Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

The "What if everybody did that?" standard is the one the moocher and embezzler leave out or blank out in their identification of human nature.

Because that standard is irrelevant. If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct, but that's no argument against becoming a baker.

Precisely, Dragonfly.

Excellent example of applying Rand's advice "check your premises".

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[Matus1976]

The "What if everybody did that?" standard is the one the moocher and embezzler leave out or blank out in their identification of human nature.

Because that standard is irrelevant. If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct, but that's no argument against becoming a baker.

Precisely, Dragonfly.

Excellent example of applying Rand's advice "check your premises".

You are confusing abstracts with principles, again, your misunderstanding (and Dragonfly's) is based on a basic ignorance of Objectivism, so stop patting your self's on your own backs and go read. The 'what if everybody' did that is applied to moral codes, not particular specific range of the moment actions LIKE BAKING. If everyone was a baker they would perish. If everyone was a productive rational intelligent being who pursued goals conducive to their own thriving and the thriving of the society they live with in, every one will flourish. Baking is AN EXAMPLE of a productive rational endeavor. But there you go again, stuck on repeat check your premises, check your premises, check your premises, check your premises... Do you even KNOW what the premises are in this case? Obviously not, since your objections are so superficial.

[Xray]

Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added)

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons. The very idea of "objective" moral values is nonsensical.

If you disagree, what are those objective moral values your opinion? Feel free to list them here to be examined more closely.

I could believe whole heartedly that all women everywhere are treated with the exact same moral standards, thus your claim that they are in fact not being an objective one is invalidated.

Please get your ducks in a row. A belief contradicting a claim constitues no evidence to disprove the claim.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Actually Shermer has since retracted this objection, now doubt finally coming to realize that the way he uses "objective" in every other context was not how he was appraising the objective nature of morality

See - http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

Oh, Galilei too retracted some objections he had made, remember?

I read that interview with Shermer - he is dodging the objective value issue there. My guess is that he has some substantial self-interest in being on good terms with the interviewer of this influential magazine.

Always look for the self-interest motive.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

This is a digression, but I have this strange idea that people should use actual facts in their arguments...

Matus said upthread:

The Renaissance was the application (re-application really, after being lost during the dark ages from the application in classical Greece and Rome) of reason to metaphysics, art, and epistemology - ushering in the scientific revolution and unparalleled material progress. During the dark ages, epistemology was governed only by religious intrinsicism, people were explicitly forbidden from applying reason to their life on earth or their material well being, and reason could only be applied to absurd philosophical debates about the nature of the trinity and the communion.

Sorry, but almost all of this is wrong: cartoon history that's can't be taken seriously, if it ever was, if you've read almost any book relating to medieval history that's been published in the last two decades or so. Ignoring the input of the Byzantines and the Moslems during this period, and sticking to Europe, it's wrong on almost every level. The term "Age of Faith" is very much a misnomer. As much as there was a "dark ages", they began before the fall of Rome and ended no later than 1000 CE. There was a period when the use of reason in the natural sciences was actively discouraged by the Church--but it was the Counter-Reformation, not the Middle Ages, and even then the Church did not explicitly forbid it (see under Galileo, Vico, etc.). Before then, the Church only intervened in those very debates about the Eucharist and the Incarnation (the latter group of controversies being resolved by the early "Dark Ages"), and against the spiritual renewal movements (most importantly, the Beguines, Lollards and Cathars) which directly challenged the authority of the Church on spiritual grounds, and not for the sake of any rational worldview. No later than the Carolingian Renaissance (named so because it occurred under Charlemagne and his sons, in the 9th century CE) people stopped trying to get back to where they were during the Roman Empire (and in terms of technology, only a little was lost; outside of engineering, the Romans were not an incredibly advanced or intellectual people), and starting moving ahead. Science and technology made some advances, and most important, the foundations of our capitalist system were laid during that period. Credit was, essentially, a medieval invention that went hand in hand with banking, long distance trading, and the growth of a mercantile class; and the first generations of what we think of as the Italian Renaissance in art actually took place before what might be called the official rediscovery of the Greek philosophers. The unofficial rediscovery itself took place during the later Middle Ages, and gathered steam with the fall of Constantinople, which brought Greek manuscripts and Byzantine scholars to Italy. Literature itself was always a humanist enterprise in the Middle Ages (witness Chaucer in our own language); even Dante's Divine Comedy, for all its fierce theology was a humanist enterprise--the first major poem written in the Italian language and not in Latin, and dedicated to protesting the corruption of Church and State that was rampant throughout Dante's lifetime.

