tk

Adding premises doesn't change the correctness of a theorem T. At the most, you can prove that with the new premises, ~T holds true as well, in which you end up with the absurd situation where both T and ~T are true -- and it's time to apply reductio ad absurdum again.

Intuitively: You assert that (1) "only the individual can determine good or bad". But you also assert that (2) "violence is objectively bad, regardless of what the individual thinks" -- but doesn't this mean that there are some moral values that cannot be determined by the individual, contradicting (1)? Clearly, both premises cannot be absolutely true at the same time. One or both of them have to give way somehow.

On "subjective" and "intersubjective": there's a difference between "objective truth" and "objective morality". Believing in objective truth does not mean believing in objective morality. No connection between the two has been demonstrated, so there's no good reason to mix them together in discussion, and accuse non-Randists as being "subjectivists".

99Percent

No, I didn't say violence is objectively bad, I said a state of violence can be objectively recognized.
I agree that if there is a premise that contradicts another one in a reasoned explanation then the reasoning is flawed. But so far you have failed to find a true contradiction and instead you are resorting to misinterpretatons of what I am saying.

tk

OK, I'll retry in that case. Suppose violence is not bad. Then if your argument "only the individual can decide good or bad" holds, logic still says that I ought to murder people. In the end, it still follows that I ought to murder people.

For some reason you disagree with the conclusion, although you can't express it succintly in words. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "state of violence can be objectively recognized" sermon (though it probably did made "sense" to some person at some point in time). How does your argument impact in any way on the validity of the statement "I ought to murder people"?

I'll make a guess: you're trying to turn it into some sort of argument that violence is bad. More specifically, if I try to murder r, then r will necessarily react in ways contrary to "objective morality", and that's something that ought not happen. So I ought not to murder r.

But despite this, the original conclusion that I ought to murder r still holds! There's still a contradiction.

99Percent

Fine, but that is another topic altogether. I am assuming that morality can be debated but you are saying that morality cannot be prescribed only described. Your position for example states that you cannot say why murder is wrong, only that person X believes that murder is wrong.
Yes, the ethics on a particular situation depending on concrete empirical evidence present in such situation. But that is not what this thread is about. Its about arriving a particular set of ethics without any concretes but rather through rational and logical arguments.
I disagree - if there is no ultimate justification then there is no point in discussing morality. According to this position, simply stated, everyone has their own morality and discussion is only reserved to describing who has which morality, not whether any particular morality is generally valid but whether such a morality is valid in such particular situations.

That is why there is no point in discussing my argument for non-theistic objective morality with you because you are rejecting apriori any possibility that objective morality can even exist. The possible reasons why falls outside this thread and would be a good subject for another thread.

tk

Seeing that 99Percent still can't resolve the contradiction in Randism regarding murder, and seeing that he constantly lays claims to being a "skeptic"... I wonder: when was the last time 99Percent exercised skepticism on his own beliefs?

I ask this because so far 99Percent seems to be exercising skepticism over beliefs other than his own -- and even for these, he doesn't even bother to put together proper, logical arguments, instead just making sweeping statements and regurgitating the same stock phrases over and over again. This is the same kind of "skepticism" exhibited by cult members and purveyors of various kooky beliefs.

I'll briefly describe how I myself try to be skeptical. Whenever I get an idea which sounds good, I deliberately seek out contrary opinions, especially high-quality ones. The more I believe in an idea, the more I try to seek out high-quality opposing opinions. And indeed, I still doubt everything: I doubt the scientific method, I doubt evolution, I doubt logic itself. (As for why I still believe in these things, I can give some long-winded fluffy explanations if anyone wants.)

Back to the original topic: the contradictory conclusions that "I ought to murder retards" and "I ought not murder retards". The root of this contradiction lies in the two conflicting premises that "only the individual can determine good or evil" and "violence causes people to disobey objective morality, and is thus evil irrespective of what individuals think".

Conflicting premises such as these arise, when some folks don't like anyone else to tell them how to live their lives, while these same folks would like to tell everyone else how to live their lives. These people are simply generalizing both sides of their private desires onto the entire humanity (causing silly contradictions like this to arise).

(I imagine, when it comes to laws, these people would like the government to impose no laws on themselves, but impose the strictest laws on other people; when it comes to free speech, they would like to enjoy unfettered free speech while their opponents have the most stringent restrictions imposed on them; and so on.)

In the final count, this "Objectivism" fad is nothing more than a silly sort of hubris and self-centredness coated in sugar.

