Your morality, or my own?

[Leonid]

Xray,

["Can you give me an example of Good what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man) and simultaneously, to him alone?]

I can give you a dozen examples. Though I must warn you that epistemology is not my strong suit, so I'll have to explain in my own terms, and bringing in my own words.

Let's take a concept called freedom. A man selects, observes and identifies this abstract notion - he studies it in history,in the affairs of other men, its worth to them, the repression that exists when it's lacking - he learns about it from all those works of philosophers, artists, historians and journalists.He concludes that the concept is essential to the fulfilment and happiness of all men, past, living, and future.

He has 'Objectified' it, and found it to be Good, and he calls it a Value, Freedom.

The next process is the 'Individualization' of Freedom into his own life. He takes the general abstract of the concept, Freedom, and introduces the specific 'freedom' into the scale of his existence.

Everything, from his home life, to his work, to thoughts and actions day to day, becomes imbued with freedom. He readily grants it to others, he demands it for himself, in every sphere, personal and especially political.

All the while, unceasingly, his mind is relating back and forward, from the 'Universal Freedom' (as Value for Humankind), to his specific application of freedom for him alone. It stands as an objective truth, which integrates with others he has, to form his philosophy.

This is getting long-winded, so I'll finish with some other values, virtues and principles that one can do exactly the same Objectifying and Individualizing, with :-

Egoism, Honesty, Justice, Self-Esteem, Integrity, Purpose, Independence, Romantic Love, Volition, and so on, down to the lesser virtues like Benevolence and Tolerance.

I hope I communicated this well enough in my layman's manner:)

Tony

Edited February 6, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

"Let's take a concept called freedom. A man selects, observes and identifies this abstract notion..."

Concept of freedom is abstraction of high order. Nevertheless it is common denominator of many personal observations and experiences. One of them is freedom of Will which is easily observable by introspection. Each and every person develops this concept by himself. So there is not and couldn't be any contradiction or clash between concept of freedom and its practical application.

[tjohnson]

GS,

Are you saying that we haven't arrived yet at any consensus on the true meanings of these words, and therefore cannot yet establish any thing of value?

Scary thought. Kind of in the air, or in Dylan's words "like a complete unknown, with no direction home,"... B)

Tony

There are no "true" meanings of words. There are popular meanings of words which you can find in a dictionary, but there are no "true" meanings. A meaning can't be true or false - a proposition or assertion might be. Meanings are only useful to denote what it is we are talking about. A good example is 'morality' which I pointed out on this list before. Rand says you would need morality to survive on a desert island but that is not a common meaning of the term. If it turns out that she uses 'morality' to mean he must use his rationality to survive, then I agree with that assertion even if I have never seen 'morality' used that way. IMO, this is not a good way to make your point - by using words with well developed meanings to mean something totally different. I find this just confuses the situation and interferes with understanding. It's like a doctor deciding one day to refer to cancer as 'meningitis'. Think of what his co-workers would say.

[tjohnson]

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 17).

I suppose this means determines what it ought to do to keep living? So if you are a slave and you work all your life for your room and board are you not living as you ought to? Where does it say you should get to have a car and go golfing?

[Xray]

Xray,

["Can you give me an example of Good what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man) and simultaneously, to him alone?]

I can give you a dozen examples. Though I must warn you that epistemology is not my strong suit, so I'll have to explain in my own terms, and bringing in my own words.

Let's take a concept called freedom. A man selects, observes and identifies this abstract notion - he studies it in history,in the affairs of other men, its worth to them, the repression that exists when it's lacking - he learns about it from all those works of philosophers, artists, historians and journalists.

He concludes that the concept is essential to the fulfilment and happiness of all men, past, living, and future.

He has 'Objectified' it, and found it to be Good, and he calls it a Value, Freedom.

The next process is the 'Individualization' of Freedom into his own life. He takes the general abstract of the concept, Freedom, and introduces the specific 'freedom' into the scale of his existence.