So I repeat: the Middle Ages was not a time when reason languished, and the Renaissance sprang not from some mysterious jump of ideas over the intervening centuries, but directly from the body of knowledge that the Middle Ages accumulated.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do you really think that only honest professions can flourish?

Dragonfly,

You also asked why should I want a universal value?

Heh.

Be careful with what you reveal...

But to answer your first question, as a species-to-individual value, only honest production can flourish. At an individual to individual level, you can mooch and steal to get your goodies if you can get away with it. And there are emergency contexts.

But as a way of life for all of mankind, it is a disaster. That was the whole point of a certain book I believe you have read. The book starts with "Atlas." Those concerned with universal values walked out. Those who kept asking with belligerence, "Why should I want a universal value?" suddenly had to make do without those universal values and got what they got.

When everyone tries to mooch and steal off of everyone else as their livelihood, this destroys technology and the good things in life that depend on complex production. Slave-labor and simple-to-make goods remain, but that's about all.

Fortunately for the morally challenged, the human species currently has enough producers to carry them in the luxury they believe they are entitled to and enough freedom-loving intellectuals to ensure they have a voice they do not deserve. But that's not the real challenge of freedom-loving intellectuals. Their challenge is to try to convince people to not choose to be scumbags. The challenge of law enforcement is to ensure that the scumbags don't get what the producers produce without giving value in return, or get punished when they do.

I strongly support such intellectuals and such law enforcement.

In this context (universal values), it is an objective value (and a noble one) to be a producer and an objective depravity to be a moocher or crook.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The very idea of "objective" moral values is nonsensical.

Xray,

Do you have a meaning for objective that is:

1. Not what it isn't,

2. Is not a consensus of experts, or

3. Is not knowledge miraculously outside of human minds?

You have claimed all the above, even repeated it, but you have offered nothing else. I so dearly long to understand the logic that proves the "nonsense" of the "very idea" you deride.

Eager minds await enlightenment.

Hear my plea...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As a refinement of what I've said previously, I'd say that all values have to be experienced subjectively, even the objective ones. The experience is visceral, not intellectual. Identification of values as subjective, objective, subjective/objective is a purely intellectual exercise we can all argue about with various lines of reasoning, but it's all a matter of classification. Xray objects to all classifications not her own which makes her full of it. All her demonstrations of subjectivity are only her asserting then reasserting the absolute primacy of her system, but as I claimed before her system has little utility. It's now clear that its main utility is to hit people over the head with it. Lord knows what entertainment she might be getting elsewhere by referencing this thread.

--Brant

[Matus1976]

Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added)

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons.

Ah, well, You had better CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

The very idea of "objective" moral values is nonsensical.

Oh, well, as they say, CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

[Matus1976]

I read that interview with Shermer - he is dodging the objective value issue there. My guess is that he has some substantial self-interest in being on good terms with the interviewer of this influential magazine.

Always look for the self-interest motive.

Oh so now Shermer is a liar and only you are clever enough to discern the truth via some telepathic psuedo psychologizing. mm hmmmm. So when Shermer actually disagrees with your position, it must be because he's being lying and manipulative. One might even suggest that you.... CHECK YOUR PREMISES

[Matus1976]

Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added)

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons.

No, X-Ray, we are talking about OBJECTIVITY, we are not talking about Objectivity A which applies only to science, and Objectivity B which applies only to your imagination. Objectivity is ONE THING, whether it is OBJECTIVE mass or OBJECTIVE Morality. The meaning of Objective is the same. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping this simple concept. Objectivity as a *real* concept, has only one meaning. Objectivity as hijacked by religious thought is contradictory and self refuting. You can make up other meanings to Objectivity if you want, such as below, but stamping your feet and whining doesnt make it true. Lets try this again.

Compare and contrast these to uses of "Objectivity" explain to me why you must use your definition of Objectivity in this example, and not the proper definition of Objectivity.

