So apparently “morality” is trying to live for as long as possible, when I have children I’ll be sure to tell them that they’re acting “immorally” when they don’t eat their vegetables.
By the way, I really want to see you integrate your view that
and it’s corollary that to do so is wrong, with your belief that Klemm should not break into the cabin (and therefore allow himself to die).
No, because when I say utility is groundless absent life I mean its ontology is rooted in it.
For an automaton with no power of choice over its life. No, the argument runs that if you do not value life prove it and end yours.
Who says there “needs” to be? The question is whether there is or not, and Rand takes life as such.
And what end would that be? All action is aimed at the satisfaction of wants, and all wants only matter to living beings. The next step is to ask what is this satisfaction to consist in if it is to be worthwhile/morally praiseworthy/whatever.
Assuming any life is valuable, when Rand would argue only a rational, examined life is morally choiceworthy/praiesworthy.
If they are, so much the worse for them because it means they cannot even rise above the level of animals.
That still doesn’t mean that utility can’t be be the ultimate end and life merely the means, which invalidates the argument, and also appears quite obvious given the large number of drug users that exist. Or, if you want to forget utility for the sake of utility, what stops somebody from living their life for the purpose of making their family and friends happy? Clearly, in this case, life is not an ultimate end.
Ok fair enough, but the perfomative contradiction does not establish that life is the ultimate end, so it doesn’t get you where you want it to. One can value life just like they value and other means.
And by what standard does one judge whether a particular action is moral? Moreover, why is it that some action needs to be worthwhile?
And the reasons given in TVOS aren’t sufficient to prove this.
Ok, that’s fine. But in that case you’d probably best stop using the word happiness to describe the results of living “a rational life as man qua man”, or in other words being an objectivist.
Again, you are not comprehending Rand’s theory. It may be part of a person’s life to make themeselves happy by making their close ones happy (because if it does not gratify themselves they will not undertake this course of action, this is known from Austrian value theory.) So a flourishing/virtuous life remains the ultimate end because it is precisely what these liaisons reinforce.
Yeah, except Rand’s answer would be that all these means ultimately contribute to one’s happiness, i.e. a happy life (since the enjoyment of values is something a living being does), so this doesn’t militate against her views but in their favour. She doesn’t stop her argument here. As I said, ontologically speaking life is the grounding force of utility, the virtues etc. (since attaining utility really reduces to living a happy life and is impossible without it - I am here using utility interchangeably with happiness, ignoring it’s more specific philosophical meaning in modern ethics.) Better to see the virtues as constitutive/expressive of a good life, rather than purely instrumental to it.
One would think by whether it enhances their life or not (why choose this? to live a happy life, to satisfy myself &c..) And as for why an action needs to be worthwhile it’s precisely because humans are rational beings which seek to justify their actions. Any action can be faced with the question “Why did you do this/why did you choose this?” and any rational being, in its capacity as such, will be one concerned with answering that question (why is it concerned in the first place with whether it is actually a rational being? only such a being, i.e. one to which the justifiability of its beliefs mattered, would be concerned with such a question.) Who would pursue an action they did not deem worthwhile? It’s a silly notion to countenance and false. The point is for the individual to align their preferences so that they are conducive to the attainment of their flourishing (a state of happiness consistent with their nature, not an illusion) and dispel fogs of ignorance/lack of self-examination that hinder this. One can choose to live as an animal, but what would be morally praiseworthy about this?
Perhaps, perhaps not. I think she makes the case in Atlas Shrugged more forcefully, but TVOS was enough for me.
Why? All action is aimed at satisfaction, the question is what sort of satisfaction is achieved, i.e. that befitting of a human being or that befitting of an animal (another option would be a purely rational being, which clearly would mean little to human beings as emotional creatures - the role of the virtues is learning to regulate one’s emotions.)
I added some a bit randomly to at make it somewhat readable. Perhaps you copy pasted? Or did you quick reply?
You can always edit your post if you notice a problem after submitting.
You are alright Harry. [:)]
Hehehe…
I read the DNC party Platform, where they not only support the state involvement in all aspects of life, but then call it capitalism…
Isn’t that what you do when you start talking about time preference? You constantly conflate time preference with morality.
Wow, maybe you should slow down and reconcile some of these internal contradictions you have.
