The Basis of Objective Morality

[SigurdReginson]

It's hard to imagine that objective morals can even be a thing when morals are a human concept and humans interpret the world they live in subjectively according to the cultures and environments they exist in...

 

[Lawrence87]

Anyone who is a human.

I can see that the choice that you mention between life versus death applies on an individual level, and by extension to benefactors (we want our benefactors alive, because they help us stay alive). I don't quite see how you go from there to values being that which life affirming for all of humanity.

 

[durangodawood]

You do. Why should I perpetuate my own existence when I could choose to end it? Why is one potential choice correct and the other incorrect?...

Why doesnt really matter. We are (mostly) born wired to want to exist. Its a fact of being human before its a value.

 

[durangodawood]

...Assuming these facts track reality, and are a sufficient basis for an objective moral code, is the code going to the same for everyone?....

Objective doesnt mean identical for all places and times, as places and times are objectively different.

I'm wary of "objective morality" as term btw, as if morality is some thing out there. I prefer "objectively-derived" morality. Sounds like splitting hairs maybe, but it saves a lot of argumentative waste.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Great post!
What is the difference between these two? Is it to mark out the difference between existence and essence, and that both are objective?

I think you use "independent of anyone's conscious activity" to designate the objectivity of the human essence, i.e. the "what" of a human. But isn't the "what" intimately related to consciousness? Humans are inherently social, simply by virtue of human generation and inherent ignorance (the need for training to survive).

What I am cannot be separated from being conscious and being known by other like-minded conscious entities. Human essence entails subjectivity. There is no possible objective human that is purely independent of anyone's conscious activity to meet the condition needed for objectivity ( as you've described it).

Perhaps we could say this fact concerning the objectivity of human essence is simply a concept to mark objectivity. But if it's simply a concept then it's not objective.

I'm just thinking "out loud" so to speak. How could one respond to this concern?

Essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. Essences have to be abstracted by a mind. When I say man exists independent of anyone's consciousness, I mean his nature. Man requires food in order to live regardless of anyone's thoughts to the contrary.

Assuming these facts track reality, and are a sufficient basis for an objective moral code, is the code going to the same for everyone?

Yes they will be the same for any man or woman because all men and women possess the same nature and it's man's nature which determines what values he needs.

Also, what is the code? If everything you've laid out obtains, then someone (many someone's probably) knows the code. Do we have it as it follows from this factual basis?

That is a lot more complicated and more than I can deal with in an internet forum. I recommend you read The Virtue of Selfishness if you want to know the code.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Why doesnt really matter. We are (mostly) born wired to want to exist. Its a fact of being human before its a value.

Also, metaphysically, life is the only value that is an end in itself. All other values pertain to sustaining life.

 

[durangodawood]

....All other values pertain to sustaining life.

???

What about values that pertain to making life enjoyable, above and beyond mere sustenance?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Objective doesnt mean identical for all places and times, as places and times are objectively different.

I'm wary of "objective morality" as term btw, as if morality is some thing out there. I prefer "objectively-derived" morality. Sounds like splitting hairs maybe, but it saves a lot of argumentative waste.

Consider the concept "man". Does this concept only apply to men in a certain place or time. No. It denotes all men anywhere at any time. Time and place are measurements that are omitted when we form concepts. That's the essence of abstraction; measurement omission. The concept man denotes all men who have ever existed, exist now, and will ever exist. Just as the concept existence denotes everything that exists now, has ever existed, and will ever exist.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

???

What about values that pertain to making life enjoyable, above and beyond mere sustenance?

Yes, I assumed that but I probably should have stated it. All that promotes life and the enjoyment of life is the good.

 

[durangodawood]

Consider the concept "man". Does this concept only apply to men in a certain place or time. No. It denotes all men anywhere at any time. Time and place are measurements that are omitted when we form concepts. That's the essence of abstraction; measurement omission. The concept man denotes all men who have ever existed, exist now, and will ever exist. Just as the concept existence denotes everything that exists now, has ever existed, and will ever exist.

Man lives in a context. The context changes across time and place. Morals are about what decisions to make in the world, not in some pretend ideal place thats the same from pole to pole and never changes.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that values are the means of achieving the goal of continued existence? And that whatever these values happen to be are the moral code which you argue is objective?

