Can morality be objective?

[Christopher]

I have engaged in several discussions in which people argue that any moral assertion must be subjective. I disagree, and (to put it succinctly) here's why:

The basis for claiming that morality is always subjective stems from two main points:

1. Morality necessarily reflects an evaluation of good and bad

2. Morality is dependent on volitional choice

1 -

Are "good" and "bad" always subjective, always separate from the objective universe even in the absence of volition? They sure seem to be subjective in that every living organism has a unique perspective of what is good and what is bad. Evaluations of good and bad pertain only to life, to living organisms. Now for example, take simple organisms that move towards heat and move away from cold. To these organisms, heat is "good" (pro-life) and cold is "bad" (anti-life). Other organisms may instead prefer cold and avoid heat. Therefore, evaluations of heat being "good" appears subjective. In fact, referencing the definition of objective (#4) below, anything that is not independent of the observer is not objective. Yet, per the definition of subjective (#1), simple biological evaluations are not necessarily subjective either. The twist I believe ultimately arises from whether or not we consider life to be part of "reality."

If we choose to divorce life from the matter upon which life exists, if we choose to say that life is not part of the factual universe, then the products of life (such as automatic evaluations) are indeed subjective. But if life, if a biological unit/system such as a cell, is part of reality on par with a block of granite, then the processes of the life system that act to maintain life must also be objective (that is, pertaining to reality). Granite has objective characteristics (mass, etc). Likewise, biological systems have objective characteristics (processes that maintain life). As such, it seems that the variance between (implicit) evaluations of good and bad across different life systems are not much different than the variances between more or less mass across blocks of granite. Sure, every object has unique features, but those features are not necessarily subjective.

Therefore, in simple biological systems, basic biological processes that work to sustain life have the equivalent objectivity as the system itself. If a living organism is objective, it seems to me that the processes that allow the organism to be categorized as living are equally objective (in fact, life and the processes that sustain life are ultimately one and the same). Thus, "good" and "bad" are objective properties that pertain to categories of life in-so-far as biological life itself is an objective part of reality.

2 -

Volition reflects choice. Since volition by definition arises from non-external sources, the products of volition themselves are based not on "facts" per se but on whatever one wants to believe and/or do. This seems entirely subjective. Of course, we don't consider beliefs about the mass of granite to be subjective. We make an observation, then volitionally assert the exact mass measured (the fact). Although the process of validity occurs volitionally, and although the assertion of fact itself arises from a volitional system, we do not call the assertion subjective. Therefore, products of volition are not subjective to the degree that those assertions concord with "factual" reality.

If we agree that automatic biological evaluative processes of "good" and "bad" are not subjective but rather objective properties of objective life (point #1), then volitional evaluations of "good" and "bad" that match the objective automatic evaluations of "pro-life" or "anti-life" must also be considered objective. In other words, if we volitionally assert that vitamin C is healthy and thus good, that evaluation is objective. Therefore, if morality is structured upon a pro-life foundation (such as Objectivism) aimed at maximizing the health and survival of the organism, then moral evaluations are indeed objective.

dictionary.com

Subjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

Objective

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

4. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

[Steve Gagne]

And as a side issue, does subjectivity even exist?

[tjohnson]

I think there is no such thing as purely subjective and purely objective. Pure objectivity is an ideal that we can strive for (with science) but we humans are doing the science and so there will always be an element of subjectivity involved. This is especially true in the "soft" or social sciences.

[BaalChatzaf]

And as a side issue, does subjectivity even exist?

Hallucinations, imaginations and such like are subjective. They have no existence outside the brain of the one who hallucinates or imagines.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

And as a side issue, does subjectivity even exist?

Hallucinations, imaginations and such like are subjective. They have no existence outside the brain of the one who hallucinates or imagines.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But these hallucinations still have a basis in reality. One might see "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" which didn't happen but there is a Lucy, a sky, and diamonds. The "stuff" of hallucinations is from perceptions and so has some objectivity nevertheless.

[Dragonfly]

But these hallucinations still have a basis in reality. One might see "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" which didn't happen but there is a Lucy, a sky, and diamonds. The "stuff" of hallucinations is from perceptions and so has some objectivity nevertheless.

