4 ms·

Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge case

Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/

maxharris 18y ago
What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
  - maxharris 18y ago
    "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      > Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours. Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.
    - Avshalom 18y ago
      "Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible." Please define 'lived as well as possible' with out reference to objectivist concepts or philosophies. Also please demonstrate objectively which is better, a life well lived or a one lived as long as possible, and in the the situation which maximizing both are impossible, the ratio which maximizes the value of life. Alternatively please refrain from stating opinions as unqualified fact.
      - Ein2015 18y ago
        That's for you to decide, based on your other values. Some people value adventure and risk-taking in order to bring about new rewards and feel proud of them. They accept the risks which could shorten their life. Other people want to live a long time and see a lot of things. They would not be risk-takers and thus would be happier with a longer life. Does this make sense?
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Even Ayn Rand didn't think that Objectivism was applicable to all situations; she said somewhere that lifeboat situations didn't count, and I think this applies more generally to all extreme situations: neither reason nor evolutionary psychology is guaranteed to help you decipher the ethics of actions in situations which are extremely unlikely to occur.

maxharris 18y ago

What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)

jacoblyles 18y ago
Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
- maxharris 18y ago
  "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    > Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours. Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.
  - Avshalom 18y ago
    "Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible." Please define 'lived as well as possible' with out reference to objectivist concepts or philosophies. Also please demonstrate objectively which is better, a life well lived or a one lived as long as possible, and in the the situation which maximizing both are impossible, the ratio which maximizes the value of life. Alternatively please refrain from stating opinions as unqualified fact.
    - Ein2015 18y ago
      That's for you to decide, based on your other values. Some people value adventure and risk-taking in order to bring about new rewards and feel proud of them. They accept the risks which could shorten their life. Other people want to live a long time and see a lot of things. They would not be risk-takers and thus would be happier with a longer life. Does this make sense?
randallsquared 18y ago
Even Ayn Rand didn't think that Objectivism was applicable to all situations; she said somewhere that lifeboat situations didn't count, and I think this applies more generally to all extreme situations: neither reason nor evolutionary psychology is guaranteed to help you decipher the ethics of actions in situations which are extremely unlikely to occur.