Why does man need a code of values?

[Victor Pross]

I think the big problem with this thread, and most threads, is trying to win as opposed to trying to find out or understand.

--Brant

Brant,

You don't care for the ethics of some people, huh? :turned:

Anyway, don't you know that WE (those arguing for Rand's ethics) won the argument? And those who oppose it are learning! :whistle:

-Victor

I don't care who wins an argument, a dubious proposition at best. And I certainly don't know who has won this argument. I don't have the time, literally, to read most of the mega-posts of the mega-posters of which you and Michael are the biggest. But here's my overall impression: Even if your worthy opponents have won all the battles they have so far lost the war unless they can successfully argue that ethics is an ad hoc thing and that they don't need a system of ethics that they can logically demonstrate. Those'd have to be an objectivist ethics, though not necessarily the Objectivist Ethics. If they aren't objective, sooner or later you'll get practical contradictions. So if we don't have an objectivist ethics we had better go find one. You also cannot get individual rights, politics, right if you've got no ethics. The former has to be objective or instead of a right to life you'll get a right to a chicken in every pot, which means the owner of the chicken has the legal obligation to give you the chicken for your pot which means neither you nor he has a right to life reflected in law in that society.

There is also a problem with mixing up values with ethics; they aren't exactly the same thing, imho.

--Brant

Brant,

Chill out my brother, I was fooling around.

Daniel, I like much of your taste in music, but don't get bored too fast, I want to address the question of suicide and old people wanting to die as it relates to the is-ought issue and life as the standard. Stay with me, big guy.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Rock? Dayaamm! My internal image of you has forever been altered— twisted into something new. (btw - I would bet good money that you have an aspiring singer in you.)

Like the young lady intoned:

You used to be one of the rotten ones

... and I liked you for that...

Hmmmm...

Now there's a foundation for some very interesting ethics...

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Brant:

>Even if your worthy opponents have won all the battles they have so far lost the war unless they can successfully argue that ethics is an ad hoc thing and that they don't need a system of ethics that they can logically demonstrate.

This is exactly what we do argue! We - or I at least - am arguing for the autonomy of ethics i.e. you don't need a system that you can logically demonstrate. (Of the debaters, Michael K and perhaps Darrell -tho he kinda comes and goes - and maybe you are closest to actually getting this point, I think. Maybe Victor too. I argue the fact that decisions aren't logically reducible creates the burden of individual responsibility. What, you gonna imagine that someone will one day work out the various important logical derivations of ethics, so all you need to do is look them up in a book, like a book of mathematical tables, to know what to do? This is a dangerous, and fortunately impossible dream, my friend. I argue that a validly derivable ethics would destroy individual responsibility, for it would mean an abstract system would then dictate our actions, and we could shrug off our own ethical difficulties.

But this will never be. It turns out that facts and logic will only get us so far; it is we who must decide. (And no, we don't argue that ethics are completely ad hoc, or entirely subjective. They are partially ad hoc and partially subjective, and also partly hemmed in and influenced by facts. This is what I mean about not being fully reducible)

The upshot of this is that I view fields like meta-ethics, despite their respectable reputation, as basically a waste of time. The most important field of study for morals and ethics should be examining the likely future consequences of our actions, especially the unintended and unexpected ones.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

Daniel writes (in part) :..."I argue the fact that decisions aren't logically reducible creates the burden of individual responsibility...I argue that a validly derivable ethics would destroy individual responsibility, for it would mean an abstract system would then dictate our actions, and we could shrug off our own ethical difficulties."

You make it sounds as though a “system of ethics” is by necessity a code imposed upon human beings by God knows what authority, and as if it were not a not a of rational principles. But even as far as principles are concerned, one does not adopt a moral principle and cling to it through an entire change of context while losing sight of the goal with witch it was originally associated. In other words, it makes no sense to speak of “obeying of “disobeying” a standard. I have said before, one does not “obey” a standard—one adopts and follows it in a given context—for a given purpose.*(1)

If you look at a ‘system of ethics’ (as I do) as a normative scientific branch (along with other normative sciences such as architecture and medicine) you understand the relationship between ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Man has the capacity for choice, and whether a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved. A doctor ought to do x, IF he wants to cure his patient.**(2) A man ought to do X, if he wants to live and achieve happiness. But you really come across sounding as if the entire field of ethics is “authority based”—as if human beings are meant to serve an ethical system, and not the other way around. There are no authorities here. And there are no authorities that decree dictates in constructing a building that will stand. Man discovers facts and principles and applies them.

