[DaftPunk]

Imagine that Objectivism’s fondest wish has come true; we are living in a society governed by the objectivist philosophy. In many ways, it wouldn’t be so different from our own- we would still have families and many other social institutions because, even though we are all out for ourselves, relationships with others serve as means to satisfy our greedy ends.

Now, imagine that there was someone who I despised, and would like nothing more to see that person suffer. Suppose that I decided the most efficient way to make him miserable would be to murder his young daughter. Note that the desire to kill her is not an emotional one- it is rational because, through making him miserable, it would make me happy, and thus satisfy my greedy desires.Note also that the objectivist has no reason to care about the girls welfare. As Objectivism eloquently puts it;

If people could murder someone, take their wealth and not have any negative effects, they would do it. Thats human nature.

So, acting upon this rational desire, I murder her. Let us imagine that I am caught, and punished. In this case, what I did was wrong- it led to my being sent to prison, and thus stops me from fulfilling my greedy desires. Now let us imagine I get away with it. In this case, according to objectivism not only is what I did not wrong it is actually MORALLY RIGHT, as it fulfils my desire to see my enemy suffer, without having any consequences that frustrate my greedy desires. In our non-objectivist society, such examples can be countered by saying that the person would experience deep remorse, so ultimately the act would not make him happy. However, as objectivism himself points out, in an objectivist society there would be no remorse- how could one feel remorse for fulfilling ones selfish desires and thus doing what is good? Remorse for wronging others is, from the objectivism view, nothing more than a product of our society’s misplaced emphasis on altruism.

You may argue that most murderers do not get away with it, so this example is not relevant. The point is, however, that if a moral system, even in principle, judges whether or not murdering a young girl is wrong depending on whether you get away with it, there is something deeply wrong with this moral system.
Alternatively you may argue that we can never know whether or not we will get away with a murder, so should err on the side of caution and not commit murder. However, this does not get rid of the central problem- murder is no more justified if we rationally judge beforehand that we can probably get away with it, than if we take an irrational risk.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
Imagine that Objectivism’s fondest wish has come true; we are living in a society governed by the objectivist philosophy. In many ways, it wouldn’t be so different from our own- we would still have families and many other social institutions because, even though we are all out for ourselves, relationships with others serve as means to satisfy our greedy ends.

Now, imagine that there was someone who I despised, and would like nothing more to see that person suffer. Suppose that I decided the most efficient way to make him miserable would be to murder his young daughter. Note that the desire to kill her is not an emotional one- it is rational because, through making him miserable, it would make me happy, and thus satisfy my greedy desires.Note also that the objectivist has no reason to care about the girls welfare. As Objectivism eloquently puts it;



So, acting upon this rational desire, I murder her. Let us imagine that I am caught, and punished. In this case, what I did was wrong- it led to my being sent to prison, and thus stops me from fulfilling my greedy desires. Now let us imagine I get away with it. In this case, according to objectivism not only is what I did not wrong it is actually MORALLY RIGHT, as it fulfils my desire to see my enemy suffer, without having any consequences that frustrate my greedy desires. In our non-objectivist society, such examples can be countered by saying that the person would experience deep remorse, so ultimately the act would not make him happy. However, as objectivism himself points out, in an objectivist society there would be no remorse- how could one feel remorse for fulfilling ones selfish desires and thus doing what is good? Remorse for wronging others is, from the objectivism view, nothing more than a product of our society’s misplaced emphasis on altruism.

You may argue that most murderers do not get away with it, so this example is not relevant. The point is, however, that if a moral system, even in principle, judges whether or not murdering a young girl is wrong depending on whether you get away with it, there is something deeply wrong with this moral system.
Alternatively you may argue that we can never know whether or not we will get away with a murder, so should err on the side of caution and not commit murder. However, this does not get rid of the central problem- murder is no more justified if we rationally judge beforehand that we can probably get away with it, than if we take an irrational risk.

You have missed some very important points that objectivism holds

A murderer does not benefit: he sacrifices his mind, his moral character, his self-esteem...his ongoing ability to survive. And that's whether or not he is ever caught. To call that a benefit is to pervert the meaning of the concept.

