RoR: Forum

Good timing. I checked this book out from the library recently. I've been thinking of doing a Tara Smith marathon soon. Do you recommend her books?

One question,

Your definition was, "Contractarians believe that you should look to cause-and-effect models of behavior, the instrumental values aimed at your "self-interest" -- and then agree (make contracts) to do, or not do, certain things in your morality"

With two alterations, would it mirror Objectivism? Here goes:

Objectivists "believe that you should look to cause-and-effect models of behavior, the instrumental values aimed at your self-interest -- and then do."

Post 1

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 6:01pm

I'm not personally impressed with Tara Smith. I don't agree with her dividing up morality into the 4 pieces that she does (as I mentioned above). I think I divided morality better (in my own article on the matter). I only included these excerpts here because I witnessed folks arguing for something like Contractarianism.

Ed

Post 2

Monday, June 16, 2008 - 3:01pm

It would seem that contractarianism fails because of the lack of any objective standard of morality, since simply making contracts about one's self interest bypasses the entire problem of an objective determination of what is self-interest. If each person is allowed to make contracts under this condition, contractarianism reduces to subjectivism.

By dividing morality into four subcategories Miss Smith seems to fail to understand the nature of metaethics also. There are really only two fundamental categories of morality, the first defined by the standard of value of life, which is Objectivist ethics, and second by the standard of death, which is any number of others. This must be true since life and death are the only two fundamental choices which face man. Since by the law of identity man must have a specific nature he can live in only one way, there can be only one morality which is consistent with life and thus the Objectivist ethics is a singular and unique set of principles, but since man can destroy himself in any variety of ways there are any number of moralities which are inconsistent with life and thus these others are plural and non-unique sets of principles. Now these death moralities can be further studied and divided into categories, but this is process of subcategorization which goes beyond the initial categorization. This point seems to be lost on Miss Smith.

Post 3

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 - 11:21am

Robert,

I see your point but take a look at mine for an instant.

In my article on the subject, I divide schools of ethics up into quarters, too. It is through the differentiation and characterization of how it could be that we could come up with 4 main ways to view ethics that I believe I afforded a better understanding of the error in seeing ethics in one of the 3 wrong ways. It promotes better understanding all around. I know that you're right about there really being only 2 kinds (metaphysically), but epistemologically speaking -- and we're speaking epistemologically here, talking about folks' views -- epistemologically speaking there are 4 main camps.

Sometimes it's best to try to understanding another's error by adopting their thinking (hypothetically, of course!). It's a trick that only humans can perform. You can call it "psychologizing" disparagingly, but I think it's really fruitful to do -- when you're trying to get along with, and live alongside, other human beings who have widely disparate views on things. It's a trick I picked up from Alasdair MacIntyre:

(1) walk through another's thinking (like a path through a forest)
(2) show how their path misses the sought treasure or goal (because their path only lets you see part of the forest)
(3) propose a new (your) path

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/17, 11:21am)

Post 4

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 8:44am

I read your article, "The 4 Main Kinds of Ethics: An Introduction" and the posts following it. These four categories might be identified by the general consensus as the four categories of ethics this they are the historical result of previous thinking on the subject, but none of these categories are based on essentials, but instead on non-essentials since none of them establish life as a standard of value, but instead pull the concept of value, in one form or another, out of the air and proceed to expound upon it. Undirected by any guiding standard, these theories are intellectual scatter-splatter that yield nothing.

I understand your point about adopting another's error to understand it, but I think this is morally corrupting since there is no way to think incorrectly without ingraining incorrect thinking into the mind. It would be morally permissible only to introduce thoughts, values, etc, into a conceptual model of a human and logically deduce the consequences as a kind of thought experiment or psychological simulation. It is not clear in this paper that either of these is what you are doing, since you make no such disclaimer. It appear that you are following along with their mistakes.