As Rand said: "A moral code is not a sentimental luxury, nor a pretty dream, nor an arbitrary decree, nor an impractical abstraction. It is the hardest, most practical of all necessities—because without it no practical action nor any kind of life is possible. But a moral code—like any other rational conception—cannot be forced upon men. It must be accepted." ***

I am really astonished that you fail to grasp the principles involved. Now you speak of “individual responsibility”—and that sounds like a normative statement to me. Why, Daniel, why OUGHT one adhere to individual responsibility? How do you define that? For what purpose does it serve?

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, p. 295. The original passage reads as follows:

(1)

One does not adopt a moral principle and cling to it through a complete change of context while losing sight of the goal with whitch it was originally associated.

In other words, it makes no sense to speak of "obeying" or "disobeying" a standard. One does not obey a standard; one adopts and follows it in a given context, for a given purpose.

** Plagiarized from Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, p. 282. The original passage reads as follows (see also here):

(2)

Man has the capacity for choice, and whenever a theoretical principle is applied to the sphere of human action, it becomes necessary to prescribe a course of action, an ought-judgment, if a given goal is to be achieved. A doctor

ought

to do x,

if

he wants to cure his patient.

*** The Rand quote is from The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels, 8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism," dated July 30, 1945, p. 304.

OL extends its deepest apologies to George H. Smith.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>If you look at a ‘system of ethics’ (as I do) as a normative scientific branch (along with other normative sciences such as architecture and medicine)

Since when is medicine a "normative" science?

>But a moral code—like any other rational conception—cannot be forced upon men. It must be accepted.

Why are you lecturing me on my own argument?

Now let us compare your comment above with a logical derivation:

P1:"All men are mortal."

P2:"Socrates is a man."

C: "Socrates is mortal."

Do you have any choice about this conclusion, Victor? Do you?

To compare ethical decisions to the above is akin to the recent absurd claim that Objectivist ethics are axiomatic i.e. you have no choice but to accept the Objectivist ethics! Accept them...or die! This, from the same woman who claimed that decisions that are forced upon you have no ethical weight. Geez, so many Randian inconsistencies, so little time!

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To compare ethical decisions to the above is akin to the recent absurd claim that Objectivist ethics are axiomatic i.e. you have no choice but to accept the Objectivist ethics!

Daniel,

Er...

We agree that this is absurd, but you are the only one who has ever claimed it (or at least questioned it) in this thread. See below (from above).

(Quoting Laure) >As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

Oh, so the Objectivist ethics are now axiomatic too, are they?

For the sake of precision, Rand did not say that Objectivist ethics is axiomatic. She said holding your own survival as desirable is axiomatic. Even then, she stated there is an alternative.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

To compare ethical decisions to the above is akin to the recent absurd claim that Objectivist ethics are axiomatic i.e. you have no choice but to accept the Objectivist ethics! Accept them...or die! This, from the same woman who claimed that decisions that are forced upon you have no ethical weight. Geez, so many Randian inconsistencies, so little time!

Daniel,

The above quotes are unfortunate, because they are Rand’s developing thoughts (from private journals) and she later corrected her error regarding ethics as being "axiomatic." (If I am not mistaken, I believe there is an editor's note saying so.) The private journals were not meant for publication when Rand wrote them. It's a non-issue regarding this discussion.

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Daniel: 'Since when is medicine a "normative" science?'

Daniel,

Since medicine came into being. Regarding the is-ought issue: many sciences (other than ethics—the science of survival) are concerned with ought-judgments,*(1.1) and there is hardly any difficulty in understanding the relationship between “is” and “ought” as displayed in the normative sciences.

Medicine, as the example went, prescribes a set of actions that must be taken in order to preserve or to reinstate health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done and this must be based on objective knowledge.*(1.2)

Descriptive = is = cognitive.

Prescriptive = ought = normative.**(2)

Both normative and descriptive sciences are centered chiefly on facts.*(1.3) The fact that ‘action results from identity’ is universally accepted and used in the fields of physics, chemistry, and the other realms of science.***(3) Both normative and descriptive sciences are concerned with facts and both are capable of verification---as both are subject to such judgments as “valid” or “invalid” or “true” or “false.”*(1.4)

I submit that normative and descriptive sciences are equal in that both deal with abstract principles derived from the facts of reality. The only difference, I maintain, lies in which facet of reality they consider along with the purpose for which their principles where employed.*(1.5)

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Several passages are plagiarized from Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. The original passages read as follows:

(1.1) (p. 281)

Ethics, according to Rand and other philosophers within the general trend of Aristotelianism, is a normative science; and it is instructive to note that many sciences other than ethics are concerned with ought-judgments. Medicine, for instance...

