Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <1310026@acf4.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 16:44:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.1310026 Posted: Mon Jul 1 16:44:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:04:02 EDT References: <13300002@hpfclp.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 27 >/* mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) / 7:28 pm Jun 18, 1985 */ >Rand's argument is that ethics can be derived objectively based on the >axiom that reality is objective. If you do not believe that it is >possible to derive ethics objectively, then the ONLY alternative is that >ethics are subjective. Subjective ethics (and subjective morality) are >tantamount to "Anything Goes". If you can't deduce an objective code by >which people can live with each other, then there is no code. In such a >world, the only ethics possible would be a collection of >range-of-the-moment rules; rules not validated by reason, rules not >validated by an understanding or respect for man's nature, rules not >validated by the knowledge required for the proper survival of a >rational being. > >People who choose their ethics as though they were choosing which pair >of shoes to wear have never even glimpsed what is meant by the word >"morality". It would appear that you are arguing that since ethics that are derived subjectively are not really ethics, but rather just personal preferences. This seems reasonable enough. However, you can't use this to justify a system of objective ethics. You may merely have shown that the concept of ethics is meaningless. >Michael Bishop Mike Sykora