Can morality be objective?

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

"Are you aware that with 'set of internal experiences', you have entered the realm of subjectivity?"

Disregarding the condescension, your statement is not necessarily true. Therefore, your assertion of the statement as a certainty is not established.

By the way, are you aware that Chris is not a six (6) year old?

Adam

Adam -

You ask Xray a question which begins with "Are you aware?"

Oh, I get it - - - a purely rhetorical question.

Bill P

Bill:

With a huge dollop of dripping sarcasm also. I think that Radicals book that our cohort suggested may be right up your alley. I am going to get a copy myself. Hell, I have been so far out of the "Oist war" period that I have not even read Barbara's book Passion of...

Needless to say I am going to finish the Burns book which I find extraordinarily well written so as to fill in the huge gaps that I have and then tackle Barbara and Nathanial's post schism books. Up to page 110, I read slowly and carefully the first time through, with tons of underlining and commentary, but I forget virtually nothing.

What a shame that it was that bad. I am glad I was not directly involved, I would have made live long enemies I am afraid.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Ms. Xray:

"Are you aware that with 'set of internal experiences', you have entered the realm of subjectivity?"

Disregarding the condescension, your statement is not necessarily true. Therefore, your assertion of the statement as a certainty is not established.

By the way, are you aware that Chris is not a six (6) year old?

Adam

Adam -

You ask Xray a question which begins with "Are you aware?"

Oh, I get it - - - a purely rhetorical question.

Bill P

Bill:

With a huge dollop of dripping sarcasm also. I think that Radicals book that our cohort suggested may be right up your alley. I am going to get a copy myself. Hell, I have been so far out of the "Oist war" period that I have not even read Barbara's book Passion of...

Needless to say I am going to finish the Burns book which I find extraordinarily well written so as to fill in the huge gaps that I have and then tackle Barbara and Nathanial's post schism books. Up to page 110, I read slowly and carefully the first time through, with tons of underlining and commentary, but I forget virtually nothing.

What a shame that it was that bad. I am glad I was not directly involved, I would have made live long enemies I am afraid.

Adam

Adam -

Understood on the sarcasm in your response to Xray. I was making it was clear to all - in case there are any who are tone deaf on this thread... We have seen strong evidence that is the case.

I really enjoyed the Burns book. She is a strong writer.

I'm surprised you haven't read Passion of Ayn Rand and My Years with Ayn Rand.

I urge you to read both. And I am specific here - - - I would strongly recommend My Years with Ayn Rand over Judgment Day (NB's earlier version of his memoir of his Rand years). It is, in my judgment, a much better book. Judgment Day has more of a bitter tone in it. My Years with Ayn Rand reflects, I think, NB looking back and reconsidering some of his evaluations. (He said as much in the introduction.) I think I recall BB indicating she liked MYWAR much better, also. (Don't recall her exact words, which as usual were probably very well and precisely chosen.)

The Heller book: I read it also, carefully. Obviously Heller has done A LOT OF RESEARCH on Rand. It's a shame the archive folks didn't allow her access. Far too often, however, she seemed to me to take a rather nasty tone to Rand, or to make an inference which she surely could have checked with one of those who is willing to talk about their years with Rand, to correct it. So I recommend it - but I put it in fourth place, after:

Passion of Ayn Rand, Russian Radical, and Goddess of the Right

(I don't list NB's memoir for comparison with these four - it's really a work of a different sort - a memoir of relationships.)

Bill P

Edited December 29, 2009 by Bill P

[Selene]

Bill:

Thanks so much. I will take your advice.

I know you got it lol.

I probably will not read the Heller book for quite a while. I have heard her speak and I do not like what I "see" in her mannerisms. tone and face. It seems like she has a bitchy approach, but those are purely SUBJECTIVE. ****

I also think I instinctively did not want to read about three wonderful people who were of significant value to my mind and integrity. I just wanted to keep the obvious pain they were all going through at a distance.

Now I can see that time with a wiser understanding and acceptance than I would have been able to then.

Thanks Bill you are a solid friend on this forum.

Adam

**** Xray alert - gotta help the ole girl since she got so choked up over some posts, she may not be able to see that word clearly

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill:

Thanks so much. I will take your advice.

I know you got it lol.

I probably will not read the Heller book for quite a while. I have heard her speak and I do not like what I "see" in her mannerisms. tone and face. It seems like she has a bitchy approach, but those are purely SUBJECTIVE. ****

I also think I instinctively did not want to read about three wonderful people who were of significant value to my mind and integrity. I just wanted to keep the obvious pain they were all going through at a distance.

Now I can see that time with a wiser understanding and acceptance than I would have been able to then.

Thanks Bill you are a solid friend on this forum.

Adam

**** Xray alert - gotta help the ole girl since she got so choked up over some posts, she may not be able to see that word clearly

Adam -

First - - Thanks.