(1.2) (p. 281 - See also

here

.)

Medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that must be taken in order to preserve health. A doctor prescribes what ought to be done, but this prescription, to be valid, must be based on objective knowledge...

(1.3) (p. 282)

It is important to recognize that both normative and descriptive sciences are concerned primarily with facts...

(1.4) (p. 282)

Both normative and descriptive sciences are concerned with factual knowledge, both are capable of verification, and both are open to such judgments as "valid" or "invalid," "correct" or "incorrect," "true" or "false."

(1.5) (p. 282)

We see, then, that normative and descriptive sciences are identical in that both deal with abstract principles derived from the facts of reality; their difference lies in which aspect of reality they consider, as well as the purpose for which their principles are employed.

** Plagiarized from Post 225 ("Critique of Objectivist ethics theory" started by Dragonfly) by Michael Stuart Kelly. The original passage reads as follows:

(2)

Descriptive = is = cognitive.

Prescriptive = ought = normative.

*** Plagiarized from A Guide to the Philosophy of Objectivism by David King, Chapter One. The original passage reads as follows:

(3)

The fact that action results from identity is universally accepted and used in the fields of physics, chemistry, and other realms of science.

OL extends its deepest apologies to George H. Smith and David King.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The above quotes are unfortunate, because they are Rand’s developing thoughts (from private journals) and she later corrected her error regarding ethics as being "axiomatic." (If I am not mistaken, I believe there is an editor's note saying so.) The private journals were not meant for publication when Rand wrote them. It's a non-issue regarding this discussion.

Victor,

I am not going to let this bit of false information become accepted without contesting it. Where did Rand say that ethics was axiomatic? Since you said something about an editorial comment, I looked it up. Here is the quote (The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism," p. 255):

The nature of man sets the standard of his moral code. Man's survival sets the purpose. A moral code in opposition to man's nature or survival would mean immediate destruction, if actually adopted.

The axiom of the only morality proper to man is:

Man exists and must survive as man.

All that which furthers his survival is good. All that which obstructs it is evil. The conditions and qualities required by the function of his rational faculty constitute the Life Principle and are, therefore, good. The conditions and qualities that proceed from or result in the obstruction of his rational faculty constitute the Death Principle and are, therefore, evil.

(AR later rejected the idea that ethics begins with an axiom. For her proof of man's life as the standard of moral value, see John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged and "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness.)

(I had to put the editorial comment in parentheses instead of brackets because the brackets interfered with the forum software's BB code.)

This editorial comment is way off. It should have stated that "AR later rejected the idea that ethics begins with that axiom." Divide her statement into 2 and you will see what I mean:

1. Man exists.

2. Man must survive as man.

The first is directly derivable via induction plus deduction (actually a half-assed syllogism*) from "existence exists," which is an axiomatic proposition, and the second comes from her attempt to relate "ought" (must) to "is." This is also based on the law of identity, another axiom.

* Existence exists. (axiom)

Man is part of existence. (observed and processed as induction)

Therefore, man exists. (deduction)

Stating 'her error regarding ethics as being "axiomatic'" is not only assigning her a position she never made, it is claiming she erred where she did not. (And I thought you were a defender of Rand.) If you wish to see an actual error in the development of her ideas on this, look at the following quote (The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism," p. 255):

If "Man exists and must survive as man" is the axiom of man's morality, then the first moral principle deduced from it, the first commandment to guide man in his relations with other men, is the principle of independence.

I would be interested to see how one deduces a moral principle from a single axiom (which is actually a double axiom, but my interest still remains).

The whole point of this is that "ethics starts with an axiom" is hugely different than "ethics is axiomatic." All knowledge starts with an axiom. That does not make all knowledge axiomatic (in the sense you were using the word).

Michael

[Rodney]

Man exists and must survive as man.

Your reading is mistaken. I'm quite sure that this is a compression of:

Man exists as man, and must survive as such.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man exists and must survive as man.

Your reading is mistaken. I'm quite sure that this is a compression of:

Man exists as man, and must survive as such.

Rodney,

I gave the page numbers. Why not look it up? I got this off The Objectivism Research CDROM. What is your source?

