish me if I don't.
But what happens when he's out of his god's sight or interacting with another that doesn't believe in the same god and commands?
And therein lies the rub and the difference, even more so than just definitional. The Objectivist has his philosophy with him at all times, in all places, and with all others. It is who and what he is, not simply who and what his god tells him to be.
Each present a code of conduct, each present an outlook on life, each influence an outlook toward death, each encourage depth of study to better understand it, each influence the daily behavior of the individual, and each has its fervent believers.
I'm sure I can draw more parallels but I'm typing off the top of my head.
There's reagans interpretation of conservatism, and there's Ted cruz's.
The religion of Ronny, or the followers of Cruz.
I believe the Bible is a mix... some great moral lessons and some things we would find immoral today. Like any religious text, it can be abused and some believers without a good moral compass will interpret even the worst parts as still acceptable and sanctioned by God. Just as the Koran is being used today. Some parts of the 10 commandments are subjective. Alone they are also lacking in prohibitions of many behaviors we would find immoral today, like cruel and unusual punishment... Generally followed they are mostly harmless, but in order to define a universal standard of morality one need not look to a set of rules with a supernatural origin. This is what objectivist doctrine reliant on natural rights accomplishes. It is good for all. Much like the golden rule, but logically arrived at, explained and founded on everyone's existence and that which is necessary for mutual continuance.
Others have also now provided additional excellent replies.
Respectfully,
O.A.
The Objective ethics is not based on natural rights, it's the other way around. Natural rights are an application of ethics. Both apply to all because both are based on the nature of man.
Quite right. I only mention it because it is part of why I consider parts of them subjective. Since you are not analyzing that, I suppose it is a mute point.
My concern is that since the source is the Old Testament the context may be of concern to others. There are many things like stoning someone for adultery, incest and slavery that are not condemned by the commandments and the Old Testament God is a vengeful one.... Fortunately the New Testament has a different context and message. This is where one's moral compass must come into play. That said: The Altruism displayed and demanded in the New Testament is of concern for objectivists since it places the needs of others not even equal to but above the needs of self. In her Playboy interview of 1964 Rand said, "Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the non-ideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice."
There is no doubt about the impact on western civilization over the last 2 thousand years.. Both good and bad.
Many would consider the morals of great value while others would consider the mysticism to have been a hindrance to rational thought. It depends upon one's personal philosophy. I have often thought that without moral teachings in churches of the past many would not have received any at all... We cannot change history. we can only point the way for the future.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Agreed. we're on the same page.
>In her Playboy interview of 1964 Rand said
Every time I hear that, I get this image that just seems wrong?? Sports Illustrated wouldn't have seemed bad. But Playboy? :-)
Freedom is the lack of restrictions from making choices, is it not? And what restricts you from making choices? Making bad choices which bring punishments. You can view the Ten Commandments as restrictive, or you can view them as things to do to maintain your freedom.
Example: Thou shalt not covet. What happens when you do covet? You irrationally assign more value to some specific person or thing than it actually has. By changing the true value of that object you affect your own behavior and place all of your subsequent decision-making in deference to this erroneous value assignment. Is that not limiting one's own freedom? I think it is. If one was talking to a more "versed"/learned people (pun intended), one might put the "commandment" in the following terms: "thou shalt treat reality as itself" or "A = A."
I'm afraid that in regard to freedom, my definition is quite different than yours. I see freedom as the natural state of man and is unconditional. I don't require the lack of restrictions, because that requires that I acknowledge restrictions of my freedom could exist, and that there exists something or someone that has the right to restrict it. Freedom is total or its not longer freedom, its slavery.
As I remember your example, It should state, Thou should not covet your neighbor's ass or wife. That doesn't mean you shouldn't covet. It's ok to covet an ass or a wife, just not that of your neighbor. That strikes me as entirely moral in that the nature of a man is to obtain what he needs for his life through the use of his mind and his labor, but not through the use of force.
Then conflating a commandment with A=A is a bit outside of reality.
