Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
I think there is some useful thinking about the REUEP in a post I did after a recent meeting, in which I presented a third alternative to the philosophical antithesis between Objectivism and Altruism. My post is an extension of the discussion in the meeting, and is a reply primarily to a group member that is a very educated advocate of Objectivism and very knowledgeable about philosophy in general. It is, more specifically, in response to his post after the meeting, clarifying my misconception as to the meaning of 93altruism.94
Thank you, [group member]. This is a helpful clarification of the issue discussed in yesterday's meeting. You have helped me see that my general impression over my lifetime of the meaning of "altruism" has not been the same as the more technical philosophical one.
I also can see how I would reject altruism, just as Objectivists do, though for different reasons (which cause me to reject Objectivism also). By reject I do not mean consider without value; I mean not being as valuable to me as my alternative (which as you know is Humanianity).
What Objectivism and Altruism have in common, that is not in common with at least my version of Humanianity, is the issue as to whether the ultimate ethical principle (different in the three cases) is arbitrary or for some reason necessarily true (or logical or inexorably following from the way the world undisputedly is).
In my lexicon, so to speak, the ultimate ethical principle (in a system of ethical thought) is the highest level principle that all other ethical principles and ethical rules of conduct must be consistent with. It is what ultimately legitimates any other ethical principle or ethical rule of conduct. Let's call it the UEP (ultimate ethical principle).
So now we can compare Altruism, Objectivism, and Humanianity (the new kid on the block) with regard to the UEP of each.
Altruism: Here you can insert one of the statements from Wikipedia, such as: You (or we) should help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
Objectivism: Here you can insert your preferred statement, especially since you are so thoroughly knowledgeable about Objectivism, but for the purpose of this post we will use my (hopefully not too inaccurate) understanding: You (or we) should do that which will sustain and enhance your own life, as long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do so.
Humanianity: Here we use the "official" UEP, labeled by me the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (REUEP): You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
Now there are several issues that can be addressed with regard to these UEP's, such as their desirability, workability, and help with or production of ethical dilemma. But another issue, the one I am going to focus on, is the issue of legitimization of the UEP, the issue of whether the UEP has to be so, and if it has to be so, why that is true. There are two basic possibilities:
The UEP does not have to be so; it is arbitrary, something you can choose to have as your UEP for whatever reasons you personally choose to do so.
The UEP does have to be so; the only choice is to accept it or erroneously not accept it (due perhaps to lack of education, emotional refusal, malignant oppositionalism, etc.).
Now my understanding is that Objectivism and Altruism say that the UEP has to be so.
My version of Humanianity says that it is arbitrary. I advocate for it (since I am a Humanian), but there is no reason it has to be accepted. I think that if you think about it enough (with open mind and lack of commitment to some ideology that would be inconsistent with it), you will gladly accept it and thereby become a Humanian along with me. (The defining characteristic of a Humanian, whose religion is Humanianity, consists only of the commitment to try to live by the REUEP.)
Now indeed, if there is a UEP that can be legitimated, shown to be necessarily so, then my pitiful Humanianity will have to step aside as a failed religion, in deference to the true and proper religion, be it Altruism, Objectivism, Christianity, Wicca, Atheism, etc.
Until then, I remain Humanian.
(BTW, lest I create misunderstanding, I am using the word, "religion," for the purposes of this post, to mean human activity to find the best way to live life, or something like that.)
(BTW2, I have my reasons for my choice of my UEP (REUEP), just as anyone choosing anything will do so for certain reasons. My reasons for my choice of the REUEP, and therefore for being Humanian, are explained somewhat at Humanianity.com.)
So it is this legitimization issue that we focused on for a while in our meeting (and have done so in previous meetings).
In our meeting, I hope I was able to demonstrate that the legitimization of its UEP, as presented by Rand, fails, in that it is based upon a play on words (not consciously or malevolently of course), having to do with its key concept that "value" is something that is ultimately an objective fact, this objective fact being demonstrable by focusing the attention on certain undeniable facts regarding all living things, as opposed to nonliving things, and certain undeniable facts regarding the difference between humans and all other living things.
My problem comes because these "undeniable facts" turn out to be, as far as I can tell, conclusions drawn not from observation but from syllogisms in which the same word is used in a different way in the propositions from which the conclusion is drawn. An example of this process would be:
I keep my clean underwear in my chest.
My chest should be kept clear of foreign bodies.