I understand it quite well, in my honest opinion, I just happen to disagree with it. My point was that it is possible for somebody to have an ultimate end besides their life, this may be their close family, their broad family, their country, their friends, the whole world or just their own utility. The fact of the matter is that people often act in ways that demonstrate such preferences: going to war, donating organs, running into a burning building to save somebody they don’t know or injecting themselves with heroin. Or are you just going to deny that these people are valuing other things than their own life, that they’re just choosing the wrong means to preserve and enjoy it? Because if so, I think you’re going to have to present some sort of argument as to why life must, or at least always is, the ultimate ends as opposed to merely a means.
Well, my valuing life doesn’t get you here. The fact that I value my life (and let us assume as an ultimate end) only gets you far enough to say that I should do whatever I can to live as long a life as possible. Yet, I doubt this could possibly be construed as being “virtuous”. In fact, I don’t even think the Objectivists have a sound argument up to here, so what if I value my life? That by no means implies that I should, consequently there is nothing immoral about suicide or any other way of destroying one’s life, despite assertions to the contrary throughout TVOS. As for utility, I was referring (perhaps incorrectly) to it in the sense of physical pleasure.
In which case I don’t see why Rand’s argument holds, or conversely, I could say that the argument does not hold because what I mean is that my values are maximising utility throughout society, in which case I’m not valuing my life as anything other than a means (nor, in this case, is utility only grounded in my life).
Yes, but all you’ve demonstrated with this is that an individual may justify their action with reference to the happiness it brings them. You’ve not proven that it is moral to live a “happy” life, and I don’t think that’s done in TVOS, at best you could say that it’s proven that individuals should live a long a life as possible (funny, how this relates to the earlier discussion). So when you ask what would be morally praiseworthy about living like an animal, the answer would be “nothing”, but likewise, I don’t see how it’s been demonstrated that it’s moral to live “the examined life”
As for “satisfying” my own happiness, I think there’s plenty of ways that this can be done that objectivists and libertarians would not look too fondly upon. For example, it may well be that I must rob an individual for my happiness, now, I’m sure you can find some argument against this, but none was offered in TVOS, only baseless pseudo-psychology. Furthermore, what if I lose my memory every hour, why would it be immoral to rob somebody now, such an action would have no impact on my happiness, because in an hour I’ll have completely forgotten about it.
I don’t think you can “regulate” your emotions. Biology doesn’t think so either, granted, you can claim that to do so would bring you some sort of satisfaction, but I think it’s somewhat obfuscatory to call such satisfaction “happiness” in the usual sense of the word. See, this wasn’t pointed out in TVOS because the assumption there is that man was born as a blank slate, to be molded by his own reason and his environment. But man isn’t a black slate, and contrary to what Rand, Branden and most biologists at the time thought: evolution does matter with regard to human. Emotions didn’t attach themselves to man out of the blue, they’re the result of evolution and they fill our purpose (funnily enough, this purpose is our survival), so you can be sure that the body is not programmed to make emotions easy to shortcut. Which brings me back to my earlier point, if you attempt to do so, you’re going to end up limiting your own ability.
I’d like to know when I’ve said having high time preference is immoral. Although, Stephan Molyneux certainly believes it.
What you advocated is psychological egoism. The problem that I have with psychological egoism is not the circularity of the argument, but because of its over-simplification. It is over-simplified because psychological egoism presupposes that humans have only one utility function to maximize: either the avoidance of pain or the expectation of pleasure. In reality, however, humans experience an array of different emotions and desires, and we cannot easily aggregate each and every emotion and desire into one single “utility function.” I reject the praxeological assumption of psychological egoism precisely because of this over-simplification of human psychology.
Actual satisfaction does not necessarily equal the expected reward. The appraised value of an emotion does not necessarily match the actual experience of the emotion. For instance, consider a parent sacrificing his or her life for his children. If the parent dies, he will not actually experience his expected reward for saving his children, but nevertheless expected that he will be rewarded when doing his or her sacrifice.
Another example of this is the fear of death. Evolution has made humans to see death as something painful. But do we actually feel pain when we are actually dead? No. As said, the expectation of an emotion is not the same as the experience of the emotion itself.
In addition, I reject the praxeological “means-end dichotomy.” Means are also ends and ends are also means. The means-end dichotomy is an unnecessary and arbitrary abstraction.
