Critique of Objectivist ethics theory

[Victor Pross]

That is still no reason to extend morality to simple physiological functions, that would be a form of "greedy reductionism".

I agree!

Ethics concerns our behavior towards other people;

I entirely disagree on this one. Ethics should be egoistic.

only a religion will condemn you for committing suicide or for sexual behavior that doesn't harm other people. That Objectivism tries to extend morality to purely personal and private concerns is in my opinion one of its most revolting aspects.

Here is a misunderstanding. It's as if you thought ethics is about condemnation of that which merits it, rather than about how to live. Ethics is in a sense ONLY about personal and private concerns. My conscience doesn't exist in order to help YOU; it exists in order that __I__ can use it and be guided by it. Suppose someone writes about how to balance your checkbook or manage your investments. Will you say "Financial advice is about how you deal with OTHER people and avoid stealing their money; one of the most revolting aspects of this book is that it condemns you for mismanaging your finances when you're not harming other people.

This is simply no reason to be honest or just in dealing with OTHER people except that it is necessary in order to live one's own life rationally and purposefully. -- Mike Hardy

Mike,

That’s a short and sweet post—very much to the point. Dragonfly is right to revile a religious type of morality, or a “taboo” type of morality. But one suspects the “fallacy of the frozen abstraction” when he implies that such is the case with the entire question of ethics—lock, stock and barrel. He seems to think the question of ethics is authority based (by necessity) and Rand is just another tent show authoritarian. One gets the hint of this from his posts.

A “taboo” morality consists in proscribing a set of rules mainly as things you must not do, without giving any reason for what you must do. That is how many approach the question of ethics. But you said it very well in your post. I wonder if Dragonfly truly understands the Objectivist ethics--sufficiently enough to be critical of it. You know, I have read critiques of the Objectivist ethics by thinkers and writers who have—at least--studied Rand! There is no question that they know her thought inside and out. Of course, instead of addressing their critique from a mistaken premise, they merely feel at liberty to distort her system in order to attack it. (Ah, gotta love those intellectuals).

-Victor

edit: I just had to make this observation, but I'm still not gunning for the guy. :turned:

Edited March 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Darrell Hougen]

You are giving no credit for a person's ability to compartmentalize--to be rational in one area and irrational in another. Much of what you are saying seems to be long on logical inertia and short on empirical data.

I'm not giving no credit to a person's ability to compartmentalize, I'm simply omitting discussion of the issue for sake of brevity. However, I'm suspecting that your problem with my presentation is actually rather different in character. The creationism versus evolution example works well because it is obvious that belief in creationism is irrational. However, I will try to give more examples with more sweeping implications as I have time.

Darrell

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>You know, I have read critiques of the Objectivist ethics by thinkers and writers who have—at least--studied Rand! There is no question that they know her thought inside and out. Of course, instead of addressing their critique from a mistaken premise, they merely feel at liberty to distort her system in order to attack it. (Ah, gotta love those intellectuals).

Hi Victor

May I ask which critiques you've read of Objectivist ethics, and maybe give us an example or two of how those thinkers have distorted her system?

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>You know, I have read critiques of the Objectivist ethics by thinkers and writers who have—at least--studied Rand! There is no question that they know her thought inside and out. Of course, instead of addressing their critique from a mistaken premise, they merely feel at liberty to distort her system in order to attack it. (Ah, gotta love those intellectuals).

Hi Victor

May I ask which critiques you've read of Objectivist ethics, and maybe give us an example or two of how those thinkers have distorted her system?

Hi Daniel,

I’m not sure if I could refer you to anything that you’re not already familiar with. Do you know about Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult?

And: With Charity Toward None: Ayn Rand`s Philosophy by William O`Neill:

Is that a good start? Do you want more? :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Hi Victor

I haven't read ONeill's book - didn't look that interesting - but I have read the Jeff Walker book a while back. Do you have any particular passages in mind where Walker clearly distorts her ethical system in order to attack it? I'll go back and have a look at it myself, but I offhand don't recall anything egregious in that regard. His arguments seemed pretty straightforward to me.

[Victor Pross]

Hi Victor

I haven't read ONeill's book - didn't look that interesting - but I have read the Jeff Walker book a while back. Do you have any particular passages in mind where Walker clearly distorts her ethical system in order to attack it? I'll go back and have a look at it myself, but I offhand don't recall anything egregious in that regard. His arguments seemed pretty straightforward to me.

