Listen to the professor, Richard: READ ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Especially before uttering strident and sweeping attacks.

Please.

You wrote, "The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Rand is begging the question. For it is by no means obvious that man does need a code of values."

Rand does not beg the question as can be seen by reading down to the next three sentences. She writes there,

"The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?
Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"

She is says, "Let me stress this etc. She is not presupposing that one needs a code of ethics, she is asking "Does man need values at all—and why?"
But let me put this less tendentiously. If she is really asking "Does man need values at all—and why?" would you agree she is not begging the question by assuming that man does need a code of ethics.
After asking her non question begging query, she then sets out to answer her own question, and only after pages of argument (which may or may not succeed) she finally states, "And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why man needs a code of ethics."
So one has to read all of this to realize she is not begging the question.

Fred

"BTW your halo is a little off centre."

That's not an uncommon problem.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Thanks for that, BTW your halo is a little off centre.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

I'm referring to practitioners of the classical apologetic method, which relies on appeals to evidence and logical argument, such as the Thomists.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Ernest -
Hello,

What's a classicists?

Cheers,

Reed

The presuppositionalists don't ask that question themselves, but they contend that is implicit in the assumption of the possibility of dialogue between atheists versus classical and evidential apologists on the basis of a theoretical neutral common ground. (Presuppositionalists deride Aquinas's methodology on these grounds) They therefore contend that God IS necessary for human thought and reason, and that therefore non-theists commit the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept when they employ reason while denying God. Their favorite argument for this is described below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

As a point of information, I agree with the Thomists and classicists and think little of the presuppositionalists. They rant and attack other schools of apologetics for using "atheistic philosophy" and then jump in bed with those wonderful Christian fellows, Hume and Kant.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Thanks for the link.I went to this site but couldn't find any evidence to support your claim that apologetics ever questioned Man's need for God.

Thanks.That explains Kraut's position.However I think that Dictionary definitions of prudence "1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense. 2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident. "- (1) and (2) definitions are closely related.Without good judgment and common sense one hardly would be able to be careful in regard to one's own interests,let alone in regard to interests of others.

Leonid-
"Man doesn't need God and that [is] why theologians never ask such a question."

As it happens, that is incorrect. There is a school of theological apologetics that does in fact contend that man DOES need God in order to even reason correctly, namely Presuppositional apologetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"Our moral notions have been conditioned by the long marriage between morality and the Christian religion. Philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe goes as far as to suggest that our moral notions are 'senseless survivor[s] of a defunct conceptual scheme'."

Well, since Anscombe was a devout, albeit idiosyncratic, Roman Catholic, I believe that her actual charge against philosophers like Hume, Kant, Sidgewick and the consequentialists is that they are committing what the Objectivists call "the fallacy of the stolen concept," namely that they are treating "ought" statements as if they were "law" statements in the absence of either believing in a transcendent divine law or having a proper secular philosophy of psychology.

http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu...

"No. You are confusing the theory (ethics) with what the theory is about (the moral facts). Even if you've never been taught right from wrong, it's still not OK to shoot people just for the hell of it."

If that is the case, then "(objective) moral facts" are ethical primaries, -not- "moral sentiments." Once again, -motivation- is not -justification.-

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

... to be conducted properly, would require Richard to suspend any considered exercise of his volitional capacity whatever.

Good luck!

Leonid remarked that “prudent means reasonable, rational.” Since Richard Kraut would suppose that the good, whether of oneself or of another, is not irrational, why should he not “say simply that ethical behavior should be prudent always?” rather than separating behavior for the goodness of others under the name moral behavior and behavior for the goodness of oneself under the name prudent behavior.

In my American Heritage Dictionary, the first and second definitions of prudent are these: 1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense.            2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident.

Kraut is relying on that second definition, as well as the first, in calling behavior for the good of oneself prudent. Leonid’s suggestion that prudence is applicable to all good behavior is sensible using the first definition alone, without the second.

From Cicero to Gregory, Ambrose, and Augustine, and to Aquinas, the cardinal moral virtues were held to be prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. For Aquinas prudence is right reason about things to be done, and it is the directing principle of the other moral virtues (as for Rand “rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues [OE 25]). Justice is putting the good, as defined by reason, “into our operations as something right and due, . . . chiefly in commutations and distributions in relation to another person, and on a basis of equality.” Temperance curbs passions, such as sexual desire, inciting actions against reason. Fortitude is holding firmly to the good, defined by reason, against the impulse of passions such as fear. (ST II Q. 61)

Through at least the time of Kant, the moral was not identified exclusively with the good of others. I suspect that the idea of such a contraction of morality is of recent vintage.

