Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Translation: "This word game makes me laugh with tears."

X-Ray, are you trying to make some sense by using a different language?

Ginny

I merely replied back in French to a hilarious pun another poster had made in that language.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I have posted this so often here: Going to the fundamental as stipulated in Webster's, the term, objective

means: "having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>"

Are you OK with this?

In definitive contrast, the term, subjective means:

"4 a (1): peculiar to a

particular individual :personal <subjective judgments>"

I see this as a clear demarcation line between objective and subjective.

Xray,

Actually I am not OK with this. This is an epistemological tossed salad with thumbtacks thrown in.

Let's start with objective. You took part of Webster's second definition (part of part "b" of the first to be precise) out of context and just now claimed that objective means "having reality independent of the mind." Once again you are saying what objective isn't, although indirectly. You obliterated the human mind. To illustrate, please tell me how you can know something without engaging your mind.

How can you do that? You don't even need to tell me. Try it. You won't succeed.

The adjective "objective" pertains to knowledge, specifically its relationship to existents. Even Webster is clear on this if you read the full definition instead of hacking it up. Objective is an epistemological term, not a metaphysical one.

Reality does exist independently of the mind, but not objectively. There is no such thing. Only mental operations can be objective or subjective. Reality just exists, period.

I'm not sure you are able to understand this, especially in your thirst to debunk Rand, so I will stop for now and see if it sinks in.

Michael

Reality just exists, period.

Now when I apply your own argument you used to refute my point: how can you in turn KNOW reality exists without using your mind?

You claim reality "exists" independently of the mind, but not objectively?

So, when we apply +/- semantic markers to your definition, we get:

"reality [- objective]" (??)

Would Ayn Rand have agreed to "reality not exisiting objectively"?

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Its Venn Diagram time.

xray can only use the unsharpened crayons and the safety scissors. Also, the safety helmet for the banging head against the wall frustration moments.

Adam

[Xray]

X-ray doesn't seem to understand when Rand is pointing out the contradictions that exist in society's philosophy and when she is being contradictory. I'm talking about calling Keating a 'ruthless egotist',: Rand makes it very clear that she is creating a portrait of someone who in the eyes of society is a ruthless egoist, and showing how empty of independent values they are on the inside, all selfishness outside and nothing within; the total lack of an ability to choose something because they want it for themselves. What has to be distinguished is pseudo-values (for example an alcoholic who wants a drink) and actual values...yes Objective values....those values that can be shown to be connected to the actual needs of human beings by virtue of what human beings are (rational, alive, requiring self-esteem etc.) Just because someone wants something doesn't make it subjective or objective: objective values have a subjective component (we not only need water but we want it when we haven't had any in a while) but subjective values don't necessarily have an objective component (the alcoholic doesn't need the bourbon and coke but may want it very much). A good model of a human being not only shows what human beings are but what they need to be.

Having needs does imply one has to value them.

Monks and nuns for example disvalue a physiological need (sexuality) by putting the subjective value "chastity" higher on their subjective value list.

The obsession with "virginity" in certain cultures also disvalues a need by denying women the right to choose how to live their sexuality.

As for "self-interest", it is hardwired in humans operating 100 per cent of the time.

Keating was motivated by self-interest as much as Roark, Jim Taggart as much as Hank Rearden. Rand's "altruist", the alleged "selfless man" is a strawman.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

The problem here is that "objective" is being used with two different meanings, as Matus explained, and it probably stretches back to Rand.

She sketched out a prescriptive morality: if you want to live as a rational animal, you need to do this and this. It's a logical chain which is based on her idea of what man qua man, the rational animal, is. If you accept her anthropology in full, it deserves to be called objective. But it can't be called objective in the sense of having an independently verifiable existence which did not depend on the human observer. You can't reach out and touch "truth-telling" or "loyalty". The only way they could have an independently verifiable existence is if consciousness was primary, and we all know what Objectivism says on that point.