Everything, from his home life, to his work, to thoughts and actions day to day, becomes imbued with freedom. He readily grants it to others, he demands it for himself, in every sphere, personal and especially political.

All the while, unceasingly, his mind is relating back and forward, from the 'Universal Freedom' (as Value for Humankind), to his specific application of freedom for him alone. It stands as an objective truth, which integrates with others he has, to form his philosophy.

This is getting long-winded, so I'll finish with some other values, virtues and principles that one can do exactly the same Objectifying and Individualizing, with :-

Egoism, Honesty, Justice, Self-Esteem, Integrity, Purpose, Independence, Romantic Love, Volition, and so on, down to the lesser virtues like Benevolence and Tolerance.

I hope I communicated this well enough in my layman's manner:)

Tony

Tony, I think the thing you are not addressing is that the words 'freedom, honesty, self-esteem, etc.' can mean many different things to many different people at many times.

Tony,

"Freedom" is what Greg Nyquist called a "fudge word", a floating abstraction to what people can connote whatever suits their subjective purpose.

Suppose John Doe decides he's had it with being a husband and father and leaves his family. "Free at last!" he tells himself. Is freedom an "objective" value? Of course not. It can't be. For the concept "value" is connected to at least one individual attributing value, from which it follows that value can only be subjective.

Speaking of freedom as an alleged "objective value", technically speaking, a robber snatching your wallet could tell you that your are now "free" of it and that you "ought to" appreciate this freedom as an objective value.

The same goes for terms like "reason" "purpose" "self-esteem" (which Rand called the objectivst 'cardinal values').

I'm a stickler for examples since they connect those floating abstractions to reality.

To unmask the myth of "objective value", all it needs is examples.

To Hitler and Stalin, going by their mindset, no doubt freeing the state from elements disturbing their idea of the 'ideal state', was an act of "reason".

Their "purpose" was to eliminate all those disturbing elements and build their state as they saw fit.

Their "self-esteem" was directly connected to the 'success' they had.

In a bullfight, the matador killing the animal will draw considerable "self-esteem" from this act. Again, I ask you: can self-esteem be an "objective value"?

See how the whole Randian edifice collapses when the litmus test is performed on it with a few examples?

A goal desired is always a matter of individual personal choice.

Suppose person X's goal is to live in peace. Absence of initiation of force and coercion is suited to this purpose, therefore, is evaluated as 'good' by X.

However, since end desired (in this instance, peace) is a matter of choice, which is to say, a decision of individual mind, there is no universal mandate.

If there were, it would not be a matter of choice. So, every idea of "value to man" is false in denying the reality of individual volition.

There exists no 'universal goal', no 'universal good'.

On another thread. Roger Bissel wrote:

Roger Bissel:

"I would go so far as to say that there is NO SUCH THING as an inherently (intrinsically) good OR evil human creation. Anything man creates -- objects, ideas, etc. -- is always "good ~to whom~ and ~for what~"?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7419&st=0&p=88895entry88895

Mr. Bissel is quite correct.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

See how the whole Randian edifice collapses when the litmus test is performed on it with a few examples?

No I do not.

Can you please give me some examples?

I particularly like the one about the fire and the house and the water.

How does that one go?

If you want to boil a house, but you pour the boiled house on your plate of cold food, then you have gazpacho?

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

"If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result."

Same example you have used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And over and over and over and over it has been ignored and not once refuted; not even an attempt to refute.

"Same example, used in the same fallacious manner, but applied to a different argument that you are ineptly trying to refute."

Same example of ignoring and claiming fallacious, but nary a single sentence pointing out what is allegedly false.

View PostLeonid, on 06 February 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 17).

There exists no "ought to" when it comes to the biogoical program sustaining living entities. For "ought to" always implies someone telling another person what they "should" do. But no one tells my stomach that it "ought to" digest. Nor is the release of stomach acid for digestion the result of the stomach seeking this as a "value".