I actually agree with you that freedom is man's natural state. It's just that every single one of us abrogates some portion of natural law at some time in our lives and therefore reaps the consequences of reduced freedom. And I agree with you that a lack of total freedom is some degree of slavery - a limitation on choice.
As to coveting, it is differentiated from merely wanting. Coveting involves obsession with something such that one's value of that thing is distorted towards overstatement. Hatred is another form of misperception where something is undervalued. Both of these cases are a willful choice to assign A != A. I find the analogy incredible apt and wholly consistent with reality. I would respectfully request that you explain why you think otherwise.
Of course natural law has consequences, but I don't need government or my fellow men to enshrine it in writing or court precedence and interpretation in order to understand it or follow it. It is part and parcel of the natural state of man.
As to covet; Definition: covet |ˈkəvət| verb (covets, coveting, coveted) [ with obj. ]yearn to possess or have (something) and it's Thesaurus description: covet verb even with all they have, they covet the wealth of others: desire, yearn for, crave, have one's heart set on, want, wish for, long for, hanker after/for, hunger after/for, thirst for.
Included in it's definition is want. You imply that it's definition is a stronger form of want, but I don't find that, with the exception of wanting what someone else has. Simply understanding that initiation of force is wrong handles that issue fine for me.
Without coveting something, why would man work to produce more than he needs to survive. It is a positive aspect of man's nature to want and strive for more. Its a driving force of man's nature.
As to hate; I hate broccoli, liver, statism, collectivism, anything that detracts from my individual rights. in fact I abhor such things. Hate, disgust, those things are just expressions of taste, of discriminating which tells man what to avoid. They are only problems when man doesn't use his mind and logical reason to evaluate his reaction. Again, there's no need for any of government's or man's laws to deal with that. Pass all the laws you want, I'll still hate broccoli and liver.
I hope that explains things.
But that is precisely what I am talking about: the fact that laws (natural laws) exist independent of man. I agree with you that man can either choose to live by them or not - that he can choose to enshrine them in the publicly accepted legal code of the day or not - but one way or the other they remain laws whether man likes them or not.
You use the English dictionary definition for covetousness. I am using the original Hebrew word, thus our differences. I still agree with you that the initiation of force to obtain something is morally wrong. The question is this: if there is a natural law outlawing theft (something that says theft is wrong), what is the punishment for abrogation? Without such a punishment, there is no law. Without law, morality becomes whim and preference - lacking of any kind of enforcement mechanism. What agent exists to act on behalf of natural law to exact punishment for violation?
Unfortunately, English is a bastardized language (as per my wife the linguist). We use so many words as synonyms for degrees of something that it sometimes precludes perfect understanding or meaning - and I'm not talking about the definition of "is". I can say I hate the taste of cauliflower (my personal non-choice of vegetable), but what I am actually saying is that the taste offends my palate. Within such a statement is the recognition that it is a potential flaw on my behalf (people like my oldest daughter really like the stuff) that results in my behavior. This is substantially different from when we say we hate a person because we are saying that that individual's very being - their "A" - is offensive to us. C.S. Lewis described it much more eloquently in one of his books (I think it might be "The Problem of Pain" but I'm not sure). He said basically that it isn't necessarily the thing itself which we hate, like, etc., but some resultant behavior or attribute of the thing. It is not A itself we hate, but an attribute of A which we find offensive. That construct similarly is very cavalier in English especially where in some other languages (especially Middle Eastern ones), they actually have a "being" verb that names the essence of something apart from just how we perceive it.
Thus I perceive and use the word "hate" with reference to objects to be a crutch of language, but not part of the original prohibition which was much more precise and strict and warned against mis-evaluating the inherent worth of something - especially people.
some of what you said is due to interpretation of the commandments. which I said, I think people read way too much into them.
Let me just take one thing and address it, cuz it intrigued me.
>>> disorganized list of "do nots."
I don't think they're disorganized. I wish I knew the name of the program I watch, but it was really good at discussing that. There is a historical justification for them and they made sense.
>>> "Do nots"
Well, maybe this is better.