I should therefore see my primary care physician for referral to a surgeon and a psychiatrist.
Objectivism seems to me to assert that because every living thing "acts" in order to preserve its life, man "acting" to preserve his or her life is a biological necessity (and therefore ethical necessity) according to the laws of the universe. Because the metabolism of the amoeba has the result that the amoeba continues to meet the criteria for "living," it anthropomorphically and metaphorically is said to be "acting" to preserve its life, and this metaphoric similarity is what is used to justify that man should "act" (engage in decision-making) to preserve his life. In my mind, what is said about the amoeba's metabolism is irrelevant to what is being said about man's decision-making, and the two different meanings of the word "act" are what lead to this mistake. (The word "act" is used metaphorically even with regard to nonliving things, as I pointed out, an example being that hydrochloric acid "acts" on zinc to produce hydrogen and zinc chloride.) And this is only one example of this kind of error-producing process that I think I observe in the legitimization efforts by Objectivism.
We are at times unknowing victims of our own poetic creativity.
Bill Van Fleet
Humanian
Thank you, [group member]. This is a helpful clarification of the issue discussed in yesterday's meeting. You have helped me see that my general impression over my lifetime of the meaning of "altruism" has not been the same as the more technical philosophical one.
I also can see how I would reject altruism, just as Objectivists do, though for different reasons (which cause me to reject Objectivism also). By reject I do not mean consider without value; I mean not being as valuable to me as my alternative (which as you know is Humanianity).
What Objectivism and Altruism have in common, that is not in common with at least my version of Humanianity, is the issue as to whether the ultimate ethical principle (different in the three cases) is arbitrary or for some reason necessarily true (or logical or inexorably following from the way the world undisputedly is).
In my lexicon, so to speak, the ultimate ethical principle (in a system of ethical thought) is the highest level principle that all other ethical principles and ethical rules of conduct must be consistent with. It is what ultimately legitimates any other ethical principle or ethical rule of conduct. Let's call it the UEP (ultimate ethical principle).
So now we can compare Altruism, Objectivism, and Humanianity (the new kid on the block) with regard to the UEP of each.
Altruism: Here you can insert one of the statements from Wikipedia, such as: You (or we) should help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
Objectivism: Here you can insert your preferred statement, especially since you are so thoroughly knowledgeable about Objectivism, but for the purpose of this post we will use my (hopefully not too inaccurate) understanding: You (or we) should do that which will sustain and enhance your own life, as long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do so.
Humanianity: Here we use the "official" UEP, labeled by me the rational-ethical ultimate ethical principle (REUEP): You (or we) should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species, but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" being here defined as "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED) as possible.
Now there are several issues that can be addressed with regard to these UEP's, such as their desirability, workability, and help with or production of ethical dilemma. But another issue, the one I am going to focus on, is the issue of legitimization of the UEP, the issue of whether the UEP has to be so, and if it has to be so, why that is true. There are two basic possibilities:
The UEP does not have to be so; it is arbitrary, something you can choose to have as your UEP for whatever reasons you personally choose to do so.
The UEP does have to be so; the only choice is to accept it or erroneously not accept it (due perhaps to lack of education, emotional refusal, malignant oppositionalism, etc.).
Now my understanding is that Objectivism and Altruism say that the UEP has to be so.
My version of Humanianity says that it is arbitrary. I advocate for it (since I am a Humanian), but there is no reason it has to be accepted. I think that if you think about it enough (with open mind and lack of commitment to some ideology that would be inconsistent with it), you will gladly accept it and thereby become a Humanian along with me. (The defining characteristic of a Humanian, whose religion is Humanianity, consists only of the commitment to try to live by the REUEP.)
Now indeed, if there is a UEP that can be legitimated, shown to be necessarily so, then my pitiful Humanianity will have to step aside as a failed religion, in deference to the true and proper religion, be it Altruism, Objectivism, Christianity, Wicca, Atheism, etc.
Until then, I remain Humanian.
(BTW, lest I create misunderstanding, I am using the word, "religion," for the purposes of this post, to mean human activity to find the best way to live life, or something like that.)
(BTW2, I have my reasons for my choice of my UEP (REUEP), just as anyone choosing anything will do so for certain reasons. My reasons for my choice of the REUEP, and therefore for being Humanian, are explained somewhat at Humanianity.com.)
So it is this legitimization issue that we focused on for a while in our meeting (and have done so in previous meetings).