I think you may be surprised at how upbeat Passion of Ayn Rand is. The dominant tone of the book is "What an amazing and brilliant woman Ayn Rand was!" Will you see pain - yes. BB's account of the "showdown" with the repeated slap still makes me shudder - thinking of those four people having to endure those moments (and the times to come). But unless one is a scandal-monger, that isn't the major message of the book. At least not as I see it.

When I first read it, I came in with dread. I had heard the story of the Rand-NB affair and the schism, and had no doubts of its truth. I was so pleasantly surprised to find what I have described above - a labor of love.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me chime in just a second with a good word about Anne Heller. I am finally getting around to reading her work (and Jennifer's too).

I don't believe Anne has an agenda one way or another with respect to Rand or Objectivism.

(Her thing is Suze Orman. )

I don't think she wants to bash Rand and I don't think she wants to promote Rand. I think she wants to understand Rand to the best of her ability and share her thoughts with the reading public. I think, on a very personal level, she is trying to come to grips with what makes Rand so important in today's world and what to look out for. This is in terms of her own life and values waaaaaaaaay before trying to promote any party line.

In fact, so far I haven't even seen a party line. I suspect she lives and breathes outside of any "movement" kind of thoughts one way or another, except maybe as a mild curiosity. She is certainly outside the Demolition Derby going on in the Objectivist subculture. But I have read some "party-line" bashing of her book, both for and against Rand. Some folks are just plain ticked at her for not preaching their brand of Rand.

From what I have read up to now, Anne has done a magnificent job at understanding Rand according to very clear standards she has put forth. (I will do my review later.)

In short, she got me.

She thinks for herself.

Folks already know what I think about that...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: In real life the guard should have been shot down out of hand. Many of the guards inside maybe killed also. The scene in AS was kind of a gestalt in that a guard killed Kira at the end of We The Living and Rand was balancing one end of her career with the other. There are lots of things available for criticism in the novel, but this is a triviality. I find the tunnel disaster much more troubling and distasteful. Or that doctor who wouldn't share his knowledge on how to prevent strokes or limit their damage. Or letting Rearden fly around Colorado a month looking for Dagny. Taking your marbles and going home is what children do; it is not adult behavior. Adults fight it out for what's right. I have no problem with a doctor retiring from medicine because of taxes, regulations, etc., but I have no truck with someone who knows how to save many lives who decides not to share information of that so others can.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

Was that an argument?

Do you want me to spell it out for you explicitly? There is no little homunculus in your brain watching the images in your brain. Light forms an image on your retina. After that point, there is no image in your brain.

Darrell

Well, if you don't like the term 'image' how about a representation? Even better, an abstraction The point is that what we have to work with are things created in our brain from the stimuli our nervous system receives. So we do not see the real world as it is, it is humanly impossible.

The process of creating the representation in your brain is part of the process of seeing. The process of seeing starts when light strikes the retina, not at some later point.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

We had a discussion on this and Rand definitely is using 'morality' in a non-standard way here. Nowhere in a dictionary that I know of does 'morality' have anything to do with survival skills. The definitions are invariably about right/wrong, ethical/unethical, etc. , things that have a social context - nothing about survival. So Rand has some reason for using this word so differently, I wonder why that is?

You're assuming what you're trying to prove, that right and wrong have a social context.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Well, I can certainly agree that a man on a desert island will need his reason or rationality to survive. It's almost as if Rand equates these to morality. In other words, being a moral person is being a rational person. I sometimes think she is using 'morality' this way to counter the religionist view of morality, because religion is basically irrational.

Yes! And to counter the emotionalist view of morality because emotionalism is basically irrational too.

Darrell

[Alfonso Jones]

Xray: In real life the guard should have been shot down out of hand. Many of the guards inside maybe killed also. The scene in AS was kind of a gestalt in that a guard killed Kira at the end of We The Living and Rand was balancing one end of her career with the other. There are lots of things available for criticism in the novel, but this is a triviality. I find the tunnel disaster much more troubling and distasteful. Or that doctor who wouldn't share his knowledge on how to prevent strokes or limit their damage. Or letting Rearden fly around Colorado a month looking for Dagny. Taking your marbles and going home is what children do; it is not adult behavior. Adults fight it out for what's right. I have no problem with a doctor retiring from medicine because of taxes, regulations, etc., but I have no truck with someone who knows how to save many lives who decides not to share information of that so others can.

--Brant

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

[jeffrey smith]

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place.

2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation.

Jeffrey S.

[Alfonso Jones]

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place.

2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation.

Jeffrey S.

Two bridges too far.

1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above?

2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)?

Bill P

[Darrell Hougen]

When a non-volitional creature acts in life sustaining manner, one might say that its actions implicitly "contain evaluations." However, the central question of ethics is, why should a volitional creature act in a life sustaining manner? If a volitional creature does act in a life sustaining manner, then its actions are explicitly the result of evaluations that are directed at sustaining its life.

