Ethics as Scientific, 1 of 2 (Part 2 is on MrCropper)

Go to MrCropper for part 2...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Mrcropper
• ethics
• morality
• science
• objective
• objectivity
• objectivism
• ayn
• rand
• selfish

[carciar]

That seems sensible enough, but it isn't quite a response to the is-ought problem. You've made the very sensible point that if we ought to do something, that something must also be feasible. But that is only to say that normative claims have some non-normative claims as necessary conditions. The is-ought problem is the question of whether there are any non-normative claims that represent sufficient conditions for any normative ones.

[dollarsign123]

because life is what makes values possible), and identifies the requirements of life (the values that are in accordance with man's survival) and then logically proceeds to create a hierarchical code of values to guide man's choices and actions. It discovers what man IS and therefore what he OUGHT to do. Read The Virtue of Selfishness before you try to dismiss one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived.

[dollarsign123]

All life requires a certain course of action, (stabbing yourself won't keep you alive) that is directly observable.If science is a system of principles, derived from perception and logic that explain some aspect of the universe in order to enhance a humans ability to live, then ethics is the science that looks at the nature of life, man's life, and values (value being what someone acts to gain and or keep and the only standard of value being life

[dollarsign123]

If you want to live in reality then you must act in accordance with it. You can not live by pretending a brick wall isn't in front of you and smashing your head into it. The brick wall won't disappear because you refuse to focus on it. (That is a directly observable fact of reality). You can not live by lying down until God brings you a turkey dinner. (That is a directly observable fact of reality). All life requires action, that is directly observable.

[dollarsign123]

The only way in which humans are "determined" is to act in accordance with their nature and the nature of a human consciousnesses is that it is volitional, i.e. we have the choice to use it or not (to recognize facts of reality is rationality). (This is directly observable through introspection). You have to choose to focus on reality, your life, your values and your goals. But you only make this choice IF you want to live because this is a requirement for life.

[dollarsign123]

What something IS determines what it OUGHT to do. The catch is that the nature of human consciousness is VOLITIONAL. (Consciousness defined as broadly as possible, "The faculty of perceiving that which exists"). You have the choice to be conscious or not, to focus on reality or not, to be rational or not, to act in your own self-interest or not. People are not determined to or "inclined" or have a tendency to self-interest. (Look at all the self-destruction).

[t3dobber]

Thank-you for all your videos I am a new subscriber and will be going through all your videos!!

[zorrotech1]

The key is observation.

In a infinite universe with infinite variables there are infinite possibilities. Each situation must be indiviually examined.

Your spin may differ from mine even if we observe the same event at the same time

Observation does not make something scientific. Even if we agree in our observations it does not make them correct

We may both be equally incorrect

Exhausted examination can a scientific result be reached,

Until then it is simply a theory or speculation

[hvrtguys]

We cannot exactly know anything. Only best guessing of what is likely is possible.

[sedcontra]

What I'm referring to is Hume's is-ought problem. Rand pretended to have solved it, but only succeeded in running afoul of it. Even if the human organism were in fact inclined towards conduct based on rational self-interest, it would still remain to be proven that we SHOULD act according to rational self-interest.

And that's why you should get your philosophy from philosophers, not from novelists.