But that's not the point. Subjective ideas or thoughts themselves exist objectively and they will in general contain elements from the real world. But what makes them subjective is the fact that they are linked to a specific person and cannot be independently and universally verified. Therefore a hallucination is a typically subjective experience, even if it is a completely realistic looking hallucination (for example of an existing person): person A has that hallucination, but it cannot be seen or photographed by other persons. It is not the content of that hallucination (for example the image of an existing person) that determines its status as objective or subjective, but the fact that it is a hallucination (the fact that for example the real person that is "seen" in that hallucination is at that time not at that place in reality).

[merjet]

Maybe this will help clarify some terms being used here. The article differentiates hallucination, illusion, and delusion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To comment on the opening question, I wonder if it will one day be possible in these discussions to be objective about what objective means...

So far, I feel like I have been in a situation like Kurt Vonnegut once made in Galapagos.

I am going on memory so I probably have the details wrong. The situation is more or less correct, though. There is a Japanese tourist couple in a hotel and they are holding a universal translator (a translating machine), which has accidentally been turned on. They are listening through the wall of their closet to what is going on in the next room. A lady there has a falling out with her lover in French and he leaves. Then she speaks English to herself in a monologue and decides to commit suicide. The Japanese couple, not understanding any of it, comment to each other in Japanese. All the while, the universal translator translates everything into Navaho.

Michael

[tjohnson]

But these hallucinations still have a basis in reality. One might see "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" which didn't happen but there is a Lucy, a sky, and diamonds. The "stuff" of hallucinations is from perceptions and so has some objectivity nevertheless.

But that's not the point. Subjective ideas or thoughts themselves exist objectively and they will in general contain elements from the real world. But what makes them subjective is the fact that they are linked to a specific person and cannot be independently and universally verified. Therefore a hallucination is a typically subjective experience, even if it is a completely realistic looking hallucination (for example of an existing person): person A has that hallucination, but it cannot be seen or photographed by other persons. It is not the content of that hallucination (for example the image of an existing person) that determines its status as objective or subjective, but the fact that it is a hallucination (the fact that for example the real person that is "seen" in that hallucination is at that time not at that place in reality).

Again, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp line between subjective and objective.

[Darrell Hougen]

I have engaged in several discussions in which people argue that any moral assertion must be subjective. I disagree, and (to put it succinctly) here's why:

The basis for claiming that morality is always subjective stems from two main points:

1. Morality necessarily reflects an evaluation of good and bad

2. Morality is dependent on volitional choice

1 -

Are "good" and "bad" always subjective, always separate from the objective universe even in the absence of volition? They sure seem to be subjective in that every living organism has a unique perspective of what is good and what is bad. Evaluations of good and bad pertain only to life, to living organisms. Now for example, take simple organisms that move towards heat and move away from cold. To these organisms, heat is "good" (pro-life) and cold is "bad" (anti-life). Other organisms may instead prefer cold and avoid heat. Therefore, evaluations of heat being "good" appears subjective. In fact, referencing the definition of objective (#4) below, anything that is not independent of the observer is not objective. Yet, per the definition of subjective (#1), simple biological evaluations are not necessarily subjective either. The twist I believe ultimately arises from whether or not we consider life to be part of "reality."

Hi Chris,

I don't think that is where you're going to be attacked by subjectivists. You asserted that, "Evaluations of good and bad pertain only to life, to living organisms," and your argument appears to assume that what is good for life is good and what is bad for life is bad. Now, that is a perfectly reasonable assertion if you're assuming that you can take Objectivist arguments about morality as proven and as a valid starting point for discussion. But, if your goal is to prove the Objectivist position concerning morality, then you haven't done that. You've simply asserted it.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

But these hallucinations still have a basis in reality. One might see "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" which didn't happen but there is a Lucy, a sky, and diamonds. The "stuff" of hallucinations is from perceptions and so has some objectivity nevertheless.