For the record, the phrase "Man exists and must survive as man" occurs 5 times between p. 245 and p. 304 of the Journals as given on the CDROM.

I looked up the phrase in the manner you just gave and it does not appear on the CDROM.

I don't have the print copy of the Journals, but I am pretty sure the text is the same as that given on the CDROM. (I have found typos at times with other works, but minor ones. Nothing as drastic as this.)

Michael

[Rodney]

By "reading" I meant interpretation.

[Laure]

What part of -- "even if a moral conclusion is logically derivable, you still have a choice of what action to take" -- don't you understand, Daniel?

You seem to think that if we could figure out right and wrong by using logic, somehow that would take the whole challenge and meaning out of it, and somehow we would lose our free will. What makes ethical questions hard is not that they can't be decided logically, it's that (1) we have incomplete information, (2) even when the right course of action is determined, we sometimes need strength of will to CHOOSE to do right, (3) there usually is more than one "right" course of action, and we don't know which is best because of (1).

I recommend you read The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, by Leonard Peikoff, because your argument is exhibiting this dichotomy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rodney,

LOL... I just saw it. Going from grammar alone, that phrase can be taken both ways.

My way:

Man exists and must survive as man.

Man exists and must survive as man.

Your way:

Man exists and must survive as man.

Man exists and must survive as man.

Dayaamm!

It is still axiom-based and I don't think I would have any problem coming up with another half-assed syllogism to get there from the fundamental axioms and induction. (To exist is to exist as something, etc.)

Michael

[Rodney]

--except of course that mine is the correct one!

Readers may think that such a difference is insignificant, but accumulation of such errors about AR's meaning abets the nonsense of the old guard, and to a large extent constitutes it as well.

[Dragonfly]

I recommend you read The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, by Leonard Peikoff, because your argument is exhibiting this dichotomy.

There is a meaningful distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. I've refuted Peikoff's argument here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

--except of course that mine is the correct one!

Readers may think that such a difference is insignificant, but accumulation of such errors about AR's meaning abets the nonsense of the old guard, and to a large extent constitutes it as well.

Rodney,

Your's is the correct one? If you say so.

I am curious, though. What is the reasoning behind your claim? I see nothing contradictory or wrong about "Man exists" and I do not see how "Man exists as man" is better or clearer to any real extent, or even how it alters the meaning.

Michael

[Rodney]

Because I believe myself extremely well attuned to her writing and thinking style.

What do others think here?

[Victor Pross]

The above quotes are unfortunate, because they are Rand’s developing thoughts (from private journals) and she later corrected her error regarding ethics as being "axiomatic." (If I am not mistaken, I believe there is an editor's note saying so.) The private journals were not meant for publication when Rand wrote them. It's a non-issue regarding this discussion.

Victor,

I am not going to let this bit of false information become accepted without contesting it. Where did Rand say that ethics was axiomatic? Since you said something about an editorial comment, I looked it up. Here is the quote (The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism," p. 255):

The nature of man sets the standard of his moral code. Man's survival sets the purpose. A moral code in opposition to man's nature or survival would mean immediate destruction, if actually adopted.

The axiom of the only morality proper to man is:

Man exists and must survive as man.

All that which furthers his survival is good. All that which obstructs it is evil. The conditions and qualities required by the function of his rational faculty constitute the Life Principle and are, therefore, good. The conditions and qualities that proceed from or result in the obstruction of his rational faculty constitute the Death Principle and are, therefore, evil.

(AR later rejected the idea that ethics begins with an axiom. For her proof of man's life as the standard of moral value, see John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged and "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness.)

(I had to put the editorial comment in parentheses instead of brackets because the brackets interfered with the forum software's BB code.)

This editorial comment is way off. It should have stated that "AR later rejected the idea that ethics begins with that axiom." Divide her statement into 2 and you will see what I mean:

1. Man exists.

2. Man must survive as man.

The first is directly derivable via induction plus deduction (actually a half-assed syllogism*) from "existence exists," which is an axiomatic proposition, and the second comes from her attempt to relate "ought" (must) to "is." This is also based on the law of identity, another axiom.

* Existence exists. (axiom)

Man is part of existence. (observed and processed as induction)

Therefore, man exists. (deduction)

Stating 'her error regarding ethics as being "axiomatic'" is not only assigning her a position she never made, it is claiming she erred where she did not. (And I thought you were a defender of Rand.) If you wish to see an actual error in the development of her ideas on this, look at the following quote (The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism," p. 255):

If "Man exists and must survive as man" is the axiom of man's morality, then the first moral principle deduced from it, the first commandment to guide man in his relations with other men, is the principle of independence.

