The Need for Ethics

As I understand Objectivist Ethics, they are derived from the volitional nature of man. Humans are volitional. They need to set long-range goals. The need to achieve those goals, along with the recognition that all humans have the same needs, sets-up the requirements that we call ethics. Am I basically correct? If so, then is it fair to say that Objectivist Ethics are derived from our individual goals?

Post 1

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 6:11am

Close, SnowDog, but not quite. I think that Objectivist Ethics are derived from rational self-interest. It's in my interest to be free and own property, and it's also in my interest to respect in others the rights I claim for myself.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 1:45am

Thanks for the reply!

However, doesn't rational self-interest require us to develop goals from which we derive our ethics? If we could order it, wouldn't it look something like:

1) Man does not act through instinct, but instead, has volition, and must use his mind to reason through his problems.

2) His volition is directed by means of his rational self-interest.

3) This requires him to develop values and goals, and to order them into a hierarchy with his Life as his ultimate value.

4) The pursuit of these values requires a code of conduct which we call ethics.

So ethics is derived from the volitional nature of man.

Craig

Post 3

Wednesday, January 8, 2003 - 2:41am

Hey, you've got a point there. Now why didn't I think of that?

Post 4

Thursday, January 9, 2003 - 1:14am

Hi Craig,

Ethics can be thought about in two ways, only one of which fits in with your 4 steps.

You can think of ethics as an explicit system of thought (branch of philosophy) studied in order to improve your life by making your values and actions more consistent with your end goal (ultimately life). I think that fits with what you're saying.

But you can also use the term 'ethics' to talk about one's actual system of values, code of action, ethical standard, etc. Not the science, but the actual topic of the science.

In this latter case, you choose your values and goals (your step 3 from above) based on your ethics. You don't have ethics in order to achieve your values. You have it in order to choose your values.

I only bring this up because your first post asked "is it fair to say that Objectivist Ethics are derived from our individual goals?". The answer is no. We don't start with goals and values and create an ethics to achieve them. We start with only one value...life, and the ethics is our process of trying to pursue it.

Of course, that's just one aspect of ethics. Another aspect, virtues, is designed to achieve values and goals. That might be what your refer to in point 4 as a "code of conduct".

Any of that make sense?

Post 5

Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 7:24am

Thanks for the reply Joseph.

I noticed the issue you brought-up shortly after posting my message. Ethics is an integral part of values, and not just a method by which to achieve values, otherwise, how would you know which values to choose? It seems like my definition of ethics would be more in line with moral relativism, which starts with the individual's goals, and derives his ethics from there. With Objectivism, it seems like this is still one aspect of ethics, but the actual values themselves must be chosen with Life as the highest value. Therefore I see how ethics cannot be completely derived from values, but is present before the values are chosen, as well. It all comes down to, 'how can we use reason to live our lives'.

There is another aspect of ethics with which I may disagree with Objectivism. I don't understand how to 'universalize' an ethics of egoism. While I think we can deduce ethics, (and therefore prove it as a science), from our rational nature as humans, and our requirements for Life, I don't see how we can logically create the constraint imposed by the recognition of Individual Rights. While I see clearly that my requirements to live are found in everyone, I don't see how I am ethically constrained to respect their rights. I think we extend this recognition to others in 'trade' for their agreement not to interfere with our rights. I want to live in a peaceful society. I want to live in a society where my rights are respected, as well as those of my friends and family. Hence I recognize the rights of others, in order to live in such a society. To me, this ties-in with emergency ethics. I disagree with those who say that emergency ethics falls outside the boundaries of ethics. In an emergency, when life is fleeting, your ethical system needs to tell you how to act -- NOW! It's not something that is separate and apart from your necessity to Live. Hence, if you're in an emergency, and have to kill someone to live, then I think it's ethical. The other person would object, and society could never codify this into law, but a jury could decide, and I think this is the system we have today -- so it's not that far-fetched. If you're bleeding and need to get to a hospital and the only farmer in the area won't let you borrow his car, then take the car if you can, and save your life.

I think ethics is fascinating, and more work needs to be done in this area.

Post 6

Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 4:31pm

Hi Craig,

You said "There is another aspect of ethics with which I may disagree with Objectivism." Does this mean you disagree with something else? And have you already made up your mind that you disagree with Objectivism on these points, or are you still trying to understand them? No point in continuing if you've already made up your mind.

After that, you have two topics. One is the question of whether we always have to respect rights, and another is regarding the ethics of emergencies. I'll comment on the second quickly.

The reason Objectivism differentiates the "ethics of emergencies" from the rest of ethics is that the lessons are not generalizable. Yes, you may end up in a lifeboat where you have to kill someone else in order to stay alive, but that conflict of interests is not typical. In everyday life, other people are asset to our lives, not a burden. It's this fact that makes the ethics of emergencies useless to study. Anything you learn about such a situation is not useful except in those situations. Certainly trying to formulate an ethical system based on these situations could only have horrible results. You'd find that life is zero sum, you have to kill other people to survive, long-range planning is impossible, everyone's out to get you, the world is malevolent and death hides behind every corner. Imagine living your life in the mindset of one of these emergencies.

