A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship


Dennis Hardin

Recommended Posts

Metaethics, Egoism and Virtue

Studies in Ayn Rand’s Normative Theory

Edited by Allan Gotthelf and James B. Lennox

These must be trying times for Leonard Peikoff. Not only is he faced with rumblings of mutiny from within the ranks of ARI for his foolish moral indictment of John McCaskey, but certain members of his ordained ministry seem to have forgotten the unwritten ground rules of Objectivist “scholarship.” The dust jacket for this just-published volume reads: "Metaethics, Egoism and Virtue is the first of a new series, developed in conjunction with The Ayn Rand Society [of the A.P.A.], to offer a fuller scholarly understanding of this highly original and influential thinker."”

Apparently “fuller scholarly understanding” means that certain ARI-approved scholars (Darryl Wright, Tara Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Gregory Salmieri) think it is time for Objectivism to be taken seriously as a philosophical movement. (Even Harry Binswanger’s sparkling words of approval appear on the book cover. Something tells me he didn’t get a review copy.) In other words, it is time for Objectivists to stop using moral denunciation and dictatorial intellectual authority as a basis for pretending that certain dissenting and/or unsanctioned voices do not exist.

The Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association has long been a force for injecting rational dissent and open discussion into the Objectivist movement since it was founded in 1987, but, to my knowledge, this is the first time its work has appeared in book form. Whether or not this will result in closer scrutiny from Peikoff and the orthodoxy at ARI remains to be seen.

Consider the list of heretofore “tainted” or “unsavory” (from Peikoff’s warped orthodox perspective) and/or neglected characters, publications and organizations now suddenly acknowledged to exist: David Kelley, Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Roderick Long, Tibor Machan, Jack Wheeler, Lester Hunt, Nathaniel Branden (OMG!), The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Reason Papers, IOS Journal. Various previously disdained books and other writings by these authors are also listed as references. Multiple publications of The Atlas Society are mentioned, although it is referred to as The Objectivist Center.

This is not a review of the book, since I have not had a chance to read it as yet. But I am encouraged by the fact that, from what I can tell at this point, the unofficial voices are all treated respectfully and seriously. (NOTE: The forthcoming book was previously mentioned here when it first went to the publishers in 2009. At that time, Robert Campbell expressed concern that Rasmussen’s papers were significantly dated. Hopefully this problem was corrected. Rasmussen’s referenced citations are dated from 2002 to 2007. )

Here is an important quote from the preface:

“Neither the editors nor the editorial board necessarily endorse the content of work published in this series, and we may on occasion publish writings one or more of us think ‘gets it all wrong,’ so long as these writings are respectful of Rand and her work and further the aims of the series.”

That actually sounds as if it were written by the advocates of a philosophy of reason. What’s next? Yaron Brook interviewing Chris Sciabarra for ARI’s IMPACT newsletter? I suppose it’s possible that the participants in this project could suffer the consequences of such recalcitrant behavior. We shall see. In case you were wondering, the book is not available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean?

I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is available for loan from the UP library. Or it was, until a few minutes ago.

Glad you're in such a light-hearted mood, Ted. AFAIAC, after what your Eagles did to the Colts today, you can go straight to Hell. :excl::angry2::excl:

( :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean?

I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word.

I don't. The usage is rather standard for contemporary philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is available for loan from the UP library. Or it was, until a few minutes ago.

Glad you're in such a light-hearted mood, Ted. AFAIAC, after what your Eagles did to the Colts today, you can go straight to Hell. :excl::angry2::excl:

( :P )

Who did what to whom, now? How many Colts were taken off the field?

BTW, do you know the name of the guest player commentator on the Sprint halftime show? My dad says something like Norman Sykes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said:

"Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean?

I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word."

===============================================================================

Never mind. I went to wikipedia and started reading. I understand why academia doesn't like Objectivism. It's too simple (and maybe too right). When I saw that word, "metaethics" I thought that someone was going to start calling some ethical things "self evident" or something, and that crossed me wrong.