The confusion comes from the fact that some people seem to think that she sketched out a descriptive morality: you are a rational animal, and therefore you do this and this. Whereas clearly there are people who seem to meet the definition of rational animal who do not do this and this, and who do it not for the sake of being looters and moochers (let's drop those straw men from the argument--we all seem agreed that what they do is not moral), but because their anthropology differs from Rand's, in which case Rand's argument is merely a subjective choice: she imposed her ideal of what the standard of value for a rational animal is, and went on from there.

Moreover, because it is a prescriptive morality, it fails (like every prescriptive morality) to solve the is/ought problem.

[Selene]

OK

Mrs. Thor has spoken. There is no more discussion class.

Everyone close your minds and get in the queue.

http://www.entertone...is-overAl-Gore-

Adam

Edited July 24, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

Other than the obvious sexism involved in Rand's statement, it is equally arguable to state that Rand partially denied reality by denying the perception of relationships as objective considerations. In denying relational aspects, man partially denies his relationship to reality. Equally and oppositely, in acknowledging relational aspects, woman partially defines herself by her relationship to reality.

Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 18:

"Man, she [A. Rand] would say, is defined by his relationship to reality - woman, by her relationship to man."

Any female Objectivists here who would like to comment on this? I'm very interested in their opinion.

And what do the others think of Rand's opinion?

[Edited for correction purposes: the poster who had been the source of my original post here (where it says "universe" instead of "reality"), got the quote wrong.

The above is the correct verbatim quote from BB's book.

The correction does not alter the contents of the discussion though.]

[jeffrey smith]

Rand's "altruist", the alleged "selfless man" is a strawman.

Much of the time, Rand's use of the term could be safely replaced with the word hypocrite. Altruists of the Keating mode aren't in the business of denying their own self interest. They try to stop other people from acting self interestedly, and generally in a way that promotes their own interests (that is, the interests of the hypocrites).

Rand did attack non-hypocritical altruists, of course, but often portrayed them as no more than willing prey for the hypocrites.

[Matus1976]

Life is the objective standard for MORALITY (not values) but because of that, when you *choose* something to value, it ought to be something that is conducive to life.

Wrong premise, evidenced by the simple fact that human beings quite obviously can choose as a value to end their life.

Can't anyone choose whatever standard of morality they want?

You are getting it. Since humans have the ability to choose, it logically follows that the ethical values they select are a matter of subjective choice.

Actually you're apparently not making any effort to understand, or are being deliberately argumentative.

1) 'LIFE' as in the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence, is NOT the Objective standard of morality. Objectivism does not say LIFE as merely existence is either, as evidenced by Galt's suicide threat at Dagny's torture threat. And as I explained in multiple posts, the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence is fine as the standard for animals that are nothing more than robots, but it is not for ones capable of reason and volition.

2) Life is usually the prerequisite for your objective standard of behavior, the good life, the Aristotlean Eudaemonic life. But in some cases pursuing your mere mechanical existence might harm things you value more

3) "Since humans have the ability to choose" You're still basing your concept of "objective" on the very ignorant understanding of it as something related to 'choice' Choice has much to do with religious authoritarian claims of 'objective' moral authority, but has no business in a rational standard of 'objective'

You can 'choose' anything you want as your standard of behavior, but LIFE requires you choose only a particular course of actions, and morality pertains to the question of what a living being ought to do, so the only Objective Standard for MORALITY is LIFE. Objectivity has nothing to do with choice.

If you choose to not acknowledge or counter the myriad of points raised against you showing your conceptions are based on a fallacious definition of 'objective' I can take is as nothing but clear evidence that instead of striving for an understanding of objectivist ethics you're nothing more than a troll.

Yes, they can choose any standard they want, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality.

Non-sequitur in your reasoning: since you have already acknowledged that "anyone [can] choose whatever standard of morality they want", this shuts the door to objective standard of morality, doesn't it?

So, are you asserting that anything in which someone can make a choice has no objective standard? That's utterly absurd. Anyone can choose whatever value they want to believe the mass of an electron is too, or choose what they believe will happen when they jump off a building, but that does not mean there is no objective standard for the mass of an electron or basis to gravitational acceleration. Anyone can also choose to believe whatever they want to believe is the objective standard for morality, but only one thing is. For someone professing such an indepth understanding of linguistics, you sure have an usually hard time grasping the notion that some words have multiple definitions.