Now obviously ethics, to be useful, has to be able to guide you in these situations. And it can by keeping your focus on your life, encouraging you to get out of the emergency situation, and being able to understand the costs and benefits of the actions. But the point of these emergency scenarios is to throw out all normal context and provide you with conflicts that don't normally arise. That's why they're "interesting". But it's also why they're not useful.

Now, back to the question of respecting rights. Respecting rights is based on a moral principle, not a moral rule. We respect rights for a number of reasons, but basically it can be said that it furthers our lives in everyday contexts. So you're right that in an emergency situation, where the context is sufficiently different, the principle may not apply. Thus, you could probably take the farmer's car to get help. But it's not that simple, either. A jury would probably ask you why you don't have a car yourself. If your answer is "Cause I knew I could steal one from the farmer", I suspect they'd throw you in jail anyway. And even if it was genuinely an unavoidable emergency, you'd probably still have to compensate him.

Post 7

Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 6:18pm

Hello again!

I find it very difficult to talk to Objectivists sometimes. It's very rare for me to find those that know the material, and when I do, I have trouble discussing issues like these with them. I had one guy, with whom I was engaging in an interesting discussion, begin accusing me of being a 'social metaphysician' when I mentioned that I was a minarchist. He went on to say that under an Objectivist government, we might even have higher taxes than we have now, to fund the need for high-tech police cars, and other legitimate ends. It was strange. Likewise, I saw Leonard Peikoff on C-Span tell a caller that he should leave the country if he didn't like paying taxes to fund a military incursion into Iraq. Likewise, I thought that response was strange.

I don't know what it means when you ask if I've made up my mind. Do you require openness in me to continue this discussion? Have you made up your mind on these issues, and should I drop the conversation if you have? I don't see things that distinctly. Every opinion I have is open to review, but it's more difficult to change my opinions on some things than it is on others. With regard to ethics, the only thing you've said with which I disagree is that I think emergency situations ARE a legitimate part of ethics and should be treated as such. However, I'm not really interested in that position right here. I am more interested in the arguments which allow an ethics of egoism to be applied universally. I think your opinions line-up with mine. 'Respecting rights is based on a moral principle, not a moral rule.' This is the way I see it too. We're all trying to answer the question, how should we, as rational, volitional, human beings, live our lives? Since our individual lives are our highest values, to each of us, individually, there may be times when respecting the rights of others may come into conflict with our highest values. I think it would be quite appropriate for a jury to decide that the farmer should be compensated in the example above. I didn't know this was the Objectivist position, and I thought it was a place where I might disagree. Apparently, it seems to be your position as well, so perhaps I was wrong.

Let me ask you this: You said that we respect the rights of others for a number of reasons -- but basically because it furthers our lives in everyday contexts. I agree that other people are a tremendous benefit to us in so many different ways. IF, however, other people did NOT further our lives in everyday contexts, then how would one extend an ethics of egoism from the first person to the third person -- how would we universalize the principles we individually need?

I can logically see that others have the same requirements in their lives, that I have in mine, and hence universally applied, an ethics of egoism yields the constraint against the use of force, that leads to the concept of Individual Rights. Nevertheless, from a personal point of view, it seems that there may be times when respecting the rights of others is NOT in my best interest. This is an area where more work is needed -- it seems to me.

Sincerely,

Craig

Post 8

Saturday, January 11, 2003 - 9:10pm

"Nevertheless, from a personal point of view, it seems that there may be times when respecting the rights of others is NOT in my best interest."

That's true. That's what the police is for. (^____^)

Politics is derived from ethics by the fact that we need social institutions to promote our own values. Given that this is true for everyone, rights necessarily apply to all. Note that this is not a rebuttal of elitism or a promotion of democracy, however.

Post 9

Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 3:51pm

Hi Craig,

"I don't know what it means when you ask if I've made up my mind. Do you require openness in me to continue this discussion?"

Yes. Definitely. Some people like arguing. I don't much care for it. If you've made up your mind, you can debate with someone else.

Now, you say "With regard to ethics, the only thing you've said with which I disagree is that I think emergency situations ARE a legitimate part of ethics and should be treated as such."

I didn't say that. I said the lessons aren't generalizable, and formulating principles based on them is pointless and even dangerous. But if you want to do it, lets try. Imagine a lifeboat scenario where in order to survive long enough to be rescued, you have to kill the other lifeboat member and eat him. So does this mean we should kill innocent people and be cannibals? Before you start chewing on your neighbor's leg, you might want to consider it a little more carefully.

You then say "IF, however, other people did NOT further our lives in everyday contexts".

What's the point? This isn't true. Yes, the results would be an ethics that required murder, theft, rape, and whatever else, but it's entirely wrong. There's nothing to be learned from going in that direction. And it certainly doesn't justify murder or theft.