"What do you think of the idea of subjecting Rand's claim - that man needs ethics - to a proper scientific test? "

Seriously,Richard,I think this is great idea and since you proposed this experiment you should volunteer to be the guinea-pig.So for 1 month you should live without morality,meaning-without ability to distinguish between right and wrong Discard: rationality,independence,integrity,honesty,justice,productiveness, pride and self-esteem. (all objectivist virtues). Move to isolated island,so you cannot use others to supply you with basic needs and don't take any supplies with you-since this is an act of reason and refusal to fake reality (honesty).Don't work to provide yourself with any goods.(productiveness).Don't even attemt to seek water or food (how do you know it is good for you?).Use your instincts,not reason to find shelter and to make fire. You may pray and wait for manna. Don't make any judgments about how to survive. (you are not independent).Don't even think that you are worth survival-you discarded self-esteem.If after a month you are still around we can continue our discussion.If you survived-don't be proud-you've discarded pride.

...offers real values.

Richard never does.

Rand grounds things like integrity, justice, honesty, rationality and a respect for the rights of man with her "shopping list."

Don't leave home without 'em.

[BTW: I'll leave any "experiments" with murder, fraud and dictatorship to you, Richard -- I already know what the results will be.]

No. You are confusing the theory (ethics) with what the theory is about (the moral facts).

Not at all. Regardless of any moral facts (which you claim do not exist?) it is ones ethical code that drives a man. Not any absolute moral facts. Morality must be identified and integrated. It's not automatically known. 

Even if you've never been taught right from wrong, it's still not OK to shoot people just for the hell of it.

Isn't it? If there are no moral facts, as you claim, then of course it's ok to shoot people for no particular reason - just for the hell of it. If on the other hand you don't deny that there are moral absolutes, then you certainly are denying that they can be known, because you claim that no one can objectively identify them. Or are you just claiming that Rand can't be objective about them? Of course, that would be a ludicrous stance.

What you are in effect saying, is that you can drive a car even though the internal combustion engine doesn't exist.

No. You are confusing the theory (ethics) with what the theory is about (the moral facts). Even if you've never been taught right from wrong, it's still not OK to shoot people just for the hell of it.

"The Greek conception of morality is not ours. Two thousand years of Christianity intervene between us and Socrates."

That's philosophically irrelevant as to whether or not the Christian
(or, for that matter, the Ancient Greek) conception of morality is true
or false.

But it's relevant as to whether or not the modern conception of morality is the same as the Christian conception of morality, or the Greek conception of morality, or neither.

Our moral notions have been conditioned by the long marriage between morality and the Christian religion. Philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe goes as far as to suggest that our moral notions are "senseless survivor[s] of a defunct conceptual scheme". [*]

Never mind the purported results of my proposed experiment.

What do you think of the idea of subjecting Rand's claim - that man needs ethics - to a proper scientific test?

Rand does not "beg" this question.

The question is, does man need ethics?

As she observes, we need food, water, and any number of other values -- in order to survive.

You make Rand's "code of values" sound like a shopping list.

As she also observes, our actions make a huge difference as to whether we actually obtain or keep those values.

Don't go hungry. Go food shopping.

And, finally, as she further observes, our actions depend on the choices we make.

No kidding.

For each of the virtues and values of Objectivism, Rand's demonstration shows how they are needed -- how they permit and enhance life -- even how they improve our chances at survival itself.

Rand shows how food and water are needed -- how they permit and enhance life -- even how they improve our chances at survival itself.

As Rand demonstrates, again and again, we need a code of values -- it's a matter of life and death.

Your shopping list. Don't leave home without it.

You can't have missed all of this, Richard.

Rand does not "beg" this question.

As she observes, we need food, water, and any number of other values -- in order to survive.

As she also observes, our actions make a huge difference as to whether we actually obtain or keep those values.

And, finally, as she further observes, our actions depend on the choices we make.

For each of the virtues and values of Objectivism, Rand's demonstration shows how they are needed -- how they permit and enhance life -- even how they improve our chances at survival itself.

