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: <1310027@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 22:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1310027
Posted: Mon Jul  1 22:15:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:09:59 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 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