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)"

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

The very idea of "objective" moral values is nonsensical.

Simply repeating something over and over again doesnt make it true.. What's your argument? Whats your chain of reasoning? As they say, Check your premises! Actually, you should literally do so. In fact, please explicit write your logical argument, starting WITH your PREMISES, and going through your conclusions. Perhaps this will get you to finally see your flaw.

Please get your ducks in a row. A belief contradicting a claim constitutes no evidence to disprove the claim.

Amazing, you basically contradict every argument you've made here. So when you present a *beleif* that contradicts a *claim* then this is NOT EVIDENCE disproving the claim. Ok, I agree, lets look at your statements

Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life.

Here, the claim is that life is objective the standard of value, actually, life is the objective standard for morality, but lets presume you know the difference (values are the thing you choose to seek, morality is the objective basis for that choice). A nihilist believs that life is not the standard of morality, and so chooses to value things that contribute to his death.

CLAIM - Life is the objective standard of morality

BELIEF - life is not the objective standard of morality

See this here belief, contradicts that there claim, but, as you so clearly state this IS NOT EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE CLAIM, except here in this very quote YOU CITE IT AS EVIDENCE DISPROVING A CLAIM!

You have got it: humans are valuing goal-seeking entities, and what is considered a value is dependent on their subjectively chosen goals.

Here you are saying the because some people can choose to value things other than that which results from life being the objective standard of morality, then the claim that life is the objective standard of morality is disproving by a belief to the contrary. Except you just said contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims.

One can easily do the test: Suppose one asked, let's say, a Marxist, a militant muslim, an Objectivist, an advocate of abortion, a Jehova's witness, a biologist in a genetic research program, a business owner letting children work for him in a third world sweat shop, what their idea of "humanity" and “justice” is - their answers would differ widely.

Right, so because different people have different opinions about the nature of humanity and justice, there is therefore no objective nature of humanity or justice. Except you just said contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims!

Rand setting forth in "Life proper to man" a set of "objective values" for all to follow in direct contradiction of individualism

Your implication being, of course, that individuals can choose to hold something other than life as their objective standard for morality, and that somehow disproves the notion that life proper to man is the objective standard of morality. Except! you just said that contradictory beliefs do not disprove objective claims! Yikes!

I'm no "semanticist" - but I have studied linguistics and therefore know quite a bit about semantics too.

And yet apparently that the same word can have different definition and be used in different ways, and that both definitions are not necessarily appropriate for both uses, escapes you, someone who has 'studied linguistics'. What was that you love to say, oh yeah, better CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

Premise 1) you know alot about linguistics

Premise 2) someone who knows alot about linguistics would know that some words have multiple meanings

Premise 3) someone who knows alot about linquistics should know that some words have multiple contexts which are not interchangelabe.

Observation 1) you lack a simple understanding of the notion that one word may have more than one meaning

conclusion - since you do not appear to understand that some words have multiple meanings and contexts which are not interchangeable, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of linguistics would know just such at hing, then the only possible conclusion is that you know virtually nothing about linguistics, or are deliberately misleading and a troll.

Of these, checking your premises, it's pretty clear that Premise 1 must be the flawed one in your case.

Here is another word that has multiple meanings: Freedom. meaning 1) = without cost, e.g. free meal, free ride. meaning 2) without forcible restrictions, e.g. free man, free nation. Here is an in- appropriate mixing of these two definitions from a popular recent song "They call this a free country, why does it cost so much to live" Now, here is the same inappropriate mixing of these definitions but reversed. "Of course I think black men should be free, Everyone OUGHT TO HAVE ONE!"

Your uses of "objectivity" which is a scientific concept, in context of some type of religiously received authority, is just as fallacious. Perhaps you might want to CHECK YOUR PREMISES!

Actually, lets take your little case but convert it to the scientific concept using the same twisted misapplication.

Yours:

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

"These are not merely subjective values, they are fundamentals of the universe. The mass of an electron is 1 lb. I have replaced your individual persona preference for values other than 1lb - my claim is outside of the mind creating these values, my 'superior values' are thus objective"

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons

The fact that you think these are different is the root of all your errors.