It's sort of like "pornography". I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.
I can't tell you how to step on someones toes, but I can tell you not to do it.
Do not kill - is there a anti way of saying that?
Do not steal - same thing, how else would you say that.
I follow you regarding the first 4, but those are the one's I think we read to much in to.
Believe me, I'm no bible thumper by any means. I love history, and I believe that book (original text, not TNG) has very historical significance and we shouldn't dismiss it so easily - that's where I'm coming from.
I will reserve further comment.
For instance, I may enjoy eating pork.
But I am not to do anyone harm.
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-31.htm
I have free will.
I am free will.
I am a slave to no religion or philosophy.
God's truth has set me free.
Jesus is the door to God.
valueless.
Food
Defense
Sex
That seems superfluous.
That would imply our sole purpose is to bring consciousness to the universe. Look up, go "ahhhh", and die. Not a very self sustaining business plan :-)
Sacrificial animal. Big fish eats little fish, survival of the fittest.
Someone is someone else's dinner. One dies so another can live.
I don't think it's anti life at all.
Basic, basic, basic. you have to eat, or you're suicidal. You have to protect yourself, or you're someone else's dinner, happiness is reproducing (or trying like hell).
Happiness is a warm gun - John Lennon :-)
you are enjoying being cynical with me. that's ok, but not helpful to you objectively understanding morality.
"Sacrificial animal. Big fish eats little fish, survival of the fittest.
Someone is someone else's dinner. One dies so another can live. "
you are having a party conflating concepts.
I think the constitution is a different animal in this topic. I understand what your saying but i think it also complicates the discussion.
I think you're discussing morality in a 21st century perspective and I think that clouds the discussion. in the simplest terms what is mans purpose - thats what i was addressing. my response to you, not intending to be cynical, was merely stating, happiness is icing on the cake. it isn't necessary to life. or your moral well being.
I don't intend to be a sacrificial animal, I don't think any animal does, it just happens, it's life. It's not moral or immoral. sometimes you are a bug, sometimes you're a windshield.
assuming you're not enslaved by another.
>>but in order to be purpose it must be productive work and furthers life.
further life...mine, to reproduce.
no, I don't understand how mans basic purpose is anything other than to survive and reproduce. You may feel that reduces us to nothing more than an animal, but guess what, we are. anything we achieve beyond that, is icing on the cake, bully for us.
There is nothing I said that was against "living".
The argument/discussion was "happiness" as a purpose. I said, its not a relevant "purpose". It's a "want" not a "need" - right?
khalling and I seem to have a difference in opinion regarding "mankind" the superior being, or "mankind" the capable animal.
If mankind is a superior being, then happiness might be relevant. I don't think it changes the fact that happiness is not relevant in either case.
Therefore, choosing not to have children is immoral, and once you have raised your children you have no further purpose in life.
"What ever it takes for you to achieve that goal is moral." Including robbery,rape, and exterminating members of other gene pools who compete with you for food?
That nurturing fits in with..
Food
Defense
Sex
until the offspring can mange that themselves.
certainly another worthy question.
What separates us from animals??
We're the top of the evolutionary ladder - so what?
Just because we're a more capable animal doesn't change the fact we're still animals.
Do animals have morals? I'd say yes.
I don't want to drag the thread off topic.
if you're intent was to include "nurture" into my list of "purpose", I can go along with that, but that's an interesting addition because my list is a non-emotional list (objective) of must haves/needs.
Nurture, is an emotional (subjective) want. One persons nurture, is another's neglect.
Whether my offspring lives or dies doesn't impact my survival, only my DNA.
I can morally quantify food, I NEED 2000 calories/day.
I can quantify sex, how far can I spread my DNA?
I can't quantify nurture, how much love do I spread?
Morality is objective. Existence exists. I don't know if we could gain knowledge of morality scientifically.
I do think the that vast majority of people today feel (oh wo wo wo) that morality is subjective. If it feels good to me then it's good regardless of the consequences.
