The Objectivist Ethics

[Alfonso Jones]

In the course of some reading, I just read (again) "The Objectivist Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness.

I love this passage:

"The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values? Let me stress this: The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all - and why?"

I have always viewed this as an excellent example of Rand's insight into the assumptions behind questions, and into her rhetorical skill.

Note that in the alternative formulation ("what particular code of values SHOULD man accept?") the SHOULD can be used to smuggle in the notion of an obligation to some (unnamed) entity. Rand's radical rephrasing turns the question on its head, and refocuses on why MAN needs ethics - ethics are to serve man, not the basis for finding out how man servers ANOTHER entity.

Beautiful,

Alfonso

[Chris Grieb]

Alfonso; Your post about the Objectivist Ethics is why Ayn Rand is such a genius. Her willingness to ask the question that most thinkers did not ask about the whole question of ethics.

[Alfonso Jones]

Alfonso; Your post about the Objectivist Ethics is why Ayn Rand is such a genius. Her willingness to ask the question that most thinkers did not ask about the whole question of ethics.

Exactly. I love the way she often responds to questions by going to the root issue. Either revealing the implicit assumption ("we OUGHT to behave in some ways - it's an obligation placed on us by God or by other people"), by revealing the question steals concepts fomr what it desires to question (using reason to question reason), etc..

Branden's essay "The Stolen Concept" from The Objectivist Newsletter (January 1963) is also brilliant and relates to this - even if it is not included in the Objectivism Research CD-ROM!!!

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

Note that in the alternative formulation ("what particular code of values SHOULD man accept?") the SHOULD can be used to smuggle in the notion of an obligation to some (unnamed) entity. Rand's radical rephrasing turns the question on its head, and refocuses on why MAN needs ethics - ethics are to serve man, not the basis for finding out how man servers ANOTHER entity.

Hobbes came to the same conclusion. Men live in each other's company. That is a basic fact of human life. The alternative to some ethical system and the means to enforce it is that without such a system the life of man should be nasty, brutish and short. It would be war of all against all. Living in society would mean the underlying impulse to self defense taken to its logical extreme would mean misery for all. What is the logic of self defense taken to the extreme? Do unto others, BEFORE they do unto you. Something must be in place to prevent this from happening. What is that something? A moral/ethical code and the means to ENFORCE it.

A human living on a desert island, does not need an ethical system. (Who could he wrong, in the ethical or moral sense?). Rather he needs to have the wits and acumen to understand his surroundings in order to stay alive.

Since a person has both the right and the means of doing anything he chooses to do, constrained only by the laws of nature and the boundary condition imposed by his environment while in isolation, a person on a desert island can not wrong anyone. He can -make mistakes- (we all can and do at times). But making mistakes which lead to one's own discomfort or injury is no more an ethical matter than making an arithmetic error while doing sums. That same person living in society is -further constrained- to observe the effects his actions have on other people. That is where ethics and morality enter the picture. We need ethics and morality to exist in society, which is the normal state in which humans exist. Truly atomic and isolated individuals are rare and no human comes into the world isolated. At the very least, he/she is born from his/her mother. It is (barely) possible for a young human to survive toddlerhood as feral child. There are a few instances of such, but they are -extremely rare-. Most humans would perish in total isolation, so most humans live in a condition where ethical and moral constraints are necessary to survival.

Most of our choices are devoid of ethical or moral import. Do you want vanilla or strawberry ice cream or none at all? Any choice you make has zero ethical import. It is only when we interact with other (I say interact, not SERVE), that ethical and moral considerations manifest themselves.

Just to repeat: ethics is unnecessary on a desert island. There is no one there to offend ethically or morally. One can never ethically offend himself. He can make mistakes and fail to achieve goals, yes, but this is not moral or ethical offense. He can misjudge his situation and die as a result. That is not an ethical/moral matter. It is just a fatal blunder. Whose rights would be curtailed under such circumstances?

Hobbes hit the mark. And he did it a long time before Rand was borne. (NB: A reference to -The Day the Earth Stood Still). It is like Klaatu told the earth people. We, of the other planets, have created a race of robots to enforce the peace. That is what Gort does. That is why Gort was created. Now the people of the other planets can get along with their ordinary business without fear of war with others or aggression from others.

Here is another area where I part company from the O'ists with whom I agree (largely) on economic and political matters. Ethics is a social matter, strictly. I go even further. Ethics is largely a matter of convention. There are no strictly ethical facts in nature. There are only possible consequences the flow from ethical rules and choices. An ethical system that is contrary to human survival will simply cease to exist in short order. That is Natural Selection at work. Such a system cannot propagate itself. All its practitioners will perish and it will cease to be. So ethical systems are not determined in detail by physical reality, but they are CONSTRAINED. An ethical system to exist and propagate must be compatible with human survival and that is a matter of fact.

