Replies

That's really my only point here. No matter what system of morality and ethics you evolve, it's ultimately going to rest on premises that must be taken as axiomatic because they are fundamentally unprovable, and objectivism is no different than any other system in that regard. Objectivism is a perfectly logical system, if you accept those fundamental axioms. If you don't, and prefer some other set of axioms, then it's not logical at all.

And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.

We have evolved a political system of morality and ethics based on the principles of a free private life, liberty under due process of law, and the unfettered pursuit of private property & "happiness".
-- Or at least so our constitutional declarations proclaim.

Rands objectivism embraces those fundamental axioms. - Do you?

Objectivism is a perfectly logical system, if you accept those fundamental axioms. If you don't, and prefer some other set of axioms, then it's not logical at all.

i think you meant to say it doesn't yield truth. Logic can work on false premises and still remain logical.

Its that tid bit that can be misleading to the person believing they have constructed a logical code to live by. Even though the conclusions properly follow the premises, they are still dependent on the premises being true.

This is a trap I often catch myself in all sorts of mental pursuits in my profession (accounting,tax financial planning). I may have created a wonderfull, logical and beautiful plan or tax argument only to discover upon review one of my premises is wrong.

Its often called ASS U ME, -makes an ass out of u and me.

The interesting thing is the more I practive the more I find that its impossible to be completely sure of your premises in anything.

That's really my only point here. No matter what system of morality and ethics you evolve, it's ultimately going to rest on premises that must be taken as axiomatic because they are fundamentally unprovable, and objectivism is no different than any other system in that regard. Objectivism is a perfectly logical system, if you accept those fundamental axioms. If you don't, and prefer some other set of axioms, then it's not logical at all.

And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your taking the time to explain the subjectivity of objectivism. I'd say that on the underside of what we take as "axiomatic" in any philosophy or religion are subjective decisions.

Also, that underneath this, as with all of life, it's a matter not just of what one believes and knows, but of "who you know" --and how you respond with all else. I mean, it looks to me that human beings are beings who relate (to other beings and all the other 'stuff') and who do so much more consciously and creatively by far than any other being of the known world. Who are humans? We are conscious beings, yes, but more than this, we are conscious (and even unconscious) relaters.

"Relationality" may not be in the dictionary, but from what I see, it is the most essential aspect of being, more essential than knowing, I think. "I think and therefore" I think about something that relates to me --which may (or may not be) there for me, whether or not I think about it. Even when I am at my least conscious points in my life, I never cease to be related to and to relate. And thinking this, I think that our identity as a relational being is determined by how we relate with what and whom we relate with. That being the case, the most basic decision we must make about what is axiomatic is about what else it is most important to relate with. Since this is about essential subjectivity, the question is: what are we most subject to?

I think there are many clues to the answer to this in our lives, when we look at ourselves for who we are... how we function... how it is we are prone to do what we do... etc., especially as it pertains to whatever is "other" that may be related with. I think the essential decision, that these clues may afford us (and inadvertently agreeing with the expressions of some theologians, from what heresay I've heard said;-) is to be found by the answer to the question of what is the most essential other?

To go to the essense of this, I think it becomes a matter of dust and of breath. Of those two, there is breath which purports to have made the dust and at my core, I cannot argue with it. I cannot. There is someting that is me at the core of me, that just cannot.

But thank God, I can agree with it.