Of course, a volitional creature is also dependent upon low level processes such as the beating of its heart or the digestion of food that are not volitional. But, the central of ethics involves volitional choices and actions.

Darrell

Making morality objective is a two-part process. Looks like we agree on the first part (implicit in life-sustaining action exists evaluations). The second part addresses volition as described in the origin of this thread. All of man's objective statements are based on volitional processes. This is probably why GS argues that subjective and objective cannot be completely divided. If I assert that a block of granite weighs 5 kilos, I had to first validate my knowledge (which requires volition) prior to asserting what appears to be an objective statement.

When I make an explicit evaluation consistent with an objective implicit evaluation, I am basically re-asserting objective reality. Biologically, vitamin C is "good" for me. Therefore, I hold the explicit evaluation that vitamin C is good for me. My explicit evaluation is not subjective, it is completely based on objective truth. Sure, evaluations can be subjective... but so can assertions. It is when assertions are based on fact that those assertions become objective. Likewise, it is when evaluations are based on fact that those evaluations become objective.

I still don't think you've addressed the "why" question. Here is (in brief) my approach (outlined in my reply to Jeffrey):

In a nut shell, I would argue that if your chosen, long-range goal, for which life is a subordinate goal, causes you to act in any manner that is substantially incompatible with the requirements of your life, you will substantially increase your probability of death and, therefore, will substantially reduce your odds of achieving your primary goal. Therefore, it is impossible to choose any goal that is substantially different from the maintenance of your life. That does not mean that you cannot maintain your life by different and various means. Rather, it implies that the maintenance of your life can never be subordinate to any other long-range goal, at least not in any substantial manner.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Actually the desert island scenario is useful in exposing the fundamental flaw in Objectivist morality.

In brief, Rand declares "life" to be the standard of value--which implies that "life" is itself not a value, but something inherent in reality by which value choices can be measured and judged.

If I declare that a meter is to be the standard of length, does that imply that a meter is not a unit of length?

But (here is the flaw) she then declares that "life" is something chosen (or at least, sought after), meaning that "life" is itself a "value": the most important value but still a value which must be chosen.

The Objectivist counter to this problem is, as far as I understand it, not a good counter. "You have to choose life because otherwise you will die, therefore life is the objective standard of value."

And if I do not care whether I live or die?

Or suppose I value life only as a means to another goal: suppose I am a musician who lives for the sake of playing my music, and not, as Objectivism has it, playing my music for the sake of living.

Here, you have identified the correct question to ask. Although Rand pointed the way to the correct answer to this question, I don't think her answer was 100% satisfactory. Providing a complete answer to this question is a difficult proposition. In fact, I started writing an essay on the subject some time ago, but haven't had a chance to finish it.

In a nut shell, I would argue that if your chosen, long-range goal, for which life is a subordinate goal, causes you to act in any manner that is substantially incompatible with the requirements of your life, you will substantially increase your probability of death and, therefore, will substantially reduce your odds of achieving your primary goal. Therefore, it is impossible to choose any goal that is substantially different from the maintenance of your life. That does not mean that you cannot maintain your life by different and various means. Rather, it implies that the maintenance of your life can never be subordinate to any other long-range goal, at least not in any substantial manner.

In other words, not only is life not an "objective standard of value" but simply another value which I can freely choose.

This is why the "indestructible robot" scenario fails to establish what Rand wants it to establish, since the robot is free to choose something else as its ultimate value.

The "indestructible robot" is free to choose any goal at all. A human is not. A human cannot achieve any long-range goal that is substantially at odds with the maintenance of his own life.

Darrell

1) In reference to the meter, perhaps you need to pick a different example. The meter itself is defined by relation to a physical existent--originally, a proportion of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator; for part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, a specially made bar kept in Paris; next, the wavelength of the radiation emitted by a certain isotope, and for the last twentyfive years or so, the distance light will travel in a vacuum during a set interval of time (a very small fraction of a second, just over one three hundred millionth of a second). So the meter is not itself the standard.

2) Your proposed argument fails to take into account the possibility that people will choose goals that are directly in conflict with living (suicide bombers, for instance) or choose goals which are attainable only at direct risk to themselves (climbing Mt. Everest, for example). It also does not take into account goals which emphasize quality. If my goal is to produce tasty croissants every time I bake a batch of croissants, keeping myself alive is not really relevant--as long as I have produced tasty croissants each time I bake, the goal will be attained, whether I live one year or one century. Furthermore, you apparently are trying to claim that maintaining life is the primary goal, even when it is cleary subordinated--in other words, trying to have your cake and eat it too.

3) According to Rand, that indestructible robot

would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

(from the Objectivist Ethics, as printed in The Virtue of Selfishness]

So the robot is not free to choose any goal if can have no goals. But I think it's easy to visualize specific goals that the robot could choose (for instance, ensuring it inventor never lacks for money), exactly the opposite of what Rand claims.

