In Defence of Ayn Rand #5: Is, Ought & Ethics

[id300129]

hey if you take anything ayn rand to heart you need to check yourself. i also guarantee you live within the U.S. or the Bank District of London .

[gdmk1000]

To my understanding, your distinction of pleasure from happiness is irrelevant to Stephan's point. Both pleasure (an emotional interpretation of sensory information, as you put is, to my understanding) and happiness (a state of cognition which also has some positive emotional interpretation) are both *internal* to ones mind, and so both are 100% subjective. A dictator may feel pleasure, but, as far as we know, may also feel true happiness. There is no objective way of saying act so and be happy

[lashkaretoiba]

Stef isa good guy he's just a Anarcho-capitalist. I still need to read his book.

[OUexclusive]

I just literally lost all respect for you and went from "subscribe" to "unsubscribe" in the last 45 seconds of this video. Piss on your for your disinformation.

[OUexclusive]

I can't believe you ended your great video on such an idiotic note. Wow! Cultists? For real? Stefan Molyneux celebrates Ayn Rand more than almost anyone I've ever come across. He recommends her books and brings her ideals to the mainstream at every turn.

That being said, Stef is an Anarcho-capitalist. Rand is not. The two do, indeed, differ, and whether you disagree with his chosen differences, that's fine. However, to finish by calling him a cultist? You're the one with the ad hominem attack.

[SBRslacker00]

Nothing but a series of straw man arguments

1. Stef is not arguing that non-life can value anything.

2. Stef was addressing the argument, not the philosophy.

3. You seem to completely misunderstand the point and even admit it.

4. I have no idea where you are getting this 'psychoanalysis' of Stef.

5. Aren't we talking about 'objective' ethics? That goes beyond the self.

6. You're really splitting hairs with the happiness vs life argument.

7. I'd like to know your so-called sources here.

[MagisterPridgen]

@SBRslacker00

1. What is Stef arguing?

2. You can't remove the argument from the context of the philosophy and expect it to remain coherent and meaningful. This is a logical fallacy called context dropping.

3. What point?

4. What psychoanalysis?

5. Reason, being the faculty which performs a self correcting process of achieving knowledge, is the only means of discovering objective knowledge of ethics or anything else.

6. Life is value, happiness is purpose.

7. Ayn Ran'ds books.

[SBRslacker00]

@MagisterPridgen

1. Watch his video.

2. Can you demonstrate that this is what is being done?

3. The point in question.

4. From the video.

5. The is no reason without a reasoner. Reason is a behavior.

6. Like I said.

7. Not a valid source.  Fiction books are not sources of fact. Rand's books are fiction or her personal opinion on a variety of topics. She has some good opinions and some bad opinions. One good opinion is her promotion of logic, unfortunately she doesn't use it enough.

[MagisterPridgen]

@SBRslacker00

1. I did. To rephrase, what is it that you think he is arguing?

2. Yes I can, but I'm not going to hold you by the hand and walk you through it. I'm simply too busy.

3. Which is?

4. I didn't notice any psychoanalysis. This guy is an Objectivist, not a Freudian psychoanalyst.

5. Reason is a faculty, not a behavior. I would agree that reason, or the lack thereof, influences behavior.

6. Then we agree on this point.

7. She also wrote non-fiction. Read it before you critique.

[SBRslacker00]

@MagisterPridgen

1. Stef is addressing the is-ought dilemma which Oism evades.

2. Oist evasion, of course.

3. Isn't it obvious?! Seriously, did you watch this at all?!

4. Again. See #3 above.

5. Meaningless distinction.

6. Yes, if you agree that it's a meaningless distinction.

7. This is a non-argument. I've read the so-called non-fiction of Rand, which I also label as fiction. I'm sure you realize that 'read Rand' is an insult and an excuse for not presenting a real argument.

[SueSnell]

Wait, the guy didn't say he believed happiness was guaranteed by achievement, he said that happiness should be based on being vitruous in your endeavor, not the resulting achievement. Isn't that what he said? I never heard the word guarantee. Basically, he said you should gain fulfillment from the process, not just the pay off. Does Rand's philosophy state this? Did I misunderstand?

[whiff1962]

There is a coldness and void to Ann Rand's philosophy, as there is little mentioned about charity and those, who, for no fault of their own, find themselves in dire circumstances. I am not sure what Ms. Rand would have said of such "exceptions", however, I am not altogether certain that charity need be equated with selling out.

