Laure

Thanks for the correction; I wasn't sure, and should've taken the time to look it up.

Bob, I don't get that, at all. Can you explain what you mean?

What are you talking about? "Bob thinks the purpose of our lives is to perpetuate the species. " Evolution has shaped and created the very concept of 'purpose'. Reproduction is the engine of evolution but it is gene replication that is the core concept. This results in much more complex motivations and behaviours than simple reproduction and not just in humans. For crying out loud, if sex was just about reproduction, why on earth would pregnant women still engage in sexual activity? "He thinks the purpose of sex is reproduction." Only one of many purposes, but yeah reproduction is on the list. Bob Bob, you're missing the point. My point is that you seem to be trying to place the concept of "purpose" outside the context of individual human lives. "Leibniz" is doing the same thing (don't know if you've read the discussion over there).

Bob reminds me of the poster "Gottfried Leibniz" on RoR in his discussions of sex. He thinks the purpose of sex is reproduction. Bob thinks the purpose of our lives is to perpetuate the species. Why do you guys think that nature, or evolution, has a purpose? They're not conscious entities. We don't need to worry about acting "against evolution" because evolution is just "the way things turn out." If I try to act "to promote evolution" how would I do that? Should I select a large, muscular mate, or an intelligent mate of slight build? How do you know how things are "supposed" to turn out evolutionarily? Same argument applies to global warming, or to killing the polar bear cub or letting him live. How do we know what temperature the earth is "supposed" to be (unless we evaluate it based on human welfare)? How do we know whether a polar bear cub is "supposed" to live or not? Nature is not conscious, and if something is not conscious it cannot have a purpose or an intention.

Fran, in my case, I wouldn't say that the altruism message was hammered into me as a child; it was more of a pervasive fog that I was sort of confused about. But Rand clarified the issue so well and pointed out what's wrong with the message that "you're so selfish; you need to think about others". Like Rand said, "Why is the happiness of another person important and good, but not your own?" That statement points out that altruism is just downright illogical. And if your own happiness is important and good, then why count on other people's altruism to help you achieve it? Who better to pursue your own interests than you yourself? This is the logic of placing your own interests at the top of your hierarchy of values -- not another person's, not society's, not God's, not nature's. Rand once wrote about how "The Gift of the Magi" story, while not intended to, pointed out the futility of altruism. Your allusion to the self-esteem issue is interesting. I had just been thinking that you would have to have low self-esteem in order to accept altruism as an ideal, and you identify the reverse relation, that altruism lowers your self-esteem. I think the effect goes both ways and it's self-reinforcing.

I read The Satanic Verses mainly in order to say that I had -- but I really enjoyed the writing style. Unlike Ellen, almost all of the references went over my head, though I could tell that someone familiar with Islam would "get it" much better than I did. I've read a couple other Rushdie books. I wouldn't recommend "Fury" -- it's kinda creepy. On the other hand, "Haroun and the Sea of Stories" is really a cool book! It's a fairy tale allegory that's sort of "about" the fatwa against him. It would make a fantastic computer-animated movie! I started Letters from Earth awhile ago and haven't had time (or made time) to finish it, but wow, it is "cutting edge" for that era! I can't believe he wrote that stuff back then. I want to read more Twain; I read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court while my 10-year-old was reading it this year, and loved it. (This thread was supposed to be "books you couldn't finish" but somehow it's more interesting to discuss books you could finish... sorry for the detour.)

How do I deal with it? I laugh about it. Keep a sense of humor.

If ethics are logically derivable (and I think they are), AND if we have perfect knowledge of all the facts going into the equation, THEN we would be forced to come to a particular CONCLUSION. We would never be forced to DO a particular act, though. We could always decide to do the wrong thing. When you say there is no ethical weight to acts that are forced upon you - I agree. If you are forced to shoot someone, there's no ethical weight to that act. BUT, if you are "forced" to conclude logically that "doing X is right", there sure IS still an ethical weight involved in actually doing X! Bob Mac seems to be of the opinion that altruism must be a good basis of morality because it has evolved in us: Even if we assume that what's hardwired must be good, ... well, aggression is hardwired in people too. Can we decide that it's a good basis of morality? The hidden premise is the standard of value of your ethical system. Is your standard of value the evolutionary success of your species? That's not my standard. If your standard of value is the furtherance of your own life and happiness, well, some of your hardwired traits may promote that, and others may be harmful.