GS: So if you are a slave and you work all your life for your room and board are you not living as you ought to? Where does it say you should get to have a car and go golfing?

Every "you ought to do this or that" is an attempt to interfere with a person's subjective choices and can therefore have no part in a philosophy of individualism.

[tjohnson]

Every "you ought to do this or that" is an attempt to interfere with a person's subjective choices and can therefore have no part in a philosophy of individualism.

I agree, it should have no part in philosophy, however, we know from science that we ought to do things if we want certain things to happen (or not happen). For example we know that smoking is involved in many health problems so if we want to stay as healthy as possible we ought not to smoke.

[tjohnson]

Your question is based on the premise of moral relativism, something like this: " it may be good for you but not for me." Moral relativism represents an attempt to rewrite reality.

This may be true if you define 'moral' to mean something very different from it's usual meaning. If 'moral' is synonymous with 'rational' then your sentence becomes "Rational relativism represents an attempt to rewrite reality", and this I think I could agree with, at least I think I know what it means. In normal terms, 'morality' represents a lifestyle choice and so by definition it is relative.

[Leonid]

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 17).

I suppose this means determines what it ought to do to keep living? So if you are a slave and you work all your life for your room and board are you not living as you ought to? Where does it say you should get to have a car and go golfing?

[anthony]

Ms. Xray:

"If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result."

Same example you have used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

And over and over and over and over it has been ignored and not once refuted; not even an attempt to refute.

"Same example, used in the same fallacious manner, but applied to a different argument that you are ineptly trying to refute."

Same example of ignoring and claiming fallacious, but nary a single sentence pointing out what is allegedly false.

View PostLeonid, on 06 February 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 17).

There exists no "ought to" when it comes to the biogoical program sustaining living entities. For "ought to" always implies someone telling another person what they "should" do. But no one tells my stomach that it "ought to" digest. Nor is the release of stomach acid for digestion the result of the stomach seeking this as a "value".

GS: So if you are a slave and you work all your life for your room and board are you not living as you ought to? Where does it say you should get to have a car and go golfing?

Every "you ought to do this or that" is an attempt to interfere with a person's subjective choices and can therefore have no part in a philosophy of individualism.

Xray,

Nobody has refuted your 'bucket of water' scenario because in this instance you are perfectly right.

Yours is the Objectivist argument against intrincism and for context.

I think you are confusing 'subjective', and what one declares by whim to be of value, and 'context' - what is and isn't of value given a specific purpose.

My understanding is that there is ultimately only one dictate in O'ism, and that's reality. "Ought" relates to the identified Nature of Man, and the benefits to the single man.

IOW, What he should do, given Man's identity, AND his own individual one.

He introduces context to all the instances of Reality.

Tony

[Leonid]

General semanticist

“There are no "true" meanings of words. There are popular meanings of words which you can find in a dictionary, but there are no "true" meanings. A meaning can't be true or false - a proposition or assertion might be”

I recognaze the rabbit from the hat of W.F Quine. He named it translational indeterminacy. Individual statements”- he said-“ cannot be suitably translated because they have fixed meaning only in the context of the theories they belong to.” As Kant postulated that human mind is unable to learn reality because it is human mind-that is having certain identity, so Quine denies the possibility of knowledge because knowledge too has identity-that is a context. But Law of Identity cannot be escaped. Words are not arbitrary labels, they designate concepts which are results of non-contradictory integration of percepts. They pertain to reality.

GS

“So if you are a slave and you work all your life for your room and board are you not living as you ought to? Where does it say you should get to have a car and go golfing?”

Again you commit the fallacy of context evasion. Every living entity lives in accordance with its nature. Animals cannot lives as plants, humans cannot live as animals. Man can live only qua Man, that is-qua rational being. Slavery is not a natural condition for such a being, since force is incompatible with mind (and with life in general). Therefore in order to exist as human being Man OUGHT to be free, Freedom means the absence of coercion.

GS

“In normal terms, 'morality' represents a lifestyle choice and so by definition it is relative.”

