The Objectivist Ethics


Alfonso Jones

Recommended Posts

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

___

For me of course. As Rob Roy says: Honor is a gift I give myself.

I would be honorable in company or alone because I am always where I am.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Whatever tickles my fancy or scratches my itch, that is what I want. Deciding between strawberry and vinilla is purely a matter of taste. It is a preference. So is deciding to stay alive (if I can) or not. Every one of my uncoerced choices derives from a subjective preference. The coerced choices have to do with matter of legal or moral obligation. In such matters there is a second party involved and -that- is where the ethics and morality come in. I do what it takes to keep feeling good and I do it for my own sake.

Now YOUR turn: How do you decide what you want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"?

GS,

This is as I suspected. Here you will find a small list of works by Rand for free:

Texts by Ayn Rand and Other Objectivists

From the list on this page, here are some suggestions.

To start with, for entertainment, I suggest you read Anthem. It is a marvelous novel (a small early one) set in the future when the word "I" has been eliminated from language.

Then for a general view of philosophy and Objectivism's approach to it, read "Philosophy: Who Needs It." This was a lecture she gave a West Point and it caused quite a bit of enthusiasm among the military students.

Then, since you have stated your understanding of the general semantics position on the role of language, I suggest "The Stolen Concept" by Nathaniel Branden. Although this was not written by Rand, it was written with her total endorsement (he was her declared "intellectual heir" at the time) and this concept was central to a lot of her criticism of others. She referenced it in the periodical version (The Objectivist) of the "Forward" to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (although in the book, she eliminated NB's name—this printing came out not too long after the break).

Then I suggest you read the excerpts from her novels or anything else that strikes your fancy.

After all that, I suggest you go out and spring for a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Either you will not prodding by then, or you will not take the book even if it is given to you. Of course, the rest of the print literature will follow.

In the middle of all this, you may find some of the things we are talking about clearer. Then if you still disagree, or agree, we will be using some of the same basic concepts. If I were on a GS forum, this is more or less the approach I would take with Korzybski: get the free online stuff first, jump in asking questions galore about his idceas, get the print stuff and generally state my objections and agreements as I went along.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I understand perfectly. I happen to disagree. Look, I -understand- the theory of closed Cartesian Categories and I understand homological algebra. I understand Riemannian Geometry and the General Theory of Relativity. Do you think Rand's trivialities can elude my understanding? If I can handle the -hard stuff- and can roll the soft stuff into a ball.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Not this Objectivist. The antitrust stuff by the government is bad, but too much of Microsoft's success involves government for my moral palate.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

Not this Objectivist. The antitrust stuff by the government is bad, but too much of Microsoft's success involves government for my moral palate.

Michael

Count me among the Microsoft critics. The trouble is, the government went after Microsoft for exactly the wrong reasons. Microsoft has a trail of fraud, broken agreements and naked armtwisting to cover its repeated intellectual property violations.

The problem with antitrust is that it criminalizes the very behavior that is the lifeblood of technology innovation. There are so many noncompete agreements, tying and the like in Silicon Valley. This behavior is the rule and not the exception.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 -

Could you outline the basic ways in which you believe Microsoft to have behaved immorally? Not at great length, just briefly? I gather from your wording that you mean you disagree that Microsoft's behavior has been, broadly, moral, not just that you assert that "success" over a certain period of time does not IMPLY morality (I agree with the latter and doubt that you would find many who disagree.).

ALfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I understand perfecly. I happen to disagree. Look, I -understand- the theory of closed Cartesian Categories and I understand homological algebra. I understand Riemannian Geometry and the General Theory of Relativity. Do you think Rand's trivialities can elude my understanding? If I can handle the -hard stuff- and can roll the soft stuff into a ball.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It wouldn't be very flattering to you if her "trivialities" did. Petr Beckmann dismissed philosophy in less than one paragraph and he thought most math was "easy" (private conversation) except for some advanced esoteric algebra (for others, not himself). This really has nothing to do with easy vrs hard but perspective and one's juxtaposition to various disciplines. Von Mises saw things through the eyes of an economist, for instance. But you cannot credibly ignore the fact that even philosophy reduced to essentialism still is the basis for all human, volitional action. So, it's easier than science. It wouldn't be much good if it were hard since the average IQ is 100. It's there for thinking people, not just geniuses. It was created and put together by a genius and the genius is the integrated totality not any particular part. The major, didactic virtue and strength of Objectivism is that now if you want to effectively criticise it you have to then present your own, new, totality, which would also, btw, be Objectivism if true. Since you use philosophy while denying its importance your criticism is impotent unless a totalist picks it up and uses it sans you.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

new, totality, which would also, btw, be Objectivism if true. Since you use philosophy while denying its importance your criticism is impotent unless a totalist picks it up and uses it sans you.

