tk

Well, one step at a time...

This is what you said: "how can you tell that man has consciousness? Because he is rational, he can communicate, verbalize his consciousness and awareness in a meaningful way. He shows he has has free-will."

In fact, I see an even tighter circle here: Man is rational, because man is conscious, because man is rational.

Yes, indeed the "A is A because..." argument is circular. At the most, we can say that we define the "=" relation to be reflexive, as is done in mathematics.

But this isn't about "A = A", but about "A ought to be A". You're trying to turn a factual statement ("a clock is a time-keeping device") into a moral statement ("a clock ought to be a time-keeping device", where "ought" is meant in its moral sense, rather than in its factual sense).

Vacuous objection.

You're just restating your erroneous argument, not addressing my objection to it.

Maybe this is best described with an analogy. Is there any moral reason why you should keep yourself healthy? Do you need one? Actually you don't: once you're ill, you feel bad, and you personally don't like that, and that's enough cause for you to try to get well.

And this is about the same reason why people all over the globe, including you and I, try to search for truth. It's like a search for psychological health: it makes people feel good. And I intend to continue gaining knowledge, even if I have no moral obligation to do so. It's my life.

kctan

Hi Alonzo Fyfe,

Define your meaning of 'value'. Then prove that our life have this 'value'.

Alonzo Fyfe

Then pick a different term. The principle of logic remains. One cannot stipulate that it is true by definition that object O has property P. Such claims are a posterior, not a prior

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, this analogy does not work, because the word 'healthy' is a value-laden term. A value judgment is built into the very meaning of the word, so that nothing counts as 'healthy' unless it is something that it is worth pursuing. Any argument to the effect that 'health is good' or 'you should keep yourself healthy' is, thus, circular, since 'healthy' is defined as 'a state of moral or physical functioning that is good, and that one should keep oneself in.'

tk

You do have a point. (Though other more `objective' definitions of health are likely possible.)

I guess I should use a different analogy which doesn't contain implicit judgements: When we seek food and water, do we need any moral rationale to do so? No; we'll feel really bad without food and water, and that's enough cause for us to seek food and water. Why therefore should we need any moral rationale for our other actions?

As before, I intend to do whatever it is I intend to do, even if I'm not morally obliged to do it.

Alonzo Fyfe

I'm getting to that. I have a precise definition in mind that I think successfully bridges the is/ought gap -- though it makes no use of intrinsic values or claims that 'X is good' is some sort of primary, foundational fact that can be known only intuitively and not by proof.

But that is to come. I am taking this one step at a time.

This first step argues that:

'Ought' is supposed to have an influence on the movement of physical objects in the physical world (that is, on human action).

Either this influence on human action
(a) refers to some non-material ought-property that somehow interacts with the physical universe.
(b) does not exist and we should quit talking about it entirely
(c) refers to something in the physical world that can be investigated scientifically because of the effects it has on physical matter.

I reject (a) on the grounds of incomprehensibility, and will go on that the correct choice here is a mixture of (b) -- which is the fate of all claims about intrinsic values, and (c), which will turn out to be the case with respect to all extrinsic values.

Alonzo Fyfe

I would argue that either (1) a more 'objective' definition of health is not possible, or (2) a more 'objective' definition of health will lead to sensibile claims such as 'even though X is healthy, nobody has any reason at all to pursue it.'

One or the other, not both.

A state which is 'objectively' healthy which everybody has a reason to pursue, not by chance but by the 'objective' nature of that state, requires the existence of intrinsic values.


Ultimately, I am going to argue that this is a poorly formed question. You are arguing that a moral rationale is of a different type than the rationale for pursuing food and drink. I am going to argue that moral rationale is a rationale of the same type, but under specific operating conditions. There may be times in which one may be obligated to eat and drink, even when one is not hungry or thirsty.

But, this is an argument yet to come.

99Percent

tk:I fail to see the contradiction anyway. How do you propose you are conscious without being rational? How do you propose to be rational without being aware of it? All of it: consciousness, rationality, free will and morality go together. There is nothing circular about it. Its like claiming that I am being circular by saying that birds fly because they have wings which have feathers and wings are for flying because they have feathers therefore birds fly.
Again because you choose to ignore the argument as a whole to find it flaws. I already stated again and again that the ought is derived because of our ability to make conceptual knowledge that allows us to transmit value through meaningful communication, like the plenty of examples I have stated.I did address your objection. If you are going to discard reason as a valid way to gain knowledge then how do you propose to gain knowledge?Actually you are wrong yet again. There is no such thing as too much health. We would all like to always feel better because we are living beings striving for happiness and that is an objectively true fact.Knowledge is like health, there can never be too much knowledge. We would all like to know more because we are conscious-rational-moral beings striving for happiness and that is an objectively true fact.

99Percent

I don't quite follow you here. Please explain.

JERDOG

Hi Alonzo,
I have been meaning to respond to your Objectivist portion for awhile now and am just now finding the time to get to it. I saw you guys were talking about the, "is ought" situation, so I figured this would be a good place for me to post my critique of your view on Objectivism.


I would like to see a quote from Rand backing this assertion that it is a "character flaw."

Here is a quote from Rand on the issue. Emphasis added by me.

"My views on charity are simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN HELPING OTHER PEOPLE, if and when they are worth of the help and you can aford to help them. I reguard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the ides that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

Oh my dear friend. You have realy gotten everything wrong about selfishness. Or as it is properly put, �rational selfisness�, which you clearly "forgot" to define in your article which as all objectivist know is nothing like the traditional definition of selfishness that people assume when they hear that word.

An example of which your claim fails follows.

"When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal , selfish importance to you and your life. If you were selfless, it would mean that you derive no personal pleasure of happieness from the company and existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only byself-sacrificial pity for that persons need of you.I don't have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor accept, a concept of that kind.Love is not self sacrifce, by the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happieness that you need the person you love, that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

That is a quote from Ayn herself in the interview with PlayBoy.

If it spread missery and suffering then it would not be a system that advocated liberty.

My friend. If capitalism did this it would not be the fault of capitalism, but of its missuse. It requires thought, work and action.. If people suffered capitalism would not be to blame. But the defect in the chariteristics of the people not carring about it would be at fault.

That is like blamming the doctor that his treatment did not work. But what happened was not the fault of the doctors treatment, but the patients lack of followup exams and eating right that was ordered by the doctor.

Here is a question given to Rand on a simular situation and her response follows.

Gerald Goodman:
Miss Rand, then you would say that a person who was starving, and the only way he could acquire food was to take the food of a second party, then he would have no right, even though it meant his own life, to take the food.

Ayn Rand:
Not in normal circumstances, but that question sometimes is asked about emergency situations. For instance, supposing you are washed ashore after a shipwreck, and there is a locked house which is not yours, but you're starving and you might die the next moment, and there is food in this house, what is your moral behavior? I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article "The Ethics Of Emergencies" in _The Virtue Of Selfishness_ for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as "of right." You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts.

It seems to me that you have taken the �is ought� to extremes and �assumed� what Rand would advocate in emergency situations not allowing for common sense to be used.