The Basis of Objective Morality

[The happy Objectivist]

Durangodawood,

Here's a song that you can practice on. See if you can tell what the theme of the song is? Ayn rand mentioned it in Atlas shrugged but I bet you will get it as a musician. If you had to put the meaning in words, what would they be. This is a pretty easy one but maybe that's because I know what it is from her. It might be a lot harder without that knowledge.

 

[SkyWriting]

wrong. It's my judgement, based on facts. I exist and I am what I am regardless of anyone's descision.

I think you are a chat bot. You might not be aware that you are though.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't recognize the concept of sin. If you mean judge what is right vs. wrong then no I can't. Judgment is something individuals must do for themselves, but the standard is the same for all men. That which is objectively life-affirming vs. that which is life-destroying.

That happens to be your chosen standard. But I still put out mouse traps where I think appropriate.
I've even drowned chipmunks on occasion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Judgment is something individuals must do for themselves, but the standard is the same for all men. That which is objectively life-affirming vs. that which is life-destroying.

You are the only person I know who uses that standard. Which I don't feel you can apply to all men, except in your imagination.

For example, in hospice, patients are given sedatives to stay in bed which causes poor health until they die. Would that be "right" or "wrong"? Either way, that's what happens.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

"Facts" are an imaginary concept defined by each individual.

This guy uses objective facts that are different from mine:

 

[SkyWriting]

You are free to choose to go out of existence.

Society does not support that option.

 

[SkyWriting]

Anyone who is a human. I mean all living things require values. All living things require values. It's just that man requires more than other animals given his nature as a rational being.

I can't think of any irrational animal behavior.
Though men can choose to die for the benefit of others.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

That happens to be your chosen standard. But I still put out mouse traps where I think appropriate.
I've even drowned chipmunks on occasion.

You missed where I said the life of a rational being.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You are the only person I know who uses that standard. Which I don't feel you can apply to all men, except in your imagination.

For example, in hospice, patients are given sedatives to stay in bed which causes poor health until they die. Would that be "right" or "wrong"? Either way, that's what happens.

I guess you don't know the right people. This thread is about the facts that are the basis of an objective moral code and not about moral principles. I'd rather not get into moral scenarios for that reason. But if you want to make that question about nursing homes in a separate thread I'll try to join in. If I have time. I really didn't expect this much response and I appreciate it.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Who chooses these values?

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

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.

Nothing needs values to exist. One has nothing to do with the other

Man does not automatically know what values to pursue.

Yes he does. Man decides which values to pursue.

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

Yeah he does; man decides which actions to take to preserve his life

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.

I’ve pointed out a few I believe to be wrong.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

"Facts" are an imaginary concept defined by each individual.

This guy uses objective facts that are different from mine:

Is this one of your made up facts?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Society does not support that option.

And everything society does is automatically right?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I can't think of any irrational animal behavior.
Though men can choose to die for the benefit of others.

By this I mean that animals do not reach the conceptual level of consciousness. By definition their actions are not rational. They have instincts which we do not and their values are pretty simple so that their mothers and fathers can teach them, by instinct. But baby rabbits don't need to know the proper soil PH to grow blueberries. They eat what is there and if the berries fail and the grass dries up in a drought, they die.

Man's mode of survival is decidedly not like that of a rabbit and he needs many more and more complex values such as knowledge, morality, mathematics, love, productive achievement, tools, electricity and books.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Who chooses these values?

The individual. There is no collective mind. There is no collective choice.

Nothing needs values to exist. One has nothing to do with the other

Okay, stop eating and drinking and let us know what happens.

Yes he does. Man decides which values to pursue.

I said he had no automatic knowledge. Were you born with the knowledge of what was good for you or did you have to learn it?

Yeah he does; man decides which actions to take to preserve his life

I said that man had no automatic knowledge of the right actions to take, not that does not decide what actions to take and we see all around us that those who choose irrationally, don't usually last long in this world.

I’ve pointed out a few I believe to be wrong.

Yes, well, as we've seen you need to read more carefully. Remember, don't drink or eat anything for a week and come back and tell us all that living organisms don't need values to exist.

 

[Ken-1122]

Okay, stop eating and drinking and let us know what happens.

So when you speak of values, you mean things like the ability to eat, or drink? Perhaps I misunderstood you; I thought you were referring to guiding principles when you spoke of values

I said he had no automatic knowledge. Were you born with the knowledge of what was good for you or did you have to learn it?


I said that man had no automatic knowledge of the right actions to take, not that does not decide what actions to take and we see all around us that those who choose irrationally, don't usually last long in this world.

The way you phrased your points weren’t very clear. When you said “man” I thought you were referring to all of mankind; I didn’t know you were talking about infants.

Yes, well, as we've seen you need to read more carefully. Remember, don't drink or eat anything for a week and come back and tell us all that living organisms don't need values to exist.

Since you obviously aren’t referring to guiding principles, how are you defining “values”?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think you are a chat bot. You might not be aware that you are though.

Sorry, my programming is unable to field a response to this.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So when you speak of values, you mean things like the ability to eat, or drink? Perhaps I misunderstood you; I thought you were referring to guiding principles when you spoke of values

The way you phrased your points weren’t very clear. When you said “man” I thought you were referring to all of mankind; I didn’t know you were talking about infants.

Since you obviously aren’t referring to guiding principles, how are you defining “values”?

I did mean man as all of mankind. You got it right the first time. All men start out as infants don't they? And they all start out knowing nothing except that it suddenly got cold, even though they don't have the concept cold. No, they start by sensing cold just like plants, then after a short time their brains start to integrate their sensations into awareness of entities as entities. This is his entry into the perceptual level of consciousness. Later on, I think at about age 3 or 4, his brain starts to integrate his perceptions into concepts. This stage of development progresses only a little before he has to be taught to think much beyond the first level of concepts, those formed directly from perception. Eventually, if he learns how, he begins to integrate concepts into principles. This is the stage of development where the child starts asking a lot of questions.

I said a value is anything that man needs according to his nature, to continue living. Food is one of those things that we need according to our nature and that we act to gain or keep. This is not a matter of opinion or personal preference. From this fact we can form the guiding principle that if one wants to keep living, he should eat and drink. This is a perfect example of an objective principle of morality. And since all men share the same basic nature, this principle applies equally to every man and woman. It is universal for the class of men.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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...

Sadly, you are correct, which is why the world is such a mess.

 

[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).

It's not contradictory though, it's true that knowledge, including moral knowledge, is contextual. It has to be as man's knowledge will always be finite and it will always be hierarchical. Facts are absolutes. They have primacy over consciousness. They are what they are regardless of our knowledge of them. If man's nature changes, so will his morality as his values are all tied to his nature. But this does not make them subjective.

If animals find their selves in unfavorable conditions they either adapt or die. Man adapts his environment to him. He changes the condition up to and including living in space, which is about the most inhospitable conditions you can find yourself in.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

However, since thoughts are an extension of the humans that express them, don't they take on a living quality?

It's kind of like objectifying a person, that's fairly immoral isn't it?