--Brant

Did it already. Reality Lite. Works very well. For Ethics (dealing with second parties), Hillel's version of the so-called golden rule (the negative non-altruistic version, thank you) works very well. My stuff is simple and effective. Works for me. It might not be enough for you. That is your problem, not mine. I don't need Totalities, I just need some practical working principles.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

This is as I suspected. Here you will find a small list of works by Rand for free:

Texts by Ayn Rand and Other Objectivists

From the list on this page, here are some suggestions.

To start with, for entertainment, I suggest you read Anthem. It is a marvelous novel (a small early one) set in the future when the word "I" has been eliminated from language.

Then for a general view of philosophy and Objectivism's approach to it, read "Philosophy: Who Needs It." This was a lecture she gave a West Point and it caused quite a bit of enthusiasm among the military students.

Then, since you have stated your understanding of the general semantics position on the role of language, I suggest "The Stolen Concept" by Nathaniel Branden. Although this was not written by Rand, it was written with her total endorsement (he was her declared "intellectual heir" at the time) and this concept was central to a lot of her criticism of others. She referenced it in the periodical version (The Objectivist) of the "Forward" to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (although in the book, she eliminated NB's name—this printing came out not too long after the break).

Then I suggest you read the excerpts from her novels or anything else that strikes your fancy.

After all that, I suggest you go out and spring for a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Either you will not prodding by then, or you will not take the book even if it is given to you. Of course, the rest of the print literature will follow.

In the middle of all this, you may find some of the things we are talking about clearer. Then if you still disagree, or agree, we will be using some of the same basic concepts. If I were on a GS forum, this is more or less the approach I would take with Korzybski: get the free online stuff first, jump in asking questions galore about his idceas, get the print stuff and generally state my objections and agreements as I went along.

Michael

Thank you Micheal for your detailed response but I must tell you that I, like Korzybski, consider philosophy mostly a kind of mental illness and so I am not likely to spend any more time reading it than necessary. What I see quoted here is adequate for my purposes. But I would appreciate a response to my interpretation above if anyone is interested. If the situation was reversed and you made a stab at expressing one of Korzybski's principles I would be more than happy to give you my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now YOUR turn: How do you decide what you want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I try to make my decisions based on what is rationally in my self-interest, opposed to an itch or my emotional fancies.

Basing your decisions on itches, fancies, emotions, or desires without understanding how they effect your self-interest in the long run and in the short run is very animalistic.

What about rape Bob? If you see a beautiful woman and are aroused do you scratch your itch and treat her how you would want her to treat you?

--Dustan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

The short version is: No, survival is not the only ethical value. Survival is the primary value of all life forms, but as each form develops, other values develop along with it. With man, he is an animal with a rational faculty. So obtaining values means surviving as an animal and surviving as a rational being. For instance, surviving in a state of non-locomotion and constant pain is not much of a value. Depending on the intensity of the pain and the alternatives for ending it, it can be bad to prolong that.

A moral consideration is seeking out which values attend to this kind of existence (survival as an animal with a rational faculty). Then good and bad are defined in function of this.

The problem with Objectivist critics always occurs over measurements. Life of course is more basic than rationality, because without it, there is no rationality. But there is life without rationality. In terms of one scale of ordinal measurements—survival alone—life is more important than rationality. But in another scale—how to survive—rationality is vastly more important. Just being alive and acting does not ensure survival. Being rational assures that correct actions are taken. So here we have two different measurements of two different aspects just with survival (survival itself and how to survive).

Is it OK to be irrational, meaning purposely reject reason and give your mind over to something else like feelings or drugs? Of course it is within strictly defined contexts. For instance, a man cannot be said to be rational when he is sleeping. But he can make a rational decision before sleeping to go to sleep. The same goes for all states of consciousness where reason is not operating. One can rationally choose to enter that state.

The moral issue here is volition. Morality only applies to volition. Morality provides us with a code to help us choose values.

When you make a choice, what method do you use to make that choice? Reasoned thought or undirected automatic reaction? Those are really the only two alternatives in terms of your volition (with gradations between). Outside factors are just that: outside. If something restricts your choice, that is not a moral issue. What you choose to do about that restriction is.

On a desert island, whether to use your mind and hunt/forage or pray to the gods for your next meal is a moral issue. By doing something that will ensure your survival as a rational animal, you are doing something good. By doing something on purpose that incapacitates that form of existence or even kills you in that form (like praying instead of running in the face of a charging tiger), you are doing something bad.

Here is how that plays out when turning your mind over to an irrational state. Once you have assured safe conditions to enter and leave it, often it is good to do so (like sleep). If you are being attacked by a wild animal or some really unstable condition is approaching like a wild storm and you are not assured of safe shelter, it is bad to choose to go to sleep at that moment. In these cases you need your rational faculty to act in order to survive.

