The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

03-21-2006, 9:46 AM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Meta-ethics I have always been baffled and confused by the great praise given to Rand's ethics. After reading the virtue of selfishness, fountainhead, atlas shrugged, anthem, and other objectivist books not concerning ethics, I am still completely in the dark. If someone could clarify Rand's position in meta-ethics, that would help out tremendously. I can ask specific questions later, but right now I am needing a broad over view.    Report

03-21-2006, 3:56 PM Clarence Hardy Joined on 01-09-2006 Posts 18 Re: Meta-ethics Hmm, personally after reading all those books I don’t see how you can’t have at least some idea of her meta-ethics.  But I’ll help...   First of all, what is meta-ethics?  Lets see...it’s a branch of ethics that tries to understand the nature of ethical statements and judgments.  The entire subject is divided into two groups, ideas that support moral objectivism and ideas that support moral subjectivism (/relativism).  Ayn Rand obviously supported the former.  Broken down to its basics, Ayn Rand took this to its logical end: regardless of what you say, a statement is true or false; regardless of what you see, something is there or it is not; regardless of what you believe, something either exists or it doesn’t.   If you need anything more specific, just ask.    Report

03-25-2006, 1:02 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: Meta-ethics I was, perhaps, not being specific enough with my inquiry. I am curious about the following 3 questions (among many others, but I want to narrow down the focus of this discussion)... What position does objectivism take on each of the following 3 propositions.... 1. The actions of an individual can only be explained by understanding the individuals beliefs and desires. Beliefs alone or desires alone cannot explain motivation. 2. Moral propositions have truth value (that is to say, they are objective, can be said to be true or false). 3. If Agent A is rational, and sincerely judges X to be right, and believes P to be the best means of achieving X, then A will be motivated to P.    Report

03-26-2006, 6:00 PM Ed Hudgins Joined on 12-08-2005 Posts 18 Re: Meta-ethics Rand saw the first act of free will as the first moral act, to focus or unfocus one's mind. (This is similar to the psychology of William James.) You might say that we will to know the truth, as honestly as we can, or we evade or are too lazy to seek the truth. In the latter case our errors aren't intellectual ones. They are moral ones for which we deserve censure.   Ideas, of course, guide our actions and ideas cover pretty much everything concerning human beings. Thus, we might judge that it is okay to give into whims without considering the consequences. That's a idea, and ethically erroneous one.   Moral habits are very important to our moral behavior. (Aristotle's Ethics is the best discussion of this.) But habits are tendencies that we can recognize, submit to rational analysis and moral judgment, and change if necessary. We might observe that we tend to get angry easily, over small or inconsequential things and thus treat others unjustly. Observing this in ourselves, we can seek to change that bad habit. It's tough, just like exercising and dieting can be tough if we're physically out of shape. But it can be done.   As to the truth value of an moral propositions, I think Rand does do good job in the Objectivist Ethics and elsewhere of showing the errors of the fact/value dichotomy. The standard of value is human life, the life of man qua man. For each of us any given action should be judged by us in accordance with that standard.   Two points are important to keep in mind:   First, what is specifically the best for me at a given time and in a given context might not be the best for you. If I want to be an astronomer, studying for my test tomorrow will be good for me but if you have no interest in this field and aren't taking a test, why study? While the moral principles are the same for all individuals, the manifestations in our own lives and in terms of our specific value pursuits will be different.   Second, we are no omniscient and often are working with limited knowledge. Yet we need to make decisions and act. Thus we can make errors of knowledge. They will be moral errors in the sense that they turn out not to be right in a particular case or situation but we can still be morally honest, not seeking to evade, etc. In Atlas, Dagny made an error of knowledge in not joining the strike sooner.   I'm not certain what the question is in your third point. If someone thinks P is the best means to some good, X, he will seek P. What's the question?   But there is an important philosophical point of which you might be thinking. Most people distinguish means from ends and there are analytical reasons for doing so. But I maintain that means and ends can be thought of as a unity and that the ends are constituted in the means. See my discussion of this in the article on "The Means and Ends of Islamists." http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1569-The_Means_and_Ends_of_Islamists_.aspx   The examples are in the section on "To Prosper or to Die."    Report