Jan, carnivore
morality is based on reality, it is not whatever value someone chooses. I am not immoral for eating meat. we are omnivores and animals do not have rights. therefore, vegans' claim of morality/immorality for eating/not eating meat is not based in reality, and not a valid claim.
With the inevitable follow on that you use that same framework to judge most, but not all actions of others.
If an individual is one of those benighted 'people' unable or unwilling to judge the actions of yourself or others, then they have no morals.
Judgment, and the ability to exercise it are a base requirement to morality. Whether you use reason or emotion as the impetus for any given judgment had a major effect on the outcome.
My father's mind is to the point where he largely lacks the ability to REASON. My parents' sole PURPOSE for continuing living is to support their spouse. Finally, while they had well-developed SELF-ESTEEM prior to age 80, their new inabilities, both mental and physical, is summarized by my dad's comment yesterday, "It is hard to feel good about your self when you are incontinent."
In such a situation, when you do value life, what are you to do? When does life cease to be life? When does life cease to be worth living?
Also, historically, "death" has been defined as occurring when the doctors give up on you. Thus a swimmer who inhaled some water was "dead" in all respects -- legal and (church) moral -- until rescue breathing was invented.
This is one of the better arguments against believing in either an afterlife or spirits/ghosts. Today's dead person may very well be revivable a century from now.
http://www.terasemmovementfoundation.com...
I hope things go well for your mom. Did you hear about the new promising research into Alzheimers treatment? http://consumer.healthday.com/cognitive-...
Regards,
O.A.
She was supposed to have surgery today. Take 2 is tomorrow.
The Alzheimer's treatment front is really going incredibly well now.
A group at Duke is now using the polio virus to kill cancer. Who would have thought?!
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/gen...
planation of what morality is. I have met people
who try to claim that it is all relative (I believe,
primarily college graduates), that there is no cer-
tainty, etc. My speech & drama (also creative
writing) teacher in high school, tried to tell me
that during a classroom discussion; he was an-
noyed, and said, "There are no absolutes,dear!"
I said< "Don't tell me there are no absolutes."
The others were shocked at me because of the
things I was saying about individual rights and
society before the bell rang and class changed.
we have the world to win [edited for spelling error]
If one believes that reality is "real", strange as that truism sounds, then human beings have a specific nature and thus a specific set of condition upon their most abundant and fulfilled living.
Ethics is for living your life to the fullest.
people (this was so long decades ago) try to say
that morality is subjective ("There are no absolutes"
etc., "You can't be sure", etc.), and I think a lot of
them do it in order to have an excuse not to do what is right.
For life, good.
Against life, bad.
Reason - Who's reason and from what point of view, defined by what principals.
Purpose - Who's purpose and to what end?
Self-esteem - Leaders, Rulers and Dictator's rarely lack self-esteem but have an over abundance of self-esteem or self-importance.
Ethical, Moral, Legal. These three are not mutually inclusive, meaning I can be moral, but neither ethical not Legal. I can be ethical but neither legal nor moral, and in many cases "legal" is neither moral nor ethical, based on whatever definition is given to ethical, moral and legal.
For a society to function there must be an established set of Moral Principals to follow. There must be rules, i.e. laws, by which specific guidelines are established, with a specific set of consequences for violations. And the ethical aspect should be encompassed within the moral, meaning that the discussion of ethics and morals should be synonyms.
Now what set of "morals" are you going to use to establish your baseline.
Hitler, ISIS, Marx, Stalin or the simple laws of only the strong survive, Anarchy, which is the same as the Strong Survive combined with mob rule which in the end means those who are willing to do anything to control and keep power win
If we apply what jdg said that Morality "is" nothing more than taste and each person defines his own, then the World Court never should have tried the Nazi's for killing millions of Jews since that was their accepted morality, and that was their taste, also within the laws of Germany were legal and ethical. Their human experimentation on Jews was ethical, and no crime had been committed since crime does not exist under that pretence or paradigm.
Exhaustive studies have been done on these very topics. It is not enough to simply say I am morality unto myself, ergo I answer to nobody but myself.