I would be interested to see how one deduces a moral principle from a single axiom (which is actually a double axiom, but my interest still remains).

The whole point of this is that "ethics starts with an axiom" is hugely different than "ethics is axiomatic." All knowledge starts with an axiom. That does not make all knowledge axiomatic (in the sense you were using the word).

Michael

Michael,

Oh-oh, you misunderstood me. :shocked: I meant to communicate that ethics are NOT axiomatic. My understadning is of the three axioms--from which all else comes. I worded it wrong or you misunderstood my post. Still, your post here is not for naught and I'm sure it was informative to many.

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it...

"Circular, but necessary". Oh really?

Well if that's your argument - recalling that Rand meant by ""life (as man qua man) as a standard of value" as basically being an Objectivist - let's look at how people with other beliefs might make the same argument.

"Being a Christian is morally right, because only Christianity is moral."

"God created the Universe, because only God could create the Universe"

and so forth.

Of course, their proponents would claim these arguments are "circular, but necessary" too. If you want to claim that this style of argument gives rational justification for Objectivism, then you also have to admit that these arguments too are likewise rationally justified.

Frankly, you've got problems!

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>What part of -- "even if a moral conclusion is logically derivable, you still have a choice of what action to take" -- don't you understand, Daniel?

Laure, like your "circular but necessary" argument, you need to think this through. Lets break it down.

>You seem to think that if we could figure out right and wrong by using logic, somehow that would take the whole challenge and meaning out of it, and somehow we would lose our free will.

If decisions were logically derivable, then the only moral/ethical decision you'd ever need to make would be to make the effort to always use valid logic. That would mean a book could, in principle, be written with the correct logical derivations, and all you'd need to do to always be morally right is have the strength of will to read and follow its instructions! (Actually many people do think this is the case, as several attempts to write such books have been make throughout history...;-))

Yet this is clearly absurd, as it would give up individual responsibility in all ethical choices except that one.

It is absurd at an even more important level however, as even if we make that decision to always stick to valid logic in ethical decisions, we would find ourselves snafu'd, as one cannot derive decisions from facts using valid logic! Even Darrel has been forced to admit this, by making appeals beyond classical logic to other, nameless "reasoning" systems to justify his claim - systems that he is thus far completely unable to demonstrate the existence of!

>What makes ethical questions hard is not that they can't be decided logically...

Don't lose sight of the point at issue. They can't be. No-one on this forum has provided any demonstration that they can be. If they did, I would recommend they publish their results immediately, as such a demonstration would make them overnight the most famous philosopher of the past 100 years!

>it's that (1) we have incomplete information,

Do you mean factual information? Makes no difference. You can't do it, no matter how many facts you have! You have to get your head around this point to understand the issue.

>(2) even when the right course of action is determined, we sometimes need strength of will to CHOOSE to do right,

>(3) there usually is more than one "right" course of action, and we don't know which is best because of (1).

Your 2) and 3) beg the question, which is of course,"how do we decide what is the right course of action?" in the first place.

>I recommend you read The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, by Leonard Peikoff, because your argument is exhibiting this dichotomy.

I've read it many times. Unfortunately Leonard makes rather a hash of things. Kelly Ross over at www.freisian.com saves me the trouble:

"Peikoff ("The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Meridian, 1990) even confuses Kant's definition of synthetic propositions with the Logical Positivist interpretation that all synthetic propositions are contingent. Since Kant would not accept such a trivialization of his theory for a minute (he would even regard it as a misunderstanding of Hume), Peikoff cannot even begin to address the substance of the issues that Kant considers. "Objectivist" epistemology has not been awakened, as Kant was by Hume, from its "dogmatic slumber."

(This is another thread, but I'm just sayin'...)

Now, may I make a recommendation to you. Do some other reading outside of Ayn Rand before you decide she's got all the answers!

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Laure]

On the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy: I went and read Dragonfly's piece, and I think I understand where he is coming from. Let me put forth my own view of it (which is not necessarily Objectivist Canon):

I see Analytic-Synthetic as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. I agree with Peikoff that ultimately you could consider all truths to be analytic, AND all truths to be synthetic. The reason there appears to be a dichotomy is that some truths rely on a longer chain of reasoning than others. Hence, we can imagine that a truth relying on a long reasoning chain could be otherwise. BUT, if you actually derive it and look at each logical step along the way, there's no point at which you could imagine the alternative. And there are "empirical truths" that we can't derive yet because there are gaps in our knowledge. But once we figure out the gaps and we move that truth over to the analytical column, it doesn't suddenly mean that that truth doesn't tell us anything about the real world. It doesn't become a "well, DUH!" just because we now can see how it's derived.