But that's not the point. Subjective ideas or thoughts themselves exist objectively and they will in general contain elements from the real world. But what makes them subjective is the fact that they are linked to a specific person and cannot be independently and universally verified. Therefore a hallucination is a typically subjective experience, even if it is a completely realistic looking hallucination (for example of an existing person): person A has that hallucination, but it cannot be seen or photographed by other persons. It is not the content of that hallucination (for example the image of an existing person) that determines its status as objective or subjective, but the fact that it is a hallucination (the fact that for example the real person that is "seen" in that hallucination is at that time not at that place in reality).

Again, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp line between subjective and objective.

Simply repeating your thesis doesn't make it so -- ("Does so." "Does not." "Does so." "Does not." ... ad nauseam.)

I don't agree with Dragonfly about a lot of things, but I thought he made a very nice, well reasoned argument rebutting your example of something that supposedly bridges the gap between subjective and objective. You have given no argument to refute him.

Darrell

[Christopher]

Michael,

I think a good definition would be handy for "objective." That's what we are also discussing in parallel to a question of "objective morality." Here are some other references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Objective

Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created.

http://www.answers.com/topic/objectivism

Objectivism (implicit in this is a definition for objective)

Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.

An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.

What is your suggestion?

-----

Steve, as for your question of whether anything can be subjective, I was wondering the same thing myself. It seems we can logically assert that implicit evaluative processes by living organisms independent of volition could be considered objective properties of objective living systems (similar to the unique mass of different blocks of granite). However, when volition enters the picture, volition is by definition independent of the system; therefore, volitional assertions can be subjective (i.e. not based on observations of reality nor the direct result of the material system itself)... unless you're a determinist, at which point you could argue that all products of consciousness fall into the category of implicit evaluations.

[Christopher]

I have engaged in several discussions in which people argue that any moral assertion must be subjective. I disagree, and (to put it succinctly) here's why:

The basis for claiming that morality is always subjective stems from two main points:

1. Morality necessarily reflects an evaluation of good and bad

2. Morality is dependent on volitional choice

1 -

Are "good" and "bad" always subjective, always separate from the objective universe even in the absence of volition? They sure seem to be subjective in that every living organism has a unique perspective of what is good and what is bad. Evaluations of good and bad pertain only to life, to living organisms. Now for example, take simple organisms that move towards heat and move away from cold. To these organisms, heat is "good" (pro-life) and cold is "bad" (anti-life). Other organisms may instead prefer cold and avoid heat. Therefore, evaluations of heat being "good" appears subjective. In fact, referencing the definition of objective (#4) below, anything that is not independent of the observer is not objective. Yet, per the definition of subjective (#1), simple biological evaluations are not necessarily subjective either. The twist I believe ultimately arises from whether or not we consider life to be part of "reality."

Hi Chris,

I don't think that is where you're going to be attacked by subjectivists. You asserted that, "Evaluations of good and bad pertain only to life, to living organisms," and your argument appears to assume that what is good for life is good and what is bad for life is bad. Now, that is a perfectly reasonable assertion if you're assuming that you can take Objectivist arguments about morality as proven and as a valid starting point for discussion. But, if your goal is to prove the Objectivist position concerning morality, then you haven't done that. You've simply asserted it.

Darrell

Hi Darrell,

I appreciate your objective consideration of these assertions. Let me clarify a bit about your interpretation:

"your argument appears to assume that what is good for life is good and what is bad for life is bad."

Actually, this is an assertion that I am not making as a premise. Rather, my position is that the existence of life is objective. Ergo, processes that sustain life in the absence of volition (typical biological processes) are objective. Because these processes have implicit evaluations embedded into them, those evaluations are therefore also objective.

Best,

Chris

[BaalChatzaf]

Morality is convention, though it is constrained somewhat by physical reality. It is as objective as the set of rules for chess. But it is made up on a social context. There may be some aspects of morality that is part of our biological primate inheritance, but elaborate moral codes are man-made and artificial. That is why there are so many among the different societies of humans.

Rand believed that every decision made by humans had social import. I believe most decisions are the exercise of preference. The decision to live is somewhat like choosing peach flavored ice cream over vinilla flavored ice cream. Live or die. It is a choice. Read a book or watch t.v.. It is a choice. Morality only makes a difference when one is interacting with other humans. On a desert island nothing has moral import.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 21, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

Simply repeating your thesis doesn't make it so -- ("Does so." "Does not." "Does so." "Does not." ... ad nauseam.)