Jeffrey S.

1. The word "meter" refers to the standard, just as the word "life" refers to the process of living.

2. I didn't say that people wouldn't choose goals that were incompatible with their lives. I simply stated that their probability of achieving them would be substantially reduced if achieving them was incompatible with living.

I was careful to only refer to long-range goals. Achieving death (by suicide) is not a long-range goal and, therefore, does not require placing a high value on life in order to achieve. However, if a goal simultaneously requires living for a long period of time and is incompatible with living, then it will be next to impossible to achieve.

Imagine that you were an altruist. Actually, the goal of altruism is hard to define precisely. Is it to do as much good for others in the short run or in the long run? If it is to do as much good as possible in the short run, then the altruist will immediately give away everything he owns and die of starvation or exposure to the elements. If it is to as much good as possible in the long run, then the altruist should attempt to live as long as possible so as to maximize the amount of good he is able to do over the longest period of time. But, any action that he takes, such as giving away a substantial portion of his wealth, that is substantially incompatible with his life, will undermine his ability to achieve his goal of doing the most good over the long run.

Your argument that the altruist's life is logically subordinate to his goal of helping other people has some merit, but consider this: By setting the long-range good of other people as his goal in the first place, the so called altruist has actually smuggled the goal of life into his overall goal of doing good for others. In other words, one cannot say that his goal was ever simply to help others. His goal, on at least the same level as helping others was always to help himself at the same time. So, if he calls himself a simple altruist, he is being dishonest. His goal was always to survive.

Also consider what we know about helping other people. Other people can benefit both from charity and from business. The difference between charity and business is that, in the first case, the benefactor does not (substantially) benefit and may actually lose value, while in the second case, the business person also benefits himself. Therefore, it may turn out (and is probably the case) that the business person may actually do more good for other people over the long run than the philanthropist. Therefore, the most logical course of action for the long-range-altruist is actually to run a profitable business. But, if that is true, in what sense does this so-called altruist differ from an Objectivist who is acting in his own self interest?

3. There is an important distinction between goals and objective values. The robot is not incapable of having goals, but it is incapable of having objective values. The robot may choose goals arbitrarily, for example, ensuring that its inventor has money. But, what would the consequences be of it abandoning the goal of providing money to its inventor? Nothing. Neither the inventor nor anyone else could do anything to the robot if it refused to follow its programming. It would simply go on existing forever as if nothing had changed. It could kill its inventor or let him live at any moment on any whim because none of its actions would ever have any consequences for its existence. And, because nothing would have any consequences for its existence, nothing could be objectively more or less valuable to it. It could go about flailing its arms randomly, or lie still for thousands of years and it wouldn't matter in any objective sense.

Darrell

[jeffrey smith]

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place.

2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation.

Jeffrey S.

Two bridges too far.

1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above?

2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)?

Bill P

1) Go back and read the sentence or two Xray posted. Rand killed off a minor character not because the plot demanded it, but to illustrate a philosophical point.

2) Please do attack (if you must attack) what I say. Otherwise I might mistake you for Xray or Perigo:)

What I actually wrote was this:

Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation

We're not talking about some form of heroic virtue. We're talking about doing or not doing a very minimal action with little or no inconvenience to the doctor, and a self imposed obligation taken on himself at the time he became a doctor.

As for the text of the Hippocratic Oath itself, Wikipedia has both the "Classic" and what it claims is a modern version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Jeffrey S.

Obviously, one group of doctors who don't take the oath nowadays would be those who provide abortions.

[jeffrey smith]

1. The word "meter" refers to the standard, just as the word "life" refers to the process of living.

2. I didn't say that people wouldn't choose goals that were incompatible with their lives. I simply stated that their probability of achieving them would be substantially reduced if achieving them was incompatible with living.

I was careful to only refer to long-range goals. Achieving death (by suicide) is not a long-range goal and, therefore, does not require placing a high value on life in order to achieve. However, if a goal simultaneously requires living for a long period of time and is incompatible with living, then it will be next to impossible to achieve.

Imagine that you were an altruist. Actually, the goal of altruism is hard to define precisely. Is it to do as much good for others in the short run or in the long run? If it is to do as much good as possible in the short run, then the altruist will immediately give away everything he owns and die of starvation or exposure to the elements. If it is to as much good as possible in the long run, then the altruist should attempt to live as long as possible so as to maximize the amount of good he is able to do over the longest period of time. But, any action that he takes, such as giving away a substantial portion of his wealth, that is substantially incompatible with his life, will undermine his ability to achieve his goal of doing the most good over the long run.

Your argument that the altruist's life is logically subordinate to his goal of helping other people has some merit, but consider this: By setting the long-range good of other people as his goal in the first place, the so called altruist has actually smuggled the goal of life into his overall goal of doing good for others. In other words, one cannot say that his goal was ever simply to help others. His goal, on at least the same level as helping others was always to help himself at the same time. So, if he calls himself a simple altruist, he is being dishonest. His goal was always to survive.