Never mind.

Edited by rodney203
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who did what to whom, now? How many Colts were taken off the field?

BTW, do you know the name of the guest player commentator on the Sprint halftime show? My dad says something like Norman Sykes.

All I know is that Manning was throwing to guys who were selling life insurance a week ago. They have so many injured receivers they're gonna start signing people off the street. Oh, well. It's only a game. blah-blah-blah :wacko:

I only saw the plays that were broadcast on the Red Zone channel. I didn't see the halftime show. (CBS made LA watch the crummy Raiders.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said:

"Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean?

I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word."

===============================================================================

Never mind. I went to wikipedia and started reading. I understand why academia doesn't like Objectivism. It's too simple (and maybe too right). When I saw that word, "metaethics" I thought that someone was going to start calling some ethical things "self evident" or something, and that crossed me wrong.

Never mind.

I am not sure what your concern is. Meta- is used to mean at a higher level of abstraction. I heard it used all the time in my upper level courses at Rutgers. (Most of the professors to whom I spoke about Rand, including my advisor, had never heard of Rand but were fascinated by some of her ideas. (The ones who did already know of her called her a fascist, and were hostile.) I wish I could remember which one it was who described her as dialectical when I mentioned her argument in favor of free will.) The usgae in Rand scholarship comes from wider academia, not from Rand. But its use is perfectly valid in this context.

Do you happen to know the name of the defensive back who was the guest player commentator on the Sprint half-time show in the Colts-Eagles game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said:

"Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean?

I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word."

===============================================================================

Never mind. I went to wikipedia and started reading. I understand why academia doesn't like Objectivism. It's too simple (and maybe too right). When I saw that word, "metaethics" I thought that someone was going to start calling some ethical things "self evident" or something, and that crossed me wrong.

Never mind.

I am not sure what your concern is. Meta- is used to mean at a higher level of abstraction. I heard it used all the time in my upper level courses at Rutgers. (Most of the professors to whom I spoke about Rand, including my advisor, had never heard of Rand but were fascinated by some of her ideas. (The ones who did already know of her called her a fascist, and were hostile.) I wish I could remember which one it was who described her as dialectical when I mentioned her argument in favor of free will.) The usgae in Rand scholarship comes from wider academia, not from Rand. But its use is perfectly valid in this context.

Do you happen to know the name of the defensive back who was the guest player commentator on the Sprint half-time show in the Colts-Eagles game?

I first heard "metaethics" used in a give and take with Leonard Peikoff at NBI in the spring of 1968 apropos one of his "Ominous Parallels" lectures.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see metaethics as separate from ethics but rather as a subcategory within ethics. It specifically refers to foundational issues—to all the questions that have to be answered before you get down to the nitty gritty of evaluating specific actions as right or wrong. In Objectivism, metaethical issues pertain to justifying the principle of life as the standard of value.

Asante Samuel intercepts Manning twice in one game. His first pass and his last pass. Unconscionable.

Who the hell watches halftime shows anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see metaethics as separate from ethics but rather as a subcategory within ethics. It specifically refers to foundational issues—to all the questions that have to be answered before you get down to the nitty gritty of evaluating specific actions as right or wrong. In Objectivism, metaethical issues pertain to justifying the principle of life as the standard of value.

Asante Samuel intercepts Manning twice in one game. His first pass and his last pass. Unconscionable.

Who the hell watches halftime shows anyway?

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a section in ATCAG on "Normative Ethics and Meta-ethics" (pp. 289ff). Here is how I summarize the distinction:

"Normative ethics" refers to the content, or specific principles, of a moral code, such as the maxims "One ought to be honest" or "One ought to respect the rights of others."