I don't agree with Dragonfly about a lot of things, but I thought he made a very nice, well reasoned argument rebutting your example of something that supposedly bridges the gap between subjective and objective. You have given no argument to refute him.

Darrell

OK, everything we see is subjective because we are producing the images in our brains. Also, everything we see is objective because it is originating from something "outside our skins", so to speak. So everything we perceive is some combination of objective and subjective. Obviously, hallucinations are skewed at the subjective end of the spectrum. What if there are really ghosts and only a few people can "see" them? To us they are hallucinating but are they really??

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Darrell,

I appreciate your objective consideration of these assertions. Let me clarify a bit about your interpretation:

"your argument appears to assume that what is good for life is good and what is bad for life is bad."

Actually, this is an assertion that I am not making as a premise. Rather, my position is that the existence of life is objective. Ergo, processes that sustain life in the absence of volition (typical biological processes) are objective. Because these processes have implicit evaluations embedded into them, those evaluations are therefore also objective.

Chris,

It sounds like you're using the word "objective" to mean, exists in reality. Life exists. Life processes exist. Volition exists. Evaluations exist (in the mind of the valuer). But, the fact that evaluations exist does not make them objective. In order for a value judgment to be objective, it must be based on objective facts and logic -- as opposed to a subjective evaluation which might be based on your emotions.

To use Robert's example, you might say, "Vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream because, to me, it tastes better." That is a subjective judgment. No one else can experience what you experience when you taste ice cream. Your experience of the taste of ice cream is subjective. It exists as a state of your conscious mind, but it is subjective.

BTW, the conclusion, "Vanilla ice cream is better," is invalid. It may be better to you, but it may not be better to everyone. So, as stated --- as a universally quantified statement --- it doesn't follow from the premise --- that you like the taste better.

Back to the main point. The question you are going to be asked is why? To use Robert's example again, why should someone prefer life over death? To state that an evaluation (or value judgment) exists does not tell anyone why the evaluation should be what it is.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Morality is convention, though it is constrained somewhat by physical reality. It is as objective as the set of rules for chess. But it is made up on a social context. There may be some aspects of morality that is part of our biological primate inheritance, but elaborate moral codes are man-made and artificial. That is why there are so many among the different societies of humans.

Rand believed that every decision made by humans had social import. I believe most decisions are the exercise of preference. The decision to live is somewhat like choosing peach flavored ice cream over vinilla flavored ice cream. Live or die. It is a choice. Read a book or watch t.v.. It is a choice. Morality only makes a difference when one is interacting with other humans. On a desert island nothing has moral import.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Robert,

Morality concerns one's own existence. In particular, it concerns the values necessary for existence. Since existence alone on a desert island is not guaranteed, morality is just as important in that context as it is in a social setting. Therefore, morality is not a convention.

The fact that a person has a choice to live or die doesn't affect the necessity of morality. If one chooses to live, morality is necessary, regardless of whether one exists in society or alone on a desert island.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Simply repeating your thesis doesn't make it so -- ("Does so." "Does not." "Does so." "Does not." ... ad nauseam.)

I don't agree with Dragonfly about a lot of things, but I thought he made a very nice, well reasoned argument rebutting your example of something that supposedly bridges the gap between subjective and objective. You have given no argument to refute him.

Darrell

OK, everything we see is subjective because we are producing the images in our brains. Also, everything we see is objective because it is originating from something "outside our skins", so to speak. So everything we perceive is some combination of objective and subjective. Obviously, hallucinations are skewed at the subjective end of the spectrum. What if there are really ghosts and only a few people can "see" them? To us they are hallucinating but are they really??

Well, at least that's a response.

Everything we see exists in the external world. We do not see "images in our brains." We may see an image on a movie screen or a TV, but not in our brains. We see the external world.

Our interpretation of what we see may be incorrect. In the case of an illusion, we may think that two objects are different in size, when, in fact, they are the same. However, that does not make the interpretation subjective, it simply makes it incorrect. From another perspective, we may be able to see the scene correctly and arrive at the correct interpretation.