[dadrogon]

@whiff1962 It doesn't matter if her philosophy is "cold'. You feel that way about her ideas because you already possess explicitily or implicitly ideas about ethics that cause you to feel that way. For instance, you think that helping out the unfortunate is the right thing to do. Most people never justify this. You can't justiy ideas with emotions because emotions come from ideas, it is circular.

[whiff1962]

There are other ways of stealing property, and direct coercion is rarely needed. Manipulation, guilt, and collectivist propaganda do very well, synergistically.

[whiff1962]

I completely agree at 15:30, the notion that irrational (evil) people can derive happiness(?) from the rationality and productiveness of others. I have a relative that seems to live by this.

[whiff1962]

I assume that Rand borrowed heavily from Kant? There are problems with Kant's notion of the categorical imperative, as I there is with Ann Rand's rationalistic, objectivist take on moral conduct. It all seems cogent and logical, but Rand's project personally leaves me with more questions than answers, and I am not altogether sure of taking the rationalist leap (of faith).

[dadrogon]

@whiff1962 FIrst of all it is "Ayn Rand". Ayn Rand's ethics are inductive, and quite the opposite of Kant's. Ayn Rand hated Kant.

[whiff1962]

@dadrogon Any Rand's reactionary backlash is no less totalistic and destructive than those she attacked ( the "collectivists"). My reading of Kant's political philosophy was very reasonable (Karl Popper's "The free society and its enemies" quite clearly underscores Kant's antipathy of Hegel's Totalitarian statism) I, too, am an "individualistic" person, but Ms. Rand's philosophy is too bleak and barren for me. What of your political views then? You do have a personal politics, no?

[dadrogon]

@whiff1962 Kant's political philosophy had little to do with why Ayn Rand disliked him. Your subjective evaluations of "bleak" and "baron" have nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Your first statements are arbitrary.

[whiff1962]

@dadrogon I am reminded of Herman Hesse's "The glass bead game" when I think of Ayn's self-conscious appeal to "objectivism". However, the moment her abstracting comes into contact with reality, it simply bursts into flames. I am not saying that reason and autonomy aren't important; I am simply stating that Ms. Rand's appeal lends itself more so to her odd persona than any meaningful, practical application of pure reason.

[dadrogon]

@whiff1962 The whole entire point of Obejctivism is objectivity, which is an epistemological concept. This means integrating concepts will all known knowledge, and reducing concepts back down to sense-data. With this in mind I can't see how you can argue that Ayn Rand's ideas have nothing to do with practicality. In fact, her whole entire point is that philosophy is practical.

[whiff1962]

@dadrogon Ah, yes, objectivity. A\yn liked to think of man's creations as so much more beautiful-in her eyes-than anything of nature. I am not sure what lurked inside the mind, as I haven't read any of her books, and don't think I care to do so. There are way too many other fish to fry, like reality and practical political change...and there is enough work to go around, than wasting one's time about Kantianisms and Randianisms. Good luck in your playing the glass bead game.

[dadrogon]

@whiff1962 Thanks for demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[whiff1962]

@dadrogon @dadrogon I am reminded of Herman Hesse's "The glass bead game" when I think of Ayn's self-conscious appeal to "objectivism". However, the moment her abstracting comes into contact with reality, it simply bursts into flames. I am not saying that reason and autonomy aren't important; I am simply stating that Ms. Rand's appeal lends itself more so to her doctrinal nature (and odd persona) than any meaningful, practical application of same.

[Zen5012]

I'm a little new to this so help me out.

Regarding the point of Atlas Shrugged, you say that the Train Barons etc. didn't achieve value despite the pleasure that they gained. Their "Doing quite well, thank you" doesn't equal values and happiness, only pleasure.

I understand this thought completely; however, are values not subjective? Are we talking about a universal set of values or, does the sociopath, tyrant and dominator have values which their "success" achieves happiness?

[Ontologistics]

Watch my video, 'Destruction of Objectivism'. It cannot be defeated.

[michor10]

This Stefan guy seems very dishonest. His mind jumps all around the place and all he seems to want to do is to convince people of his views.

Paul, however, makes solid, intelligent arguments which seem much more honest to me.

Just compare their expressions and body language, for Pete's sake.

[chuFFisTwo]

GREAT video. just great. 6 stars out of 5.