Also consider what we know about helping other people. Other people can benefit both from charity and from business. The difference between charity and business is that, in the first case, the benefactor does not (substantially) benefit and may actually lose value, while in the second case, the business person also benefits himself. Therefore, it may turn out (and is probably the case) that the business person may actually do more good for other people over the long run than the philanthropist. Therefore, the most logical course of action for the long-range-altruist is actually to run a profitable business. But, if that is true, in what sense does this so-called altruist differ from an Objectivist who is acting in his own self interest?

3. There is an important distinction between goals and objective values. The robot is not incapable of having goals, but it is incapable of having objective values. The robot may choose goals arbitrarily, for example, ensuring that its inventor has money. But, what would the consequences be of it abandoning the goal of providing money to its inventor? Nothing. Neither the inventor nor anyone else could do anything to the robot if it refused to follow its programming. It would simply go on existing forever as if nothing had changed. It could kill its inventor or let him live at any moment on any whim because none of its actions would ever have any consequences for its existence. And, because nothing would have any consequences for its existence, nothing could be objectively more or less valuable to it. It could go about flailing its arms randomly, or lie still for thousands of years and it wouldn't matter in any objective sense.

Darrell

1) Actually, the word "meter" does not refer to the standard; it is the word defined (in a very literal sense) by the physical standard.

2) The point here is that not every goal and value requires one to live; and unless every goal and value requires one to live, your argument doesn't prove what you think it does.

3)Here's my working definition of altruism: finding value or benefit in benefiting others. Or to make a twist on a Randian phrase, taking the lives of other humans as one's standard of value--as opposed to Objectivism's tenet of taking one's own life as one's standard of value.

Since the lives of others is the standard of value, there is no "smuggling in" the life of oneself as the standard of value, so the rest of your argument on this point is irrelevant.

4) Your point about the robot also doesn't make the case you want it to, since it begs the question. Simply put, your argument works only if you assume the conclusion--that value is founded on one's own life and nothing else--beforehand.

Jeffrey S.

[Alfonso Jones]

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place.

2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation.

Jeffrey S.

Two bridges too far.

1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above?

2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)?

Bill P

1) Go back and read the sentence or two Xray posted. Rand killed off a minor character not because the plot demanded it, but to illustrate a philosophical point.

2) Please do attack (if you must attack) what I say. Otherwise I might mistake you for Xray or Perigo:)

What I actually wrote was this:

Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation

We're not talking about some form of heroic virtue. We're talking about doing or not doing a very minimal action with little or no inconvenience to the doctor, and a self imposed obligation taken on himself at the time he became a doctor.

As for the text of the Hippocratic Oath itself, Wikipedia has both the "Classic" and what it claims is a modern version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Jeffrey S.

Obviously, one group of doctors who don't take the oath nowadays would be those who provide abortions.

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

I have read the Wikipedia article re the Hippocratic Oath (it was the first place I went to remind myself of the content of the oath). A quick scan convinced me that the oath is something probably used by some doctors as part of a ritual, not one being taken seriously, and hence my comment. It appears we differ in how we view the applicability of that, as well as on how much of a "minimal action with little or no consequences" it would be to surrender this intellectual property won at (presumably) the price of much time and effort spent studying. If the Hippocratic Oath is understood by doctors as you interpret it (I don't think it is, based on the physicians I know)I do not see it as reasonable. If a doctor has the funds to purchase expensive medicine, is he obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to do so for anyone who needs it for life sustenance? I don't think so. I don't know how you turn the Hippocratic Oath into a guide for action. I suspect the actual intent of the portion you are citing is that if a physician physically encounters someone in need of life-sustaining aid, the physician should provide it.

Would you view yourselves as having an obligation to take almost all of your wealth and spend it to purchase AIDS medicine for young children suffering from the disease in Africa? Is the only reason why would not take this view that you did not take the Hippocratic Oath? Is the oath really the issue here?

Bill P

Edited December 30, 2009 by Bill P

[anonrobt]

Well put:

1) The longer Dagny delayed taking care of the guard, the more she had to consider the risk she was taking wrt Galt, who for all she knew at the time was being tortured at that very moment and in danger of death, with the guard standing in the way of Galt's rescue. The group taking over the building displayed a lot of restraint in the small number of casualties. The guard was offered multiple opportunities to surrender and let Dagny in, and he refused. The threat being made to him was quite clear. Explicitly clear.

2) My reaction on the doctor (Hendriksen): I would concur that he had no OBLIGATION to share his knowledge. What would make him somehow debtor just because he had developed a new procedure? But I would hope that the knowledge would be shared, nonetheless. Of course, Rand wasn't trying, I think, to make every moment in AS a "prescription for living." Galt celibate until the tunnel scene with Taggart? Francisco after the night when he made his decision to go on strike? "We never say 'give" in the valley?" Do a word count on uses of "give" in the Atlantis chapter.

