Rand's gender hierarchy


Xray

Recommended Posts

Biological necessities and values are not the same.

Xray,

This is an opinion that has nothing to do with Objectivism (i.e., uses meanings that are not the ones explicitly defined in Objectivism). Thus you are not discussing Objectivism in that statement.

People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.

So?

In Xray-speak, people are not allowed (existence-wise) to choose wrong values? People only choose right values all the time?

Heh.

It might work that way in Xray-land. But my suggestion is to avoid law-enforcement and don't run fast while carrying sharp pointed things, because it doesn't work that way in productive society. Even in this mixed economy we live in.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which part do you call the fact, anyway? The thing you perceive or the illusion which distorts it?

The facts are multiple: The thing perceived is a fact, the act of perception itself is a fact, the processing in the brain (generating an illusionary image in that case) is a fact as well. The measuring is another fact.

Xray,

This has been the best thing I have read from you to date.

I marvel at you ability to say this and completely misunderstand so much else.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes xray! ;)

Bravisima on the illusion answer.

Surprised the hell out of me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying boils down to this: saying that man's life is the standard of value is itself a subjective choice of values. To say that morality consists in obeying reality for the sake of continuing one's existence is not an objective statement of facts logically deduced from reality: it is merely the expression of one's own values, a primary value--the preference for continuance of material life--to which all other values are subordinated. It's not the only possible morality which can coexist safely with the facts of reality: psychological wholeness, the wellbeing of one's community or species, selfless love (what Christianity calls agape), pure hedonism (in as much as it actually differs from Objectivism) being the principle non religious alternatives, all of them being subjective choices expressive of one's primary values.

Jeffery,

Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. So everything based on fact is geared towards the individual. For the logic to hold, what is good or true for one individual has to hold for all, not for all in the sense that a person cannot choose differently, but for all in the sense of "What if everybody did that?"

This point causes a lot of confusion, especially with crossed meanings, and probably is something that needs a clear exposition.

I am not sure what you mean by "psychological wholeness" (which, as an expression, has nothing to contradict Objectivist principles), note that in your other values, there is either implicit rule by some people over the ones practicing the value, or there are some people producing the goods for those individuals to live. In other words, these might be subjective choices, but they are not objective values in the sense that if everybody practiced them, all individuals would achieve the same (or similar) benefits. I am presuming normal healthy individuals here.

The ones you mentioned are not objective because it is impossible for every member of the species to adopt them at the same time, i.e., they depend by definition on sacrifice to someone or someone sacrificing to them. For instance, one cannot practice the virtue of selfless love and survive without a recipient. Such a recipient by definition does not practice selfless love at the moment of receiving. (btw - I happen to hold to a small degree of a version of this in my 80-20 split idea, but it is well defined and even the unconditional part has a few conditions.)

I don't have a problem with Objectivism claiming that the best way for a human being to live is to fulfill the Objectivist moral code; but I do object to it claiming an objective basis in fact that it does not in fact have.

Actually the facts do exist in the context I understand your complaint, but this needs to be fleshed out more for me to make sure I understand what you mean before discussing it intelligently.

There's also the fact that "man's life" is itself a fairly content free phrase, and choosing what you mean by it is another expression of one's primary values, not something logically deduced from the facts of reality. It can mean something that is merely the continuation of one's existence--which is why pure hedonism does not necessarily differ Objectivism...

This kind of statement is why I erred on asking you again what you have read of Rand. "Man's life" is not a content-free idea at all. Objectivist concept formation follows an entity-identity-unit path of awareness in being integrated. There is no unit without perception of the core entity (or existent). Thus "man's life" means that a person discussing this has observed human beings and a whole lot more.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

Quick question, is there an objectively "...best way for a human being to live..."?

Adam

If you believe in God, yes. By this I mean the God of the mystics and philosophers, without involving any ideas of revelation or the pop culture idea of Old Man Sitting On A Throne, because from the single premise that God exists can be deduced very readily the equality and necessary autonomy of each and every human being, and therefore something rather close to what be called Orthodox Objectivist morality. However, I'll skip the details since presumably you, like most Objectivists*, don't believe in God (or at a minimum, believe such a position to be a subjective one, and therefore impossible to base an objective decision upon) ; in which case...

