What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate.

What I've demonstrated is no sane man wants to be a slave is a fact. From that fact you can infer slavery is objectively wrong.

Dispute me, or admit you can't.

Play fair, Pete.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate.

What I've demonstrated is no sane man wants to be a slave is a fact. From that fact you can infer slavery is objectively wrong.

I don't think you can, Henry.

What's the reason "I don't want" translates into "it's objectively wrong"?

If I don't want to exercise, does that make it objectively wrong for me to go to the gym? Even if nobody enjoyed exercising, would that make it objectively wrong for people to go to gyms?

My liking something doesn't seem to me to argue for its inherent rightness or wrongness. Only for whether or not I'm going to want to participate in it myself.

Or is there a connector there I'm missing?

[RCSaunders]

If you don't want to derail the thread, address the issues raised in the article.

This, alone, I would salvage.

“A contradiction does not exist . . . . To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.”

Agreed. Contradiction is bad. But absence of contradiction does not give us ethics.

Neither Rand, or Piper, or I, or any other sane person ever said absence of contradiction gives us ethics. The point is only about the kind of reasoning that can gives us ethics, and contradictory reason cannot. It's about objective reasoning. If you are going to reason about ethics it must be objective, which means there can be no contradictions.

There are things that are not contradictory, which nonetheless, we would find instinctively morally debatable, if not also generally deniable. One is Rand's take on altruism. Almost everyone, and almost all ethical systems, find a positive place for the person who sacrifices his or her interests in the interests of others. The nature of the person and of the relevant group may differ, but there's a very broad intuition and practice to the effect that altruism is not "evil," and selfishness is not, contra Rand, a "virtue."

I have never understood why theists, especially Christians, have been taken in by the concept of altruism, even though sacrifice and self-sacrifice are Biblical concepts.

Altruism is not a religious concept. It is from the pseudo-science sociology, the invention of Auguste Comte (1798-1857) which he called the greatest of sciences that would subsume all others (which in a very real sense it has—think environmentalism, psychology, evolution, and the subordination of science to political agendas). Sociology is "dressed-up" collectivism; its fundamental premise is that society is the ultimate end or purpose of values and actions and that individuals are subordinate to and derive their values and purpose from their relationship to or membership in society. Comte coined the word altruism to refer to the moral obligation of individuals to serve others and place the interests of society above their own. He is the father of positivism, which he regarded as "human religion"; both the logical positivists (Vienna Circle) and Secular Humanists have their origins in Comte. If Sociology is a science, its application is "social engineering." [Adapted from my article, "The Roots of Revolution," from the series, "Marxist Revolution of the West."

Why Christians would embrace the anti-human anti-moral concept of the rank anti-religionist father of socialistic thinking I cannot understand. No matter what you base it on, the sacrifice of a higher value to a lower value is always wrong. Christian or atheist, a value must always be what one thinks is in their own best interest. If one gives up something they want or spends their time or resources for the sake of another because that other is more important to them than what they have given up, it is not a sacrifice. Though Christians talk about the sacrifice of their Savior, the Bible makes it clear, it was to gain something of greater value, than the sacrifice, "... looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross ..." [Hebrews 12:2]

When I was very young and was taught in Sunday school, that selfishness was wrong and only unselfishness (altruism) was good, I knew there was something wrong with what I was being taught. When I asked why I should be unselfish and give up what I wanted for the sake of someone else who would then be getting what they wanted thus making them selfish, I of course, received no answer. When I was told I should be unselfish because that pleased God and I would be blessed for it, it was obvious to me that everything everyone did was selfish--because they expected something good to result from their so-called unselfishness. When those verses that described the kinds of self-sacrifice that were expected were followed by, "for great is your reward in heaven," I could not see how what was called a sacrifice was a sacrifice if it was for a greater reward. I'll believe Christians truly believe in self-sacrifice when they denounce their Savior and sacrifice what they believe is their eternal reward. Altruism is self-contradictory.

Altruism is the morality of collectivism with no other purpose than to justify the sacrifice of others to their collective causes. Even you have bought the collectivist lie that ethical principles are, "social."

... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are relational values, ...

Since you despise her so much, let me quote Rand:

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most." [Atlas Shrugged, "Part Three,—Chapter VII, 'This is John Galt Speaking.'"]

