3 ms·

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 shoul

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?
  - unalone 18y ago
    Steve Jobs creates beautiful products with gorgeous logic, and as a result is subjected to a lot of controversy regarding his designs. He's almost the archetypal Rand hero. Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of people in corporations and at home, and he made it affordable in a way Jobs never could. But Microsoft has slowed progress in fields for a decade by being tyrannical, and more than that, wrong. The question is, which is the Randian model? They both changed the world, while at the same time doing it using logic that negates the other person's mindset. The answer is that neither one is necessarily a better person, or is following a necessarily better model, than the other one. They've each done marvelous things and made the world a better place. But there is no "truer" accomplishment.
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.

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?
- unalone 18y ago
  Steve Jobs creates beautiful products with gorgeous logic, and as a result is subjected to a lot of controversy regarding his designs. He's almost the archetypal Rand hero. Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of people in corporations and at home, and he made it affordable in a way Jobs never could. But Microsoft has slowed progress in fields for a decade by being tyrannical, and more than that, wrong. The question is, which is the Randian model? They both changed the world, while at the same time doing it using logic that negates the other person's mindset. The answer is that neither one is necessarily a better person, or is following a necessarily better model, than the other one. They've each done marvelous things and made the world a better place. But there is no "truer" accomplishment.

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.