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?
