The Fallacy of "the Naturalistic Fallacy"

Hi Bob,

Could you elaborate?

Post 61

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:39am

This thread seems to have gone full circle a few times.

Joel, you say "From here arises the Objectivist moral short-sightedness, in where every individual must define his own ethics, thus blocking the embrace of a truly universal standard of morality for all mankind."

You have continued to strawman Objectivism. Objectivism states there is a universal standard of morality for all mankind, this is derived from our objective reality. Individuals do not define their own individual code of ethics according to objectivism, this is more accurate a description of subjectivism. Because our reality is objective, how we ought to interact with one another becomes an objective principle. You can't take reason and freeze it at one point in time, you have to allow reason to take its course and reach a logical conclusion, thus human knowledge becomes hierarchal. You seem to think Objectivists are stuck on the epistemelogical phase of knowledge.

You also seem to be more concerned with unintelligible double talk than with anything of substance or meaning. You stated "

Also it sounds like you are substituting "supernatural" for "extra-natural". What's the difference?

Yes, there is no fundamental difference. I mean "in the ambit of non-physicality".

What exactly is the "ambit of non-physicality"? I'm always a little weary of people trying to reinvent the English language. There is the concept of the "supernatural", and there is the concept of "metaphysics", they are not the same thing.

Metaphysics: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy responsible for the study of existence. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question "What is?" It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.

Supernatural:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

You also say "Yes, the mind is not passive. But my point is that the mind (at least in part) deals with immaterial entities. According to Objectivism, the opposite must be true: the mind only deals with material entities: remember the Randian categorical assertion that "only concretes exist......Now, let's take an example. When an Objectivist says "infinite", to what concrete is that person referring? from what material existent an Objectivist forms the concept of "infinity"?"

Again you have strawmanned Objectivism. You have confused perception with conception. We can conceive of an infinity, but we can't perceive it. Objectivism does not deny man's ability to conceive, only that what we perceive is what exists in reality. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can prove to me in nature where I can observe infinity? Mathematics is a useful tool in helping us grasp reality, but mathematics in itself requires some concrete reference to make it intelligible to reality. A number represents the amount of entities I am counting, the number 3 as all mathematics are, is a concept, it is a mental abstraction which allows generalization. But the concept of 3 by itself does not exist in nature. There still has to be something that I am counting, 3 rocks, 3 people, 3 houses, these things I am counting have similar enough qualities conceptually to reference a number to them.

Post 62

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:25am

John Armaos asserted:

Joel, you say

"From here arises the Objectivist moral short-sightedness, in where every individual must define his own ethics, thus blocking the embrace of a truly universal standard of morality for all mankind."

[...] Objectivism states there is a universal standard of morality for all mankind.

Not exact. In The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand defined Objectivist ethics stating that:

"The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being [...]."

If the Randian "man" is "the ideal man", her ethics is based in a notion of man --namely, an idea of man-- including the attributes of the moral man. That's an idealist ethics. You can find an example of idealist ethics in this link. (For the record, I quite agree with the author.)

If this "man" defines his own standard of ethics, then that's subjectivism.

There is no middle point.

You stated

Also it sounds like you are substituting "supernatural" for "extra-natural". What's the difference?
Yes, there is no fundamental difference. I mean "in the ambit of non-physicality".

What exactly is the "ambit of non-physicality"?

Immaterial existence.

Supernatural:
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
[...]

Entry 1 will suffice: existence "outside" the natural world, understanding not a part of material reality. I am against metaphysical naturalism.

You have confused perception with conception.

False. I know what is a concept. And all concepts that are not universals need referents. You may read something about the Problem of Universals.

Objectivism does not deny man's ability to conceive, only that what we perceive is what exists in reality. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can prove to me in nature where I can observe infinity?

That's my point, Sir: Objectivism talks about infinity, but they don't see that infinity has no referent in material reality. The concept of infinity cannot be formed from any concrete.

Mathematics is a useful tool in helping us grasp reality, but mathematics in itself requires some concrete reference to make it intelligible to reality.

You don't need to see one billion apples to make the concept "one billion apples" intelligible. That's my point against the need for (material) concretes in order to form concepts that Objectivism defends.

But the concept of 3 by itself does not exist in nature.

If not "in nature" can you tell me "where" the concept exists?

Again, I refer you to the genuine Problem of Universals. If you love philosophy, it's worth the read.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/18, 10:42am)

Post 63

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:40am

When you project human traits, by which I mean volition, on 'nature' by saying, for example, nature demands, insists, or requires or on the 'universe' by saying it has chosen benevolence over malevolence, you have created an entity or 'god'. You are, in effect, a Deist.

Post 64

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:46am

I never projected volition on, or attributed volition to, 'nature.' (I would appreciate that you include my exact words, Bob.)

In fact, attributing volition to nature is in line with ideas leading to fall into the 'naturalistic fallacy.'

