Starboy

I don't know the answer to this question, but here is an extra data point.

People with zero testosterone appear to become completely objective, they also appear to loose all motiviation. They appear to have no inner life at all.

Starboy

Keith Russell

Greetings:

As an Objectivist, it is not 'reason' which gives me my objectivity. Reason allows me to apprehend reality, but it is reality that it revealed as objective. The fact that reason 'works' is based on the fact that reality is objective; that reality exists; that A is A.

Reality cannot be proved; it is the basis of proof. But, the fact that reason has the potential to provide proof, validates both reality and reason.

But, if reality were not first objective, reason would be useless.

As Ayn Rand said: metaphysics = Objective Reality.

Keith.

Agnos1

Someone on another thread asked me to define Amoralism. An Amoralist defines morality in the same way as an Atheist defines religion- illusory. That actions should not be guided by a sense of "right and wrong." That to do so is meaningless in much the same way as saying morality "comes from God." You guys are smart, maybe you can lend some perspective on the following dialogue between me (a "consequentialist" if you have to label me) and an "amoralist" who happens also to be atheist. I guess our central argument is whether morality is an objective "fabric of consciousness" (my view) and that its objectivity derives from the properties of consciousness itself, and through empathy permits intersubjectivity among humans and even other species.


Agnos: Here's where I lose you: If our actions can't be classified as right or wrong and to attempt to do so is "meaningless," then isn't it slightly intrusive and arrogant for us to hold someone responsible and even incarcerate that person for the consequences of mysterious actions that are beyond both his and our control?

Amoralist: Perhaps it is to a degree. That's what I am trying to say. I am not saying we do not have ANY justification for doing this to someone, but let's be clear of what the justification is. The justification is much more like "we are afraid of you and we are afraid you'll do this to us or our family, so we are going to exert our social power of majority and we are going to put you away where we won't be afraid of you anymore. No hard feelings, that is just the way it is". Let's face the criminal and ourselves and be honest. We don't care whether he had a real choice between right or wrong. We just have things that we will accept, and this behavior is something we don't accept. And in addition, we can continue to study behavior and motivators so we can understand what causes it. In this way we will develop new ways of dealing with them. People
burned what they thought were witches in Salem because they thought they were evil ... they never even stopped to question the situation, Agnos.

We don't need to hide behind the right or wrong judgement. Let's get to the root and be forward with our motivations. Punishment is punishment not for being wrong but for infringing upon our security along with our desire to protect it. And 'our' is a big 'our'. We have our way whether the person is guilty or not. Because we are afraid we'd be victims of our own system, we try to go with a standard that strives for evidence and proof ... to support such a thing as a socially ethical standard. Fear is quite a motivator, but
when all is said and done, the accused is ours to play God with. The majority is in control and it has rules to keep those things we fear suppressed. has nothing to do with right and wrong ... has to do with fear, preference, control, and other factors. The reality is, we punish the transgressors because we can't figure out what else to do to protect ourselves. We defy our foremost 'inalienable right' (ha ... ha ...) by removing freedom from those that we don't like, perhaps because they behave in a way that is dangerous to things we want (property, life, order). We give and we take away the rights based upon what behavior is acceptable to us ... that's it. You are a rational man. How can you not see this?

Agnos:If it's considered hilarious, as you said before, to think that someone would value their own grandmother or brotherover strangers, then according to your own scenario the choice of what is "right or wrong" is narrowed down considerably and should be even more perceivable to someone with your insight. Given that the most "good" is created by saving the most lives then it is obvious to this rational person that allowing one's brother to die with the certainty that many others will live is the right choice. Now the person may choose to spare his brother and feel emotionally better for it due to familial ties, but he should know he's done the
wrong thing in a moral sense.

