In What Sense Is Objectivism Objective?

Hi, I'm new to objectivism and would appreciate it if someone could tell me in what sense objectivism claims to be objective. For example, how does someone prove that people have certain "rights" at all? Since morality and other seemingly subjective topics cannot be tested experimentally, I don't see how one can say that their philosophy is objective. I've asked this question to objectivists before, but all I've gotten is referrals to books and very general objectivism websites. This is akin to questioning a christian about part of their beliefs, and being told to read the bible. Not in the sense that objectivist books are necessarily devoid of reason and self-consistency like the bible, but that it entails making a fairly significant time commitment in order to answer a fairly specific question. Perhaps that's the way it is, but at the moment I can't see any way that someone could argue for an objective morality and so I'd like to see at least a glimpse of how that might be achieved.

Thanks!

Post 1

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:19pm

Ok I guess I'll start.

Objective morality comes from the nature of an Objective world. A world that is what it is whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. But since the world has an objective nature outside of your individual consciousness, then that means that there are objective principles to guide your actions which are needed to ensure your survival and thriving within that world.

I think that's a good start if you want more specifics just ask and I'm sure I or someone else can discuss them.

---Landon

Post 2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:41pm

*feeling devilish*

Landon,

there are objective principles to guide your actions which are needed to ensure your survival and thriving within that world

Dare I say this sounds almost Platonic? If, as I understand it, Objectivism doesn't like floating abstractions, how do you go about having objective principles without apriorism?

Sarah

Post 3

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:44pm

Thank you Sarah.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:50pm

Sarah-
How is it exactly that you see objective reality as an a priori formulation?

Post 5

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:51pm

Sorry Rober, I did not you pipe up there, so feel free to answer for yourself as well.

Post 6

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:54pm

Jody,

Not objective reality, objective principles.

Sarah

Post 7

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:14pm

So you think that objective principles are ipso facto, a priori, rather than a posteriori?

Post 8

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:27pm

The world isn't in flux. Things aren't constantly shifting. If the world is what it is that means there are rules guiding it, and if there are rules guiding the whole world there are rules that should guide human behavior.

---Landon

Post 9

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:39pm

Jody,

At the risk of answering my own question (which would take all the fun out of it), I think you need to clarify what the principles are independent of, i.e. objective with relation to what? For example, are these principles independent of human consciousness or independent of certain variations amongst humans or independent of which way the wind is blowing?

Landon,

The world isn't in flux. Things aren't constantly shifting.

Oh? Would you justify this statement?

and if there are rules guiding the whole world there are rules that should guide human behavior.

These are different situations me thinks. The rules guiding the world are used to predict what will happen. The rules guiding human behavior are used to say what should happen. I don't see how the latter follows from the former.

Sarah

Post 10

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:43pm

Sarah-

i.e. objective with relation to what?

Reality.

For example, are these principles independent of human consciousness

Reality; yes. Rights and normative actions; no.

Post 11

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:45pm

There are many facets of reality Jody, not all of them relevant to human behavior. Could you explain a little more?

Sarah

Post 12

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:50pm

Different but corresponding. Since there are rules guiding existance these rules can be used to deduce rules for which to guide behavior.

Now if you'll excuse me my keyboard is turning into a a small tub of sulfuric acid and my blood is turning into the cream they use to stuff twinkies, thus making it hard to type. ;)

---Landon

Post 13

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:57pm

Well of course Sarah, there are actions going on right now in the Orion Nebula that are completely irrelevant to human action, but the only proper guide to human action is reality as it pertains to man(er...and woman.)

Post 14

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 6:22pm

Delta,

Objectivism is a fully integrated, reality based philosophy of life discovered and communicated by writer/philosopher Ayn Rand. It is fully integrated in that its philosophy of government is derived from its ethics which are derived from its metaphysics and epistemology. It is reality based in that reality is the foundation of the philosophy; if it conflicts with reality, it isn't Objectivism. And it is a philosophy of life in that life is the standard for measuring right and wrong, human life in general and your own life in particular.

The starting point in understanding Objectivist ethics is by first understanding the metaphysics and epistemology starting with the axiomatic fact that existence exists irrespective of anyone's consciousness of it; this is known as the "primacy of existence."

When an Objectivist talks about being objective, he means being committed to reality and the facts of reality. Not in not having an opinion as so many popularly use the term today.

In regard to rights, man has them because they are necessary for him to live. To live, man must produce. His means of production is his ability to reason and he requires freedom in order to act on his reason. When someone initiates force against you they've deprived you of the freedom necessary for you to act on your reason so that you may produce and live.

Objectivists refer you to books and websites, Delta, because a full philosophical system requires study and thought. You can be led to this knowledge but no one can make you focus your thoughts in understanding it but yourself.

For me, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, which explains Objectivism in a linear fashion, was the most helpful tool in my own studies. And it required a great deal of thought for me to understand. I would sometimes spend an hour or so on just one page as I corrected past errors of thought and solved philosophical riddles that had always previously perplexed me.

I hope you pursue the goal of understanding Objectivism, Delta. It has enhanced my own life immensely.

Post 15

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 7:39pm

Thank you, Bob - it was beginning to sound like Abbot and Costello in here [who's on first, what's on second.......]

Post 16

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 11:20pm

I don't know. Third Base!

Post 17

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 12:54am

Bob Palin, well done sir.

Delta,

The key to answering your question is in epistemology. You'll need a fair grasp of Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume, Rand and a few other philosophers to understand it. Kant, for example, argues that we cannot perceive reality as it is because our very perception distorts it. When I understood Kant's man-diminishing philosophy I was better able to make sense of Objectivism's position as well as the views of earlier philosophers.

Bob P's advice is terrific. Get reading.

Post 18

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:25am

I was gonna keep pestering you nice folks, but I got distracted by something shiny.

Sarah

Post 19

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:08am