She explains that the purpose of ethics is to provide the principles by which individuals make the choices that result in their own success and happiness. Every life is an individual life, every mind is an individual mind, and the success or failure of every individual is the consequence of their own individual choices.

"... knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, ... the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual ..." [Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, 1. What Is Capitalism?"]

Even if an individual were the only individual in the world, it would be necessary to live according to the ethical principles if one were to survive. Unless one knows how to live their own life morally, they will certainly not know how to relate to others morally.

Even her idea that the human race progresses by means of its extraordinary men, like Galt, contains the tacit claim that this somehow ought to turn out to be good for everyone ....

I have never found in anythihg Rand ever published, wrote in her journals or any of her correspondance, anything that indicated any interest in, "humanity," "mankind," or, "everyone." She was only interested in humanity as individuals. The progress she attributes to men like her fictional Galt was only for those who shared the moral principles of men like Galt. The fact that humanity actually did benefit from the efforts of radical individualists like Galt is a byproduct, not the purpose of their work.

The evidence of the benefit to mankind of those pursuing their own, "selfish," moral principles is irrefutable.

Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made, more or less, in the order listed: the use of foxglove (digitalis) for treating heart arrhythmias; Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass; Volta's electric battery; Dalton's atomic theory; refrigeration; steam locomotive; stethoscope; faraday's electric motor; photography; internal combustion engine; Ohm's law (electricity); Avogadro's (gas) law; Faraday's electrical generator; first enzyme, diastase, isolated; refrigerator; all plants are made of cells proven; Goodyear's' vulcanization of rubber; chemical fertilizer; anaesthesia; Helmholtz law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics); absolute zero defined; Bessemer steel making process; oil drill; lead acid battery; Pasteurization; vaccination; Mendel's basis for genetics; dynamite; periodic table; Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism; electric lights; telephone; Tesla's induction motor; Edison's phonograph; Boltzmann's statistical definition of entropy; Röntgen's x-rays; Thomson's electron in cathode rays; cathode ray tube (oscilloscopes, TV); automobile; Tesla's radio; diesel engine; magnetic tape recorder; air conditioner; neon lamp; Arthur D. Little's rayon cellulose ester; electrocardiograph (EKG); heavier-than-air powered flight; triode amplifier; washing machine; cellophane; bakelite: cracking process for gasoline; Bohr model of the atom; helical structure of DNA; stainless steel; neoprene, nylon; microwave radar; jet engine; computer; transistor; Shannon's information theory; nuclear power reactor; laser; integrated circuit; communications satellites.

With the exception of the helical structure of DNA [wrongly attributed to Crick and Watson who essentially stole it from the very individualistic Rosalind Franklin who originally discovered the structure of DNA], the transistor, and the Wright Brothers, of course, these discoveries and inventions were all accomplished by individuals pursuing their own selfish goals, with moral principles like Galt, often in the face of great collective and popular opposition. Every one of these are ideas that make the world we take for granted what it is. Not only is every convenience and luxury we enjoy the direct result of these discoveries and inventions, our very health and longevity would be impossible without them.

Let the altruist list the benefits their moral code has contributed to mankind. I can list some: war, communism, fascism, socialism, mass oppression, and terrorism, all done in the name of some altruistic lie about the good of society, mankind, or humanity.

There's insufficient universality to her fundamental claims to justify her particular ethical claims.

You may not think so, but I think the volitional/rational nature of human beings is universal.

Fair enough?

Yes. You've made your view clear enough and I understand why you do not believe that ethical principles can be established objectively. I'm sorry you think so, because I think there is a penalty for that view which cannot be evaded. So long as you do not wish to force your views on anyone else and are, as I am, content to allow all others to form their own views and beliefs, we at least have that in common, a benevolence I truly appreciate.

[henry quirk]

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate.

What I've demonstrated is no sane man wants to be a slave is a fact. From that fact you can infer slavery is objectively wrong.

I don't think you can, Henry.

What's the reason "I don't want" translates into "it's objectively wrong"?

If I don't want to exercise, does that make it objectively wrong for me to go to the gym? Even if nobody enjoyed exercising, would that make it objectively wrong for people to go to gyms?

My liking something doesn't seem to me to argue for its inherent rightness or wrongness. Only for whether or not I'm going to want to participate in it myself.

Or is there a connector there I'm missing?

Like Pete, you should read what I 've written in this thread. I'm not talkin' about one man's opinion, or everyone's opinion. I'm talkin' about sumthin' intrinsic to the person, in the same way maleness & femaleness is intrinsic.

