Why does man need a code of values?

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>But this question comes to mind: would any “rationalized course of action” succeed in maintaining life?

Fortunately you need not worry, because your definition of "maintaining life" is broad enough to include its opposite!

Here's the issue - which incidentally should answer Michael Kelly's recent objection simultaneously.

Rand is trying to present a logical justification for her ethical system - an answer to the question, "What is the justification for being an Objectivist?" Because, she answers, you need this ethical system to "live", as in "survive".

But obviously this "life" as mere "survival" raises a host of obvious objections, one of which is suicide, others of which include "prudent predator" objections, questions of the priorities of loved ones vs your own etc etc. So Rand equivocates, and later in the text replaces her straight forward "survival" formulation with one of "man qua man." This "man qua man" is entirely vague, and thus allows someone to define it any which way they choose. In Rand's case, she basically defines living as "man qua man" as being an Objectivist, and subscribing to Objectivist values and ethics.

But this is supposed to be the very position she is trying to justify. To wit: You should be an Objectivist, because being an Objectivist is what you should be. In other words, her argument, as Laure correctly notes is circular, so it is a fallacy. (Laure doesn't seem to care about this, which is fine, but as I care about sound logic, I do!)

>(By the way, If you pluck one part of the Objectivist ethics while ignoring other fractions and parts therein--all of which make the total, you end up arguing with a straw man).

Not at all. Do you know what the modus tollens is?

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>But this question comes to mind: would any “rationalized course of action” succeed in maintaining life?

Fortunately you need not worry, because your definition of "maintaining life" is broad enough to include its opposite!

Here's the issue - which incidentally should answer Michael Kelly's recent objection simultaneously.

Rand is trying to present a logical justification for her ethical system - an answer to the question, "What is the justification for being an Objectivist?" Because, she answers, you need this ethical system to "live", as in "survive".

But obviously this "life" as mere "survival" raises a host of obvious objections, one of which is suicide, others of which include "prudent predator" objections, questions of the priorities of loved ones vs your own etc etc. So Rand equivocates, and later in the text replaces her straight forward "survival" formulation with one of "man qua man." This "man qua man" is entirely vague, and thus allows someone to define it any which way they choose. In Rand's case, she basically defines living as "man qua man" as being an Objectivist, and subscribing to Objectivist values and ethics.

But this is supposed to be the very position she is trying to justify. To wit: You should be an Objectivist, because being an Objectivist is what you should be. In other words, her argument, as Laure correctly notes is circular, so it is a fallacy. (Laure doesn't seem to care about this, which is fine, but as I care about sound logic, I do!)

>(By the way, If you pluck one part of the Objectivist ethics while ignoring other fractions and parts therein--all of which make the total, you end up arguing with a straw man).

Not at all. Do you know what the modus tollens is?

Daniel,

MSK addressed your objection to Rand's use of "man qua man" and yet you bring it up again and again. If you are not satisfied with his answer, well, fine, that is another issue. But don't pretend that it wasn't addressed. We are (or at least I am) keeping track of the posts.

You object...again and again. "Fortunately you need not worry, because your definition of "maintaining life" is broad enough to include its opposite!"

I will get to it all!

You ask: Do you know what the modus tollens is?

No, I don't know what this means.

-Victor

edit:

I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

>MSK addressed your objection to Rand's use of "man qua man" and yet you bring it up again and again.

Actually, Michael's point was that while "man qua man" is vague in a general sense, Rand meant something specific by it.

To which I reply: she certainly did. To her, being "man qua man" meant being an Objectivist.

Which makes her argument circular (which up till that point I had not got around to directly arguing, but which is, I think, certainly the case)

>But don't pretend that it wasn't addressed. We are (or at least I am) keeping track of the posts.

So I am not 'pretending' that it hasn't been addressed by Michael. I have in turn replied to Michael's point, which it turns out, does not help Rand's argument in the least.

Good to know you are keeping track.