Notice that at looking to nature I have assumed what O'ists call the axiom of identity and I have assumed something other than myself exists. So the O'ist axioms (so-called) are in operation here. It so happens that I have invoked my own system, which I call Reality Lite. It is a stripped down philosophy that does that which needs to be done to promote survival. So my stripped down version of things is totally in line with O'ist axioms (so-called) which are basic common sense. I am not burdened by additional matters, which are unnecessary and at worst wretched excess.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 23, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Bob; Galt's speech makes the point that a desert island is exactly the place one would need an ethical system. See page 1018 the third paragraph. You would not have to deal with people on a desert island but you better be thinking.

Alfonso; Your point about Branden's articles especially "The Stolen Concept" is well made. It makes think the CD Rom is worthless.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob; Galt's speech makes the point that a desert island is exactly the place one would need an ethical system. See page 1018 the third paragraph. You would not have to deal with people on a desert island but you better be thinking.

Alfonso; Your point about Branden's articles especially "The Stolen Concept" is well made. It makes think the CD Rom is worthless.

Well, John Galt (aka Ayn Rand) was -wrong-.

Only two things count on a desert island:

1. attention to situation.

2. being clever enough to use that information to survive, assuming one wants to survive.

Nothing else matters.

Your turn: show me the ethical content of figuring out how to survive. How do ethics tell you how to make a fire or hunt (or gather) food? Ethics and a Swiss Army Knife just might be helpful.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Bob; Galt's speech makes the point that a desert island is exactly the place one would need an ethical system. See page 1018 the third paragraph. You would not have to deal with people on a desert island but you better be thinking.

Alfonso; Your point about Branden's articles especially "The Stolen Concept" is well made. It makes think the CD Rom is worthless.

Well, John Galt (aka Ayn Rand) was -wrong-.

Only two things count on a desert island:

1. attention to situation.

2. being clever enough to use that information to survive, assuming one wants to survive.

Nothing else matters.

Your turn: show me the ethical content of figuring out how to survive. How do ethics tell you how to make a fire or hunt (or gather) food? Ethics and a Swiss Army Knife just might be helpful.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Perhaps this has escaped you, Bob, but attention to situation and acting accordingly is the CORE of the Objectivist ethics. Chris is right. A desert island is exactly where you'd better be ethical, if you want to survive. The Objectivist ethics truly is an ethics "for living on earth." Whether you're alone or in a crowd.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Thank you Roger. Bob just doesn't get the point.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, if I'm on a desert isle by myself, I'd rather have the Boy Scout Handbook (assuming it's still any good), than "The Objectivist Ethics," which I've read. But I'm glad to know that the real-life Robinson Crusoe managed to do without Ayn Rand. Maybe he illustrated her ethics in action? Maybe he influenced her writing? I do think that the pleasure/pain mechanism helps make one act rationally in such a primitive situation of scarcity.

--Brant

Edited September 23, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is some confusion going on here.

Ethics is merely concerned with how and why an individual chooses values.

When taken to a social level, in philosophy this is called politics and when it gets really normative focused, rights.

This is pretty basic stuff

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Bob is right and Galt is wrong: on a desert island you don't need ethics, which is only meaningful in the context of behavior towards other people. How could you for example do something evil on that island? Suppose you see no future there and decide to jump from a cliff. In my opinion it would be absurd to call that action immoral, it's your own choice and it doesn't affect anyone else.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Ethics is not limited to interactions with other people. The whole thing behind individualism is to show that ethics concerns the agent qua agent. That is why "values" and not simply "moral principles" are at the foundation of Rand's approach. Anyone can make a list of moral principles. Grounding those principles in something other that the will of God is where values comes in.

You said: "In my opinion it would be absurd to call that action immoral, it's your own choice and it doesn't affect anyone else." Ironically, that statement is an ethical statement.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Ethics is not limited to interactions with other people.

For me it is the only sensible meaning. Ethics without moral principles is in my opinion meaningless. It's stretching the meaning of ethics beyond recognition.

You said: "In my opinion it would be absurd to call that action immoral, it's your own choice and it doesn't affect anyone else." Ironically, that statement is an ethical statement.

The only way it refers to ethics is that ethics don't apply in this situation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

It's a difference of definition then. Objectivist definition includes right and wrong in ethics. That includes placing value on "correct" and discarding "incorrect" as knowledge.