The answer to your question is no, because to decide what the best way for a human being to live actually is involves deciding what the goal of human life should be, and that can only be decided in accord with one's values. Should it be surviving as long as possible? Living as pleasurably as possible (hedonism)? Having as many children as possible to ensure the survival of homo sapiens' DNA code? Living productively (which seems to be the Objectivist position, but it's not entirely clear that it is)? It's not a question that can be decided "objectively".

Rand, for instance, chose "man's life" as her value (whatever she meant by that) and based her thinking on that.

*But not all. I've encountered one man online who considered himself an Objectivist but at the same time considered the existence of God to be logically provable. (As I recall, his "proof" was a version of the cosmological proof (the First Cause proof), and failed in the same way that all such proofs must fail.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. So everything based on fact is geared towards the individual. For the logic to hold, what is good or true for one individual has to hold for all, not for all in the sense that a person cannot choose differently, but for all in the sense of "What if everybody did that?"

Which in itself is an expression of one's values--the idea that everything should be geared toward the invidual. It's not something ineluctably deduced from reality.

This point causes a lot of confusion, especially with crossed meanings, and probably is something that needs a clear exposition.

I am not sure what you mean by "psychological wholeness" (which, as an expression, has nothing to contradict Objectivist principles),

I suppose the best way to phrase that point is that something which Objectivism sees as a secondary value (psychological wholeness) can be seen instead as the primary value from which all other values derive.

note that in your other values, there is either implicit rule by some people over the ones practicing the value, or there are some people producing the goods for those individuals to live. In other words, these might be subjective choices, but they are not objective values in the sense that if everybody practiced them, all individuals would achieve the same (or similar) benefits. I am presuming normal healthy individuals here.

The ones you mentioned are not objective because it is impossible for every member of the species to adopt them at the same time, i.e., they depend by definition on sacrifice to someone or someone sacrificing to them. For instance, one cannot practice the virtue of selfless love and survive without a recipient. Such a recipient by definition does not practice selfless love at the moment of receiving. (btw - I happen to hold to a small degree of a version of this in my 80-20 split idea, but it is well defined and even the unconditional part has a few conditions.)

Those problems disappear once you realize that you are merely phrasing the ideas in Objectivist terminology. The "sacrifices" are sacrifices only if you adopt the underlying Objectivist premise. Survival is important only if you adopt the Objectivist value system. The selfless lover places the act of love higher than he does survival; therefore the possibility that he won't survive an act of selfless love is not important--and if he thinks it is important, then he will probably take that as a symptom of the fact that he does not truly love selflessly. And the possibility that the object of his love does not reciprocate may be important only as a sign that he is truly loving selflessly--which means whether or not the object of the selfless love loves selflessly in return is a question of no importance in this context. And if everyone selflessly loved at the same time--well, I guess the Days of the Messiah would have arrived. Or at the very least, people would be taking care of each other's needs so everyone would end up surviving rather well. But the question "would people survive" or "how would people survive" would not be important--the only question of importance is,"are people selflessly loving?"

And similarly with "sacrifice"--the criticism is irrelevant if you don't adopt the Objectivist stance to begin with.

This kind of statement is why I erred on asking you again what you have read of Rand. "Man's life" is not a content-free idea at all. Objectivist concept formation follows an entity-identity-unit path of awareness in being integrated. There is no unit without perception of the core entity (or existent). Thus "man's life" means that a person discussing this has observed human beings and a whole lot more.

To keep it in terms of how you phrased it: I think Objectivism has not actually fully integrated the concept of "man's life". There's lot of possible alternatives inherent in that phrase. I should, I admit, bear in mind that Rand or another Objectivist writer may have done so, but I have yet to see it.

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Objectivist values are not based on facts: they are based on a particular anthropology which might conform to facts, but does not necessarily do so. I don't have to pick "rational animal" as the basis of my anthropology: I could use "political animal" or "social animal" (per the Peripatetic usage), and that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. I could make a reasonable argument from biology that it's the good of the species, or at least the community, which should be our standard;

You could use juggling flaming torches as your standard of morality as well, but that does not mean it is an objective standard for morality, or that there is no such things as an objective standard. If "political" animal or "social" animal are used as your standard for morality, they lead to death. No amount of chattyness and voting will grow your food and build your shelters, only the rational application of mans efforts will do that. Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death.

MSK - the great thing about life qua man being the objective standard for morality - as objective and factual as the mass of electron or the gravitational constant of the universe are - is that it doesn't matter what the opinions of certain solipsistic bozos are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death.