As Rand demonstrates, again and again, we need a code of values -- it's a matter of life and death.

You can't have missed all of this, Richard.

"He denounces those 'who cruise around the country giving sermons on the virtues of morality'."

...and then goes on to attack them for not adhering to said morality.

Objectivists are not ethical or moral nihilists, but they do object to those who propound bad systems of human action and hypocrites who can't follow their own Pharisical advice.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"The Greek conception of morality is not ours. Two thousand years of Christianity intervene between us and Socrates."

That's philosophically irrelevant as to whether or not the Christian (or, for that matter, the Ancient Greek) conception of morality is true or false. Here we see yet again how Humean genetic errors ultimately boil down to fundamentally unphilosophical appeals to tradition.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

On another thread, Matthew has just illustrated my point.

He denounces those "who cruise around the country giving sermons on the virtues of morality". But didn't Ayn Rand spend half her life doing precisely that? Only if you insist that Objectivist ethics is a species of morality. (It isn't.)

Stephen,your comments are, as always, enlightening.Thanks.Can you also elaborate Kraut's position?
"Kraut calls behavior for the good of others ethical and behavior for the good of oneself prudent. He thinks useful the widespread practice of reserving the term ethical (or moral) for behavior that benefits others and the term prudent for behavior that benefits oneself.."

"Prudent" means reasonable,rational.Does Kraut mean that we shoud behave rationally for the good of ourselves and for the good of others our behavior can be unreasonable? How it can be good,then? And if it is not a case why to make this distinction at all? Why not to say simply that ethical behavior should be prudent always? In regard to others this definition includes general respect,trader's principle and non-initiation of physical force principle.

That's like saying you can't drive a car if you've never heard of the internal combustion engine.

Wrong analogy. What you are in effect saying, is that you can drive a car even though the internal combustion engine doesn't exist. If there is no need for ethics, Richard, then it can only mean that there's no need to judge right from wrong. If there's no need to judge right from wrong, then obviously it doesn't matter how I behave. I may as well just behave how I feel and consequences be damned.

Thanks for your comments, Stephen.

Rand defined ethics as... a code of values pertaining to the choices and actions that determine the course of one's life.

She did. Nonetheless, the term 'ethics' does not mean a code of values pertaining to the choices and actions that determine the course of one's life. Saying doesn't make it so.

The Greek conception of morality is not ours. Two thousand years of Christianity intervene between us and Socrates.

Then it wouldn't matter if I took a gun and shot you just for the hell of it.

That doesn't follow.

That's like saying you can't drive a car if you've never heard of the internal combustion engine.

Preliminary results appear to show that man does not, in fact, need ethics.

Then it wouldn't matter if I took a gun and shot you just for the hell of it. And you'd have no basis from which to say I've done anything wrong. Life would become pretty chaotic under such conditions wouldn't it? You can actually see examples of those conditions around the world, where there's an absence of rational ethics. What do you choose, Richard? To live where rational ethics predominate, or to live where they are absent?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Rand argues (13–22) that “ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival,” and this is the case “by the grace of reality and the nature of life” (VoS 23). “By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose” (AS 1017).

Rand speaks of one general moral obligation that her ethical egoist owes to other individuals, and that is the obligation of rational treatment. “I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice” (AS 1022).

“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate . . . the use of physical force against others” (AS 1023). “The principle of man’s individual rights represent[s] the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state . . .” (VoS 93). “Every political system is based on some code of ethics” (92). A proper political system “regard[s] man as an end in himself and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals” (93).

Rand defined ethics as a species of a code of values for guidance of one’s choices and actions. Specifically, it is a code of values pertaining to the choices and actions that determine the course of one’s life (VoS 13). Rand includes proper interactions with others within her concept that she would call ethics, but unlike Nozick—as Richard observes—she does not take proper interactions with others as central to the concept. Nozick’s conception of ethics (2001) fits with his conception of moral values (1981) as distinct from other important values: moral values are those pertaining to behavior responsive (or unresponsive) to value-seeking selves as value-seeking selves.