[RCSaunders]

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate.

What I've demonstrated is no sane man wants to be a slave is a fact. From that fact you can infer slavery is objectively wrong.

Dispute me, or admit you can't.

Play fair, Pete.

Henry, you are right that slavery is objectively wrong, but it cannot be because those who might be slaves don't like it. Nothing is immoral because someone doesn't like it, even if that preference is intrinsic in one's nature. Would slavery be moral if some people, sane or insane, did want to be slaves? Some people hate to work and expect others to feed and support them. Is it immoral to insist they earn their own way, just because they don't like it?

What makes slavery, or any other immorality, like murder, or theft, or simply wasting one's own life objectively wrong is the harm it does the perpetrator, because it is contrary to that individual's own nature and is self-destructive.

If you must put it in terms of what people want, it ought to be, "no sane (rational) man could possibly want to own another human being," even if all other human beings wanted to be owned.

[RCSaunders]

What is "IT" in your sentence?

Whatever it is you say the, "other animal species are capable of caring," about. You're the one who thinks they are capable of caring about something, not me.

If you don't know what "IT" is then you comment is meaningless.
Why take the trouble to contradict me when you don't know what you are talking about. The Forum is conflictual enough without gratuitous remarks.

Perhaps you forgot. I know the threads become confused. It referred to this exchange:

Extinction of humanity is probably going to happen at some point; sooner the better.
The rest of the earth would also suffer. ...

Not for long, and afterward nothing would care.

Other animal species are capable of caring.

"It," is the, "human extinction," you referred to, which I'm sure is not imminent. Even if it were, I'm certain no other organism will care.

Does that answer your question?

[Immanuel Can]

I have never understood why theists, especially Christians, have been taken in by the concept of altruism, even though sacrifice and self-sacrifice are Biblical concepts.

They're more than that. They're mandated for Christians. We find the concept, of course, in the Golden Rule...but also in places like Phil 2:

"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus..."

And in 1 John 3:16,

"We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."

The word "altruism" is apparently Compte's -- but the concept is decidedly not original with him.

When I was very young and was taught in Sunday school, that selfishness was wrong and only unselfishness (altruism) was good, I knew there was something wrong with what I was being taught. When I asked why I should be unselfish and give up what I wanted for the sake of someone else who would then be getting what they wanted thus making them selfish, I of course, received no answer.

Heh. You had a bad Sunday School teacher.

Always answer a kid. Do your best, and don't fake what you don't know. Just admit it, and say, "I'll look into it." Then go do it. That's the right rule. Your Sunday School teacher didn't do that.

Maybe she panicked.

When I was told I should be unselfish because that pleased God and I would be blessed for it, it was obvious to me that everything everyone did was selfish--because they expected something good to result from their so-called unselfishness.

I can't say what you found in your own heart on that account. I believe you. But I there's a serious problem with that hypothesis: it's incorrigible. That is, like Determinism, it cannot be proved, but also cannot be falsified. There's no act anyone can point to that a cynic can't say was ultimately "selfish," even if that's not the case.

• Why did that mother go through labour for that child? Because she was selfish, and wanted a kid.

• Why did that soldier lay down his life? He thought it would make him a hero, and he'd live on in people's memories.

• Why did that man donate his kidney? He wanted gratitude from the donee, and he hoped the press would show up and say what a great guy he was...

That game can be played forever. The problem is, we can't know it's true. It might just be cynical. And personally, I think it is.

It's a mistake to think that having a reason to sacrifice is the same as having a selfish reason to sacrifice. Everyone has some reason for what they do; but some motives are higher, and some are lower than others. In Christian thought, the reason for sacrifice is faith: the putting off of immediate gratification, sometimes to an extraordinary degree, out of an expression of gratitude to and belief in God. Is that selfish? Looked at one way, the cynic could say, "Yes." But looked at fairly, the case is harder to make. After all, the sacrificer, in this case, is prepared to risk proximal, comparatively certain and immediately appealing rewards for something only verbally promised by God, and by all accounts, something quite opaque to human imagination.

Is that selfish? There's no means to prove it's not. But I think that's unduly cynical. There's also no basis to prove it is. The hypothesis of universal egoism is, thus, a null hypothesis. It may remain appealing to the cynic; but its real applicability cannot ever be gauged.