>You ask: Do you know what the modus tollens is?...I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Its relevance here is simple. If a certain claim follows logically from a certain theory, and this claim can be shown to be false, this can logically falsify the entire theory. This is why it is perfectly reasonable to examine Rand's various individual claims, and why, if they are found to be false, it is equally reasonable to consider the basic theory behind them false. The more "fully integrated" the theoretical system, the more deadly such individual falsifications are to it. "Integration" cuts both ways, fella :devil:

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Its relevance here is simple. If a certain claim follows logically from a certain theory, and this claim can be shown to be false, this can logically falsify the entire theory. This is why it is perfectly reasonable to examine Rand's various individual claims, and why, if they are found to be false, it is equally reasonable to consider the basic theory behind them false. The more "fully integrated" the theoretical system, the more deadly such individual falsifications are to it. "Integration" cuts both ways, fella :devil:

Daniel,

Let's be clear. So you employ this logical procedure--this modus tollens-- to “life as the standard” and the fact that there are people who commit suicide, which in turn, as you claim, invalidates Rand’s claim that life is the standard of ethics? Is that the crux of it?

Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Laure]

We answered the suicide thing.

We answered the "man qua man" thing, Michael noting that Rand laid out exactly what she meant.

We answered the "prudent predator" objection, noting that even predators or parasites ultimately depend upon man's rationality for survival, even if they are depending on someone else's rationality.

As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>We answered the suicide thing.

Yes, with the answer: it isn't moral, except when it is (or sometimes it's neither moral or immoral, according to Darrell - Objectivism is ambivalent about it). Now that's a clearcut standard for you!

>We answered the "man qua man" thing, Michael noting that Rand laid out exactly what she meant.

To which I've replied already that this makes your argument circular. I know you don't care about this, but y'know, logic matters to some.

>We answered the "prudent predator" objection, noting that even predators or parasites ultimately depend upon man's rationality for survival, even if they are depending on someone else's rationality.

You haven't made this case at all AFAICS. Perhaps for mere "survival" only, but not as "man qua man". Want to elaborate?

>As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

Oh, so the Objectivist ethics are now axiomatic too, are they? (And why are we back to "survival"? What happened to "man qua man"?) Why pretend Rand has any kind of logical argument for them then if "take it or leave it" is the best she can do? Why did you need to start a new thread to discuss it, if all you want to say is just "take it or leave it"? Why bother even discussing any of the preceding arguments, when it is all just "take it or leave it"?

Hey, how about if I try it: "Objectivism is wrong. Why? It's self-evident that it is! Axiomatic! Take it or leave it!" There. Find that convincing?

Thought not.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Victor Pross]

Daniel,

I’m still seeking clarification Do you employ this modus tollens-- to “life as the standard” and the fact that there are people who commit suicide, which in turn, as you claim, invalidates Rand’s claim that life is the standard of ethics? Is that the crux of it? I want to clear that up before *I* address the issue of 'life as the standard" and suicide.

New Question: I see that you wrote “Perhaps for mere ‘survival’ only, but not as ‘man qua man..’ and so does this mean that you now concede this much in the very least?

Victor

[Laure]

I think anyone reading this thread can see which side is winning here. We've addressed everything brought up, and basically all you're left saying is "no you didn't!"

Everyone take a look at the quote below, and see if you can tell a difference between the logic in the Rand quote and the blustering of Daniel's "Take it or leave it" comment.

Laure:

>As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

Oh, so the Objectivist ethics are now axiomatic too, are they? (And why are we back to "survival"? What happened to "man qua man"?) Why pretend Rand has any kind of logical argument for them then if "take it or leave it" is the best she can do? Why did you need to start a new thread to discuss it, if all you want to say is just "take it or leave it"? Why bother even discussing any of the preceding arguments, when it is all just "take it or leave it"?

Hey, how about if I try it: "Objectivism is wrong. Why? It's self-evident that it is! Axiomatic! Take it or leave it!" There. Find that convincing?

Thought not.

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>New Question: I see that you wrote “Perhaps for mere ‘survival’ only, but not as ‘man qua man..’ and so does this mean that you now concede this much in the very least?