[dingerness]

Paul, I think you would be doing a much better service to viewers to debate Stefan one on one. This is not a negative comment about this video, which I think was well thought out and executed.

[renegade2142]

Thanks for your analysis. Great vid!

[Kurtyoungblood]

GREAT video. I can't wait for a new one.

[PerfectProspect]

Jesus christ that was spot on!

[jacobins3000]

Ok, so pain is evil, pleasure is good. That's the basic hedonistic philosophy. But how is one supposed to base an objective morality on this? What if stealing, or "looting", is for someone the most rational way of acquiring happiness, which no doubt is the case for most otherwise talentless criminals?

[wesvillager]

Objectivism is FAR removed from Hedonism and is readily available in numerous books written by Rand and Peikoff.

[fede2]

i take issue with your definition of philosophy. what you described sounds more like ethics. philosophy is the understanding of the nature of reality and the constant struggle to reach truth.

[wesvillager]

Ethics is one of the branches that makes up the field of philosophy: metaphysics, politics, aesthetics, epistemology, ethics, etc.

[fede2]

yes, but it's just one aspect of philosophy. it's not the proper definition.

[wesvillager]

Ayn Rand would not define philosophy in that way. I must have misunderstood what you meant to say, or the context of your comment.

[fede2]

i posted the comment a while ago. i don't remember the context either lol.

[DeathSephirot]

Since nothing is static and humans are non-seculars from society in that they depend on others for happiness, happiness is a state of mind nothing static and should not be secular from pleasure as pleasure only has the ability to be a descriptive of a shortterm feeling of happiness while happiness in general describes a more longterm happiness. In order for true happiness to exist you would infact have to be very flexible and thus evolutionary a defeatist, a weakling.

[DeathSephirot]

Evolution and nature favours winners and the ruthless. Those who are not afraid to take what they want from others, those who are unreasonable as all progress rest on the unreasonable man. Evolutionary, no man is alone and independent, he is codependent, thus altruistic actions, or actions for others on his expense which benefit him after his existence is a key feature for any man to be happy and remain an objective winner.

[wesvillager]

We do not depend on others for happiness. This premise is false.

[DeathSephirot]

I'd like to see the baby who grew up alone and survived to live a secular, autonomus happy life. The problem is there's so very few of them. Your claim is false, the premise is accurate.

[wesvillager]

A baby that depends on its parents for physical survival cannot be equated with the emotional state of an adult.

[DeathSephirot]

Since you agree that we were dependent on our family, (other humans) for happiness up until our adulthood. We can at max on our own ece out a Robinson Cruse like state, which is a state most people would have to struggle in order to just survive in, which would be their main foccus, not happiness, which then would be regarded as a luxury.

[wesvillager]

Physical survival is not happiness.

[DeathSephirot]

Exactly my point, thanks for arguing my case for me.

[wesvillager]

Thanks for making no sense and rendering further argument pointless.

[DeathSephirot]

You know my statement.

You are able to re-read our short conversation and the fact that you came to the same conclusion implicitly and surprisingly, you confirmed it by reinforcing what I stated.

Humans are dependent on other humans for happiness.

[wesvillager]

Oy. Happiness is an emotional response to success in the preservation and advancement of one's own life. One can experience happiness without other people. My statement does not exclude the fact that other people can contribute to one's happiness. Other people are NOT a precondition to happiness.

[DeathSephirot]

We agreed that a baby would not make it far without other people.

We agreed implicitly that a man on his own at maximum can ece out a Robinson Cruse state like civilization and that this in the vast majority of the cases would be about survival and not foccused around happiness which then would be regarded as a luxury.

You then concluded, and I agree, that individual physicall survival isn't happiness. Thus the more people to influence us the more likelly for the emergence of happiness.

[DeathSephirot]

Social relationship's, material gain etc.

The computer infront of you, the clothes on you, the food you've eaten throughout your life.

[DeathSephirot]

Your ancestor's who gave birth to you, fought for you, struggled to bring your ancestor's to the world, who struggled to bring your parent's into the world.

You standing or sitting at the age you're at, is all due to other people's.

[DeathSephirot]

You stated;

"A baby that depends on its parents for physical survival cannot be equated with the emotional state of an adult."

He would not be an adult if it wasn't for other people's in the first place. Let's disregard this fact, when he is an adult most thing's which he arrogantly take's for granted was invented and created by other people's which he now enjoy. Happiness is a luxury.

