tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6776010661218632695..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand's Style of Argument 2: EthicsDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-59633260079451616152007-12-15T02:03:00.000-08:002007-12-15T02:03:00.000-08:00The stlye of argument of the Objectivists leaves a...The stlye of argument of the Objectivists leaves a lot to be desired to. At least over here in the UK. I was told by them that Objectivism was growing year on year. But when I told them that even if Objectivism grow by 10 000 per week and the population stayed stable it would take until the year 10 000 till everyone was an Objectivist, they changed tack and told me the UK was doomed to fascism.<BR/><BR/>Why do they make such silly statements that are obviously false?<BR/><BR/>When pressed on a time line for fascism in the UK all they could come up with was that the UK was turning into a fascist state because, wait for it, police could issue on the post fines for speeding. Yeah, that's fascism eh? Even though you can challenge the fine and that on the spot fines might free up the courts time to prosecute some real criminals. Gosh, statements like that make them come across as loony left wing studenty types. Man that pig is a fascist, he gave me a ticket for speeding!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5699192657674329992007-12-06T21:11:00.000-08:002007-12-06T21:11:00.000-08:00Jay; “I believe that preserving one's integrity is...Jay; “I believe that preserving one's integrity is a virtue that can be validated by facts as well.”<BR/><BR/>One can use the facts to validate several conclusions, but “validation” is beside the point. The issue is ‘necessary connection’, a logically binding argument where the premises is a fact and the conclusion a value. <BR/><BR/>As far as I am aware, nobody has come up with such an argument.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08341140836583129342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13280211834140966072007-12-06T05:49:00.000-08:002007-12-06T05:49:00.000-08:00Michael Huemer takes Rand's ethical argument apart...Michael Huemer takes Rand's ethical argument apart: http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm<BR/><BR/>And excellent analysis and critique, IMO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90520896241737610922007-12-05T14:38:00.000-08:002007-12-05T14:38:00.000-08:00Jay,My guess is that the claim that values are sub...Jay,<BR/><BR/>My guess is that the claim that values are subjective comes from logical positivism (the idea the value statements are only emotive) and cultural relatavism.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25898263813785487862007-12-05T06:03:00.000-08:002007-12-05T06:03:00.000-08:00Brendan,I believe that preserving one's integrity ...Brendan,<BR/><BR/>I believe that preserving one's integrity is a virtue that can be validated by facts as well. This topic needs a bit more elaboration than I can do on a comment. Maybe a blog post is in order.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, I myself am not troubled by is/ought one bit in my daily life. I know roughly what I need to do in various situations and, as a being with freewill, am free to choose how to carry them out.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19824120289231593902007-12-05T00:35:00.000-08:002007-12-05T00:35:00.000-08:00Daniel wrote:...as an interesting sidelight, legen...Daniel wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>...as an interesting sidelight, legend has it Rand was going to call Objectivism "existentialism"...</I><BR/><BR/>'Tisn't "legend": it's Nathaniel's report, but where did he report it...? I think in his memoir...<BR/><BR/>E-Ellen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11621620628856904692007-12-05T00:00:00.000-08:002007-12-05T00:00:00.000-08:00Jay: “…but she can tell him that he must quit, or ...Jay: “…but she can tell him that he must quit, or out the boss, or do something that preserves his integrity.”<BR/><BR/>There’s no “must” about it. The employee may comply with his employer’s demands or he may quit. The fact – the request to sign false invoices – does not logically imply that any particular action ought to be taken. <BR/><BR/>The “ought” only comes into the equation if the employee wishes to “preserve his integrity”, that is, subsequent to a value judgement regarding the situation. But in that case no facts are being derived from values; rather, values are being derived from other values.Brendanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08341140836583129342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65725724602306580302007-12-04T23:30:00.000-08:002007-12-04T23:30:00.000-08:00Ian:>The "in principle" emphasis does nothing for ...Ian:<BR/>>The "in principle" emphasis does nothing for me.<BR/><BR/>Me neither. It just moves the problem back a step: why should we <I>decide</I> to adopt this principle? The answer is that there is no logical way to do this without smuggling in extra premises.<BR/><BR/>As to "survival" - There are plenty of examples of frauds - for obviously not all dishonesties are illegal - that have hugely benefitted the survival of the fraudulent individual, and plenty of examples of the honest man paying a high price, even his life, for his virtue.