I attribute volition to (the soul of) every man.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/18, 10:54am)

Post 65

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:07am

Joel said

"Not exact. In The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand defined Objectivist ethics stating that:

"The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being [...]."

If the Randian "man" is "the ideal man", her ethics is based in a notion of man including the attributes of the moral man.

If this "man" defines his own standard of ethics, then that's subjectivism."

Joel how do you make the leap from "the proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man" to "this man defines his own standard of ethics"?

You don't need to see one billion apples to make the concept "one billion apples" intelligible. That's my point against the need for (material) concretes in Objectivism.

You just put a concrete meaning to the cocept of a billion! You attached the entity we are counting "apples". I don't have to see a billion apples to know I can count a set of apples until I reach one billion because I can "see" an apple, I can feel it, touch it, throw it around, but I can't see the number "billion", I can't touch a "billion", I can touch "a billion apples". Can I see a billion irrespective of any entity? A billion by itself is not an entity, it is an abstract concept. It only begins to have meaning when I attach an entity I am counting.

What you are espousing is "philosophical realism", which is a "belief that properties exist independently of the things that manifest them".

But the concept of 3 by itself does not exist in nature.

If not "in nature" can you tell me "where" the concept exists?

I said it does not exist "by itself in nature". You are simply "begging the question" by saying that. It exists once there is a concrete meaning attached to it. Three apples exist in nature, three by itself cannot exist independently of the thing that manifests it.

(Edited by John Armaos on 4/18, 11:10am)

Post 66

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:37am

John Armaos said:

Joel said

"Not exact. In The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand defined Objectivist ethics stating that:

"The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being [...]."

If the Randian "man" is "the ideal man", her ethics is based in a notion of man including the attributes of the moral man.

If this "man" defines his own standard of ethics, then that's subjectivism."

Joel how do you make the leap from "the proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man" to "this man defines his own standard of ethics"?

Indeed, you may find this leap in Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I would suggest you to check it out in the book, and then will discuss it again --if required.

You don't need to see one billion apples to make the concept "one billion apples" intelligible. That's my point against the need for (material) concretes in Objectivism.
You just put a concrete meaning to the concept of a billion!

"Concrete meaning" is not the sense Ayn Rand gave to the word in the proper context. With "concrete" she meant a material existent, what in philosophy is known as a "particular." You can find it in the book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, IOE.

I can touch "a billion apples".

I am critiquing the Objectivist idea of concept formation. You may read it at the book IOE. The Objectivist "concept formation" even does not successfully define what is an universal.

A billion by itself is not an entity, it is an abstract concept.

The billion apples I talked about is a concept, and concepts are entities. (An entity need not to be a material existent: it can be a "being", or, even more flatly, an "existence.") From dictionary.com:

entity
n : that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

It only begins to have meaning when I attach an entity I am counting.

Be aware that you don't need an actual billion apples to find meaning in the concept. That's the key point.

What you are espousing is "philosophical realism", which is a "belief that properties exist independently of the things that manifest them".

Yes, independently of the material things that manifest them. Try to think outside the box of metaphysical materialism. Just assume, as a departing hypothesis, that there are immaterial entities.

Three apples exist in nature, three by itself cannot exist independently of the thing that manifests it.

Not correct --you performed question-begging. For the statement to be relevant to the discussion, you must try it with the concept "infinite apples." You cannot state the same with "infinite apples" --where is "the thing that manifests 'infinite apples'"?--, and the concept "infinite apples" will still exist.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/18, 11:52am)

Post 67

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:06pm

I said

What you are espousing is "philosophical realism", which is a "belief that properties exist independently of the things that manifest them".

Joel responds

Yes, independently of the material things that manifest them. Try to think outside the box of metaphysical materialism. Just assume, as a departing hypothesis, that there are immaterial entities.

Why should I assume this? Because I ought to think outside of the box? That's a strange rebuttal. If one were to destroy all things red, the concept of red no longer has any meaning. I can't tell you any longer what red is if there are no entities that exist that have this quality. If there is no frame of reference of what is red and what is not, then it's an unintelligible word. Concepts themselves have meaning only when referenced to reality. God is a concept that has no meaning. Unless one can define god, it is useless untelligible double talk.

I also said:

Three apples exist in nature, three by itself cannot exist independently of the thing that manifests it.

Joel responds:

Not correct --you performed question-begging. For the statement to be relevant to the discussion, you must try it with the concept "infinite apples." You cannot state the same with "infinite apples" --where is "the thing that manifests 'infinite apples'"?--, and the concept "infinite apples" will still exist.