If you want to attack Rand's claim about morality being Objective, it must be her DEFINITION of Objective that you are attacking and *proving* to be incorrect (not merely repeatedly insisting ad naseum that it is incorrect)

P.S - Check your Premises!

[Matus1976]

This is a digression, but I have this strange idea that people should use actual facts in their arguments...

Matus said upthread:

The Renaissance was the application (re-application really, after being lost during the dark ages from the application in classical Greece and Rome) of reason to metaphysics, art, and epistemology - ushering in the scientific revolution and unparalleled material progress. During the dark ages, epistemology was governed only by religious intrinsicism, people were explicitly forbidden from applying reason to their life on earth or their material well being, and reason could only be applied to absurd philosophical debates about the nature of the trinity and the communion.

Sorry, but almost all of this is wrong:

Sorry, but almost all of what you say is wrong, which you'd realize if youd read any book relating to medieval history that's been published in the last two decades.

There was a period when the use of reason in the natural sciences was actively discouraged by the Church--but it was the Counter-Reformation, not the Middle Ages, and even then the Church did not explicitly forbid it (see under Galileo, Vico, etc.).

The church did not suppress the use of reason in the natural sciences through active discouragement during the dark ages, it philosophically changed the focus of the use of reason - away from your material well being and toward over-analyzation of the correct interpretation of the 'one true' truth of the bible. The university was born in the middle ages, and the best universities demanded a rigorous exmaination period and debate in order to progress. What were the nature of these debates however? Debates and questioning focused only on the bible and bilbical interpretations, not metaphysics or epistemology, not tools or medicine or philosophy, but only of biblical questions. If you knew anything about mideieval history you would know this. The entire notion of Aristotle's 'ignorant' assessments about reality being promulgated over centuries came excatly from this era, the dominant mideival philosophy strayed inquiry away from material realities, they discourages investigations into the natural philosophies by elevating classical thinkers (in the form of received authority) to near god like figures who could not be questioned. Even Aristotle insisted such behavior was nonsense, yet they insisted Aristotle had all ready figured everything out. In Medicine, the mideieval periods elevated the Roman Doctor Galen to an almost Godly status, instructions in medicine were deliberately conducted in such a manner as to never refute Galen's claims. His theories dominated for well over a thousand years. The attitude of the medieval period was clear, all the big questions about reality had been figured out, stop wasting your time on such things, and go read your bible.

In Galileo you are talking about isolated examples of deliberate attempts to remove heretical information - this is not what made the dark ages dark, it was the systemic underlying philosophical attitude, promulgated by Christianity, which undermined in every aspect of life the perception that it was at all important or necessary to concern one's self with material well being.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Matus1976

[Brant Gaede]

Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added)

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons. The very idea of "objective" moral values is nonsensical.

If you disagree, what are those objective moral values your opinion? Feel free to list them here to be examined more closely.

I could believe whole heartedly that all women everywhere are treated with the exact same moral standards, thus your claim that they are in fact not being an objective one is invalidated.

Please get your ducks in a row. A belief contradicting a claim constitues no evidence to disprove the claim.

Then the subjective ones must be "nonsensical" too. That's because they are just there. What's the brain-dead sense of that? You are on the outside thinking you are looking in, like an anthropologist, but what is inside you is sensical, natch. However, add a reasoning mind reaching out and discovering ... blank out! No quest for objectivity means no quest for truth means no quest. Simply send out the word: It's all in your head right now! Forget the quest. You'll find nothing. You'll accomplish nothing. You are nothing! Just contemplate your navel, chant and spin the prayer wheel. Epistemology does not trump metaphysics. That conflict is both phony and deadly for the ignorant and naive.

Did you notice how Xray went from all values are subjective to all moral values are subjective? This means she has fallen back to her last line of defense--her inner fortress.

--Brant

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. It won't be the first time. If Xray is wrong Xray is dead if she figures that out so she won't. The premise of trying to understand is different from the premise of not being wrong, period. The former is backstopped by reality; the latter by--nothing.

[Xray]

Did you notice how Xray went from all values are subjective to all moral values are subjective?

This was done to keep Matus focused. Look how he is digressing all the time. Sheer chaos there.