[DeathSephirot]

An autonomus man not being dependent on other people for happiness must not live among people for it to be true, he must not live in a community, among other people's nor the product's of other people's for it to trully be true.

Such a life is a life about survival, which you admitted is a life about physicall survival which isn't happiness and I couldn't agree more.

Thus, in order to achieve happiness, we are dependent on other people's, from a very early age but even in our adulthood.

[wesvillager]

To benefit from others is not to be dependent. It is simply to benefit.

Your assumptions about "such a life" may be true for an inept or ignorant fool, but some of us know how to survive and there is no reason to exclude happiness from such a state.

[DeathSephirot]

If to aqcuire happiness it to benefit from other's in order for a life to not simple be about survival in the woods without electricity, then in order to benefit from other's intrinsically mean you are dependent on their existence in order to benenfit from them. You are thus dependent on them in order to benefit from them, if to benefit from them is what generally is acquired in order to experience happiness. The vast majority do not know how to survive and would struggle for it in such a state.

[wesvillager]

I disagree with the first "if".

[DeathSephirot]

In which you still agree on individuals being dependent on other humans in order to benefit from them, since to benefit from something, that something must first exist, we are thus dependent on the existence of it in order to benefit from it, which is needed for the majority to acquier happiness and not have a life about survival. Which,agreed,comes before happiness. Most people would struggle for their life if they were completelly on their own, without any trace of civilization, clothes, fork

[wesvillager]

"Arrogantly takes for granted"? That statement is an unbelievably presumptuous generalization about your fellow human beings.

And happiness is no luxury.

[DeathSephirot]

Happiness is a luxury as in what is required in order to achieve it. Most thirld-worlder's are rarily happy. The vast majority of small tribe's struggle to survive, yet they are more likelly to experience happiness because they at least have people which they can benefit from, which they were and still are dependent on in order to benefit from them and thus make more out of life than simple survival, in order to acquire happiness. Happiness is a luxury as struggle is a necessity comes beforehand

[wesvillager]

Happiness is not a luxury, but a natural emotional consequence of success in preserving or advancing one's life. I don't know that most "third-worlders" are unhappy. I have lived without electricity and it's not so awful supposing that one knows how to survive under such conditions. City people are likely doomed but I was raised under primitive conditions. Lone survival is not impossible and "loners" can be happy.

[DeathSephirot]

Sure loners can be happy.

But in order for you to be right, they would have to be without, electricity, clothes and any other invention or shelter made by another man. They would have to start from scratch, naked in the woods and Im being generous here, because Im ignoring the dependency a baby has on other humans in order to survive and then later on acquier happiness, which he wouldn't if he or she, was alone, thus being dependent on other's. We're not secular from our past.

[wesvillager]

I believe the discussion here regards whether a person is dependent on others for happiness. Granted, a child is dependent on adults for the preconditions for happiness (i.g. physical survival, etc.) but not for happiness itself.

[DeathSephirot]

Survival is a necessity and comes before, the experience of happiness in regards to children. Without survival, no happiness, they are related, non-seculars. You cant have happiness without survival, survival is in itself a part of the experience that is happiness.

[wesvillager]

Survival comes before happiness, period.

[DeathSephirot]

Exactly.

[wesvillager]

Unfortunately despite what you say, we do not agree. I regret any misunderstanding. Is English your first language? Or have you been reading too much Kant? His work does tend to cause disintegration of thinking.

[DeathSephirot]

Yeah, we can agree to disagree.

No, english is my third language.

[wesvillager]

You're obviously a smart guy (or gal), we must agree to disagree. I will commit to such an arrangement so long as your position does not extend to voting my rights and property away. If that is the case, then my position is: we will see who can survive without who because I will fight to the death against those who would try to enslave me. And your argument seems to lay the foundation for collectivism. In that case we cannot agree to disagree. In that case, since force will be used, this is war.

[DeathSephirot]

Im a voluntarist, although a minarchist also flirting with anarcho-monarchism a la J.R.R Tolkien. So I wont vote your rights or property away. My statement is just a fact from my point of view with no consequence following-suit as a result.

Just an observation.

Just as people have a problem with determinism because then they cant justify punishment, I feel this is a similar case here. Determinism is just an observation and description of reality as well.