Infinite apples do not exist at one point in time. (This goes back to your tendency to freeze reality in one instance of time) There is a finite supply of apples right now. The concept of infinity is useful in describing temporal qualities to a system. For example, apples can be reproduced, over and over again, when I make this observation I can say it is possible the production of apples to be infinite. Infinity is a quality attached to an entity, in this case it is attached to the production of apples. The concept has meaning once I used it to attach a quality to an entity. For example, there is no such thing as "greeness", I can't touch green. I can't count how much green I have. I can touch a "green apple", I can count how many "green apples" I have.

Honestly this is such a basic concept that I am confused as to why you keep fighting the obvious?

Post 68

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 2:05pm

Joel,

Not accusing you. I am on your side in this argument. Personification is a mistake Objectivism makes. Nature is the creator or reality is the creator as they perfer. Reality is god; the creator and final arbiter.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 4/18, 2:10pm)

Post 69

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 6:44pm

Replying to Ed Thompson, Joel Catala wrote as follows:

Now, let's take an example. When an Objectivist says "infinite", to what concrete is that person referring? from what material existent an Objectivist forms the concept of "infinity"? Obviously, to none, and from none.

As Aristotle pointed out, there is no such thing as actual infinity. In order for something to exist, it must be something specific, and therefore have limits. Therefore, the concept of "infinity" is what Objectivism calls an "anti-concept" -- an oxymoron -- a self-contradiction, like the concept of "God," or the concept of a "disembodied soul." How is it possible to conceptualize these concepts, if they have no concrete referent in reality? Because they are contradictory composites of concepts that do have concrete referents. The concept of "infinity" incorporates the concept of a limit and the concept of negation, both of which are grasped perceptually. The concept of a disembodied soul incorporates the concept of consciousness, which is grasped by direct introspection, the concept of a body and the concept of negation (i.e., dis-embodied), which are grasped perceptually.

As for the concept of "potential infinity" as it applies to mathematics, it simply refers to the idea that as long as one is able to count, there is nothing in the number system that prevents one from adding another number to an existing total, and that idea is verified by reference to concrete reality - by reference to any act of counting. For example, suppose I have a bunch of apples in front of me, and count 10 of them. I know that if I had an extra one, I could count 11. The concept of number is derived initially from observation. For example, the referent of the number 5 is five units of anything, i.e., | | | | |. After abstracting from our observation, we can enumerate any objects we choose - apples, pears, men, women, dogs, cats, etc. Ever consider reading Intro. to Objectivist Epistemology?

A referent of the concept "infinity" is not a concrete, but an immaterial entity. That immaterial entity referent of the concept "infinity" must somehow exist to make possible the formation of the same concept.

This is nonsense. There is no "immaterial entity" to which the concept of "infinity" refers, just as there is no immaterial entity to which the concept of "God" refers.

The same logic applied to concepts as "immateriality" or "falsehood" are perhaps more enlightening: when a person says "immateriality" from what concrete he forms the concept "immateriality"?

He forms it from the concepts of "materiality" and "negation," both of which are based on an observation of reality. The concept of "falsehood" is based on the recognition that a statement or idea is at odds with the facts of reality.

Immaterial entities --no "concrete" entities-- may be "in" two places at the same time...

There are no immaterial entities external to the mind, which is itself an attribute of a material organism possessing physical sense organs, a brain and central nervous system. If you claim there are, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate their existence. Show me a disembodied consciousness; show me an immortal soul. Since you can't do it, my suggestion is to stop defending these floating abstractions.

so the epistemologies departing from metaphysical naturalism, which deny the existence of immaterial entities, are necessarily wrong. (BTW, the fact that Karl Marx and the majority of leftists defend the same brand of metaphysical materialism as Objectivism perhaps should make you think it twice.)

This is an argument from guilt by association. The fact that Einstein was a socialist does not render his views on physics untenable. Similarly, the fact that Marx was a communist does not render his views on the existence of God untenable.

Comprehension of reality requires entities both "out there" and "in your mind."

No one here is denying the existence of mental entities (i.e., concepts); what we're saying is that they must refer ultimately to some aspect of concrete reality.

Morality should be recognized as fundamentally a question of metaphysics.

Objectivism does not deny that morality is based ultimately on one's metaphysics. Before you can understand what actions are appropriate for human beings, you have to understand the nature of reality, which is a question of metaphysics. Is there a God, a supernatural reality over and above the natural world, or is the latter all there is. The answer to that question is crucial for determining the kind of ethics that are appropriate for living on earth.

But Objectivism says that morality can be deduced from epistemology

No, it doesn't! Who told you that?! For one thing, the very idea of "deducing" morality from epistemology is itself contrary to Objectivist epistemology! Objectivism isn't a rationalist philosophy. It bases its morality on an observation of what is required for man and woman to live successfully on earth. There is no "deduction" about it!

(Again, the similarities between Marxist ethics and Objectivist ethics are pretty revealing.)

