Moral Certainty

[Dragonfly]

We must have standards you know.

Perhaps, but they're not objective.

[Selene]

We must have standards you know.

Perhaps, but they're not objective.

DG:

Well, I still keep pitching, hoping that you will swing.

I think I will need a trick pitch!

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I disagree. One's pursuit of happiness on a deserted island is an entirely individual affair. He is free to do whatever he pleases and so it makes no sense to talk about codes of conduct or whatnot. I don't really care if ethics was traditionally conceived this way or not, but I find it ill-conceived nevertheless.

Yup. It's the old equivocation of "good" in the sense of "efficient for the purpose" and "morally good".

Nope. Aristotle didn't make that error at all, and neither did future generations of Aristotelian ethicists.

A thief can be quite good and successful in his job and in his life, but most people wouldn't say that he's morally good.

No philosopher that I know of has ever said this.

A word like "evil" has no such ambiguity, it's clearly a term with a moral and not a utilitarian connotation.

Jeremy Bentham and a host of other defenders of utilitarianism would argue that morality arises from considerations of utility. That's why this major school of thought is called "utilitarianism," in case you didn't know.

It's however absurd to say that the man on the desert island is behaving in an evil way if he isn't an efficient survivor."

For once we agree. I don't think the term "evil" would apply a solitary individual either. But some other moral terms, such as "good" and "bad," would apply to a solitary individual, especially to his actions. (The distinction between moral terms as they apply to actions versus moral terms as they apply to persons is an important one in ethical theory. But given your buzz saw approach to philosophy, I don't think this subtle distinction would mean anything to you.)

That some moral systems want to infringe on the purely personal actions that don't concern anyone else is good reason to reject them forcefully.

Infringe? You have a very odd notion of ethical theory. A rational person on a desert island would use moral principles to guide and assess his own actions. He would obviously not care what others might think of his actions.

Such systems are not content with the role of a traffic cop in society, they're after your soul as well.

A traffic cop? That's the role of law, not of ethics per se.

Where the hell did you get these bizarre ideas? It certainly wasn't from reading moral philosophers.

That nice scene from Brian comes to mind: "You're all individuals!" "Yes we're all individuals!" "You're all different!". "Yes, we are all different!"

Another Python line comes to mind: You're making this up as you go along!

Ghs

[Christopher]

I think I might have spotted the confusion between ethics and applicability to individual versus social contexts.

Essentially it appears that morals and ethics pertain to judgments about persons. Judgments about the actions or behaviors of persons is necessarily interindividual except to the degree that we take a 3rd-person perspective and view ourselves.

Therefore, when we say something is moral or ethical, there is a deeper implicit perspective that we are judging in the context of others. Can morals exist on a desert island if there is no other consciousness (imagined or otherwise) that could observe our actions? Although Rand would argue morals do exist, I wonder whether human psychology would actually allow moral judgments to occur... would a man born on a desert island and prevented from anthropomorphizing actually be capable of moral judgments? Perhaps aspects of consciousness can judge other aspects of consciousness, but this is starting to feel sticky...

[anthony]

Well, where does Objectivist morality - if anywhere - extend to the realm of 'other people'? (I don't just mean the NIOF principle.) GS has made me think of this again.

I speak as someone who was quite shocked way back then by the concept that ethics should be self-orientated, NOT group related.

ie,: how one gains value and happiness (that "state of non-contradictory joy") for one's own sake; rather than: how do we all get along.

Startling, but liberating.

Anyway, my belief is that implicit in the bulk of Rand's work - eg "Man's life, as required by nature.."or, "a morality proper to Man".. etc.

- is her sense of universality. Which in turn, implies Respect.

Here you are, and there are all the others, all carrying the same identity. We are 'all in it together', but each is fundamentally alone,totally self-responsible. (Even those who don't fully recognize it.)

If this doesn't evolve into a deep sense of respect, accompanied by benevolence and good-will, for other people, then nothing will.

