Ayn Rand&#39;s Derivation of Ought from Is

I guess I'm not learned enoguh in Objectivism to articulate a responce to thsi website. I'm sure this has been refuted before.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

Post 1

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 5:10pm

I don't think I can give a fair response to this without quoting more of the dribble than is fit to reprint. Suffice to say, you must assume Mr. Friedman has a shaky foundation for his arguments. I say 'assume' as he never bothers establishing that he has any sort of grounds for his observations. His interpretation of life varies simply from "the life Rand thinks you should live" to a blatant blindness of the word's definition. Life is what distiguishes the living from the dead...that's it. You want to live? Act in your own interest. Would you like to live well? Act upon your own judgements of reality, without impeding the ability of others of your species to do the same (something only humans seem capable of, though at times we act very differently due to the confusion articles like this sow). What David failed to recognize here was that his basic premise was that which Rand warned about; ignoring reality. Everything else contained therein can only be topically aesthetic at best. Sounds good to those less intelligent than he...ridiculous to those who know better.

Post 2

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 9:14am

Hi,

Rand's derivation of ought from is doesn't really hold up for me. I've been browsing the forum to avoid going through arguments already posited, but this short thread is the closest I could find.

Ayn Rand's foundation for self-interest is that humans have choice but no instinct, thus we should do consciously as the animals and plants do instinctively and 'choose life'.

As others have pointed out, there is an ugly should in there. And the palpable question: Why should we?

(Edited by David on 6/06, 3:57pm)

Post 3

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 3:34pm

Have you read AR's "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness?

In my recent SOLOHQ article 667; or, How Objectivists Are Not Materialists, I discuss, in very shortened form, this very issue under the heading "Ethics and Politics." I do not have time to discuss any objections or questions you may have about it; but I think it will help you understand Rand's argument a bit.

Post 4

Sunday, June 6, 2004 - 7:16am

I can appreciate where Friedman is coming from, but in the end, his argument is unpersuasive. I'll address his major contentions.

1. Rand argues that animals cannot choose to act toward their own destruction; they necessarily seek life. Friedman points to animals which do act toward their own destruction.

Rand's not saying that animals can't hurt themselves. She saying they can't choose to hurt themselves. She viewed animal consciousness as automatic. "An animal has no power to extend its knowledge or evade it. In situations for which its knowledge is inadequate, it perishes...But so long as an animal lives, an animal acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and now power of choice." (VOS, 19). Friedman misinterpreted.

2. Rand argues that if you don't choose life as your ultimate goal, then you're choosing choosing death. Friedman points to people who are still alive but who have not chosen life as their ultimate goal.

For one, Rand's ultimate goal of life is not of mere survival but of flourishing, so it's no big deal if, say, Utilitarians survive on their flawed premises. For another, I think Rand is arguing that choosing life is the only consistent alternative. (I could say much more here, but this should suffice.)

3. Here Friedman is trying to reconcile happiness with life but can't.

My response to 2 is almost sufficient to answer 3. I should add only that Rand integrated happiness with life in her ethics, two aspects which Friedman is trying to fragment.

4. Friedman points out that people act to gain or keep dishonesty. That they are duping another's reality, not their own.

As Rand puts it, "a leash is a rope with a noose at both ends." To dupe someone else is to live through someone else, which is a form of Collectivism, which is a state contradicting the someone's nature as an Individual. Also, Rand's concept of value directly links to virtue, which is an expression of principled action. I think Friedman is fragmenting here too, separating Rand's concept of value from its context.

I think Friedman is persuasive for many because he selects and appears to defeat isolated aspects of Rand's work. Part by part he appears to strike them down. But Rand's philosophy wasn't created and was not meant to be interpreted part by part, but rather as aspects of an integrated whole. Friedman has basically dropped the context of Rand's view.

Hope that helps.
Jordan

Post 5

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 7:14pm

David, you said

Ayn Rand's foundation for self-interest is that humans have choice but no instinct, thus we should do consciously as the animals and plants do instinctively and 'choose life'.

As others have pointed out, there is an ugly should in there. And the palpable question: Why should we?

The answer is that you must be alive in order to do anything, and there are certain things you must do to be alive (that is, you must "choose life.")

As for Mr. Freidman's arguments.
1. In the first section he argues against the status of life as an end in itself:

(quoting Miss Rand in Atlas Shrugged)
"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. ... But a plant has no choice of action; ... : it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
An animal ... . But so long as it lives, ... it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer."
(now, his argument)
The claim here, quite clearly, is that living things other than human beings automatically act for their own survival. That claim is false. A male mantis, for example, mates, even though the final step of the process consists of being eaten by the female. Female mammals get pregnant, even though (especially in species where the male does not help support female and offspring) doing so substantially reduces their chances of survival. If one is going to ascribe values to non-human living things, the purpose of those values, on both empirical and theoretical grounds, is not survival but reproductive success.

I would argue that the instinct to reproduce (even, perhaps, when it requires that one parent be eaten) is necessary to an animal's survival:

Having been born is a precondition of an animal's existence. Thus, for an animal to exist, its parents must have mated, born the young animal, and cared for it until it could survive on its own. Since all animal action is based on instinct/perception, there must an instinctual/pleasure-based motivation for the parents to procreate. Because the instinct/pleasure mechanisms of the parents are derived from genes, and these genes must be passed to the young to serve as his biological blueprints, this young animal will necessarily have those instincts and pleasure mechanisms. Though their incarnation in his action may work against him, their presence in his nature is a necessary result of his having come into existence. Thus, having the genes for reproductive sucess is a requirement of an animal's continued existence ("survival") because the presence of those genes in the animal's parental gene pool caused it to exist in the first place.

Miss Rand should have noted that it is a plant or an animal's nature which it cannot avoid. It's nature may or may not be good; that is, self-destructive genetic freaks are possible. If the animal's nature is good, then it is "unable to ignore its own good." because it is unable to ignore it's own nature. The question of whether the organism survives is a test of the organism's nature against the facts of reality.

END my first posting on this thread.

Nicholas W. Balcolm

(Edited by Nicholas W. Balcolm on 6/09, 8:38pm)

(Edited by Nicholas W. Balcolm on 6/09, 9:36pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 5:40am

Note: It was David who said that, not Jordan, of course.

Also, just a reminder that my article and opinions expressed by other Objectivists might not always agree with each other--I may not have time to follow all this.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/09, 5:41am)

Post 7

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 9:21pm

Mr Rawlings, you said:

Note: It was David who said that, not Jordan, of course.

Yes, I apologize for any confusion it may have caused. It has been edited.

Also, just a reminder that my article and opinions expressed by other Objectivists might not always agree with each other--I may not have time to follow all this.

Yes. Also, it is important for the reader to note that it is not Ayn Rand or any other Objectivist that I mean to defend, but the ideas which are the substance of Objectivism. I will challenge any of Miss Rand's wording when it is misleading or doesn't consider the full context (for example, in my post above "Miss Rand should have noted...") I will also challenge any fallacious arguements presented by my fellow Objectivists.

(Edited by Nicholas W. Balcolm on 6/09, 10:36pm)

Post 8

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:19am

It will be about three or four days before I post here again, because I will be busy, but I fully intend to completely debunk all of Mr. Friedman's range of the moment thinking, when I return.

Until then,

Nicholas W. Balcolm

Post 9

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:37am