mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/02/85)
In article <13300002@hpfclp.UUCP> mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) writes: >Rand's argument is that ethics can be derived objectively based on the >axiom that reality is objective. If you do not believe that it is >possible to derive ethics objectively, then the ONLY alternative is that >ethics are subjective. Subjective ethics (and subjective morality) are >tantamount to "Anything Goes". If you can't deduce an objective code by >which people can live with each other, then there is no code. In such a >world, the only ethics possible would be a collection of >range-of-the-moment rules; rules not validated by reason, rules not >validated by an understanding or respect for man's nature, rules not >validated by the knowledge required for the proper survival of a >rational being. This argument has a number of obvious holes in it. First of all, it erroneously assumes that reason can in fact validate a code of ethics. I agree that reason is a necessary tool. Since reason cannot tell you anything about value, and especially about the value of a system of values, there is always some subjective component which must be dealt with. Secondly, it fails to treat a third possibility: that there is in fact a code, but that the code is (for one reason or another) at least partly obscured. Suppose, for instance, you could sit in the Great White Throne and look down on all of history at once. Presumably, one could then figure out what the right thing to do for every dilemma was. This would form a code of ethics; the problem from the human point of view is that such a code would be very difficult to see, and perhaps also very difficult to systematize. This gives us an objective code, but one which can only be seen subjectively. This is the platonic sort of view which (for instance) Christianity takes. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/03/85)
>/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 12:12 pm Jul 2, 1985 */ >Secondly, it fails to treat a third possibility: that there is in fact a >code, but that the code is (for one reason or another) at least partly >obscured. What point is there in speculating about a code that is "obscured?"
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (07/10/85)
> >/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 12:12 pm Jul 2, 1985 */ > > >Secondly, it fails to treat a third possibility: that there is in fact a > >code, but that the code is (for one reason or another) at least partly > >obscured. > > What point is there in speculating about a code that is "obscured?" What point is there in speculating about a crime that has been committed, about which there is little information, or obscure information?? What point is there in speculating about physical, chemical, biological, psychological, or social phenomena that is "obscure"?? The point is that by speculating, discussing and, where possible, formulating and executing experiments, truth may be discovered. Or perhaps, some small piece of truth may be uncovered. Since the original posting was about moral codes (whether there is some absolute moral code or not), the objection might be raised that "this is a different kind of speculation...." But it is not. If there exists some absolute moral code which has been obscured, it is still possible that certain portions have been obscured from some people, while other portions have been obscured from others. Thus by "speculating" about it in a public forum, or perhaps more accurately, DISCUSSING it in a public forum, the portions that are clear to you might become clear to me, and vice-versa (provided that I am a willing listener and an able expositer). There's more than one way to be savage Lowell Savage