In fact, it's only via self-centered Objectivist morality imo, that Respect for others can ever be complete.

I do think that Ayn Rand could have been more explicit on this-but maybe I've missed it, or she assumed it was obvious.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

Some people get a lot of pleasure out of murder. They must be very moral.

Deep, really deep. Leave it to you to turn the exploration of a philosophical issue into a hit-and-run raid.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

(The following discussion is relevant to the ongoing discussion about the role of moral principles in human decisions and actions. It is excerpted from a much longer unpublished essay that I wrote around 15 years ago, so it starts in mid-stream. But it should be sufficiently clear. This passage doesn't deal with the "solitary individual" problem; it is much broader in scope and will set the foundation for remarks that I may want to make later on.)

...This distinction between physical alternatives and psychological options is essential if we are to understand a fundamental role of moral principles in decision-making. Most of our everyday choices involve pragmatic values, so we make them without consulting our moral principles. But the range of our pragmatic alternatives is extremely limited. We do not, because we cannot, weigh the pros and cons of every physical alternative when deciding upon a course of action, because the number of such alternatives is virtually unlimited. If we tried to take each possible alternative into account before deciding upon a course of action, we would spend a lifetime deliberating and never act at all.

When deciding how to act we select from a limited number of psychological options, not from an unlimited number of physical alternatives. Most physical alternatives are screened out in advance, leaving only a handful of options for serious consideration – and I suggest that our moral principles play a major role in this screening process. For example, most people who need to raise money do not regard bank robbery as one pragmatic option among others. It is not as if they undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bank robbery and then reject it for pragmatic reasons; rather, this alternative is screened out beforehand by their moral principles and so is prevented from entering into their pragmatic deliberations. Bank robbery, though a physical alternative, is not a psychological option for most people.

Every action involves a choice, and every choice is driven by a value preference. Given the number of choices we must make every day, our lives would be horrendously unmanageable if we had to assess every possible course of action on its own merits, without the assistance of general principles. These general principles, or norms, delimit our range of options in typical situations. Thus, rather than having to choose from a vast number of physical alternatives, norms enable us to focus on a manageable number of realistic options. When these norms embody our fundamental values – when they state, for example, that we should exclude violence as a legitimate option in typical social relationships -- then we are dealing with moral norms. Moral decisions reflect our basic values, and moral norms determine the nature and range of feasible options.

Norms in this sense do not necessarily determine specifically how we should act; they do not prescribe one option, a, to the exclusion of all other (physical) possibilities (b, c, d...z.) Rather, moral norms determine the parameters of legitimate options in typical situations. They specify, not that option a is mandatory, but that among all possible options (a through z) only a certain number (a, b, c) should be seriously considered by the acting agent. Norms allow us to isolate a manageable number of pragmatic options, any one of which may be appropriate, from a vast array of physical alternatives.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Well, where does Objectivist morality - if anywhere - extend to the realm of 'other people'? (I don't just mean the NIOF principle.) GS has made me think of this again.

I speak as someone who was quite shocked way back then by the concept that ethics should be self-orientated, NOT group related.

ie,: how one gains value and happiness (that "state of non-contradictory joy") for one's own sake; rather than: how do we all get along.

Startling, but liberating.

Anyway, my belief is that implicit in the bulk of Rand's work - eg "Man's life, as required by nature.."or, "a morality proper to Man".. etc.

- is her sense of universality. Which in turn, implies Respect.

Here you are, and there are all the others, all carrying the same identity. We are 'all in it together', but each is fundamentally alone,totally self-responsible. (Even those who don't fully recognize it.)

If this doesn't evolve into a deep sense of respect, accompanied by benevolence and good-will, for other people, then nothing will.

In fact, it's only via self-centered Objectivist morality imo, that Respect for others can ever be complete.

I do think that Ayn Rand could have been more explicit on this-but maybe I've missed it, or she assumed it was obvious.