Daniel,

You saw nothing egregious? My God, the whole book is bitterly venomous. It’s a horrid book, and even those who aren’t particularly fond of Rand should be embarrassed by its shoddy scholarship--even though one can say Walker did his homework. But he reads more like tabloid journalism.

No one particular 'passage' jumps out from the total that is this book. But I’m going to refresh myself and go through the book again—tomorrow--and offer an overview of it. It has been a while since I read it and its gathering dust on my book shelve. It that okay? By the way, I hasten to add that it doesn’t begin and end with Walker, and there are many more of his ilk.

-Victor

Edited March 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Daniel, You saw nothing egregious?...No one particular 'passage' jumps out from the total that is this book. But I’m going to refresh myself and go through the book again—tomorrow--and offer an overview of it.

Oh, don't worry about the whole thing. Better just to keep it on-topic. All I'm after is any passages where Walker clearly distorts her ethical system in order to attack it. As I say, I recall that his arguments in this regard at least seemed pretty sound. But I will have a look again tonite.

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

I certainly don’t want to hijack this thread by offering a book review. So in the spirit of keeping within the subject matter, let me ask you a question: where do you stand with Rand’s ethical system? I don't know anything about you or your views. Is there anything that doesn’t sit right with you when it comes to the Objectivist ethics---something central? If so, maybe this could provide some direction for this conversation. I don't mean just you and me, I mean all the posters here.

-Victor

[studiodekadent]

I think that something needs to be stated:

From what I know, the two sides; "Pro-Rand" and "Anti-Rand" (the latter is not meant to be an insult) have different definitions of Objectivity. Anti-Randians are using the analytic philosophy definition of Objective, i.e. "exists as a physical thing." In short, their Objective is what the Pro-Rand side would call Intrinsic.

In terms of the fact-value distinction, there are two interpretations of it: one is the wide interpretation, which is "values cannot have any factual basis whatsoever" and the other is the narrow interpretation, "One cannot logically deduce morality from metaphysical fact alone." Rand rebutted the wide interpretation. The narrow interpretation still stands however and Rand herself basically would have conceded it. The only way one can rebutt the narrow interpretation is through intrinsicism.

Now, lets look at Rand's ethics. Rand, strictly speaking, developed a code of ethics that was a form of constructivism. Constructivism states that morality is real but humans make it so. Wether or not this is a form of "realism" or "anti-realism" is still being debated. In a way, "Realism-Constructivism-Antirealism" can be looked at as a relative of the IOS Trichotomy with Realism being a belief morality exists independently of humans (intrinsicism), Constructivism being morality exists in a way related to humans (this includes Objectivism although it can be embraced by different ideas too, like subjectivism) and Antirealism being morality completely invented by humans (subjectivism).

On to my version of the Objectivist metaethical derivation:

FROM OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY:

We know that concepts arise from a context (a set of circumstances under which a concept is formed). So, the first question is "what context gives rise to concepts of value?"

FACT (the use of value judgements):

Concepts of value are used by human beings to make choices between alternatives.

QUESTION:

Why do we need to make choices in the first place?

FACT (the role of choice in the human condition):

If we do not make choices, we just sit down and do nothing, then we will die. After we die, we can make no more choices.

CONCLUSION (the context of value):

Just as values presuppose choices, choices presuppose life. Hence, values arise within the context of life. Only a being that is alive and chooses to live is a being that has to use concepts of value. Anyone that does not want to live can go off and die.

CONCLUSION (the standard of value):

Hence, the standard of value is human life. Not mere biological functioning, but life proper to human nature.

From this it can be seen that in Objectivism, there is no intrinsic good. Even life man qua man is not valuable without someone choosing to value it. However, valuing it is a causal precondition for moral concepts to exist. Therefore it can be seen that in Objectivism, the concept has to be constructed by the human mind (out of empirical fact of course, like all of Objectivism's concepts). Therefore Objectivism is technically constructivist in terms of metaethics (although after that, it is naturalist, because the standard of value requires empirical research to find out what achieves it).

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>where do you stand with Rand’s ethical system?

