Your morality, or my own?

[anthony]

The whole question I have boils down to :

You say you are, or purport to be, a good Christian - for example. (Substitute: socialist, humanitarian,... etc.)

Should I assess you by your own morality, or by my own, or by both?

Conversely, should I allow you to judge me, by yours, mine , or both?

I know the Objectivist answer, and it is mainly irrefutable.

But it's not always so simple.

This is something that's intrigued me for a long while, and is a source of confusion, when dealing with others. Discussing the Palestine issue reminded me of it for the upteenth time.

I would appreciate any thoughts.

Thanks,

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

The whole question I have boils down to :

You say you are, or purport to be, a good Christian - for example. (Substitute: socialist, humanitarian,... etc.)

Should I assess you by your own morality, or by my own, or by both?

Conversely, should I allow you to judge me, by yours, mine , or both?

I know the Objectivist answer, and it is mainly irrefutable.

But it's not always so simple.

This is something that's intrigued me for a long while, and is a source of confusion, when dealing with others. Discussing the Palestine issue reminded me of it for the upteenth time.

I would appreciate any thoughts.

Thanks,

Tony

Any measurements you make have to be done with the ruler you have to hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

I take your point, Baal. But one ruler's in inches, the other's in centimetres. And a ruler can also deliver a stinging blow (recalling my Latin master).

It is a good analogy, related to the double standards that I am getting at.

Has it ever happened to you, that someone who's ethics are severely lacking, that you don't approve of - and I don't mean a Kantian, or religious believer here - presumes on your 'better nature', and tries to hoist you with your own petard (as the saying goes) ?

As in, "I knew that you'd be too good to do such-and-such, even if I would."

Tony

[Hazard]

Should I assess you by your own morality, or by my own, or by both?

You can assess someone however you want, the only thing that matters is wether your assessment is useful and serves its purpose. For example, I can measure my gas mileage however I want; but if I don't end up with useful information, I wont reach my destination before I run out of gas. Its all about practicality.

Conversely, should I allow you to judge me, by yours, mine , or both?

You have no control over how I or anyone other than yourself judges anything. You can't control others thoughts. That is a flawed question.

-Hazard

[Selene]

You can't control others thoughts.

Oh, my friend, you most certainly can.

Adam

[Christopher]

You always assess people by your own standards. Your own standards might include dedication and commitment, and these can be demonstrated by a Christian's commitment to following their own moral code.

[ValueChaser]

I take your point, Baal. But one ruler's in inches, the other's in centimetres. And a ruler can also deliver a stinging blow (recalling my Latin master).

It is a good analogy, related to the double standards that I am getting at.

Has it ever happened to you, that someone who's ethics are severely lacking, that you don't approve of - and I don't mean a Kantian, or religious believer here - presumes on your 'better nature', and tries to hoist you with your own petard (as the saying goes) ?

As in, "I knew that you'd be too good to do such-and-such, even if I would."

Tony

[ValueChaser]

As in, "I knew that you'd be too good to do such-and-such, even if I would."

Tony

Assessing a person by their standards is useful in determining whether there is an element of inconsistency or hypocrisy. You could help that person a great deal with your rational perspective assuming the inconsistency is not hypocrisy. You could resolve whether or not to deal with that person if the inconsistency is hypocrisy.

But first you would want to know whether the person is basically good or not in order to like or dislike in the first place, and only your own morality can do that. You can't start by evaluating the integrity of someone else without looking for whether a part or whole of them is good by your own standards; i.e., you can't begin a moral judgment solely on whether a person has integrity according to their school of thought. To do so would seem to be a form of "second-handedness" because the judgment of them lacks the independent evaluation of yourself, your looking at them critically according to whether someone other than them in their school would approve of them, removing yourself and your own standards of morality from the equation.

Never thought of this before.

So what is the Objectivist answer by the way?

--John

[anthony]

As in, "I knew that you'd be too good to do such-and-such, even if I would."

Tony

Assessing a person by their standards is useful in determining whether there is an element of inconsistency or hypocrisy. You could help that person a great deal with your rational perspective assuming the inconsistency is not hypocrisy. You could resolve whether or not to deal with that person if the inconsistency is hypocrisy.