Daniel, I don't think there's a problem with Darrell's logic here. Substitute an alcoholic being "on the wagon" for "being rational." In order to be on the wagon, the alcoholic must choose not to drink alcohol. But he might choose to drink alcohol. But then he would no longer be on the wagon. No logic problem there. If you want a real logic problem, explain to me the line from that Rush song, "I will choose free will." ?!?!?

Good post, Darrell. (We must think alike, because your posts always seem so sensible to me!)

Sorry for the little topic detour, but Ellen, don't you think you may have adopted rationality in childhood because you found that it worked? In other words, it helped you get what you want? Much like some people learn to have a temper tantrum or to get violent if it "works" for them in childhood - if their parents cave in to their demands? Then, the hard part is for these people to unlearn that behavior when it no longer works for them as adults.

The question was addressed to Daniel, but I'll blip in on it. I think the most truthful answer I can give is, I do not know; I've been that way since I was so young, I don't really know how I got that way, though I have some memories which might be indicative of fork points in paths. For sure I'm not a truth-seeker because of some derivation from an ethical code. I was years away from trying to verbalize an ethical code when I developed that basic attitude of mind. I recall being like that when I was a kid of 3-4. Ellen ___ Don't you think the answer is, "because it works"? Rationality best helps us to be successful in dealing with reality. (A bigger question in my mind is, "why isn't everyone rational?" )

Laure, It's perfectly fair to say she didn't solve the Humean problem, since she said she did. Had she said, the problem isn't a correctly formulated problem, no quarrel. But that is not what she said. She even proceeded to say in the article "The Objectivist Ethics": "to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought.'" Not true. Ellen ___ OK Ellen, I'll grant that she should have said that the problem wasn't correctly formulated, and maybe she could have worded her is-ought comments better. But I think she'd agree that Victor, Michael, and I "get" what she was saying. So, let's not nitpick. I think Rand did a good job laying out her arguments for rational egoism. (Like Victor, I'd say that I love Rand and have internalized her message, so sometimes I find myself assuming that my views = Rand's views = the Truth! )

Michael, I like your post #36. You mention the "improper fit of the problem to an unsuited equation", and I think this is the crux of the is-ought thing. It's NOT "is-ought", it's "if-ought". It's not fair to say that Rand didn't solve the is-ought problem. The "solution" to Hume's problem is to note that he is using the wrong equation.

OK Daniel, let's say we assume for a moment that "life" is a crappy standard. What standard do you propose?

I don't see how "hardwired" is the equivalent of "logically derivable", and how if something is logically derivable we no longer have to make moral decisions. A person could still choose to be illogical, thus immoral. (P.S. Go Victor! )

Daniel, thanks for your reply. I have not studied philosophy other than Rand, so I went and read some Wikipedia articles on Hume and is-ought to catch up a little bit. ;) What I read didn't state that Hume addressed the question of why we need morality, but rather the question of why we have morality, and answered that we have it because we humans have empathy for others. Is that correct in a nutshell? Are you saying that we don't really need a code of ethics, but it's sort of hard-wired into us in the form of empathy? Or that we need ethics to form a basis for laws to sort out the conflicts of men's interests? (If this is it, we still have the question of why we should try to balance men's interests in the first place; couldn't we just let the guy with the biggest club win?) In contrast, I think Rand implies that holding our own lives and happiness as our ultimate value is hard-wired into us (if we're normal), and what we need morality for is to help us protect and further our own lives and happiness.

Hi all, I thought I'd start a new thread on this, because the big ethics thread that's going on now is getting into a very technical is-ought discussion, and I want to bring the discussion back to basics. Dragonfly on the other thread stated that he ONLY regarded morality as having to do with how you treat other people, and never morally judged his own actions that only involved himself. Being a long-time Objectivist, Rand's egoistic ethics seems second-nature and totally obvious to me, so this statement just left me thinking, "Huh??" In thinking about it some more, it comes back to Rand's original question: do we need morality at all, and if so, why? So, for Dragonfly and others who believe morality only has to do with our relationship to other people: Why do you care, then? Why even worry about "being good" if it isn't "good for you" to be good? Do you fear God's punishment? If not, why should I give a damn about trying to treat other people properly? Why is it important?