(edited for typos)

I'm saying a code of values chosen in accordance with the facts relevant to man's nature and man's life needs constitutes an objective morality.

 

[public hermit]

Man is what he is independent of anyone's conscious activity. (the primacy of existence

I tried to continue from your reply to me, but was unable.

You said, "Essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. Essences have to be abstracted by a mind."

Isn't the essence the "what"? This particular fact that I am responding to from your list isn't saying that "man exists." You've already established that in the prior fact. This one concerns what kind of existence. If the "what" must be abstracted by a mind, then it is not objective, for it has no existence outside of the subjective (consciousness).

On a more practical level, these values depend on that "what." Subjective experience is inseparable from what I am and what I am determines, to some extent, what I value. So what I value has subjective content, i.e. content that is not itself a fact out there in the world.

For example, many (most) humans value meaning. Meaning-making is peculiar to humans, and essential. Meaning is constructed out of objective facts, perhaps, but that meaning, in and of itself, is not conscious independent, i.e. is not objective. Yet, that meaning will be part of what informs my moral code, wouldn't it?

 

[durangodawood]

I tried to continue from your reply to me, but was unable.

You said, "Essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. Essences have to be abstracted by a mind."

Isn't the essence the "what"? This particular fact that I am responding to from your list isn't saying that "man exists." You've already established that in the prior fact. This one concerns what kind of existence. If the "what" must be abstracted by a mind, then it is not objective, for it has no existence outside of the subjective (consciousness).

On a more practical level, these values depend on that "what." Subjective experience is inseparable from what I am and what I am determines, to some extent, what I value. So what I value has subjective content, i.e. content that is not itself a fact out there in the world.

For example, many (most) humans value meaning. Meaning-making is peculiar to humans, and essential. Meaning is constructed out of objective facts, perhaps, but that meaning, in and of itself, is not conscious independent, i.e. is not objective. Yet, that meaning will be part of what informs my moral code, wouldn't it?

Not all values lead to morals. We have taste values for example which are partly subjective, and they may guide personal behavior. But they dont make a basis for a shared set of behavior rules (morals).

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Great post!

Thank you.

Great post!

What is the difference between these two? Is it to mark out the difference between existence and essence, and that both are objective?

I think you use "independent of anyone's conscious activity" to designate the objectivity of the human essence, i.e. the "what" of a human. But isn't the "what" intimately related to consciousness? Humans are inherently social, simply by virtue of human generation and inherent ignorance (the need for training to survive).

What I am cannot be separated from being conscious and being known by other like-minded conscious entities. Human essence entails subjectivity. There is no possible objective human that is purely independent of anyone's conscious activity to meet the condition needed for objectivity ( as you've described it).

Perhaps we could say this fact concerning the objectivity of human essence is simply a concept to mark objectivity. But if it's simply a concept then it's not objective.

I'm just thinking "out loud" so to speak. How could one respond to this concern?[/QUOTE] essences are epistemological in nature. They are the result of the abstraction process which only a mind capable of the conceptual level of consciousness can do. A concept is objective if it denotes facts. So objectivity in that context pertains to the referents of a concept.

Assuming these facts track reality, and are a sufficient basis for an objective moral code, is the code going to the same for everyone?

Fundamentally, yes. You can obviously choose any number of ways of earning a living. You could be a carpenter or a doctor but you must have some way of earning a living.

Also, what is the code? If everything you've laid out obtains, then someone (many someone's probably) knows the code. Do we have it as it follows from this factual basis?

That's too big of a project for an internet forum. If you want to know it I recommend you read The Virtue of Selfishness. It will lay it out systematically for you with validation.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I tried to continue from your reply to me, but was unable.

You said, "Essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. Essences have to be abstracted by a mind."

Isn't the essence the "what"? This particular fact that I am responding to from your list isn't saying that "man exists." You've already established that in the prior fact. This one concerns what kind of existence. If the "what" must be abstracted by a mind, then it is not objective, for it has no existence outside of the subjective (consciousness).

On a more practical level, these values depend on that "what." Subjective experience is inseparable from what I am and what I am determines, to some extent, what I value. So what I value has subjective content, i.e. content that is not itself a fact out there in the world.

