Morals and Ethics

[RandFan]

Great essay.

The cultic flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed it can be corrected, but if it is not, you remain flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final step for such unreformed heretics.

Interesting. Aside from not feeling comfortable about defining myself as some set philosophy and my own misunderstanding of Rand's views of altruism this kept me from considering myself an objectivist. I agree with Shermer and I can see how this could lead to a cult like following. I don't think Shermer's criticism is so much with Rand but with her following.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I,didn't mean her objectivism . I was thinking that was your picture. For a while,in my youth , I shared her views . Now I'm for reciprocal altruism and government help to empower everyone .She did affirm some good things. I am with Paul Kurtz on morality and government. Kurtz , Randi and Shermer do help combat the irrational . I am schizotypal and supposed to go in for the supernatural and the paranormal , but I abjure such!

Keep in mind that Rand wasn't against charity. She was against the sacrifice of any individual for the sake of altruism. I agree with her.

I had never heard of schizotypal before. I'm glad you don't go in for the paranormal.

Good to meet you. You have to be careful with your arguments here. Some of us are borderline pedantic (some of us are full blown).

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Right. That is why with Shermer , I advocate a provisional ethic so as to improve when one has new information . I found a similar point about her absolutism at the Wikipedea article on her as I remember. There are the Peikoff and Kelly divisions . Anyway, I became an atheist at 16 when I read Branden's existence exist in their old newsletter. Her devotee George Smith has aided the atheist cause . Do show an empirical argument for morality! Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Do show an empirical argument for morality!

I said I think one can be made. I tried tried to make one pm this forum a couple of years ago and I didn't fare too well.

See Here's why morals cannot be absolute

My discussion starts here.

I believe that it is always wrong to inflict any harm, mental or physical, to any living thing for purely selfish and inconsequential motives. That is absolute and unchanging regardless of community standards.

I still believe that, it's just that I don't believe it's absolute.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Again , thanks. I'll reread that F.I. article so as to better my argument . Anyway , we both want rationality in morals .

 

[RandFan]

Again , thanks. I'll reread that F.I. article so as to better my argument . Anyway , we both want rationality in morals .

Yes, I agree and it would seem that we both agree that secular humanist morals are more likely to be rational than religious ones.

 

[Marc L]

So if I am frequently late when showing up to meet friends and that affects my relationship with them, I am acting in an unethical manner? If I suggest that a friend who is 100 pounds overweight should see a doctor and she becomes upset, I am unethical?

I'd say a lot of it would depend on the situation. For instance, if you are constantly showing up late to meet friends because you don't care about showing up on time, then yes, I'd say you're acting unethically. Depending on the event, however, it may not matter (ie, a party that starts at 8 and runs all night, and you show up at 9. That wouldn't be unethical, as far as I'm concerned. If your friends are counting on you to show up at 8 (because you have the drinks), and you show up at 9 with no explanation or good reason, then yes, you're behaving unethically).

For the second of your examples, I'd say it depends on your intent. If your friend is seriously overweight, and you tell her this out of concern for her health, then you're behaving ethically. Ultimately, your intent is to improve the relationship (by being a caring friend). If you just go up to her (or someone randomly on the street) and say, "My God, you're fat," then I'd say you're behaving unethically, because your intent isn't to improve the relationship, but just to be mean.

In the first case (telling your friend she's overweight out of concern), even if she gets upset, you're still acting in an ethical manner, if your intent was to help her. Her getting upset is on her, not you. If that ruins the relationship, again, it's on her.

Your definition would mean the following activites are ethical:
-telling stupid people that they are smart
-telling dull people that they are clever
-telling hideously-dressed people that they have good taste

It would depend on the situation, I think. If lying to them does more harm then good (which it would in the first two situations, less so in the third, I think), then you're behaving unethically. All you're doing is massaging their egos, not providing help.

This thread is a prime example. I posted my thoughts and asked for feedback. If all people said was, "Wow, Marc, you're a genius," then that doesn't help me. Ultimately, it would harm our relationship, because I'd discover I couldn't trust you to give honest feedback.

The feedback you gave, however, while nominally negative (it questioned my ideas) is ethical, because 1) I asked for it and 2) it's honest and enables me to either expand on my definition, or to change it utterly.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

I'm not female.

You know, it might be a good idea to put that in your description above your avatar. This is the second time (that I know of) that someone has made that assumption.

I'm not an objectivist. I'm not defending Rand.

Just out of curiosity, to which "Rand" is the "Fan" part referring to? I realize that I'm hijacking my own thread asking this, but I am curious.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

I said I think one can be made. I tried tried to make one pm this forum a couple of years ago and I didn't fare too well.

See Here's why morals cannot be absolute

My discussion starts here.

I believe that it is always wrong to inflict any harm, mental or physical, to any living thing for purely selfish and inconsequential motives. That is absolute and unchanging regardless of community standards.