Tony

The challenge is to try to separate what feels right to you and how her work might resonate with you because of this and the inherent "correctness" of her position.

In other words, I find Rand, for the most part, has logically consistent views and derivations and this more or less applies to her ethical ideas, but there's a danger in that. The problem is that her premises are often dead wrong.

Just shift from the plausible sounding "life (qua man) as the standard of value" to the more correct position that the nature of man includes the ability to choose and sometimes to change his standard of value. Big difference now. A man can choose to live life by another standard entirely, or a slightly different one (death is not the alternative contrary to Rand). This is why she has to jump through all kinds of nonsensical jibberish for her "emergency situations".

If you share her premises then you will probably come to the same conclusions, but I for one don't share her premises, and some of them are objectively wrong.

Bob

[9thdoctor]

Maybe you need to get another map -- one that comes with instructions on how to use it.

B-b-but, “The map is not the territory”…Thus Scraped Korzybski on the front of that concrete bound collectors edition of Science and Sanity GHS is sending GS. The thing must weigh a ton, I bet the postage was murder. And to Canada no less.

[tjohnson]

I think I might have spotted the confusion between ethics and applicability to individual versus social contexts.

Essentially it appears that morals and ethics pertain to judgments about persons. Judgments about the actions or behaviors of persons is necessarily interindividual except to the degree that we take a 3rd-person perspective and view ourselves.

Therefore, when we say something is moral or ethical, there is a deeper implicit perspective that we are judging in the context of others. Can morals exist on a desert island if there is no other consciousness (imagined or otherwise) that could observe our actions? Although Rand would argue morals do exist, I wonder whether human psychology would actually allow moral judgments to occur... would a man born on a desert island and prevented from anthropomorphizing actually be capable of moral judgments? Perhaps aspects of consciousness can judge other aspects of consciousness, but this is starting to feel sticky...

Good points. Obviously a man on a deserted island is going to use some sort of thinking process to decide what to do day in and day out. I would like to know how a morality or ethics might fit in to this. I am assuming he doesn't have morals about eating animals or because that's one code of conduct that would seriously reduce his chance of survival. Rand said he would need morality more than ever on a deserted island and I just can't think of any morals that would increase his chances of survival.

[ginny]

My situation may not be a deserted island, but there are similarities. Since losing my job, I've been writing. I MUST write to get an income. That's pretty solitary. Every single day I have to make the decision whether to write, whether to goof off, whether to do other things. If morals means doing to right thing (I guess ethics does, too), it's something that has to guide me each day, much more so than if I were in an office and doing what the boss tells me to. There might be something to this morals on a deserted island thing.

[tjohnson]

My situation may not be a deserted island, but there are similarities. Since losing my job, I've been writing. I MUST write to get an income. That's pretty solitary. Every single day I have to make the decision whether to write, whether to goof off, whether to do other things. If morals means doing to right thing (I guess ethics does, too), it's something that has to guide me each day, much more so than if I were in an office and doing what the boss tells me to. There might be something to this morals on a deserted island thing.

I while ago I posted about the possibility of psychological problems facing the solitary individual but this is not what I think of when I hear the words 'morality' and 'ethics'. I have a feeling that Rand was referring to something like 'resolve' or 'morale' (hey that's interesting - one definitely would need their morale more than ever on a deserted island).

[Christopher]

I think I might have spotted the confusion between ethics and applicability to individual versus social contexts.

Essentially it appears that morals and ethics pertain to judgments about persons. Judgments about the actions or behaviors of persons is necessarily interindividual except to the degree that we take a 3rd-person perspective and view ourselves.

Good points. Obviously a man on a deserted island is going to use some sort of thinking process to decide what to do day in and day out. I would like to know how a morality or ethics might fit in to this. I am assuming he doesn't have morals about eating animals or because that's one code of conduct that would seriously reduce his chance of survival. Rand said he would need morality more than ever on a deserted island and I just can't think of any morals that would increase his chances of survival.

