The principle of universalization in objectivism

Hi all,

I want to know whether O'ists espouse or reject the principle of universalization in ethics. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, here's how universalization traditionally works:

1. Pick a principle.
2. Think of what would happen if everyone were to adopt that principle.
3. Determine whether that principle is compromised under 2.
4. If the principle is compromised, discard it.
5. If the principle is uncompromised, allow it.

Jordan

Post 1

Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 9:29pm

I would be surprised to learn of a single ethical principle of Objectivism that is not universal.

That word "universal" means more than just "the people you see on the street." I expect that Objectivist ethical princples will be what makes it possible for dolphins to guide spaceships crewed by a wide range of intelligent species, self-aware life forms, and volitional creatures. The ship's "software" will probably have legally recognized natural rights.

Objectivism is a universal philosophy. Reality is real. Existence exists. A is A. Those truths are not "local." From metaphysics, to epistemology, to ethics, to politics, to aesthetics, Objectivism is intended to discover, identify, and apply universal truths.

Post 2

Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 9:41am

The principles are universal, but the exercise of moral judgement, hence ethics, is contextual. Jordan's statement #2 is too broad.

Think of what would happen if everyone were to adopt that principle.

Only when the various permutations of contexts are isolated and distinguished can it be determined that the principle has been compromised. This makes objectivist jurisprudence hard, even if the objectivist principles are themselves simple.

Post 3

Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 1:49pm

Num++,

If principles read, 'every X ought Y to achieve Z,' then the my statement #2 would be too broad, or at least incomplete. But if principles read, 'every X ought Y in C to achieve Z,' where C is a set of conditions (i.e., a context), then I'd think it just right. Would you agree?

Sort of related to my original post: Assuming that O'ists accept universalization, does the O'ist view of universalization differ at all from Kant's? I know Kant's ethics in total does not align with O'ist ethics; I'm just wondering if there's overlap with this one aspect. There certainly is overlap in other aspects.

Jordan

Post 4

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 10:59pm

Hi there,

I am a novice in this area, I need some help on universalization in regards to theories of ethics. What doe it mean and how do you apply it to ethical decision making?

Vince

Post 5

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 12:17am

M&M:

"I expect that Objectivist ethical princples will be what makes it possible for dolphins to guide spaceships crewed by a wide range of intelligent species, self-aware life forms, and volitional creatures. The ship's "software" will probably have legally recognized natural rights. "

Holy Christ Almighty! I thought I was a having a heroin withdrawal flashback... but then I realised I've never used the drug.

Num++ (is that part of a loop?):

"The principles are universal, but the exercise of moral judgement, hence ethics, is contextual. Jordan's statement #2 is too broad."

Actually, #2 & #3 are part of a nasty little feedback loop that would drive the insane back to sanity and then straight off the edge of a cliff...

Ross

Post 6

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:24am