Altruism is the morality of collectivism with no other purpose than to justify the sacrifice of others to their collective causes. Even you have bought the collectivist lie that ethical principles are, "social."

You must mean Comptean altruism. Or maybe the alleged altruism of perspectives like Neo-Marxism.

Perhaps so, then.

... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are relational values, ...

Since you despise her so much, let me quote Rand:

I don't despise her. I disagree with her, and she amuses me. Our relationship is quite companionable.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most." [Atlas Shrugged, "Part Three,—Chapter VII, 'This is John Galt Speaking.'"]

She explains that the purpose of ethics is to provide the principles by which individuals make the choices that result in their own success and happiness. Every life is an individual life, every mind is an individual mind, and the success or failure of every individual is the consequence of their own individual choices.

"... knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, ... the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual ..." [Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, 1. What Is Capitalism?"]

Even if an individual were the only individual in the world, it would be necessary to live according to the ethical principles if one were to survive. Unless one knows how to live their own life morally, they will certainly not know how to relate to others morally.

I know about all this. I just think she's quite wrong. And apparently, so do you; for you speak of how it is an asset to "know how to relate to others morally." But if we take Rand seriously, this is no point in favour of morality at all -- morality only concerns the individual, she says.

In point of fact, she (and Galt) is wrong about the desert island. If we imagine a universe with only one sentient being in it, John Galt, we cannot defend the idea that he owes a single duty to a single thing...not even to himself. Why should he not saw off his own leg or head, if he were so inclined? If he did, who would say, "John Galt, what doest thou?" Nobody.

What Rand's got ahold of there is the recognition that ethics speaks to the individual. She has mistaken this for the idea that it only speaks about the individual. And since she valourizes the individual to a ridiculous degree, she can find no other locus of her admiration but the John Galt's of the world. Ironically, she is not John Galt. She is admiring another, an idealized version of herself that does not even share with her her gender.

The evidence of the benefit to mankind of those pursuing their own, "selfish," moral principles is irrefutable.

Pardon me, RC, but I have to say that I love it when people say "the evidence of X is irrefutable." It invariably means, "I don't want you to examine me too closely on X."

In other words, the bravery of it betrays a failing of conviction.

Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made...

Ah, but how easy it is to destroy this argument.

The Collectivist merely points out that none of these individuals made his discovery in isolation. Every one of them was a member of a society, of a discipline, of an education, of an opportunity...and of a host of other things that came from other people. Not one of them made his achievement floating in a vacuum in space. And each invention was brought about on the shoulders of the inventions of previous persons in a long line of invention and innovation. Not only did present society contribute to the achievement, but a long line of past societies were also essential to each individuals achievements...

Did Goodyear discover rubber? No, he inherited it. Did Banting create his own beakers and bunsen burners? No, he bought them. Did Lavoisier become a scientist all on his own? No, he was educated by others...and so on.

So the Collectivist simply says, "You're oversimplifying the case."

And that's true. We must grant that.

Let the altruist list the benefits their moral code has contributed to mankind. I can list some: war, communism, fascism, socialism, mass oppression, and terrorism, all done in the name of some altruistic lie about the good of society, mankind, or humanity.

If we mean Comptean altruism, I don't deny that this makes some case against it. And certainly, I think it constitutes a substantial rebuff to Collectivism. It does not, however, do anything to patch up the implausibility of the "great man" view of history.

So long as you do not wish to force your views on anyone else...

What does this phrase mean? Again, I am always amazed when I see it.

How can one "force" one's views on another person? I must reassure you, RC, the amount of actual "force" I can exert through this medium is not great...a few electrons worth, at most. I do believe any ordinary person, of minimal stamina, will be able to withstand any "force" I can exert thereby.

But if you mean, by "force," something like, "So long as you are content to agree that I am as right as you are," then I guess I am guilty of a terrible show for force...force of reason, force of argument, and perhaps force of speech as well.

But I beg you to forgive me.

Of course I'm happy to be civil. Of course I'm happy to exchange views courteously. Of course I will listen to you, and I hope, you to me. That's how we make progress. But I trust that our mutual respect is greater than that we must necessarily agree with each other at first mention of any topic, that we must avoid an exchange of views that might challenge either of us, or that we cannot disagree without animus developing.

We've done well in the past; I see no reason to discontinue that now.