Even the paralegal must study these questions.
We have historical examples of morality or lack thereof as societies, grow, thrive, then implode on themselves. We can empirically track the points at which these great empires and civilizations began their decline. In the end a sense of morality changed in their civilization. This morality changed from one of "love" to one of look out for number one and if it feels good do it.
When we look at Greece, Rome, Persia to name a few, they became ripe for conquest when their morality sank to a low. That morality dealt with the acceptance and reverence for monogamy, family, personal responsibility. In short when you look at a Bible scripture:
(Galatians 5:19-23)
19 Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct, 20 idolatry, spiritism, hostility, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, divisions, sects,
21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and things like these. I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom.
22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Verses 19 - 21 describe the morality that takes a civilization from greatness to ruin. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire."
There were many reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, but they boil down to a basic list.
Decline in Morals and Values
Public Health
Political Corruption
Unemployment
Inflation
Urban decay
Inferior Technology
Military Spending
Ironically all of the above occur when your "moral center" has been corrupted by an anything goes, no accountability do for me and nobody else attitude becomes pervasive.
So then you must ask yourself what "Moral Center" or set of "Moralities" need to be abided by.
I put it to you that the wisdom in the Bible is not contradictory to "Rational Self Interest" but can go hand in hand.
Galatian 5: 22,23:
22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Rational self interest when coupled with the above passage is what virtually every great society in human history demonstrated at their peak.
Only when they abandoned these basic principles does a society erode to nothing, which I fear is where we are at this point in history.
For a society to function there needs to be a consistent set of laws, one that most people in it accept as right most of the time. But in a pluralistic country, you'll find a large number of moral codes, most of them derived from religions. And if it's a democratic country the laws are largely dictated by compromises, not principles.
"Might makes right" is not a moral code very many people accept. But might does win fights, so it determines who actually rules and who doesn't. (One of the better arguments against God is that if He were good, He would not have made the world work that way -- we can sure see plenty of unjust results.)
Yes, I would have tried the Nazis for genocide; I simply wouldn't have pretended that my reasons for doing so are grounded in either "God" or objective truth. I dare say most of the world would agree with my personal moral tastes on that topic.
"It is not enough to simply say I am morality unto myself" -- ah, but everyone who has a moral code *is* saying exactly that. The only difference between me and the religious moralist is that the religious moralist is so shallow as to actually believe the religious leader when the latter writes down his own personal moral code and signs it "God". It must take incredible cheek to sign any writing "God", but they do.
"When we look at Greece, Rome, ..." yes, a lack of morality was related to their falls, but not in the simplistic way that a religious person says so. Societies like those start to come apart at the seams when the rulers lie, cheat, and steal so much that the average person no longer sees the state as making people's rights more secure than they would be if the state didn't exist. (I'd say we have passed that point.) Attempts to teach morality (other than by example), in my view, do little or no good -- we have to see the bad people actually made to regret their actions, and more importantly, we have to see the system refrain from punishing people for actions that aren't wrong such as selling drugs. Religion is often actively harmful in this regard, especially if the religious leaders turn a blind eye to what politicians do and concentrate instead on rules like "no gay sex" which don't protect anybody's rights.
Yes, BUT.....where does the definition of "lie, cheat steal" come from and who determines it is bad.
Regardless of the claimed source being "God" or the 3 legged toad under the bridge, truth is truth, and good advise is good advise.
I always take issue with people who disregard SAGE WISDOM, simply because it was quoted from a religious source.
To practice traits like, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control, neither makes one weak, nor stupid nor foolish, nor unreasonable. In fact rational self-interest takes advantage of each and EVERY one of those traits. Can you find any place in history where there was a punishment for such acts?
What is the moral/ethical code in the gulch?
Do neighbors help neighbors, or do they just scream, "Get of MY lawn" at each other?
Is there such a thing as volunteering in the gulch?
I can only wish I had your knowledge of the topic, and I respect your input as I make this journey of better defining my beliefs that I wish I could have had the benefit of decades ago.