Bill P

1) The problem with the shooting of the guard lies in how Rand described Dagny's motivation. She could have grounded it with rising impatience and a decision by Dagny that there was simply no more time to waste. Instead she turns the scene into something to point out a fundamental idea in her philosophy: Dagny doesn't shoot him because she can't wait any more on his dithering, but because he is dithering in the first place.

2) The doctor is, I think, more complicated than you indicate. Doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they? Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation.

Jeffrey S.

Two bridges too far.

1) What is the basis for your assertions about Dagny's motivations? Look at her actions after they get into the room to see that she was anxious. Where do you find specific statements of th emotivations which you indicate above?

2) Do you really believe that every doctor has voluntarily taken on an obligation to preserve whenever he can do so? Does this mean to you that every doctor is obligated to never rest - because he/she could instead go somewhere and find an emergency room where he could treat someone? This is an amazing obligation. (Inter alia, I'm not certain that the Hippocratic oath is something taken seriously. I'm not a scholar on the Hippocratic Oath. What version is used? Does it contain the item you mention? And what does it mean (see my question above)?

Bill P

1) Go back and read the sentence or two Xray posted. Rand killed off a minor character not because the plot demanded it, but to illustrate a philosophical point.

2) Please do attack (if you must attack) what I say. Otherwise I might mistake you for Xray or Perigo:)

What I actually wrote was this:

Even without a formal oath, a doctor takes on voluntarily an obligation to preserve life when he can do so: it comes not from the fact that he has a large amount of medical knowledge, but from the fact that he was a doctor in active practice (even if he retires afterwards). Refusing to share that knowledge would arguably violate that freely undertaken obligation

We're not talking about some form of heroic virtue. We're talking about doing or not doing a very minimal action with little or no inconvenience to the doctor, and a self imposed obligation taken on himself at the time he became a doctor.

As for the text of the Hippocratic Oath itself, Wikipedia has both the "Classic" and what it claims is a modern version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Jeffrey S.

Obviously, one group of doctors who don't take the oath nowadays would be those who provide abortions.

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

I have read the Wikipedia article re the Hippocratic Oath (it was the first place I went to remind myself of the content of the oath). A quick scan convinced me that the oath is something probably used by some doctors as part of a ritual, not one being taken seriously, and hence my comment. It appears we differ in how we view the applicability of that, as well as on how much of a "minimal action with little or no consequences" it would be to surrender this intellectual property won at (presumably) the price of much time and effort spent studying. If the Hippocratic Oath is understood by doctors as you interpret it (I don't think it is, based on the physicians I know)I do not see it as reasonable. If a doctor has the funds to purchase expensive medicine, is he obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to do so for anyone who needs it for life sustenance? I don't think so. I don't know how you turn the Hippocratic Oath into a guide for action. I suspect the actual intent of the portion you are citing is that if a physician physically encounters someone in need of life-sustaining aid, the physician should provide it.

Would you view yourselves as having an obligation to take almost all of your wealth and spend it to purchase AIDS medicine for young children suffering from the disease in Africa? Is the only reason why would not take this view that you did not take the Hippocratic Oath? Is the oath really the issue here?

Bill P

Besides, the doctor oath is predicated on the altruist mode of 'duty', which is, actually, a code of slavery [involuntary servitude for having acquired said knowledge], an ethical fallacy, since one does not exist for the sake of others...

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

This is one of those sharp, hairpin turns in Ayn's projected philosophy that creates a questionable queasiness in most of us individuals down here on the ground, in reality.

I believe that Brant voiced this a few posts back.

I can remember, vividly, one of the white shirted, black tied, neophytes, looking up, adoringly, at the caped Ayn and asking that type of question about the only pharmacy in town being closed and a man needing a prescription filled to save the life of his child.

The drugest refused to open his pharmacy to fill the script and save the child's life and of course the question of the wide eyed young proselyte was, basically, a human feeling question.

Ayn gave one of the nastiest answers, which, if you could literally separate the answer from reality was logical.

I believe that you go into certain professions with a special responsibility AND a duty that is implied in that particular craft or art or profession.

Soldiering comes to mind instantly. A research epidemiologist chose their profession for personal and professional reasons. I would have to guess that wanting to help and cure people is an essential element of the profession of doctoring.

Therefore, I believe that the oath and taking an oath is part of the human desire to live with integrity. I would logically as a patient want to know that my doctor did ascribe to that oath, particularly the part about not "harming". Also, the part about referring me to a specialist.

I think that one of Ayn's most powerful statements that I have carried with me in life is:

Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.— Ayn Rand

Does the definition of "doctor" imply and include "the Oath of Hypocrites [sp?] "?

