tna@cholula.UUCP (10/07/85)
>I raise then this issue: >Assuming a continuum of moral reasoning (not behavior >just reasoning), where in relation to other moral >belief systems does Objectivism stand? > >darren Kall I am new to the news and was just perusing things when I saw your comments about objectivism. This caught my interest because I, too, am a student of objectivism but have never encountered anyone else admitting to having any knowledge of it (although a few people have admitted to reading Ayn Rand novels). As to your question: Where does Objectivism stand in the realm of moral belief systems? I think it stands alone. Here is why: All other systems of ethics (that I know of) make an arbitrary appeal to authority as the basis of their system (argumentum ad verecundiam). Either they appeal to: 1. the authority of God (e.g. 'God has revealed to us what is right and wrong - what more can be said'). 2. or the authority of man (singularly or collectively, e.g. 'What is right or wrong can only be determined by the norms of the applicable society'). Ayn Rand, however, has attempted to base the Objectivist ethics on the nature of the objective reality that we are all a part of. She writes in "The Virtue of Selfishness" (speaking about altruism): Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's own interests is evil means that man's desire to live is evil - that man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that. She is arguing here that survival is fundamental. Assuming we make the choice to exist (live), the most important thing is to keep on living. One's life then becomes a thing of 'ultimate value' and that which advances one's life is good and that which detracts from it is bad. The Objectivist ethics is based on a hierarchy of values with one's life at the top of the heap. (Some of you out there will object to the apparently hedonistic, materialistic nature of Objectivism. It really isn't. Even love for another human being is selfish (I am using the word 'selfish' in the same sense that Ayn Rand does). But that is not the question at hand, so I will say no more on that). I find the concept of a 'hierarchy of values' as the basis for ethical decisions very useful in my own life. This concept can be used regardless of whether you agree with Ayn Rand as to the 'ultimate value' or not. You don't even have to know for sure what you believe is the 'ultimate value'. If you can prioritize your values that relate the ethical question at hand well enough, you have made great progress towards reaching a decision. -- Thomas N. Anderson ...uw-beaver!teltone!tna Teltone Corporation, 10801 120th Ave NE, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 827-9626
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/09/85)
In article <101@cholula.UUCP> tna@cholula.UUCP (Tom Anderson) writes: >As to your question: Where does Objectivism stand in the >realm of moral belief systems? >I think it stands alone. Here is why: >All other systems of ethics (that I know of) make an arbitrary >appeal to authority as the basis of their system (argumentum ad >verecundiam). Either they appeal to: > 1. the authority of God (e.g. 'God has revealed to us > what is right and wrong - what more can be said'). > 2. or the authority of man (singularly or collectively, > e.g. 'What is right or wrong can only be determined > by the norms of the applicable society'). Well, I think Objectivism pretty clearly falls into the second class. Explanation to follow: >Ayn Rand, however, has attempted to base the Objectivist ethics >on the nature of the objective reality that we are all a part of. >She writes in "The Virtue of Selfishness" (speaking about altruism): > Since nature does not provide man with an automatic > form of survival, since he has to support his life by > his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's > own interests is evil means that man's desire to > live is evil - that man's life, as such, is evil. > No doctrine could be more evil than that. Well, this is a very poor understanding of the Christian view (and it is clear to me that that is who she is replying to). Christian statements about altruism, ignoring their eschatological content for the moment, derive altruism from a cooperative view of man (and indeed, human societies exist entirely through cooperation). But be that as it may, this focus upon any opposition to survival as an evil is, I would argue, as personally centered as any viewpoint can get. Let me express the extreme opposite viewpoint, taken here from _Rendevous with Rama_, by Arthur C. Clarke. At this point the solar system is possibly being invaded by an alien space craft. The inhabitants of Mercury, (who hold a philosophy much akin to objectivism, by the way) have dispatched nuclear weaponry to destroy the ship. The speaker, Commander Norton, has at his disposal the power to stop them. So he has a moral dilemma on his hands: He was faced with the most difficult decision *any* commander had ever had to make. The future of the entire human race might well depend upon it. .... He returned the calm, steady gaze of [Capt.] Cook from across the centuries. "I agree with you, Captain," he whispered. "The human race has to live with its conscience. WHatever the Hermians [on Mercury] argue, survival is not everything." Now the comparison: >She is arguing here that survival is fundamental. Assuming >we make the choice to exist (live), the most important thing >is to keep on living. One's life then becomes a thing of >'ultimate value' and that which advances one's life is good and >that which detracts from it is bad. The Objectivist ethics is >based on a hierarchy of values with one's life at the top of >the heap. (Some of you out there will object to the apparently >hedonistic, materialistic nature of Objectivism. It really isn't. >Even love for another human being is selfish (I am using the >word 'selfish' in the same sense that Ayn Rand does). But >that is not the question at hand, so I will say no more on that). The thing is that this elevates the individual's viewpoint to the highest point possible, while at the same time denegrating that of any others (since, after all, survival is often predicated on the demise of another). So in a sense I think it's fair to characterize objectivism as the most extreme case of person-centered morality, deriving its authority from one's sense of one's own worth. >I find the concept of a 'hierarchy of values' as the basis >for ethical decisions very useful in my own life. This concept >can be used regardless of whether you agree with Ayn Rand as to >the 'ultimate value' or not. You don't even have to know for sure >what you believe is the 'ultimate value'. If you can prioritize >your values that relate the ethical question at hand well enough, >you have made great progress towards reaching a decision. Of course, this begs the question of whether someone else's values should be considered as well. Objectivism as I understand it (and I admit not having studied it to any great depth) would be a very poor ground for relations with one's own children, for example. Here indeed one's own survival must ultimately be given up, in favor of the child's growth and survival. here is often a clash, however, between the parent's needs and the child's needs, and the is overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of balancing the two. If I remember correctly, Ayn Rand never had any children. Is this correct? My personal reaction to _Atlas Shrugged_ was a feeling that the work spoke of a world which ceased to exist even as the book was being written. Survival has in large part fallen into the hands of our enemies. The economy of leisure has become an important social force in this country. I've never really tried to evaluate her arguments in any formal fashion, but the strong feeling I get that the world she writes about is not the world in which I live has always disuaded me from believing her. Charley Wingate