The Basis of Objective Morality

[The happy Objectivist]

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?

No they don't take on a living quality, they are not entities in their own right but a kind of action taken by an entity which has the attribute of consciousness. I'm not sure what you mean about objectifying people. If I'm aware of a person then he is the object I'm aware of. There's no moral connotation to this, though. I use the word object because it's simpler than saying "the thing which I'm aware of". It saves words.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No they don't take on a living quality, they are not entities in their own right but a kind of action taken by an entity which has the attribute of consciousness. I'm not sure what you mean about objectifying people. If I'm aware of a person then he is the object I'm aware of. There's no moral connotation to this, though. I use the word object because it's simpler than saying "the thing which I'm aware of". It saves words.

So objectifying people is not immoral?

This makes you lose credibility.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So objectifying people is not immoral?

This makes you lose credibility.

I never said I was objectifying anyone. I said that whatever I'm perceiving is the object of my perception. Objectifying means degrading someone to a mere object. You are confusing this with simply being aware of a person. Two completely different concepts, one is a concept of consciousness and the other is a moral concept.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I never said I was objectifying anyone. I said that whatever I'm perceiving is the object of my perception. Objectifying means degrading someone to a mere object. You are confusing this with simply being aware of a person. Two completely different concepts, one is a concept of consciousness and the other is a moral concept.

Sounds a lot like some of those religious denominations I avoid.

can never get a straight answer, but it's pretty obvious they're justifying disrespecting people.

In a sense, religion really started to decline when it became about "morality" instead of God, in the same way - when morality becomes about discussing concepts instead of how we treat people, the same decline is inevitable.

 

[Ken-1122]

I did mean man as all of mankind. You got it right the first time. All men start out as infants don't they?

When people use the term “mankind” they are referring to human beings as a whole, and usually as adults; not individual infants.

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.

You seem to be conflating what humans consider valuable (food, water, the ability to breath), with human values (moral principles we use to guide our lives). There is a big difference between the two.

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.

Whether one should eat or drink is not a moral issue, it is a necessary issue. Moral issues are behaviors we judge to be right or wrong; not behaviors we have no choice but to engage in.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Sounds a lot like some of those religious denominations I avoid.

can never get a straight answer, but it's pretty obvious they're justifying disrespecting people.

In a sense, religion really started to decline when it became about "morality" instead of God, in the same way - when morality becomes about discussing concepts instead of how we treat people, the same decline is inevitable.

This thread is about the factual basis of an objective moral code, not about moral principles. The facts I listed are what we need to grasp, plus a whole lot more, in order to start forming moral principles and if we are to discuss morality, how can we do that without using concepts? Morality is conceptual in nature.

 

[Ken-1122]

This thread is about the factual basis of an objective moral code, not about moral principles.

What's the difference?

 

[Belk]

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)

Independent of anyone else's conscious activity.

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

Everything alive faces life vs. death. I fail to see how this contributes to your conclusion.

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.

So Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

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.

So, not the hierarchy of needs. Not sure what you are talking about here.

Man has the ability to conceptualize what he perceives.

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

Agreed.

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.

A) I don't agree these are all facts
B) I see nothing here, even if they were all facts, that lead to the conclusion there is an objective moral code.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are free to choose to go out of existence.

So then where's the "ought"?

 

[Larniavc]

By this I mean that animals do not reach the conceptual level of consciousness.

What is your definition of consciousness that you can assert the non human animals are not conscious?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What is your definition of consciousness that you can assert the non human animals are not conscious?

I didn't say they weren't conscious, just that they hadn't reached the conceptual level of consciousness. There are three levels: sensation, perception, conception.

So then where's the "ought"?

The bridge between is and ought is values. A deontological moral code is duty-based.
An objective moral code is values based. A deontological system has moral imperatives, a values based system only has hypothetical imperatives. If your goal is X you must do Y. If you want to live you must act.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Independent of anyone else's conscious activity.

Correct.

Everything alive faces life vs. death. I fail to see how this contributes to your conclusion.

Correct. It's this fact that makes values possible. If there is no such thing as a value, then there's no morality as morality is a code of values.

So Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

Values do exist hierarchically, just as all knowledge does. Values are a type of knowledge.

So, not the hierarchy of needs. Not sure what you are talking about here.

How did you get this from what I said. Of course there's a hierarchy of needs. Life is the very first value because without it values aren't possible. A rock doesn't need values. Then there are the basic needs of food, water, and shelter. Then there are more abstract values like love, music, art, knowledge.

A) I don't agree these are all facts
B) I see nothing here, even if they were all facts, that lead to the conclusion there is an objective moral code.