I think it is almost certainly false for the most part, though of course it might contain elements of truth. Michael Huemer's piece above is a brief but thorough refutation. The most obvious problem is of course her equivocation over man's "life", which early in the "Ethics" essay she uses in the sense of "survival", but then later shifts to mean "man qua man" - that is to say, just about anything she pleases! That in itself is enough to render her theory useless. The other obvious problem is the "is/ought" issue, which she obviously doesn't solve as studiodekadent points out below - whoops, I mean above! - (what she/he calls the "narrow sense" of the problem is the only important sense in my opinion). There are also her usual problems of fudge words and oxymorons etc etc that bedevil the rest of her work, but aren't specific to this theory.

(I don't agree with the rest of what studiodekadent says, BTW. The problem with Rand's ethics has nothing to do with any definitions of Objectivity - and even less to do with Logical Positivism - but quite simple matters of verbal equivocation and valid logic. Once again, see Huemer's essay Dragonfly posted above)

Edited March 11, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

About Walker's book, you wrote:

It’s a horrid book, and even those who aren’t particularly fond of Rand should be embarrassed by its shoddy scholarship--even though one can say Walker did his homework. But he reads more like tabloid journalism.

This is not precise. Walker's scholarship in references is the most complete I have ever seen outside of Chris Sciabarra's work. The problem with Walker's book is the many erroneous conclusions he draws alongside correct conclusions and even enlightening ones (especially the part about the influence of early 20th century business literature on Rand's writing). He is all over the place at times.

My favorite Walker error concerns Peikoff's foul language. He states the following (The Ayn Rand Cult, p. 185):

In the last few pages of his Objectivism synthesis, Peikoff depicts literary standards over the past century or so as having declined "from the rapture of victor Hugo to the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom." One is brought up short by this statement, not only because of its bizarre take on culture, which merely echoes Ayn Rand. It's the swearword, the obscene image. In the Objectivist cannon, this is unique.

Nope. Not unique. Not at all. At least not for Peikoff. Walker completely missed Peikoff's shit.

Their purpose, the Dadaists said in 1916, is to cultivate the senseless by unleashing on the public every imaginable version of the unintelligible, the contradictory, the absurd. "Dadaism,'' said its advocates, "is against everything, even Dada." It is against every form of civilization and every form of art. "Art," they said "is shit"—a dictum faithfully implemented by pictures of the Mona Lisa wearing a mustache, or by collages pieced together from the leavings in somebody's gutter, or by exhibits such as Max Ernst's in Germany in 1920.

The moderns reject reason "disinterestedly," with no explicit idea of anything to put in its place, no alternative means of knowledge, no formal dogma to preserve or protect And they reject reason passionately, along with every one of its cardinal products and expressions, every achievement it took human thought centuries of straggle to rise to, define, or reach. In form, the modernists' monolithic rejection consists of many mutually contradictory claims; in essence, their line has been consistent and unbreached.

Man's science, they say, requires the dismissal of values (Max Weber), his feelings require the dismissal of science (Heidegger), his society requires the dismissal of the individual (the Frankfurt Institute), his individuality requires liberation from logic (the Bauhaus)—logic is oppression, consistency is an illusion, causality is dated, free will is a myth, morality is a convention, self-esteem is immoral, heroism is laughable, individual achievement is nineteenth-century, personal ambition is selfish, freedom is antisocial, business is exploitation, wealth is swinish, health is pedestrian, happiness is superficial, sexual standards are hypocrisy, machine civilization is an obscenity, grammar is unfair, communication is impossible, law and order are boring, sanity is bourgeois, beauty is a lie, art is shit.

If you want still more, turn to art—for instance, poetry—as it is taught today in our colleges. For an eloquent example, read the widely used Norton's Introduction to Poetry, and see what modern poems are offered to students alongside the recognized classics of the past as equally deserving of study, analysis, respect. One typical entry, which immediately precedes a poem by Blake, is entitled "Hard Rock Returns to Prison from the Hospital for the Criminal Insane." The poem begins: "Hard Rock was 'known not to take no shit / From nobody' ..." and continues in similar vein throughout.

That's shit three times. That's a lot of shit to miss if you want to claim "unique."