Morality by definition is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions. (Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13.) Such a code presupposes existence of the standard of value which is Man’s life qua Man, rational being. Every choice and action is measured by this standard. Therefore lifestyle choice could be bad or good but it cannot be relative.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Leonid

[Xray]

Morality by definition is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions. (Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13.) Such a code presupposes existence of the standard of value which is Man’s life qua Man, rational being. Every choice and action is measured by this standard. Therefore lifestyle choice could be bad or good but it cannot be relative.

Since every 'standard' is the result of a subjective choice, it follows that the code if values derived from this standard is necessarily subjective as well.

So the own standard of value chosen by person X can substatially differ from person Y, etc..

[tjohnson]

GS

“In normal terms, 'morality' represents a lifestyle choice and so by definition it is relative.”

Morality by definition is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions. (Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13.) Such a code presupposes existence of the standard of value which is Man’s life qua Man, rational being. Every choice and action is measured by this standard. Therefore lifestyle choice could be bad or good but it cannot be relative.

See again, there is the link between morality and rationality. As far as I'm concerned, Rand treats them as one and the same. It's almost as if she chooses to pretend there is no such thing as what the traditional meaning of 'morality' represented and simply hijacked the term to mean rationality.

[tjohnson]

humans cannot live as animals.

They most certainly can, in fact, they have been doing so for most of their brief history here on earth.

[tjohnson]

Words are not arbitrary labels, they designate concepts which are results of non-contradictory integration of percepts. They pertain to reality.

When i say words don't have true or false meanings that does not mean they are arbitrary or do not pertain to reality. When you look up the meaning of a word it allows you to understand what it means "in reality" but the meaning cannot be TRUE or FALSE, it just IS.

[Xray]

(All quotes: WhyNot]

WhyNot: Nobody has refuted your 'bucket of water' scenario because in this instance you are perfectly right.

It is a principle which applies in all instances.

The principle illustrated is good/bad (suited or unsuited to purpose), which goes to evaluation of means in respect of a subjective chosen goal, and is applicable 100% of the time.

There can't exist some goal independently of any individual choosing.

It is simple matter to relate the principle to any end desired.

For example, if the end desired is peace and harmony, then, non-initiation of force and non-coercion is the means; no "objective value" required.

Yours is the Objectivist argument against intrincism and for context.

By what rationale is the principle illustrated called an "Objectivist argument"?

How do Objectivists come up with the idea of "objective value" except by the rationale that "value" exists in nature itself?

While Objectivists appear to oppose the idea of intrinsic value, they necessarily depend on it for every notion of "objective value."

It's an either/or situation: either no thing has value unless and until some volitional entity attributes value to it; or value is inherent in the thing itself.

As for the "life as a standard" claim, this illustrates the point.

"Life" (of whatever) has no value unless and until value is attributed.

I think you are confusing 'subjective', and what one declares by whim to be of value, and 'context' - what is and isn't of value given a specific purpose.

By Rand, any valuation not approved by her or her followers is labeled as a "whim" and explicitly and/or implicitly, arbitrarily declared to be a "non value" as if their value judgement makes any opposing value judgment non existent.

As for "value given a specific purpose", the specific purpose is subjectively chosen.

This is not subject to proof or disproof. The only issue here is whether the goal chosen is possible or impossible.

Volition and choice per se is a natural condition.

It is means which are in the realm of proof or disproof in respect of the goal chosen.

The fire/water example works for all circumstances.

My understanding is that there is ultimately only one dictate in O'ism, and that's reality. "Ought" relates to the identified Nature of Man, and the benefits to the single man.

The "nature of man" is the ability to choose, not WHAT to choose, or "ought" to choose.

IOW, What he should do, given Man's identity, AND his own individual one.

Identity and "should" is contradiction. Identity is what is. "Should" admits to "is not". It is nothing more than an expression of subjective personal preference.

He introduces context to all the instances of Reality.