Once that part is understood as ethics, then what to do with other people becomes an issue, but this follows the same pattern. The essence is to choose values according to reason or automatic reactions. To the extent volition is possible, it is "the good" to choose using reason. Depending on a measurement of the values present, it can be good, bad or indifferent to not engage reason.

For example, many homosexuals are born that way. No volition is possible. Choosing to deny this orientation and condemning their lives to misery is the bad. Choosing to accept what nature created is the good. If someone asks a person who has accepted his homosexual orientation, "What do you choose to do about the social implications of this?" and he answers, "I don't think about it," or, "Whatever," this is a case of choosing to not engage his reason and it is morally indifferent (within the confines of those two values only) .

When actual social structures start forming, philosophically the field of ethics moves into the field of politics, and that is another discussion.

One last thought. Whenever something is important (a value), it must never be forgotten that there is someone it is important to. If the person does not value his life, for instance, his moral code will mostly be bad. But to him (from his eyes), good and bad using his own life as a standard means nothing. If he survives, he finds another standard (like hatred). But this agent is a deformed rational animal, so standards that apply to rational animals do not apply to him. (Reality does, though, and it rarely forgives.) If you are a rational animal, you will not find good in what he values. Moving this to social structures, you can see that whether the structures are made as the norm for rational animals or for deformed creatures is crucially important.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a desert island, whether to use your mind and hunt/forage or pray to the gods for your next meal is a moral issue. By doing something that will ensure your survival as a rational animal, you are doing something good. By doing something on purpose that incapacitates that form of existence or even kills you in that form (like praying instead of running in the face of a charging tiger), you are doing something bad.

I agree with this sentiment but I find it a curious way to express it. In GS it would be called pathological behaviour to pray instead of using knowledge to save yourself, but you would never say it was 'good' or 'bad'. Don't you find those terms rather simplistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a desert island, whether to use your mind and hunt/forage or pray to the gods for your next meal is a moral issue. By doing something that will ensure your survival as a rational animal, you are doing something good. By doing something on purpose that incapacitates that form of existence or even kills you in that form (like praying instead of running in the face of a charging tiger), you are doing something bad.

I agree with this sentiment but I find it a curious way to express it. In GS it would be called pathological behaviour to pray instead of using knowledge to save yourself, but you would never say it was 'good' or 'bad'. Don't you find those terms rather simplistic?

Not at all simplistic. Obviously, there is something about the use of "good" or "bad" which bothers you. Can you articulate what it is? Perhaps by understanding why you "would ever say it was 'good' or 'bad'" we can understand the divergence between views (if there is a divergence) here.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all simplistic. Obviously, there is something about the use of "good" or "bad" which bothers you. Can you articulate what it is? Perhaps by understanding why you "would ever say it was 'good' or 'bad'" we can understand the divergence between views (if there is a divergence) here.

Alfonso

Well, first of all, they aren't very descriptive. If I say someone behaves pathological it means 'leading to non-survival' or something similar. But to say it is 'good' or 'bad' doesn't really say much. I mean it's 'good' for survival or 'bad' for survival, but not just 'good' or 'bad' by themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Good and bad are normative, not merely cognitive. They are value judgments, not merely identifications. They need a standard of value to mean anything. Good and bad according to what?

The standard for centuries has been God's law, divine inspiration, or some variation on that.

Thinking in that direction is a good way to start getting there because this is how Rand did it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Good and bad are normative, not merely cognitive. They are value judgments, not merely identifications. They need a standard of value to mean anything. Good and bad according to what?

The standard for centuries has been God's law, divine inspiration, or some variation on that.

Thinking in that direction is a good way to start getting there because this is how Rand did it.

Michael

OK, well it seems Rand is using the standard of survival, which is what I started out saying. Also, you're right about the "divine" aspect and this is a good reason to avoid the terms 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong', IMO. You don't want a rational system to have connotations of religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Good and bad are normative, not merely cognitive. They are value judgments, not merely identifications. They need a standard of value to mean anything. Good and bad according to what?

The standard for centuries has been God's law, divine inspiration, or some variation on that.

Thinking in that direction is a good way to start getting there because this is how Rand did it.

Michael

OK, well it seems Rand is using the standard of survival, which is what I started out saying. Also, you're right about the "divine" aspect and this is a good reason to avoid the terms 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong', IMO. You don't want a rational system to have connotations of religion?

1. "Good" or "bad" by itself means nothing. That is the intrinsic view of good and evil. The objective view holds that the good is defined by reference to purpose and beneficiary -- good, to whom and for what? And as Michael points out, the standard of value for the Objectivist ethics is survival as a rational being, which as Rand stated, means by thought and production.