I'm not sure, didn't really follow that part of the thread. But this is not what Rand ultimately argues anyway, right? She switches back and forth, as Laure's quote shows, but I think if pressed "man qua man" would be her fallback position. Either way her argument has fatal problems.

>I’m still seeking clarification Do you employ this modus tollens-- to “life as the standard” and the fact that there are people who commit suicide, which in turn, as you claim, invalidates Rand’s claim that life is the standard of ethics?

Almost. If one's individual "survival" is the ultimate moral standard, then obviously all suicide must be immoral. Similarly, putting, say one's wife's or child's survival in any way, shape or form ahead of your own would also be immoral. If Objectivists do any of these things, this will refute Rand's basic claim. Now, it can be clearly argued that Objectivists do these sorts of things all the time. So to save the situation, "survival" gets watered down to "man qua man", which becomes a field day of rationalising all kinds of behaviours.

[Daniel Barnes]

Laure:

>I think anyone reading this thread can see which side is winning here. We've addressed everything brought up, and basically all you're left saying is "no you didn't!"

Well, you didn't.

1) You ducked the suicide issue by saying, in effect, it is immoral except when it isn't. So your standard is a standard except when it isn't. Great!

2) You accept Rand's logic is circular, but still think it's a great logical argument. What more can I say?

3) You may have made a point with the "survival" issue, but did not touch on "man qua man". So you may indeed have half a point here, but that is all.

This makes your score around 0.5 out of 3. Therefore I think your confidence is somewhat misplaced

>Everyone take a look at the quote below, and see if you can tell a difference between the logic in the Rand quote and the blustering of Daniel's "Take it or leave it" comment.

It's Rand who's doing the blustering here.

[Victor Pross]

Hang tight, Danny boy, hang tight! I told you it will be addressed. Having said that, don’t take what I—or anyone else here say as “spokesmen for Objectivism”. If anyone puts forth a counter argument on THIS site, don’t take that as “official Objectivism” and then pat yourself on the back for having invalidated Objectivism or whatever. I don't always agree with the other posters. And, anyway, is that fair to Rand? I am (and I assume the others) are merely arguing to the best of OUR abilities to meet your objections. Fair enough?

You wrote: “You may have made a point with the "survival" issue, but did not touch on "man qua man". So you may indeed have half a point here, but that is all.”

Well, thank God we made that much progress. :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>Well, thank God we made that much progress. :turned:

I was being generous, as I haven't really followed that part of the thread, as I said. It may turn out you have to give the 0.5 back!

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>If anyone puts forth a counter argument on THIS site, don’t take that as “official Objectivism” and then pat yourself on the back for having invalidated Objectivism or whatever.

Damn! Where do I get to invalidate it then?!

Seriously, tho, I hold that all philosophical systems are fundamentally irrefutable. That is to say, no matter what points against such a system one makes, the determined adherent can always find ways of avoiding such refutations. The perfect example of this is the famous priest, who simply refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Hence the importance of objective, mutually agreed standards, such as the rules of logic and the observations of telescopes!

>I am (and I assume the others) are merely arguing to the best of OUR abilities to meet your objections. Fair enough?

That is the best anyone can do.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, Michael's point was that while "man qua man" is vague in a general sense, Rand meant something specific by it.

To which I reply: she certainly did. To her, being "man qua man" meant being an Objectivist.

Daniel,

LOLOLOLOL... I enjoyed that comment so much I was tempted to let it pass and even endorse it. It gave me quite a belly-laugh. There is a HUGE kernel of truth in it, but ultimately, it is not accurate. Having a pain/pleasure mechanism, a rational faculty, developing from an infant level to an adult one, etc., is not necessarily being an Objectivist. Rand did spell out what she meant by man's nature, albeit this is spread out over her writings.

(Quoting Laure) >As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

Oh, so the Objectivist ethics are now axiomatic too, are they?