"Introduces context?" "All instances of reality" IS the context.

Reality is: humans are entities endowed with the capacity to choose.

Imo Rand's disapproving of others' choices by subjectively labeling them as "whims" has nothing to do with indidivdualism.

Rand's followers claim to be adhering to "reason", but often wind up with different conclusions in evaluation of the same data, including "interpreting" Rand's words.

The result is schism such as the Kelly/Peikoff split as well as numerous other divisions within the ranks.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

I agree, it should have no part in philosophy, however, we know from science that we ought to do things if we want certain things to happen (or not happen). For example we know that smoking is involved in many health problems so if we want to stay as healthy as possible we ought not to smoke.

But, given the fact of the clear scientific if-then relation here, why not simply say "If you smoke, then your risk of getting a smoking-related disease increases."

The example of smoking also serves to illustrate that values can't be anything but subjective.

While the effects of smoking on the body are objectively known, how (and if at all) one personally values this knowledge is entirely dependent on the individual.

For people may still value the pleasure of smoking higher than giving it up.

Others may say "What the heck, life is so short anyway, why should I deny myself this pleasure" etc.

I think Ayn Rand (who smoked about 2 packages a day) was aware of statistics linking smoking to certain diseases, but her opinion was that statistics weren't proof. When Dr. Dworetzky told her that her her smoking was terribly bad for her health, she challenged him on that, taking a long deep puff from her cigarette, demanding he give her a rational explanation. After which Dworetzky showed her the X-ray picture where a large area of one lung was affected by cancer.

(Source: The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 380).

While one can't infer from statistics that an individual case must necessarily be in alignment with them, statistics are not "irrational", but refer to facts.

After the arduous surgery:

B. Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand, page 382:

"From time to time, she would raise, disturbed, the question of how she could have contracted cancer; she tended to think that cancer, as well as many other illnesses, was the result of what she termed "bad premises" - that is, philosophical-psychological errors and evasions carried to their final dead end in the form of physical destruction. How could she have had a malignancy, when she had no bad premises? She demanded that the nature of her illness be kept secret, she wanted no one to know of it - as if it were shameful.

Joan and Allan asked her to make public her decison to stop smoking. For many years, questions about the dangers of smoking were raised by NBI students and at Ayn's own lecture appearances. Each time, she lit a cigartette with defiant flourish, then discussed the unscientific and and irratonal nature of the statistical evidence. "Many people still smoke, Joan and Allan explained, because they respect your assessment of the evidence. Since you no longer smoke, you ought to tell them, you needn't mention the lung cancer if you prefer not to, you can simply say you have reconsidered the evidence. Ayn refused. "It's no one's business" she she sad wearily."

Ayn may not actively have told people they "ought to" smoke, but I believe she as a passionate smoker did serve as role model especially for young and susceptible students who tried to emulate her. Her fictional heroine Dagny Taggart is quite a heavy smoker too.

Imo there was also a tendency on Ayn Rand's part to arbitrarily declare things (like here, statistics), as "unscientific" and "irrational".

Telling her followers about having stopped smoking would imply that she had been wrong in her assessment, and imo admitting that she had been wrong in her judgement of an issue would have been very difficult for her.

"You ought to tell them" Joan and Allan told Rand.

In communication, the fudgy "ought to" 'recommendation' is often used because the speaker shies away from expressing a direct wish explicitly ("I want you to do").

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand's main error in regard to her smoking, was that she viewed the act of smoking (cigarettes, but not cigars) as symbolizing Man's control of Fire, which is to say Man's control of Nature. Had she seen smoking for what it was, which is Man's inhaling and exhaling chemically loaded filth, she might not have even started to smoke. It was the Romantic view of smoking that eventually killed her.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 10, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

Xray,

Fortuitously I had started smoking 2 years before discovering Ayn Rand, or else I might have blamed her...

(Theres a speculative game I play sometimes called "what would my life have become without AR's influence".

The instant answer is 'worse.' With a few areas of 'not sure'.)