In our meeting, I hope I was able to demonstrate that the legitimization of its UEP, as presented by Rand, fails, in that it is based upon a play on words (not consciously or malevolently of course), having to do with its key concept that "value" is something that is ultimately an objective fact, this objective fact being demonstrable by focusing the attention on certain undeniable facts regarding all living things, as opposed to nonliving things, and certain undeniable facts regarding the difference between humans and all other living things.
My problem comes because these "undeniable facts" turn out to be, as far as I can tell, conclusions drawn not from observation but from syllogisms in which the same word is used in a different way in the propositions from which the conclusion is drawn. An example of this process would be:
I keep my clean underwear in my chest.
My chest should be kept clear of foreign bodies.
I should therefore see my primary care physician for referral to a surgeon and a psychiatrist.
Objectivism seems to me to assert that because every living thing "acts" in order to preserve its life, man "acting" to preserve his or her life is a biological necessity (and therefore ethical necessity) according to the laws of the universe. Because the metabolism of the amoeba has the result that the amoeba continues to meet the criteria for "living," it anthropomorphically and metaphorically is said to be "acting" to preserve its life, and this metaphoric similarity is what is used to justify that man should "act" (engage in decision-making) to preserve his life. In my mind, what is said about the amoeba's metabolism is irrelevant to what is being said about man's decision-making, and the two different meanings of the word "act" are what lead to this mistake. (The word "act" is used metaphorically even with regard to nonliving things, as I pointed out, an example being that hydrochloric acid "acts" on zinc to produce hydrogen and zinc chloride.) And this is only one example of this kind of error-producing process that I think I observe in the legitimization efforts by Objectivism.
We are at times unknowing victims of our own poetic creativity.
Bill Van Fleet
Humanian
Last edited by wvanfleet on Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
I moved three posts containing dialogue between REveritt and myself to the more relevant topic (Is Humanianity Just Another Name for XXX? Why Is It Needed?). What is below was in one of those posts and is relevant to this topic. It is my set of questions to REveritt:
But what did you think about the actual topic? Did you follow the logic? Do you think Objectivism is indeed "objective," and has to be the right answer, as they believe? Do you have a preference for one of the UEP's? Or do you have an even better one? What is yours? Do you have one? How do you legitimate it? Or is it indeed arbitrary? Does it have a major effect on your life? Does it apply to all of your decisions?
Last edited by wvanfleet on Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
I reject both objectivism because it recognizes no moral duties except those that one chooses freely. I reject altruism and utilitarianism because they do not recognize the individual's duties to himself, and are therefore incomplete and impractical systems of ethics.But what did you think about the actual topic? Did you follow the logic? Do you think Objectivism is indeed "objective," and has to be the right answer, as they believe? Do you have a preference for one of the UEP's? Or do you have an even better one? What is yours? Do you have one? How do you legitimate it? Or is it indeed arbitrary? Does it have a major effect on your life? Does it apply to all of your decisions?
For me, the essential ethical activity is the constant examination of one's self and the world for the purpose of discerning one's duties to self and others, and finding an appropriate balance between them.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
What is the process of "discerning"? When you have arrived at a conclusion as to what your duties are to yourself and others, what criterion do you use to decide if your conclusion is correct? Is this a criterion others would agree with? Would you disagree with an Objectivist who might say that you were just going along with your feelings of the moment, i.e., "whim"? Do you have an ultimate ethical principle to guide you in the process of discerning?REveritt wrote: I reject both objectivism because it recognizes no moral duties except those that one chooses freely. I reject altruism and utilitarianism because they do not recognize the individual's duties to himself, and are therefore incomplete and impractical systems of ethics.
For me, the essential ethical activity is the constant examination of one's self and the world for the purpose of discerning one's duties to self and others, and finding an appropriate balance between them.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
Studying, examining, and talking to other people--especially those with whom I don't fully agree.What is the process of "discerning"?
One must continually reexamine one's ethical stance in the light of changing circumstances and improved understanding.When you have arrived at a conclusion as to what your duties are to yourself and others, what criterion do you use to decide if your conclusion is correct?
I don't much care.Is this a criterion others would agree with?
Certainly, it is possible that I will decide incorrectly based on a whim--that is why continual reexamination is important. But the objectivist would say that it is fine for me to go with my whims, as long as I don't hurt anyone else. This is one reason I reject Objectivism--just because I think a thing is correct doesn't make it so. I may be mistaken.Would you disagree with an Objectivist who might say that you were just going along with your feelings of the moment, i.e., "whim"?