For example, many (most) humans value meaning. Meaning-making is peculiar to humans, and essential. Meaning is constructed out of objective facts, perhaps, but that meaning, in and of itself, is not conscious independent, i.e. is not objective. Yet, that meaning will be part of what informs my moral code, wouldn't it?

I don't know what happened. I tried to fix it and it disappeared. So I typed it all in again. If my response doesn't answer your questions, just let me know.

When I say that essences are epistemological, I mean they are abstractions. They are the form in which we identify and retain knowledge of what we perceive. In any group of similar things, there are those essential characteristics that the things share and that make them what they are and also separate them from all the other things. For instance, all men share certain characteristics. In forming a concept we retain the similar characteristics and omit their specific measurements. So for the concept man, height, skin color, hair color, IQ, age, time, place, etc. are measurements that are omitted in forming the concept man. The principle is that the relevant characteristic must exist in some quantity but may exist in any quantity just as the A in 2A+3A=5A. Measurement omission is the key to understanding universals and is one of the contributions that Ayn Rand made to philosophy. It is the answer to the problem of universals.

So the essence of "man" is "rational animal" because it's his distinguishing characteristic. This is called the differentia. The wider category that man man belongs to is "animal". This is known as the conceptual common denominator. I highly recommend you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for a much more detailed treatment on concept formation.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Man lives in a context. The context changes across time and place. Morals are about what decisions to make in the world, not in some pretend ideal place thats the same from pole to pole and never changes.

I was speaking specifically about the abstraction process, not morallity as such. Of course morality is contextual but the facts it is based on are absolutes.

 

[durangodawood]

I was speaking specifically about the abstraction process, not morallity as such. Of course morality is contextual but the facts it is based on are absolutes.

Not trying to being awkward, but that sounds absolutely self contradictory.

Morality is a sort of handshake between natural human values and the conditions in which we live. Both are real facts of the world.

I actually think that both are subject to change too. Nothing is frozen in place.

(Great thread btw).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. In its metaphysical sense, it means that things exist and are what they are independent of anyone's conscious activity such as believing, knowing, wishing, imagining, demanding, asserting, etc. This is known as the primacy of existence or the primacy of the object metaphysics. This is the metaphysical sense of the concept. The epistemological sense of the concept is that knowledge is gained by looking at reality and identifying what is perceived by an objective method. An objective method is one that adheres to the primacy of existence exclusively. Therefore, objectivity in the epistemological sense means that one's thinking is based on facts which obtain regardless of anyone's thoughts or wishes or objections to the contrary.

The factual basis of an objective moral code.

I want to define morality here. Morality is a code of chosen values to guide one's thinking and actions, which actions determine the course of one's life.

here are the facts which underpin any objective code of values:

Man exists.

Man is what he is independent of anyone's conscious activity. (the primacy of existence)

Man is a biological organism that faces the fundamental alternative of life vs. death.

Man needs values in order to exist.

A value is something that man requires according to his nature, in order to live and that he must act to gain or keep if his goal is to continue existing.

Man does not automatically know what values to pursue.

Man does not automatically know what actions to take to preserve his life. (his life as a rational being)

Man needs a means of discovering what values he needs and how to produce or acquire them.

Man has the ability to conceptualize what he perceives.

It is the ability to conceptualize what he perceives that enables man to know anything.

Now all of these facts are true and none of them is a matter of opinion. These facts are the basis of an objective moral code.

If morality is objectified, does this make it an idol?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If morality is objectified, does this make it an idol?

No. Morality is an object. By an object I mean anything we perceive or consider. Morality and its basis is the object that we are considering right now. If I perceive a tree, it is the object of my consciousness. If I consider a tree in my mind it is also the object of my consciousness. But I don't mean by this that morality is concrete like a rock or a tree. Anything we perceive and or consider is an object.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Not trying to being awkward, but that sounds absolutely self contradictory.

Morality is a sort of handshake between natural human values and the conditions in which we live. Both are real facts of the world.

I actually think that both are subject to change too. Nothing is frozen in place.

(Great thread btw).

Not trying to being awkward, but that sounds absolutely self contradictory.

Morality is a sort of handshake between natural human values and the conditions in which we live. Both are real facts of the world.

I actually think that both are subject to change too. Nothing is frozen in place.

(Great thread btw).

I'll have to get back to you later. I have a piece of wood in my eye and it's watering so bad I can't see.