About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I agree with many of the worthy comments above but let me try another approach at getting a sense of the whole.

 

Objectivism isn’t consequentialist, deontological, or value-ethical – although it has the best of all in some sense. I take consequentialist (utilitarian or not) to be a case by case piecemeal analysis. I don’t take consequentialism to be synonymous with purposeful. Deontological ethics goes to the other extreme by either eliminating purposefulness (becoming arbitrary duty) or introducing circularity (the act is its own end). Virtue ethics, with its starting point in character, seems to veer towards form over function. All of these approaches take an aspect of ethics and raises it to the whole.

 

It is survival that grounds ethics.

 

Survival keeps the focus on character from degenerating to an aesthetic or arbitrary focus on the cultivation of some quality just because one can. The cultivation of character is grounded in the health and robust requirements demanded by the challenges of life. Without such grounding – implicit or explicit – value-ethics can drift towards the perfection of abilities good, bad, or arbitrary in nature. Although, in practice, common sense usually prevents this.

 

Survival introduces the unifying element that avoids the concrete-bound consequentialist dead-ends but only if one understands survival properly. The long-term and robust nature of Objectivist ethics demands that one approach specific cases by a total integration into the hierarchy of principles before one can understand the meaning of an action. This integration is not an aggregation as in act utilitarianism. There is a considerable difference. Consequentialism tends to have a mechanical focus on the ends justify the means. Objectivism is more biological in its approach on being appropriate to its goal. And I believe this requires a much fuller discussion.

 

Deontological theories do understand that the ends don’t justify the means. But this is because they tend to focus only on the means and hence veer towards the arbitrary.

 

Thus, Objectivism appreciates the cultivation of character but in the context of the telos of survival qua man. It is purposeful but not in a mechanical sense that the means are only evaluated with respect to the guaranteed achievement on a case by case concrete basis. It takes pride in the doing (as Howard Roach would say) but because of the appropriateness of such actions in a full sense – not just because it is the “right thing.”

 

This is my rough stab at a comparison of Objectivism to the other three approaches. I’m aware that the other approaches are often generalized in attempts to be as rich as Objectivism but I don’t think they center ethics where it belongs. Comments?

 

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 12/31, 6:24am)

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 12/31, 6:27am)


Post 21

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

What makes you so sure that by grounding ethics in "survival", you are not, to paraphrase you, taking an aspect of ethics and raising it to the whole?

How is a survivalist ethics not inherently
consequentialist, even if there is an appeal to case-by-case consideration of the consequences with the overriding value being survival? 

Thanks.

For the record, my position is that all three positions capture important and relatively distinct aspects of ethics, but that I prefer to know what people actually do, not what they claim to do, before I start asking questions about what they can or should do.


Post 22

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jason,

Thanks for the post. I appreciate your integrative approach. I think you summed up your view here:
Thus, Objectivism appreciates the cultivation of character but in the context of the telos of survival qua man.
This would seem to espouse a consequentialist virtue ethic, an option that Reed suggested in post two. I'd be curious to see how your view measures up to the views of other scholars who have developed consequentialist virtue theories. Brad Hooker develops his strain in Ideal Code, Real World. He's utilitarian, but if we can look past that, we might be able to see some fruitful parallels between his work and O'ism. And Julia Driver (another utiliarian) develops her strain in Uneasy Virtue. Unfortunately, I've not yet read these books, but maybe someone else is up to the task.

*

I'm more comfortable with your critiques on deontology and virtue ethics than I am with your critiques on consequentialism.
I take consequentialist (utilitarian or not) to be a case by case piecemeal analysis.
Why? Perhaps you're thinking just of act consequentialism and not its popular alternative, rule consequentialism.
Consequentialism tends to have a mechanical focus on the ends justify the means
I think it was Milt Friedman who asked, "If the end doesn't justify the means, what does?"