It is important to remember when trying to understand the workings of an irrational mind that its philosophy is not a honest one, but a set of rationalizations to allow it to get away with something which reason does not allow. For this reason, anti-rational philosophies should not be regarded as honest attempts at finding the truth, but instead as excuses for doing the wrong thing. For this reason, the logic in these so-called philosophies should not be taken seriously, but instead understood by reading "between the lies" (not lines) for the hidden agenda which they justify. Elaborate analysis such as you perform in this paper sanctions their evasions and missed the point of what they are attempting.

Post 5

Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 8:08am

!!!!

Wow. I hope I'm not the only one perturbed by post 4. (5 sanctions?!)

Try some Brand Blanshard, Mr. Milenberg. Utilitarianism uses life as the standard of value... just not an individuals life, per se. Admittedly this runs into problems. But your summary of the struggle behind philosophical history is outrageously ignorant. And you may never learn otherwise, because you don't trust your own mind to be able to throw out garbage before it gets irrevocably ingrained into your philosophy. Yet you've deemed that same mind competent enough to disregard a few millennia worth of interesting thinkers (apparently without any more than Rand's sweeping disapproval. If this isn't the case, is your mind already cluttered beyond the point that you could trust it?)

Wow.

(Edited by Doug Fischer on 6/19, 8:11am)

Post 6

Friday, June 20, 2008 - 7:31pm

Bob M.,

I have a feeling that our difference here has something to do with me being a teacher.

You're an answer-junkie. You care about the right answer, but not how best to get folks to it. There's a difference between knowing what's right and showing others why or how it's right (i.e., teaching). Forgive my seeming buddhism here, but the best way to know what "dark" is is to see it in contrast to "light." Similarly, the best way to understand colors is to compare and contrast them. Both red and yellow are helpful in understanding orange -- even if orange is the only thing that you are looking for.

In the same manner, understanding error leads confused minds toward accuracy. It's because we can see where things miss the mark of perfection, that we can progressively refine our thinking. In a way, error makes truth more visible. This poignant subtlely seems missing in your analysis ...

... but none of these categories are based on essentials ... since none of them establish life as a standard of value, but instead pull the concept of value, in one form or another, out of the air and proceed to expound upon it. ... these theories ... yield nothing.

This is congruent with my essay and follow-up remarks.

... but I think this is morally corrupting since there is no way to think incorrectly without ingraining incorrect thinking into the mind.

I disagree. Overcoming incorrect thought -- by witnessing its failure to perform -- is what makes humans so special. Animals can adjust to contradictions on the range-of-the-moment. Humans can go back and question their whole thought process leading up to the error. For example, in the early '80's, I was convinced that margarine was better than butter. Blame Ancel Keys' thinking (which I co-opted). Ancel Keys said saturated fat was evil. Margarine had less saturated fat than butter. That -- according to my wrong-but-now-corrected thinking -- made margarine less evil. Then came the trans fat information ... and my whole thinking had to change (trans fats are even worse than saturated!) ... and it did.

It is important to remember when trying to understand the workings of an irrational mind that its philosophy is not a honest one, but a set of rationalizations to allow it to get away with something which reason does not allow. For this reason, anti-rational philosophies should not be regarded as honest attempts at finding the truth, but instead as excuses for doing the wrong thing. ... Elaborate analysis such as you perform in this paper sanctions their evasions and missed the point of what they are attempting.

I'm aware of the bad masterminds of which you speak. I wasn't writing to (or for) them. There are masterminds and students. The good masterminds teach the students how to think straight about issues. The bad masterminds co-opt a special interests value system and run propaganda campaigns. Your blunt analysis doesn't differentiate between the good and bad masterminds, and -- more importantly -- between the bad masterminds and the students. Instead, it's more reactionary than optimal, and it reminds me of a quote which I will have to paraphrase:

"Zealots facing rational arguments from others always suspect something sinister about the motives of their interlocuters."

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 3:48pm