To be honest in finding a reasonable balance between by selfish interests and the interests of others.Do you have an ultimate ethical principle to guide you in the process of discerning?
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultima
I agree with your method of alerting yourself to perhaps mistaken ideas, but I am asking how you recognize them as mistaken ideas.REveritt wrote:Studying, examining, and talking to other people--especially those with whom I don't fully agree.What is the process of "discerning"?
Yes, but the same question still applies.One must continually reexamine one's ethical stance in the light of changing circumstances and improved understanding.When you have arrived at a conclusion as to what your duties are to yourself and others, what criterion do you use to decide if your conclusion is correct?
This worries me. If they don’t agree, then you, they, or you and they could be wrong. If you are wrong, this would be a possible indicator. If they are wrong and you are right, then you would not be caring that others were living in a bad way.I don't much care.Is this a criterion others would agree with?
I believe the last thing they would say would be that their ethical judgements are based on whim. They believe just the opposite, and they are quite negative about people who base their ethics on whim. They believe that their ethical beliefs are based on undeniable fact, as determined by the process of reasoning, the reason they call themselves “Objectivists.” (I don’t agree with this basic idea of theirs.)Certainly, it is possible that I will decide incorrectly based on a whim--that is why continual reexamination is important. But the objectivist would say that it is fine for me to go with my whims, as long as I don't hurt anyone else. This is one reason I reject Objectivism--just because I think a thing is correct doesn't make it so. I may be mistaken.Would you disagree with an Objectivist who might say that you were just going along with your feelings of the moment, i.e., "whim"?
Yes, but what criteria do you use to determine whether you have found that reasonable balance. I think this is a difficult question. I think any answer is going to have some ambiguity and uncertainty, but it is worthwhile, I believe, to try to answer it as well as possible. My suspicion is that your answer would make you meet the criterion for the label of “Humanian.”To be honest in finding a reasonable balance between by selfish interests and the interests of others.Do you have an ultimate ethical principle to guide you in the process of discerning?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
There is no single criterion for realizing that you have made a mistake. The only thing you can do is look at your life honestly--in light of what you know--and make a decision.I agree with your method of alerting yourself to perhaps mistaken ideas, but I am asking how you recognize them as mistaken ideas.
As I said, I am willing to talk to people who don't agree with me, but my purpose for doing so is not to convince them of my way of thinking. My purpose is to test my own reasoning. At the end of the day, if the other guy doesn't agree with me, that is no concern. The important thing is to agree with myself.This worries me. If they don92t agree, then you, they, or you and they could be wrong. If you are wrong, this would be a possible indicator. If they are wrong and you are right, then you would not be caring that others were living in a bad way.
OK; I may have misspoken about Objectivism, but clearly, for them, it is correct to do what seems best for one's self. I do not agree that that is always the case.I believe the last thing they would say would be that their ethical judgements are based on whim. They believe just the opposite, and they are quite negative about people who base their ethics on whim. They believe that their ethical beliefs are based on undeniable fact, as determined by the process of reasoning, the reason they call themselves 93Objectivists.94 (I don92t agree with this basic idea of theirs.)
Yes, it is a difficult, but worthwhile question. The best answer I can give you is that at bottom, our concepts of good and bad depend heavily on our individual emotions, which are partly driven by evolved instincts, and partly by our experience. We can use our intellect to explore the world, and to try out rational arguments, but in the end, we identify as "good" or "desirable" what strikes a certain emotional chord. Promoting "the good life for everyone" certainly seems desirable, but it cannot be the sole objective of ethics because it ignores one's duty to one's self.Yes, but what criteria do you use to determine whether you have found that reasonable balance. I think this is a difficult question. I think any answer is going to have some ambiguity and uncertainty, but it is worthwhile, I believe, to try to answer it as well as possible. My suspicion is that your answer would make you meet the criterion for the label of 93Humanian.94
Last edited by REveritt on Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
Note that in the REUEP, the 93good life94 is specifically defined as 93as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible." It then requires accurate beliefs about the way the world is and a willingness to attempt to predict the outcomes of one's contemplated decisions and the consistency of those outcomes with the REUEP. This goes further than simply striking a certain emotional chord, if I am understanding what you mean.REveritt wrote:We can use our intellect to explore the world, and to try out rational arguments, but in the end, we identify as "good" or "desirable" what strikes a certain emotional chord.