But first you would want to know whether the person is basically good or not in order to like or dislike in the first place, and only your own morality can do that. You can't start by evaluating the integrity of someone else without looking for whether a part or whole of them is good by your own standards; i.e., you can't begin a moral judgment solely on whether a person has integrity according to their school of thought. To do so would seem to be a form of "second-handedness" because the judgment of them lacks the independent evaluation of yourself, your looking at them critically according to whether someone other than them in their school would approve of them, removing yourself and your own standards of morality from the equation.

Never thought of this before.

So what is the Objectivist answer by the way?

--John

John,

A very thoughtful reply.

In terms of fundamental correctness, Hazard supplied the Objectivist approach, I think. Because we are not altruists, the pure O'ist morality simplifies one's dealings with others to its essential efficacy - good for me, or not?

Moral relativity plays litle or no part, and this is right and true - as a starting point.

It is usually rather more complex than this, however.

Laying down the preconditions to interaction (as you have suggested) with an Other, adding a dash of "toleration" to the mix, and taking the time to see where he or she is 'coming from'; all this is more beneficial in the long run, I believe. (For you primarily, and for others, also.)

Individualism requires far higher attention and 'workrate', imo.

Thanks for improving the clarity of my thinking on this.

Tony

[tjohnson]

Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

Tom

Resident "old saying" expert

[Xray]

The whole question I have boils down to :

You say you are, or purport to be, a good Christian - for example. (Substitute: socialist, humanitarian,... etc.)

This already indicates the relativity of the word "good". There exists no objective 'good' out there since good is always connected to 'suited to purpose', and individual purposes vary.

Therefore a 'good' Christian is someone behaving according to the catalog of values and virtues propagated by the ideology.

Example of Mel Gibson's 'good' Catholic views:

When asked about the Catholic doctrine of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", Gibson replied, "There is no salvation for those outside the Church … I believe it. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. Honestly. She's, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it's just not fair if she doesn't make it, she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson

You can also read here at OL about another poster's 'good' islamist morality which implies stoning of people who have committed sexual transgressions going against the reigning alleged 'objective morality' code.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&st=80&p=87127entry87127

If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result.

Leaving 'good' or 'bad' to be determined with respect to the subjectively chosen end desired.

WhYNot: I know the Objectivist answer, and it is mainly irrefutable.

...

Because we are not altruists, the pure O'ist morality simplifies one's dealings with others to its essential efficacy - good for me, or not?

But what does the "good for me, or not" idea do to Rand's idea of "good or evil"?

For example, Rand called Kant "evil". Suppose a member of the Randian 'Collective' was of the opinion that Kant's moral philosophy was "good" for him/her, and had told Rand this, do you think she would have accepted the choice on the grounds that the pure Objectvist morality is essentially, "good for me, or not"?

Hazard:

You can't control others thoughts.

Selene: Oh, my friend, you most certainly can.

Adam

So you think you can? Would you give an example to illustrate it?

Edited February 5, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Hazard:

You can't control others thoughts.

Selene: Oh, my friend, you most certainly can.

Adam

So you think you can? Would you give an example to illustrate it?

Xray, we've been controlling your thoughts since you came here. Even though you know you are wrong, wrong, wrong you refuse to be right, right, right because we would laugh, laugh, laugh--so you fear.

--Brant

evil me

[anthony]

Xray,

Just to differentiate accurately, there is the 'good' of other moralities ie, being as faithful and non-contradictory as is possible to them - and the Good in Objectivism.

After it being a philosophy of Reason, Objectivism is one of rational egoism, as you know.

A rational egoist sees Good as what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man), and simultaneously, to him alone. ie, the former as a background, to the second.

To my mind, this is the foremost hierarchy in Ayn Rand's work -and one can't totally grasp her work without understanding hierarchy.

(This is my own take, and is not to be assumed as "gospel").

If you want to question my admittedly shorthand statement of O'ist morality being "good for me or not", and introduce the arbitrary, whimsical, and subjective - well that's your right.

I believe this is a hot topic on another thread.

What I'm trying to establish here is how 'best' to engage with other systems of ethics or Faith, and the complex double-standards that can arise.