Jordan


Post 23

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’m glad you both noted the fact that Objectivist ethics is concerned with consequences – after all, any purposeful goal-directed value system must be. So I take it that Jordan, you reject my distinction between purposefulness and consequentialism (which I see as a sub-category). I tend to see consequentialists as coming to the problem of ethics from the wrong direction. I can imagine that some can still arrive at an agreeable position but it seems to be at odds with the human challenge we face. (By the way, thanks for the references.)

 

Act consequentialists, as you note, tend to aggregate case by case examples. One would expect that you need a grand accountant to tell us what we can and cannot do in each individual case. Rule consequentialists take a step in the right direction but even here you need a rule expert to do a cost benefit analysis and make a judgment on the rules. Both of these effectively take moral responsibility out of the hands of the individual where it is situated. How can we know right from wrong without being told by the experts? How can we be praised or blamed for our actions if we are merely misinformed by the authorities? This seems to situate ethical judgment outside the context where it arises and where it is needed. It is a very different approach than one that emphasizes character development – created by practice, guided by thoughtful reflection, and exhibited by the dispositions and second nature that makes character a solid basis to meet the challenges of life.

 

Consequentialists tend to focus on obtaining certain outcomes – as your quote from Friedman implies. As you note, I call this a mechanical type of ethical theory. I tend to think in biological terms such as health. This means developing capacities to deal with contingencies and the challenges life requires and his is broader than the subject of ethics. Thus, one studies for a profession, say civil engineering, not by learning how to build a particular bridge but by learning general principles to face a wide variety of challenges. One is concerned not just to avoid sudden death by poison but one maintains a healthy diet to increase one’s robust response to many illnesses. One is concerned with financial health to increase one’s material options, mental health to withstand the stress and strain of circumstances, spiritual health to maintain the spirit of living and growing, a proper reputation to earn the respect and trust of others, etc.

 

In general, I take the health concept as a metaphor for ethical development. This is just the opposite of the more common view that focuses on guaranteeing concrete results in a case by case basis. Obviously, there are matters that must be avoided – don’t step in front of that moving car! However, we spend most of the time seeking to live a certain way and that’s where I see the more interesting ethical questions. What kind of character should I cultivate? What kind of person should I become? What interests and skills should I develop? Am I a worthy of living with other civilized beings? Am I worthy to face the challenges of life in general? Am I a worthy human being?

 

The concept of worth has both internal and external implications if one takes it as a comment on the relationship between one’s character and the world. Thus, neither the consequentialist aspects of living in the world, nor the constitutive aspects of being praiseworthy (that deontologists focus on) need be in conflict. Just the opposite, it is by cultivating character that one becomes more able to deal with life’s challenges. Thus, I see both consequentialists and deontologists as starting from the wrong place and making it harder to get the right balance or total picture. Value-ethics strikes me as a better starting place. However, even in this case, one ultimately needs overriding criteria that isn’t arbitrary. I suggest survival, properly understood, can be this criteria.

 


Post 24

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Jason,
So I take it that Jordan, you reject my distinction between purposefulness and consequentialism (which I see as a sub-category).
Yes, because much of the consequentialism that I've studied doesn't appear to be case by case or unpurposeful. Also, the consequentialism I've studied doesn't appear to require an expert authority. Which consequentialists (or strains of consequentialism) are you thinking of when you claim they require expert authorities? The ones I've studied don't appear to want to take decision-making or evaluation away from the individual.
I tend to think in biological terms such as health.
Is this what you'd say Objectivists do?

It's clear to me that you think consequentialists and deontologists start from the wrong place, but would you mind just stating again briefly what you think is the right place and why? I think you think character development is the right place to start, but I'm not sure why you think that.

Happy New Year,
Jordan


Post 25

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also, the consequentialism I've studied doesn't appear to require an expert authority. Which consequentialists (or strains of consequentialism) are you thinking of when you claim they require expert authorities?

 

Utilitarianism has been a major argument of collectivists that I’ve known in my lifetime. They would argue that a violation of my rights is required to help others less fortunate increase their happiness. The overall schemes of running such a society and weighing everyone’s need requires a bureaucracy of experts.