I think that is does. However, the issue is much more difficult and may not be resolvable. Essentially, is the individual morally and ethically justified in taking that Atlas Shrugged doctor's position which would necessarily result in other individual humans dying when he, a specific individual, would be able to save? Does my dying wife have a moral claim on that doctor's skills and choices as to whether to act or not to act in a specific way? Does the potential victim have the right because of need to take the doctor's "product" or "procedure"?

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

"Are you aware that with 'set of internal experiences', you have entered the realm of subjectivity?"

Disregarding the condescension, your statement is not necessarily true. Therefore, your assertion of the statement as a certainty is not established.

By the way, are you aware that Chris is not a six (6) year old?

Adam

I wouldn't treat my six-year-olds consdescendingly either.

There was no condescensison in what I wrote to Christopher. We are all in the same boat. Christopher really wants to know. He is serious about this discussion and so am I. My "are you aware" was to be understood as directing his attention to a truth crucial in a discussion with the title "Can morality be objective?" That Christopher put it in question form indicates that this is no 'cut and dried answers' issue for him.

There are lots of things available for criticism in the novel, but this is a triviality.

In my code of values, taking a life is NEVER a triviality. Not even when it is done 'only' in fiction, since an author's weltanschauung is exposed in his/her works of fiction as well.

Rand's AS is a non-fiction treatise in the dress of a novel. It contains her philosophical credo. Ayn Rand was serious about this. She meant it.

BG: I find the tunnel disaster much more troubling and distasteful.

Imo the tunnel disaster is another indicator of Rand's lack of empathy.

I see it as a disgusting revenge fantasy where those who don't happen to share her values "get what they deserve".

What do you find troubling and distasteful in the tunnel disaster, Brant?

BG: Or that doctor who wouldn't share his knowledge on how to prevent strokes or limit their damage. Or letting Rearden fly around Colorado a month looking for Dagny.

Again, the lack of empathy stands out.

The robot is not incapable of having goals, but it is incapable of having objective values.

Can you please give an example of a robot(!) having "values" (???)

Morality for Rand entailed conceptual volition. It is "a code of values to guide man's actions," but within the context that those actions are motivated by concepts and choices. (She defined man as a "rational animal," which to her included conceptual volition.)

Still waiting for you to give an example of so-called "conceptual volition" in the context of morality.

Being volitional is part of being a human individual. Thinking in concepts also is. How can anyone not think in concepts?

So for milleniums, volitional human beings have thought in concepts, formed arbitrary categories etc., and made choices. What's new?

Can anyone here give an example of that 'conceptual volition'?

Edited December 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Much much better...good girl. I was actually able to get almost seventy percent (70%) through your post before I came to something too egregious to read through.

"The robot is not incapable of having goals, but it is incapable of having objective values" The green part means that the robot is capable of having goals, but the red part means that the robot is not capable of having objective [or subjective my addition to Darrell's quote] values. Or are you actually trying to split hairs with the "objective values phrase".

Can you please give an example of a robot(!) having "values" (???)

"....but it is incapable of having objective values." Now be a good girl and correct your post since you either are too blind or a deceptive little .....well, you can fill in all those bad words the Catholics put in your ego to cause it to be so incapable of simple reading.

See the clever use of the double negatives in Darrell's post. You actually have to read the posts before you actually type something completely wrong which could have been avoided. Or at least hide your incompetent inability to simply read a post by referring to it in a proximity a little further away from the original quote.

Your level of competence is sinking rapidly...this one is just real hard to blow off with your English is not my native language bullshit .

Adam

Post script: And you actually had the time and made the effort to edit that mess too - simply amazing!

Edited December 30, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand lacking empathy is not grounds for moral condemnation. Many super-smart people are unbalanced by their brains. My Father was. William Shockley too. Edward Teller. Most likely my late friend Petr Beckmann. Taking a life is not a triviality. I was once in that business. I know in certain circumstances I could do it again. I can assure all and sundry that the AS incident was a comparative triviality, especially since Dagny was able to get close to the guard without him raising the alarm the next thing she should have done was simply pull the trigger, several times, not have a conversation. The conversation was for literary-philosophical reasons and to benefit the reader. If I remember the end of We The Living correctly, the guard was fleshed out by the author before he shot Kira. Rand would have done better to have done the same with the guard in AS. Then Dagny could have simply walked up to him having a few words of conversation so she could get close enough to shoot him dead before he could raise any alarm. In 1940-41 there was a German raider (Atlantis) on the high seas--the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic--disguised as a cargo ship. It would get close to a British ship and open fire on the radio antenna so a distress call could not be made. Same principle. You kill the guard that could raise the alarm keeping you from perhaps taking the other guards inside prisoner instead of having a several hour gun fight with Galt in the cellar.