Tony

[Xray]

Xray, we've been controlling your thoughts since you came here. Even though you know you are wrong, wrong, wrong you refuse to be right, right, right because we would laugh, laugh, laugh--so you fear.

--Brant

evil me

Hmm, Brant, let me give this a bit of thought: if was you who had been "controlling my thoughts", then it logically follows that you wanted me to write that there exist no objective values.

Oh, wait - I've got it! So you made me state what you don't dare to? What's the technical term - proxy?

Just kidding of course.

But kidding aside, Brant: I'm convinced you are a truth seeker, but one who always stops when it comes to taking the final step. Imo you feel that everything will collapse once you give up the idea of objective value, your fear of there being no beyond preventing you from experiencing that there IS a beyond.

You always assess people by your own standards. Your own standards might include dedication and commitment, and these can be demonstrated by a Christian's commitment to following their own moral code.

Which means that there can be no objective moral standard.

WN A rational egoist sees Good as what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man), and simultaneously, to him alone.

Can you give an example of Good what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man) and simultaneously, to him alone?

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

"If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result."

Same example you have used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Did I mention that you used that example?

Same example, used in the same fallacious manner, but applied to a different argument that you are ineptly trying to refute.

Same results.

You are boringly predictable.

Adam

not even worth wasting an icon

[9thdoctor]

Ms. Xray:

"If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result."

Same example you have used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I’m convinced that it’s pointless to start explaining things to Xray, but has anyone tried answering her that values are contextual? I’m sure it's been beaten to death.

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

"If a bucket of water is poured on a small fire, and the intent was to put out the fire to prevent it from burning subjectively valued items, the action is called 'good', i. e. suited to purpose.

If the intent was to cook with the fire and the water puts it out, the action is called 'bad' , i. e. not suited to purpose.

Same entities. Same action. Same end result."

Same example you have used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Did I mention that you used that example?

Same example, used in the same fallacious manner, but applied to a different argument that you are ineptly trying to refute.

Same results.

You are boringly predictable.

Adam

not even worth wasting an icon

Feel free to point out the fallaciousness and refute it if you can.

[anthony]

The inexorability of Ms Xray...I am almost starting to admire it ...

T.

[Selene]

The inexorability of Ms Xray...I am almost starting to admire it ...

T.

That is what therapy is for, when you start to admire a subjectivist empiricist government teacher who believes that they know best as to what your child should learn...

oh hell,...wouldn't that make an objective imposition of Ms. Xray's philosophy of teaching ze little chillen how to subjectively value?

Adam

very confused by all this objectivity or is it subjectivity ...see how confused I am

[anthony]

Medic! MEDIC!

Get this soldier to the field hospital pronto.

It's alright, my boy, your war's over. You're going home!

(Poor, brave lad. He held them off all by himself, y'know -- wave after wave of Panzers, with nothing but Molotovs. Shell shock; he might never recover. All for our beloved objective morality.)

[anthony]

Xray,

["Can you give me an example of Good what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man) and simultaneously, to him alone?]

I can give you a dozen examples. Though I must warn you that epistemology is not my strong suit, so I'll have to explain in my own terms, and bringing in my own words.

Let's take a concept called freedom. A man selects, observes and identifies this abstract notion - he studies it in history,in the affairs of other men, its worth to them, the repression that exists when it's lacking - he learns about it from all those works of philosophers, artists, historians and journalists.

He concludes that the concept is essential to the fulfilment and happiness of all men, past, living, and future.

He has 'Objectified' it, and found it to be Good, and he calls it a Value, Freedom.

The next process is the 'Individualization' of Freedom into his own life. He takes the general abstract of the concept, Freedom, and introduces the specific 'freedom' into the scale of his existence.

Everything, from his home life, to his work, to thoughts and actions day to day, becomes imbued with freedom. He readily grants it to others, he demands it for himself, in every sphere, personal and especially political.

All the while, unceasingly, his mind is relating back and forward, from the 'Universal Freedom' (as Value for Humankind), to his specific application of freedom for him alone. It stands as an objective truth, which integrates with others he has, to form his philosophy.

