The Problems with Objective Morality

Post Reply New Topic

You could have been clearer in avoiding statements like the following (which you conveniently excluded from the above)

At times in the course of any discussion, if you have a point that you are trying to get across, you will inadvertently contradict yourself. Everyone does!

I thought you meant that all ideas were self-contradictory.

Can I take it that you are also not a fan of Ayn Rand, ipso?

I once was, I'm embarrassed to say, but after a while it seemed just like a religion. Plus, all of her ideas were taken from others before her.

I came up withe following:
Do you love someone
-because it is moral to love someone or...
-is it moral to love the person because you love them?
-If it is the first, and you found morality required hatred of others, then you would hate the person (you love them for the sake of fulfilling a moral law, not for their own sakes).
-If it is the second, then morality is dependent on subjective preference.

Basically, morality is either irrelevant to what we do or it is subjective.

(BTW, even if such things as objective moral rules existed, they are uselss to us if we don't know what they are. Analogy: a map will not help you find the way if you don't have access to the map.)

I also don't see how "objective morality" (whatever that means) is even a coherent concept:

What is problematic:
-Defining the term “objective” in the context of “objective” moral laws.

-What does it mean for one action or thought to take “precedence” over another (what does it mean for one action to be “better” than another? Does it mean anything for that matter)? I have yet to encounter a definition of what this means.

-Determining what criteria we use to determine which ethical theory is correct (not the more approximate question of which actions are “correct,” but how we determine which corresponding criteria of right and wrong are correct).

-Determining how & what it means for values to exist apart from those who form the the value judgments.

Seems the delay between logging in has meant that all questions directed at me have been answered by other people.

Only a few points I would like to make:

To Awesomelyglorious:
Nice to see you in this forum again welcome to the thread.

To IspoRandomo:
If you really did used to "admire Ayn Rand" then you may still have her books. If so then re-read "Objectivist Ethics." While I would not put it in her words (mainly due to writing ability) she says everything I would like to say... but quicker and using less words.

To Autodidact:
The whole veiled part was merely my attempt to be polite. Once again I do not have a low opinion of people who disagree with me. I disagree with Awesomelyglorious in a few threads now and he is one of my favourite people to read on WrongPlanet. It isn't that he agrees with me, its that he disagrees with me properly (if you get what I mean.) What I do have a low opinion of are people who snipe and use ad hominem attacks and other forms of virile language where it is not welcome. Much like I was wont to state in the thread that you quoted to IpsoRandomo, I will not respond to people who use that type of approach to debate.

If you wish to be civil, you will find me waiting to address any points or questions or objections you care to make.

QFT!

I did give evidence. I showed how stating that 'This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are' is a totally irrational and arrogant thing to say when every human being percieves differently ie subjectively. How do we know this to be true? - well the fact that we dissagree is a good example for starters. I am genuinely sorry that you were personally offended by my remarks. They where not intended as such. I gave an honest opinon in response to how I view Rand's rhetoric. It was not directed at you personally. Calling a statement "arrogant, reductive bulls**t" was strong. A strong opinion directed towards a philosophy to which I passionately disagree. no offence meant.

Everyone's interpratation of 'the facts' is different. She has a remarkably reduced sense of perception if she believes that ' A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are' - this is an ideology and most ideologies fail when they remain 'fixed' and insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. She adds the corrective statment that '..the task of man's conciousness is to perceive reality, not create or invent it.' - Logical, as you rightly point out - but undone by her prior statement regarding what is real and what is fact.

What makes it even sillier is that she follows '..the task of man's conciousness is to perceive reality,' with '..not create or invent it.' - which is EXACTLY what she does when she states ' A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are' No one person, or system has a monopoly on reality. Just an interpretation of it. Someone should have told Ayn Rand [/b]



True. How can anyone dispute that reality does not exist? I didn't. I made the point that humans can never truly see it all, just fragments. We can never see the world objectively because in order to do this we would have to be everywhere at once. i.e. see the whole truth and nothing but. Problem is we can only see things from a perspective. Truth is very hard to get to. If it was easy, and if objectivity was truly possible there would be no conflict between individuals or groups. You cannot filter out the human aspect. no matter how hard you try (ask those in government). As for 'The Primacy of Existance' this is a theoretical construct and no, I do not believe in the PRIMACY of any single thing over anything else. Everything is inter-related, it's just that we can't see if we remain in a fixed position (worldview).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_metaphysics : All of Objectivism rests on Objectivist metaphysics and Objectivist epistemology: the study of the fundamental nature of reality, and of the nature and proper method of acquiring knowledge.