There are some serious problems with Walker's book, too. You are correct about his tabloid tone, which is bothersome, but I prefer to stick to the facts. Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, the writing style from chapter to chapter in this book leads me to suspect that huge portions of it were written by research assistants. The worst thing that can be said of the book is that it was James Valliant's main reference tool for writing PARC, but that was not Walker's fault.

Later I will set up a thread specifically for The Ayn Rand Cult where the errors and virtues will be listed. Unfortunately, though, I have to agree with Daniel Barnes in not remembering any particular passage where Walker distorts Objectivist ethics in order to attack it.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Victor:

>where do you stand with Rand’s ethical system?

I think it is almost certainly false for the most part, though of course it might contain elements of truth. Michael Huemer's piece above is a brief but thorough refutation.

Michael Huemer's piece is fraught with rather obvious errors. He does not properly identify her premises or conclusions and his objections rely on rather obvious misinterpretations of what Rand meant.

The most obvious problem is of course her equivocation over man's "life", which early in the "Ethics" essay she uses in the sense of "survival", but then later shifts to mean "man qua man" - that is to say, just about anything she pleases! That in itself is enough to render her theory useless. The other obvious problem is the "is/ought" issue, which she obviously doesn't solve as studiodekadent points out below - whoops, I mean above! - (what she/he calls the "narrow sense" of the problem is the only important sense in my opinion).

Life lived in accordance with reason is the only possible moral standard for a rational being. Death is not a rational choice. I have outlined that argument in post #93.

Although the life of "man qua man" has often been interpreted to mean a life of flourishing, I do not believe that interpretation is what Rand had in mind or that anything other than life lived in accordance with reason is required to make her argument.

There are also her usual problems of fudge words and oxymorons etc etc that bedevil the rest of her work, but aren't specific to this theory.

Rand may have been somewhat careless in her use of language from time to time, but I think it is unreasonable to require a writer to put every possible qualification on every statement at every point in a derivation. She tried to illustrate her argument in many different ways from many different perspectives and may have taken some things to be given in order to get to the point when some of those givens are explained in other works.

Darrell

[Dragonfly]

Actually, that is a non-sequitur. Just because many people have won the lottery does not imply that it is rational to spend your money buying lottery tickets. What you need to show is that there is a high probability of success --- that the probability of success as a parasite is higher than the probability of success as something else.

The point is that this probability of success is not the same for everyone. For some people it will be a bad choice, for others not.

Now, it is clear that most parasites of the first kind are not very successful. Most bank robberies net about $1000 (the last I heard) and most bank robbers rob 2 or 3 banks before they are caught. Hardly sounds like a career to me. Convenience store thieves and burglars don't fair any better, on average. I think the average theft of a convenience store yields about $120 and the number of successful robberies is generally less than 20. Burglars probably do even worse.

Bank robbers and the average burglar are certainly not the most succesful exponents of the parasitic lifestyle. But they form only a small minority among the parasites. Much more important and also more succesful is for example the con man and in general white-collar criminality. Especially when there are indications that only a very small part of these are ever brought to justice.

So, that leaves us with moochers. Now, it is true that in a society in which welfare is readily available and others are happy to be victims that moochers can live relatively well. But, I would argue that such behavior is still not proper for a rational being because of the nature of the thinking process.

Stop. Now you're making the step from facts ("can live relatively well") to subjective interpretation (his behavior is not "proper", whatever that means).

For the same reason that a slave cannot live a life proper for a rational being, a moocher doesn't either. In the first case, the slave is not allowed to use his mind in the sense that he can never test his conclusions and therefore gives up thinking because it is useless. In the second, the moocher doesn't bother to test his conclusions and therefore gives up thinking.

This is pure speculation. How do you know that the moocher gives up thinking? Maybe he has thought out his situation very well and has he come to the conclusion that this is the lifestyle for him. That you would arrive at a different conclusion for yourself doesn't prove anything, you cannot think for him.

But, I think Rand understood the nature of the parasite problem, which is why she loudly decried the giving of money to those that don't deserve it --- the sanction of the victim. In a society in which people generally acted in their own rational, self interest, it would be much more difficult for parasites of the second kind to even survive.

As long as such a society doesn't exist (if it ever can exist), the parasite's behavior is quite rational. The Objectivist's error is to think that "rational behavior" is a synonym for "desirable behavior".