But finally you say "it seems that there may be times when respecting the rights of others is NOT in my best interest".

This all seems to be heading in one direction. The only connection between your random points is that they build a (flawed) case for violating rights when you can get away with it. The prudent predator argument. Is this intentional?

As I said before, most people don't kill and steal because they don't want to, not because they fear others. And there are MANY reasons why they don't want to. But the prudent predator argument amounts to just that. That fear is the only reason not to go on a killing spree.

Why is it that you're looking for a justification to violate the rights of others?

Post 10

Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 7:57pm

Hello again!

It's important to me to understand what it is that's being said. If one avoids a specific direction a hypothetical takes, then it leaves the idea that's being expressed unclear. The question "IF, however, other people did NOT further our lives in everyday contexts..." is important to me because it concretizes the principle that your Life IS your fundamental value and the tells me that the direction ethics proceeds WOULD INDEED be different in a different world, changed as the premise of the question implied. This kind of feedback is necessary for me to understand a point, and it's why other people like to use these types of hypotheticals, as well. I'm a computer programmer, and I test boundary conditions all the time. It's the same thing.

With regard to emergency ethics, I'm simply trying to say that we shouldn't diminish questions or discussion in that area. Our questions should try to tell us how we should act in emergencies, and I think it's important to discuss this application of ethics for the same reason that I think we should discuss other boundary conditions. I think I agree with you when you say, "lessons aren't generalizable, and formulating principles based on them is pointless and even dangerous", so I wouldn't draw the principles in your example.

Thank you kindly for responding to my queries. For some reason I think we're not communicating very well. I think you're coming through clear as a bell, but I think you misinterpret my questions and points. Perhaps I'm wrong. In either case, please don't stop writing, if you so desire. Communication among Objectivists is essential to the propogation of the ideas -- especially for those new to the ideas.

Post 11

Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 1:24am

Craig,

I don't believe these emergency cases are a "boundary condition". I think they're fundamentally different from normal situations. Emergencies, by their nature, are dangerous situations where your life and values are at stake, and your only job is to remove yourself from it as quickly and safely as possible.

Normal life isn't like that. In normal life, you have a myriad of values you can choose to pursue. You can make long term goals and plans, and work to achieve them. You can think about self-improvement and enjoying the fruits of your labor. And you can work to avoid emergency situations.

In the emergencies, survival is your goal. As in, staying alive. There is little or no consideration of life as a process. Life isn't an adventure that you enjoy living. It's a fragile thing you're desperately trying to hold onto in a terrible world. The only point is to get back into the real world where values and living are possible.

I also think you don't have much to learn from these emergencies. You're not trying to live in or live with those situations. You're trying to get out of it and back to normal. And that's the real key to it all.

If you get stuck in a lifeboat and you have to kill the other person and eat them to survive, can you ever go back to your normal life? If you have to sacrifice your children to survive the emergency, would you want to live through it?

If our existence were some kind of duty from god, and we had to survive at any cost, then these ethical dilemna's would be simple. You kill anyone you need to in order to survive. But life is a process, not a state. And you have to choose to live, which means you have to want to live your life. It must stay valuable to you.

So we agree that you don't look at the emergency situations in order to understand how to behave in normal life (i.e., you don't resort to cannibalism). But you also don't look at these situations to determine what to do in them. You look to your normal life, and the values and excitement you get from it. You look at when you're really living your life. That provides you with the tools you need to figure out how to act in emergencies.

There's another point, which might be obvious. We spend most of our life in normal situations. Emergencies are rare, and we try to avoid them. So when studying ethics, it's not these emergencies that matter the most. They might matter some, but it's almost insignificant. What's really important is how you live your life the rest of the time.

Post 12

Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 4:15am

Excellent points! You're also an excellent communicator.

Post 13

Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:38pm

hi. can you do me a favor guys? can you tell me something about "the relationship of values with man's interests? " plssss.. i really need it. i'll be waiting. tnx soe much.

angeL

Post 14

Saturday, January 18, 2003 - 11:47pm

ummm... pls reply immediately ok.. badly needed really.. tnx people...

angeL

Post 15

Sunday, January 19, 2003 - 4:39pm

What, do you have a homework about it or something ?

Post 16

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 3:00am

yah. im afraid soe...

Post 17

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:58am

"the relationship of values with man's interests?"

The short answer is that values are the goals which man must pursue in order to effect his self-interest.
I am not interested enough to give you a long answer.

Post 18

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 1:37pm

Hey Francois,

Mind if I call you Frank?

Why being so rude to the kid?

If you don't want to answer, don't.. but to be rude, well that's down right bad manners. Might make people think that Objectivists are rude, arrogent pricks.

Angelle: Did you do some searches to find the information. There are a great many places that might be able to help. And your question is kinda open to lots of interpretations. What, specifically, are you looking for? What is the thesis you are attempting to defend.

Post 19

Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 3:55pm