I don't know how anyone else feels, but I am extremely offended by this characterization of Rand. I have certainly criticized her, but I have always given my reasons in detail, as have most others on this Forum. To throw off this kind of abuse without reasons, without grounds, and when much of your stated disagreement with Rand appears to be based on a complete failure to undertand her ideas, is a disgraceful smear. Barbara Barbara, I was offended as well, and I'm glad you took the time to post about this. I felt uncomfortable responding directly for fear of being dismissed as a Rand-worshipper; there are a lot of very negative comments about Rand on this site, and I was starting to think that was the direction the site was evolving. You've probably given the site a nice little corrective kick, and I thank you. (And if Rand was an intelligent angry teenager who never grew up, well thank God for that; we need more of them!!)

I thought we'd cajoled Michael and Kat into playing along, since they kindly posted some kid pictures of their own. It's certainly up to them ultimately, and they can lock any thread anytime they see fit. I like having some non-serious threads, because it helps to see the other posters as human beings; might help keep us from getting too harsh in other discussions. It seems to me that most of the serious threads are continuing without undue interruption.

... and the unspoken rest of that statement is, "you should be thinking about me instead!"

Good points by Michael and Rich: Michael: "altruism in Objectivism means a philosophical doctrine used as a basis for morality" Rich: "I think Rand was harsh on altruism (as Michael explains it-- a moral doctrine) because she experienced so much of it in its institutionalized, fully-evolved form. I agree with Michael's definition of altruism, which I consider to be a racket run by politicians and certain religious institutions." On another thread, somebody (Dragonfly maybe?) said they thought Rand started with opposition to Communism and developed her ideas from that. The poster intended this as a criticism of Rand. While I think the statement is essentially correct, I don't see it as a bad thing. The anti-altruism stand came from her identification of the fundamental premise that made Communism possible - and that was altruism, the idea that the welfare of others is more important than your own. On the Donahue Show in 1980, Phil asked her why she was so harsh on people who would sacrifice for other people. She answered, "Because they don't hesitate to sacrifice whole nations," and goes on to state that Commmunism and Nazism are based on altruism. I think if it really was possible to practice altruism as a purely personal choice without trying to force it on others, Rand wouldn't have had a problem with it. But once you admit that your own interests are subordinate to those of others, you're defenseless against those who would require you to sacrifice, and they know it. Rand figured this out early in life, and decided to shine the spotlight on it in her writing.

I also couldn't finish the Lord of the Rings series or Moby Dick. I'll add Stranger in a Strange Land. I just couldn't get into it, though I think I've read some other Heinlein books.

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins has some interesting insights into morality. Dawkins is not an Objectivist but neither is he a moral relativist. He discusses a book by Harvard biologist Marc Hauser, "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong". Hauser has studied "the moral sense of real people" by presenting people in different cultures with a set of moral dilemmas and comparing their answers. He found that most people's answers agree, and it's not even related to which religion they adhere to, if any. Dawkins quotes Hauser: "Driving our moral judgments is a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years to include a set of principles for building a range of possible moral systems. As with language, the principles that make up our moral grammar fly beneath the radar of our awareness." A quibble I have with Dawkins (and probably Hauser) is that he regards morality as only being concerned with how we treat other people, particularly in emergency scenarios, whereas Rand and probably some other philosophers widen the concept of morality to include "how we should behave" whether there are other people involved or not. I want to answer one other point, the idea that parasitism could be rational. The reason this is not true is because you can't generalize it and have it work. You can't say that it's OK for everyone to be a parasite, because for parasitism to work, you have to have producers to feed off of. If the argument is "why can't I have one moral code, and everyone else have another?" well, that's kind of solipsistic or primacy-of-consciousness thinking. An Objectivist would reject that argument because he will objectively see that other human beings are like him, and it makes sense that the same moral code should apply to everyone.

OK, I'll play. Here I am at 2 1/2, 8, and 18: