Victor Pross Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) That is still no reason to extend morality to simple physiological functions, that would be a form of "greedy reductionism".I agree!Ethics concerns our behavior towards other people;I entirely disagree on this one. Ethics should be egoistic.only a religion will condemn you for committing suicide or for sexual behavior that doesn't harm other people. That Objectivism tries to extend morality to purely personal and private concerns is in my opinion one of its most revolting aspects.Here is a misunderstanding. It's as if you thought ethics is about condemnation of that which merits it, rather than about how to live. Ethics is in a sense ONLY about personal and private concerns. My conscience doesn't exist in order to help YOU; it exists in order that __I__ can use it and be guided by it. Suppose someone writes about how to balance your checkbook or manage your investments. Will you say "Financial advice is about how you deal with OTHER people and avoid stealing their money; one of the most revolting aspects of this book is that it condemns you for mismanaging your finances when you're not harming other people.This is simply no reason to be honest or just in dealing with OTHER people except that it is necessary in order to live one's own life rationally and purposefully. -- Mike HardyMike, That’s a short and sweet post—very much to the point. Dragonfly is right to revile a religious type of morality, or a “taboo” type of morality. But one suspects the “fallacy of the frozen abstraction” when he implies that such is the case with the entire question of ethics—lock, stock and barrel. He seems to think the question of ethics is authority based (by necessity) and Rand is just another tent show authoritarian. One gets the hint of this from his posts. A “taboo” morality consists in proscribing a set of rules mainly as things you must not do, without giving any reason for what you must do. That is how many approach the question of ethics. But you said it very well in your post. I wonder if Dragonfly truly understands the Objectivist ethics--sufficiently enough to be critical of it. You know, I have read critiques of the Objectivist ethics by thinkers and writers who have—at least--studied Rand! There is no question that they know her thought inside and out. Of course, instead of addressing their critique from a mistaken premise, they merely feel at liberty to distort her system in order to attack it. (Ah, gotta love those intellectuals). -Victoredit: I just had to make this observation, but I'm still not gunning for the guy. :turned: Edited March 11, 2007 by Victor Pross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now