Straw Men are Huemerous

A response to Michael Huemer's "Critique of 'The Objectivist Ethics' "

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Objectivist
• Michael
• Huemer
• ethics

[dabruin2]

Mr. McKeever,

Well done and thank you for the education. A lot of Rand's work, I've found, requires focus/effort from the reader to understand what exactly she means. A lazy interpretation as you've shown can cause a snowball effect of misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to go through Huemer's work point by point.

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome.

[davidngo4415]

great job. but i think you also need to give an example of a person being rational enough to survive, but irrational enough to make him/herself unhappy. after rational survival behavior is followed, rational happiness still needs to be done. speak to this "middle ground" please.

[PaulMcKeever]

Actually, I've been thinking about that one for a few weeks, so your request comes at a good time. Watch for it in the coming weeks.

[qtronman]

"[Objectivists] are white-collar sociopaths..."

Mere assertion. There are many "blue-collar" and "pink-collar" Objectivists, too.

How do you define sociopath, Dr. Psychiatrist? I heard Hitler had good social skills.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu But I _do believe_ that it follows that theories of subjects of goals, achievements, admiration - aesthetics - contradicts the holding position of (your accurate or in-accurate description of) Ayn Rands point: Roughly stated that "if I cannot progress through it, it's not of moral value to me." It also means that i reject the following conclusion of Huemers' "ethical intuisionism". But that is another subject.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu The only way I can imagine a logical reasoning to be invalid and false, following from the same premises, is for the premises not to adhere to the conclusion. This describes perfectly why I believe that both Huemer and Rand is falsely following the assumption that morality have anything to do with said feelings at all. I believe that appreciation is a subject of aesthetics, admiration.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu As seen from your own quotation of Huemer, he understands this trickery with the words perfectly: "It follows that it makes no sense to say something one cannot get or cannot avoid is "good". Your commenting on this, using Rands premise, is entirely circular: You're arguing that the reason for for said statement to be untrue, is by holding said premise to be true. In other words: assuming premise to conclude premise. To be noted, Huemer contradicts using the same circular reasoning.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu A big stepping stone here is that regardless whether you appreciate (thus value) the act of giving, do favors or alike, we understand this by intuition to not be a problem of morality. This concludes that - certainly - Huemer is making an irrelevant objection. But the objection holds true, meaning that Ayn Rand in return, is falsely describing her premise which - by definition - should adhere to her view of morality. It does not. It faces a more wider subject, a subject of appreciation

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu Huemer tries to argue from contradictory; meaning, if he can find an example where supposed premise is false by reasoning and reference to reality, the conclusion breaks down. He does so successfully applying a new assumption: "I value the fact that someone gives me money." As so far I agree with Huemers' analysis. Moving further, though, I'd like to part from both Rand and Huemer.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu Huemer argues that this is untrue by (your quote of him) stating: "(...) There's no way that I can avoid it -- would that mean that the money will have no value?"

You state: "The fact that things happen about which nobody have any control, does not mean that one is not faced with any alternatives."

Forgetting that I think this is a bad illustration of the point, I'll try to elaborate how I see this "confusion":

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu I believe it's rather the last sentence Huemer (and I) would object to: " Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." A required consequence of this statement is, in fact, Huemers' understanding: "Something is valuable to an identity only if the entity faces alternatives." Which reads: If an individual are not faced with any alternatives, or in no way can influence a given action or - in general - a system, the individual should not associate values with it.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu You say, and I'll try to quote you as directly as I can, that these two sentences are incompatible:

1. "Something is valuable to an identity only if the entity faces alternatives(Huemers evaluation of Rands premise"

and

2. "It's _possible_ for something to be of value only if there's an alternative (You on Rands premise)"

The statement that these two are incompatible, is false. It follows directy from 2 to 1!

[Ryoroyzu]

I'd like to comment on a section starting from 06:20 lasting to 09:45

First off, I'd like to clarify your statement and justify why I in itself think it's untrue and thereby nothing to base a conclusion (I have not read Ayn Rands work in detail, nor have I read Michael Huemers commentary in detail, I am not (trying to) defend or attack either one of them. I see them both arguing with flaws solely from your presentation of them. Please follow me below:

[efghijkl8]

You haven't shown how rand gets from 'urival is the standard of value' to you must life in a life 'proper to man'/'qua man'. This is a criticism Huemer makes and which you have't answered.