For the sake of precision, Rand did not say that Objectivist ethics is axiomatic. She said holding your own survival as desirable is axiomatic. Even then, she stated there is an alternative.

I go further with this thinking. I hold that there is only an alternative for more mature human beings. For infants, they have no choice about desiring to live. They are born with it and cannot decide otherwise. They can only lose that desire as they grow older. I suppose it is possible that some defective children are born without that desire, but if so, they seem to die off quickly.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... don’t take what I—or anyone else here say as “spokesmen for Objectivism”. If anyone puts forth a counter argument on THIS site, don’t take that as “official Objectivism” and then pat yourself on the back for having invalidated Objectivism or whatever.

Victor,

I have no idea what “official Objectivism” is outside of Rand's works and what works by others she sanctioned in life. That being the case, they are easy enough to consult. Nobody speaks for them. They speak for themselves.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

... don’t take what I—or anyone else here say as “spokesmen for Objectivism”. If anyone puts forth a counter argument on THIS site, don’t take that as “official Objectivism” and then pat yourself on the back for having invalidated Objectivism or whatever.

Victor,

I have no idea what “official Objectivism” is outside of Rand's works and what works by others she sanctioned in life. That being the case, they are easy enough to consult. Nobody speaks for them. They speak for themselves.

Michael

Michael,

Re: what you say about “official Objectivism” is a fair enough assessment. The work does speak for itself and yet there is disagreement (or honest misunderstandings) among Objectivists. I have taken to task to argue for the Objectivist ethics, (as I understand them) but I know while doing so that I am not a lifelong scholar of Objectivism or of general philosophy. But I am doing my best given the sum of my knowledge, (such as it is) and I will not saddle Rand with my errors. I am always learning more about Objectivism and philosophy as the years pass, and I am learning much more simply by taking part in threads like this. :turned:

Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael K

>I go further with this thinking. I hold that there is only an alternative for more mature human beings. For infants, they have no choice about desiring to live. They are born with it and cannot decide otherwise. They can only lose that desire as they grow older.

Interesting hypothesis. Often old people do indeed feel it is "time to die." I like it. (edit: not that I like old people wanting to die, of course!)

Edited March 25, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Brant Gaede]

I think anyone reading this thread can see which side is winning here. We've addressed everything brought up, and basically all you're left saying is "no you didn't!"

Everyone take a look at the quote below, and see if you can tell a difference between the logic in the Rand quote and the blustering of Daniel's "Take it or leave it" comment.

Laure:

>As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

Oh, so the Objectivist ethics are now axiomatic too, are they? (And why are we back to "survival"? What happened to "man qua man"?) Why pretend Rand has any kind of logical argument for them then if "take it or leave it" is the best she can do? Why did you need to start a new thread to discuss it, if all you want to say is just "take it or leave it"? Why bother even discussing any of the preceding arguments, when it is all just "take it or leave it"?

Hey, how about if I try it: "Objectivism is wrong. Why? It's self-evident that it is! Axiomatic! Take it or leave it!" There. Find that convincing?

Thought not.

Laure, can you give us the reference for the Rand quote? Thx.

I think the big problem with this thread, and most threads, is trying to win as opposed to trying to find out or understand.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What you are stating here is not true. I apologize for not commenting earlier, but I have been trying to lead a horse to water.

As I have pointed out in numerous places, the ultimate value does not require an "if." If it did, it would not be the ultimate value. The ultimate value cannot depend upon an antecedent value.

Darrell,

What I stated is most definitely true. But I suspect we are talking about different things when we say "ought."

I am sure we agree that there is no "if" in the laws of nature. They exist unconditionally. There is only an "if" when there is choice and alternatives.

I don't like phrases like "ultimate value" because I observe too much diversity in reality to try to boil everything down to one thing only, but let's look at the phrase. I presume by "ultimate value" you mean the existence of the entity as such. As Rand (and others) have pointed out, only a living being can have values, so we have to conclude that "value" is not inherent to all of existence. Metaphysically, the existence of an entity is not a value at all. It is a state. But as life is a form of conditional and temporary existence, this is the reason it is possible for life to be a value to itself, i.e., the conditions needed for prolonging that temporary state. As has been repeated often in Rand's writings and elsewhere, there can be no value without a valuer (the living entity). And in the case of a human being, that implies choice.