2. There is no such thing as a "rational system" totally free of "connotations of religion." Religions have ideals. Do you suggest that having ideals is an undesirably religious connotation for a rational philosophy? Religions have a view of the world and of man's nature. Do you suggest that having a view of the world and of man's nature is an undesirably religious connotation for a rational philosophy? Etc., etc. You get the point, I'm sure. What's important is to avoid the ~undesirable~, ~non-life-promoting~ connotations of religion, such as dogma, coercive or uncivil persecution of those who believe differently, etc. Again, I'm sure you know what I mean -- and I'm sure you see the difference between say dogma and having a worldview, both of which are "connotations of religion."

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a desert island, whether to use your mind and hunt/forage or pray to the gods for your next meal is a moral issue. By doing something that will ensure your survival as a rational animal, you are doing something good. By doing something on purpose that incapacitates that form of existence or even kills you in that form (like praying instead of running in the face of a charging tiger), you are doing something bad.

Suicide, whether in isolation in in society fits that description. Is suicide bad?

Or is survival (to be or not to be that is the question) simply a preference associated with a choice of actions or non-actions. Aside from the non-reversibility of death, why is choosing to live or maintain one's life any different in essence then choosing what to have for one's supper. Life vs death. Strawberry vs chocolate. Aside from mortality what is the big difference?

If one's preference is to live or keep on living, then the means to achieve this are constrained. One would rely on physically doable things and not Divine Intervention. But that assumes one prefers to live, doesn't it?

As a general rule, ends constrain means. Not all means are consistent with a given end. But what end to pursue? Is there an a priori answer to this? Or does one chose what ever end suits one's fancy?

One would think that an O'ist does NOT hold the position that we have a DUTY to stay alive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now YOUR turn: How do you decide what you want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I try to make my decisions based on what is rationally in my self-interest, opposed to an itch or my emotional fancies.

Basing your decisions on itches, fancies, emotions, or desires without understanding how they effect your self-interest in the long run and in the short run is very animalistic.

What about rape Bob? If you see a beautiful woman and are aroused do you scratch your itch and treat her how you would want her to treat you?

--Dustan

And suppose I consider satisfying my itches or fancies to BE my interest? Why would that be wrong. What is inherently wrong with pursuing pleasure? If I am going to be alive, why not have some fun doing it? Aside from puritan crotchets and other sourpuss reactions, just what is wrong with hedonism? I am referring here to the pursuit of pleasure, done without infringing anyone's rights. We do live with other people for whom our pleasure may be their pain, so we must constrain our pleasures to avoid such conflicts.

As to rape, that is a wrong committed against another person. I would not want to be raped, so I would not rape anyone. In addition to lacking grace and being uncouth, it is also an infringement of rights and furthermore it is actionable. People are arrested and imprisoned for rape. If it is sexual contact one wishes, one need not obtain it by force. It can be had by consent. Rape is not only unnecessary, it is just plain stupid.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to make my decisions based on what is rationally in my self-interest, opposed to an itch or my emotional fancies.

What makes you think pursuing pleasure is inherently irrational? Do you think that? Some pleasures are self destructive and would not be pursued by anyone wishing not to destroy himself. Some pleasures involve wronging other folks, and unless one want to have war with his fellows, such pleasures must not be pursued. Do you condemn pleasure seeking in total? If so, why? If you think some pleasures are proper or rational then you are in MY camp. So do I. What is wrong with having fun, as long as it is not at the expense of others?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. There is no such thing as a "rational system" totally free of "connotations of religion." Religions have ideals. Do you suggest that having ideals is an undesirably religious connotation for a rational philosophy? Religions have a view of the world and of man's nature. Do you suggest that having a view of the world and of man's nature is an undesirably religious connotation for a rational philosophy? Etc., etc. You get the point, I'm sure. What's important is to avoid the ~undesirable~, ~non-life-promoting~ connotations of religion, such as dogma, coercive or uncivil persecution of those who believe differently, etc. Again, I'm sure you know what I mean -- and I'm sure you see the difference between say dogma and having a worldview, both of which are "connotations of religion."

REB

One of Korzybski's more interesting observations was that 'religion' can be thought of as primitive science and 'science' can be thought of as modern religion. So they differ in state of evolution, not in kind. I think it is somewhat obvious how religion appears as a sort of science - it attempts to explain many of the same things that science does, like the origin of species. But how is science like religion? It is because even modern science is built upon assumptions, ie. belief. We assume, for example, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We postulate the existence of sub-atomic particles that we can never see, etc. Both science and religion are attempts to rationalize what we sense is going on around and in us. Korzybski's question is do we want to use the 2000 year old methods or the modern (1933 in his case) methods?

So, I see nothing wrong with having ideals, but we don't need primitive notions like 'right' and 'wrong' to have ideals. We could alternatively have an ideal of 'structurally similar', which represents the epistemology of General Semantics. In this framework, our theories are not 'right' or 'wrong' or 'true' or 'false', they are more or less similar in structure to events as we know them. This allows our knowledge to evolve and increase in detail as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now