Also see this critique of the “means-end dichotomy.”
Hunger and thirst are emotions. The fear of death is another emotion. We cannot “suppress” these emotions with reason. Emotions are necessary for human survival and reproduction.
Wow… almost 700 posts. Way to go, guys!
What are the great faults of conversation?.. I will tell you what I have found spoil more good talks than anything else: long arguments on special points between people who differ on fundamental principles upon which these points depend. No men can have satisfactory relations with each other until they have agreed on certain ultimata of belief not to be disturbed in ordinary conversation, and unless they have sense enough to trace the secondary questions depending upon these ultimate beliefs to their source. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
I wonder how you manage to both believe in revealed religion AND (cheap) materialism…
No coincidence that the bloggers really resent and get petulant when other people handle the microphone. Fits well into my theory of soapbox insecurity.
Three points.
Mocking the length of the discussion is just sad. You post your own long blog rants for review here, and no one criticizes your capacity to run on and on, and you do it without anyone talking back.
It’s fantastic that you are a quote machine, but like Danny, I am wondering if you are capable of offering your own unique insights with clarity or if you will insist that we just need to read more?
How many times will you criticize the length of the discussion? Do you feel you are adding value with it? Like an official score keeper? I think it is your 2nd or 3rd on it already.
I don’t suspect you will respond. Nearly every time I have addressed you directly in debate, you pull a Danny or Brainpolice and stop responding.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but I would be really suprised if more than a handful of people on these forums ever came up with an insight of their own worth anything whatsoever, myself included.
There’s a difference between materialism and acknowledging that the whole field of science named biology may be somewhat relevant.
That’s the way it always is. Nature doesn’t order everyone as a leader, or everyone as an originator. Not everyone is suited to that role. It’s why we have a division of labour.
Thanks. Great non-answer.
The point of quoting Holmes is that the discussion is record-setting in length, and yet has produced almost nothing of value: No one has figured out the fundamental principles which lead to the different conclusions. And efficiency in resolving disputes is a virtue.
A comment on your soapbox theory: well-written articles include responses to objections, so it’s not like only one viewpoint is being expounded.
What’s wrong with offering other peoples’ unique insights? Moreover, how do you “own” an insight? I view ideas as things you discover, not invent.
As for reading, I stand by what I said earlier: there are positive returns to additional reading and learning. I became an anarchist through reading. That’s doing something right!
Empirical claims require supporting evidence.
If we’re obviously at an impasse, it’s a waste of time to keep talking past each other. A better option would be to do more reading and get a better understanding of the issues.
Imposing your subjective valuations as a broad sweeping generalization.
I would argue a great many of us have. There are a handful of parties who refuse to address how their positions conflict with those fundamental principles.
The blog poster/owner never relinquishes the soapbox.
I question the quality of offering other opinions in lieu of one’s own. In other words, if you can’t discuss the ideas in your own words, then how can we know that what you post is relevant or valuable?
I’m sure there are. But approaching disputes with silence or claims we need to read more seems disingenuous to me. You propose something, then avoid addressing the response. So are you constantly being refuted, and have you not clearly thought out your original statements?
Which is why I mostly dropped out some time back. However, we are really only at an impasse because some people chose to astro-turf the discussion (not dissimilar from your complaints about the length of the discussion you no longer are participating in), and refused to argue in good faith. When people start calling people trolls, dodging questions and labeling their opposites lunatics, then it’s definitely an impasse, but not based on a lack of knowledge.
It seems to me, you are willing to turn a blind eye to the poor behaviour of other posters, but more than willing to have the conversation stop when there are no histrionics. Curious isn’t it? Ideological loyalty leads people to compromises they might otherwise never make.
A better option for Danny and BP, and perhaps you, would be to stand your ground and explain yourselves clearly and succinctly. To answer honest questions in an honest manner. And with regards to the other two parties, answering in a manner that is not insulting, or obfuscating.
You know LS, in spite of all your talk about Danny, Sage and BP running away, you’ve not supported this:
And funnily enough, when I asked Wilderness to integrate his view that we should do whatever we can to sustain and further life and his view that Klemm did not have the right to break in, well, he didn’t even attempt it. In fact, he ignored it.
So whilst I’d love to point out the obviousness of the teapot calling the kettle black I don’t think such statements would be appreciate in these “colourblind” forums.