Stephen T-B

99Percent: that was a thought-provoking OP, and I am sure that provoking thought was your intention.
Here's my thought:
To which of these two scenarios can Objective Morality be applied:
I cross the street, kill my neighbour and eat him;
my neighbour and I are the sole survivors of an air crash which dumped us in an inhospitable and mountainous region where there’s nothing to eat; my neighbour suffered multiple injuries which we don’t have the means to treat and which are causing him agony, so to give him release I kill him, and because there’s no food, I eat him?

99Percent

tk: And I do the same. I seriously consider good counter arguments and I have found quite a few here at II. Unfortunately you OTOH haven't really looked deep into my arguments so consequently haven't offered so far a good counter argument and instead tried built some easy to knock down strawman or find silly superficial logical flaws.Yes, its good to doubt all, but its best to know why you are doubting things. So far I have seen you make the same mistakes over and over again like confusing reason with logic, science with philosophy.Which shows clearly you are not taking my argument seriously, only trying to find silly flaws. If you reason out a possible concrete example of a situation where you might murder a retard you will realize two facts right away:

1. The view that someone is a retard is entirely subjective. How do you objectively measure intelligence?
2. In the extreme cases that someone is a retard to the degree that he can't take care of himself there is usually someone of complete rational capacity that takes care of this retarded person. It might be a friend or a family member. If you went ahead and decided to murder this retarded person you will be going directly against the wishes of the guardian of this person thus willfully creating a state of violence.

I have thought out many possibilities, obviously not all of them, but enough to be fairly confident my theory of objective morality stands.No, and as I have said several times objective morality in order for it to be true, must be clearly understood why it is true, not just because someone dictates it to someone else. Its up to you to understand it or not, to accept it or not on rational grounds, not on dictates alone which would be like religion or dogma.Sad to see you have learned nothing. Its obvious you have made up your mind and no amount of discussion will change it. So much for healthy skepticism. I am mystified as to why you even bother.


Stephen T-BThanks You are being immoral.There is no morality involved since its a state of violence, your survival is at stake.

tk

99Percent engages in Special Pleading:

So what "good" counter arguments will cause you to rethink your opinion on Objectivism? When someone points out a blatant factual error, you say it is a "superficial logical flaw" (which makes me wonder, if it's "superficial", why's nobody fixing it?). When someone points out a philosophical error, you say that the other person hasn't "understood" Objectivism. And when someone like Nathaniel Branden comes along and writes what you think is a "good" counter argument, you just brush it aside. Is this skepticism? How different are you from the theists you often criticize?

A logical flaw is a logical flaw is a logical flaw. If a logical flaw is found, it must be fixed. For some flaws, you can easily fix it and turn the entire argument into a correct one. For some other flaws, you can't fix it without changing the entire argument. The flaws of Randism are of the second kind. Almost all of it rests on the erroneous premise that the world consists only of the Quintessentially Evil Communists as represented by WWII Soviet Union and the Quintessentially Good Capitalists as represented by WWII United States of America. Take out this premise, or change this premise to something else, and none of Rand's subsequent arguments will follow through.

Do you ever doubt that reason and logic are different, or science and philosophy are different? No.

When I say to doubt everything, I mean to doubt everything, even whether I should doubt everything. Clearly there are some things you've never doubted, even as you claim to be a skeptic.

(And why do I doubt everything? It's because of my personality.)

A flaw is a flaw is a flaw. If the flaw is silly, please supply a silly fix for the flaw.

But you are engaging in yet another circular argument. Even as you talk about "understanding" how "objective morality" is "true", you are assuming that

1. Randism is indeed true
2. Randism is equivalent to objective morality

In brief: Those who understand Randism will know it to be objectively true, because one can realize that Randism is objectively true only via understanding Randism.

To me it's very simple: How can anyone claim that a philosophy based on erroneous premises in the first place is objectively true? I don't care how "superficial" these errors are, they are errors, and they must be fixed before any discussion can go on.

99Percent

tk:How can you expect me to take your arguments seriously when you state that these "errors" are like this:

tk

It's all over Ayn Rand's writings. The false dichotomy of "Quintessentially Evil Altruism/Statism/Collectivism" vs. "Quintessentially Good Self-Interest/Capitalism/Individualism" is everywhere. There's no middle ground, says Rand. The choice is "clear-cut".

Then of course there's the "only the individual decides good and bad" and yet "violence yields objectively bad outcomes" argument: though it's a "silly" error, someone thinks it fit to repeat this "silly" error again and again. Not to mention the other "superficial" flaw that "humans know the truth when they see it" and "Objectivism is true" yet "humans don't believe Objectivism", which is also insisted on many times over.

Then again, I'm not surprised that you're not taking these arguments seriously, since you've never taken any argument seriously anyway -- not even when it's a "good" and "understanding" argument from Nathaniel Branden. It seems you'll only take an argument seriously when it's in praise of Objectivism. Prove this wrong.