[Dragonfly]

There is one other point I'd like to make regarding the above, namely, that Laure's point is valid insofar as we are seeking general principles according to which all people can live. Clearly, everyone can live if everyone is productive but it is not possible for anyone to live if everyone is a parasite. Therefore, parasitism doesn't work as a general principle but productivity does.

It does work as a general principle, as the counterexample (that everyone is a parasite) is an imaginary construction that has no basis in reality. It is the same kind of argument that I've heard used against people who decide that they don't want to have children: "if everone thought like that, mankind would become extinct". Irrelevant of course, as this will never happen. The basis of the argument is that everyone should follow the same morality. A respectable viewpoint, but you cannot prove it. When we look at the facts of survivability, there is simply no evidence that this viewpoint is a conditio sine qua non for survival.

[Dragonfly]

Here is a misunderstanding. It's as if you thought ethics is about condemnation of that which merits it, rather than about how to live. Ethics is in a sense ONLY about personal and private concerns. My conscience doesn't exist in order to help YOU; it exists in order that __I__ can use it and be guided by it.

But when I think of "conscience" it refers always to my behavior with regard to other people, not to the question whether I should brush my teeth, lose a few pounds or read the right kind of books, as long as such decisions can't harm other people.

[Dragonfly]

Unfortunately, though, I have to agree with Daniel Barnes in not remembering any particular passage where Walker distorts Objectivist ethics in order to attack it.

Why "unfortunately"?

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

Do you think the odds are in favor of a person living “successfully” as a parasite?

Before you come to ethics, you must answer the question put forth by metaphysics and epistemology. An ethical system--any ethical system--rests on it. Rand’s ethical system rests upon these two branches just as politics rests upon her ethical system. But while you don’t regard an “anything goes” policy in terms of epistemology--you feel, nevertheless, this can apply to ethics; that is, that “anything goes”--including the life of a parasite.

A code of ethics defines a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the course of his life. In a world that is “absolute” and “objective" (little ‘o’ objective) it follows that an absolute code rests upon that for mankind to discover—if life is the objective of a volitional being. This code is to be discovered at the “root”. I have pointed out that the parasite “survives” on that of its hosts, and these hosts know and practice (in whatever measure) the ethical system that has been outlined by Rand.

The parasite is entirely dependent upon those who do live by a rational code of ethics. It is a correct system. Of course it is—because the parasite is thriving on it! Here’s what it boils down to: in your own way, you are saying that a lot of people live the life of a parasite, and they are doing very well, thank you. But Rand’s philosophy is fraught with problems and it is basically incorrect—and yet the parasite survives on the men and women who live by Rand’s code. This is a contradiction.

Victor

Edited March 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

So, that leaves us with moochers. Now, it is true that in a society in which welfare is readily available and others are happy to be victims that moochers can live relatively well. But, I would argue that such behavior is still not proper for a rational being because of the nature of the thinking process.

Stop. Now you're making the step from facts ("can live relatively well") to subjective interpretation (his behavior is not "proper", whatever that means).

For the same reason that a slave cannot live a life proper for a rational being, a moocher doesn't either. In the first case, the slave is not allowed to use his mind in the sense that he can never test his conclusions and therefore gives up thinking because it is useless. In the second, the moocher doesn't bother to test his conclusions and therefore gives up thinking.

This is pure speculation. How do you know that the moocher gives up thinking? Maybe he has thought out his situation very well and has he come to the conclusion that this is the lifestyle for him. That you would arrive at a different conclusion for yourself doesn't prove anything, you cannot think for him.

I believe that what Rand would say to the above is that the moocher's own mind will not allow him to live happily and function well under these circumstances.

Our minds have definite characteristics, work according to certain rules, and have specific requirements. We ignore them at our peril. The moocher knows, at some level, regardless of how much he tries to ignore it, that he is not independent, that he depends for life upon his victims, that were his victims to waken from their stupor and catch on to his game, he could not survive independently if he had to because he doesn't have their skills. Accordingly, the "revenge" that reality and his own psyche take on him for his "sins" is that he lives in a state of chronic anxiety.

That's the theory. Whether you find it convincing is up to you. I personally have known enough people out of touch with reality who were also filled with chronic anxiety, and have also noticed from introspection that my level of fearlessness corresponds pretty directly to my willingness to face reality, that I'm willing to buy it.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

Objectivist meta-ethics asks the question: Do you want to live?