Nonsense. Who has the gall to claim to understand the fundamental nature of reality? - We can never be 'fundamentally' right about most things in life! - fundamentalists are fanatics, hardly logical or 'Objective'. This does not mean that our endevours are useless, we just need to strive for balance - which is only ever fleeting, but is possible if we can comprimise. 'proper method of acquiring knowledge' indeed! - if anyone tells you that there is only one way to do things/see things (their way) you sould get as far away from them as possible!

Idealists ( all of us really!, anyone with an opinion) dislike compromise or change as it undermines certain tenants that we have held dear for a very long time. We are not 'wrong' to believe in our princples. Most of us start off with good intentions but unless we are careful, we can push our wills too far. When this happens, the good intentions become bad and hurt others - and so it goes. it's a cycle. Why do people never learn from the mistakes of the past? if people were truly objective and rational, instead of human and fallable then life would be easy (until we got bored with it ). Rationality and logic are needed for sure, but they will only ever get us so far. They need to be balanced with faith in our subconcious and what is beyond our conventional understanding. Humility as well. Unlike this lady..

"I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth."

--Ayn Rand, quoted in "The Essentials of Objectivism," - This is awfully concieted! - whatever the merits or lack thereof of her opionions, the 'I am right and everyone else is wrong' attitude sucks. Also to say that you are a romantic realist is an oxymoron as romanticisim is against the concept that reason is the primary authority on reality.


As I said in my previous post, all we can try and do as (hopefully) responsible people is to try and engage each other.

Philosophical differences do not mean that you hate the person (I know people use the word 'hate' so flippantly nowadays to signify their differences). Forcing ideologies and morality on issues like Rand does in the above statement (and many others) destroys dialogue. What we strive for is balance and because we all have different opinions and perceptions, this balance is very very hard to achive as Ms Rand inadvertantly proves.




Existance is only ever partially knowable. i.e. knowledge is tentative and subject to revision. This is true of most things, especially in the realm of science. How many scientific discoveries have been proved wrong years later? just because we know certain things (fragments of reality) at any given time does not in anyway justify objectivisim. We will never see the WHOLE picture because our relationship with reality is a constant ever changing dialogue. It is act and react. Fluid not linear. Most modern day thought and conceptions of reality and time are linear and based on pushing our wills way too far. This effects all our conciousness, whether we agree with any specific ideology or not - we dread the march of time and feel powerless unless we are forcing our own 'realities' on other people. Do I think reality exists independent of conciousness? - kind of.. It exists but we will never be capable of truly knowing it in an objective sense as long as we are embodied .

Objectivity is not just fallible, it is nonsense because the objectivitist has to use his falliable perception (in the first instance) and the falliable perceptions of others (in the second instance) in order to arrive at a concensus on reality which he or she then presents as definative. He or she has used their subjective opinion and those of others to arrive at a conclusion which has probably been unduly influenced by various cultural norms of the time.




The world has always been governed by arbtarary systems; Culture, Science, Religion & Politics They all have value, just not at the expense of everything else.




People can (and do) believe in anything they want. this is both a blessing and a curse. From your previous comment I can only assume that you think it's the latter?

As for standards.. I fear change, really fear it always have and I always will. Having our asumptions and values challenged is painful but it is very nesscesary in order for us to live and learn. I'm constantly learning new things and even though its not always pleasant, it is always valueable.

Once again, if I offended you personally Izaak - i'm sorry. I am just stating my personal opinions and despite what you may think, I respect your right to your opinions even though I do not agree with all of them. Nobodies philosophy is gospel. Not Ayn Rand's, or my own.

Kind regards and yours highly subjectively,

auto-d

To autodidact:
I am quite happy to let your post stand as contributing evidence to my own previously made statements.

I dunno.... I kinda believe in objectivism and altruism, on different planes of consciousness. Objectivism leading into altruism, objectivism assers the basic facts and places emphasis on individual achievement and growth, as the foundation of a society of individuals working together in the best interests of the altruistic community, and respect of one anothers' individual rights. But in reality most people are not over their egos enough to make that work, they feel they've just got to be better than someone else, in the political since often because they wanna think theyr superior or virtuous because of their gender, race, religion, political label, or socio-economic status. But I believe this is only possible if all the inhabitants are awakened, fact-oriented people, specifically selected for such a society. This is my belief in a objective altruistic society.