"Meta-ethics" pertains to the criteria and meaning of ethical terms themselves, such as "value," "moral," and "immoral." What is a value judgment? Can value judgments be justified rationally? What does "moral" mean? What does "immoral" mean? How do we know when to apply these and similar judgments? The answers to these and similar questions fall within the scope of meta-ethics. Put simply, normative ethics tells us what we ought to do, while meta-ethics tells us what we mean by the word "ought." Ethical conflicts may occur in either of these areas.

I probably wouldn't change this account today, except I might use "metaethics" instead of "meta-ethics." The hyphenated version was more common when I wrote ATCAG in 1973.

I never got any flak from O'ist philosophers over the distinction between normative ethics and metaethics. It has been a standard distinction in moral philosophy for a long time, though I did write the following in an endnote to my discussion:

10. Some philosophers deny that there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between normative ethics and meta-ethics, as these labels are usually conceived. Thus, according to Georg Henrik Von Wright, "There is also a philosophical pursuit deserving the name 'ethics', which shares with a common conception of 'meta-ethics' the feature of being a conceptual investigation and with a common conception of 'normative ethics' the feature of aiming at directing our lives. The Varieties of Goodness (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), p 6. Cf. Veatch, Rational Man, pp. 17-23.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re #10: Gotthelf was speaking on "metaethics" longer ago than 1968, and getting a plug in The Objectivist Newsletter for it.

Re #1: The inner circle has long (at least as far back as 1988, when the ARS was founded) been willing to consort with the enemy when doing so would bring them academic prestige, the Anthem Foundation, under their direct control, as much as the ARS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a section in ATCAG on "Normative Ethics and Meta-ethics" (pp. 289ff). Here is how I summarize the distinction:

"Normative ethics" refers to the content, or specific principles, of a moral code, such as the maxims "One ought to be honest" or "One ought to respect the rights of others."

"Meta-ethics" pertains to the criteria and meaning of ethical terms themselves, such as "value," "moral," and "immoral." What is a value judgment? Can value judgments be justified rationally? What does "moral" mean? What does "immoral" mean? How do we know when to apply these and similar judgments? The answers to these and similar questions fall within the scope of meta-ethics. Put simply, normative ethics tells us what we ought to do, while meta-ethics tells us what we mean by the word "ought." Ethical conflicts may occur in either of these areas.

I probably wouldn't change this account today, except I might use "metaethics" instead of "meta-ethics." The hyphenated version was more common when I wrote ATCAG in 1973.

I never got any flak from O'ist philosophers over the distinction between normative ethics and metaethics. It has been a standard distinction in moral philosophy for a long time, though I did write the following in an endnote to my discussion:

10. Some philosophers deny that there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between normative ethics and meta-ethics, as these labels are usually conceived. Thus, according to Georg Henrik Von Wright, "There is also a philosophical pursuit deserving the name 'ethics', which shares with a common conception of 'meta-ethics' the feature of being a conceptual investigation and with a common conception of 'normative ethics' the feature of aiming at directing our lives. The Varieties of Goodness (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), p 6. Cf. Veatch, Rational Man, pp. 17-23.

Ghs

Excellent clarification, George. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re #1: The inner circle has long (at least as far back as 1988, when the ARS was founded) been willing to consort with the enemy when doing so would bring them academic prestige, the Anthem Foundation, under their direct control, as much as the ARS.

The Ayn Rand Society was actually founded in 1987, as I indicated above.

The Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association has long been a force for injecting rational dissent and open discussion into the Objectivist movement since it was founded in 1987, but, to my knowledge, this is the first time its work has appeared in book form. Whether or not this will result in closer scrutiny from Peikoff and the orthodoxy at ARI remains to be seen.

The Anthem Foundation is strictly controlled by ARI and not friendly to the non-orthodox branch of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Due to an illegal hit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be fun to define what an "orthodox Objectivist" is. We should be able to argue for days about that one.

So just what would an "orthodox Objectivist" be like; what would they hold to be true, what positions would one take? Would they really identify with ARI, or some other organization, or none?