If you don’t chose to live—then don’t. Say nothing more and die. Bye-bye. Ethics is the business of the living of a life, the life of a volitional being who lives in an absolute, objective universe.

There are facts of reality which must be observed in order to attain the goal of living. And there are still more facts to be discovered and to be observed to attain "the good life" or life as a “man qua man”, as Rand put it. The basic "ought" you recognize when you want to live—IF—you want to live--is rationality. Unlike Kantian rationalism, Objectivism maintains that you should be *reasonable* but not because it's reasonable, as in for it’s own sake, but because it's the only way for you to survive.

In a nutshell, that is how Rand derived the "ought" from the "is." It is conditional, rather than a contextless command.

A summary: With the "is" referring to a fact of reality, the "ought" is derived from "how must I relate this 'is' in such a way that it best serves my rational self-interest. Objectivism doesn't "choose it" and issue it out like a command. This is not a religion.

Objectivism provides a principled and reasoned framework for the individual to determine how he must relate to facts of reality (the "is") within the constraints of the context in which he must deal with the "is".

The relationship to the same "is" can change for the individual---depending on the circumstances.

For example, take the fact of the sun’s immense heat. I need its warmth so I must afford myself contact to the sun –sometimes and under certain conditions and reasons. However, prolonged exposure can be damaging to my skin—even my life. Therefore, sometimes I seek its heat and other times I need to avoid it. I must take the relevant context into consideration. That's two different "oughts" from the same metaphysical "is". I do not see any is/ought dichotomy. I am perfectly satisfied that Rand has bridged the “is” and “ought” and made a marriage of the two.

-Victor

Edited March 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Later I will set up a thread specifically for The Ayn Rand Cult where the errors and virtues will be listed. Unfortunately, though, I have to agree with Daniel Barnes in not remembering any particular passage where Walker distorts Objectivist ethics in order to attack it.

Michael,

Regarding dishonest intellectuals, I refer this bit from the Atlas Society to your attention: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1285..._Dichotomy.aspx [is-Ought Dichotomy]

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will have more to say later when I get more time (especially to some posts much earlier in the thread), but right now I have a few quick comments.

1. It is a mistake to judge a person's emotional make-up solely on his morality. Just because a person can be affected by guilt feelings and unhappiness if he becomes an immoral person, that does not mean that he will experience those things. The whole concept of sociopath is based on a person without a conscious.

Rand overreached the power of philosophy here. She wanted to make philosophy a virtual destroyer of the evil psychology and it simply isn't. The breakdown of James Taggart at the end of Atlas Shrugged always seemed forced to me because I have known several immoral businessmen who are perfectly happy from everything I can discern. One horrible man in Brazil I know has lived almost to be a hundred and will probably die in his sleep. He abandoned his parents to the Nazis, stole more income from songwriters than any single person I know of in the world, had disgusting sexual habits involving feces, and on and on. He was an incredibly happy predator.

Nathaniel Branden got much more right about the limits and conditions of self-esteem than Rand ever did. (But that does not take away from any of her other achievements.)

2. About parasites, I think the whole discussion is flawed from both ends. As far as I know, non-human parasites thrive on other species, not on the same species. There might be some species that feed on their own for nutritional purposes in the different kingdoms of life, but I imagine they are in the tiny, tiny obscure minority. Human social parasites feed off of the productive efforts of other human beings. They can exist perfectly within a society. But they would not survive using the parasite system if stranded alone on a desert island. There they would have to use reason to produce food, shelter, etc., or they would die.

3. Rather than falsely psychologize about how happy or unhappy immoral people are, or worse, about survival, the reason to adopt good ethics (production, integrity, etc.) has more to do with aligning a person's acts with the nature of the organism for optimal performance, so to speak.

Metaphorically, this is clearer. You can use a Formula One race car as a vehicle only to delivery groceries if you want and it will work for that. It will work poorly, but it will work. But that is a pure waste of its potential if your value is deriving excellence from nature (deriving the "ought" from the "is" to go beyond survival). If your value is not excellence, I personally do not want to learn how to use a Formula One race car from you or even watch you using one unless I am in a morbid mood. You "ought" to use a Formula One race car on a race track because of what it "is."

The same goes for human beings.