That is not to say that there is not a subjective element to experience or scene interpretation, but your assertion was that "everything we see" is both subjective and objective. That is confusing at best. If I hallucinate, as in Robert's example, my experience is purely subjective, as shown by Dragonfly. If I see my car setting in my driveway, that fact is purely objective --- it can be verified by others. My experience of my car might have a subjective component to it, but that does not obviate the objectively verifiable fact that my car is setting in my driveway. Moreover, I arrived at that objectively verifiable fact by seeing my car in my driveway.

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

The fact that a person has a choice to live or die doesn't affect the necessity of morality. If one chooses to live, morality is necessary, regardless of whether one exists in society or alone on a desert island.

Darrell

One a desert island knowing how to get food and avoiding injury is a lot more important than morality. Can morality guide you in making a fire or spearing a fish or snaring an animal? I have thought for some time now the morality and $2.67 will get you a small coffee and an Old Fashioned donut at the local Dunkin' Donut ™ shop.

I can understand moral and ethical considerations when interacting with other folks, but what relevance do they have in isolation?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

One a desert island knowing how to get food and avoiding injury is a lot more important than morality. Can morality guide you in making a fire or spearing a fish or snaring an animal? I have thought for some time now the morality and $2.67 will get you a small coffee and an Old Fashioned donut at the local Dunkin' Donut ™ shop.

I can understand moral and ethical considerations when interacting with other folks, but what relevance do they have in isolation?

None indeed.

[syrakusos]

Morality concerns one's own existence. In particular, it concerns the values necessary for existence. Since existence alone on a desert island is not guaranteed, morality is just as important in that context as it is in a social setting. Therefore, morality is not a convention. The fact that a person has a choice to live or die doesn't affect the necessity of morality. If one chooses to live, morality is necessary, regardless of whether one exists in society or alone on a desert island.

Darrell, thanks! It took 17 posts for someone on "Objectivist" Living to begin with an objectivist statement about morality in answer to the question. Except for the use of the word "obviate" most of what was said could have come from a late night sophomore dormitory bull session.

Accepting the topical question as an honest search, I start by pointing out that in the context of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, "objective" does not mean "absolute." The existence of the sun is an absolute. It's objective value to you depends on what you need to sustain and further your life: more sun, less sun... That is what we talking about here: objective morality. Robert Kolker has said before that alone on an island, there is no morality. He knows the Objectivist truth that morality is critical on an island, but he rejects the observation. He can choose to do so, but it makes further discussion difficult, unless you want to argue just that point.

Ayn Rand's objective morality is an extension (both in depth and breadth) of Aristotle's eudaimonia. He wrote the Nicomachean ethics to explain his ideas on how you can live a better life. You. Personally. Regardless of what everyone else or anyone else or no one else does.

Ayn Rand built her theory of objective morality from metaphysics and epistemology.

From those is a more basic meaning of "objective:" the unity of rational and empirical, of the analytic and synthetic, the logical and factual, the conceptual and perceptual; mind and body. Ayn Rand intended that as well: dichotomies do not exist. (That is my statement, not hers. Ayn Rand said that contradictions do not exist. After many years with her works, I have yet to find her endorse or advocate a dichotomy.)

Edited December 21, 2009 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

... But if life, if a biological unit/system such as a cell, is part of reality on par with a block of granite, then the processes of the life system that act to maintain life must also be objective (that is, pertaining to reality). ... Thus, "good" and "bad" are objective properties that pertain to categories of life in-so-far as biological life itself is an objective part of reality.

... Therefore, products of volition are not subjective to the degree that those assertions concord with "factual" reality. ... Therefore, if morality is structured upon a pro-life foundation (such as Objectivism) aimed at maximizing the health and survival of the organism, then moral evaluations are indeed objective.

Christopher, I see what you did: you offered another proof of the objectivity of morality. I missed that the first time, reading too fast and not completing your post.