On the other hand, dedication to the REUEP is indeed an arbitrary decision, based perhaps on a certain emotional chord. The question is whether you have that emotional chord or not. Or do you prefer to advocate for as much pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible, or as much as possible for others and as little as possible for you. For me, my emotional chord makes it impossible for me to have any other ultimate ethical principle, though I am open to considering the advocacy of other UEP's.
See, I have the impression that much of your disagreement with Humanianity has to do with not yet understanding it.Promoting "the good life for everyone" certainly seems desirable, but it cannot be the sole objective of ethics because it ignores one's duty to one's self.
93The good life for everyone94 includes the good life for the self. It doesn92t ignore it.
In fact, one92s sphere of influence has one92s self at the very center (distance from the center having to do with how much influence one has on an individual), so there is no one who has as much influence on yourself as you, and therefore you have the greatest obligation to treat yourself well, that is, in such a way as to maximize your ability to make the world a better place for everyone (including you).
Your self is what you use to make the world a better place, so you need to take very good care of it. That includes your body, your brain, your mind, and your possessions. Maximizing your ability to experience joy is important in order to have the enjoyment and enthusiasm needed to do a good job at making the world a better place.
Taking good care of yourself is extremely difficult, because your culture defines certain things as good that actually cause much PSDED. Acting in your own behalf against the pressures of your culture is no easy skill. It takes a long time to acquire it, including the courage to look more closely at what you currently value that will promote PSDED in yourself and/or others. Most people never even become aware of how they are victims of their culture.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
I agree with most of what you say here, but I maintain that identifying with something as "good" may involve a combination of objective understanding of it and subjective emotion. Humans have evolved a strong instinct for cooperation, which we have built on with our intellect. So what may have started as a willingness to cooperate in the hunt, share the kill, and watch out for each other's children within a small band has expanded to concern for other people that one has never met, and in whose survival one has no objective stake.Note that in the REUEP, the 93good life94 is specifically defined as 93as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible." It then requires accurate beliefs about the way the world is and a willingness to attempt to predict the outcomes of one's contemplated decisions and the consistency of those outcomes with the REUEP. This goes further than simply striking a certain emotional chord, if I am understanding what you mean.
I agree with all of this, but where in the REUEP is there a criterion for resolving the conflicting objectives that inevitably arise? How, for example, do I decide how much of my time and income I spend on self, family, immediate community, and those who are far distant from me, but in great need? That is the heart of ethics for me, and I don't have a clear-cut way to make these decisions. I suspect that you don't either.93The good life for everyone94 includes the good life for the self. It doesn92t ignore it.
In fact, one92s sphere of influence has one92s self at the very center (distance from the center having to do with how much influence one has on an individual), so there is no one who has as much influence on yourself as you, and therefore you have the greatest obligation to treat yourself well, that is, in such a way as to maximize your ability to make the world a better place for everyone (including you).
Your self is what you use to make the world a better place, so you need to take very good care of it. That includes your body, your brain, your mind, and your possessions. Maximizing your ability to experience joy is important in order to have the enjoyment and enthusiasm needed to do a good job at making the world a better place.
I agree fully with with these statements.Taking good care of yourself is extremely difficult, because your culture defines certain things as good that actually cause much PSDED. Acting in your own behalf against the pressures of your culture is no easy skill. It takes a long time to acquire it, including the courage to look more closely at what you currently value that will promote PSDED in yourself and/or others. Most people never even become aware of how they are victims of their culture.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
What is not clear is, when you say you agree with most of what I say here, what the part is that you do not agree with. What you subsequently write I believe I agree with, though there is some ambiguity in my mind as to what you mean. It is not clear to me what it is that you think I am saying that you do not agree with. I suspect there is some difference in language that may be producing the appearance of disagreement.REveritt wrote:I agree with most of what you say here, but I maintain that identifying with something as "good" may involve a combination of objective understanding of it and subjective emotion. Humans have evolved a strong instinct for cooperation, which we have built on with our intellect. So what may have started as a willingness to cooperate in the hunt, share the kill, and watch out for each other's children within a small band has expanded to concern for other people that one has never met, and in whose survival one has no objective stake.Note that in the REUEP, the 93good life94 is specifically defined as 93as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible, and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible." It then requires accurate beliefs about the way the world is and a willingness to attempt to predict the outcomes of one's contemplated decisions and the consistency of those outcomes with the REUEP. This goes further than simply striking a certain emotional chord, if I am understanding what you mean.