This is because when someone asks "what is the standard of morality" they are asking 'how is it that a being who lives ought to behave' and the ONLY answer to that question that is *right* is that a being that lives ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live.

Well, someone asking "what is the standard of morality" can ask this question to get people to check their premises and discover possible fallacy.

Are you or are you not asking, when you ask "what is the standard of morality" how someone ought to live? To dissociate a question from the material implications of it's answer is an exercise in semantic obfuscation. Even if you are asking it to 'check their premises' the reason why you are asking about their premises is because the question is important and it is important because it pertains to life.

Also, your opinion in terms of the "the only answer" is an "ought to" recommendantion on your part, and therefore, like all "ought tos", a subjective value issue.

Uh, no, opinion has nothing to do with it. It is an observational assessment of reality and existence. It's no more worth noting my opinion on the matter than it is to note that my opinion of the mass of an electron happens to match the measured objective mass of an electron. The only thing worthy of note is the actual measured mass of the electron. Opinions that agree or disagree with it which have no rational basis to are irrelevant.

Never mind that you philosophically refute your own position, since you are saying essentially that there is some objective standard of logic in which it is demanded that one reject things which are capable of being chosen in relation to morality as 'subjective' - objectively you are saying that any 'ought' ought to be rejected as subjective! yet you are stating an ought that relates to an is. Nice try, but you can not steal the concept of objectivity in order to reject the concept of objectivity.

But even when one goes along for argument's sake with your "ought to behave in the manner which enables it to live" - well, this applies to e.g. a bank robber too, or to whomever Rand labeled as "looters" and "moochers".

Matus, instead of taking every empty phrase Rand wrote as gospel, why not take her advice ("check your premises") and apply it to her own work?

Apparently the only thing you've ever read by Rand was 'check your premises' since you parrot it like a brain dead drooling pyschopath. You are wrong about the context of Objectivity, you are wrong about what "Life" is in objectivist ethics (although in other posts you acknowledge it is more than the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence, e.g. attacking her concept of life qua man as a prescription for behavior of a abstract grouping) you are wrong about what objective means, and you are wrong that nature of self-interested behavior associating it with anything any looter, moocher, or muderous tyrant happens to fancy that whimsical minute.

You are basing your rejection of a few out of context quotes by rand on an ignorant and incorrect definition of objectivity and morality, your simplistic and incorrect interpretation of these few out of context quotes is refuted by hundreds of individual quotes by Rand, by countless concretes she elaborated on in fiction, and by the very theme of all of her total works. If you're interested in having a real discussion, get on with it. If you are here and engaging in this discussion in an attempt to understand exactly what Rand means, then get on with it. If not engaging in discussion with you is a waste of time, to sufficiently challenge the objectivist ethics you need to move intellectually beyond this first grade mental level of whining about non-choice being some fundamental of objectivity.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Matus1976

[Matus1976]

X-Ray, perhaps it would do you good, if you have any integrity, to engage in an intellectual excercise of comparing and contrasting the use of "Objectivity" in the context of this quote (of yours)

On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences … Being outside of individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

And the use of Objectivity in the context of this quote from wikipedia on "Objectivity (science)"

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

...how can you in turn KNOW reality exists without using your mind?

Xray,

This is an intelligent question. I am not so sure you meant it in the premise manner and the rest of your post is your standard garbage, but this question touches on a fundamental premise.

The answer is that you can't know anything without using your mind.

It's pretty obvious, but some people have difficulty with it.

Michael

[Selene]

Matus:

You are a smart young man.

"Nice try, but you can not steal the concept of objectivity in order to reject the concept of objectivity"

Well put.

Michael:

"...you can't know anything without using your mind."

I just cannot understand why folks just do not get that.

Adam

[ginny]

"...you can't know anything without using your mind."

I just cannot understand why folks just do not get that."

That's because using the mind invariably leads to the truth. For some people, the truth is more frightening than death.

