Ethics: Deriving Value from Fact

This is my first post so, first and foremost, hello! I have glanced through a variety of the threads on this discussion board, and I've been impressed by the high quality of the conversation. Hopefully, I won't drag you all down!

:-)

Anyhow, I believe that I have a good, amateur understanding of Objectivism, but being that I am not a professional philosopher sometimes I get “tripped-up” when I discuss very abstract issues with others. So, I apologize in advance if this issue is too elementary. In any case, I'm trying to clear up my understanding of how Rand derives value from fact.

If I had to condense Rand’s theory into just one paragraph for a “lay” person, how would I best go about doing it? Here’s what I might say: “Rand argues that there are two irrefutable observations when one studies ethics: 1) that one is alive and 2) that life is conditional. That is, being alive is conditional upon the volitional choice to be alive. From these two observations, egoism (i.e., the choice to pursue one’s life) seems to be simply a truism. That is, the choice to live is “built-into” the concept of morality. One must choose to be alive insofar that one can choose anything …insofar that there is such a thing as making choices …insofar that ethical questions/issues exist at all. One cannot -- in logic -- separate ethics from the pursuit of life.”

Would Rand agree with my interpretation? Are there any obvious important points that she would add or take out (without going into a lengthy lecture). Again, consider that I’m trying to communicate a basic knowledge of Rand’s ethics to someone who may or may not be interested in pursing the matter in more detail.

Also, I find it disconcerting that I have never heard a serious attempt to argue against Rand’s ethics. Frankly, this makes me suspicious. Is there some literature out there that makes a serious attempt to refute her position? I've scanned a few, but I have yet to come across something convincing.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts…

Post 1

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:56am

Hi there! I'll try to get to this, though I'm busy and someone may beat me to it. (Click on my name to see more about me.)

Post 2

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 12:24pm

Hi Don!

There are others here still much more experienced than I at summarizing this, but I'll throw in a few thoughts.

Your summary of "we are here/alive and we make choices to live" is a good start! First, it's VERY hard in a paragraph to explain to someone what Rand taught or what Objectivism might be about. There have been some interesting discussions either on this board or the Yahoo! forum about different ways that people deal with the question when asked "briefly - what is objectivism about?" Or substitute Rand in there for a slightly different answer.

But even though what you say it's true, it's a little bland. I think someone who has been taught socialism (that we must help others with their lives) could simply take your statement and assume since we must choose to live, that we must then help others to live, which doesn't work at all. But you wouldn't have time to explain all that. So you really need to come up with a simple, catchy idea that might intrigue others enough to look further into it. And don't ever use big words! "Individuals, achievement, happiness, living, etc." are easy to understand. I tend to stay away from all "ism's".

Also, if you're trying to explain what objectivism is, not just who Rand was, I'd highly recommend Joe Rowland's speech "The Meaning of Life" from a couple years ago. (Read it here.) It's about the difference between staying alive, and really living, which is a good way to 'sell' objectivism I think to people who have never heard of obj or Rand. It's extremely well written, easy to read and best of all, enjoyable! (Seems a bit 'long' at first, but you won't notice!)

It's one way that you're not just stating something that a past author wrote that a person hearing it for the first time cannot relate to their lives. Objectivism is meant to be a guide for how to make the most out of all our lives, and can actually be applied to organizing your thoughts, understanding your feelings, interacting with others and taking control of your life. I think that might be a better sell than saying "we are alive and make choices to live", which may not seem like anything revolutionary to another person. You really have to sort of intrigue them into finding out more. Not an easy thing to do when people are often too busy to pick up another interest or just totally uninterested in the idea of philosophy, picking up a big book, etc. So find a way to put it into easy to understand, not scary, interesting and applicable terms!

-Elizabeth

Post 3

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 3:41pm

That is, the choice to live is “built-into” the concept of morality.

I would say that morality is built upon the choice to live. Morality is the embodiment of those values necessary to pursue Life as a human being.