What?? The two ethics are as far apart as one could imagine. The Marxist view of ethics - "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" - is the antipode of the Objectivist ethics - the antithesis of the virtue of selfishness! Really, Joel, this dialogue is getting tiresome. If you want to criticize Objectivism, at least take the trouble to learn what it says!

From here arises the Objectivist moral short-sightedness, in where every individual must define his own ethics, thus blocking the embrace of a truly universal standard of morality for all mankind.

Amazing! Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of the Objectivist ethics. According to Rand, the Objectivist ethics does indeed apply to all mankind. What did you think she was advocating - an ethics for half of mankind? Her morality applies to every single human being on earth in virtue of his or her nature as a certain kind of living organism. If you don't understand this much, then there really isn't much point in continuing to debate you. Please, go read what Rand says before you presume to criticize her. The kind of strawman arguments you are making are beyond the pale!

- Bill

Post 70

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 2:42am

Bob, you wrote:

Personification is a mistake Objectivism makes. Nature is the creator or reality is the creator as they prefer. Reality is god; the creator and final arbiter.

Yes, Objectivism literally attributes benevolence to the universe, a non-living being; this is a sort of Neopaganism. But I think that their god is not nature, but the ego. Fundamentally, Objectivism is Narcissism.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/19, 3:24am)

Post 71

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:04am

Incorrect.

Benevolent in Objectivism is used to refer to the fact that actions in accordance with reality produce consistent results. In other words, there is no such things as curses, kharma, demons, devils, gods, and the universe is not out to get you. The universe exists and is consistent.

Ethan

Post 72

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:30am

Ethan said:

Benevolent in Objectivism is used to refer to the fact that actions in accordance with reality produce consistent results.

Then Objectivists could have simply said: "The Universe is consistent."

But let me make three points:

1.- Benevolence is a character trait. Non-living beings can't be described as benevolent.
2.- Consistence by no means involves benevolence. Hitler was consistently fascist.
3.- A reality --namely, an ideology-- can be consistently wrong.

So I bet you Ethan are not correct on this.

[Sorry for the cross-posting.]

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/19, 3:42am)

Post 73

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:34am

No, I'm pretty sure that I'm right on this. Rand never espoused a belief that the universe was concious and benevolent. She was simply contrasting the idea of a melevolent universe that many believed. She was saying the universe is not out to get you, by it's very nature it is consistent, and in that way benevolent. If you did the exact same thing twice and got two different results you could never hope to live.

Your argument in this case stands on your very literal interpretation of what was said out of context to all Rand's other work.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 4/19, 3:35am)

Post 74

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:45am

Your argument in this case stands on your very literal interpretation of what was said out of context to all Rand's other work.

As a former Objectivist, I know about the context of her work. Besides, are you stating that Objectivism cannot be interpreted literally?

Post 75

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 3:54am

Joel,

Do you want to argue in bad faith here (pun intended?)

Given the context of her work and the philosophy as a whole, your interpretation of what Rand was saying is clearly incorrect. She never advocated anywhere that the universe is somehow consciously benevolent. I've explained to you what was meant by her use fo the term.

Can Objectivism be interpreted litterally?

In context to its whole, yes.

As for you being a former Objectivist, that has no bearing on the discussion. Plenty of former and current so-called Objectivists have a very poor grasp of Objectivism and either jump ship when some point of Objectivism disagrees with one of their beliefs or try and warp Objectivism to be consistent with there beliefs.

Ethan

Post 76

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:05am

She [Ayn Rand] never advocated anywhere that the universe is somehow consciously benevolent. I've explained to you what was meant by her use for the term.

Hey, you smuggled the word "consciously". Objectivism advocates a benevolent universe. That's a fact.

Can Objectivism be interpreted literally? [But who are you quoting here, Ethan? Quotations must be literal.]
"In context to its whole, yes."

Nonsense: literalism, by definition, applies to the whole and to the parts, and requires no context.

"Plenty of former and current so-called Objectivists have a very poor grasp of Objectivism [...]"

Indeed, that's highly plausible. Pop philosophy is a slippery slope.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/19, 4:11am)

Post 77

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:15am

Ethan, you're absolutely correct.

A benevolent universe does not imply a “consciously” directed one, as if one were ascribing intentionally chosen human actions to it, but rather, benevolent in this context is meant to mean that the laws of nature are intrinsically consistent and knowable. And that man, when he chooses to act in accordance to his nature, is capable (not guaranteed) of thriving within it. That ability for man to not only to exist, but also thrive, when acting in accordance to reality, is why Rand applied the term ‘benevolent’ to the universe.

I have found that when Objectivists attempt to apply an out of context and/or literal interpretation of the word ‘benevolent’ within discussions such as these, they are either honestly mistaken, or more commonly, purposely trying to obfuscate in order to rationalize some degree of mysticism that they simply cannot bring themselves to part with.

George

Post 78

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:20am

Thanks George!

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:23am