Ginny

[Selene]

Ginny:

Yes indeed. That was another major conceptual statement that made sense to me the more I learned about her philosophy. I was lucky to get her fresh without any filters.

The desire to not think - to be a living dead person was obvious to me as I went about the world.

By the time I was 20, I was certain that some people not only wanted you

to fail, but wanted you to not know that your failure would make them feel "good".

Insane.

Adam

[ginny]

Those people are still around. Always will be. Not worth giving any thought to.

Ginny

[Xray]

Rand's "altruist", the alleged "selfless man" is a strawman.

Much of the time, Rand's use of the term could be safely replaced with the word hypocrite. Altruists of the Keating mode aren't in the business of denying their own self interest. They try to stop other people from acting self interestedly, and generally in a way that promotes their own interests (that is, the interests of the hypocrites).

Rand did attack non-hypocritical altruists, of course, but often portrayed them as no more than willing prey for the hypocrites.

Strictly speaking, there exists no altruism at all, since every action by human beings is motivated by self-interest. This is biologically hardwired.

Any action which at first glance appears to be altruistic can be traced back to a motive of self-interest underlying it.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

The xray dictionary:

"we'll" means just xray, as in, "You can name any action you believe to be altruistic, and we'll uncover the self interest underlying it."

to be continued...

Edited July 28, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

The idea that morality can not be 'objective' if a different standard can be chosen is rooted in a philosophical fallacy itself, that of intrincicism.

The boot is on the other foot: the fallacy lies in assuming there exists something like objective morality. Thatis, the intrinsicism lies precisely in assuming that morality is objective.

You have to be very precise when using the word 'objective', so as not to confuse whatis being valued with whois doing the valuing.

I'll give you an example.

It can objectively be stated (i. e. it is a fact and therefore subject to proof/disproof) that women in many countries are judged by entirely different standards of morality than e. g. in Germany or the US.

But this does not make that alleged standard of moral values itself (or any other alleged standard of moral values) "objective" , i. e. having validity independent of a person (or group) ("the valuer/valuers") arbitrarily choosing and subjectively attributing value to a certain code of morals.

When scientists like Shermer (who I otherwise admire) say things like "Rand suggests there is an objective morality but there isnt, morality is merely a social convention..." they are using objective in that religious epistemlogical sense, of some sort of divinely inspired authority.

Shermer was right on target with his analysis.

The social convention is by no means limited to a religious moral code and values.

While it is true that in past times religion weighed in heavily when it came to moral values, there exist enough non-theistic ideologies with their own laundry list of social conventions in terms of proper moral behavior, i. e. of "life proper to man" as they see it.

Take Communism for example, where the mere fact of being member of the "bourgeois" class qualified people as "immoral" beings since they possessed private property, which was thought to be "objectively evil".

In fact those ideologies and their gurus propagating it can assume religious-like traits, with fervent followers believing every word coming from the leaders' mouth or pen. I recall discussions with orthodox Marxists who would treat the "Capital" like a Christian fundamanentalist would treat the Bible.

You can name any "moral value" here, Matus, and I'll guarantee you that I will be able to demonstrate that it is only subjective. For moral values can't be anything but subjective.

Objective has two meanings and mixing them has caused alot of this confusion - even among scientists (like Michael Shermer) who criticize Rands' claim of an objective standard of morality. Objective in the context of morality is often used to mean something like the 10 Commandments, received and absolute authority from an omnipotent and omniscient being.

It is actually you who is mixing things up here, Matus, not Michael Shermer.

They are NOT using it in the scientific science, as in 'the objective mass of an electron' or 'the objective cause of celiac disease' - this is an egregious error by these scientistifically minded people, holding something that is the result the only true tools of cognition - reason, to a standard of a completely false tools of cognition - divination.

Again, the error is on your part.

For unlike you, these scientifically minded people have not made the mistake of trying to prove moral values scientifically. They know it can't be done.

Rand uses "Objective Morality" she is talking about morality in the scientific sense (the only sense worth talking about) i.e. like the mass of an electron, it is available to anyone with the ability to reason and having the most basic tools of cognition.