<BR/><BR/>To get around this Rand equivocates between this initial straight "survival" premise in her "Ethics" essay and her "survival as man qua man" premise, which she introduces later in the essay without batting an eyelash. This "man qua man" thing makes everything completely vague once more, and allows her to condemn the obvious "prudent predator" objections to her first premise. I agree we could also take "man qua man" to have a kind of "existential" bent as Ian suggests, but I think "man qua man" ultimately means being an Objectivist.<BR/><BR/>I've mentioned this before, but as an interesting sidelight, legend has it Rand was going to call Objectivism "existentialism" but it was already taken...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63247676998196826872007-12-04T22:41:00.000-08:002007-12-04T22:41:00.000-08:00Anon,That is why in the very next sentence I added...Anon,<BR/><BR/>That is why in the very next sentence I added "She would make a persuasive case for an honest, successful career." I should have clarified. In my mind, that encompassed the virtue of honest work as against the vice of fraud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-59920752356103902392007-12-04T22:22:00.000-08:002007-12-04T22:22:00.000-08:00I doubt Rand would've called the values "desire sa...<I>I doubt Rand would've called the values "desire satisfaction." After all, some people desire to shoot black tar heroin or rape people. Rand believed that her ethical virtues stood in an objective, all-things-considered position of value to a person's life.</I><BR/><BR/>This is true. I used "desire-satisfaction" to express the idea in a way that wasn't rooted in Objectivist rhetoric. Rand was certainly opposed to hedonism, as do-what-you-feel pleasures tend to come at the expense of long-term values. (Or at least that's how I understand it. The lexicon damns hedonism for being subjective and irrational. That rationale, I think, is unconvincing. If rationality is both the means-to and criterion-of value, you've got a circular argument.)<BR/><BR/><I>What Rand can tell this person, on the basis of facts, is that working for someone so dishonest will only jeopardize your future prospects. How? By pointing to countless examples of corporate fraud gone wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>No, she'd argue that the dishonesty was existentially immoral. The countless examples of corporate fraud gone wrong would be validation that it's immoral -- not the reason. That's one of the problems I have with Objectivist ethics: Either the facts verify the universality of the ethics, or they will.. in the future... when society collapses. It's a self-sealing argument.<BR/><BR/>If this person kept with his job because (a) prosecution is unlikely, and (b) the supplier's personal happiness is unlikely to be affected by a business matter, and (c) the company will eventually implement more stringent invoice standards... Objectivism would damn him as a pragmatist <I>even if he was right</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>That is what I mean when I say, she solved is/ought "in principle."</I><BR/><BR/>Eh, I tend to agree with Mr. Barnes. Rand didn't solve the is/ought problem; she circumvented it. The "in principle" emphasis does nothing for me. Nothing!<BR/><BR/>-- Ian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-77306753944393878192007-12-04T18:21:00.000-08:002007-12-04T18:21:00.000-08:00To elaborate a bit.An employee of a large company ...To elaborate a bit.<BR/><BR/>An employee of a large company is asked to sign false invoices and mislead suppliers. Now, Ayn Rand (nor any other philosopher) can tell this employee "You need to quit at 2:05PM this afternoon and write these words in your resignation letter with black ink and slide it under the boss's door in a manila envelope." Any specific actions would be subjective. <BR/><BR/>What Rand <B>can</B> tell this person, on the basis of facts, is that working for someone so dishonest will only jeopardize your future prospects. How? By pointing to countless examples of corporate fraud gone wrong. By making a persuasive case for an honest career. No one could come in and rebuke this with a rational argument for fraud and deception. However, the exact way in which this employee leaves that job is up to him. Maybe he needs to ensure that he can get his money out of their 401(k) plan. Maybe he needs to line up a new job first so he can continue supporting his family. Whatever the case may be, Rand can't tell him <B>how</B> or <B>when</B> to quit, but she <B>can</B> tell him that he <B>must</B> quit, or out the boss, or do something that preserves his integrity.<BR/><BR/>That is what I mean when I say, she solved is/ought "in principle."JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88905216267455508512007-12-04T18:02:00.000-08:002007-12-04T18:02:00.000-08:00I doubt Rand would've called the values "desire sa...I doubt Rand would've called the values "desire satisfaction." After all, some people desire to shoot black tar heroin or rape people. Rand believed that her ethical virtues stood in an objective, all-things-considered position of value to a person's life. <BR/><BR/>Again, she solved is/ought <B>in principle.