The part I bolded is the part that is a subjective valuation. There is nothing in reality that forces you to adopt that as the guiding principle. You think that survival is important, and therefore construct your moral system around it. "to exist or not to exist" is a fundamental question only if you think continuation of existence is a fundamental value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly

I agree. However, in the case of the physical properties the use of the scientific method will ensure that different people will ultimately get the same result, therefore there is for example a general consensus among people who use the scientific method about the mass of the proton. No such consensus exists about moral principles however,

Consensus is irrelevant, truth is not ascertained by 'popular vote' and suggesting as much demonstrates only an incredible ignorance of science and the concept of "Objective"

You ignore the essential part in my quote, namely the scientific method. If you think that this is the same as 'popular vote', then you have no idea what science entails, as this is the crucial difference between objective and subjective arguments, it guarantees that the results of different persons will converge, independently of the person who uses this method (which does not mean that it is infallible, new data and new insights may change the result).

A consensus is an interpretation - an evaluation - of evidence which is inherently unclear enough to not give an unequivocal answer. We do not seek a 'consensus' of the mass of an electron, because deriving a 'consensus' is not what you are doing when you are determine error percentages in experimental equipment. The fact that some try to apply 'consensus' as some sort of concept of scientific truth is merely a recent manifest of that post modernistic crap. If you think consensus is a part of science you are grossly ignorant about the nature of science. When a man performs an experiment and claims a particular result, and asks another to verify that experiment and result, they are not giving a 'consensus' they are making an observation. There is no interpretation of observations. The scientist does not say "do you agree that this is the way things are?" he says "are the things that you see happening the same as the things that I see?" This is not 'consensus' Objective replication of an experiment is not a 'consensus'

Wikipedia says enough on it

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Michael Chrichton speaks well on the topic as well

The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death.

The part I bolded is the part that is a subjective valuation. There is nothing in reality that forces you to adopt that as the guiding principle. You think that survival is important, and therefore construct your moral system around it. "to exist or not to exist" is a fundamental question only if you think continuation of existence is a fundamental value.

This again is you reverting back to your flawed definition of what "Objective" means, which you for some reason think is difference in the context of morality. There is nothing in reality that FORCES you to agree on what the mass of an electron is either, or that vaccines do not cause autism, or that cell phones cause cancer. Yet these all have Objective answers. Morality is a question that pertains only to entities which live, this is an objective observation, you can not ask "what is the proper standard of morality for a rock!" The question is non-nonsensical. If morality is a question that pertains only to living entities, then the answer must be one that pertains to the living aspect of those entities. It does not matter if you think survival is good and your moral system should be based on it. Your moral system MUST be based on it - or you die, and thus the question of how a living being ought to live (Morality) has one and only one answer that is logical, rational, and not self refuting. That does not mean you MUST choose that, it just means if you want to live, you must choose it. An objective "standard" for morality is not a mystical authoritarian decree which abdicates volition in every existing being. It is a reference point by which things are judged and actions are guided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people are on the premise of living. That's what living things are about, after all. Objectivism as an avalanche of morality only buries individualism in suppositions, dogmatic or not, blessed by authority figures.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those problems disappear once you realize that you are merely phrasing the ideas in Objectivist terminology. The "sacrifices" are sacrifices only if you adopt the underlying Objectivist premise. Survival is important only if you adopt the Objectivist value system. The selfless lover places the act of love higher than he does survival; therefore the possibility that he won't survive an act of selfless love is not important--and if he thinks it is important, then he will probably take that as a symptom of the fact that he does not truly love selflessly. And the possibility that the object of his love does not reciprocate may be important only as a sign that he is truly loving selflessly--which means whether or not the object of the selfless love loves selflessly in return is a question of no importance in this context. And if everyone selflessly loved at the same time--well, I guess the Days of the Messiah would have arrived. Or at the very least, people would be taking care of each other's needs so everyone would end up surviving rather well. But the question "would people survive" or "how would people survive" would not be important--the only question of importance is,"are people selflessly loving?"

And similarly with "sacrifice"--the criticism is irrelevant if you don't adopt the Objectivist stance to begin with.

Jeff,

If I look at a ball and say my definition of it includes being round, that is not a "stance." I know this is a predominantly a style detail, but there is a cognitive and a normative vocabulary. The time to use the cognitive terms is during identification, logic, etc. The time to use the normative terms is during discussions of value, especially the exercise of volition.