The thing is this, Xray, that while not being an Objectivist, you display the identical reaction that most of us are familiar with from youth - the hurt, confusion, and disgust that Rand was not a Saint.

All mature O'ists have got over that. There is a deeply Catholic desire for perfection involved in this, and even (especially)some atheists have not lost it.

So there were contradictions. She wasn't free of error, and very occasionally, of evasion, too; and she was harsh, arrogant, and dismissive in later life.

Who can understand the psychological stress that such vast intelligence accompanies?

Even at several orders of magnitude lower, I sometimes have an inkling.

At the last resort, you are a teacher and are familiar with the old dictum - Do what I say, not what I do.

Tony

[tjohnson]

I agree with Tony - one should not criticize Rand as a person, nobody's perfect. My point all along has been that you cannot solve the morality issue (how we ought to live) in philosophy. This applies to Rand and any other philosophers equally. I agree with Xray that you can only establish how one ought to live if you have a stated goal in mind.Once you have a goal then you may or may not reach it, depending on how strong your understanding of the phenomena is

Edited February 10, 2010 by general semanticist

[Selene]

Folks:

I think the "smoking" issue is reflective of the subjective individual evaluations of the "phenomena" that is a genius, e.g., Ayn Rand, who smoked cigarettes, contracted lung cancer and eventually died.

Ms. Xray states that "this [phenomena] also serves to illustrate that values can't be anything but subjective." Which, of course, it does not, but it does illustrate that a genius who smoked cigarettes, contracted lung cancer and died is objectively factual. Genius being a debatable term.

The example of smoking also serves to illustrate that values can't be anything but subjective.

While the effects of smoking on the body are objectively known, how (and if at all) one personally values this knowledge is entirely dependent on the individual.

For people may still value the pleasure of smoking higher than giving it up.

Others may say "What the heck, life is so short anyway, why should I deny myself this pleasure" etc.

Tony observes about the "phenomena" that as humans, we desire that the persons we admire, or revere, be perfect. Wise observation.

The thing is this, Xray, that while not being an Objectivist, you display the identical reaction that most of us are familiar with from youth - the hurt, confusion, and disgust that Rand was not a Saint.

All mature O'ists have got over that. There is a deeply Catholic desire for perfection involved in this, and even (especially)some atheists have not lost it.

GS makes a solid generalization observation that an individual can state how it ought to live, but that you may, or may not, achieve that goal. Quite objective.

This applies to Rand and any other philosophers equally. I agree with Xray that you can only establish how one ought to live if you have a stated goal in mind.Once you have a goal then you may or may not reach it, depending on how strong your understanding of the phenomena is

Ba'al's insight is true metaphorically, to me. I would add, after reading the Burns' book, that the other "idea" that killed her, was the Romantic ideal of Frank.

It was the Romantic view of smoking that eventually killed her.

What I have always observed, and still do today, is how unique Ayn was, is now, and, lol, always will be, to be very Catholic about it.

"Twas Beauty killed the beast!"

Adam

[Leonid]

humans cannot live as animals.

They most certainly can, in fact, they have been doing so for most of their brief history here on earth.

[Leonid]

"They most certainly can, in fact, they have been doing so for most of their brief history here on earth."

They can try and perish. Since first man invented first tool men survive as rational beings or as parasites of rational beings which allow them to be.Rand calls this a sanction of the victim.

[Leonid]

GS

“In normal terms, 'morality' represents a lifestyle choice and so by definition it is relative.”

Morality by definition is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions. (Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13.) Such a code presupposes existence of the standard of value which is Man’s life qua Man, rational being. Every choice and action is measured by this standard. Therefore lifestyle choice could be bad or good but it cannot be relative.

See again, there is the link between morality and rationality. As far as I'm concerned, Rand treats them as one and the same. It's almost as if she chooses to pretend there is no such thing as what the traditional meaning of 'morality' represented and simply hijacked the term to mean rationality.