Again: all values are subjective - the very term value implies this. Value is something which one acts to gain or keep, someting which requires a valuer. Rand's definiton is excellent, but she went against her own premise in also stating that plants can seek values.

All values are subjective, therefore it logically follows that moral values are subjective too.

But since the specific discussion here is about (alleged objective)moral values, I stressed this because I want to get to the point.

Then the subjective ones must be "nonsensical" too. That's because they are just there.

Don't misrepresent my statements.

I said the very idea that "objective" moral values exist is nonsensical.

I did not say anything about the contents of those values.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

No, X-Ray, we are talking about OBJECTIVITY, we are not talking about Objectivity A which applies only to science, and Objectivity B which applies only to your imagination.

We are on the same page here. There are no two kinds of objectivity.

Objectivity is ONE THING, whether it is OBJECTIVE mass or OBJECTIVE Morality.

The fallacy here lies in your belief that one you can attach a precisely defined term to other terms and that the combination must make sense.

This is like stating (to use your phrasing): "Objectivity is one thing, whether it is objective mass or objective belief." Get it now?

You can make up other meanings to Objectivity if you want, such as below, but stamping your feet and whining doesnt make it true.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where did I make up other meanings to Objectivity?

Could it be that you confuse my quoting fallacious statements from others with my personal opinion? For your erroneuos conclusions are so abundant that I begin to suspect this is the case.

[Matus]. "Compare and contrast these to uses of "Objectivity" explain to me why you must use your definition of Objectivity in this example, and not the proper definition of Objectivity.

[Xray]

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

[Matus]

"And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)"

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Where's the problem in the argumentation? It is a fact that people can fallaciously declare their subjective values to be objective. The history of mankind is full of blooshed as a result of alleged objective values being forced upon those who did not share them.

[Xray]Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life.

[Matus]Here, the claim is that life is objective the standard of value, actually, life is the objective standard for morality, but lets presume you know the difference (values are the thing you choose to seek, morality is the objective basis for that choice).

What do you mean by "objective basis"?

[Matus]CLAIM - Life is the objective standard of morality

BELIEF - life is not the objective standard of morality

See this here belief, contradicts that there claim, but, as you so clearly state this IS NOT EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE CLAIM, except here in this very quote YOU CITE IT AS EVIDENCE DISPROVING A CLAIM!

The belief itself does not disprove what Rand said; that is, we have a simple case of belief vs. belief here.

One subjective value vs. another subjective value.

In many "belief wars", we have have one fallacy fighting another.

What is disproved is that "life as the standard of value" is an objective value shared by all.

[Xray]

You have got it: humans are valuing goal-seeking entities, and what is considered a value is dependent on their subjectively chosen goals.

[Xray]

One can easily do the test: Suppose one asked, let's say, a Marxist, a militant muslim, an Objectivist, an advocate of abortion, a Jehova's witness, a biologist in a genetic research program, a business owner letting children work for him in a third world sweat shop, what their idea of "humanity" and “justice” is - their answers would differ widely.

[Matus]

Right, so because different people have different opinions about the nature of humanity and justice, there is therefore no objective nature of humanity or justice.

Precisely.

[Matus]And yet apparently that the same word can have different definition and be used in different ways, and that both definitions are not necessarily appropriate for both uses, escapes you, someone who has 'studied linguistics'.

What escapes you is that this has been discussed here many times. Homonymy, polysemy, connotations, slang expressions, etc.

What is important is the unambiguous use for the communication to work. Word games play with this ambiguity, but here again, the communicative context makes clear how it is to be understood.

But all this does not carry as far that people can e. g. decide to call black white and expect their surroundings to go along with it.

Suppose someone arbitrarily declared: "Oh, I use objective in the sense of subjective, that's just my personal meaning of the word." What would you think of such a person's mental make up?

But that's similar to what Rand did in calling a figure like Peter Keating a "selfless" man.

[Matus]

If you want to attack Rand's claim about morality being Objective, it must be her DEFINITION of Objective that you are attacking and *proving* to be incorrect (not merely repeatedly insisting ad naseum that it is incorrect)

Good idea to discuss Rand's definition of objective. Please provide quotes from her for analysis. TIA.