I'm sure there are many others, like me, who are new to discovering this philosophy that should have been taught in school.
What I posted is what others perceive to be an Objectivist Philosophy.
My point with my post is that, if a TV show is merely entertainment for those that think like us, then it's simply preaching to the choir and serves no practical purpose other than mental masturbation. It has to educate those outside of here. It has to address the argument and misconceptions the media has made against Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged, etc.
Ayn Rand was a wordy, long winded person. Some of us, who started down this path late in life, don't always have time to plaster a book to our face.
One might turn their arrogance down a notch and be a teacher and perhaps point to relevant material on the interwebs.
If you were alone or in a very small group there would be no need, you would know everyone or almost everyone and the base reality would suffice without making more rules. As a society expands, you know less and less of the people around you, then you become subject to the rules of the community, their laws based on their shared morality.
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms:
thics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Sure, your own right and wrong are determined by you and you alone WHEN you are alone. When you are part of a society your morality is influenced by many factors including peer-pressure, laws, and faith. DBH, my faith and how I exercise it or choose not to is in no way evil by anyone's standard.
Supposed moral injunctions to believe based on faith are destructive and certainly are evil.
If your Robinson Crusoe, all alone, you need no moral code. You can tread on no one's toes but your own.
There is no morality of necessity.
Man lived just fine as hunter/gatherer. Hand to mouth.
What you're talking about is "preparedness". that goes beyond the simple foraging to conscience effort to plan.
Is Preparedness moral, or just smart?
Objectively, farting feels good, so you do it.
Subjectively, you don't fart in an elevator...unless by yourself.
Ergo, morality only matters when there's a witness.
it's social.
You might want to read The Virtue of Selfishness.
I rolled across that elsewhere and added it to my to-do list, thanks.
Well, I think were on the same page. Unless I misread something.
Yes, it's a about values.
Is food moral? It's a necessity, so I don't think it counts.
the discussion breaks down into Needs and Wants.
I need air, I want a car.
Moral values are only relevant in social interactions, don't you think?
own yourself. I follow you, but, your definition of owning is different then mine.
I think I own myself. I have no doubt I would own more of myself of I were off-grid.
I know I'm tied to "the machine", we all are in one way or another, or to varying extremes.
I'd almost have to conclude, by your statement, you cannot own yourself in a social world, because you have to tie yourself to that world, that system, that machine.
Subjectively, you don't fart in an elevator...unless by yourself.
Ergo, morality only matters when there's a witness.
it's social."
thanks for the Friday laugh, Robert. Please re-read all of the Rand quotes on this post. Her answer to your farting dilemma is there
I'm trying to chew them as fast as I can.
Both.
Morality defines what our society will be. If all I care about is me, then I have zero morality/ethics.
Galt's Gulch cannot exist without some kind of communal code/ethic/morality.
If the attitude is, "hooray for me, up yours", then it's perfectly acceptable for me to steal from you.
The bible says it's not stealing if I'm hungry and I eat from your crops. I can't cart away any food - that would be stealing.
Is lying moral, or acceptable in the gulch?
Is lying objective or subjective? You say an Apple is worth 50 cents, I say 25 cents. Is someone lying?
You say, well, I got $X into growing it, and I expect X amount of harvest this year, ergo, they're 50 cents - objective.
I say, I think you have too much profit margin - subjective.
Whose wrong?
No, you cant gain knowledge of morality scientifically, because you can't quantify it.
@Rocky: "...that morality is subjective. If it feels good to me..."
I might argue that, "if it feels good..." is objective. Considering "needs" not "wants" (owning an ipad feels good, so it's ok to steal it). Considering food. "I'm hungry, eating feels good" stealing it is objective - you need to eat, it isn't an option.
--->> "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to LIVE. ..."
"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.
The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?" TVOS (same source above)
"Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival. . . .