You are absolutely right. All of our 93knowledge94 is probabilistic. For some, the probability is very, very high. But for much of our knowledge, the probability gets lower, closer to just chance. And there are some things that we just can92t know. So all we can do is just do the best we can, playing the odds.I agree with all of this, but where in the REUEP is there a criterion for resolving the conflicting objectives that inevitably arise? How, for example, do I decide how much of my time and income I spend on self, family, immediate community, and those who are far distant from me, but in great need? That is the heart of ethics for me, and I don't have a clear-cut way to make these decisions. I suspect that you don't either.93The good life for everyone94 includes the good life for the self. It doesn92t ignore it.
In fact, one92s sphere of influence has one92s self at the very center (distance from the center having to do with how much influence one has on an individual), so there is no one who has as much influence on yourself as you, and therefore you have the greatest obligation to treat yourself well, that is, in such a way as to maximize your ability to make the world a better place for everyone (including you).
Your self is what you use to make the world a better place, so you need to take very good care of it. That includes your body, your brain, your mind, and your possessions. Maximizing your ability to experience joy is important in order to have the enjoyment and enthusiasm needed to do a good job at making the world a better place.
We have our methods, and if they are good methods, we arrive at fairly accurate beliefs, and make relatively few mistakes.
But the inability to obtain perfect accuracy and perfect certainty does not mean that the effort to obtain as much accuracy and certainty as possible is not worthwhile. We cannot predict with perfect accuracy and certainty the weather, but we can do it well enough for some improvement in our lives.
In most situations, there is a fairly wide latitude of choice that would still be consistent with the REUEP. On the other hand, there is much, much that we humans do that is obviously not consistent with the REUEP. The more more of us can advocate for living according to the REUEP, the closer we can get to our cultures accepting it, and the more we will use it in rearing our children, utilizing the rational-ethical model of child rearing as opposed to the naturally occurring authoritarian-ethical model of child rearing (using my definitions).
And here within Humanianity we can focus our attention on how we can make ourselves better and our world a better place for everyone, now and in the future. Humanianity is just an infant. It will be interesting to see it grow.I agree fully with with these statements.Taking good care of yourself is extremely difficult, because your culture defines certain things as good that actually cause much PSDED. Acting in your own behalf against the pressures of your culture is no easy skill. It takes a long time to acquire it, including the courage to look more closely at what you currently value that will promote PSDED in yourself and/or others. Most people never even become aware of how they are victims of their culture.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
I am not comfortable with the REUEP as the sole and complete definition of what we should do. Let me attempt to clarify by asking you a questions: Why should "do that which will promote...etc."?What is not clear is, when you say you agree with most of what I say here, what the part is that you do not agree with.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
See, you are asking how the UEP can be legitimated, and I believe the answer is that it cannot. It is purely arbitrary. This issue is discussed in detail in the "textbook," (the one about Rational-Ethical Living), in the chapter on Basic Concepts: Ethics.REveritt wrote:I am not comfortable with the REUEP as the sole and complete definition of what we should do. Let me attempt to clarify by asking you a questions: Why should "do that which will promote...etc."?What is not clear is, when you say you agree with most of what I say here, what the part is that you do not agree with.
So there are any number of potential UEP's, and it is a purely arbitrary decision as to which one a person will accept, or whether a person will accept one at all.
If you were to try to legitimate a UEP, you would be using a still higher level ethical principle, in which case this new ethical principle would become the UEP, and would in turn be arbitrary, and the original candidate UEP would no longer be ultimate, no longer the UEP.
However, the UEP you choose will have a major impact on you and/or others, at least if you take it seriously.
Do you have what you would consider a better UEP than the REUEP? Would you prefer to live on a planet that had a different UEP (different from the REUEP), assuming everyone used it and tried to live by it?
And remember, if you don't like the REUEP, you are saying that under certain circumstances we should go against it. You would be saying that under certain circumstances we should NOT do that which will promote the survival of our species and the good life for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" meaning here as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible.
If you were to propose as an UEP "we should do that which will promote the greatest diversity of species on this planet," then we should find a way to exterminate ourselves.
I am quite satisfied with the REUEP, but certainly willing to consider an alternative.
