Why does man need a code of values?

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

I really want to get my head around your position.

Did the the castaway character that Tom Hanks played survive all those years on the deserted island because he was moral---OR would you insist upon saying that morality had nothing to do with it?

I believe I asked this before, but what is the standard of morality? (I assume that you don’t think we should trash the whole subject all together?) Why, to your mind, do we need morality—whatever morality that is—why do we need it?

Do we need morality because we live among million of others—or was the Castaway character amoral while all by his lonesome? If your position is that morality is for “others”…well in what capacity? Their benefit? Their property? Their life? What are those "others" getting--if morality is for "others?" What?

Or, to ask again, is it your position that we don’t need an ethical system at all—except as a subject to debate? If not, what is ethics for? Talk to me.

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>The implicit altruism exhibited in Daniel’s position--

Yes, classical logic is just sooooo altruistic!

>and the underlining belief that ethics is authority based...

Which is only what I've been arguing against the whole time!

>...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.

As I have said before, the idea that different "starting points" makes communication impossible is itself a fallacy. Everyone has different starting points! If this were true, we'd never be able to communicate about anything.

This is why we have objective standards of assessing arguments - for example, logic. The problem has nothing to do with "starting points." The problem is that while you want logic as your justification, logic simply does not reach the conclusions that you want it to. It in fact supports Hume's conclusions. You may not like this, it may conflict with your dearly held beliefs, but...so what? What you feel has nothing to do with soundness of a logical argument, as Ayn Rand herself might have told you.

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>The implicit altruism exhibited in Daniel’s position--

Yes, classical logic is just sooooo altruistic!

>and the underlining belief that ethics is authority based...

Which is only what I've been arguing against the whole time!

>...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.

As I have said before, the idea that different "starting points" makes communication impossible is itself a fallacy. Everyone has different starting points! If this were true, we'd never be able to communicate about anything.

This is why we have objective standards of assessing arguments - for example, logic. The problem has nothing to do with "starting points." The problem is that while you want logic as your justification, logic simply does not reach the conclusions that you want it to. It in fact supports Hume's conclusions. You may not like this, it may conflict with your dearly held beliefs, but...so what? What you feel has nothing to do with soundness of a logical argument, as Ayn Rand herself might have told you.

Daniel,

Could you stick to answering questions and making your points -- short of patronizing cracks and editorializing over my “dearly loved” beliefs? I told you once before, I love Rand but I love the truth more. But I am not convinced of the truth as you see it, that’s all.

The reason why I mention your “implicit altruism” might come even more to the surface depending upon how you answer my recent post to you.

-Victor

[Laure]

1) It is sunny outside.

2) I am going for a hike.

3) The sun can cause sunburns and even skin cancer.

4) Sunscreen can help protect me from skin cancer.

5) I value my life, and skin cancer could endanger it.

...therefore...

I ought to put on some sunscreen.

Now, I have come to my conclusion. Next I have to decide if I'm actually going to put on sunscreen or if I'm going to be lazy and skip it. I say, "I'm going to put on sunscreen." Then, I have to follow through and do it.

I suppose your objection will be that the wearing of sunscreen is not a moral issue, but to my way of thinking it is. It's just a peccadillo, but nonetheless... (particularly where I live, in Tucson, skin cancer capital of the US)

You say you make moral decisions "With some difficulty, and always a nagging feeling of uncertainty!" Sometimes moral decisions are difficult, but taking a rational approach to a moral problem can only make it easier! Imagine you're trying to send a rocket to the moon. You can try doing it without mathematics, but your probability of success will be greatly enhanced if you use every tool at your disposal!

(P.S. Don't you think introspection is a method of reasoning?)

Edited March 25, 2007 by Laure

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Do we need morality because we live among million of others—

I have already answered this a dozen or so times: yes!

>or was the Castaway character amoral while all by his lonesome?

I've answered this as well - exactly this question. This is just playing with the word "moral". People have different qualities: determination, courage, imagination, intelligence (sometimes they are codified, sometimes not) Undoubtedly these come into play in living on a desert island. But does that make them moral? Does determination in stealing make it moral? Does courage in flying planes into buildings make it moral? Does imagination in exterminating other races make it moral? Does intelligence in white collar crime make it moral?

Etc.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Laure:

1) It is sunny outside.

2) I am going for a hike.

Stop right there! Hume's point is that we smuggle in subjective decisions implicitly when we try to deduce decisions from facts.

Here, you've done exactly this at the very next step.

Now, do you see what I mean?

Daniel,

Men can have subjective values, yes. So what? Do you contend that ALL decisions are necessarily subjective--that none are objectively deduced from facts? None at all!? Now, if you confine your answer to this question, it might be very revealing. Thanks.

-Victor

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure

>(P.S. Don't you think introspection is a method of reasoning?)

Does it trump logic?

Edited March 26, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Men can have subjective values, yes.

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>Do we need morality because we live among million of others—

>I have already answered this a dozen or so times: yes!