I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." TVOS
I believe this above addresses the stealing question. The concept of man qua man does not allow for theft, because man cannot live by theft-someone has to be productive. Your need to survive never creates a right, but if you are otherwise a good person and you are in a situation of starving (most likely in the modern world it's because someone else is stealing and inhibiting your ability to work) you may take back from a thief. If the govt is inhibiting your ability to produce or stealing from you it is not immoral to steal them. If a crony is getting rich off of you and "steal" from them, that's not necessarily immoral. see Ragnar in Atlas Shrugged. Your other point about commerce is really about a proper and moral system of economics which is capitalism. Capitalism has an objective purpose and efficiency for determining prices: an market nor manipulated by the government.
I think that gets to my "both" response. You presented two situations in which you want to put one definition on and I don't think you can.
>>"Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival. . . .
Yes, I agree. The ethics of necessity. this is neither good nor evil, it's a "must".
which answers this question, "Why does man need a code of values? " He doesn't "need" a code of values.
Without this, you're suicidal (or just frickin stupid - low IQ is an option).
The subjective ethics is the ethics of desire/want, not need/survival.
>>...cannot live by theft-someone has to be productive.
hmmm. I never really considered that, in that way, you can't steal what wasn't produced by another.
When I look at things like this, I try to look at them from a primitive perspective, not a modern day one. Modern day just muddies the water.
If I'm hungry, and I hunt and kill a rabbit, and I eat that rabbit. I might feel guilty that I killed it, that leads to a objective moral consideration - I had to eat, but I killed a cute bunny, I could have eaten acorns instead (subjective). Maybe, you and I were hunting the same rabbit, I got it first, I ate it, you starved and died. I could have shared it? The objective code would have been, "hooray for me, you die".
This scenario removes the "theft" from the equation because the rabbit belonged to no one other then itself (who had no objective input into his fate)
Ethics of compassion. This is something many Libertarians, and Objectivist's get accused of lacking. I consider myself a compassionate, and charitable person, but I struggle to understand how that fits with Liberatians/Objectivists - (this is coming from a recovering Republican).
I'll tell you one thing, Rand Paul better get this defined before he runs for President.
I don't think there's one person up here that isn't compassionate or charitable in some manner. But, the Libertarian/Objectists own label of "Selfish" (which I understand and agree with) doesn't help the cause.
If your house is on fire the Conservative will make a donation to the Fire department, the Liberal will demand a government agency regulate burning in the city limits, and Libertarian will tell you, "you should throw some water on that".
Throwing water on your house is not a necessity (subjective) to me, but it is to you (objective).
I'd like to be the guy that at least gives you a bucket of water (objectively a good guy)
This is why I think the question you posed is very important.
sorry about the diatribe ... again. :-)
If he's on the way to his chemotherapy appointment, stopping wouldn't cross his mind.
If he's out for a walk, and it's late summer, and he knows that with no house, you're going to be cold in the winter and he doesn't want a valuable member of his society to be both cold and desperate, he'd probably stop, and say "Let's throw some water on that."
The choices are endless, and they are all the result of one thing: conscious thought.
The question becomes, does the libertarian stop to help throw water on it, or does he make marshmellows?
most people don't know how to use that, so it has little meaning.
self interest. interesting, because my throwing water on my neighbors house has no self interest unless a) my house might catch on fire, b) my neighbor becomes homeless and thus a burden to me.
I do it because it's the moral thing to do.
Does that mean "moral" is something we do because we can, and not because we have to?
that would make it subjective, would it not?
No need to tell me about giving to addiction. I've learned the hard way that there are some people that won't help themselves even when you give them the tools to do it. and it hurt me very much to have to let that person hit rock bottom to figure that out. Too much compassion.
"Galt's Gulch cannot exist without some kind of communal code/ethic/morality. " Social.
George Washington 1796
the key word here is "superficially". ;-) sure, leadership is part of that equation, but not necessarily in such a collectivist tyrannical form.
the truth of the matter, Biblically speaking, is that God gives mankind the free will to either act in accordance with Natural Law, or to violate it.
my personal reason has led me to understand that both morals & ethics are secondary to Natural Law. therefore, one would be more accurate saying that the manner of one's morals & ethics are directly resultant upon how one respects the Natural Rights of others.
