Re: "Morality?" - Composite Reply

Gary Lloyd (
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:29:01 -0400 (EDT)

At 07:21 AM 10/9/97 -0400, wrote:
>At 10:41 PM 10/8/97 -0400, you (Gary Lloyd) wrote:
>>At 08:36 PM 10/8/97 -0400, Delmar England wrote:
>>>In literally every claim of "objective value" I have encountered apart from
>>>the formal religion variety which openly claims "God" as "objective value"
>>>cause, the claimant manages to bring in a personal value and pretend that it
>>>is objective discovery. Some, like Rand, go to great lengths to "prove" this
>>>discovery. The "ought from is" fantasy. Others just toss it in without so
>>>much as a by your leave. Once the personal value is enthroned, the focus
>>>shifts to means to achieve it. The problem is, those that insert their
>>>personal prefernce and call it objective make no distinction between ends
>>>and means, the former being a matter of subjective choice; the latter being
>>>a matter of objective criteria. Contrary to much popular language usage,
>>>ends and means are not the same. The former is ALWAYS subjective. The latter
>>>is ALWAYS objective.
>>Are instinctive ends subjective or objective?
>What I would call instinctive ends are reserved for unreasoning animals and
>infants until they reach the mental maturity to calculate in the abstract.

Are you saying that instincts no longer exist when one reaches mental maturity?

>However, answering your question does not require this differentiation
>since all value is attributed by individual mind as opposed to discovered;
>meaning that ends (value attributed) is still ALWAYS subjective.

Somehow, instincts just don't quite fit into the definition of "subjective."
They exist apart from how we feel about them. To be sure, we can control our
instinctive urges, but we still have them. They seem more like a personal
*is* which our mind perceives as an *ought*.

>Mr. Crocker wrote:
>>>And be clear what I mean here: I do not wish to test an action; the
>>>results of an action /are/ easily testable against the outcome I
>>>desire. I wish to test an hypothesis about which outcome I should
>>>desire, independent of any action to achieve it.
>You responded:
>>You should desire species survival, without which we wouldn't be having this
>I see your end desire stipulated and implicitly coupled with the wish that
>Mr. Crocker attribute value to the end you name. What is missing is why he
>should do so other than to please you.

To not be in conflict with what is probably his most basic instinctive
value. To please himself.

>Where is recognition of Mr. Crocker's
>choice in the matter? The reality is that Mr. Crocker does have a choice and
>to not recognize it, whether it pleases you or not, is not dealing with AS
>IS, but denial of AS IS, which is to say, denial of the existent, Mr.

His instincts are a part of him, and yet he cannot change them through his
choices, only be in compliance or conflict with them. They are AS IS.

>This is literally what every claim of discovered "objective value"
>does. In other words, the concept, objective value, is an illusion and
>inherently anti individual.

Instincts are an AS IS part of the individual.

>It is my personal preference that the terms, ought and should, be entirely
>eliminated from the language. Getting rid of these non scientific terms
>would no doubt aid in holding focus upon the reality of a thing or
>situation. Having expressed this desire, I remain aware that my end chosen
>is not the end desire of most. Consequently, I will continue to deal with
>the real by exposing the fact that ought and should have no connection to
>objective reality except as personal preference and subjective declarations.

Are not instincts part of objective reality?

When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.