(It's ad nauseam btw.)Your "ad naseum" sounds really funny since it evokes the association with Lat "nasus" ('nose').

No, X-Ray, we are talking about OBJECTIVITY, we are not talking about Objectivity A which applies only to science, and Objectivity B which applies only to your imagination. Objectivity is ONE THING, whether it is OBJECTIVE mass or OBJECTIVE Morality. The meaning of Objective is the same. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping this simple concept. Objectivity as a *real* concept, has only one meaning. Objectivity as hijacked by religious thought is contradictory and self refuting.

Matus, you are standing right in front of truth's open door - all you need is to walk through it.

You are 100 per cent correct in the part I bolded.

Yes indeed: the term 'objective' has been hijacked - not only by religious thought but also by everyone else who believes it applies to morality. Which makes the word combination "objective morality" an oxymoron.

[Xray]

We are talking about alleged "OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES", Matus, not about electrons.

[Matus]The fact that you think these are different is the root of all your errors.

You think moral values and electrons are the same? Boy does that revolutionize the world of physics!

Since you insist on lumping electron and "morality" together, I wonder if the microscope you use to identify an electron will work to find an "objective morality."

Edited July 25, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes indeed: the term 'objective' has been hijacked - not only by religious thought but also by everyone else who believes it applies to morality. Which makes the word combination "objective morality" an oxymoron.

Xray,

Do you have a meaning for objective that is:

1. Not what it isn't,

2. Is not a consensus of experts, or

3. Is not knowledge miraculously outside of human minds?

You have claimed all the above, even repeated it, but you have offered nothing else. I so dearly long to understand the logic of this hijacking.

Eager minds await enlightenment.

Hear my plea...

Oh hear my plea...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a refinement of what I've said previously, I'd say that all values have to be experienced subjectively, even the objective ones. The experience is visceral, not intellectual.

Brant,

You could say this about all knowledge and abstractions, i.e., that even "intellectual" has "to be experienced subjectively," if having personal experience is to be the meaning of "subjective." I don't use that meaning.

We can't think, not even facts, without our minds.

I am sure you know this, but when confused people like Xray start bopping all over the place in their premises and thirst to debunk Rand, it is easy to lose sight of this fundamental premise.

In Xray-speak (from the horse's mouth so far), she believes there is knowledge without human minds to think it.

How can anyone take that seriously?

I wonder if she believes in a collective mind...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

She may "believe", but what would she use to actually effect the act of belief, in either a collective mind or no actually "mind". She may be of the purely behavioralist school of thought that there is no "will" free or otherwise.

Additionally, I can't stop laughing when she will post the following:

"Matus, you are standing right in front of truth's open door - all you need is to walk through it."

Sounds like a fanatic to me... "...Truth's door....", just come this way ....

Kinda like being invited to a public shower by folks with funny uniforms on.

Adam

Post script: Venn diagrams.................................. xray try putting your syllogism into this schema >> http://www.readwritethink.org/materials/venn/

Edited July 25, 2009 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Additionally, I can't stop laughing when she will post the following:

"Matus, you are standing right in front of truth's open door - all you need is to walk through it."

Adam,

That's a value judgment, isn't it? Not regarding her attitude toward Matus, but toward what "truth" means. Xray has judged that Matus's understanding of truth is incorrect and hers is correct, but has given no fact-based reasons for this, nor even what she means by "truth."

Sounds kinda subjective to me...

Michael

[Xray]

[Michael]:

In Xray-speak (from the horse's mouth so far), she believes there is

knowledge without human minds to think it.

How can anyone take that seriously?"

How can anyone believe that I ever made such a statement?

Do you believe that for a mind to recognize there are things (like e. g. a tree) that exist independent of mind is to say no mind is involved in this knowledge??

Edited July 25, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

But as a way of life for all of mankind, it is a disaster. That was the whole point of a certain book I believe you have read. The book starts with "Atlas." Those concerned with universal values walked out. Those who kept asking with belligerence, "Why should I want a universal value?" suddenly had to make do without those universal values and got what they got.

Let me remind you that that book is a work of fiction, and a very unrealistic fiction at that (which is no doubt a significant contributing factor to its popularity). It isn't very convincing to base an argument on what happens in a fantasy and which could never happen in reality.