Natural Law pre-exists the individual, and then the manner in which one respects Natural Law yields the fruits of good, or bad, morals & ethics. Civil Law is then crafted afterwards, and in a libertarian society, Civil Law can never supersede Natural Law, or the Natural Rights of the individual as derived from Natural Law. this is why the American founders called individual Natural Rights "unalienable".
collectivists & anarchists both have not yet grasped that in order to maximize liberty in a society, unalienable individual natural rights must be protected & preserved through the rule of law.
if more individuals among the liberty movement understood this, the liberty moment would certainly have grown more than it has thus far. too many LINO-Anarchists (Libertarians In Name Only) have called themselves "libertarians", and now the masses believe that libertarians are those who want NO government whatsoever, which 1. won't work, and 2. even if it did, it's a NO SELL to the voting masses.
Ron Paul set the record straight by adhering to these concepts of Natural Rights to maximize liberty, and this garnered massive support among the "uneducated" masses.
yet, try to explain how a STATE committed to uphold Natural Law in its governance would serve to maximize liberty in a country to the LINO-Anarchist and they just call you a "STATIST!"
while i have thus far agreed with much of Ayn Rand's version of "Objectivism", perhaps the Objectivist movement is also somewhat caught up a but too much in all this banter about morals & ethics (& selfishness) without giving enough consideration to Natural Law and it's, shall i say, "objective standard" by which morals & ethics are derived.
as i continue in my studies regarding Natural Law vs Civil Law, i'm occasionally challenged to consider potential confusion which arises from pondering over what is a natural right, and what isn't.
getting back to Biblical Christianity exemplifying respect of Natural Law...
while i don't have any kind of all encompassing list of natural rights, nor would i presume to fully create such a thing, one good place to begin such consideration is with those fundamental natural laws/rights protected by the second half of the Ten Commandments, which have been adopted by a variety of cultures throughout history, from ancient Israel to our own American culture, and even our supreme civil law upon whose foundations it was originally based:
Commandment 6: right to life — murder & violence prohibited;
• Commandment 7: right to private contract — adultery prohibited; no individual or collective (including a state) can justly interfere in private contracts;
• Commandment 8: right to property — theft prohibited;
• Commandment 9: right to be protected from damages resultant from false representation — intentional deceit prohibited;
• Commandment 10: right to privacy — spying upon individuals prohibited; direct taxes prohibited; while coveting property of another begins only with a thought and can therefore not be directly regulated through rule of civil law, one who minds his own business and respects the natural right to privacy of others finds it difficult to covet.
all of these natural rights should be agreeable to humans in general, let alone anyone calling themselves any form of "libertarian”. if not, then i would seriously question how they view their philosophy as being supportive of liberty.
8-)
So to answer khalling's question as to "Why we need morality." the answer is so that morality provides a method that allows "Large groups of people to interact with each other in a positive manner."
Insofar as 'What' those morals need to be, the most relevant body of knowledge that I know of (Game Theory) indicates that in a non-anonymous group who engage in repeated interactions, honesty, integrity, and fairness are advantages. In an interaction that is unique or anonymous, acting in an unscrupulous and immediately successful manner is the winner.
No, I am not making this up - this is what experiments have shown. These factors should be taken into consideration in structuring a society. (It is actually effective to call for transparency, evidently.)
Jan
Did you know that the process of coagulation in blood takes seventeen separate steps and only the completion of the entire chain results in stability? And that's just one example of complexity in the human body - the greatest "watch" known. There are countless others. And you would have me discard Occam's Razor and believe the MOST unlikely scenario - that all around us was a matter of chance that mathematically equates to a probability that exceeds by hundreds of orders of magnitude the entire number of atoms in the universe? The same probability that one wins the lottery every day for more than 100 years?
I applaud you for your belief, because I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (also the title of a pretty good book).
But to go from there to a moral preference still requires a judgment call, does it not?
So the question "is morality necessary" is a red herring in and of itself. The real question is this: what is the goal of existence. Answer THAT question and everything flows from there.