I think we tried to define what exactly constitutes "moral" from a psychological perspective on another thread, and we had a rough time. It is easy to arbitrarily assert "XYZ is morality," but morality as such has intrinsic qualities and meanings to the human psyche which are not so clear. Much literature on morality has aimed to capture morality as a specific set of emotional experiences, while other literature writes that morality derives from cognitive beliefs. Both are true to some degree, but it's not clear what makes the experience of specific emotions or cognitions moral. Even Rand's moral convictions are deeply infused with some meaningful experience to her (as they should be).

Rand's assertion that morality is more than ever required on a desert island is absolutely consistent with her beliefs, and I'm in agreement with her statement. On the flip side, I'm also trained in a social world with social interactions, social lessons, and a "social experience" awareness - regardless of whether I'm alone or not. I think it's a good, though very difficult question, to wonder whether morality as a psychological experience can exist apart from social experience. If not, then man brings society with him to the desert island (much as he brings the voice of religion, the voice of his parents, and all other related lessons), and in this way the moral experience is sustained.

However GS, I personally think that morals are (biologically-motivated) psychological rules aimed to protect the integrity and survival of man's mind. Therefore, it is my personal belief that morality exists with or without social context. In other words, I pin morality not to man as a social animal but to man as a thinking and volitional animal. I could be dropping the context of psychological evolution, but I just don't have enough freakin' evidence to make a different conclusion

[Selene]

Interesting Chris:

However GS, I personally think that morals are (biologically-motivated) psychological rules aimed to protect the integrity and survival of man's mind. Therefore, it is my personal belief that morality exists with or without social context. In other words, I pin morality not to man as a social animal but to man as a thinking and volitional animal. I could be dropping the context of psychological evolution, but I just don't have enough freakin' evidence to make a different conclusion

This makes sense to me. The highlighted blue section means__________, as you are using it?

Adam

[Christopher]

Interesting Chris:

However GS, I personally think that morals are (biologically-motivated) psychological rules aimed to protect the integrity and survival of man's mind. Therefore, it is my personal belief that morality exists with or without social context. In other words, I pin morality not to man as a social animal but to man as a thinking and volitional animal. I could be dropping the context of psychological evolution, but I just don't have enough freakin' evidence to make a different conclusion

This makes sense to me. The highlighted blue section means__________, as you are using it?

Adam

It means that we must base the existence of any psychological phenomenon within the context of evolution. Emotions help survival. Thinking helps survival. Hunger helps survival. Morals...

Since there is at least limited consensus that morality exists in man but not lesser animals, it seems that morality must be a survival mechanism for something unique to man, and I can only think that this means a healthy and operational volitional mind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In my experience, there are usually a few pro-Randian science wonks on a neo-Objectivist list like this -- people who could defend my position in greater detail than I have either the knowledge or inclination to do. They should be debating this subject, not I. So where the hell are they?

George,

They're around. Probably a bit tired of repeating the same things and dodging the same Rand-rhetoric while trying to discuss and/or understand important ideas.

Once you know that a person's core premise when discussing, say, QM or is-ought, etc., is to debunk Rand (or Objectivists), of conversely defend her, not get to the heart of a truth, it gets boring.

That goes for the same game played over people that replace Rand as gods or demons (Dennett, Popper, etc.).

Still, the people you are debating are very intelligent and even interesting once they get away from scratching that itch. And they're good people. I have learned a lot from them.

Another point, OL is full of aspies. That makes from some really cool out-of-the-box takes on things at times. Misfires, too. And the social cues are all over the friggin place...

What's worse, something inside me likes this...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Once you know that a person's core premise when discussing, say, QM or is-ought, etc., is to debunk Rand (or Objectivists), of conversely defend her, not get to the heart of a truth, it gets boring.

I have no problem with people who disagree with Rand; I have many disagreements myself. But I do have a problem with people who don't seem to have read her, or at least not very carefully, but who still dismiss her ideas with an air of contempt, as if they don't even merit serious consideration.