Sea above. The same fallacy you have succumbed to. There is no morality in the scientific sense.

Life is the objective standard of morality - not because Rand said so - but because reality imposes objective consequences - completely free of opinions, whims, or feelings to the contrary - to all actions, and only actions that are conducive to life result in life, any other action is conducive to death.

You seem to be totally lost now, running on a tangent completely unconnected with the issue ("moraltiy").

It's ironic that religious people use "objective" in that sense, since it rejects all other concepts of 'objective'

You are 100 per cent correct on that. How about digging deeper there?

For that's where you will get to the core of the issue.

More later.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

The "What if everybody did that?" standard is the one the moocher and embezzler leave out or blank out in their identification of human nature.

Because that standard is irrelevant. If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct, but that's no argument against becoming a baker. What you Objectivists are trying to do is to derive a moral ideal (which I heartily endorse) from reality (namely human nature), which cannot be done, as you always have to put in some non-scientific argument (preferably camouflaged with copious use of words like "objective" and "rational") to get the desired answer. It is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy.

[rhartford]

What you Objectivists are trying to do is to derive a moral ideal (which I heartily endorse) from reality (namely human nature), which cannot be done, as you always have to put in some non-scientific argument (preferably camouflaged with copious use of words like "objective" and "rational") to get the desired answer. It is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy.

“Check your premises!” Below are excerpts from “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism” published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Spring 2007:

With the evolution of a volitional mechanism to select action, the question arises, “Is there some cognitive principle to demonstrate that a particular choice of action is valid?”

Knowledge of valuing mechanisms and the study of human value achievement lead to identifying the human mind as an important human valuing mechanism. The mind has unsurpassed power to select action that results in pursuit and achievement of values, pursuit and achievement of that which benefits one’s life.

All volitional action originates from a person’s mind, conscious or subconscious. If the mind chooses volitional action that one knows (at some level, conscious or subconscious) to be harmful to one’s life, some aspect of the mind is implicitly acting on the premise that the human mind is not a valuing mechanism. The law of noncontradiction tells us that the mind cannot both be and not be a valuing mechanism at the same time and in the same context. Either the identification of the mind as a human valuing mechanism is an error or the use of the mind to select harmful action is an error.

Resolution of the contradiction requires either rejecting the mind as a human valuing mechanism or rejecting the selection of harmful action. The first choice contradicts the modern understanding of living organisms and the evolution of the human species. The second choice requires analyzing the reasons for selection of harmful action and correcting the errors that led to the action. The contradiction would not arise if one chooses action based on holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action. Choosing action harmful to one’s life is a negation of that principle and leads to the above contradiction.

The above is only a sketch of some of the essential points to be found in the paper. Note that the above is based on human nature and the law of non-contradiction. Some may consider the identification of the mind as a “human valuing mechanism” to be insertion of a “non-scientific” argument or an assumption. I consider it a valid inductive observation. Please see the paper for a fuller discussion.

[Selene]

Robert:

Thank you so much.

Excellent post. I will use it repeatedly. I will also read the paper, seems quite well reasoned.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Knowledge of valuing mechanisms and the study of human value achievement lead to identifying the human mind as an important human valuing mechanism. The mind has unsurpassed power to select action that results in pursuit and achievement of values, pursuit and achievement of that which benefits one’s life.

All volitional action originates from a person’s mind, conscious or subconscious. If the mind chooses volitional action that one knows (at some level, conscious or subconscious) to be harmful to one’s life, some aspect of the mind is implicitly acting on the premise that the human mind is not a valuing mechanism. The law of noncontradiction tells us that the mind cannot both be and not be a valuing mechanism at the same time and in the same context. Either the identification of the mind as a human valuing mechanism is an error or the use of the mind to select harmful action is an error.

Resolution of the contradiction requires either rejecting the mind as a human valuing mechanism or rejecting the selection of harmful action. The first choice contradicts the modern understanding of living organisms and the evolution of the human species. The second choice requires analyzing the reasons for selection of harmful action and correcting the errors that led to the action. The contradiction would not arise if one chooses action based on holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action. Choosing action harmful to one’s life is a negation of that principle and leads to the above contradiction.

