is AR's ethics consequentialist?

[Arkadi]

I used to believe so, since, per Peikoff's audio lectures, it is employs hypothetical, not categorical imperative.
But someone, at another forum, objected to this, saying: "you have not apprehended the concepts of Objectivism. Consequentialism is anathema. Morality is principled, not conditional to outcomes.... The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is a well known example of consequentialism. By contrast, the deontological theories of John Locke and Immanuel Kant are nonconsequentialist."

I sure agree than Kant is a non-consequentialist. But Kant, also, is against hypothetical imperative.

Assuming that both Peikoff and my objector render AR's view correctly, what I fail to see is why the hypothetical does not necessarily imply consequentialism.

Thanks for any help.

[merjet]

There are opinions on both sides, and that Rand's ethical theory is a blend of both, here.

[Arkadi]

Wow... This Forum is awesome!

Thanks a lot, Merlin.

[Brant Gaede]

Consequentalism strikes me as a test of a principle in particular action. Or deduction-induction at work. In that sense wouldn't Rand's "Ethics of Emergencies" be consequentalism? Rand, her husband and me in a lifeboat. Two might survive if one gets dumped over the side. Rand gets to chose who's shark bait. Guess what happens to poor, innocent me*? A principle, however, is primary to facts. It doesn't matter it was built on data. Once it's built it's then primary. A consequence is a way to illustrate and check out a principle. I think Rand was implying in her emergency ethics is that unnatural situations create and justify acts contrary to a principle referencing another, or NIOF is not the most basic. Instead of the lifeboat, Frank and I could be conjoined twins both of whom will die unless one is sacrificed and saving one is better than none. (Actually, it's saving two of three for not dumping me means dumping Frank and she might as well dump herself.)

--Brant

*one reason I like guns (so I get to decide)

[KorbenDallas]

Peikoff mentioned this in a lecture. An Objectivist would need to understand the consequences of his actions, but it as a means of understanding the law of causality. He acts on purpose, by means of virtue, to achieve value. So, the Objectivist would need to know the consequences of his action(s) to achieve purpose, but doesn't necessarily act on consequence alone.

[Arkadi]

KorbenDallas--
To act in order "to achieve value," when this "value" is something other than the action itself, is precisely to act on consequence.

The only alternative is to act out of sheer principle, regardless of the consequences. In this case, action itself is its own raison d'être.

Peikoff, at least in his audio lectures, does not allow for any middle ground between the two.

[KorbenDallas]

I think it's going to be very tough to discuss if AR's ethics are consequentialist by taking the approach that they are consequentialist, and then using consequentialist concepts and terminology to try to disprove that assertion.

In fact, that's impossible to do.

Consequence is defined and used differently in Objectivism and consequentialism. And in my estimation, that could be a differentia that might lead to untangling the two.

[Arkadi]

KorbenDallas--

The difference is between "categorical" vs. "hypothetical" imperative.

These are philosophical technical terms, and Peikoff uses them.

"ConsequenTIALISM" also is a generally accepted technical term (regardless of what "consequence" might mean specifically in Objectivism).

[KorbenDallas]

KorbenDallas--

To act in order "to achieve value," when this "value" is something other than the action itself, is precisely to act on consequence.

The only alternative is to act out of sheer principle, regardless of the consequences. In this case, action itself is its own raison d'être.

Peikoff, at least in his audio lectures, does not allow for any middle ground between the two.

I think it's going to be very tough to discuss if AR's ethics are consequentialist by taking the approach that they are consequentialist, and then using consequentialist concepts and terminology to try to disprove that assertion.

In fact, that's impossible to do.

Consequence is defined and used differently in Objectivism and consequentialism. And in my estimation, that could be a differentia that might lead to untangling the two.

That's the scope here

[KorbenDallas]

ie. you're using the term "consequence" wrong when it comes to Objectivism