The Objectivist Ethics

[Roger Bissell]

Some relevant Rand quotes in reply to Bob and his "I don't need no stinkin' morality on a desert island" position:

1. "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions--the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." ("The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13)

2. "Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival...The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discoveredf by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." (ibid, p. 23)

3. "If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course." ("Causality vs. Duty" in Philosophy, Who Needs It?", p. 99)

4. "If is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live." ("Galt's Speech" in For the New Intellectual, p. 123)

5. "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists--and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge--Purpose, as his choice of the happines which that tool must proceed to achieve--Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worth of happiness, which means: is worthy ofliving. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousnes: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride." (ibid, p. 128)

6. "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island [do you hear me, Ba'al Chatzaf?]--it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today--and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (ibid, p. 127)

[Aggrad02]

Thank you Roger great post,

Dustan

Edited September 24, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Alfonso Jones]

Great post, Roger. You got the essential references here.

Alfonso

[Alfonso Jones]

Great post, Roger. You got the essential references here.

Alfonso

A brief thought:

The difference here is very wide. If one does not see the need for morality on a desert island, then one probably began with a very different sense of "need" than I (and Rand) do. Somehow, I suspect that smuggled into "need" you have an obligation to some other entity --- God, Society, . . . Ask the more fundamental question - why does a man need morals. There will admittedly be some situations which are more complex in a society than on a desert island, but as Rand committed forcefully and eloquently, the NEED for morality is actually greater on the desert island - no other party exists to pay the bill (in some fashion) for one's lapses.

Alfonso

[BaalChatzaf]

Great post, Roger. You got the essential references here.

Alfonso

A brief thought:

The difference here is very wide. If one does not see the need for morality on a desert island, then one probably began with a very different sense of "need" than I (and Rand) do. Somehow, I suspect that smuggled into "need" you have an obligation to some other entity --- God, Society, . . . Ask the more fundamental question - why does a man need morals. There will admittedly be some situations which are more complex in a society than on a desert island, but as Rand committed forcefully and eloquently, the NEED for morality is actually greater on the desert island - no other party exists to pay the bill (in some fashion) for one's lapses.

Alfonso

No. That is $morality. Which includes, according to, you being aware of one's situation and being clever enough to survive privation and danger all by one's self. Other people mean doing the right thing with respect to other folks. That is morality. You have completely equated the words "reason" and "morality" which is not what other folks do. You are speaking a different dialect. No wonder O'ists are misunderstood. They not only speak a different dialect from others, but they claim the others are using language incorrectly. And I thought I had gall and chutzpah!

There are no second parties on a desert island (by definition) so questions of morality and ethics are moot. Not so for questions of $morality and $ethics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Bob hits the nail on the head.

[Roger Bissell]

Bob hits the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, he's using a banana.

REB

[Alfonso Jones]

Bob hits the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, he's using a banana.

REB

No, it looks like a hammer. But, he hit the wrong nail.

Alfonso Jones

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob hits the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, he's using a banana.

REB

No, it looks like a hammer. But, he hit the wrong nail.

Alfonso Jones

I am aiming for the $nail. If you Objectivist folk want to use your own language, by all means. Language usage is inherently democratic. Just don't tell the entire rest of the world how dumb and wrong they are. When an Objectivist physicist manages to invent an atmospheric electrical generator which violates two currently held laws of thermodynamics, then you may have the Glory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of insisting on telling us what boobs we are, why don't you actually learn Objectivist ethics first? It is obvious from your posts that you do not know the material properly. You are not making intelligent criticism of the ideas. You are merely making repeated snide remarks about what you have shown clearly you do not understand.

There is a reason Objectivism is called an integrated philosophy and I would wager that you don't have a clue why, and I would also wager from the tenor of your posts that you don't care.

I don't know about your academic standards in your other endeavors, but the ones you apply to Objectivism are very poor.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ayn Rand saw ethics or morality as applying to reality rather than just to other people

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of insisting on telling us what boobs we are, why don't you actually learn Objectivist ethics first? It is obvious from your posts that you do not know the material properly. You are not making intelligent criticism of the ideas. You are merely making repeated snide remarks about what you have shown clearly you do not understand.

There is a reason Objectivism is called an integrated philosophy and I would wager that you don't have a clue why, and I would also wager from the tenor of your posts that you don't care.

I don't know about your academic standards in your other endeavors, but the ones you apply to Objectivism are very poor.

Michael

I have read every word Ayn Rand has published. I know what she published and I have rejected some of her positions because they are just plain wrong. Her notion of ethics and morality as not being essentially social in nature is just plain wrong. Humans live with other humans and have developed systems and conventions for getting the benefits of society without being at war with their neighbors. As I have pointed out, totally isolated and atomic human existence just does not happen very often. People live with people.

Not all ethical systems lead to prosperity and peace. Those that fail are rejected and those that succeed are kept. It is a very Darwinian process. Long before I read anything that Ayn Rand published I rejected altruism as being potentially deadly and wrong headed. I evolved my own working philosophy -Reality Lite- and it works just fine. It also does not lead me into rejecting the well supported laws of thermodynamics. I got my ethics from R. Hillel who formulated the essential working principle -- don't do to other people what you don't want them to do to you. It is simple, it is easy and it works quite well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Here is a definition of 'ethics';

"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"

Notice how 'right', 'wrong', and 'morals' are part of the definition.

Here is another one;

"the philosophical study of moral values and rules"

Now here is a definition of 'morals';

"ethics, the codes, values, principles, and customs of a person or society"

And another;

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

Notice how the definitions are circular? The terms 'right', 'wrong', 'ethics' and 'morals' are all intertwined and used to define each other. In order to have a meaningful discussion about this subject one needs to accept some or all of these terms as undefined and simply trust that others know what is meant by them. One can argue ad infinitum about what words mean but one is just "spinning his wheels" doing this.