When a living entity has no volition, its life is an automatic value that drives its actions automatically. Once volition enters, life is no longer an automatic driver of actions. It is merely one standard among several possible standards. This is where a code of ethics comes in.

Note that a code of ethics exists for human beings only, not for any other living being. As human beings by nature have volition, you cannot eliminate volition from ethics by definition. You certainly can derive volition itself from the "is" of human nature, and you can derive the conditions of survival from the "is" of human nature and reality in general, but you cannot derive the act of choice from anything but the "is" of volition itself. And the nature of volition is that it is exercised by a will (or ego or self). What that will chooses, even if that means to continue living or not (after it has grown enough so that choice is possible), is not automatically derived from any "is." Only the consequences can be derived. The IF/THEN formulation is present in all choices of acts to obtain and/or keep values. And ethics is nothing more that a code to guide choices for acting in pursuit of values. (If I do X, then I obtain and/or keep value A. If I do Y, then I do not obtain value A or I lose it.)

You cannot eliminate action from ethics just as you cannot eliminate volition. Notice Laure's quote from Rand below.

As for the "life as standard of value" being circular but necessary, as I put it -- here's what Rand had to say about it: "If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable? -- The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way."

As I mentioned above, I agree that this axiom is an unalterable part of human nature in the very young, but after the person matures, another possibility arises along with the growth of the volitional faculty. The person can then choose to no longer value his life.

It is correct to say that the existence of that choice can be derived from the "is" of human nature without an "if," but exercising that choice entails the "if" inherent in pursuing values. The biggest "if" of all is that the value itself has to be valuable to the valuer for him to seek it or seek keeping it. And attributing value by will (both valuing the thing or rejecting it as a value) is only possible to creatures with volition.

So there is a humongous implicit "if" in the statements you gave to illustrate.

So, here is a moral statement without an "if": You ought to value your life.

Or, if you prefer: You ought to value your life because you are a living, thinking being.

To statement 1, you can easily tack on "if you wish to direct your acts toward surviving." Like I said, this possibility is only open to creatures with volition (human beings). As to the second statement, you can tack on "if you wish to direct your acts toward surviving as a living, thinking being." Ditto as regards volition. The statements now read as follows without altering their meaning one whit in terms of the rational exercise of volition:

You ought to value your life if you wish to direct your acts toward surviving.

and

You ought to value your life because you are a living, thinking being if you wish to direct your acts toward surviving as a living, thinking being.

You cannot rationally eliminate the agent from the act in creating a code of ethics, so there's a big honking "if" included in the code by virtue of the existence of the agent with volition who exercises the code.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I think the big problem with this thread, and most threads, is trying to win as opposed to trying to find out or understand.

--Brant

Brant,

You don't care for the ethics of some people, huh? :turned:

Anyway, don't you know that WE (those arguing for Rand's ethics) won the argument? And those who oppose it are learning! :whistle:

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael K

>I go further with this thinking. I hold that there is only an alternative for more mature human beings. For infants, they have no choice about desiring to live. They are born with it and cannot decide otherwise. They can only lose that desire as they grow older.

Interesting hypothesis. Often old people do indeed feel it is "time to die." I like it. (edit: not that I like old people wanting to die, of course!)

Daniel,

The idea of old people feeling that it is "time to die" is a perfect example of a biological influence on our volition and valuing. Frankly, this does not bode well for those who hold that you can deduce "ought" from "is," since, in this case, as the old person's valuing is so derived (being old and feeling that way is part of his "is"), the old person then "ought" to die as part of his code of ethics, i.e., as a virtue in pursuit of the good!

Hmmmmm...

That doesn't sound like Objectivism at all, but, logically speaking, the premise of deriving "is" from "ought" leads there and only there...