Disagree if you like, but that's included under Objectivist ethics. It is a mistake to criticize Objectivist ethics without taking that into account.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

There is some confusion going on here.

Ethics is merely concerned with how and why an individual chooses values.

When taken to a social level, in philosophy this is called politics and when it gets really normative focused, rights.

This is pretty basic stuff

Michael

That is not ethics. That is $ethics.

Your definition regards the choice of flavor for one's ice cream as an ethical issue. It isn't. It is a mere preference.

Here are several definitions of the word "ethics" taken from public sources. They reflect how most of the English speaking world uses the word "ethics"

=====================================================================

Definitions of ethics on the Web:

* ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

* the philosophical study of moral values and rules

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is "good" or "right." The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy. This is one part of value theory (axiology) – the other part is aesthetics – one of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

* a set of moral principles or values.

www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riscomm/riscomm_appe.shtml

* the study of fundamental principles that defines values and determines moral duty and obligation.

www.science.psu.edu/alert/frontiers/Glossary1-2001.htm

* A system of moral principles, rules and standards of conduct.

www.bthurston.com/Real_Estate_Dictionary/page_644889.html

* study of right and wrong and wrong, good and bad, moral judgment, etc.

www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

* the branch of philosophy concerned with evaluating human action. Some distinguish ethics, what is right or wrong based on reason, from morals, what is considered right or wrong behavior based on social custom.

campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Glossary/Glossary.index.html

* With regard to professions, a code of professional standards, containing aspects of fairness and duty to the profession and the general public.

www.titleguarantynm.com/terms_e.asp

* A science that indicates which response the IS should do to reach its objectives. [More information on ethics.]

www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/glossary.htm

* system or code of morals of a particular religion, group, or profession.

www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

* the principles of conduct governing an individual or group; concerns for what is right or wrong, good or bad.

oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

* Let a retailer act in a trustworthy, fair, honest, and respectful manner with each of its constituencies.

www.prenhall.com/rm_student/html/glossary/e_gloss.html

* The branch of philosophy that deals with issues of right and wrong in human affairs.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html

* Personal code of conduct based on respect for one's self, others, and your surroundings.

fishandgame.idaho.gov/fish/glossary/

* A set of principles and values that govern behavior to accord with a notion of morality. See especially deontological ethics, teleological ethics and utilitarian ethics, and also see autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and suffering. The ethics of assisted reproductive technology, collaborative reproduction, the doctor-patient relationship, informed consent and human embryo research are much debated.

www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_DF.html

* The fruits of the tree, ethics, can now be described: Live according to the benevolence and orderliness of the universe. The consequence of such a life is apatheia, or euthymia, spiritual peace and well-being; another term for this ultimate desideratum was eudaimonia, the happy condition of the daimon, or soul, when it resembles the deity. Having achieved this ultimate goal, one's life is as autonomous, as uniform, and as benevolent as God himself.

zork.cs.uvic.ca/quotes/stoics_encyclopedia.html

* These sections are small; but specialists will no doubt find in them a number of interesting codices for collation. The most noteworthy manuscripts are: in ethics, the unique "Ge' Ḥizzayon" of Abraham b. Jacob, and two copies of a Persian version in Hebrew characters of Abraham b. ...

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp

* A set of principles or values based on religious and moral teachings. A standard of conduct by which the individual guides his own actions and judges that of others.

www.realestatemanitoba.com/glossary.htm

* the principles or assumptions underpinning the way individuals or organisations ought to conduct themselves.

www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm

* the study of morality

garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cmh9639/phi2010/glossary.htm

* The process of determining right and wrong conduct.

www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html

* The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?

www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

* concepts you should follow

uhsjournalism.tripod.com/id1.html

* The general and abstract concepts of right and wrong behavior culled from philosophy, theology, and professional societies.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072480823/student_view0/glossary.html

Here are some public definitions of the word "morality"

==============================================================

Definitions of ethics on the Web:

* ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

* the philosophical study of moral values and rules

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is "good" or "right." The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy. This is one part of value theory (axiology) – the other part is aesthetics – one of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

* a set of moral principles or values.

www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riscomm/riscomm_appe.shtml

* the study of fundamental principles that defines values and determines moral duty and obligation.

www.science.psu.edu/alert/frontiers/Glossary1-2001.htm

* A system of moral principles, rules and standards of conduct.

www.bthurston.com/Real_Estate_Dictionary/page_644889.html

* study of right and wrong and wrong, good and bad, moral judgment, etc.