Facts are what they are independent of anyone's agreement. A facts based moral code is objective. A moral code that adheres to the primacy of the object is an objective moral code, wether you agree or not. A subjective moral code is based on something other than facts such as feelings, wishes, commands, etc. and assumes the primacy of consciousness. Example: Something is right because God says it's right. If God tells you to sacrifice your child then it would be right to do it. If God then says no don't sacrifice your child, then it would be wrong to do it.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What's the difference?

The facts I listed are what one needs to know before he can set about forming an objective moral principle. That's because these facts are metaphysical, having to do with the basic nature of the universe. Morality is epistemological in nature. metaphysics is the basis of epistemology, epistemology is the basis of ethics.

 

[Belk]

Correct.



Correct. It's this fact that makes values possible. If there is no such thing as a value, then there's no morality as morality is a code of values.

No it is your first postulate,consciousness, that makes values possible. Life and death, while correlated with consciousness, are secondary.

Values do exist hierarchically, just as all knowledge does. Values are a type of knowledge.



How did you get this from what I said. Of course there's a hierarchy of needs. Life is the very first value because without it values aren't possible. A rock doesn't need values. Then there are the basic needs of food, water, and shelter. Then there are more abstract values like love, music, art, knowledge.

I got it from the fact you are not discussing Maslow's hierarchy of needs which is specific to the basic needs for life. You are talking about his "Life as a rational being" which is separate from his needs that allow him to maintain his physical existence. so I'm trying to figure out what values you are describing and how, as you claim, they are necessary for man to live.

Facts are what they are independent of anyone's agreement. A facts based moral code is objective. A moral code that adheres to the primacy of the object is an objective moral code, wether you agree or not. A subjective moral code is based on something other than facts such as feelings, wishes, commands, etc. and assumes the primacy of consciousness. Example: Something is right because God says it's right. If God tells you to sacrifice your child then it would be right to do it. If God then says no don't sacrifice your child, then it would be wrong to do it.

I agree with this. What I disagree with is that you are making statements and claiming they are facts and then at the end making a claim that this leads to an objective outcome. Just as an example take this statement

Man needs values in order to exist.

My understanding of this claim is you are saying man requires morals in order to exist. Is this understanding correct? And if so I do not agree with it. We have many examples if amoral and immoral people who exist just fine.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I see daybreak over a Montana ranch as the sun crests the high prairie and the family watches in awe from the porch, coffee in hand.

 

[Larniavc]

I didn't say they weren't conscious, just that they hadn't reached the conceptual level of consciousness. There are three levels: sensation, perception, conception.

Can you support that assertion?

 

[Ken-1122]

The facts I listed are what one needs to know before he can set about forming an objective moral principle.

There is no such a thing as an objective moral principle; all of morality is subjective.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I see daybreak over a Montana ranch as the sun crests the high prairie and the family watches in awe from the porch, coffee in hand.

Thank you so much for listening and telling me what you saw. That is very interesting. Ayn rand said that the theme of the music was "rising". As I said there is definitely a subjective element to meaning in music. I don't think that there is necessarily a wrong answer but I couldn't take away from that song a meaning of murder or death. I see in my mind a young fawn taking its first tentative steps at sunrise in a green meadow. In the middle I see struggle and success over the struggle and at the end complete victory, success, truimph. I see Howard Roark from The Fountainhead standing on top of the Wynand Building with the sunset behind him. It's interesting that we both see the sun rising.

Here is what Ayn Rand said about that very recording through the character of Dagney Taggart.

"She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up. They spoke of rising and they were the rising itself. They were the essence and the form of upward motion. They seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment that there was no ugliness or pain and there never had had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance." Atlas shrugged by Ayn Rand, chapter two.

Isn't that interesting.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

There is no such a thing as an objective moral principle; all of morality is subjective.

If you say so Ken.

 

[Moral Orel]

The bridge between is and ought is values. A deontological moral code is duty-based.
An objective moral code is values based. A deontological system has moral imperatives, a values based system only has hypothetical imperatives.

Then you don't have objective morality. I guess you could call it hypothetical morality. I used to think the same thing, by the way. But I discovered that it requires a hidden premise to work, and that necessary hidden premise is impossible to justify.

If your goal is X you must do Y. If you want to live you must act.

It is true that I must act to continue living, but that is true regardless of what I want. Also, I might act in any manner regardless of what I want. Let's say I'm in a life threatening situation, but I'm frozen by fear of dying. I want to live, but I don't act. So you can't say I "must" act because I want to live.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say, "If your goal is X you ought to do Y. If you want to live you ought to act."? You were telling me about bridging the gap between "is" and "ought" but you still haven't shown me any "ought" statement at all.