4 ms·

I've read Ayn Rand's books, so I feel confident in stating with Wikipedia that for the Objectivist the moral purpose of the individual life is the pursuit of ha

by msg 17y ago

I've read Ayn Rand's books, so I feel confident in stating with Wikipedia that for the Objectivist the moral purpose of the individual life is the pursuit of happiness or rational self-interest. I don't feel like I overstated the position. I don't think there is much space between hedonism and devil may care rugged individualism. Unless you provide a foundation for ethics, there is no way to compare my self-interest against your self-interest on the merits. And in particular the critique of atheists still applies to Objectivists unless Objectivists provide an ultimate foundation for ethics.

mike_organon 17y ago
Hedonism and "devil may care" may be the same thing, but neither are rational self-interest as described by Objectivism. To answer your question, Objectivism does provide a rational foundation for ethics (obviously, beyond the scope here). It defines a very precise set of virtues, which are objective, based on facts and reason; which will explain why everyone's rational self-interest can be compared and work compatibly. It's not at all "what happens to feel good to you". The virtues are principles based on our nature as human beings, not concrete actions like worshiping idols. I won't go into detail, but basically the foundation is: humans need to respect reality, use reason, and not be dependent on others but be productive to survive. This is how we each survive, and thrive. The standard of morality is life, ones own human life. Sacrificing your values is working against your own life. According to these principles, faith, mysticism, and using force against other people are all bad for your own life. The point of the article is that altruism asks for sacrifice. Is there a rational basis for accepting it as a moral code? It's always been founded on religion throughout history. All the New Atheists do is say instead that altruism (or utilitarianism) feels right to them. This is not reason. Why does it feel right? And what about people for whom it doesn't feel right? I like a lot of what the four horsemen have written and said in defense of science and atheism, and how they debunk religion and some of its more monstrous ethics. But, when they try to provide a positive ethics, they only offer what feels right.
- msg 16y ago
  I don't think I'm asking exactly the right question, but what makes life good, in the sense of our nature as human beings? I'm trying to understand what you take as the origin of ethics, or the final arbiter of good and evil.
  - mike_organon 16y ago
    That's a fine question, but Rand gives a better answer than I can (if you follow the links). "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html "There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective." Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good--the.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good--the.html You ask about good. Good implies value by some valuer. Saying that life is the standard of good is essentially as much as the question can be broken down (Rand gives a lot more detail than I can here). That's not the same proposition as saying "my feelings" are the standard of good, because feelings are based on something, so those need to be explored and reasoned about. You can't reason once you've denied reason or chosen death.

by msg 17y ago

mike_organon 17y ago

Hedonism and "devil may care" may be the same thing, but neither are rational self-interest as described by Objectivism. To answer your question, Objectivism does provide a rational foundation for ethics (obviously, beyond the scope here). It defines a very precise set of virtues, which are objective, based on facts and reason; which will explain why everyone's rational self-interest can be compared and work compatibly. It's not at all "what happens to feel good to you". The virtues are principles based on our nature as human beings, not concrete actions like worshiping idols. I won't go into detail, but basically the foundation is: humans need to respect reality, use reason, and not be dependent on others but be productive to survive. This is how we each survive, and thrive. The standard of morality is life, ones own human life. Sacrificing your values is working against your own life. According to these principles, faith, mysticism, and using force against other people are all bad for your own life. The point of the article is that altruism asks for sacrifice. Is there a rational basis for accepting it as a moral code? It's always been founded on religion throughout history. All the New Atheists do is say instead that altruism (or utilitarianism) feels right to them. This is not reason. Why does it feel right? And what about people for whom it doesn't feel right? I like a lot of what the four horsemen have written and said in defense of science and atheism, and how they debunk religion and some of its more monstrous ethics. But, when they try to provide a positive ethics, they only offer what feels right.

msg 16y ago
I don't think I'm asking exactly the right question, but what makes life good, in the sense of our nature as human beings? I'm trying to understand what you take as the origin of ethics, or the final arbiter of good and evil.
- mike_organon 16y ago
  That's a fine question, but Rand gives a better answer than I can (if you follow the links). "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html "There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective." Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good--the.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good--the.html You ask about good. Good implies value by some valuer. Saying that life is the standard of good is essentially as much as the question can be broken down (Rand gives a lot more detail than I can here). That's not the same proposition as saying "my feelings" are the standard of good, because feelings are based on something, so those need to be explored and reasoned about. You can't reason once you've denied reason or chosen death.