Okay, so your answer is YES. But you didn't answer my extended questions regarding this. Why? Elaborate, please. I asked you if we need ethics. You said 'yes'...so goodie. But why? My extended questions are all there. You have also answered my other question: we don't need, judging your remarks, ethics when alone on a deserted island. So your base is one of altruism? Is that fair? Ethics is for "others"

-Victor

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>Men can have subjective values, yes.

Do you contend that ALL decisions are necessarily subjective--that none are objectively deduced from facts? None at all!? Now, if you confine your answer to this question, it might be very revealing. Thanks. :turned: :turned: :turned: :turned: :turned:

Edited March 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Do you contend that ALL decisions are necessarily subjective--that none are objectively deduced from facts? None at all!? Now, if you confine your answer to this question, it might be very revealing. Thanks.

Yes. All decisions have a subjective element. They can be influenced or constrained by both facts and logic (I cannot decide to fly to the moon by flapping my arms, due to the laws of physics - but this is not much of a decision then!) but are not fully reducible to either.

I've already said this n times. Please don't ask me to say this again!

Edited March 26, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Laure]

Laure:

1) It is sunny outside.

2) I am going for a hike.

Stop right there! Hume's point is that we smuggle in subjective decisions implicitly when we try to deduce decisions from facts.

Here, you've done exactly this at the very next step.

Now, do you see what I mean?

Daniel,

Men can have subjective values, yes. So what? Do you contend that ALL decisions are necessarily subjective--that none are objectively deduced from facts? None at all!? Now, if you confine your answer to this question, it might be very revealing. Thanks.

-Victor

(First of all, I can't find Daniel's post that Victor's quoting here! Weird!)

Daniel, I don't get it. "I am going for a hike" is a fact, like the others. Facts can be about me as well as about the external world.

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>Do you contend that ALL decisions are necessarily subjective--that none are objectively deduced from facts? None at all!? Now, if you confine your answer to this question, it might be very revealing. Thanks.

Yes. All decisions have a subjective element. They can be influenced or constrained by both facts and logic (I cannot decide to fly to the moon by flapping my arms, due to the laws of physics - but this is not much of a decision then!) but are not fully reducible to either.

I've already said this n times. Please don't ask me to say this again!

Daniel,

You take so much for granted. How do you know that you can't flap your your arms and fly? Because its never been done before? My question has a hint of Hume all over it, huh? Now then, what about my ohter question: ethics for others? Why?

-Victor

Edited March 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Laure]

Or as Rand so aptly put it, "Why is the happiness of another person important and good, but not your own?"

[Rodney]

I've already said this n times. Please don't ask me to say this again!

DB * n - ;-) - ! =

DB * 1 - DB =

0

[Victor Pross]

Or as Rand so aptly put it, "Why is the happiness of another person important and good, but not your own?"

Laure,

Yes, and the extended question to this is: how do you achieve the "happiness" of others, why ought you...and based on what facts? Would this be a floating 'ought' based on no facts? Morality means OTHERS. Period.

:hmm: "How do you know this?"

"Uh, I don't."

Is the happiness of others simply a moral imperative...driven by subjective actions to achieve this end? Does one not see the mystical implications here? Based on what facts (if any) do we achieve the the happiness or ends of others? Maybe a gut feeling, huh? Daniel is on so much thin ice to answer these questions.

Victor

Edited March 26, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Laure,

I have done some thinking on this and I am pretty sure I have arrived at a root. I think your remark is true and it is one of the more sensible things I have heard said about this, but only up to a point. Once again, as is usual with Rand (and the other side) the problem is scope. When you read about the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy, you either get a complete rejection of it or a complete approval.

On the Peikoff side, he is correct that operations like mathematics do have a foundation in reality. But there is a small catch. The mind comes with an innate capacity to integrate and even to perform logic and mathematics. That's reality too. The mind's method of functioning is prewired, regardless of what is fed into it. This is part of its identity.

When I read such bombastic ranting and railing as in Peikoff's essay, I get the impression that after loudly proclaiming that integration is an automatic process (of percepts at least, but he and Rand also claim that concepts are integrated in a haphazard manner if not done volitionally and that man has no choice about the fact that he integrates, he only has a choice about what and how he integrates), he then forgets this automatic process altogether and goes on the attack against the "enemies of reason" as if the mind had no inherent manners of functioning—as if everything were volitional and sense-based.

The fact is that the ability to integrate is not sense-based, but inherent in the mind as part of what it is. It does integrate sensory material, but it integrates other things as well, including purely mental operations.

Now on the other side, opponents claim that some mental operations are completely cut off from sensory material. While I do agree that the innate processing operations develop with growth and maturity, it is too much to take this development completely outside reality. This is another all-or-nothing approach that is simply not true. The problem lies in what to call awareness of mental operations. You can call that awareness "sense-based" if you allow that man has a sense organ in the mind for perceiving its own operations. If you do not allow that, then the opponents are right. Some mental operations are completely cut off from sensory material.

But once you open that door, some opponents then go whole hog and try to posit that ALL mental operations of logic, etc., are outside of reality.