I believe it would be a good idea for you to read ITOE. I think many of your doubts are addressed there. Maybe they will not be resolved (I have several of my own, although they are not yours), but at least you will see how oversimplified your statements above are.

Did you read OPAR by Peikoff, or did you just skim it? If you just skimmed it, you have my sympathy. But if you read it, then you know he got many things right in presenting Rand's ideas. (He peppered in some of his own stuff, although he says he didn't, but that is another discussion.) There is one thing he did present clearly. A concept in Objectivism includes identification, classification based on similarities and differences, and commensurability.

(btw - You keep spelling Peikoff as Piekoff, so here is as good a place as any to mention it. But fear not! It's a common mistake.)

If you had absorbed this, you would see that your remarks above eliminate all of it and you are leveling all meanings to be merely opinions that are accepted over time. In other words, on the level of fundamentals, reason is out the door and tradition rules.

On meaning per se, you object to terms having specific meanings in Objectivism instead of the meanings given in System A, System B or System C (which, incidentally bear critical differences between themselves). Let's turn this around and ask, how would you present a philosophical system without defining terms, but instead using meanings from other systems at random?

Likewise, what is your reasoning that other systems get to have meanings for their terms, but Objectivism does not?

And even more critically, how do you induce and deduce (not simply deduce) principles from reality without specific meanings for your terms?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biological necessities and values are not the same. People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.

The above quotation uses the term “value” with two different meanings without realizing that is what is being done. (In philosophy this is known as the logical fallacy of equivocation.)

“Biological necessities” are conditions that benefit the life of the organism and Objectivism holds that those conditions are “values” that ought to be pursued. (Comparing "biological necessities" and "values" in the quotation's first sentence implicitly puts both in the same category of "biological conditions.")

“People can also decide to go against biological necessities, for example a drug addict choosing the drug over his health.” This sentence implicitly discusses “value principles,” which are the principles one uses to choose one’s actions.

Objectivism holds that one’s “value principles” are valid principles if they lead you to take action to achieve “values,” those things that benefit one’s life. The distinction between “values” and “value principles” is of crucial importance in discussing morality.

Discovery of “biological necessities” is relatively easy and the identified conditions are referred to, in Objectivism, as “values” that should be pursued. The discovery of valid principles for action, “value principles,” is fraught with controversy because of the differences at the foundation of the moral codes of different people. One can’t expect progress until all use the separate terms “value” and “value principle” to refer to the appropriate facts.

(See also post #220)

Edited by Robert Hartford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A consensus is an interpretation - an evaluation - of evidence which is inherently unclear enough to not give an unequivocal answer. We do not seek a 'consensus' of the mass of an electron, because deriving a 'consensus' is not what you are doing when you are determine error percentages in experimental equipment. The fact that some try to apply 'consensus' as some sort of concept of scientific truth is merely a recent manifest of that post modernistic crap. If you think consensus is a part of science you are grossly ignorant about the nature of science.

You're setting up a straw man. Nowhere did I say that consensus is part of the scientific method, it is the result of using the scientific method. It doesn't arise as the result of negotiations about finding a common viewpoint, it's the automatic consequence of a process that is suitable for obtaining objective results. It's as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert:

"Objectivism holds that one’s 'value principles' are valid principles if they lead you to take action to achieve 'values,' those things that benefit one’s life. The distinction between 'values' and 'value principles' is of crucial importance in discussing morality."

Thank you. That is well put. I will use this.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i.e. "Objective" is something a religious mystic declares is true.

Switch the sentence order and you'll get a correct statement:

It is a fact that certain religious believers declare their values to be "objective" in that they claim they come directly from a "god" of whose existence they are convinced.

So at the bottom of the fallacy there is the arbitrary decision to subjectively declare a "god" as the ultimate value, deriving a set of alleged objective values from the alleged volition of an alleged entity "god" which has no objective referent in reality.

Crazy, sure.

But this believer attitude is by no means limited to believers in transcendence.

For people can believe in obscure philosophical systems, political ideologies etc. with the same uncritical attitude.

"Objective" Morality is a prescription for behavior that some mystic declares is true.

Now we're getting closer. Prescription, exactly. Prescription for how one "ought to" behave, according to an arbitrarily chosen set of values.