I still believe that, it's just that I don't believe it's absolute.

While the moral itself may not be absolute, I still think it's better to use reason to discover morals as opposed to religion (yes, I know you've said this, I'm just adding my own two cents). As our ability to reason improves, our morals are updated. For example, 200 years ago in the United States*, it was moral to have slaves. It was reasonable to slaveholders that Africans were sub-human, and therefore individual rights didn't apply to them. As we learned more and evolved intellectually, we realized that there was nothing objective that made Africans less human than Europeans, and that it was immoral to keep them as slaves.

The more our minds evolve, and we improve our powers of reasoning, the more we can find objective reasons for morals, or discard the morals we have now in exchange for more objective ones.

*I'm not a historian of US history, so my time range may be off there. I know the US Civil War happened 150 years ago, so I added a few decades to it. The Abolitionist movement may have started before then, but it was the reasoning I was after, not the actual historical facts.

Marc

 

[RandFan]

You know, it might be a good idea to put that in your description above your avatar.

It might be at that.

Just out of curiosity, to which "Rand" is the "Fan" part referring to? I realize that I'm hijacking my own thread asking this, but I am curious.

It is to Ayn Rand. I admire her for her contributions to philosophy. She helped steer me to a commitment to objective thought and a rejection of religion.

 

[Marc L]

Bumping this up a bit. I was really enjoying the feedback from people, and would enjoy more. I'd be amazed to learn that you were all sitting back saying, "Wow, Marc L's a friggin' genius here."

Of course, if that's what you are doing, then by all means, please post that as well. I enjoy a good ego massage as much as the next sailor...

Marc

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Rand Fan, I hope this will help: Keith Parsons states :" So even if morality is not intrinsic to reality , but is created by humans,the mere fact that it is inter-subjectively valid among all humans,it applies to all humans , that's a sufficiently strong sense of objectivity to motivate and give humans reason to behave in a moral manner." And:" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.This is the very meaning of moral values, they apply to everybody." I'm with Marc L.[ @the religion forum at the Mail and Guardian in South Africa there is a faith -base d Marc L]

 

[Ladewig]

Ethics, to my mind, are those things which affect a person's relationship with other people. They are the things that you do to ensure a good relationship. For example, a merchant creates a quality piece of merchandise and sells it for a fair price because he wants his customers to keep coming back. Also, happy customers refer friends, generating more business. I am faithful to my wife because I respect her and want to continue being in a good relationship with her.

I would expect even people who do not respect their spouses to remain faithful because they took a vow to do so. Keeping promises is an ethical thing to do. Whether you respect the other person or not is irrelevant to determining ethical behavior.

I am still having a little trouble with your definition, because if I were to break up with a girlfriend, that would, by definition, hurt the relationship and would therefore be unethical.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

southern morality

I applaud these commnents . We can show theists that we have the moral high ground . Look at those who decry moral decay and see what they watch on television ! They show cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.To reiterate, my region is so reli gious and morally challenged.

 

[RandFan]

Rand Fan, I hope this will help: Keith Parsons states :" So even if morality is not intrinsic to reality , but is created by humans,the mere fact that it is inter-subjectively valid among all humans,it applies to all humans , that's a sufficiently strong sense of objectivity to motivate and give humans reason to behave in a moral manner." And:" Morals are subjective if different moral values are arbitraiily created by each different person ....This means that if it's morally wrong to rape a somebody , this is morally wrong for every person.This is the very meaning of moral values, they apply to everybody." I'm with Marc L.[ @the religion forum at the Mail and Guardian in South Africa there is a faith -base d Marc L]

Thanks.

It's demonstrably not valid among all humans (see sociopaths as one of many examples). Sociopaths know right from wrong but not in the way you and I do. A socio path knows that killing is wrong the way you and I know that jumping in a lions den is wrong. Society has told the socio path that killing is wrong and if he or she kills she will punished. Asside from that the socio path simply doesn't care that it is wrong. It's not wrong to them.

I do understand the point and there is some validity to it. I believe Dennet makes a rather convincing argument along these lines. I've got to find that. If I do I will post it here.

The important point though is that it definitely is not true that any thing can be morally wrong for all people.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

Common morality

It is still wrong for the sociopath or psychopath ,who do not follow morality , but their not doing so does not gainsay against that all should follow basic rules. Anyway, Rand Fan is right to find out from Dennett more to defend common morality . Rand Fan is a thinker who adds to these discussions.

 

[Marc L]

I am still having a little trouble with your definition, because if I were to break up with a girlfriend, that would, by definition, hurt the relationship and would therefore be unethical.

On the other hand, staying in the relationship could, in the long term, cause more hurt than breaking up with her now. If it's a bad relationship (even something as simple as, "We don't have as much in common as I thought), then it would be hurtful to both of you to stay in it. By breaking up (and harming the relationship) now, you are freeing both of you to find someone you're more compatible with.