</B> We have freewill, there's no way to have an concrete, specific "ought" for every person's "is." That would only work if we were deterministic, which we aren't. I don't know if anyone's tried to dismiss is/ought on the basis of freewill before, but that's how I unpack it.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27014573326002755392007-12-04T13:28:00.000-08:002007-12-04T13:28:00.000-08:00The "ought" in Rand's ethical system is one's happ...<I>The "ought" in Rand's ethical system is one's happiness, which she defines as "that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values" -- desire-satisfaction, in other words -- and all the Objectivist virtues center around that idea. </I><BR/><BR/>Wouldn't this make Rand an ethical hedonist? Yet she insisted she was not a hedonist ...Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34605940907786007212007-12-04T12:07:00.000-08:002007-12-04T12:07:00.000-08:00Ian:>Anyway, just trying to shed light on Objectiv...Ian:<BR/>>Anyway, just trying to shed light on Objectivist ethics (having once been fascinated by the subject). If I'm misunderstanding something, feel free to correct.<BR/><BR/>No, I think you're pretty spot on. The issue tho is that Rand <I>thinks</I> she's overcome the fundamental is/ought dualism, but she really hasn't. This is because I don't think she really grokked it in the first place.<BR/><BR/>The situation is analagous to her view of the problem of induction, where she seems to think it would take an "accomplished scientist" to illustrate "the process". But of course the problem of induction is <I>logical</I>, not "scientific." She just basically doesn't get it. Likewise, it seems, "is/ought." But unlike the latter, at least she did not claim to have solved Hume's problem of induction.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-69260141374602677512007-12-04T09:59:00.000-08:002007-12-04T09:59:00.000-08:00If you have a goal in mind that's different. Then ...<I>If you have a goal in mind that's different. Then is's imply oughts if the is's help you achieve your goal.</I><BR/><BR/>My point is that there is such a goal (the maximization of personal happiness) that informs Objectivist ethics. So when Rand says her values are objectively true or that they're derived from the facts of reality, she's not committing the is/ought fallacy. She sees her virtues as fundamental means to an end, neither subjective constructs nor virtuous in and of themselves (which tends to be the religious view).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, just trying to shed light on Objectivist ethics (having once been fascinated by the subject). If I'm misunderstanding something, feel free to correct.<BR/><BR/>-- Ian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70362407432108934802007-12-04T09:53:00.000-08:002007-12-04T09:53:00.000-08:00Hi WellsYou are right, but the underlying issue i...Hi Wells<BR/><BR/>You are right, but the underlying issue is this: adopting a goal requires a <I>decision</I> to do so. As we have seen, no decision can be deduced by applying logic to facts.<BR/><BR/>Thus the <I>subjective</I> element enters. I have already explained why this is ultimately not a bad thing.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30978092110853332942007-12-04T05:38:00.000-08:002007-12-04T05:38:00.000-08:00I love Ayn Rand and AristotleI love Ayn Rand and AristotleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53766325934673958282007-12-04T02:57:00.000-08:002007-12-04T02:57:00.000-08:00Everyone, here's how it works. You cannot get from...Everyone, here's how it works. You cannot get from is to ought because is's do not imply oughts. Just because potassium cyanide is poisonous does not mean that you should not drink it. If you want to live, it would be a spectacularly bad idea to drink the stuff. If you want to die, it becomes a better idea to drink it.<BR/><BR/>If you have a goal in mind that's different. Then is's imply oughts if the is's help you achieve your goal. If your goal is to become a scholar, then plagiarism is probably not a good idea. If you just want to the bare minimum to get a degree so that you can work, then cheat away, just don't get caught.<BR/>Obviously, there are some goals that you should have, and some goals that you shouldn't. Intuitively you can tell the difference, maybe logically too, but that last part is something I don't know how to do yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73977544272396709022007-12-03T23:48:00.000-08:002007-12-03T23:48:00.000-08:00The "ought" in Rand's ethical system is one's happ...The "ought" in Rand's ethical system is one's happiness, which she defines as "that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values" -- desire-satisfaction, in other words -- and all the Objectivist virtues center around that idea. Rationality is to employ the value-obtaining tool of reason; Honesty (i.e. the honest appraisal of facts) is to enable good reasoning; Integrity is to ensure that values and value-seeking actions don't conflict with one another, and so on. <BR/><BR/>-- Ian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79542045051934792832007-12-03T22:35:00.000-08:002007-12-03T22:35:00.000-08:00But how exactly can you derive an "ought" from an ...<I>But how exactly can you derive an "ought" from an "is"? In other words, given our knowledge of the way the world is, how can we know the way the world ought to be? That question, prompted by Hume's small paragraph, has become one of the central questions of ethical theory, and Hume is usually assigned the position that such a derivation is impossible.