This is getting long-winded, so I'll finish with some other values, virtues and principles that one can do exactly the same Objectifying and Individualizing, with :-

Egoism, Honesty, Justice, Self-Esteem, Integrity, Purpose, Independence, Romantic Love, Volition, and so on, down to the lesser virtues like Benevolence and Tolerance.

I hope I communicated this well enough in my layman's manner:)

Tony

[tjohnson]

Xray,

["Can you give me an example of Good what is of value to all Men (by the Nature of Man) and simultaneously, to him alone?]

I can give you a dozen examples. Though I must warn you that epistemology is not my strong suit, so I'll have to explain in my own terms, and bringing in my own words.

Let's take a concept called freedom. A man selects, observes and identifies this abstract notion - he studies it in history,in the affairs of other men, its worth to them, the repression that exists when it's lacking - he learns about it from all those works of philosophers, artists, historians and journalists.

He concludes that the concept is essential to the fulfilment and happiness of all men, past, living, and future.

He has 'Objectified' it, and found it to be Good, and he calls it a Value, Freedom.

The next process is the 'Individualization' of Freedom into his own life. He takes the general abstract of the concept, Freedom, and introduces the specific 'freedom' into the scale of his existence.

Everything, from his home life, to his work, to thoughts and actions day to day, becomes imbued with freedom. He readily grants it to others, he demands it for himself, in every sphere, personal and especially political.

All the while, unceasingly, his mind is relating back and forward, from the 'Universal Freedom' (as Value for Humankind), to his specific application of freedom for him alone. It stands as an objective truth, which integrates with others he has, to form his philosophy.

This is getting long-winded, so I'll finish with some other values, virtues and principles that one can do exactly the same Objectifying and Individualizing, with :-

Egoism, Honesty, Justice, Self-Esteem, Integrity, Purpose, Independence, Romantic Love, Volition, and so on, down to the lesser virtues like Benevolence and Tolerance.

I hope I communicated this well enough in my layman's manner:)

Tony

Tony, I think the thing you are not addressing is that the words 'freedom, honesty, self-esteem, etc.' can mean many different things to many different people at many times. It is because of this that it's impossible to use them to build a linguistic structure to prescribe proper behaviour of all men. To do this we need to build a science of man, not a philosophy of man. Using these philosophical terms, which are so vague, will never work.

[anthony]

GS,

Are you saying that we haven't arrived yet at any consensus on the true meanings of these words, and therefore cannot yet establish any thing of value?

Scary thought. Kind of in the air, or in Dylan's words "like a complete unknown, with no direction home,"... B)

Tony

[Selene]

GS,

Are you saying that we haven't arrived yet at any consensus on the true meanings of these words, and therefore cannot yet establish any thing of value?

Scary thought. Kind of in the air, or in Dylan's words "like a complete unknown, with no direction home,"... B)

Tony

Tony:

GS, if I understand his position on general semantics as a philosophy/science is that millions have died for definitions. I believe that we can define the words quite clearly, but that is debatable and I could argue either side.

It is probably our curse as humans to be continually divided by a common semantic!

Or the Joan Baez song - allegedly about Bob Dylan...

"...you who are so good at words...

and at keeping things vague."

That complete verse:

"...now you're telling me you're not nostalgic then give me another word for it

you who are so good with words and at keeping things vague because I need some of that vagueness now

it's all come back too clearly yes I loved you dearly and if you're offering me diamonds and rust I've already paid."

Amazing voice - and I am not a Judas Priest fan, but ... video quality sucks

Adam

[Leonid]

Hi,Tony

Your question is based on the premise of moral relativism, something like this: " it may be good for you but not for me." Moral relativism represents an attempt to rewrite reality. It is a derivate of subjective or objective idealism, a philosophy which postulates primacy of consciousness. Its amount to the claim that moral is everything which I, or my God, or my community or my government decides to be moral, reality notwithstanding. That would mean a negation of any objective criteria for moral choice, that is-the standard of value which pertains to reality. In such a case the centuries' old problem how "OUGHT" could be derived from "IS" is irresolvable. However we both know that this problem has been successfully resolved.

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. (The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 17).

Therefore the premise of moral relativism is wrong.