[Ril74]

haha. anarcho-monarchism.

[Joe402]

"FUCK YOU I GOT MINE"- all objectivists

[dannidandannikins]

'Fuck you, I want yours' - all non-objectivists.

[SBRslacker00]

@dannidandannikins

Why don't all Objectivists move to a desert island somewhere and leave the so called 'non-objectivists' alone? Non-Objectivism is responsible for all of human progress. We won't miss you, not even your anxiety ridden whining. When will Objectivists figure out that most people have no idea about Objectivism and the non-Objectivists who do know about Objectivism want nothing to do with it and maybe even consider it a mental disease which needs a cure. Chicken Little RIP.

[onotheo]

I would like to be as eloquent in my speech too (oh, I really am not talkative). I wonder in what manner would Roark answer the questions, that is if he bothers.

[Jazzper79]

Hi Paul

Thanks for blasting this guy -- I was about to write to him, when I saw you had made a videoresponse.

Jesper 29, Denmark

[23Memes]

ooh sorry - my praise was to NathanZimmerman's comment.

[DaveDoggOwns]

2:25, Your defense does not apply universally.

[NathanZimmerman]

So, even if life is a necessary precondition for having other values, that does not show that we should value it. In fact, there is no contradiction in valuing death once you are alive--being alive is a causally prior event that enables values. It is NOT an state with propositional content that could somehow bring about contradiction in what you choose to value.

Thus, there is no link from is to ought in Rand's works. Obviously people HAVE values, but that's not the question.

[23Memes]

good comment - id like to see an answer to this one myself. Primarily out of fascination with the language (in this case English) and interest in the often mistaken assumption that words actually *are* the things they represent. I watched both of these vids with interest and I await more posts which do not just react linguistically to the logic of others, but also contribute to a new understanding.

[Zerofire18]

Paul McKeever, just wanted to take this opportunity to say that of all the objectivists on YouTube, you are one of the most rational. I mean no disrespect to other objectivists out there. Everytime there is an attack on objectivism I look for your response. You never attack the person, you just simply pick apart thier flawed arguments. Rand says man is a heroic being, again you have proven yourself as one. Keep up the good work.

[Zerofire18]

In the beginning, he seemed like an objectivist and afraid to admit that he may have been a bit convincing. Near the end however, words like "Cult" and other cues made me think this guy isn't what appeared to be. When he mentioned something about acting amorally as an instinct and how it counters Rand's words on man not having automatic knowledge, in my mind I saw what you, again, so eloquently said Paul M.  That "sufferin is the default" of not acting morally. Thanks again Paul.

[Easydollars]

Wouldnt waste my time trying to understand Ayn Rand. She is Satan dressed as a woman .

[Kurtyoungblood]

Ouch - "knowledgeable"

[Kurtyoungblood]

It is so enlightening to have someone as knowlegable as you correct and inform others (including myself).

[trinalesins]

i'm only 15

and still struggling to understand Ayn Rand

however i'm working on it

however, i do enjoy your interpretation

and you defend your point fully

thank you

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome.

[Bigturns33]

Paul, how come you dont have a book out yet... Or maybe you do? If so I would buy it you seem quite rational and are a good objectivist. I to am. I would love to hear from you and would value your book based on your video's.

[lashkaretoiba]

@Bigturns33 I read that book as well if it exists.

[DavoT2]

Great job Paul....ole mate Stef like many others, hasn't fully understood Objectivism, and in Stef's case, he seeks to make money from his ignorance.

[freezzertime]

Its interestiing how Ayn Rand's philosphy is perverted.

[PaulMcKeever]

Well, there are a lot of perverts out there to do it...and they have a motive.

[2007Obi1]

AR failed to enthusiastically seek to answer the God qus. If God does Exists, then ALL of her thesis MUST be re-thought & revised. Gods existence is NOT dependent on whether U or I believes it or not. Bcoz God exists, Ayn Rand was WRONG. God says that he's put knowledge/awareness of himself in all of us, that none may EVER claim not to know him. He is the source of Life in all the Universe. AR theory fails to explain the source of life & origin of Human intelligence. AR Theory is a Satanic lie.

[newcode2001]

Life arises out of existence under particular conditions. Her theory was philosophy, not evolutionary and metaphysical science. "Human intelligence" names what this particular organism (homo sapiens)"does" with the mind and nervous system.