There are many contemporary professional philosophers who would side closer to Nozick than to Rand on the concept they are marking by the term ethics. As we have seen, Richard Kraut is one farther from Rand than is Nozick concerning the definition of ethics. Kraut calls behavior for the good of others ethical and behavior for the good of oneself prudent. He thinks useful the widespread practice of reserving the term ethical (or moral) for behavior that benefits others and the term prudent for behavior that benefits oneself, although he observes that “this way of talking has the unfortunate effect of making self-interested actions and concern for one’s own good dishonorable, or in any case of secondary importance” (WGW 256). He takes both the moral and the prudential to be genres of the good.

In the Introduction to Morality and Self-Interest, Paul Bloomfield observes: “There are two conceptions of ‘morality’ currently at play in the philosophical literature . . . . / The first conception may be thought of as the social conception of ‘morality’. It begins with the question of how one ought to behave towards others. . . . / The other conception of morality dates back to the ancient Greeks, and takes as its starting point the question, ‘How ought I to live?’. It might fairly be called the ‘Socratic’ conception of morality (see Plato’s Gorgias 500c; Republic 344e). Answering this question will inevitably require one to consider how one will behave toward other people, but extends beyond that, to every significant aspect of a person’s life, however private” (3–4).

Rand defined ethics as" code of values accepted by choice." How that condradict " a theory or a system of moral values"? Most traditional ethicsists treat morality as ireducible primary,an axiom which it isn't.By explaining why man needs morality Rand shows its metaphysical roots. She demonstrated that morality is not based on arbitrary decree of God or King,not on social construction and not on the rule of thumb of the whim-worshipper,but on essential requirement of man's existence. She demonstrated that man needs morality primary for himself.
"The function of ethics, of ethical norms and ethical beliefs, is to coordinate our actions with those of others to mutual benefit..."-well,as you say "saying doesn't make it so." This is definition of traffic rules,not morality.Ask yourself :do you need morality if you live alone? Rand did replaced altruist morality by rational egoism, but if you failed to see that and Rand herself couldn't convince you ,then reality maybe will.In any case I woudn't lament your stillborn baby (altruis morality), its murky water and its bloodbath which its worshipping caused.

The code of values that Rand calls Objectivist Ethics is no more similar to a moral code of values than it is to table manners. Indeed, Objectivist Ethics and table manners can be called 'ethics' only in the broadest sense of the term. In the primary sense of the term, ethics is "a theory or a system of moral values" (American Heritage Dictionary). (This explains why we don't call table manners ethics; we call them etiquette.)

Of course, you can call Rand's code of values Objectivist "ethics", but saying doesn't make it so.

A defining characteristic of ethics - and not just the ethics of the altruist - is that it has to do with our interactions with others. Follow the first of Stephen's links, and you will find a quotation from the philosopher Robert Nozick, who says, "The function of ethics, of ethical norms and ethical beliefs, is to coordinate our actions with those of others to mutual benefit..." Nozick is on the right track.

Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth" but it is not a new vision of morality. John Galt rejects his audience's code of morality - the one that has brought about "centuries of scourges and disasters" - but Rand does not replace this morality with another, for she has thrown out the baby, the bathwater and the bath itself.

Consider also the experiment that is human existence. Reports are in here and here.

You post is clearly defines the difference between altruist and objectivist ethics. For altruist "A defining characteristic of ethics is that it has to do with our interactions with others." For objectivist morality is primary the tool of self-actualization, means of achievement his own goals. Altruist needs values and virtues as a guide of interaction with others; objectivist needs them to live his own life as rational being. Man needs reason, productivity, integrity, honesty and justice even if he lives alone on the island. Actually in such a case he needs them most-just for his sheer survival. To interact with others he needs only trade's principle and non-aggression principle. To understand that one has to understand first why man needs ethics.
"God and morality, you see, have certain commonalities"
These premises are so old that it became almost knee-jerk reflex to connect God with morality. As a matter of fact religion excludes morality since morality involves choice and reason. God eliminates both and exchanges them with faith. As long as one follows God's commandments, he is moral, no matter what his actions are. If his not-he is infidel and therefore immoral.Hence, from the God's point of view every man qua man is immoral if he uses his independent judgment and makes his own choices. History is full of examples of hideous crimes committed in the God's name. In secular altruist society community replaced God. You can justify any crime if you committed it for the others, not for yourself.

"Preliminary results appear to show that man does not, in fact, need ethics."-you maybe right, but your statement needs one correction: whoever can live without ethics in fact is not a man.