The murderer doesn't lose his ability to reason: he turns against his reason. To sacrifice your mind is to stop using it as your means of knowledge and guide to action. It means placing your emotions above your reason. That is precisely what a murderer has to do by virtue of the nature of his undertaking. Since reason is man's means of survival, to commit such an act can never be in one's interest.

As Rand pointed out, if gained at the expense of moral principles, money is not a value at all. After all the reason i support capitalism is because of moralty, it all comes down to morality.

After all how do we determine what our self-interest consists of in the first place? Is it self-evident? The Objectivist answer: the only way to determine what is in our self-interest is by reference to moral principles.

[DaftPunk]

A murderer does not benefit: he sacrifices his mind, his moral character, his self-esteem...his ongoing ability to survive. And that's whether or not he is ever caught. To call that a benefit is to pervert the meaning of the concept.

Now you are contradicting yourself completely. How can he be sacrificing his moral character if the only criterion of morality is own what is in our own best interests. To say that this act destroys his self-esteem, moral character ect. is to make a judgement about what is moral that is prior to selfishness. In a sense I'm glad- you seem to recognise that there is something intrinsically bad about murder that has nothing to do with selfishness, even if you won't admit it. If the act is in his best interests then its moral- to say anything else is superflous, according to your philosophy.

The murderer doesn't lose his ability to reason: he turns against his reason. To sacrifice your mind is to stop using it as your means of knowledge and guide to action. It means placing your emotions above your reason. That is precisely what a murderer has to do by virtue of the nature of his undertaking. Since reason is man's means of survival, to commit such an act can never be in one's interest.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I never claimed that he loses his reason.

After all how do we determine what our self-interest consists of in the first place? Is it self-evident? The Objectivist answer: the only way to determine what is in our self-interest is by reference to moral principles.

So what determins what those principles are, if not self-interest? In fact, if you already have a set of moral principles why mention self interest at all?

[objectivism]

Now you are contradicting yourself completely. How can he be sacrificing his moral character if the only criterion of morality is own what is in our own best interests. To say that this act destroys his self-esteem, moral character ect. is to make a judgement about what is moral that is prior to selfishness. In a sense I'm glad- you seem to recognise that there is something intrinsically bad about murder that has nothing to do with selfishness, even if you won't admit it. If the act is in his best interests then its moral- to say anything else is superflous, according to your philosophy.

Theres no contradction. Man should not kill as to do so would reject reason and destroy his self-esteem etc. Its because his morality is his own interests that he must not murder as he will suffer. Its because life is wonderful that he must not kill another, for he himself is life. When i say selfishness i refer to self-interest, it is in one's interest not to murder as it detorys his esteem. Without that man cant go out into the world and fulfil his dreams and ambitions i.e his greed.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I never claimed that he loses his reason.

I was just putting the objectivist view in a broader context

[DaftPunk]

Theres no contradction. Man should not kill as to do so would reject reason and destroy his self-esteem etc. Its because his morality is his own interests that he must not murder as he will suffer. Its because life is wonderful that he must not kill another, for he himself is life. When i say selfishness i refer to self-interest, it is in one's interest not to murder as it detorys his esteem. Without that man cant go out into the world and fulfil his dreams and ambitions i.e his greed.

Okay, so now your argument rests on the assertion that murder can never be in one's interests because it destroys self-esteem and is a rejection of reason. However, the very concept of self-esteem is an evaluative one; you can't define what is moral in terms of self-esteem, becuase morality is prior to self-esteem. Something isn't bad because it destroys my self-esteem, I loose my slef-esteem because I know I've done something bad.

[DaftPunk]

In fact, if the ability to destroy self-esteem were an objective property of murder, and that was what made it wrong then every single person who commited a murder would have their self-esteem destroyed. But this simply is not true; indeed, there are some for whom it would be a boost to their self-esteem, say, gang memebers, for example. We do not percieve the loss of self esteem as something that is 'forced upon' us by a certain action. Instead, we make an evaluative judgement about an action we performed, and if we judge that it was wrong, we then hold ourselves in lower esteem. The loss in self-esteem comes after the moral judgement, not before.

[DaftPunk]

Oh dear God help me, I've just read about objectivist aesthetics. My conclusion? Ayn Rand had a thing for muscle men.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
Okay, so now your argument rests on the assertion that murder can never be in one's interests because it destroys self-esteem and is a rejection of reason. However, the very concept of self-esteem is an evaluative one; you can't define what is moral in terms of self-esteem, becuase morality is prior to self-esteem. Something isn't bad because it destroys my self-esteem, I loose my slef-esteem because I know I've done something bad.