Edited by rodney203
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Due to an illegal hit?

The hit was not illegal, the Colts were in a cover two zone where the corner back's [defensive right side or weak side] job is to force check and delay the receiver which he failed to do. This allowed the receiver to hit the open area directly down the center of the zone in the field. This forces the two safeties strong side and free safety to close at difficult angles which caused the hit to appear harsher than it actually was.

The receiver, knowing the coverage that he had beaten tucked his right shoulder to absorb the hit from the safety at the top of your TV screen and the safety from the bottom of the screen began to pull up and the combination of these kinesics caused the helmet to helmet hit. It was purely accidental and the player should not be fined.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be fun to define what an "orthodox Objectivist" is. We should be able to argue for days about that one.

I'm sure there are multiple threads that already fit the bill. In short, however, "Orthodox" is all about the company you keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Due to an illegal hit?

The hit was not illegal, the Colts were in a cover two zone where the corner back's [defensive right side or weak side] job is to force check and delay the receiver which he failed to do. This allowed the receiver to hit the open area directly down the center of the zone in the field. This forces the two safeties strong side and free safety to close at difficult angles which caused the hit to appear harsher than it actually was.

The receiver, knowing the coverage that he had beaten tucked his right shoulder to absorb the hit from the safety at the top of your TV screen and the safety from the bottom of the screen began to pull up and the combination of these kinesics caused the helmet to helmet hit. It was purely accidental and the player should not be fined.

Adam

So you agree with me that the hit on the Colt was not illegal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Due to an illegal hit?

The hit was not illegal, the Colts were in a cover two zone where the corner back's [defensive right side or weak side] job is to force check and delay the receiver which he failed to do. This allowed the receiver to hit the open area directly down the center of the zone in the field. This forces the two safeties strong side and free safety to close at difficult angles which caused the hit to appear harsher than it actually was.

The receiver, knowing the coverage that he had beaten tucked his right shoulder to absorb the hit from the safety at the top of your TV screen and the safety from the bottom of the screen began to pull up and the combination of these kinesics caused the helmet to helmet hit. It was purely accidental and the player should not be fined.

Adam

So you agree with me that the hit on the Colt was not illegal?

Totally agree. This is getting ridiculous. Remember what Steeler linebacker Jack Lambert quipped when rules were passed to try to protect passers from being injured by sackers, he said, "...that perhaps quarterbacks should start wearing dresses."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're concerned for Nate Allen. Your guys are just thugs. Dad said the ex-player was named Sykes, but that was actually the name of the killer in the Monk episode we watched afterward.

Metaethics is the link between metaphysicis and ethics.

Eagles' Fans Boo as Colts' Receiver Austin Collie Leaves the Field on a Stretcher

The Colts are thugs?

Due to an illegal hit?

The hit was not illegal, the Colts were in a cover two zone where the corner back's [defensive right side or weak side] job is to force check and delay the receiver which he failed to do. This allowed the receiver to hit the open area directly down the center of the zone in the field. This forces the two safeties strong side and free safety to close at difficult angles which caused the hit to appear harsher than it actually was.

The receiver, knowing the coverage that he had beaten tucked his right shoulder to absorb the hit from the safety at the top of your TV screen and the safety from the bottom of the screen began to pull up and the combination of these kinesics caused the helmet to helmet hit. It was purely accidental and the player should not be fined.

Adam

So you agree with me that the hit on the Colt was not illegal?

Totally agree. This is getting ridiculous. Remember what Steeler linebacker Jack Lambert quipped when rules were passed to try to protect passers from being injured by sackers, he said, "...that perhaps quarterbacks should start wearing dresses."

You seem to have missed the joking nature of our exchange. Do I always have to use the sarcasm font to make it easy for people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Ted, I did not miss it, but there is serious thought about fining the Eagle safety by the League Office and that was what I was addressing, I should have been clearer.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now