Craig

Post 4

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 9:01am

Hello Don,

Welcome to the group.

If I had to condense Rand’s theory into just one paragraph for a “lay” person, how would I best go about doing it?

Rand was asked essentially the same question once. She was asked to explain Objectivism "while standing on one foot". You can read her response here: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.html

Can you be more specific about the issues or situations in which you get "tripped up"?

Post 5

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:41pm

To Rodney:
Definitely let me know if you have any thoughts you’d like to (or have the time to) share. In any case, nice to meet you.

Post 6

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:43pm

To Elizabeth:

It was nice of you to take so much time to respond to me. Let me read the article you pointed out by Joe Rowland and get back to you (it might be a day or so). Right now I'm very backed up at work so I haven't had much time for posting.

You mentioned that there have been other similar discussions on this forum? Off hand, do you know where? You also mentioned another “Yahoo” discussion forum. Do you have the address?

Kind regards,

Don

Post 7

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:54pm

To Craig (and Everyone):

Thanks for your quick response. I suppose that if I say that the “pursuit of life” is “built into” the concept of morality, then I am insinuating that morality includes something IN ADDITION TO the pursuit of life (i.e., that the pursuit of life is only “part of” morality). But, what would the “other part” of morality be and how would I go about deriving it? Good point. I think you are right that I made a mistake here. I think Rand would have said that morality consists ONLY of those actions consistent with the pursuit of life (and nothing else). So, altruistic actions (i.e., actions that are inconsistent with the pursuit of one’s life) of any kind are thrown out of morality.

But, how can one say that morality is built upon the choice to pursue life? If I were “Joe Skeptic,” then I might say: “Sure, IF you choose that the pursuit of life is the starting point, THEN certain actions are clearly consistent with its achievement. However, how do you validate that the pursuit of life itself is moral? If you can’t, then why can’t I just choose anything as a starting point?” These are the types of objections I’m trying to fend off.

I’ve tried to answer this myself in my first email. That is, by observing that any alleged system of morality presupposes that 1) one is alive and 2) life is conditional. Both of these premises seem to be unassailable. And, from these two premises it appears that the moral imperative “to live” follows as a truism insofar as “you” existence at all. Hence, it seems that egoism (i.e., the choice to live) and everything that such an ethics entails flows from observed fact.

Do you agree with the essence my formulation? – of course, ignoring my comment that the pursuit of life is “built into” morality…

Have I "made the case?"

Best regards,
Don

Post 8

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:59pm

To Michael:

Hi. Thanks for responding to me and pointing out that the link. It's a good link, but I have already seen it.

I certainly know that Rand believed in egoism. But, I’m trying to complete my understandiong of WHY she believed egoism is true (or, HOW she claimed to validate this). That is where things get very abstract and difficult. This is where I get “tripped up.” Of course, if one can’t validate a "first moral principle," then all the moral principles that follow (i.e., honestly, integrity, reason, capitalism, etc…) come crashing down, and we are left with David Hume.
:-)

Don

Post 9

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 3:30am

I’ve tried to answer this myself in my first email. That is, by observing that any alleged system of morality presupposes that 1) one is alive and 2) life is conditional. Both of these premises seem to be unassailable. And, from these two premises it appears that the moral imperative “to live” follows as a truism insofar as “you” existence at all. Hence, it seems that egoism (i.e., the choice to live) and everything that such an ethics entails flows from observed fact.

Yes, that's how I see it. Life requires you to act. It requires you to seek-out values which support Life. This means that not all values are neutral, and is a direct counter-argument to those who say that ethics is meaningless, and that all values are equivalent and neutral.

Also, note, that any other starting point is arbitrary as Life doesn't require it. My current beef is with the utilitarians who say that man should work for the good of the Whole, rather than the good of the Self. They've become quite numerous and must be stopped. I'm starting a counter-movement with the premise that man should work for the good of his Toaster.