But also non-mystics like Lenin, Marx and Hitler, to name but a few, all presented their sets of so called objective values to mankind, trying to force them upon those who did not agree.

As for alleged objective moral values, just look back in history and compare the morality of past times with some of today's moral values. Surely you will notice how drastically the moral values have changed and are going to keep on changing as long as human beings will live on earth. Vita in motu.

"Objective" is an aspect of reality that can be determined by any mind and is unaffected by bias, preference, or values.

You make my point: unaffected by values, you wrote. Precisely. Since "value" indicates subjectivity, using it in connection with "objective" is an oxymoron.

"Objective" In science is a statement about the nature of a property of matter, such as the mass of an electron, that exists independantly of any one's opinions, preferences, or biases.

... for living entities to continue to live, they must behave according to the laws of reality demanded in order to ensure their survival - laws that are not effected by opinions, values, or preferences.

No objection there. But this does not mean one has to value this biological necessity. Humans can can choose death over life or, or even if they do stay alive, may not value the fact at all.

You're not bursting my bubble, you're instead re-enforcing how much of a stagnant close minded idiot you are in repeating over and over again irrelevant things.

Resorting to insults like "closed mind idiot" merely indicates a person has run out of arguments.

I doubt the many victims of ideologies deciding they were "unworthy of living" would agree to their plight being brushed aside as irrelevant.

Surely you won't deny that religions, philosophies and ideologies have attributed zero value to hundreds of thousands of human lives - namely the lives of those they considered their enemies deserving to be destroyed.

Rand too has a black and white friend - enemy picture: her heroes vs "the moochers and looters". I always have to laugh when reading those words in her work, can't help it. It all sounds so wooden and artificially constructed.

The "pirate" Danneskjöld for example sinks the D'Anconia copper ships, letting the crew drown with the load. Not much concern for "life as the standard of value", is there?

In all, those Randian heros bring about a lot of destruction; ironically, they themselves collapse Rand's proclaimed "ultimate value: one's life."

[Xray]:

In short, the term "morality" is merely an empty container people fill with the subjective ethical values suiting their purposes.

[Matus]Ok, so the definition of MORALITY which you CHOOSE, has SUBJECTIVE contained within the VERY definition, HA. Ok, so to the definition of morality might as well be

MORALITY Xray1) Something which absolute can not be objective, because I say so.

Unless you become more logically stringent in your reasoning, you'll get lost in your non sequitur forest time and again.

Funny none of the definitions of Morality I looked up actually say "an empty container people fill with subjective ethical values"

Matus, that was informal speech I used to point out that none of these definitions will refer to what the values and virtues are.

For morality as the general term naturally HAS to apply to all kinds of moral "values and virtues", whether you study some aborigine tribe or a group of modern yuppies.

People can CHOOSE whatever subjective standard for values they want, but all of them will lead to DEATH, unless the standard is life, and that is the absolute OBJECTIVE unavoidable consequence of reality.

Um, Matus, as fas as I'm informed, all of live will ultimately lead to death, "and that is the absolute OBJECTIVE unavoidable consequence of reality".

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[To Selene]:

"You're confusing subjectiveness with indifference, in other words, either your morality is objective or you don't give a damn, which is a false dichotomy. It's the same kind of argument that some religionists use to suggest that atheists are not entitled to speak about moral issues because they don't accept the authority of the bible and they must therefore be immoral."

For so many centuries, moral value verdicts have been thought to be the exclusive domain of religious authorities passing their judgement on "life (morally) proper to man" according to "god's will", with the "atheist" being regarded as something like the devil's disciple, daring to oppose god's will.

This mental programming is obviously so deeply ingrainded that, ironically, even today, and by people who have long since shared their naive belief in many religious dogmas, atheists are still being viewed with suspicion, as if they were some valueless bunch of "anything goes" types without a threatening god to rein them in.

But if a person only behaves "morally" (whatever that is) because he/she fears punishment by a transcendent power, what is ethical about such behavior primarily directed by fear?

Does one need a god concept (or ANY other guru) to develop ethical values for oneself, to develop empathy, to get along with one's fellow human beings?

Imo the answer is a clear "No".

We have yet to hear one little word from Xray about what her morality is, her values are, her philosophy is. She has eschewed reason yet she tries(?) to reason(?) with us.