www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

* the branch of philosophy concerned with evaluating human action. Some distinguish ethics, what is right or wrong based on reason, from morals, what is considered right or wrong behavior based on social custom.

campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Glossary/Glossary.index.html

* With regard to professions, a code of professional standards, containing aspects of fairness and duty to the profession and the general public.

www.titleguarantynm.com/terms_e.asp

* A science that indicates which response the IS should do to reach its objectives. [More information on ethics.]

www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/intsyst/glossary.htm

* self-imposed design standards within which individual paperfolding designers may (or may not) choose to work, such as, for instance, whether to allow the use of cuts, glue or decoration etc and whether to work only from squares, regular polygons, convex shapes etc.

www.mizushobai.freeserve.co.uk/glossary.htm

* system or code of morals of a particular religion, group, or profession.

www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

* the principles of conduct governing an individual or group; concerns for what is right or wrong, good or bad.

oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

* Let a retailer act in a trustworthy, fair, honest, and respectful manner with each of its constituencies.

www.prenhall.com/rm_student/html/glossary/e_gloss.html

* General birding guidelines established to increase everyone's enjoyment of wild birds. See Birding Ethics.

www.geocities.com/easternbirds/Glossary.html

* The branch of philosophy that deals with issues of right and wrong in human affairs.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html

* and The Cost of Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

www.angelfire.com/va/jsorenK/theology.html

* Personal code of conduct based on respect for one's self, others, and your surroundings.

fishandgame.idaho.gov/fish/glossary/

* A set of principles and values that govern behavior to accord with a notion of morality. See especially deontological ethics, teleological ethics and utilitarian ethics, and also see autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and suffering. The ethics of assisted reproductive technology, collaborative reproduction, the doctor-patient relationship, informed consent and human embryo research are much debated.

www.jansen.com.au/Dictionary_DF.html

* The fruits of the tree, ethics, can now be described: Live according to the benevolence and orderliness of the universe. The consequence of such a life is apatheia, or euthymia, spiritual peace and well-being; another term for this ultimate desideratum was eudaimonia, the happy condition of the daimon, or soul, when it resembles the deity. Having achieved this ultimate goal, one's life is as autonomous, as uniform, and as benevolent as God himself.

zork.cs.uvic.ca/quotes/stoics_encyclopedia.html

* These sections are small; but specialists will no doubt find in them a number of interesting codices for collation. The most noteworthy manuscripts are: in ethics, the unique "Ge' Ḥizzayon" of Abraham b. Jacob, and two copies of a Persian version in Hebrew characters of Abraham b. ...

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp

* A set of principles or values based on religious and moral teachings. A standard of conduct by which the individual guides his own actions and judges that of others.

www.realestatemanitoba.com/glossary.htm

* the principles or assumptions underpinning the way individuals or organisations ought to conduct themselves.

www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm

* the study of morality

garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~cmh9639/phi2010/glossary.htm

* The process of determining right and wrong conduct.

www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html

* The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?

www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

* concepts you should follow

uhsjournalism.tripod.com/id1.html

* The general and abstract concepts of right and wrong behavior culled from philosophy, theology, and professional societies.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072480823/student_view0/glossary.html

Not to be confused with $morality.

The definitions that O'ists use for certain words is at variance with the the usage of the rest of the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 23, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Perhaps this has escaped you, Bob, but attention to situation and acting accordingly is the CORE of the Objectivist ethics. Chris is right. A desert island is exactly where you'd better be ethical, if you want to survive. The Objectivist ethics truly is an ethics "for living on earth." Whether you're alone or in a crowd.

REB

In society I need ethics. On a desert island I need the Special Forces survival manual.

The issue is not really worth arguing about. The number of truly isolated people living atomically with no interaction with other humans is extremely small. Even the famous Robinson Crusoe met up with Friday, so he was not alone. Crusoe also avoided a tangle with pirates. That is not being alone either.

Truly alone people are so rare one can ignore them and their situation safely.

Truly feral children (the authenticated case) can be counted up on the digits of one hand.