If you liked the pruning of idea that I gave about the desire to live, I cannot urge you strongly enough to take a look at the following thread: The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion. Also (and even more importantly), there is Steve's article in the last edition of JARS you should read. This work has far-reaching implications on the future of Objectivism in pruning the concept of valuing, clearly establishing a division of what is rooted in prewired normative behavior and what is volitional, and how they intertwine over growth.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laure, can you give us the reference for the Rand quote? Thx.

Brant,

I'm not Laure, but the reference is The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," in a section called "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism" (p. 303), dated July 30, 1945.

Here is a fuller quote for context (extending to p. 304):

3) Every living thing is motivated by the instinct of self-preservation. This is implicit in the mere fact of life. Life is a matter of motion and activity; a living thing not motivated by self-preservation would not and could not preserve itself. But a plant's or an animal's method of survival is automatic, i.e., instinctive; therefore its motive is an instinct. Man's survival is not achieved instinctively; therefore an instinct is inadequate to motivate it. His motive must be conscious.

([Note added later:] Most men actually have no desire to survive—in fact, they act as if they had accepted the opposite premise; their actions are consistent with a hatred of life.)

Man needs a rational decision, an axiom understood and consciously accepted: I wish to survive—my survival is desirable. In accepting this, he has accepted the standard and the first axiom of morality.

In morality man's life is taken as the supreme value. It is the gauge by which the value of every part, aspect and action of his existence is to be measured.

If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable?—The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way. There is no middle-ground and no middle choice. The act of evading this issue, making no decision, closing your mind and just floating along, is precisely the act of suspending your rational faculty—of refusing to observe a fact, to identify it and to understand it. It is the primary act of your self-destruction. With that as your first premise, you will not survive—and the span of life you have at your disposal will be a succession of acts leading to your self-annihilation, as the history of mankind and of most private lives has amply demonstrated. You have many choices open to you, but the choice is saying: "I don't have to decide whether life is desirable, I'll just live" is not one of them. That choice is not given to you because the life you refer to is a human life, and a human life is not preserved automatically.

A moral code is not a sentimental luxury, nor a pretty dream, nor an arbitrary decree, nor an impractical abstraction. It is the hardest, most practical of all necessities—because without it no practical action nor any kind of life is possible.

But a moral code—like any other rational conception—cannot be forced upon men. It must be accepted. Those who wish to accept what is to follow, are asked to accept as self-evident a single axiom:

Man exists and must survive as man.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think the big problem with this thread, and most threads, is trying to win as opposed to trying to find out or understand.

--Brant

Brant,

You don't care for the ethics of some people, huh? :turned:

Anyway, don't you know that WE (those arguing for Rand's ethics) won the argument? And those who oppose it are learning! :whistle:

-Victor

I don't care who wins an argument, a dubious proposition at best. And I certainly don't know who has won this argument. I don't have the time, literally, to read most of the mega-posts of the mega-posters of which you and Michael are the biggest. But here's my overall impression: Even if your worthy opponents have won all the battles they have so far lost the war unless they can successfully argue that ethics is an ad hoc thing and that they don't need a system of ethics that they can logically demonstrate. Those'd have to be an objectivist ethics, though not necessarily the Objectivist Ethics. If they aren't objective, sooner or later you'll get practical contradictions. So if we don't have an objectivist ethics we had better go find one. You also cannot get individual rights, politics, right if you've got no ethics. The former has to be objective or instead of a right to life you'll get a right to a chicken in every pot, which means the owner of the chicken has the legal obligation to give you the chicken for your pot which means neither you nor he has a right to life reflected in law in that society.

There is also a problem with mixing up values with ethics; they aren't exactly the same thing, imho.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

Look, I have to say at this point I am so bored with ethics right now. What man needs now is not a code of values, but a Youtube break.

So let's rock.