 

 

I tend to think in biological terms such as health.

Is this what you'd say Objectivists do?

 

 

Objectivists argue for a standard apart from a goal. Consequentialists make the goal the standard. My formulation differs somewhat from Rand’s but I think they are compatible. Rand talks about “life” as the standard of value. What furthers life is the good; what is inimical to life is “evil.” In my view, she is adopting a more biological, health-type approach. She argues that happiness is an individual’s purpose (goal) but not any type of happiness. She argues that it is circular to take happiness as the standard. This is what I believe utilitarians do.

 

Utilitarians, especially in the economic profession, usually talk about desires as if there were static and merely something to be satisfied. However, we can learn to cultivate both good and bad habits; we can cultivate and develop an appreciation and enjoyment of totally new areas of rewarding activity. This then begs the question: what should we enjoy? Utilitarianism suffers from the same circular reasoning as hedonism: you should enjoy what is ultimately enjoyable for you.

 

Utilitarianism seems more like a rationalization of goals arrived at by other criteria, which is then left unexamined. As objection after objection is raised, the utilitarian merely adds the additional factor to the equation. If I say we need to cultivate character and learn to enjoy X instead of settling for Y, J. S. Mill will introduce the idea that quantity of pleasure should be supplemented with quality! If I say we need a robust manner of proceeding that can’t guarantee results in every case but can withstand the major challenges of life and ultimately prevail in most cases, a utilitarian will have no problem with abandoning the case by case analysis for a long term aggregation as the payoff for adopting a rule or “general tendency.” Mill even discusses "a pain, more or less intense, attendant on violation of duty, which in properly cultivated moral natures rises, in the more serious cases, into shrinking from it as an impossibility."

 

The reason a utilitarian or consequentialist can get mileage from consequences is because consequences are part of the ethical analysis. But merely focusing on consequences doesn’t yield a unique ethics. Mill had a version which respects individual rights. However, most people today would like some rights violation in order to establish security. Some go further and want egalitarianism. I cannot argue against any of these on a purely consequentailist basis. For example, the person who wants security finds that complete liberty brings the pain of anxiety. The person who wants egalitarianism either feels overwhelming empathy or envy. If I argue that such people have pathological levels of pain and we should ignore them, I’m using other criteria in lieu of the traditional utilitarian focus on pleasure/pain/happiness/utility.

 

In practice, I find the utilitarianism and consequentialism becomes subjectivism. The whole motivation was to avoid the focus on human nature in lieu of “results.” Of course, any ethics that doesn’t advocate purposelessness is concerned with consequences. But the concern is through an integrated theory of human nature, human purpose, and an ultimate standard or criteria to resolve paths of action. If that ultimate criteria isn’t arbitrary, one has achieve a purposeful, meaningful, and valid ethics. However, I’ll have to back off on the ambitious task of attempting to describe how that is done and whether Objectivism achieves that.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 1/01, 6:35am)


Post 26

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Jason,

 

I appreciate your last post. I would agree that when it comes to politics, Utilitarians have often called for expert authorities (i.e., the state), but when it comes to Utiliarian morality, I don't see the call for experts. Not a big deal though. And thank you for your interpretation on this topic.

 

Jordan



Post 27

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You're welcome and thank you (and "next") for some thoughtful comments and questions. It has encouraged me to review some of these matters after many years.

Post 28

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to make a point about the "collectivism" of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism, even in its "greatest good for the greatest number" forms, is not opposed to individualism, because some utilitarians (Henry Sidgwick comes to mind) have argued that your personal interests are better known and more certainly satisfied by you than the interests of others.  Therefore, utilitarians can and have advocated self-realization as being conducive to promoting the common good.

Therefore, the ends of utilitarianism should not be confused with the means.  Most utilitarians (or consequentialists) have struggled with trying to define right as "the maximization of good" because this often assaults certain notions of fairness and justice that virtue ethicists and deontologists have taken utilitarians to task for.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.