[extropy-chat] Those wacky Objectivists (was John Wright finds God)

[john-c-wright at sff.net]

Mike Linksvayer writes:

Let me get this straight: - If no objective moral order, can't condemn people
who think there is an  objective moral order. 

Correct. 

- If no objective moral order, no reason to think about whether there is  an
objective moral order.

Not quite. I propose only that there is no moral obligation to study the
question, no reason to be more loyal to the truth than to falsehood. 

> If I may simplify, action requires an objective moral order, you perceive
action, therefore an objective moral order exists. I missed the proof for
"action requires an objective moral order."

In your simplification, you leave out the operative term. Honest action requires
moral order. Honesty is a moral category. If no moral categories, then questions
of honesty are meaningless. 

I put it to you that you would not have written the words you did above, if you
did not mean the questions honestly, did not believe that I would give you an
honest answer, or, at least, a courteous one. People can exchange jokes or
insults about philosophy without a modicum of honesty, but they cannot have a
serious discussion. Therefore serious discussion of a philosophical question
(such as, e.g. whether there is a moral order to the universe) presupposes
categorically that there is a moral order to the universe. Without such an
assumption the debate cannot begin.  

>Thanks for the reminder that Objectivists are nuts also.

If you mean to say that there is an object standard of sanity and that the
Objectivists do not meet it, I am afraid you are playing into their hands. 

However, whatever their flaws, if you argue with an Objectivist without first
admitting that morality is objective, you have no standard by which the argument
can be judged. There is nothing wrong with an ad Hominem attack, for example,
unless it is both illogical and wrong. If there is no such thing as right and
wrong, what's wrong with being illogical?