I don't mean to apply this to anyone on OL, but in my experience people who don't like Rand -- especially those with some background in philosophy -- sometimes join Objectivist-oriented lists because they expect to find easy pickings. That can be a serious miscalculation.

Some years ago I was very active on a high-powered Christian elist, one that had a number of professional theologians and seminary students. I stated my views and my background upfront, and I made it clear that it wasn't my intention to show anyone up. I also stated that no one should expect to convert me, just as I didn't expect to deconvert anyone else, so there was no point in going down that road. My primary purpose was to find out why Christians believe what they do and how they deal with doubts about their religion that inevitably arise from time to time.

What gave me credibility is that when a particular theologian came up -- this was a Calvinist list, so Augustine, Calvin, and Pascal came up frequently -- it quickly became evident that I was as familiar with their ideas as almost anyone else on the list. A few people expressed surprise that an atheist had actually read Augustine's City of God , Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and Pascal's Pensees (as well as other works by all three writers).

I replied, first, that I wouldn't presume to reject the ideas of major thinkers without an accurate understanding of what their ideas were; and, second, that I found Augustine, Calvin, and Pascal interesting writers, and, however much I disagreed with them, I could understand why intelligent people would be drawn to their ideas. This attitude gave me some creds when I suggested that Christians should read atheist writers with the same sense of curiosity and fairness.

I remained active on that list for around a year, and some productive exchanges came out of it. Moreover, I engaged in some offlist correspondence with a few people who were far more candid than they dared to be in public.

I later used some of the information for the discussion of "doubt" that I included in Why Atheism?

Ghs

[Xray]

My situation may not be a deserted island, but there are similarities. Since losing my job, I've been writing. I MUST write to get an income. That's pretty solitary. Every single day I have to make the decision whether to write, whether to goof off, whether to do other things. If morals means doing to right thing (I guess ethics does, too), it's something that has to guide me each day, much more so than if I were in an office and doing what the boss tells me to. There might be something to this morals on a deserted island thing.

Ginny, I don't think the situation of a freelance writer can be compared with the deserted island situation because the writer has communication to the human world around him/her, both in private and via the articles sent in, the contact with editors, publishers, etc.

Also, on a deserted island, there exists no welfare system kicking in to prevent those from starving who (for whatever reason) don't work for their living, get sick etc.

So on the deserted island, it is only the individual confronted with nature.

Imo the examples Ayn Rand provides of alleged "immoral" behavior on a deserted island are not convincing.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico...n/morality.html

They are not examples of immorality, but of thinking errors (like mistaking sand for clothing), they are misjudgements of reality. Believing that food will drop into one's mouth on a deserted island "without cause or effort" indicatess mental impairment, not immorality.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

George:

Exactly correct. I was reading Message to a Black Man by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, Messenger of Allah, while I was waiting for a meeting to form at a large corporation. I was one of the folks who were leading the meeting. Ninety percent of the meeting was composed of whitest Caucasians you could ever wish to see assembled.

A Jamaican Administrative nurse walked by and stopped. She gave me that look, my eyes twinkled and gave her permission to say, in her Island dialect..."Boy, what you readen dat book for?" We spoke for a few minutes, we had dinner that night and we became great co-workers on several projects and are still fast friends today. She is objectivist friendly today.

I have never understood the big "O"bjectivists inability to network.

Some years ago I was very active on a high-powered Christian elist, one that had a number of professional theologians and seminary students. I stated my views and my background upfront, and I made it clear that it wasn't my intention to show anyone up. I also stated that no one should expect to convert me, just as I didn't expect to deconvert anyone else, so there was no point in going down that road. My primary purpose was to find out why Christians believe what they do and how they deal with doubts about their religion that inevitably arise from time to time.