Objective truths are non-contradictory: the truths of mathematics do not contradict those of chemistry, and so on, politics, poetry, ..., for the entirety of our knowledge. Partial truths are validities: statements or observations that work to solve one problem, or a few problems, but do not apply to many other or wider problems. Synonyms within languages are an example of that. We could spend a lot of time on the differences between "liberty" and "freedom" in English. It is a little harder than telling one metal from another.

The point is that there are several to many ways to prove a truth. You did a nice job. Thanks.

[Christopher]

Michael, I appreciate your nice comments. Thank you.

.

Darrell,

I still don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye. The evaluations I speak of are biologically implicit and differ from products of cognition or personal taste, such as preference for vanilla ice cream.

The confusing point might be that whereas we tend to think of the factual universe as represented by matter, life is about processes. Those processes that sustain life (ex. a plant growing towards sunlight) act in a manner that contain evaluations (sunlight = good), although no such explicit evaluation of good exists per se. Other plants could potentially grow away from the sun (sunlight = bad). Even though we consciously speak of good and bad, the processes themselves are natural and inherent in the biological system. Stop those processes and life stops. I don't consider the existence of life to be subjective, therefore the processes that represent life cannot be subjective. The implicit evaluations contained in those processes should therefore not be considered fully subjective either.

Pro-life evaluations are objective to the degree that we consider life to be objective.

I think that's about the best I can describe what I've been thinking.

[tjohnson]

We do not see "images in our brains." We may see an image on a movie screen or a TV, but not in our brains. We see the external world.

You obviously know nothing about physiology.

[jeffrey smith]

Morality concerns one's own existence. In particular, it concerns the values necessary for existence. Since existence alone on a desert island is not guaranteed, morality is just as important in that context as it is in a social setting. Therefore, morality is not a convention. The fact that a person has a choice to live or die doesn't affect the necessity of morality. If one chooses to live, morality is necessary, regardless of whether one exists in society or alone on a desert island.

Darrell, thanks! It took 17 posts for someone on "Objectivist" Living to begin with an objectivist statement about morality in answer to the question. Except for the use of the word "obviate" most of what was said could have come from a late night sophomore dormitory bull session.

Accepting the topical question as an honest search, I start by pointing out that in the context of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, "objective" does not mean "absolute." The existence of the sun is an absolute. It's objective value to you depends on what you need to sustain and further your life: more sun, less sun... That is what we talking about here: objective morality. Robert Kolker has said before that alone on an island, there is no morality. He knows the Objectivist truth that morality is critical on an island, but he rejects the observation. He can choose to do so, but it makes further discussion difficult, unless you want to argue just that point.

Ayn Rand's objective morality is an extension (both in depth and breadth) of Aristotle's eudaimonia. He wrote the Nicomachean ethics to explain his ideas on how you can live a better life. You. Personally. Regardless of what everyone else or anyone else or no one else does.

Ayn Rand built her theory of objective morality from metaphysics and epistemology.

From those is a more basic meaning of "objective:" the unity of rational and empirical, of the analytic and synthetic, the logical and factual, the conceptual and perceptual; mind and body. Ayn Rand intended that as well: dichotomies do not exist. (That is my statement, not hers. Ayn Rand said that contradictions do not exist. After many years with her works, I have yet to find her endorse or advocate a dichotomy.)

Michael:

Actually the desert island scenario is useful in exposing the fundamental flaw in Objectivist morality.

In brief, Rand declares "life" to be the standard of value--which implies that "life" is itself not a value, but something inherent in reality by which value choices can be measured and judged. But (here is the flaw) she then declares that "life" is something chosen (or at least, sought after), meaning that "life" is itself a "value": the most important value but still a value which must be chosen.

The Objectivist counter to this problem is, as far as I understand it, not a good counter. "You have to choose life because otherwise you will die, therefore life is the objective standard of value."

And if I do not care whether I live or die?

Or suppose I value life only as a means to another goal: suppose I am a musician who lives for the sake of playing my music, and not, as Objectivism has it, playing my music for the sake of living.

In other words, not only is life not an "objective standard of value" but simply another value which I can freely choose.

This is why the "indestructible robot" scenario fails to establish what Rand wants it to establish, since the robot is free to choose something else as its ultimate value.

Jeffrey S.