[Immanuel Can]

Like Pete, you should read what I 've written in this thread. I'm not talkin' about one man's opinion, or everyone's opinion. I'm talkin' about sumthin' intrinsic to the person, in the same way maleness & femaleness is intrinsic.

But it's just a want.

Objector: I don't want to be a slave.

Slave Owner: So what? Who asked you?

Objector: But I really don't like the idea of being a slave.

Slave Owner: Then don't be. I have my slaves, and you don't have to be among them.

Objector: But NOBODY likes being a slave.

Slave Owner: That's a shame for them. But they're my property, so their wishes don't count. Besides, some of them have learned to like it, after a fashion; and others will yet learn. Being a slave works like that. After a bit, you're just glad to get your meal and avoid the whip.

Objector: But...

But what? What makes the slave owner wrong, and the objector right?

[henry quirk]

Like Pete and Mannie, you should read what I 've written in this thread. I'm not talkin' about one man's opinion, or everyone's opinion. I'm talkin' about sumthin' intrinsic to the person, in the same way maleness & femaleness is intrinsic.

I'm not talkin' about a preference...intrinsic in one's nature; I'm talkin' about the nature of a man itself (which is inextricable from the flesh & blood of the man) which is as real as fire, wind, or apples.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not talkin' about a preference...intrinsic in one's nature; I'm talkin' about the nature of a man itself (which is inextricable from the flesh & blood of the man) which is as real as fire, wind, or apples.

You're going to have to make that more concrete, Henry. Just what is it, in the nature of man, that makes slavery wrong?

[henry quirk]

But it's just a want. Objector: I don't want to be a slave.

No. I am free, I self-direct. This is not opinion, this is, as Pete might say, the state of affairs. Me, I just say it's a fact.

Bein' free is my natural state, part & parcel to my personhood.

That evil folks view me as property, and mebbe successfully bind me, doesn't change my nature (me) any more than a man surgically mutilatin' to appear as a woman actually becomes a woman.

-----

As aside: I think I'm bein' plai, unambiguous, in my contributions to this thread, so why am I bein' misunderstood?

If anyone can tell me where I'm bein' cloudy, (without bein' a p**** about it), I'd appreciate the feedback.

[Immanuel Can]

Bein' free is my natural state, part & parcel to my personhood.

Is this a "state of nature" argument, Henry? Is it that we are to understand that at some time in the past, human beings were mythically "free" in an unrestricted and idyllic natural state? I can hardly think you mean that.

Is it that you mean humans are volitionally free, and thus to enslave them is to deny their volitional freedom, their "free will," so to speak?

That seems a better argument, but still somewhat problematic. After all, that we have a will would have to be shown not merely to be an "is" but an "ought." And from what would we get the "oughtness" to say persuasively to all, "Free men must remain free"?

Or perhaps there's another thing you mean...

Does any of that help you put your case more clearly?

[henry quirk]

I'm not talkin' about a preference...intrinsic in one's nature; I'm talkin' about the nature of a man itself (which is inextricable from the flesh & blood of the man) which is as real as fire, wind, or apples.

You're going to have to make that more concrete, Henry. Just what is it, in the nature of man, that makes slavery wrong?

I don't think I can. Person & personhood, I'd have to define both in a way everyone would agree with, and I'd have to define sane in a way everyone would agree with. I'm thinkin' I can't.

Havin' wrangled with folks in a couple or three other threads over what is fixed/immutable in a person, and gettin' nowhere, I got no taste for repeatin' the experience so soon.

So: I guess I'm out.

-----

Is this a "state of nature" argument, Henry?

I don't know what that is.

Again: I'm talkin' about what is real/what is fact, and what can be inferred from fact.

meh

Whatever, guys, I'm out...not gonna work that hard describin' what is evident and true.

I'll leave dissections to you philo-types.

[uwot]

Just what is it, in the nature of man, that makes slavery wrong?

Well Mr Can, as someone who claims to have read the bible, and insists it is inspired by a supreme being, you will be aware that slavery is righteously endorsed by the god you believe in, which as a divine command theorist will lead you to the conclusion that slavery is absolutely fine.

[Immanuel Can]

Is this a "state of nature" argument, Henry?

I don't know what that is.

Oh. It's just an argument that kinda goes, "When men were in caves, we were all free. Civilization's what's messed us up." That sort of argument got popular back in the 18th Century, but hasn't been common since.

I didn't think you we're making one of those, but it sort of sounded like maybe...