To use an example that applies to me. My 18 month old doesn't like being put down for bedtime. Her mother and I know that she needs a certain amount of sleep a night. By insisting on bedtime, we're-in the short term-hurting the relationship. In the long run, however, we're insuring the health of our daughter. Thus, the initial apparently unethical behavior, is ethical in the long run.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

Thanks.

It's demonstrably not valid among all humans (see sociopaths as one of many examples). Sociopaths know right from wrong but not in the way you and I do. A socio path knows that killing is wrong the way you and I know that jumping in a lions den is wrong. Society has told the socio path that killing is wrong and if he or she kills she will punished. Asside from that the socio path simply doesn't care that it is wrong. It's not wrong to them.

I do understand the point and there is some validity to it. I believe Dennet makes a rather convincing argument along these lines. I've got to find that. If I do I will post it here.

The important point though is that it definitely is not true that any thing can be morally wrong for all people.

I don't agree. I think morals can and should apply to all people. Otherwise, what use are they? Sociopaths aside (as they've got a mental problem), is it truly right to say (for example), "Marc, it's immoral for you to rape people but not for me"?

If we don't have a standard of morals, then there's no sense in them. Since religious morals are based on individual belief systems, they can only fairly apply to members of those belief systems. As not everyone subscribes to every belief system, there needs to be a rational way to determine right and wrong that applies to everybody-especially in countries like the United States where there are so many different kinds of beliefs.

Now, before you (or someone else) jumps in and reminds me that different cultures don't hold the same morals, you're right. In some parts of the world, slavery is still considered moral. In others, killing people for their beliefs is considered moral. If we say that it's okay for them to do because they have a different culture, how can we insist that it's immoral for us? There's no rational reason to say that. If something is immoral for Westerners (slavery, for instance), it's immoral for everyone.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we can, or should, force other cultures to conform to our morality. It does, however, mean that we can set a standard, and let other people know that we consider what they're doing is immoral, and why we consider it immoral.

Marc

 

[RandFan]

I don't agree. I think morals can and should apply to all people. Otherwise, what use are they? Sociopaths aside (as they've got a mental problem), is it truly right to say (for example), "Marc, it's immoral for you to rape people but not for me"?

You are making an irrelevant argument. Of course morals should be consistent. If I think it's OK to rape then to be logically valid it should be OK for you also.

If we don't have a standard of morals, then there's no sense in them.

Standards don't equate to universal. Of course we need standards. That we do need standards does not make those standards correct. You allude to this BTW later in your post.

Since religious morals are based on individual belief systems, they can only fairly apply to members of those belief systems. As not everyone subscribes to every belief system, there needs to be a rational way to determine right and wrong that applies to everybody-especially in countries like the United States where there are so many different kinds of beliefs.

We need to apply logic and reason to moral philosophy to determine rational standards of right and wrong. This is the best strategy I agree. That it is does not prove universal morals.

Now, before you (or someone else) jumps in and reminds me that different cultures don't hold the same morals, you're right. In some parts of the world, slavery is still considered moral. In others, killing people for their beliefs is considered moral. If we say that it's okay for them to do because they have a different culture, how can we insist that it's immoral for us? There's no rational reason to say that. If something is immoral for Westerners (slavery, for instance), it's immoral for everyone.

You are missing the point. For us (we) it's immoral for everyone. In that we we are consistent. We can acknowledge that to them it is not immoral. We can disagree with them.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we can, or should, force other cultures to conform to our morality. It does, however, mean that we can set a standard, and let other people know that we consider what they're doing is immoral, and why we consider it immoral.

Absolutely agree. And we can and should make logical arguments why we think that it is.

 

[skeptic griggsy]

I concur with Marc L. Most atheologians have objective ethics[ not to be confused with objectivist ethics].We find a common thread among moral systems.Sometimes, it is a mere disagreement over the facts. We find disagreement in ethics as we find that in science,so disagreement is a non-sequitur for subjective ethics. As David Brink notes:"The fact that we disagree about some moral issues at the beginning of the process of adjustment gives no compelling reason to suppose the adjustment will not, in the end limit, resolve our disagrement."As said @ Ebon Musings:"[A]theism can accommodate both the exisence of a moral law ant the manifedt fact thatnot every cuture or individual is aware of it.The explanation is straightforward:morality is not something planted in every person's heart by a creator,but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other.There is no reason why we should expect it to be immediately obvious to everyone, just as there is no reason why we should expects the laws of physics to be immediately obvious to everyone." This concurs with my first comments on page two. What is objective is that all can see the effect for good or bad of actions on humans, other animals and the enviornment. Oh, please support the Great Ape Project to further protect our fellow great apes. Some theists would support this effort ,but would bray that we for pro-choice would save our inferiors but deny life to our own family members.