Essentially you have a processing method that is innate, but you have to input something into it to process before it can work. As I see it, with some mathematics, the process itself is its own input. The mind integrates mental processes as if they were external information. Some logical problems are like that too. The rub comes when this gets applied to external reality with speculation and some standard logical problems where contradictions seem innate to them. Rand dealt with this somewhat in "Concepts of Consciousness" in ITOE, but I don't think she went far enough. Logic and mathematics needed more focus and elaboration.

Since logic and mathematics do exist as innate capacities that automatically develop and Peikoff denies that it exists (most of the time), he is dismissed by critics. On the other hand, just because Peikoff was incorrect about part of the issue does not mean that the rest is incorrect. This is where your continuum comes in.

Derived from your reasoning, you actually can extend your continuum to the extremes: on one end you have purely mental operations and no contact with any other reality except mental operations. Then you start adding reality and processing it and adding more and more reality until you get to the middle where there is equal parts input from external reality and mental operations. Then mental operations start start becoming less and input from external reality becoming more until you arrive at sensory input without any integration at all on the other end. Obviously the midsection of this continuum is where most mental operations sit.

There are other problems with the opponents, like the way they define concepts in a form differently than the "file-folder for entity" (or action, relation or attribute) method of Objectivism. But that is another issue.

Essentially, both sides go too far and ignore simple truths while accusing the opposing side of being a charlatan. But the truth is not in such oversimplification.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(First of all, I can't find Daniel's post that Victor's quoting here! Weird!)

Laure,

Please skim this over. It will tell you how to find Daniel's post (and others like it) and you will never have that problem again.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

A question for the sake of clarification:

It seems that Rand never devised a formal proof of the basic principle of the Objectivist ethics, but she did outline the basic structure of her argument explicitly. I assert that her line of reasoning is sound.

Let’s summarize the steps (for the sake of my question):

1, Living beings—and only living beings—have values (goals).

2, Man, being volitional, must choose his values.

3, Values (goals) may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless.

4, Life is the ultimate end, and the only ‘end in itself.’

5, Therefore, the only meaningful values a man can choose are those which serve to sustain his life.

For me, the logical inference which leads to the conclusion is sound. Premises 1, 2 and 3 don’t seem open to serious attack. I don't know of any thinker who has objected to the first premises...do you? The battle is over premise 4. Is life an ‘end in itself’? Is it the ONLY possible end itself?* To your understanding, is this the crux of the objections, and not premises 1, 2 and 3. Do I have this right?

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ronald E. Merrill, pp. 101-102 (also see here). The original passage reads as follows:

She never attempts a formal proof of the basic principle of the Objectivist ethics. However, at one point she does outline the basic structure of her argument explicitly. We may summarize the key steps as follows:

i. Living beings, and only living beings, have values (goals).

ii. Man, being volitional, must choose his values.

iii. Values—goals—may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless.

iv. Life is the ultimate end, and furthermore, it is the only possible ultimate end, the only ‘end in itself.’

v. Therefore, the only meaningful or justifiable values a man can choose are those which serve to sustain his life.

The logical inference which leads to the conclusion is sound enough. Premises i, ii and iii, though occasionally challenged, hardly seem open to serious attack. The fight is over premise iv. Is life an ‘end in itself’? And, if so, is it the only possible end in itself?

OL extends its deepest apologies to heirs of Ronald E. Merrill.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Now then, what about my ohter question: ethics for others? Why?

Who said ethics are just for others?

We need ethics because we live with other people, and our interests as individuals can clash. We need ethics as a way of resolving such clashes. This is what "ethics" means in the general sense, for heavens sake! Rules for dealing with others.

How many times do I need to type this out?

[Laure]

(First of all, I can't find Daniel's post that Victor's quoting here! Weird!)

Laure,

Please skim this over. It will tell you how to find Daniel's post (and others like it) and you will never have that problem again.

Michael

Aha! I clicked the thingy, and went to Daniel's original post. Apparently he had edited out that part by the time I saw it.

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>Or as Rand so aptly put it, "Why is the happiness of another person important and good, but not your own?"

Who is this directed at? Me? If so, where did I ever write this? Where did I argue, or even imply, that only other people's happiness is important?

Answer: nowhere. So this is hardly a very effective line of counterargument.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>Aha! I clicked the thingy, and went to Daniel's original post. Apparently he had edited out that part by the time I saw it.

yes, my original post didn't show up for some reason, so I rewrote it...then it did! So I deleted the first part, of my second response, as it was a double post.

[Laure]

So Daniel, you practice ethics out of concern for the well-being of others, and you just hope and pray that they will feel the same way and act out of concern for your well-being, rather than just acting for your own well-being and respecting the right of others to do the same.

I think this idea logically bothers some of us Objectivists, kinda like Russell's set of all sets that don't contain themselves or something...

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>Now then, what about my ohter question: ethics for others? Why?

Who said ethics are just for others?

We need ethics because we live with other people, and our interests as individuals can clash. We need ethics as a way of resolving such clashes. This is what "ethics" means in the general sense, for heavens sake! Rules for dealing with others.

How many times do I need to type this out?

Daniel,

Why should we care to resolve conflicts? For what purpose? Is 'conflict resolution' an axiom, or does it rest on something else? :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 26, 2007 by Victor Pross