Are objectivist ethics comprehensive?

[tjohnson]

The human mode of living is production: the creation of value from the raw materials around us. Human beings see a rock, and we invent tools, smelting techniques, stone buildings, steel girders, paved streets, and so on and on. We see a tree, and we make furniture, fuel, papers, books, construction materials, medicines, and so on and on. The application of reason to our problems allows us to create solutions. Thus we are not like dogs squabbling over meat or children sharing a pie; we are each creators, making new goods through our productive work, materially and morally.

A couple groups Mr. Thomas did not mention here are scientists and mathematicians. The industrial revolution was not possible until the science was in place for the engineers, inventors, manufacturers, etc. to do their work. Before all else, science (time-binding) is what makes man different from animals and if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

[Mike11]

The human mode of living is production: the creation of value from the raw materials around us. Human beings see a rock, and we invent tools, smelting techniques, stone buildings, steel girders, paved streets, and so on and on. We see a tree, and we make furniture, fuel, papers, books, construction materials, medicines, and so on and on. The application of reason to our problems allows us to create solutions. Thus we are not like dogs squabbling over meat or children sharing a pie; we are each creators, making new goods through our productive work, materially and morally.

A couple groups Mr. Thomas did not mention here are scientists and mathematicians. The industrial revolution was not possible until the science was in place for the engineers, inventors, manufacturers, etc. to do their work. Before all else, science (time-binding) is what makes man different from animals and if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

The goal, in Objectivism, for ethics is human survival, hence the virtue of productiveness. In the intro to "Philosophy Who needs It?" Rand is gave a speech to Westpoint about an astronaut stranded on an alien world and what he needs to do first to survive is to have a correct philosophical orientation, "Why don't I just evade the issue of where I am? Why don't I just give up?". This issue of philosophy comes first in the chain of considerations for man's survival, you need to know why you work before you work. As for science, I can't think of any smoking gun quotes but I got the distinct impression from Rand (reading Atlas) that technological science is the highest form of productive labor, making other labour easier and using our highest faculties. She also seemed to imply in this book that there is no "science for science's sake" without some technological spin off.

I hope that helps.

[BaalChatzaf]

As for science, I can't think of any smoking gun quotes but I got the distinct impression from Rand (reading Atlas) that technological science is the highest form of productive labor, making other labour easier and using our highest faculties. She also seemed to imply in this book that there is no "science for science's sake" without some technological spin off.

I hope that helps.

Not really. Does one dismiss just plain curiosity? Like why is grass green and not red? Why is the sky blue? Knowing the answer is desirable simply because it answers the the question. Scientific things can be done for a number of reasons. Among which is the satisfaction of curiosity.

If a practical end were required, then doing cosmology (as in where did the Cosmos come from?) would not be a reasonable activity. Knowing whether the universe has a finite age or has always been here has few in any practical consequences.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Also, I submit that we have no way of knowing a priori what application will come out of any given scientific endeavor and it may not happen for hundreds of years either.

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, I submit that we have no way of knowing a priori what application will come out of any given scientific endeavor and it may not happen for hundreds of years either.

When Einstein proposed his theory of gravity in 1915, he had no idea that it would lead to the Global Positioning System. When Einstein proposed a transformation relation between mass and energy (E= mc^2), he did not have nuclear bombs in mind. And Einstein was no ivory tower intellectual. He had several patents to his credit including a kind of refrigerator. Einstein learned his trade in the patent office of Switzerland so he knew all about practical applications. In his best year (1905) he was employed as a patent clerk, second class.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike11]

You're both right.

[sjw]

You're both right.

I disagree, there's a false alternative here. The choice is not: knowledge for some specific end vs. knowledge for its own sake. Doing either would be a perversion.

If you have a practical focus, you still should realize the interconnectedness of things, and try to understand the relation of what you are doing to the other things so that you can find the best possible solution. Regarding all knowledge as immediately utilitarian will lead to hacked up and stagnant designs--a perversion.

If you have a "love of knowledge" focus, then you should realize that there is fundamental truth and that is of fundamental importance. Those who came up with ideas that were used 100 years later only had their stuff used because their ideas were fundamental. Astronomy is not valid if it merely records the positions of stars, it becomes valid when it gives causal explanations for what we observe which is a deeper understanding of the universe we live in. I don't think it is crazy to think that something we learn about by looking at the stars will lead to something useful down here on earth. It already has. Newton developed his physics in part by explaining the motion of planets. I think we know about fusion because of trying to explain how the sun worked. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, i.e., divorced from fundamental understanding about the universe, would merely be memorization. E.g., memorizing the patterns in blades of grass you saw without ever trying to explain what gave rise to the patterns. It'd be a perversion.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

The goal, in Objectivism, for ethics is human survival, hence the virtue of productiveness.

Thanks Mike, that does help. It's interesting that Korzybski's goal in creating general semantics is also human survival but at a species level, not at an individual level. He looks at science and mathematics as human activities, the defining forms of human activity even, and necessary for the long term survival of mankind. With such lofty goals it difficult to translate this down to an individual level to prescribe behaviour in concrete terms but the result of his work was that we all need to be conscious of abstracting. This GS term means we should borrow from the methods of science, where people have learned very specific methods of acquiring knowledge, and apply to our daily life. This consciousness of abstracting could be thought of as applying scientific method to our daily lives in a way.