I've been thinking why Objectivists so tenaciously and against their better judgement cling to the idea of an objective morality. It struck me that this attitude has a close parallel in the religious argument, in which it's deemed necessary to pose an ethics system dictated by God, complete with punishment and reward, because otherwise people would become completely immoral. In fact this argument isn't very complimentary, as it suggests that people never would behave morally if it weren't for that big stick in the sky. Now Objectivists no longer believe in that big stick, but they've found a substitute: a morality that can be scientifically deduced, thereby falling in the trap of the naturalistic fallacy. It's a small step from one work of fiction (the bible) to another work of fiction (Atlas Shrugged), in this regard they fulfill similar roles.

[Matus1976]

[Xray]

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

Quote

[Matus]

"And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)"

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Where's the problem in the argumentation? It is a fact that people can fallaciously declare their subjective values to be objective. The history of mankind is full of blooshed as a result of alleged objective values being forced upon those who did not share them.

Your use of Objectivity in appraising morality is completely different from the use of objectivity in EVERY OTHER FIELD - including science. You are using a different concept, but are pretending it's the same thing just because it's made up of the same letters. Objectivity, you state EXPLICITLY here is something that SOMEONE CLAIMS exist independently of them when you say ""These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will."" This is NOT objectivity in science, or any rational sense. A scientist is not merely claiming something is 'objective' it IS actually OBJECTIVE because an objective mechanism was used to derive it and it is an accurate description of reality. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind, not to some divine mystic despite their claims to the contrary. You keep insisting there is no such thing as Objective Morality because people can choose to believe other things are the standard of morality, that is completely irrelevant.

Your selective ignorance of critical points in this discussion is further evidence of your trolling nature, I can gain nothing further from discussions with you since you clearly seek no legitimate understanding or have any ration objections worth considering and you are clearly making an explicit effort to be a jerk or an idiot. So best of luck to you and your quest to annoy people, I'm sure your mother is very proud of you.

[Matus1976]

I've been thinking why Objectivists so tenaciously and against their better judgement cling to the idea of an objective morality.

I've been wondering why intelligent rational people who are blitheringly ignorant still feel compelled to speak out and formulate opinions about matters they know nothing about, or way argumentum ad ignorance - as skeptics like to call it - is so profoundly integral to the objections of such people, you and X-Ray, on philosophical issues. Argumentum ad Ignorance is a favorite of creationists - e.g. I can not, in the two seconds I've spent thinking about how the eye evolved, figure it out - therefore the eye could not have possibly evolved!

It struck me that this attitude has a close parallel in the religious argument, in which it's deemed necessary to pose an ethics system dictated by God,

That's the whole point, Dragonfly, to you and X-Ray "Objective" in the context of ethics and morality for some reason must be 'dictated by god' while "Objective" in the context of science, reason, and reality, means:

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Objective does not mean everyone must agree with it, everyone must choose it, or everyone must believe it. Anyone can choose to believe anything about the physical properties of matter, but that does not make the actual physical properties of matter non-objective. Anyone can choose to believe anything they want is the objective standard of morality, but only one thing is, because everything else destroys life. No system of morality of living beings can be instructions for suicide and yet still be called a morality for living beings, the concept is self refuting and illogical.

[Selene]

General Semanticist:

Out of curiosity, can choices made by a human be ranked in an order of "successful?"

Adam

Edited July 26, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

Yes indeed: the term 'objective' has been hijacked - not only by religious thought but also by everyone else who believes it applies to morality. Which makes the word combination "objective morality" an oxymoron.

Xray,

Do you have a meaning for objective that is:

1. Not what it isn't,

2. Is not a consensus of experts, or

3. Is not knowledge miraculously outside of human minds?

You have claimed all the above, even repeated it, but you have offered nothing else. I so dearly long to understand the logic of this hijacking.

Eager minds await enlightenment.

Hear my plea...

Oh hear my plea...

Michael

Please quote any area of any one of my posts from which you reached this conclusion.

This eager mind insists on a quote and explanation as to how you arrived at the absurd conclusion attributed to me.

Eager mind awaits to see the thinking underlying your world.

Hear my plea ...

Oh hear my plea ...