The above is only a sketch of some of the essential points to be found in the paper. Note that the above is based on human nature and the law of non-contradiction. Some may consider the identification of the mind as a “human valuing mechanism” to be insertion of a “non-scientific” argument or an assumption. I consider it a valid inductive observation. Please see the paper for a fuller discussion.

That is all beside the point, it's barking up the wrong tree. The mind may be a human valuing mechanism, but that doesn't tell us what values are beneficial to one's life. Choosing action that doesn't conform to Objectivist principles doesn't necessarily harm the acting person. In fact there is a large amount of evidence that many actions that are definitely against Objectivist principles can be quite beneficial to the acting person.

[Matus1976]

The idea that morality can not be 'objective' if a different standard can be chosen is rooted in a philosophical fallacy itself, that of intrincicism.

The boot is on the other foot: the fallacy lies in assuming there is anything like objective morality. That is, the intrinsicism lies precisely in assuming that morality is objective.

Actually, the boot is on the other foot: the fallacy lies in assuming there is NOT anything like objective morality. That is, the intrinsicism lies precisely in assuming that morality is NOT objective.

You have to be very precise when using the word objective, so as not to confuse whatis being valued with whois doing the valuing.

Both are irrelevant to the concept of "objective" in the scientific sense (the only sense that matters) What someone thinks is the mass of an electron, and WHO that someone is, is completely irrelevant.

Read the definition of Objectivity IN SCIENCE (my emphasis added)

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

I'll give you an example.

It can objectively be stated (i. e. it is a fact and therefore subject to proof/disproof) that women in many countries are judged by entirely different standards of morality than e. g. in Germany or the US.

Oh, so NOW to state something is OBJECTIVE you are saying it is SUBJECT TO PROOF OR DISPROOF! I thought something was Objective ONLY if someone could NOT choose something other than it? Which, ridiculously, is what you say in the very NEXT sentence! I could believe whole heartedly that all women everywhere are treated with the exact same moral standards, thus your claim that they are in fact not being an objective one is invalidated. I could equally say that it can be objectively proven that different people believe the mass of an electron to be different in different countries, and thus (by your 'logic') there is in fact no such thing as an objective mass of an electron.

And the very next sentance which you changed your usage...

But this does not make that (or any other standard) of moral values itself "objective" in that it has validity independently of a person (or group) arbitrarily choosing and subjectively attributing value to a certain code of morals.

I am utterly confounded that you could so wantonly mix these two obviously very difference definitions of Objective in the very same sentence. EITHER Objective is something that is a provable aspect of reality, or Objective is something nobody disagrees on, which is it?

When scientists like Shermer (who I otherwise admire) say things like "Rand suggests there is an objective morality but there isnt, morality is merely a social convention..." they are using objective in that religious epistemlogical sense, of some sort of divinely inspired authority.

Shermer was right on target with his analysis.

Actually Shermer has since retracted this objection, now doubt finally coming to realize that the way he uses "objective" in every other context was not how he was appraising the objective nature of morality

See - http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

TNI: Speaking of self-interest brings us to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I know that you have said that you’re an admirer of Rand, that among the pictures you have on your wall—Isaac Asimov and Darwin and others—you actually have Ayn Rand. But you’ve also been critical of the Objectivist movement or, I should say, certain Objectivists. Could you say a few words about what positive insights you get out of Rand?

His response

Shermer: I love the idea of personal responsibility and rugged individualism and all that. And the philosophy itself, I think, is perfectly sound. It’s the best thing going out there. Is it perfect? Well, I’m not a philosopher, but, for example, once you go down the path that there are objective truths and realities, particularly in the moral realm dealing with values, then it doesn’t take long for some people to go from there to judging other people fairly harshly.

Oh - wait, what's that you just said? "...once you go down the path that there are OBJECTIVE TRUTHS PARTICULARLY IN THE MORAL REALM DEALING WITH VALUES!"

Oh My!

So Shermer acknowledges that there is an objective morality, but he's just a little uncomfortable with telling other people about it. Fair enough...