Now with the tunnel incident all the good people were cowards. Not one hero stepped forward to stop the nonsense. This giving up might have been Russian, but not American. I'll avoid going on from here about what I really think about the heroes' strike in AS except to say that there wasn't much heroic about it. Some of the heroes did some heroic things, like Frisco rescuing Hank. I can't say Ragnar because what he did was too unreal and impossible, which is why Rand avoided too much detail with him.

--Brant

Edited December 30, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Ayn Rand lacking empathy is not grounds for moral condemnation. Many super-smart people are unbalanced by their brains. My Father was. William Shockley too. Edward Teller. Most likely my late friend Petr Beckmann. Taking a life is not a triviality. I was once in that business. I know in certain circumstances I could do it again. I can assure all and sundry that the AS incident was a comparative triviality, especially since Dagny was able to get close to the guard without him raising the alarm the next thing she should have done was simply pull the trigger, several times, not have a conversation. The conversation was for literary-philosophical reasons and to benefit the reader. If I remember the end of We The Living correctly, the guard was fleshed out by the author before he shot Kira. Rand would have done better to have done the same with the guard in AS. Then Dagny could have simply walked up to him having a few words of conversation so she could get close enough to shoot him dead before he could raise any alarm. In 1940-41 there was a German raider (Atlantis) on the high seas--the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic--disguised as a cargo ship. It would get close to a British ship and open fire on the radio antenna so a distress call could not be made. Same principle. You kill the guard that could raise the alarm keeping you from perhaps taking the other guards inside prisoner instead of having a several hour gun fight with Galt in the cellar.

Now with the tunnel incident all the good people were cowards. Not one hero stepped forward to stop the nonsense. This giving up might have been Russian, but not American. I'll avoid going on from here about what I really think about the heroes' strike in AS except to say that there wasn't much heroic about it. Some of the heroes did some heroic things, like Frisco rescuing Hank. I can't say Ragnar because what he did was too unreal and impossible, which is why Rand avoided too much detail with him.

--Brant

Very interesting points on the tunnel. Additionally, clearly, empathy has nothing to do with her brilliance.

As to taking a life, I had the choice and I chose to wound the two people and it almost cost me my life. I was 13, it was almost a fatal mistake I will never make that one again! So that is as close as I can get to what I know you mean.

Amazing that you brought up the Atlantis! One of my great interests growing up. I even built the model of that ship. I thought is was evil personified, but you had to take your hats off to that German technology.

http://www.usmbooks.com/atlantis_kriegsmarine_book.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Atlantis <<<<wiki did a decent job on it.

http://www.ahoy.tk-jk.net/MaraudersWW2/2Atlantis.html

One of the really "special" sub stories of the war.

Real good post Brant.

Adam

another empathetic objectivist reporting for duty

[Darrell Hougen]

The suicide bomber is clearly irrational, he is working for his own destruction and the destruction of others.

That we may loathe the purpose of a suicide bomber doesn't make him irrational. His goal is to destruct others and to die for his purpose. If he succeeds, it is thanks to his rationality. He would be irrational if he prayed to his God and expected that thereby he could destruct others - that method doesn't work. That's one of the typical errors in Objectivism: the fact that rationality is desirable doesn't imply that someone who does things that we detest cannot be rational (with the fallacious conclusion that "evil" is impotent). The two concepts are certainly not equivalent. Being rational makes us efficient in what we want to achieve, but we may disagree strongly with what some people want to achieve.

However, the suicide bomber may very well be irrational. There is no reason for the suicide bomber to engage in any activity that is not related to his goal of killing himself and others. So, for example, it would be irrational for him to waste his time going to college. There is no logical connection between the goal of self destruction and the constructive activity of becoming educated.

Taken to its logical extreme, there is no reason for someone whose standard of value is death to do anything other than kill himself. Death cannot have any subordinate ends other than those required for its immediate achievement. So, for example, if a person had access to a gun and his highest purpose was his own death, then he would immediately proceed to shoot himself in the head. There would be no reason to engage in any kind of religious ceremony or leave any sort of note of explanation. So, in most cases, the death worshiper is actually irrational. He avoids the achievement of his alleged goal.

As to the potency of evil, there is another explanation of why it is usually impotent. Consider the phrase, "There is no honor among thieves." It embodies a truism, namely, that evil men do not have a value hierarchy that includes honor. The normal values and virtues that follow from making life the standard of value do not follow from making some other end, such as power, the standard. Consequently, evil men generally have a hard time joining together to achieve their ends while good people are generally able to cooperate. The result is that good usually triumphs over evil in the long run.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Would some of you who are posting on this topic tell me what, if anything, you think about Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics" or "Viable Values"?

Mary Lee

Hi Mary,

I've read parts of Tara Smith's book, "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics," and thought it was reasonably good. The book is sort of dry and I'm not sure all of her arguments are that crisp. On the other hand, she had some insights that I thought were useful. Don't ask me what they were, because I don't remember, but I thought they were useful at the time.

Darrell