Craig

Post 10

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 7:59am

Don:

But, how can one say that morality is built upon the choice to pursue life? If I were “Joe Skeptic,” then I might say: “Sure, IF you choose that the pursuit of life is the starting point, THEN certain actions are clearly consistent with its achievement. However, how do you validate that the pursuit of life itself is moral? If you can’t, then why can’t I just choose anything as a starting point?” These are the types of objections I’m trying to fend off.

The pursuit of life is the only reason anyone would need morality. Those that do not wish to live, need not concern themselves with the subject.

Rand explained it as follows:

Right and wrong, good and bad are concepts that imply choice in the face of alternatives. It is only living things that face choices -- it is only the concept "life", that makes the concept of good and bad possible. "It is only to a living entity that things can be good and bad."

Rand clarifies this point by asking us to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot. Such an entity could not be harmed by anything and would therefore have no need of morality -- it would not matter what choices it made.

Morality, therefore, presupposes the existence of a living being that wishes to continue living. The purpose of morality is to teach you how to make the right choices -- the choices that keep you alive. The good, therefore, is that which supports life; the evil is that which destroys it. (Rand goes on to make the crucial distinction that the "life" being referred to is the life of man the rational animal, not man the looter. See the Virtue of Selfishness for details.)

The choice to live is the only choice that gives rise to the whole issue of morality. Therefore, the choice to live must be its starting point.

Post 11

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:48am

Michael, Don,

Excellent explanation of the reason for moral values, Michael.

Therefore, the choice to live must be its starting point.

When I read that, I thought of these Ayn Rand quotes:

The Only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.
[For the New Intellectual, Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged, page 123.]

Man must choose his actions, values, and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life. [The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics," page 25.]

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
[For the New Intellectual, Galt's Speech from Atlas Shrugged, page 123.]

Regi

Post 12

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 10:17am

http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/meng.pdf

Don,

Perhaps another relevant point of view would help illustrate this idea about the essentiality of using "life choice" (preservation) to ground the science of ethics in reality. In a paper available at:

... the author (Jude Chua Soo Meng) makes one of the most refined and clear cases I've seen. Here is a relevant paraphrase of the ideas offered in summary (note: my wording is not exact - refer to the actual online copy if literary exactitude is desired):

1. Start with the precept that life is a basic good that ought to be preserved.

2. Then, attempt to deny this precept.

3. Note the "performatory self-contradiction" (your actions persistently contradict #2)

4. Therefore, it follows modus tollens (valid rule of inference stating: if p, then q, AND not-q, THEREFORE, not-p) that denying #1 is invalid; and, by implication, that "life is good" is a necessary truth

5. In sum then, humans (who are, by nature, rational beings) should choose action aimed at self-preservation (it is the only valid - ie. logical - choice to make) and only those codes of ethics based on this sole rational choice are valid. Other codes of ethics (non-egoistic) are invalid as they are not grounded in the reality of actual existence for a rational being of volitional consciousness.

Don, I wrote this quickly and with little proofreading - let me know if it sounds unclear/inadequate to you as a means of illuminating this ethical principle.

Ed Thompson

Post 13

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:24pm

Craig/Michael/Regi:

Thanks for your feedback. You’ve more or less confirmed my understanding of the issue.

This may seem elementary, but it has been very helpful for me. I’ve read various interpretations of Rand's ethics, but I’ve never actually interacted with any “Objectivists” to verify my understanding of how she claimed to derive moral values from observed/empical facts. It seems like such a powerful (and utterly impregnable) argument -- this from someone who had studied positivism and pragmatism for years.

Best regards,

Don

Post 14

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:35pm

Ed:

I just read your post. I'll check out that article you referenced!

Thanks,
Don

Post 15

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:39am

here's my stab at this:

premise #1: you are alive.

premise #2: certain behaviors are necessary to stay alive.

now, let us ask a very simple question:
do you want to live or do you want to die?

if you pick door #1, those certain behaviours must be followed.
if you pick door #2, go right on ahead.

objectivist ethics = the project of enumerating what precisely those certain behaviors are.

Post 16

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:10am