I have no doubt Shermer came to this conclusion when researching or introspecting on the topic of his recent booklet "The Science of the Soul" In this article he expands

One of the new areas that I and others are exploring is how we can get morality out of a Darwinian worldview.

hmmmm....

(People say things like - )No. “Darwin means complete, total selfishness in the sense of ‘anything goes,’ kill my neighbor—that’s what evolution is!?”

Sound familiar, X-Ray?

On that concern Shermer says

What I’m trying to say in this book is that these concerns are completely wrong

Theists FEAR the moral implications of Darwinism, naturalism, humanism because they think cynically and ignorantly, just like you, that objective morality is the province of divine decree, that someone must descend from a mountain with stone tablets burning bushes and lightning bolts for something regarding behavior to be moral and that if anyone anywhere for any reason believes otherwise the whole concept of objectivity is obliterated (which, of course, is in itself an objective claim!)

I've asked over and over again, why can I choose to believe the mass of an electron is different than it actually is, yet not invalidate the objective mass of an electron, but choose to believe that morality is different than it actually is but somehow invalidate the concept of objective morality. Yet over and over again you avoid the most basic objection to your claim, which is based on a flawed definition of 'objective'

Take Marxist communism for example where the mere fact of beig member of the "bourgeois" class qualified you as an "immoral" being since you possessed private property, which was thought to be "objectively evil".

The fact that some people can choose to believe other things are the objective morality does not mean nothing is objective morality.

You can name any "moral value" here, Matus, and I'll guarantee you that I will be able to show you it is only subjective.

Of course, because your absurd definition of "Objective" means no one ever could ever *believe* otherwise - so your boast is not very interesting.

Show me ANY scientific value EVER and I will SHOW you someone who at sometime KNEW, INSISTED, that the value was DIFFERENT! thus proving to you that there is no such thing as objective science!

It can't be otherwise.

Another objective claim. Actually I believe it can be otherwise. So I've now invalidated your claim - since to you Objective means no other belief or choice is possible.

Objective has two meanings and mixing them has caused alot of this confusion - even among scientists (like Michael Shermer) who criticize Rands' claim of an objective standard of morality. Objective in the context of morality is often used to mean something like the 10 Commandments, received and absolute authority from an omnipotent and omniscient being.

It is actually you who is mixing things up here, Matus, not Michael Shermer.

Nope, Shermer has changed is position on this, but beyond that, you wantonly mix definitions of objective at your whim.

They are NOT using it in the scientific science, as in 'the objective mass of an electron' or 'the objective cause of celiac disease' - this is an egregious error by these scientistifically minded people, holding something that is the result the only true tools of cognition - reason, to a standard of a completely false tools of cognition - divination.

Again, the error is on your part.

For unlike you, these scientifically minded people have not made the mistake of trying to prove moral values scientifically. They know it can't be done.

WOW! I was hoping to get a little more of an argument then you just merely insisting, again, that I am wrong, without claim, evidence, reason, or argument.

No matter WHAT you apply "objective" to, choice is irrelvant in that. People make that 'mistake' because for 90,000 years tyrants have been insisting they have divine claims to absolute truths. It's taken alot of time for people to apply science and reason to all fields of life.

The Renaissance was the application (re-application really, after being lost during the dark ages from the application in classical Greece and Rome) of reason to metaphysics, art, and epistemology - ushering in the scientific revolution and unparalleled material progress. During the dark ages, epistemology was governed only by religious intrinsicism, people were explicitly forbidden from applying reason to their life on earth or their material well being, and reason could only be applied to absurd philosophical debates about the nature of the trinity and the communion.

The Enlightenment was the rejection of received authority, and led to man declaring inalienable rights independent from claims of tyrants and thugs. It was the application of reason to the remaining realms of philosophy, Politics and Ethics, and led to the resurgence of constitutional states, republics, civil liberties and market economies.