[2007Obi1]

If A=A, then nothing cannot beget something & even the "conditions" you mentioned must've originated from something coz they aren't nothing. The contents of the universe can't come from nothing coz they are something. That "something" is God, who is everlasting. & Life is God's breath in us. Compare a living, breathing body with a corpse to get that "ah ha!" that moment when the bulbs light up. Have you EVER read the bible? Do it, even just-4-fun lest it contain a truth that may change ur life.

[newcode2001]

"Something" could be existence/the cosmos which can also be eternal.  Existence is existence, indeed. It does not need to come out of nowhere from a mythical "big bang." Instead, it can exist eternally and be controlled by conscious beings like us--who may eventually control existence to such an extent that even "natural" human aging is eliminated. Since eternity removes all limits, even the most remote and unlikely chance of our evolution by causative steps is made inevitable.

[2007Obi1]

Does something cease to exist if YOU disbelieve? No. If AR spent ALL her life selfishly pursueing happiness why did she end up betrayed, sick & DEPRESSED? All her discoveries didn't add a day to her life. But I have great JOY, ALL the time. NO Depression & no worries. Bcoz of my knowledge and trust in God. I'm not afraid of dieing coz I believe in God & I KNOW that Jesus conquered the grave & will bring me back to life. I love life SO much that I COULDN'T pass up the offer for ETERNAL life.

[Unplasticated]

BETRAYED?

Uh-huh. Branden has a life too, you know.

SICK?

Ever heard of old age?

DEPRESSED?

Someone's too much into gossips, I believe...

Not a day to her life? No joy?

Well, seems someone is omniscient too, here. :P

[Unplasticated]

ROFLMAO. Dude, do you have ANY "REAL" understanding of AR's philosophy?

My bet of a thousand dollars is on NO.

[alciadanet]

"If God exists": Define "God" please.

[newcode2001]

Happiness is the achievement of one's values:

the pursuit of one's values is also a source of one's happiness. Outside conditions such as censorship may dictate against one's success as a writer, but the individual may choose to accept the system in which he lives or attempt to change it(and possibly choose to escape from/subvert the system, then create a new one). One's own life and rationality are the guarantee that one may STRIVE for the goal even if the achievement is not guaranteed.

[jpararaja]

Did you mean to say the highest hedonistic VALUE is pleasure? If so, what is the highest hedonistic PURPOSE?

[newcode2001]

In this case, the highest PURPOSE would usually be a subjectivist whim that guides one's actions. One's defined "pleasure" may be as follows: drinking alcohol, doing drugs, orgy sex. Then, pursuing one's VALUE would involve all the steps necessary to fulfill these activities. "The more the better" may become one's command to increase the intensity and frequency of one's indulgence in these activities. But, the fulfillment of these "VALUES" are never guaranteed either.

[2007Obi1]

Exactly why I say the AR Theory is a Satanic lie to decieve mankind. Tragic it will be, for those who will live & die in her Theories; for they will awake to thier judgements when it is too late. Seek ye NOW when you still have time. For TRUTH can't Harm u! Use ALL of ur energies & intelligence to seek & find God, lest it be TRUE that he exist, & at long last you realise the elaborate deception you lived. All who will seek God in earnest shall find him. Those who believe will find eternal life.

[newcode2001]

I was referring to a HEDONISTIC philosophy, not to Objectivism. I was responding to jpararaja's question on hedonism, which is not objectivism.

[Unplasticated]

Happiness, dumbfuck. Why are these seemingly-knowledgeable-AR-hat­ers worse than the ignorant AR fanatics? :|

[burch9030]

You argue "good and value have no meaning, except to a living human being." What about a brain dead human being, or a self-aware AI program? I'm not just splitting hairs; that conscious humans are the only (apparent) appreciators of value is an accident of the nature our universe, not a logical necessity.

[Youhavethebody]

To clarify, I think PaulMcKeever meant "moral values" when discussing human beings, since values apply also to animals, plants, and micro-organisms.

For humans, values stem from the nature of reality, and also the choice to remain alive. A brain dead human being can no longer choose to live, in my understanding, so it can have no moral values. Such a human can no longer act to gain things, so for there are no ways either. His life can benefit from someone continuing to feed him [continued.]

[Youhavethebody]

To clarify, I think PaulMcKeever meant "moral values" when discussing human beings, since values apply also to animals, plants, and micro-organisms.