</I><BR/>SRC: Wikipedia, "Is/Ought"<BR/><BR/>I do think Rand replied to is/ought. Her reply was that we can answer ethical questions <B>in principle</B>, but the concrete decisions must still be made by individuals. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, such derivation is not "impossible." We do it anytime we make any kind of ethical decision based on facts. When a crucial decision "is" pressing itself upon us, we "ought" to independently assess our options and carry out the best solution. When a long, hard-fought goal "is" achieved, one "ought" to take pride in it. Exactly what that best solution will be and how that pride will manifest itself are individual concerns, but <B>that</B> the solution should be thought of and <B>that</B> we should take pride are completely derivable from facts.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8836403849314674042007-12-03T22:26:00.000-08:002007-12-03T22:26:00.000-08:00rnbram is rapidly becoming one of my favourite com...rnbram is rapidly becoming one of my favourite commentators!<BR/><BR/>It reminds me a little of what PJ O'Rourke once said while touring the decrepit, hopelessly constructed buildings of Soviet Moscow; that the Russians loved concrete so much, you'd think they'd know how to make it. <BR/><BR/>Soviets and concrete are like rbram-type Objectivists and logic; they talk about it so much you'd think they'd know how to use it....;-)<BR/><BR/>rnbram, old fellow, there is <I>no contradiction</I> there. You just don't know what you are talking about. But carry on, by all means.<BR/><BR/>Jay:<BR/>>When Rand wrote that "is" implies "ought", I don't think she meant "ought" as specific ethical decisions.<BR/><BR/>Well, there is only one "is/ought" problem I am aware of, and that is Hume's logical one. It is as I have laid it out. If she was talking about something else, well fine. But if so obviously this means she did not reply to Hume.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50252402399154381192007-12-03T21:30:00.000-08:002007-12-03T21:30:00.000-08:00Dan,When Rand wrote that "is" implies "ought", I d...Dan,<BR/><BR/>When Rand wrote that "is" implies "ought", I don't think she meant "ought" as specific ethical decisions. For example, I don't think she meant "any rational Objectivist could look at your life and tell you what job to take, who to marry, and how loudly to defend your convictions." <BR/><BR/>I think she meant that there are certain principles in play that should be heeded to maximize your effectiveness in reaching goals and pursuing values.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52556624478476500652007-12-03T21:02:00.000-08:002007-12-03T21:02:00.000-08:00Barnes writes,"there is no way to derive a decisio...Barnes writes,<BR/>"<I>there is no way to derive a decision from a fact, or from any number of facts.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Then in his next comment says,<BR/>"<I>I don't know who denies that ethics do not pertain or relate or have some kind of relation to facts.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Contradictions don't matter to Barnes, as long as he can fool some enough people to have a following, and <I>appear</I> to be profound.<BR/><BR/>As for "smuggling in premises", sure most people do that, but Rand laid them out, step by step. Barnes just ignores Rand's explicit presentation of them, to carry on his own pseudo-reasoned, anti-Rand, <I>anti-reason</I> diatribe.<BR/><BR/>Jay, read Rand more carefully. If you are honest you will come to grasp how profound Barnes's perfidy is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40392781445119371202007-12-03T16:08:00.000-08:002007-12-03T16:08:00.000-08:00Jay:>I think that is what Rand was driving at when...Jay:<BR/>>I think that is what Rand was driving at when she spoke of an ethical system grounded in facts.<BR/><BR/>Well I don't know who denies that ethics do not <I>pertain</I> or <I>relate</I> or have some kind of relation to facts.<BR/><BR/>What Rand refers to is the "is/ought" problem, which is the logical one described by Hume in his <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem" REL="nofollow">famous passage</A> . It is a problem of <I>logical</I> relation, not some other unspecified relation.<BR/><BR/>The issue is simply nothing to do with "grounding" or what not. Hume does not complain that such a relation is not "grounded" in facts, but that <I>it cannot be a deduction from them.</I> Hence subjectivity must enter into ethics at some point, despite always being "grounded" or "pertaining" to facts at all times.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61981479414252527932007-12-03T13:19:00.000-08:002007-12-03T13:19:00.000-08:00However I don't think that ethics are a big toss-u...However I don't think that ethics are a big toss-up either. There are definitely facts of reality that validate independence or honesty as virtues. For example, the empty, directionless lives lived by followers, or the final realization that you are living a lie experienced by dishonest people.<BR/><BR/>I think that is what Rand was driving at when she spoke of an ethical system grounded in facts.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.com