Okay Xray, you win, all values, everlasting even if changing values, are subjective: now what? We are left empty vessels--fill us.

Non sequitur argumenation by you:

You seem to believe that from pointing out the fact that values are subjective it follows that one leans back and leaves it at that. Having subjective values can very well imply that you advocate them and try to convince others of them. For example, in my life, I have donated quite a bit of money to various human rights organizations.

But however I may be convinced of my personal values being precious, no science in the world can declare them to be objective - the contradiction to "objective" being contained in the definition of the term "value" itself. Simple as that.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Can a sentient human being discover how to live a moral life?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only reason is the objective standard for morality, because everything else leads to death.

The part I bolded is the part that is a subjective valuation. There is nothing in reality that forces you to adopt that as the guiding principle. You think that survival is important, and therefore construct your moral system around it. "to exist or not to exist" is a fundamental question only if you think continuation of existence is a fundamental value.

Precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have yet to hear one little word from Xray about what her morality is, her values are, her philosophy is. She has eschewed reason yet she tries(?) to reason(?) with us.

Okay Xray, you win, all values, everlasting even if changing values, are subjective: now what? We are left empty vessels--fill us.

Non sequitur argumenation by you:

You seem to believe that from pointing out the fact that values are subjective it follows that one leans back and leaves it at that. Having subjective values can very well imply that you advocate them and try to convince others of them. For example, in my life, I have donated quite a bit of money to various human rights organizations.

But however I may be convinced of my personal values being precious, no science in the world can declare them to be objective - the contradiction to "objective" being contained in the definition of the term "value" itself. Simple as that.

I'm not claiming science has anything basically to do with what you and I are talking about. I think Matus did. Science is derivative from philosophy, implicit or explicit or both.

It's "non-sequitur" because you have defined the conversation/debate/argument/position so narrowly as to trivialize it. I want a broader context. This site is called Objectivist Living, not Objectivist Trivia.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Can a sentient human being discover how to live a moral life?

Adam

Every sentient human being will be automatically be confronted with various (often widely differing) moral values, taboos and sets of rules tinged by the socio-cultural context he/she happens to be born in.

If for example, you had been born into an Amazonas rain forest tribe, you would have been taught different moral values than those you were taught in your actual socio-cultural environment.

As to what sentient human beings can discover - they can discover by doing comparisons that universal morals don't exist.

So, given the wide gamut of moral values - how is "a" moral life supposed to look like?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Can a sentient human being discover how to live a moral life?

Adam

Every sentient human being will be automatically be confronted with various (often widely differing) moral values, taboos and sets of rules tinged by the socio-cultural context he/she happens to be born in.

If for example, you had been born into an Amazonas rain forest tribe, you would have been taught different moral values than those you were taught in your actual socio-cultural environment.

As to what sentient human beings can discover - they can discover by doing comparisons that universal morals don't exist.

So, given the wide gamut of moral values - how is "a" moral life supposed to look like?

xray:

As an actor in a movie stated quite clearly...

"Answer the fuckin question!"

You can give your semantic Shoalin approach a long rest with me.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Xray does not discuss Objectivism.

She discusses Rand in Xray-speak at people who discuss Objectivism.

They sound similar, but one really has nothing to do with the other.

Michael

Since Rand created Objectivsm, it is essential and only logical to check the premises she based her philosophy on.

The ensuing splits and power strugles within in the Objectivist hierarchy, the turf wars as to what the "correct" interpretation of Objectivsm is are phenomena one can observe in other philosophies too.

But I'm interested in the primary source: Rand's own words.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Can a sentient human being discover how to live a moral life?

Adam

Every sentient human being will be automatically be confronted with various (often widely differing) moral values, taboos and sets of rules tinged by the socio-cultural context he/she happens to be born in.

If for example, you had been born into an Amazonas rain forest tribe, you would have been taught different moral values than those you were taught in your actual socio-cultural environment.

As to what sentient human beings can discover - they can discover by doing comparisons that universal morals don't exist.

So, given the wide gamut of moral values - how is "a" moral life supposed to look like?

xray:

As an actor in a movie stated quite clearly...

"Answer the fuckin question!"

You can give your semantic Shoalin approach a long rest with me.

Adam

I was merely applying Rand's advice: "check your premises", that is, to get you to think about what "a" moral life is given the inescapable fact that so many different "morals" exist.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now