[Wolf DeVoon]

if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

Believe it or not, women know things. They are especially familiar with the idea that things live and die, which men don’t immediately grasp as a first principle. We’re the guys who intervene to preserve life, build suspension bridges, drill oil wells in the North Sea and whatnot to keep everybody alive. We’re so good at it, that more people are alive today than all the people who previously lived on earth. It is a special form of boy-child denial, to believe that one’s chance in life is a foregone conclusion. You could be hit by a bus (or an unplanned romance) tomorrow. In view of this fact, it is unhelpful to assume that you know precisely who or what you are. Your sexuality and spirit are evolving potentialities that unfold over the course of time. This is called growth. It is denied to anyone who believes that his character is static, like an immortal god or a rock.

For this reason, our power of expression expands and transits more than one form, as we mature in life. One day, you’re a photographer -- pow! -- something happens and you become a writer. The essential challenge of free expression remains, but the forum and means of expression grow wider and deeper, if you have the guts to explore the Unknown. And that, I feel certain, is the basic challenge. It matters very little how smart you are, or what race, or how pretty. Your universe is divided into the Known and the Unknown. Of necessity, the Unknown always remains large, no matter how much you discover.

Ayn Rand once said that we, each of us, someday learn the truth about ourselves. I believe it to be possible with sufficient effort and candor. All of our personal expressions -- music and poetry, construction and warfare -- are acts of bravery, leading to and illustrating our humanity. That we share ourselves with others is good, because no one comes into this world with self-knowledge.

In a fundamental way, young and old are dependent upon one another for hints and random flashes of understanding, which slowly and haphazardly build to a broader concordance in the affairs of men. When people hesitate to express themselves, this shared benevolence is sacrificed and lost.

Some folks, by the nature of their work (spies and lawyers) aren’t always able to say what they know or feel, because it would endanger or compromise a duty to others. But the rest of us should remember the New Hampshire state motto and act accordingly, in honor of the truth.

Live free or die.

From The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 41, October 18, 1999

[RTB]

if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

Believe it or not, women know things. They are especially familiar with the idea that things live and die, which men don’t immediately grasp as a first principle. We’re the guys who intervene to preserve life, build suspension bridges, drill oil wells in the North Sea and whatnot to keep everybody alive. We’re so good at it, that more people are alive today than all the people who previously lived on earth. It is a special form of boy-child denial, to believe that one’s chance in life is a foregone conclusion. You could be hit by a bus (or an unplanned romance) tomorrow. In view of this fact, it is unhelpful to assume that you know precisely who or what you are. Your sexuality and spirit are evolving potentialities that unfold over the course of time. This is called growth. It is denied to anyone who believes that his character is static, like an immortal god or a rock.

What kind of post modernist irrationalistic crap is this ?

"believe it or not women know things"

"evolving sexual potentialities......"

" it is unhelpful to assume that you (I would presume that means all of us reading this?) KNOW precisely who or what you are."

"Your sexuality and spirit are evolving potentialities that 'unfold' over the course of time.....this is called growth"

Growth toward what?

[Rich Engle]

Some things just get down to bad forum manners, and RTB, sadly, just hit it. We all do, time to time.

It's not uncommon to knee-jerk, when one is well-trained in the arts, the jargon. So much easier to say "post-modernist" (a term few actually

understand other than being equivalent to calling someone a stupid nigger, or something), or "crap," or what have you.

Irrationalistic. I'll tell you what's irrational, or, at least, not realistic: to think that you can run straight off the head (important and top-'O-the food chain

though it may be) alone. Wolf wrote a bit from the hips, and the heart. ~I~ heard what he said. I think there's some substance there. He was making

a polite point.

But we can't be having THAT, can we, now?

Post-Modernism, for instance, is a roughly identifiable speck in time. Maybe go read Ken Wilber's work on spirit and sensibility, or something?

Basics involve three centers in the human. If you write just of one, you are pretty much messed, off the rip. Like it or not, they all speak certain

realities. The dealio is to work on integration of such centers.

Meanwhile, trying not to be rude and attacky.

rde

[Wolf DeVoon]

What kind of post modernist irrationalistic crap is this ?

Paraphrasing Rearden: It's mine.

Growth toward what?

That's the meaning of moral freedom and responsibility. You get to modify about half of what you're dealt at birth.

;)

[UncleJim]

The human mode of living is production: the creation of value from the raw materials around us. Human beings see a rock, and we invent tools, smelting techniques, stone buildings, steel girders, paved streets, and so on and on. We see a tree, and we make furniture, fuel, papers, books, construction materials, medicines, and so on and on. The application of reason to our problems allows us to create solutions. Thus we are not like dogs squabbling over meat or children sharing a pie; we are each creators, making new goods through our productive work, materially and morally.

A couple groups Mr. Thomas did not mention here are scientists and mathematicians. The industrial revolution was not possible until the science was in place for the engineers, inventors, manufacturers, etc. to do their work. Before all else, science (time-binding) is what makes man different from animals and if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc.

A lot of production occurred before any 'science' was well established. When animals evolved into humans their mode of survival depended on production remaining their prime activity.

Production of what? You may ask. Children - of course!

To be productive both animals and plants must be alive. They must act in that way which addresses their identity. For humans to be considered a properly acting living organism requires they use their mind to understand what they are; where they live; and what this says about how they must act to remain what they are where they live.

When considering what humans are the idea of production must include all those "intellectual" activities required for continued human existence.