The Fallacy of "the Naturalistic Fallacy"

Hi again George and Ethan

And if humankind cannot understand, or worse, deliberately denies its true nature?

Hi Joel

Can you accept empathy and cooperativeness as necessities to the highest development and achievement of humankind in general, and every person in particular? Nature will be obeyed.

Post 81

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:39am

I'm not here to hi-jack this thread. If I have misunderstood the essence of it all. I'll delete that previous post.

Sharon

Post 82

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:40am

Sharon,

Please re-frame your original post so that I can more clearly understand what you are referring too.

Ethan

Post 83

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 4:49am

Gladly Ethan

If we humans and those humans and all the other humans do not know, for whatever reason, the existent traits of their naural way of being human in the world; then what is the status of all the arguments that follow?

Post 84

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:03am

That's why Rand always said man qua man.

She identified the objective reasons why her philosophy is what it is. It's based on reality and its a philosophy for man (not anything else) based on his nature.

Ethan

Post 85

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:16am

Sharon: If we humans and those humans and all the other humans do not know, for whatever reason, the existent traits of their naural way of being human in the world; then what is the status of all the arguments that follow?

Well, at least to some degree they must know, or begrudgingly accept, otherwise they would die, and this argument is a moot point. But I think I understand the general direction you're going in, IE, if they comprehend only in part, then what follows.

Simple: the least contradictory forms of primitive philosophies that are adopted will become the ones that allow the greatest number of people to thrive (within the limits of the contradictions); while the primitive philosophies that are the most inherently anti-reality, will produce the greatest amount of suffering and maintain human existence on sub-human/animalistic level.

George

Post 86

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 5:27am

George,

Well then, isn't that what Ayn Rand meant by: nature to be commanded must be obeyed? And if that is true, then we better get it right; or face that extinction?

Post 87

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:35am

Let me write it again:

A.- Objectivism does advocate a benevolent universe.
B.- Benevolence is a character trait (from dictionary.com):

benevolence
n 1: disposition to do good [ant: malevolence] 2: an inclination to do kind or charitable acts 3: an act intending or showing kindness and good will [syn: benefaction]

As A & B are true, it follows that Objectivism attributes a character trait to the universe.

Now, according to Ethan (and/or Mr. Cordero), what premise(s) is/are wrong?

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/19, 6:47am)

Post 88

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:44am

Sharon said:

Hi Joel

Can you accept empathy and cooperativeness as necessities to the highest development and achievement of humankind in general, and every person in particular?

A resounding yes. You may find the following book simultaneously interesting and heartening (link to amazon.com):

The Evolution of Cooperation, by Robert Axelrod.

From a reviewer:

"A mathematical tale of how, if cooperation can benefit parties (which it very often does), the most profitable behaviour is initial trust (offer a hand), mirroring reciprocity (good for good, bad for bad), total forgiveness (only account for the last move) and lack of any further cleverness, calculations or speculations.

"The most amazing results are that, if behaving this way in a minimally stable environment, you never benefit more than your counterpart while you always benefit most overall, that you systematically promote total cooperation, that a few pioneers can teach large groups of non-cooperative bullies and that this behaviour beautifully resists aggression.

"The work of Robert Axelrod is amazing in its transparency and applicability, and enlightening in its hopeful conclusions. Thumbs up."

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/19, 6:45am)

Post 89

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 6:48am

Joel,

I explained clearly what Rand meant by "benevolent." You have ignored that explanation in favor of your dictionary argument.

You are attributing to Rand an idea that every single piece of her writing goes against based on that one use of a term. That is such a very weak argument.

If you can't understand what I said before, I'll repeat it for you in other terms here.

There are many people who beleive in ideas that constitute an overall view of a melevolent universe. These include, but are not limited to fate, kharma, curses, will of the gods, etc. These things represent arbitrary forces that held sway over the live of individuals. Rand referred to the universe as benevolent because it is consistent and knowable and not set against us. She did not mean to imply that the universe is concious or personified in any way shape or form.

That is a clear and reasonable explanation for your point. Do you concede the point?

Ethan

Post 90

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:11am

If you can't understand what I said before, I'll repeat it for you in other terms here.

Ethan, I appreciate your effort.

There are many people who believe in ideas that constitute an overall view of a malevolent universe.

True. For the record, note that this attribution of malevolence in fact is a personification of the universe.

Rand referred to the universe as benevolent because it is consistent and knowable [...].

If that is true, then I pose you two questions:

1.- Why she did not end by stating "the universe is good", "the universe is consistent", or "the universe is intelligible"?
2.- Was she aware that benevolence is only possible in volitional beings? (In Latin language, bene volens means "well wishing.")

and not set against us.

Yes, the universe is not set against us. Here note that the universe is a non-volitional being, so can't be set for us, either.

A litmus test will be this one: do you agree, Ethan, that the universe is amoral?

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/19, 7:13am)

Post 91

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:23am

I got this from dictionary.com on amoral:

Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Both of these definitions refer to people or concious beings. Morality is about man.

The universe is not good or evil, it just is. Good and evil are not part of the universe and do not exist outside of man. The terms refer to and are related to the life of man.

To say the universe is amoral I would understand to mean that it is neither good nor evil, but such anthropomorphism causes confusion, as we have seen in this debate.

Ethan

Post 92

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:29am

Ethan, please read the second entry more carefully:

"Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong."

Now, take the first part:

"Lacking moral sensibility"

Note that "amoral" is composed of "a-" and "moral"; the Greek prefix a- means "without", so amoral means "lacking moral sensibility."

Now, I will be even more explicit:

Ethan, do you agree that the universe lacks moral sensibility?

Post 93

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:31am

Yes. It lacks any sensibility, moral or otherwise. It just is.

Post 94

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:35am

Sharon, I attempted to answer your question here.

Post 95

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:37am

It lacks any sensibility, moral or otherwise. It just is.

Agreed.

Now, re-consider the Objectivist assertion that the universe is benevolent, namely, with disposition to do good.

The Objectivist conception of a benevolent universe simply does not fit to reality.

Ethan, thank you for your honesty. :-)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 4/19, 7:45am)

Post 96

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:44am

Joel,

I wholeheartedly agree the the term benevolent was an innapropriate term to be applied to the universe, given that the universe is not a being.

This does not mean that Objectivism holds in any way that the universe is a being. It was simply an innapropriate term.

Ethan

Post 97

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:13am

Joel,

"The Objectivist conception of a benevolent universe simply does not fit to reality."

Ethan,

"I wholeheartedly agree the the term benevolent was an innapropriate term to be applied to the universe, given that the universe is not a being."

Given the context of AR's writings her use of the word "benevolent" with respect to the universe is completely appropriate and impossible to misunderstand. Except by the most diabolical nit picking literalist. I understood forty years ago that she meant the universe was knowable, exactly as George has stated. She was a ROMANTIC NOVELIST. Her meaning was and is obvious.

Ethan, you give up way too easily.

Post 98

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:22am

The same personification occurs with: "nature to be commanded must be obeyed". Who is this nature that must be obeyed?

Post 99

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:27am