Violating the virtues of rationality are not a means to long-term self-esteem. Since they are virtues, every act of disregarding them is a means to self-destruction.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
In fact, if the ability to destroy self-esteem were an objective property of murder, and that was what made it wrong then every single person who commited a murder would have their self-esteem destroyed. But this simply is not true; indeed, there are some for whom it would be a boost to their self-esteem, say, gang memebers, for example. We do not percieve the loss of self esteem as something that is 'forced upon' us by a certain action. Instead, we make an evaluative judgement about an action we performed, and if we judge that it was wrong, we then hold ourselves in lower esteem. The loss in self-esteem comes after the moral judgement, not before.

See my previous post for response to this.

A gang member with self-esteem?

Gang members hold strongly to the faith that they can knock the other guy out, or else if they can't, the other gang members will. That's not self-esteem.

[DaftPunk]

Okay it destroys self-esteem because it is a violation of rationality. Is rationality therefore the ultimate criterion for chosing moral principles? If so, in what sense is murder irrational? You can't say its irrational because its bad, because then you are making a moral judgement thats prior to rationality. Equally, you can't say it's irrational becuase life is good, because again you are making a value-judgement that is prior to rationality. Your challenge, therefore, is to explain why murder is irrational without making any moral judgements about it.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
Okay it destroys self-esteem because it is a violation of rationality. Is rationality therefore the ultimate criterion for chosing moral principles? If so, in what sense is murder irrational? You can't say its irrational because its bad, because then you are making a moral judgement thats prior to rationality. Equally, you can't say it's irrational becuase life is good, because again you are making a value-judgement that is prior to rationality. Your challenge, therefore, is to explain why murder is irrational without making any moral judgements about it.

You dont understand Objectivism at all. Only a person that imagines morality can be divorced from rationality would think to ask such a question as "which comes first". The answer is that it is bad because it is irrational. The irrational being that which is divorced from reality. Since men must live in reality, and must perceive and understand reality in order to survive, anything that is divorced from or anti-reality is a threat to his life. And since life is the source and measure of values, of good and bad, anything that threatens his life is evil.

Rationalism and morality are intertwined. I do not accept your premise that they can be divorced, to do so would be to reject my support for objectivism.

[DaftPunk]

You dont understand Objectivism at all.

You've not done a very good job explaining it!

Only a person that imagines morality can be divorced from rationality would think to ask such a question as "which comes first".

I didn't say they should be divorced from each other. What I'm saying is if you are basing what is moral on what is rational, you can't say it's rational because its moral. That, as I'm sure even you can see, is a circular argument.

The answer is that it is bad because it is irrational. The irrational being that which is divorced from reality. Since men must live in reality, and must perceive and understand reality in order to survive, anything that is divorced from or anti-reality is a threat to his life. And since life is the source and measure of values, of good and bad, anything that threatens his life is evil.

How is murder divorced from/anti-reality? Take the example I gave above of the murderer- the murder was not in any way divorced from reality- it was a rationally selfish act based entirely in reality.






Where did I say that they must be divorced from each other?

[objectivism]

You've not done a very good job explaining it!

I can't be held responsible for your inadequacies - a fundamental belief of Objectivism.

I didn't say they should be divorced from each other. What I'm saying is if you are basing what is moral on what is rational, you can't say it's rational because its moral. That, as I'm sure even you can see, is a circular argument

.

Objectivism states that rationality is the ultimate criterion for choosing moral principles (it is the basic moral principle). Reason, after all, is the criterion for choosing anything. It is reason that tells us that if we choose to embrace life as a goal, we must embrace rationality as the means of achieving that goal.

Where did I say that they must be divorced from each other?

You asked me to explain why murder is irrational without emplolying morality, thus there is a separation which is a divorce.

[DaftPunk]

Now will you respond to the most important question of my post?

How is murder divorced from/anti-reality? Take the example I gave above of the murderer- the murder was not in any way divorced from reality- it was a rationally selfish act based entirely in reality.

[DaftPunk]

You asked me to explain why murder is irrational without emplolying morality, thus there is a separation which is a divorce.

