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 4.
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.
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.
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?
For instance, I may enjoy eating pork.
But I am not to do anyone harm.
http://biblehub.com/mark/12-31.htm
By definition and practice, philosophy has nothing to do with religion nor is it comparable. They are two separate identities.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The question becomes, does the libertarian stop to help throw water on it, or does he make marshmellows?
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.
Load more comments...