[extropy-chat] Re: Those wacky Objectivists

[Jef Allbright]

john-c-wright at sff.net wrote:

>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. 
>  
>
<snip>

>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?
>  
>
Discussion on this topic often carries with it some semantic confusion.  
Those who say there is no objective morality have a perfectly good 
point, and they can demonstrate for most, if not all controversial moral 
issues that "right" action is to some degree dependent on context.   On 
the other hand, those who say there must be an objective basis for 
morality also make a good case, as demonstrated by Mr. Wright, that we 
must have at least some common basis for any discussion of "right" and 
"wrong".

Regardless of a thinking person's axioms of choice, moral judgments are 
based on our values, and our values are ultimately grounded in "what 
works."  Values related to murder, theft, honesty, and so on have 
evolved both genetically and culturally by a process of natural 
selection of which humans are an intrinsic part.  In a very profound 
sense, at every level of organization from the sub-atomic to human 
culture,  cooperative-advantage/synergy/non-zero-sumness is part of the 
fabric of our world, and forms the objective root of our values and thus 
our morality. Although the branches have grown in somewhat different 
directions, they have much in common and in the bigger picture are seen 
as part of a whole that makes sense.

- Jef

- Jef