Note that the Objectivists do not agree with me that the UEP is arbitrary. THEIR UEP is not arbitrary, they say, but necessarily so, a fact, based upon undeniable observation and what they call "reason." I do not agree with them, as I have written about earlier in this thread.
Last edited by wvanfleet on Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
Now we are getting somewhere! I agree almost completely with what you have said here. My one quibble would be that the decision is not "purely arbitrary", but is ultimately largely based on instinct (or if you prefer, on emotion).See, you are asking how the UEP can be legitimated, and I believe the answer is that it cannot. It is purely arbitrary. This issue is discussed in detail in the "textbook," (the one about Rational-Ethical Living), in the chapter on Basic Concepts: Ethics.
So there are any number of potential UEP's, and it is a purely arbitrary decision as to which one a person will accept, or whether a person will accept one at all.
If you were to try to legitimate a UEP, you would be using a still higher level ethical principle, in which case this new ethical principle would become the UEP, and would in turn be arbitrary, and the original candidate UEP would no longer be ultimate, no longer the UEP.
As I have said, for me ethics consists of finding an appropriate balance between conflicting desirable objectives. Certainly, what you have named the REUEP is one of those, but perhaps not the "ultimate".Do you have what you would consider a better UEP than the REUEP?
Thanks, but I'm still exploring this planetWould you prefer to live on a planet that had a different UEP (different from the REUEP), assuming everyone used it and tried to live by it?
Yes. I am saying that sometimes my ethical duty to myself, my family, or my immediate community may supersede a more global duty.And remember, if you don't like the REUEP, you are saying that under certain circumstances we should go against it.
OK, I will check that one off my list, as I consider that I have an ethical duty to humanity that conflicts with, and sometimes supercedes my ethical duty to the rest of Nature. I need to constantly look for an appropriate balance between those conflicting duties.If you were to propose as an UEP "we should do that which will promote the greatest diversity of species on this planet," then we should find a way to exterminate ourselves.
That is apparent. Personally, I am not sure that I will ever be "quite satisfied" with my ethical stance. I need to constantly try to improve it. Perhaps that is my UEP.I am quite satisfied with the REUEP...
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
But I never said otherwise. And I agree. There are causes for everything, at least on the macro level. So of course there would be reasons why one would choose the REUEP. There is just no way of legitimating the REUEP, or any other UEP, if it is an ultimate ethical principle. (And remember, the Objectivists claim otherwise.)REveritt wrote:
Now we are getting somewhere! I agree almost completely with what you have said here. My one quibble would be that the decision is not "purely arbitrary", but is ultimately largely based on instinct (or if you prefer, on emotion).See, you are asking how the UEP can be legitimated, and I believe the answer is that it cannot. It is purely arbitrary. This issue is discussed in detail in the "textbook," (the one about Rational-Ethical Living), in the chapter on Basic Concepts: Ethics.
So there are any number of potential UEP's, and it is a purely arbitrary decision as to which one a person will accept, or whether a person will accept one at all.
If you were to try to legitimate a UEP, you would be using a still higher level ethical principle, in which case this new ethical principle would become the UEP, and would in turn be arbitrary, and the original candidate UEP would no longer be ultimate, no longer the UEP.
Well, I am still waiting. You are saying that maybe, just maybe, there might be something more important than promoting the survival of our species and the good life for everyone (including yourself), now and in the future. When will you decide? For now, the REUEP is what I accept, but I, being an Humanian, am open to suggestions.As I have said, for me ethics consists of finding an appropriate balance between conflicting desirable objectives. Certainly, what you have named the REUEP is one of those, but perhaps not the "ultimate".Do you have what you would consider a better UEP than the REUEP?
When you talk of finding an appropriate balance between conflicting desirable objectives, you are implying that such a judgement could be made, at least in principle, given perhaps enough knowledge, etc. But this is implying that there is a way of making that judgement, a criterion for doing so. What would be even better than the REUEP, and why would it be better? According to what criterion?
I am absolutely in agreement with you that we should keep an open mind about anything, including the UEP that we choose. But are you advocating not making a choice for fear that later you might make a different choice? Are you advocating, or at least accepting for yourself, the idea that we should have no ultimate ethical principle? No way of legitimating any ethical idea? Should we go on accepting that 93what92s right for me may not be what92s right for you, so let92s just forget about it94? Is there no need to legitimate ethical beliefs? No need to subject my belief that I should martyr myself to some sort of criterion to see whether maybe I92m wrong?
