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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/gen...
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).
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.
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.
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?!
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? :-)
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
There's reagans interpretation of conservatism, and there's Ted cruz's.
The religion of Ronny, or the followers of Cruz.
But to go from there to a moral preference still requires a judgment call, does it not?
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.
Load more comments...