Amoralist: I certainly didn't favor a side. The humor was in the fact that someone would see an inequality in the situation where there is not one. I am sorry to be irreverent, but this is (in my opinion) complete BS. You only come to your final conclusion because you possess an idealism that favors utilitarian value. How could you possibly support any idea of justice and freedom, then condemn one person for the sake of many?
Slavery is the same principle. Slaves suffer so that others can live more enriched lives. I am not saying this is what you actually support, but how can you not see that the justifications are every bit as easy to forward and essentially the same? There is no morally right answer and you know it. Your morally right contention depends solely upon a value system you selected. The 'greater good' idea is no more 'right' than the idea that one man is as valuable as any or all other men. I am not going to say that your selection is wrong .. I
am saying the contention that it holds any more inherent value than the contrary decision is inaccurate and invalid. It is not immoral to save your brother and kill a hundred others to save him and it is not immoral to kill your brother to save a hundred. There is no right answer and I guarantee that if there is someone sitting here reading this right now that would have made the opposite decision you would have made, they are starting to realize there is no right anser to the question. Your assuredness in opposition to their
opinion is strong for sure ... and their assuredness to the contrary is strong. Which one of you is right? Neither.

jlowder

1Time,

You are asking excellent questions about fundamental issues in moral philosophy. Although I will provide some quotations that may be helpful, I recommend you read an introductory text in moral philosophy. I would recommend you start with Louis Pojman's book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0534551815/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong</a>

See below for some answers to your questions:

This statement misses the point of moral objectivism. Moral objectivism is the view that moral principles can be true or false; moreover the truth or falsity of moral principles is not relative to individuals, societies, or cultures. As Pojman, p. 276 explains:

"Objectivism (or Ethical Objectivism) The view that moral principles have objective validity whether or not people recognize them as such; that is, moral rightness or wrongness does not depend on social approval, but on such independent considerations as whether the act or principle ameliorates human flourishing or ameliorates human suffering. Objectivism differs from absolutism in allowing that all or many of our principles are overridable in given situations."

Since objectivism is a meta-ethical view, as opposed to a normative view, there is no single answer to this question. There are many different objectivist ethical theories, and the answer to your question will vary according to theory.

No.

That isn't what objectivism is about. Whether there is only one principle or a set of principles, the point of objectivism is that the truth of those principles is not relative to individuals, societies, or cultures.

I have no idea what that question is supposed to mean, and therefore I don't know how to answer it.

By identifying the applicable moral principle(s) and determining what is morally required.

Objectivism is logically incompatible with nihilism. If moral objectivism is true, then nihilism must be false. If moral objectivism is true, then the moral consequences of our actions really do matter: some actions really are right while others are really wrong.

See above.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

Subjectivists claim that that the truth of moral principles are relative to individuals, society, or culture. Objectivists hold that the truth of moral principles are independent of what individuals, societies, or cultures think.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

This is question-begging against ethical objectivism. I have the 'opinion' that 2+2=4, but that does not deny the fact that the truth of 2+2=4 is independent of my opinion. Yes, objectivists have moral opinions. But the point of ethical objectivism is that the truth of ethical principles is independent of what individuals (objectivists and subjectivists alike) believe.

Longbow

No. If what you mean is that emotion is what indicates that a given moral proposition is true, then the answer is no.

What do you mean "escape nihilism"? If you mean how do escape the possibility that morality is irrelevant, then the answer is that you don't. But, that is beside the point. In fact, this is a criticism I have of many moral objectivists. They tend to make morality implicitly out to be the only consideration. The truth is, in my opinion, that morality is not all of practical philosophy let alone the only thing that one need consider in order to calculate their best course of action. Indeed, philosophy is not all there is when it comes to intellectual life or thought.

If you are asking how one "escapes" moral subjectivism, then not only is it probably a mistake to think of it as "escaping", but one arrives at moral objectivism through metaethical considerations. And specifically, if one thinks that morality is inherently tied to emotional reactions, one has a bigger problem with moral subjectivism than if they don't. So, I am not sure where this interpretation goes.

galiel

Please do not confuse the concept of being objective as a goal of rational thought, with Ayn Rand's irrational and dogmatic doctrine of "Objectivism". They are by no means the same thing.

99Percent

How can you be objective and irrational at the same time?

galiel

You can't. That is the whole point. Objectivitsm and objectivity are not the same thing. Calling Ayn Rand's dogma "Objectivism" is like calling creationism "Intelligent Design".