Is there some danger to us all in the postmodern approach to knowledge and ethical belief? Is there even some urgency that we move beyond the postmodern abandonment of correct, or at least best, answers? Should we not make up our minds, and then keep them open for what is even better, just in case it can be found?
Me too. It is a thought experiment. Imagine a planet (hopefully this one in the perhaps far future) on which everyone lived according to the REUEP. Then take any other ethical principle and imagine a planet on which everyone lived according to that ethical principle as its UEP. I realize that this thought experiment might take more time than it is worth, but isn92t it great that we have the REUEP already? Now we just have to advocate for it (like I am doing). But show me a better UEP and I will become a 93Humanian.194. Until then, I will not use 93Humanian.094, just 93Humanian94.Thanks, but I'm still exploring this planetWould you prefer to live on a planet that had a different UEP (different from the REUEP), assuming everyone used it and tried to live by it?
Of course, I agree that your 93ethical duty to myself, my family, or my immediate community may supersede a more global duty94. The reason that I agree with you is that this is consistent with, and legitimated by, the REUEP. If you go back to the frontpage, you will see advocated that we consider ourselves to have a 93sphere of influence94. This is that set of people upon which we have an effect. We have more effect on some people than on others. According to this 93sphere of influence94 metaphoric tool, the more effect we have on a person, the closer is that person to the center of our sphere of influence. And the person we have the most effect on is ourselves, at the center of that sphere of influence. So the closer a person is to that center of the sphere of influence, the more priority we should give to doing that which will promote the good life for that person. So I am saying that indeed you should weigh the issue as to where you should place your sense of 93duty94.Yes. I am saying that sometimes my ethical duty to myself, my family, or my immediate community may supersede a more global duty.And remember, if you don't like the REUEP, you are saying that under certain circumstances we should go against it.
But now I would like to comment on the 93duty94 part. As a Humanian, I don92t regard my trying to make the world a better place as a 93duty.94 I regard it as an opportunity, a source of joy, a way of making my life have meaning for me that brings me satisfaction. I am not obeying; I am contributing.
I don92t think you mean exactly 93balance,94 but instead a 93way of prioritizing.94 And the REUEP gives you that. If we don92t give appropriate attention to preserving other life forms on this planet, we will not be promoting our own survival or the good life for us, especially in the future. Also, if we refuse to empathize with other species that we regard able to suffer, then we will be making ourselves somewhat unempathic, and we already are sufficiently unempathic that we cause much PSDED to those who are not close to us, or are in some other group than our own. If you can mistreat your pet, or someone else92s, you are more likely to mistreat a fellow human being. At least that92s what I think.OK, I will check that one off my list, as I consider that I have an ethical duty to humanity that conflicts with, and sometimes supercedes my ethical duty to the rest of Nature. I need to constantly look for an appropriate balance between those conflicting duties.If you were to propose as an UEP "we should do that which will promote the greatest diversity of species on this planet," then we should find a way to exterminate ourselves.
Yes, but to improve something, you have to have something to improve. So what I think that I am hearing is that you do not yet have an UEP other than that you should have no UEP for fear that you may change your mind. And if you need to constantly try to improve your ethical stance (something I, as a Humanian, would strongly agree with), but you have no way of legitimating your ethical stances (because you are still waiting to make up your mind), then you could just as easily constantly try to improve your beliefs about what you should do to become a better and better terrorist. I know I will feel safer if you have as your UEP the REUEP. And you can rest assured that I am committed to the REUEP. I advocate for the REUEP, because I am a Humanian. (No, I am a Humanian because I advocate for the REUEP.) (By definition.)That is apparent. Personally, I am not sure that I will ever be "quite satisfied" with my ethical stance. I need to constantly try to improve it. Perhaps that is my UEP.I am quite satisfied with the REUEP...
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Re: Objectivism, Altruism, and Humanianity, and their Ultimate Ethical Principles
Bill, we seem to be talking past each other in this thread. I have not succeeded in explaining my ethical stance to you, and perhaps I have failed to understand yours. You have given me something to think about, but I am going to leave this discussion as-is for now.So what I think that I am hearing is that you do not yet have an UEP other than that you should have no UEP for fear that you may change your mind. And if you need to constantly try to improve your ethical stance (something I, as a Humanian, would strongly agree with), but you have no way of legitimating your ethical stances (because you are still waiting to make up your mind), then you could just as easily constantly try to improve your beliefs about what you should do to become a better and better terrorist.