But it was not the complete application, deists justified human rights with appeals to mans nature as designed by god (e.g. if God designed man to strive to understand, grow, and thrive than any tyrant who obfuscated this was an affront to God's very will) Man's nature was the evidence, but God was the cause, they still succumbed to this religious notion of "objective" that you are parroting here, though they had stamped it out of every other area of life, it had not been completely eradicated from ethics and politics, but the enlightenment represented a tremendous leap forward on the front unparalleled in human history.

Reason applied to Metaphysics (existence) became a recognition of the properties of nature and an attempt to understand, classify, and utilize those properties. That there is, in fact, an objective reality (even if some people choose to believe there is not) Reason when applied to Epistemology became the tools to actually acquire that knowledge of the properties of existence. Reason applied to art become a recognition of the role that art plays in mans life, thus the resurgent of classical romantic realism during the renaissance. Reason applied to politics - rejecting divine and received authority of ancient texts and tyrannical traditions - became free markets, civil liberties, the rights of man, constitutions and representative republics. Reason applied to morality would be born as the the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and need only to mature into the objective morality of Life qua Man.

At one time, "Objective" was usurped in every philosophical realm, reason has re-claimed most of them. The 'Objective' nature of existence was the universe God created and the rules he wrote. 'Objective' knowledge was the divinely inspired texts derived from monks getting high in caves or princes starving themselves and staring at their navels. 'Objective' in Politics was the divine right of Kings, who were manifestations of Gods, to whip you and collect your goods. 'Objective' art was celebrations of those tyrants, Gods, and ramblings of mystics. "Objective" in EVERY OTHER realm is now used appropriately, as a measure definable aspect of reality that is accessible to any man through reason. Religious thought has receded into the gaps, ever decreasing ones at that.

Ethics is not the 'only' realm of philosophy which somehow perpetually remains untouched by objective science and reason, despite your claims (I'd ask you to prove that is is inherently free of such applications, but your counterargument has never been anything more than some vague appeal to the ability to choose other things) It is, however, the only realm in which reason has not been fully applied, due to ignorant resistance from people like yourself, from theists afraid of anarchy, and even materialistic scientists afraid of chaos or the validity of science and lacking any philosophical common sense.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Because that standard is irrelevant. If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct, but that's no argument against becoming a baker.

Dragonfly,

Irrelevant? On the contrary. You totally missed the point (and this is rare for you). I mentioned "universal values." In my post I clearly stated, "If you want a universal value... for human beings, ... you only have to ask what would happen if everyone did that."

Universal means everybody.

I am making an assumption that you know that some things are more important than others, especially for critical aspects like survival.

Becoming a baker is not a universal value for mankind. Obtaining food in some manner is, and reality does not provide enough un-produced food for mankind. So it has to be produced. If everyone stopped producing food, mankind would starve.

You actually proved my point when you said, "If everyone became a baker humanity would also soon become extinct." I presume you mean baking and doing nothing else. That shows that becoming a baker and nothing else is not a universal value.

As to arguments against becoming a baker, I prefer to leave this to a discussion of non-universal values.

But there is one interesting point. The "What if everybody did it?" standard applies to smaller categories like bakers as universal values for them. For instance, thinking only about bakers and their values, some bakers might use moldy garbage in their food and get away with it at times despite this making people sick. But if all bakers did that, people would rebel and the profession would become illegal or some other severe restriction would result. There is one thing you could count on, too. The profession would not flourish.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Irrelevant? On the contrary. You totally missed the point (and this is rare for you). I mentioned "universal values." In my post I clearly stated, "If you want a universal value... for human beings, ... you only have to ask what would happen if everyone did that."

But why should you want universal values?

I am making an assumption that you know that some things are more important than others, especially for critical aspects like survival.

Yes, and we've seen that Objectivist values are not necessary for survival as they are not universal. You may want to make them universal, but that doesn't make them so.

But there is one interesting point. The "What if everybody did it?" standard applies to smaller categories like bakers as universal values for them. For instance, thinking only about bakers and their values, some bakers might use moldy garbage in their food and get away with it at times despite this making people sick. But if all bakers did that, people would rebel and the profession would become illegal or some other severe restriction would result. There is one thing you could count on, too. The profession would not flourish.

Do you really think that only honest professions can flourish?