No there is not a separation- the wrongness of the act is based on its irrationality. But you cannot explain its irrationality in terms of it being worng, because then you are arguing in a circle. It is because there is a relationship (morality being based on rationality) that rationality is neccesarily prior to morality. I'm surprised that you have such trouble grasping this.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
No there is not a separation- the wrongness of the act is based on its irrationality. But you cannot explain its irrationality in terms of it being worng, because then you are arguing in a circle. It is because there is a relationship (morality being based on rationality) that rationality is neccesarily prior to morality. I'm surprised that you have such trouble grasping this.

You are saying that you can't argue, "Murder is immoral because it is irrational," if your reason for claiming it is irrational is that it is immoral. But as I have pointed out, the reason murder is immoral is because it is opposed to the principles of human survival. To claim that murder is in one's self-interest is to claim that it is in one's interest to sacrifice others to oneself. It is to claim that sacrifice is a proper principle of human survival.

So does human life require sacrifice? I think not.

This is very easy to understand and if you can't catch on there's not much more i can do.

[DaftPunk]

You are saying that you can't argue, "Murder is immoral because it is irrational," if your reason for claiming it is irrational is that it is immoral. But as I have pointed out, the reason murder is immoral is because it is opposed to the principles of human survival. To claim that murder is in one's self-interest is to claim that it is in one's interest to sacrifice others to oneself. It is to claim that sacrifice is a proper principle of human survival.

Actually, you said;

The answer is that it is bad because it is irrational. The irrational being that which is divorced from reality. Since men must live in reality, and must perceive and understand reality in order to survive, anything that is divorced from or anti-reality is a threat to his life. And since life is the source and measure of values, of good and bad, anything that threatens his life is evil.

So my question is; in what sense is murder 'divorced from' reality?

[objectivism]

So my question is; in what sense is murder 'divorced from' reality?

Objectivist metaphysics holds (1) the Primacy of Existence, (2) the Law of Identity (Aristotle's "A is A"), and (3) the Axiom of Consciousness. In addition, (4) the Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of Identity. The Primacy of Existence states that reality (the universe, that which is) exists independently of human consciousness. Thus we may kill and are aware of it, thus it is real, but in order to live in reality we must make choices which are conductive to life, murder, as i have shown is not. It comes down to a different interpretation of reality, and some may say that it is merely a semantic issue.

Morality cannot be divorced from rationality. The reason why murder is irrational is because the source of morality is values. Values are only possible to a creature faced with a fundamental alternative, that being: existence or non-existence, life or death. Man's life is the standard of value.

In asking a question about morality, you are not just asking "should I be allowed murder someone?" but "should ANYONE be allowed to murder someone?" If you answer this question in the affirmative, you are accepting the destruction of life as a valid method for men to live. Applied consistently, it would mean the institutionalization of a war of "all against all", the destruction of civilization, of values, and of man's ability to live on earth.

Could you live if any random stranger could come up and murder you for any reason or no reason? Every human being on the planet would be a deadly threat; your only choice would be to hide and slaughter indiscriminately anyone you came across, striving to keep your own life while depriving them of theirs, while they struggle to do the same. Wouldn't leave much time for the business of creating food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and all the OTHER things you need to live, all of which you would have to create ALONE, BY YOURSELF, knowing that any achievement you happened to make would increase your threat; drawing hordes of looting savages that seek to benefit at the price of your destruction, all of which would have to be slaughtered.

Imagine, instead, living among men who respect, as an absolute, the principle of rights. Other men are no threat to you, allowing you to live in the open, unafraid, and every bit of new knowledge they create improves the condition of your life, extends the sum of your years.

Why shouldn't you murder someone? Do you want to live? Ultimately, these are the same question. Reason is man's means of survival. Anything that clashes with that survival is anti-reason, is irrational.

[objectivism]

You are saying that you can't argue, "Murder is immoral because it is irrational," if your reason for claiming it is irrational is that it is immoral. But as I have pointed out, the reason murder is immoral is because it is opposed to the principles of human survival. To claim that murder is in one's self-interest is to claim that it is in one's interest to sacrifice others to oneself. It is to claim that sacrifice is a proper principle of human survival.

Actually, you said;

Quote:
The answer is that it is bad because it is irrational.

The two are the same - that which is rational is conductive to life and vice vera.