This is a really intriguing idea. Two criticisms though. Wouldn't this justify the ability to get away with any self serving crimes that you could get away with? As in if no one would find out, you could steal a million dollars.
Also I don't see how a society like this could field armies. Being a soldier is terrible for life but sometimes necessary for a society
"Evaluative concepts (e.g., “good,” “bad”) aren’t mystical or arbitrary—they are based on the fact that living organisms act to achieve goals in order to survive."
This is the fallacy of description vs prescription.
Observing how living organisms "act" is a description ("people are doing X"), but it does nothing to prescribe what anyone "should" be doing.
Survival and reproduction maximization is not a strategy anyone is "obligated" or "objectively" required to do.
Not my argument. My argument is that values simply are life-promoting goals. But human beings have free will. We don't have to pursue values--unless we choose to live. But if we do choose to live, we need a moral code to tell define the values and virtues that will allow us to implement our choice.
Hmm I wonder whether there is a meaningful distinction between saying:
A) Vales are life-promoting goals.
B) Values are the things that tend to result in promotion of life (but still have a separate ontological status).
There's also the ambiguity of what "life" means. In some way it's a circularity, because what your "values" are determine what you believe "life" is about... and what you think "life" is, is a reflection of what your "values" are.
Ultimately I believe this exercise leads us to the realization that Good and Value (as well as any fundamental concept in life) are primarily experienced at the intuitive and base perception level, and we simply come up with constructs of words to layer on top and try to talk about it. But whatever word configurations we choose will fail to actually grab onto the underlying meat of the intuition.
To me, atheist frameworks are like that - ideas bound at the word layer, which lack the toolkit to sufficiently deal with the intuitive and directly experienced first principles of consciousness.
Just finished reading the introduction. Lovely clear writing, there’s no doubt what you mean and no frustration so far getting what you mean. Good start!
So looking forward to reading your book, this essay has already helped me understand some of the principles of objectivism that I was struggling with.
That's great to hear. Thanks! Hope you enjoy the book.
This is a really intriguing idea. Two criticisms though. Wouldn't this justify the ability to get away with any self serving crimes that you could get away with? As in if no one would find out, you could steal a million dollars.
Also I don't see how a society like this could field armies. Being a soldier is terrible for life but sometimes necessary for a society
1. What makes you think stolen money is valuable? (For more, see: https://www.earthlyidealism.com/p/what-good-is-virtue)
2. I come from a military family. Most soldiers love being soldiers. An egoist fights for the things he values, and one of his top values is freedom.
"Evaluative concepts (e.g., “good,” “bad”) aren’t mystical or arbitrary—they are based on the fact that living organisms act to achieve goals in order to survive."
This is the fallacy of description vs prescription.
Observing how living organisms "act" is a description ("people are doing X"), but it does nothing to prescribe what anyone "should" be doing.
Survival and reproduction maximization is not a strategy anyone is "obligated" or "objectively" required to do.
Not my argument. My argument is that values simply are life-promoting goals. But human beings have free will. We don't have to pursue values--unless we choose to live. But if we do choose to live, we need a moral code to tell define the values and virtues that will allow us to implement our choice.
Hmm I wonder whether there is a meaningful distinction between saying:
A) Vales are life-promoting goals.
B) Values are the things that tend to result in promotion of life (but still have a separate ontological status).
There's also the ambiguity of what "life" means. In some way it's a circularity, because what your "values" are determine what you believe "life" is about... and what you think "life" is, is a reflection of what your "values" are.
Ultimately I believe this exercise leads us to the realization that Good and Value (as well as any fundamental concept in life) are primarily experienced at the intuitive and base perception level, and we simply come up with constructs of words to layer on top and try to talk about it. But whatever word configurations we choose will fail to actually grab onto the underlying meat of the intuition.
To me, atheist frameworks are like that - ideas bound at the word layer, which lack the toolkit to sufficiently deal with the intuitive and directly experienced first principles of consciousness.
Just finished reading the introduction. Lovely clear writing, there’s no doubt what you mean and no frustration so far getting what you mean. Good start!