Real humans live in society in the company of other humans. They need some kind of conventions to enjoy the fruits of society and not be at war with their neighbors. I think Hobbes tumbled on to this. See -Leviathan-. The only factual issue I can think of in connection with ethics is: is such and such an ethical system, -if practiced consistently- compatible with human life and survival. That is where ethics and fact intersect. Humans have realized this for thousands of years. Workable rules for civilized behavior in groups larger than blood-kin families goes back about ten thousand years, to the beginning of agriculture and the end of hunter-gathering. Several handy dandy heuristics have emerged in that time, primarily some variant of the Golden Rule. I like the negative version best: Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you. It has worked just fine for me. Easy peasy. Simple. Uncomplicated. What's not to love about it?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Bob,

What would the manual say about how many trees you should cut down to make your hut compared to how many are on the island. Add in the percentage that are nutritious producing versus how quickly others will grow in its place. What amount of wood should you burn per day so that you wouldn't run out. Are those the types of things that would be in the manual? Or are those ethical questions?

--Dustan

Edited September 23, 2007 by Aggrad02

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

What would the manual say about how many trees you should cut down to make your hut compared to how many are on the island. Add in the percentage that are nutritious producing versus how quickly others will grow in its place. What amount of wood should you burn per day so that you wouldn't run out. Are those the types of things that would be in the manual? Or are those ethical questions?

--Dustan

Pure good sense would tell you can't cut down more than there are. That has nothing to do with ethics.

No, the manual is short term. No they have nothing to do with ethics.

To address your question, one would estimate how long one might be on the island. Say an entire lifetime. Then estimate the number of years one has left and figure how fast trees replenish themselves. Don't use any more trees than you would need in your estimated remaining lifetime. That is just plain good sense and resource management. What does it have to do with ethics?

What it is, is straightforward resource accounting., By the numbers, by the book.

Now your turn: Where do you think ethics enters into this? I am all ears. Do tell me.

Do you equate reason and good sense with ethics? I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Special Forces Survival Manual: M-16, ammo and a box of condoms.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Do you equate reason and good sense with ethics? I don't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Reason and good sense are one and the same. So the question is do I equate reason with ethics? Then yes.

--Dustan

Rand summarized her ethical theories by writing:

“To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem. ”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Flavor of ice cream? I suppose the issue of personal preferences is a minor ethical issue. But on a desert island, deciding to use reason and even use the survival guide instead of praying to the gods would be an issue of ethics. A very fundamental one.

Right and wrong have to do with survival. And that is not $ethics. That is ethics.

Also, in your copy/paste telephone directory, I noted that "in relation to other people" is absent, unless something specific like profession or group is being mentioned. You claim that being right and wrong is only in relation to other people and this is fundamental to ethics. Your list does not support this position.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Flavor of ice cream? I suppose the issue of personal preferences is a minor ethical issue. But on a desert island, deciding to use reason and even use the survival guide instead of praying to the gods would be an issue of ethics. A very fundamental one.

Deciding to stay alive (as opposed to self destruction or passively allowing oneself to perish) is a -preference-. It is no different in its essence than choosing flavors.

Today I prefer strawberry to chocolate. Tomorrow I may prefer living to dying. Different details, but the same process. Preference and choice. Since it does not involve any second parties it is not an ethical matter at all.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Deciding to stay alive (as opposed to self destruction or passively allowing oneself to perish) is a -preference-. It is no different in its essence than choosing flavors.

Bob,

That is not Objectivist ethics. And that is not classical ethics.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Bob,

Flavor of ice cream? I suppose the issue of personal preferences is a minor ethical issue. But on a desert island, deciding to use reason and even use the survival guide instead of praying to the gods would be an issue of ethics. A very fundamental one.

Today I prefer strawberry to chocolate. Tomorrow I may prefer living to dying. Different details, but the same process. Preference and choice. Since it does not involve any second parties it is not an ethical matter at all.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What if the strawberries were picked using slave labor?

Seriously though,

Isn't ethics about values?

And when making choices we weigh our values.

--Dustan

Edited September 24, 2007 by Aggrad02

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Flavor of ice cream? I suppose the issue of personal preferences is a minor ethical issue. But on a desert island, deciding to use reason and even use the survival guide instead of praying to the gods would be an issue of ethics. A very fundamental one.

Today I prefer strawberry to chocolate. Tomorrow I may prefer living to dying. Different details, but the same process. Preference and choice. Since it does not involve any second parties it is not an ethical matter at all.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What if the strawberries were picked using slave labor?

Seriously though,

Isn't ethics about values?

And when making choices we weigh our values.

--Dustan

Ethics is about behaving correctly with respect to other folks. That is why there are no ethical issues on a desert island. There are no other folks (by assumption). Ethics only has meaning in a social context.

Aesthetic preference is about values too. Is that an ethical matter?

Food preference is about values (attempt to acquire and consume food that pleases you). Is that an ethical matter?

This notion of ethics pertaining only to value formation is far too broad a definition.

Ba'al Chatzaf