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?
we have the world to win [edited for spelling error]
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.
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-)
Seems as if few can do that.
"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.
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.
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.
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/ten_...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
:)
I will reserve further comment.
Supposed moral injunctions to believe based on faith are destructive and certainly are evil.
Load more comments...