First, here's something tangentially Meatloaf, I couldn’t believe I actually FOUND this. It’s Ellen Foley’s obscure but sheer genius cover of the Stones’ “Stupid Girl” from back in ‘79. Everything about this is great: from the clanging punk-motorik R’n'B of Ian Hunter and Mick Ronson’s peerless production - which in some ways is closer to Dusseldorf than Detroit - to Foley’s OTT-and-then-some performance, which reminds you of an amphed-up housewife vamping with a mop in front of her bedroom mirror. Even the characters in the band are great. Who’s the guitarist with the grey wig? Can the bass player possibly chew gum any faster? And the song itself is so much better and bitchier delivered by a woman. All in all, one of the few moments - along with Bowie’s cover of “Let’s Spend the Night Together” - where the Stones have ever been beaten at their own game.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JdeDjd88TqI

Returning to the present day - briefly - we turn to the beautiful and mysterious Goldfrapp's "Strict Machine", hoovering up those '70s influences (Moroder, Bolan, etc) like nose candy off of a Studio 54 diva's immaculate thigh. Love the Red-Ridinghood theme running thru Jonas Odell's psychedelic clip.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2VktozqkSc

Next up, Canada's Broken Social Scene, with their gorgeous, impressionistic "Anthems for a Seventeen Year Old Girl". Banjos are involved, and incredibly it still works.

Finally, back to the '70s for a Who song that's been following me around for months now. I don't want it to go away. Re: the unexpected Celtic jig in the outro, well, who can say where the rockin' muse will lead?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gvbsQE9wLEM&amp...ted&search=

Ahh. That's much better.

[Victor Pross]

Laure, can you give us the reference for the Rand quote? Thx.

Brant,

I'm not Laure, but the reference is The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Part 3 - Transition Between Novels," in a section called "8 - The Moral Basis Of Individualism" (p. 303), dated July 30, 1945.

Here is a fuller quote for context (extending to p. 304):

3) Every living thing is motivated by the instinct of self-preservation. This is implicit in the mere fact of life. Life is a matter of motion and activity; a living thing not motivated by self-preservation would not and could not preserve itself. But a plant's or an animal's method of survival is automatic, i.e., instinctive; therefore its motive is an instinct. Man's survival is not achieved instinctively; therefore an instinct is inadequate to motivate it. His motive must be conscious.

([Note added later:] Most men actually have no desire to survive—in fact, they act as if they had accepted the opposite premise; their actions are consistent with a hatred of life.)

Man needs a rational decision, an axiom understood and consciously accepted: I wish to survive—my survival is desirable. In accepting this, he has accepted the standard and the first axiom of morality.

In morality man's life is taken as the supreme value. It is the gauge by which the value of every part, aspect and action of his existence is to be measured.

If anyone now asks: But why do I have to hold my survival as desirable?—The answer is: You don't have to. It is an axiom, to be accepted as self-evident. If it is not self-evident to you, you have an alternative: admit that your survival is not desirable and get out of the way. There is no middle-ground and no middle choice. The act of evading this issue, making no decision, closing your mind and just floating along, is precisely the act of suspending your rational faculty—of refusing to observe a fact, to identify it and to understand it. It is the primary act of your self-destruction. With that as your first premise, you will not survive—and the span of life you have at your disposal will be a succession of acts leading to your self-annihilation, as the history of mankind and of most private lives has amply demonstrated. You have many choices open to you, but the choice is saying: "I don't have to decide whether life is desirable, I'll just live" is not one of them. That choice is not given to you because the life you refer to is a human life, and a human life is not preserved automatically.

A moral code is not a sentimental luxury, nor a pretty dream, nor an arbitrary decree, nor an impractical abstraction. It is the hardest, most practical of all necessities—because without it no practical action nor any kind of life is possible.

But a moral code—like any other rational conception—cannot be forced upon men. It must be accepted. Those who wish to accept what is to follow, are asked to accept as self-evident a single axiom:

Man exists and must survive as man.

Michael

Michael,

These passage sounds like a maturing Rand and the embryo of Objectivism is in the making, and I wonder if the more mature Rand would hold to these formulations as indicated in here.

-Victor

Edited March 25, 2007 by Victor Pross