What gave me credibility is that when a particular theologian came up -- this was a Calvinist list, so Augustine, Calvin, and Pascal came up frequently -- it quickly became evident that I was as familiar with their ideas as almost anyone else on the list. A few people expressed surprise that an atheist had actually read Augustine's City of God , Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, and Pascal's Pensees (as well as other works by all three writers).

I replied, first, that I wouldn't presume to reject the ideas of major thinkers without an accurate understanding of what their ideas were; and, second, that I found Augustine, Calvin, and Pascal interesting writers, and, however much I disagreed with them, I could understand why intelligent people would be drawn to their ideas. This attitude gave me some creds when I suggested that Christians should read atheist writers with the same sense of curiosity and fairness.

I remained active on that list for around a year, and some productive exchanges came out of it. Moreover, I engaged in some offlist correspondence with a few people who were far more candid than they dared to be in public.

Nice testimonial.

Adam

Edited March 2, 2010 by Selene

[tjohnson]

I think we tried to define what exactly constitutes "moral" from a psychological perspective on another thread, and we had a rough time. It is easy to arbitrarily assert "XYZ is morality," but morality as such has intrinsic qualities and meanings to the human psyche which are not so clear. Much literature on morality has aimed to capture morality as a specific set of emotional experiences, while other literature writes that morality derives from cognitive beliefs. Both are true to some degree, but it's not clear what makes the experience of specific emotions or cognitions moral. Even Rand's moral convictions are deeply infused with some meaningful experience to her (as they should be).

Rand's assertion that morality is more than ever required on a desert island is absolutely consistent with her beliefs, and I'm in agreement with her statement. On the flip side, I'm also trained in a social world with social interactions, social lessons, and a "social experience" awareness - regardless of whether I'm alone or not. I think it's a good, though very difficult question, to wonder whether morality as a psychological experience can exist apart from social experience. If not, then man brings society with him to the desert island (much as he brings the voice of religion, the voice of his parents, and all other related lessons), and in this way the moral experience is sustained.

However GS, I personally think that morals are (biologically-motivated) psychological rules aimed to protect the integrity and survival of man's mind. Therefore, it is my personal belief that morality exists with or without social context. In other words, I pin morality not to man as a social animal but to man as a thinking and volitional animal. I could be dropping the context of psychological evolution, but I just don't have enough freakin' evidence to make a different conclusion

i was thinking today about Lord of the Flies. This is not the same scenario as a single person on a deserted island but I think it has some similarities. The group of boys started out with good manners and social skills etc. but then they degenerated into animalistic behaviour - which definitely has something to do with ethics and morals. I suppose an individual could do the same, become animalistic, but without anyone else there what difference would it make? In a way you might have to do that in order to survive so I guess I'm not getting it

[Xray]

According to Rand, "The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of attaining happiness."

But isn't this "proper" code based on the false premise that all people will feel happy about the same things?

For example, what will make a bullfighter "happy" will make an animal rights activist unhappy and feel outraged.

So there can't exist a "proper code of values" with which both will identify.

Selene:

We must have standards you know.

DF: Perhaps, but they're not objective.

Indeed they aren't. For instance, a bullfighter's standard of ethical value is diametrically opposed to that of an animal rights activist.

GHS: Even when it comes to some basic issues, I have some fairly substantial disagreements with Rand. For example, I don't care for her definition of value ("that which one acts to gain and/or keep"), and I care even less for her definition of virtue ("the act by which one acts to gain and/or keep" a value).

I'll repeat the questions I asked you about this in a past post:

- What precisely are your disagreements with Rand on these issues?

- Why precisely don't you care for her definition of "value" and "virtue"?

TIA for elaborating.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Xray

[Christopher]

i was thinking today about Lord of the Flies. This is not the same scenario as a single person on a deserted island but I think it has some similarities. The group of boys started out with good manners and social skills etc. but then they degenerated into animalistic behaviour - which definitely has something to do with ethics and morals. I suppose an individual could do the same, become animalistic, but without anyone else there what difference would it make? In a way you might have to do that in order to survive so I guess I'm not getting it

Cool example. The way I read it, the psychology of the boys changed from "good-mannered and social" to "animalistic." Given my perspective on morality, I would say the loss of morality equated to a loss of a certain type of cognitive functioning... a "degeneration."