There is a point in the traditional Objectivist argument where deriving "ought" from "is" has become divorced from values. This is where the claim that ethics is based SOLELY on survival comes in. It is true that some survival values must be chosen for a human being to go on living, and attaining these values (the "ought") comes directly from the requirements of nature (the "is"). However, there are many more fundamental standards of value than survival (see the the discussion of affects by Steve Shmurak as an innate source of human valuing). When volition is added, the sky's the limit. Man is able to choose many things of value that are not survival-oriented. It is true that the innate affects that develop with growth are part of the survival mechanism, but they are not components of rational thought.

In order to achieve excellence, man must choose reason as his main mental activity. I do not believe man should strive to use reason as his SOLE mental activity, though, not even for dealing with reality. Neither did Rand for that matter (and the examples are numerous in her writing), although she specifically claimed otherwise. There is that scope problem again. She takes something that is true for some fundamental things and tries to make it true for everything. Just because you HAVE TO use reason for production does not mean that you ONLY use reason. You cannot discard reason to achieve your potential, but you do not rely on reason alone.

I also believe excellence is an inherent part of "the good," although it can be a part of evil to the extent that the good is used for an evil purpose.

More later.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Excellent post. I agree that “raw survival” is not (or should not be) the entire basis for defining an ethical system. There is also the question of living that life--that is, living the “good life.” As I understand it, Rand took her lead from the Ancient Greek philosophers, in that living the “good life” --is to live a life rationally. To live rationally is requited if one is to live in society or on a deserted island. The quest for happiness also requires it.

You know, Rand defined a value as something any living thing acts to gain possession of or to keep. But, as I said in some other post, whether or not these values keep the entity alive and flourishing is the objective standard by which existence continually tests all their values. This is also true of happiness or the “the good life.” The basis of happiness is also conditional and depends upon the actions and chosen values of the individual who wishes to achieve it.

*You, as a human being, choose the values you seek.

*What is the best life you could possibly have?

Would it be deeply pleasurable, productive, rewarding, satisfying, perhaps even ecstatic and spiritual? (Rand, of course, regarded your "spirit" as your intellect.) Rand has demonstrated that it is moral to want these things, and to actually achieve them. For you to survive and flourish, existence requires you to make yourself the primary beneficiary of your own choices. So Rand’s philosophy does not merely recognize ethics as a matter of “raw physical survival”. The quality of the life that is lived is taken into account as well. You want to live? You want to live happily? Reason and rationality are the foremost contenders to achieve and optimize this objective.

-Victor

Edited March 12, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

The sorry truth is that some people achieve happiness in choosing to be suboptimal. Some want to deliver groceries, and only that, even if they are a Formula One race car. They just don't want to race.

I have known too many of them who are happy to claim that they are not "truly happy." They do not value excellence (very much), but that is another issue.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

The parasite is entirely dependent upon those who do live by a rational code of ethics. It is a correct system. Of course it is—because the parasite is thriving on it! Here’s what it boils down to: in your own way, you are saying that a lot of people live the life of a parasite, and they are doing very well, thank you. But Rand’s philosophy is fraught with problems and it is basically incorrect—and yet the parasite survives on the men and women who live by Rand’s code. This is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction at all. The parasite is not against people leading a productive life, not at all! The only difference with Rand is that he doesn't think that everyone should lead such a life, he is all for such a rational and sensible notion as the division of labor: some people should work hard and produce and others should profit from it!

[Dragonfly]

I believe that what Rand would say to the above is that the moocher's own mind will not allow him to live happily and function well under these circumstances.

How could she know? This is a typical example of wishful thinking and armchair psychologizing of the worst kind.

Accordingly, the "revenge" that reality and his own psyche take on him for his "sins" is that he lives in a state of chronic anxiety.

Again armchair psychologizing of people you even don't know, without any evidence.

That's the theory. Whether you find it convincing is up to you. I personally have known enough people out of touch with reality who were also filled with chronic anxiety, and have also noticed from introspection that my level of fearlessness corresponds pretty directly to my willingness to face reality, that I'm willing to buy it.

Well, if you want more anecdotal evidence, what about Rand herself, was she happy with her severe depression that lasted for years, doing virtually nothing but playing patience and crying? Or the bitterness of her later years? By this kind of reasoning she should have been the most radiantly happy person on earth.