Working the other direction: We always have to make empirical observations even to begin the process of defining a concept. Thus, when we define ice as solid water, that definition itself rests on empirical observation. Here's this cold thing, I think I'll call it ice ... gee, when I melt it, I get water! We decide this is the characteristic of ice that's most important to us so it becomes the definition.

Anyway, the reason I brought this up is because I was detecting in Daniel's posts the idea that if morality is analytic (derivable), then it somehow ceases to be significant anymore. This is what I'm rejecting.

As to the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary: I agree that a proponent of "God created the Universe, because only God could create the Universe" would also claim "circular but necessary". And that statement is internally consistent. It's a question of whether you accept "God created the Universe" as axiomatic. I accept "my survival is desirable" as axiomatic. And not just in consciously thinking about it, but implicitly in all of my day-to-day actions. If you introspect a little, you may find that you accept that statement as axiomatic, too.

[Laure]

Daniel, your use of the term "decisions" is confusing. I would make a distinction between "conclusions", "decisions", and "actions".

I think if you had all the facts (which we usually don't), and sufficient time to work through the derivation, you could always derive the morally correct course of action. This is your "conclusion" of the derivation: "I should do X." A decision is "I am going to do X." An action is actually doing X. The decision step requires the exercise of free will (as does initiating the process of thinking about the problem in the first place!) We are perfectly free to say "I should do X, but I just don't feel like it so I'm not gonna." We are also free to say "I'm going to do X" and then procrastinate so that we never get to the point of actually doing it.

Now, on your idea that we cannot determine the right course of action no matter how many facts we have... do you really believe this? How do you personally make moral decisions? Even the law courts have the concept of the defendant "knowing right from wrong" in order to be held culpable. Are you saying that nobody can know right from wrong? Or there's some other means of obtaining knowledge other than reason? If this last, I'd ask you to prove it, but... ah... then you'd be using reason.

[Victor Pross]

Laure,

The implicit altruism exhibited in Daniel’s position--and the underlining belief that ethics is authority based--accounts for so much of the gap in coming to any understanding on the question of ethics. The starting points are so different and any “mid-water” philosophizing will be fraught with miscommunication.

-Victor

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>Daniel, your use of the term "decisions" is confusing. I would make a distinction between "conclusions", "decisions", and "actions".

Clearly the "act of deciding, or a "decision" precede all those.

>I think if you had all the facts (which we usually don't), and sufficient time to work through the derivation, you could always derive the morally correct course of action.

You may think this, but you think wrong. Hume shows that this derivation is logically impossible, as you always have to smuggle some subjective assumption in. Unless you can demonstrate a derivation that doesn't, you have to accept Hume's conclusion.

For example, here is a fact: "It is sunny outside". On this basis, what decision should I logically make?

>This is your "conclusion" of the derivation: "I should do X." A decision is "I am going to do X." An action is actually doing X. The decision step requires the exercise of free will (as does initiating the process of thinking about the problem in the first place!) We are perfectly free to say "I should do X, but I just don't feel like it so I'm not gonna." We are also free to say "I'm going to do X" and then procrastinate so that we never get to the point of actually doing it.

>Now, on your idea that we cannot determine the right course of action no matter how many facts we have... do you really believe this? How do you personally make moral decisions?

With some difficulty, and always a nagging feeling of uncertainty!

>Even the law courts have the concept of the defendant "knowing right from wrong" in order to be held culpable. Are you saying that nobody can know right from wrong?

No, only that there are no purely logical and factual grounds for value judgements. Now, you can keep insisting that there are till the cows come home, but until you can actually demonstrate this, you will be, as the Texans say, all hat and no cattle If you candemonstrate this, I seriously urge you to publish it, for if it suceeds as a proof you will be the most famous philosopher of the century, and I will be able to proudly dine out on the fact that I once debated you in an internet forum and lost!

>Or there's some other means of obtaining knowledge other than reason?

This is a question you should pose to yourself and Darrell, rather than me, seeing you are both happy to accept illogical arguments on the grounds of either "introspection" or nameless "other" methods of "reasoning.