It's not just that their behavior degenerated in terms of social standards, it is that their behavior degenerated in terms of any mental or egoic personal standards.

[jriggenbach]

I guess I'm not getting it

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS!

Helpfully,

JR

[Brant Gaede]

I guess I'm not getting it

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS!

Helpfully

Ah, more sarcasm per word than anyone else on the Internet.

I don't think morality is necessarily the issue here (desert island), as opposed to sheer survival. But socially, what is the morality of looting a supermarket to get food after an earthquake and your baby is starving? Or, is it immoral not to have some food in your home to tide you over in such a disaster and therefore also immoral to loot to compensate for not taking earlier precautions? Or, or. These "ethics of emergencies" go on forever. But as the difference between Haiti and Chili show it can be very costly to be poor. These ethics have little directly to do with the pursuit of happiness except one is threatened with the impossibility of that. This can be especially true if one doesn't take proactive responsibility for one's life.

Human relationships are delineated by various types of force: physical, economic, ideas, moral, etc. in various combinations. On a desert island the morality is implicit, not governing. You need character to make it (you) go. If X is wanted then Y is needed. Maybe A, B, and C too. When someone else elsewhere states you need a certain type of morality, he's probably trying to control you to his benefit if not yours. Qua nature, it's the force you can come up with against its indifferent force. In a free society you are free to deal with that as opposed to dealing with what others would try to take from you, but nature has no morality, it is morally a brick wall. If you want to live then the moral (correct) thing to do is not to bash your head against it because of indifference, lack of focus and you're too busy drinking that whiskey that washed ashore with you.

--Brant

morality directs, morality controls and moral certainty is how certain are you?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[psychoanaleesis]

I guess I'm not getting it

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS!

Helpfully,

JR

Wait, he's not even sure that he's getting it... but, if it floats your boat GS, just make sure to get some long-term sealant instead of those corks. Lol.

How about that movie Castaway with Hanks? Sure, it has its moments of absurdities but he applied his knowledge with morality and thus he had a fighting chance of surviving and eventually returning home. I don't recommend Lord of the Flies if we're using Rand's philosophy as well as theories in human development as children are still acquiring knowledge and what they have are just basics of the world around them (although in the book it is amazing that they were able to survive for that long).

Let me point it out using Rand's examples as posted by Xray:

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico...n/morality.html

Morality works like

Rock (a piece?) suitable living quarters - Yes or No?

Sand as suitable bodily protection from elements - Yes or No?

Fruits (still fresh and clinging) fall from tree by itself - Yes or No?

Harvest tomorrow without planting seeds (for reason of proximity and ease) - Yes or No?

Morality lies in the "Either-Or" i.e. the choice. The number of these "either-or" situations can be extended to an infinite depending on the capacity of that individual but learn that every man has the choice, no matter what his level of intelligence is. However, a man can choose to switch this off as well but he better get ready for the consequence as it is very difficult to switch it back on again especially if this dependency becomes a habit.

When a man is indolent, he becomes dependent on other men to guide him while in reality, he is but a fool who thinks "they will always be there for me". No one can make claim that he will always be by your side, so better rely on your independent judgment. The fine line you see by using your reason to discriminate what's good and bad for you will be the one to determine how long you will live without having anyone to rely on.

There is an old folk tale here about this lazy bastard who waited for a fruit to fall in his mouth instead of picking it. He waited and of course it did fall down because of gravity. However, the fruit it turns out is starting to rot (or is already rotten) and is infested with maggots. *I think he'll die of typhoid soon enough...

The morale of the story: You get exactly what you deserve. You reap what you sow. You cannot escape the laws identity and causality.

Edited March 3, 2010 by David Lee