Man, it sucks that morality threads always seem to pop up when I’m in the middle of reformulating my thoughts on the matter. So, first off, bear with me, incomplete theories ahead.
Finally consider this point as eloquently stated by Justin Summers. I recently had a verbal discussion with Justin (I hope Justin won’t be upset by me sharing our thoughts) regarding this specific topic. He brought up and interesting thought I hadn’t yet considered.
There are things in life that you can simply deny, and you can deny them based on whatever subjective valuation you attribute it to(Like eating is evil for example), but there are things in life which you cannot defy(Like never eating forever). Another example would be, I think gravity is evil, but I cannot defy gravity. This statement is particularly interesting to me. I wonder if you would considered it. In short there are things in life you can deny(by some valuation) but some of those things cannot be defied.
When I brought up this point with filc, I was referencing O’Neil’s paper, “Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem”, which is very eloquent. More than eloquent, I freely admit that it demolishes Rand’s argument, and I’m indebted to Adam Knott for pointing it out to me. Specifically, the paper explains in clear terms, “[if a moral law] cannot be disobeyed, then the term ‘ought’ seems inappropriate;” otherwise, subjectivity dominates, because moral laws can be completely disregarded at the subjective desire of the actor.
Now, my recent work has been in theorizing about possible objective laws that don’t neatly fall into either of these categories. I find it quite possible that a moral law could exist such that it can be denied, but not defied. Here’s a very rough example:
- All humans want X.
- The objectively most expedient means to attain X is Y.
- Ceteris paribus, no men want less expedient means.
- Therefore, all men ought to employ Y toward their attainment of X.
In so reasoning, morality becomes framed in terms of rationality (as Rand would define it, not Mises). To be rational (again, using Rand’s definition) is to choose the course of action that maximizes one’s self-interest. To be moral is to choose the most effective course of action - given one’s knowledge - freely chosen on account of that standard.
To reframe this example in terms of concretes, take food. Food is an objective human necessity. As filc showed, you can certainly deny that you need food, but very quickly your body will prove you otherwise through the sensation of pain. You cannot defy your own anatomy. Given this, all men want to eat, even if on a purely physical and instinctual level. The rational course of action would be the one that most quickly satisfies one’s hunger. The moral course of action would be to realize the aforementioned rational course and freely choose to pursue it. One is still free to not choose as such (and there are certainly nonsensical people who might do so), but one’s nature as a human being will not allow them to deny reality for long.
So, from these, man’s objective needs, it seems like we should be able to deduce an objective ethical code.