For humans, values stem from the nature of reality, and also the choice to remain alive. A brain dead human being can no longer choose to live, in my understanding, so it can have no moral values. Such a human can no longer act to gain things, so for there are no ways either. His life can benefit from someone continuing to feed him [continued.]

[burch9030]

The essence of my criticism is that, as Hume noted, you cannot derive an Ought from an Is. Objectivism wants to skimp that rule by making Is statements about *knowledge of* Ought (e.g.

"only rational beings recognize that they have goals and values"), but I don't find a strong foundation for talking about that Ought in the first place.

Objectivism isn't alone--my big philosophical question right now is, What is the basis for value?

[Youhavethebody]

The bridging of the "Is/Ought" or specifically "Fact/Value" is done through induction from observations about reality and the recognition of a person's choice to live or not, not through deduction.

For a clearer picture of this, I suggest Dr. Tara Smith's book "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality."

I hardly think Objectivism "skimps" this dichotomy.

[Youhavethebody]

"What is the basis for value?"

Honestly, Objectivism is the only philosophy that I know of which goes into any depth into what the basis of values are. Rand gives her answer in "The Objectivist Ethics."

[burch9030]

By talking about "life," Rand is really talking about self-sustaining systems, because all organisms began as mere self-sustaining molecular systems which ultimately became more and more complex via evolution. My point is that talking about "life" is to talk about a system, and when describing something as a system, it is easy to attribute it with teleology, with "functions" and "goals." This is all good and well, but where does the buck stop for this teleology?

[burch9030]

I mean, to say that something is a "system" is to say an intelligent observer sees an "order" in it (that is, a discernable series of cause/effect which allows him to accurately predict what will happen in the future). So life=systems, and systems=discernable order (to an observer). But I can observe order in a looping series computer program; does it have goals? What makes conscious beings/living humans so special, other than the anthropic principle

[burch9030]

...(which, if adapted, would undermine mean these values are relative to us, not universally absolute and objective). No, it seems that Is and Ought are two different ways of making statements of reality which complement each other in practice, not two manifestations of the same base axiom. My bottom line is that even if it takes a living, conscious human to appreciate value, value exists even when it's not observed.

[PaulMcKeever]

Let me deal specifically with your succinct bottom line: a dead man values nothing. Nothing is of value to a dead man. Among living humans, a material thing that is a value to one person may not be a value to another (e.g., consider a woman's bra). Similarly, potatoes arguably are not a value to a carnivorous beast.

[burch9030]

Agreed. But Rand seems to contradict herself by arguing that objectivist egoism isn't just obeying your desires, but having the right desires (i.e. "rational self-interest"). So it seems that a standard of value, according to Rand, must exist objectively and not be up to subjective taste, since individuals can make incorrect value judgments. Which brings us back to, what is the basis of value? Remember it can't be the individual's judgment, because they can be wrong.

[Youhavethebody]

burch9030:

For a fuller account of this, you might want to check out "Viable Values" which is Dr. Tara Smith's book all about the basis of value and the advocacy of *rational egoism*.

[ooooooooooiuytrewq]

Altruistic acts, if ultimately selfish are still altruistic acts. To give to the poor may be to make yourself feel better, but about what? A selfish act might be to improve your community or your world, because you live in it. Of course we take care of ourselves and we do this in part by taking care of others as well. It is the strategy of civilization.

[ooooooooooiuytrewq]

Her "Axioms" rest on the foundation which is the subject and not the object. This provides no proof anything further than the verification of the subjects ability to use reason to make the case for reason. It is like kant is saying "By means of the faculties" and Ayn Rand responds with "I know what is real because I know it"

[Unplasticated]

LOL.

Dude, try to act on something to know what it is. I can't help but say how dumb you sounded.

[Youhavethebody]

What's your definition of "proof."

[misterpaper]

Epic win. Good show.

[wsmith68]

Excellent.

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

There is no "ought" in any "is" which exists outside of the individual. The individual supplies the "ought"; there is nothing inherent in "is" which requires an "ought" unless through a living individual. If you remove yourself from the individual and look at it objectively, the "ought" itself is obviously not a product of anything other than the subject and so how could it be "objective"?

[PaulMcKeever]

The answer to your question is a central part of Objectivism. I recommend you read about that philosophy. The answer can be found in "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal".