[Brant Gaede]

Some relevant Rand quotes in reply to Bob and his "I don't need no stinkin' morality on a desert island" position:

1. "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions--the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." ("The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13)

2. "Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival...The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discoveredf by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." (ibid, p. 23)

3. "If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course." ("Causality vs. Duty" in Philosophy, Who Needs It?", p. 99)

4. "If is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live." ("Galt's Speech" in For the New Intellectual, p. 123)

5. "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists--and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge--Purpose, as his choice of the happines which that tool must proceed to achieve--Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worth of happiness, which means: is worthy ofliving. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousnes: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride." (ibid, p. 128)

6. "You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island [do you hear me, Ba'al Chatzaf?]--it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today--and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (ibid, p. 127)

Well, a morality of reason means you use reason and I certainly see its survival value anywhere someone is, alone or with others. It is a good idea to consciously remind oneself on this desert island that one is an Objectivist to keep one focused on surviving as best as one might through various travails over an extended period of time including feelings of despair and depression. Sort of a summing up shorthand. Also, a call to use reason in such a situation is a call to be active and productive. Now while I don't call myself an Objectivist, I have no real issue with any of the quoted above, only that the ethics need more work off this official base. This whole contretemps is about whether morality includes or excludes reason, but the excluders are being semantical because they don't exclude it in practice. Again "science" attacks philosophy with Roger's "banana."

Philosophy is the mind's operating software. If one consciously holds and evaluates and tweaks it one isn't likely to be blown about by various gusts of wind or engage in contradictory behavior.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Well said, Brant.

The "excluders" exclude morality explicitly, but they implicitly include it under what Aristotelians call "practical wisdom." As Rand pointed out, the moral is the practical. If you are doing what you need to do to survive alone on a desert island, you are being MORAL. (Unless you see nothing worth living for, and have chosen to die.)

REB

[Later P.S. -- Alfonso, thank you for pointing out my goof. I fixed it in caps.]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You may have read Rand, but to make some of the statements you do, it shows clearly that you did not understand what she was talking about. There are those who do get Rand and reject her ideas. I even do on some of them. I have no problem discussing things with these people.

But on some issue like ethics, you are not one of them. You disagree with something in your head, not with what Rand actually wrote. I personally think one should understand something before telling everyone that it is all wrong. It's a choice.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Which books of Rand have you read?

Michael

[Aggrad02]

If you Objectivist folk want to use your own language, by all means. Language usage is inherently democratic.

Language maybe democratic, but concepts are not.

don't do to other people what you don't want them to do to you. It is simple, it is easy and it works quite well.

This fails on its own miserably. How do you decide what you want, or what you value, so that you can make sure you apply that standard to the others you interact with? You still need a system of ethics for you system of ethics.

--Dustan

Edited September 24, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob,

I'm curious. Does the idea of professional integrity have any meaning to you? In your working career, did you have a sense of honor about your work? If so, who was that for?

"Honor is a gift I give myself."

---Rob Roy

I read somewhere, I've forgotten where, in an article by I've forgotten whom, that science is a pursuit of honor, a profound ethical code of one's relationship to truth. I wonder if that sentiment resonates with you.

Ellen

___

[tjohnson]

GS,

Which books of Rand have you read?

Michael

I haven't read any of Rand's work. I assume she wrote this which I copied from another post;

"Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival...The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." (ibid, p. 23)"

I find this difficult to understand, does this mean that anything a man does that he deems as reasonable for his survival is considered ethical, ie. "right' and vice versa that which leads to his demise is "wrong"?

[Dragonfly]

If you Objectivist folk want to use your own language, by all means. Language usage is inherently democratic.

Language maybe democratic, but concepts are not.

But you use language to define concepts, therefore concept ≠ $concept, for example the concept ethics ≠ the concept $ethics. There is no such thing as the "single correct definition" of the concept "ethics".

[Aggrad02]

But you use language to define concepts, therefore concept ≠ $concept, for example the concept ethics ≠ the concept $ethics. There is no such thing as the "single correct definition" of the concept "ethics".

I agree with you in most part. But I don't think you use language to define concepts but to describe concepts which is a little different.

Edited September 24, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Dragonfly]

As Rand pointed out, the moral is the practical.

That is an often repeated mantra, but is it always true? I don't think so. There are situations in which it may be more practical to be immoral. In AS the good guys win, but real life is different. Many Objectivists turn this argument around: if it is practical, it must be moral, which leads them to conclude that for example the most succesful enterprise must be a very moral enterprise. A good example is the uncritical attitude towards Microsoft among Objectivists, it is so enormously succesful that it must be a prime example of moral behavior. Well, I beg to disagree.

[Dragonfly]

I agree with you in most part. But I don't think you use language to define concepts but to describe concepts which is a little different.

To describe a concept you have to define it first. You may take the description as a definition, but then two different descriptions refer to two different concepts, which both may be valid concepts. Abstract concepts like "ethics" are not something "out there" which you can point out, they are theoretical constructs.

[Alfonso Jones]

Well said, Brant.

The "excluders" exclude morality explicitly, but they implicitly include it under what Aristotelians call "practical wisdom." As Rand pointed out, the moral is the practical. If you are doing what you need to do to survive alone on a desert island, you are being immoral. (Unless you see nothing worth living for, and have chosen to die.)

REB

Roger -

Of course, when you say "you are being immoral" above you mean "you are being moral."

Alfonso