Friday, April 29, 2011

On 'The Objectivist Ethics' (Pt 1)

Ayn Rand was one of those reforming moralists who thought there was something deeply wrong with popular morality. It would be easy to write her off as selfishly motivated in this, but since a lot of her point is that selfishness is improperly maligned, it's worth hearing her out.

The Objectivist Ethics — Ayn Rand (search link)

Value, a Product of Life
The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
For a moral system named 'Objectivism,' I find it interesting how she starts by writing off the notion of just-out-there-in-the-world value. She is limiting 'value' to what is often called instrumental value, and only for goals acted on by living beings (as opposed to potential instrumental value).

Why the focus on living beings? Because, supposedly, living beings are the only entities which exist under threat of non-existence:
Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death.
She doesn't only mean life capable of intentional action, or even conscious life, but 'all living organisms, from the simple to the most complex' which includes 'the single cell of an amoeba.' Unless she thinks amoebas have minds, however, I don't see how she can claim her fundamental distinction is 'objective' rather than an arbitrary metaphysical view. Why is an amoeba under the threat of non-existence but a star is not? Why do the active processes of an amoeba count but those of a star do not?

Life, the Goal of Life
On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms [...] are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life[....] It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action.
This boils down to the claim that there is only one fundamental kind of goal in the universe: every living being's goal of remaining alive. All other goals are ancillary to that. And since value can only exist with reference to a goal, the only things of value to a living being are those which extend its life.
An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
So there you have it. Objectivist metaethics hold that moral terms only properly refer to what helps or hinders a living being's own continued state of being alive.

How 'objective' vs. 'subjective' is this? These are fuzzy terms, but I will say Objectivism is objective in the sense of being attitude-independent and in the sense of there being a fact of the matter whether something will extend a given living being's life. Objectivism is subjective in the sense that which things are valuable, good, or evil are entirely relative to each individual living being and in the sense that Rand's way of distinguishing life from non-life is idiosyncratic and arbitrary.

Next time, I'll look at how Objectivist ethics are applied to human action in particular.

5 comments:

  1. As much as I dislike Rand's philosophy (and, IMO when it gets to stuff like her epistemological claims, we can't even deem it that), I do think she was onto something.

    Consider the term "I love you more than life"; to me, at times this can be a pretty nonsensical thing to say. How can you love someone more than life when what allows you to appreciate, value and nurture your interactions with said person depend on you being alive? Shouldn't you give precedence in your life to stay alive and keep on loving this person?

    Where I begin to disagree with Rand is that life is the only "ultimate goal" (not even sure what that is supposed to mean) and I'm not even sure it makes sense to say all value is subjective and then pretty much say that because we physically our bodies want to survive, that's what we actually want to do.

    Again, the phrase "I love you more than life itself" comes into play. It is quite plausible to want to sacrifice your life in order to let somebody you love live longer or not face pain, or whatever it may be. In such an instance, you truly did value somebody elses' life more than your own.

    I'm curious as to where you're taking this, but I also loved the questions/comments you raised.

    ----

    Off-topic but thanks for your reply elaborating what you meant by "natural" sentences (replying here since it's been a while), didn't really have time to respond what with finals/AP exams taking up my time.

    What confused me was the use of the term "natural" referring to sentences. It seemed really odd, until you brought up the alternative "unknown substance" that makes up correct sentences.

    All in all though, I'm really starting to get sold on the ideas discussed here so thanks for all the work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Esteban,

    I'll respond to your first part after I've posted the second half of this mini-series. (Probably this weekend.)

    The 'natural sentences' thing is confusing me. Either you're thinking of someone else, or I just have no clue what you're referring to!

    At any rate, I always appreciate the feedback. I would post just because it helps me learn things, but it's more fulfilling if someone else benefits too. (Beyond all these people Googling about Philippa Foot who trickle in constantly.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, I was referring to your post here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15213#more-15213

    "I take it being a well-formed sentence is a non-natural property because there are no specific words in common with all well-formed sentences."

    Sorry for the vagueness and confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh gotcha. I forgot I made that analogy. Glad it helped!

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Esteban,
    .."Consider the term "I love you more than life"; to me, at times this can be a pretty nonsensical thing to say. How can you love someone more than life when what allows you to appreciate, value and nurture your interactions with said person depend on you being alive?"

    It would be problematic if it were: I love loving you more than life.

    .."Again, the phrase "I love you more than life itself" comes into play. It is quite plausible to want to sacrifice your life in order to let somebody you love live longer or not face pain, or whatever it may be. In such an instance, you truly did value somebody else's life more than your own."

    Right.

    ReplyDelete