Terrific explanation with concrete details of Ayn Rand's claim that the ultimate value for all living beings is life itself. I look forward to a further understanding and answers to those who would question such an all-time encompassing statement in future weeks.
I appreciate innovative thinkers who are able to consider real-life ethical dilemmas in terms of theories devised by their own observations and reasonings, even if it is not exactly in the same terms as described and evaluated by great thinkers such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand.
For example: Some years ago I met someone who has an effective way of addressing ethical dilemmas expressed by his friends; and he was able to do this by departing from the traditional “egoism vs altruism” as a fundamental alternative in ethical theory. He was able to identify more essential fundamental alternatives according to the facts he was provided.
I thought this was an impressive method of philosophic thinking. But what my question is: what exactly validates an original theory? If ethical theories could be originated for more specific ethical subject — say, the subject of character development — how can one test the validity of a proposed “ultimate value”? My first instinct is to take an inductive approach: to observe instances where such a value is present in successfully-matured characters, and not-present in characters who fail to mature. Do you have any insight on this issue?
Terrific explanation with concrete details of Ayn Rand's claim that the ultimate value for all living beings is life itself. I look forward to a further understanding and answers to those who would question such an all-time encompassing statement in future weeks.
I appreciate innovative thinkers who are able to consider real-life ethical dilemmas in terms of theories devised by their own observations and reasonings, even if it is not exactly in the same terms as described and evaluated by great thinkers such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand.
For example: Some years ago I met someone who has an effective way of addressing ethical dilemmas expressed by his friends; and he was able to do this by departing from the traditional “egoism vs altruism” as a fundamental alternative in ethical theory. He was able to identify more essential fundamental alternatives according to the facts he was provided.
I thought this was an impressive method of philosophic thinking. But what my question is: what exactly validates an original theory? If ethical theories could be originated for more specific ethical subject — say, the subject of character development — how can one test the validity of a proposed “ultimate value”? My first instinct is to take an inductive approach: to observe instances where such a value is present in successfully-matured characters, and not-present in characters who fail to mature. Do you have any insight on this issue?