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

I will read it soon but I'm in the middle of reading "critique of pure reason" right now (it's like shaving with a cheese grater). I wonder if Ayn Rand defines "objectivism" in the "objective of the game" way of defining it, not the "objective removed from the subject" way. It seems this is the only explanation I can fathom being her rejection of rational values being intrinsic or subjective.

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

I took a break today and scanned through "Capitalism..." and it seems Ayn believed that the measure of value to be relative to ones "reason" and "labor" (in the amount of happiness it can lay before the ego, as is reasonable in the face of pleasure and pain...) but it still doesn't answer my valid questions. What chapters in this book will I find the removal of this clear and obvious contradiction I have spotted? Did I miss something?

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

Neither "concepts" nor "values" can be "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind." This is a play on words, on Ayn's part; a concept is in itself a thought by definition, and a value can not be had without a subject which values.  "Concepts" and "values" can not be "discovered" outside of "man's mind".

[aag23]

According to Rand, neither concepts nor values are "intrinsic" to external reality, nor are they merely "subjective" (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by one's feelings, desires, intuitions,or whims"). Rather, valid concepts and values are, determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind. Man's only absolute is reason. Therefore a rational being observing reality would come to an objective conclusion. thx for the vid.

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

What is the difference between "the nature of reality" and the "intrinsic" nature of external reality? And according to Objectivist, where do concepts come from? This whole statement seems incredibly bizarre, first it denies two forms of "conception" and then it accepts it.

[wolfwolfwolf1979]

It seems like Ayn Rand has redefined both the terms "subjective" and "objective" to exclude concepts in those definitions she does not like. "Subjective" = "Arbitrary" and "Objective" = "Intrinsic". This is kind of like making up a philosophy called "factualism" and redfining "facts" to mean "fictions". If we argue something it's like a word salad, a futile debate because defintions have been rearranged like musical chairs.

[motherFunctor]

"If we argue something it's like a word salad, a futile debate because defintions have been rearranged like musical chairs."

Welcome to youtube objectivist debates.

[newcode2001]

You are so right! It is an exercise in understanding what each individual means, because most are disagreeing about the meanings of the words themselves and not even realizing it for themselves.

[qtronman]

Mr. Molyneux's video actually served to more fully confirm in my mind the view, presented by other Objectivists, that anarchists are ethical subjectivists. I mean to say that Hitler, Mao, et al., "did pretty well" in the sense of living a fabulous lifestyle, completely evades the principal tenets of ethics. Moreover, he says that the physically strong will want moral criteria to be determined by armwrestling, the polemists will use debating as the moral standard, etc., is subjectivistic.

[marklethanarkle]

great video... make more!

[Intellisecular]

Paul, you nailed it when you discussed the sensory pleasure a dictator feels and then contrasted that with authentic happiness. I think you could've mentioned the paranoia that would inevitably result from this form of lawless power. Stalin - as Stef certainly knows - was a paranoid madman who even ordered the murder of those most loyal to him. Paranoia is not a state of happiness. Stef and objectivity. Stef has ignored the evidence against the Brandens presented in James Valliant's book.

[neutrinoide]

At the start you said philosophy is not to convince other poeple then at the end you said his irrational to choose with who we want to be associate with. You cannot achieve personal freedom if you keep living with irrational poeple around you. Or maybe i'm missing your comment.

[PaulMcKeever]

My comment at the end was to the effect that: it's not rational to conclude that those who agree with your philosophy are cultists just because you have publicly dissociated yourself from those who misrepresent your philosophy or attack your character.

[neutrinoide]

Ah ok. I heard wrong then. But Stefan mostly use the cultist tag not because they misrepresent your philosophy but mostly of the ceremonial of the dissociation. I know he talked about fake trial or fail to adress contracdiction of her own axioms.

[bill4450]

critics often mix apples with oranges, the philosophy is very elementary and easily defined if you use pur e cognitive reasoning . It is a very easy philosophy to live by.

[D4rkReaver13]

Great video.

[Atlantist]

Paul,Paul,Paul, after a whole month of mI effORts to 'show' the errORs of our fORebeARs you come out with that archaic word 'pyramid'. This is a compression concept - Man has graduated to the cantilever principle. The mInd should not be crushed as a foundation but reasoned from a cORe.

Otherwise an excellent refutation of the non-Objective *****

[XOmniverse]

I think you pretty much trounced him on all points. Well done.