04-08-2006, 3:00 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: Meta-ethics You stated, "Rand saw the first act of free will as the first moral act, to focus or unfocus one's mind. " Of course there's the problem of free will, which I won't go into too much right now (though, we can discuss it if you wish). Any rigorous notion of free will is going to necessitate a rejection of the law of identity (and causality). But, perhaps we can save this account by using 'free will' in another way. Maybe a free will is simply a will not immediately influenced by outside factors. So, let us assume for the sake of argument that I have not made a moral act before. In this moment I decide to focus my mind. That seems rather vague, but I guess I can get a fuzzy notion of what it means. Perhaps it means being more aware of myself and my surroundings? Or paying attention? Being an active agent of action? You stated, "You might say that we will to know the truth, as honestly as we can, or we evade or are too lazy to seek the truth. In the latter case our errors aren't intellectual ones. They are moral ones for which we deserve censure." Ok, so when I focus my mind with my 'free' will I will to know the truth. Sure, most people do in fact want to know the truth (I don't think I've met anyone who wills falsehood). But, more than simply wanting truth, we should be significantly motivated towards it (this, I'm guessing, is what you mean by the 'too lazy' .. people who aren't motivated enough.) So, when people don't have a sufficient amount of motivation, then they are morally blameworthy. Seems that we're begging the question, at this point, since we havn't established the moral standard, but fair enough. You stated, "Ideas, of course, guide our actions and ideas cover pretty much everything concerning human beings. " Hmmm... I don't believe that account is complete. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'ideas' though. If ideas simply means some sort of mental content, then you're right. If it just refers to beliefs, then I'm a bit more skeptical. Beliefs alone don't motivate people. A corollary desire is necessary for motivation. If a person places no value on doing X, then all the beliefs in the world won't convince them to do it. I agree with you about habits and the difficulty of morality. Whatever the good is, it is better achieved through a focused will to achieve it. You stated, "As to the truth value of an moral propositions, I think Rand does do good job in the Objectivist Ethics and elsewhere of showing the errors of the fact/value dichotomy. The standard of value is human life, the life of man qua man. For each of us any given action should be judged by us in accordance with that standard." This is where we disagree, fundamentally. After reading Rand's VoS, I failed to find a single deductively sound argument for her conclusion. I understand that living entities only continue living if certain processes or actions take place. I understand that the organs of our body can either help or hurt those ends. What I don't understand is this... What is the connection between that and morality? Why should I care about life? Why should I choose my own life over the lives of others? I'm not suggesting that I personally don't enjoy and prefer life, but what I happen to like or dislike is not important in this context. What I happen to like is only subjectively valuable, not objectively valuable. Rand, like any other person, is allowed to stipulate that 'good' means that which is conducive to that individual's life, but its nothing more than a stipulation at that point. It would be equally valid for me to say that 'good' means that which is conducive to the eating of mud pies. Why life? Why not death? You stated, "First, what is specifically the best for me at a given time and in a given context might not be the best for you. If I want to be an astronomer, studying for my test tomorrow will be good for me but if you have no interest in this field and aren't taking a test, why study? While the moral principles are the same for all individuals, the manifestations in our own lives and in terms of our specific value pursuits will be different." Sure, I agree. Morality, in practice, must be context sensitive. You asked what I meant with my 3rd point, which was, "If Agent A is rational, and sincerely judges X to be right, and believes P to be the best means of achieving X, then A will be motivated to P." I was asking whether Objectivism agrees or disagrees with that statement (and the other two statements as well). My concern is not over the relationship between means and ends. For the sake of narrowing the focus of my concer, I am willing to grant (for this discussion), that means and ends are a unity. My question concerns the connection between rationality, morality, and motivation. If Joe thinks its wrong to eat meat, but Joe isn't motivated to stop eating meat, is he being irrational? As a side note, I am humbled and honored by your attention to my questions. I enjoy reading your articles and appreciate your insights. I have never been able to discuss objectivism with such a person, and I'm excited to think about the wisdom we might share with each other.   Andrew    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Meta-ethics

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU