Moral Objectivism, and Moral Absolutism in General

[homosapien87]

If any form of moral absolutism were true, this would establish moral principles as, essentially, natural laws. Any particular set of ethical principles would be physically impossible to deviate from. As follows, every society would have no choice but to adhere to them. The fact that there's a diversity in normative systems negates moral absolutism.

Moral absolutism, ultimately, justifies ethnocentrism and inflexible conservatism. If one believes that there is one morally correct way to conduct oneself, one will be unreceptive to new ideas in regards to morality. Moral absolutism is inherently dogmatic, and therefore, maladaptive.

The fact of the matter is that morality is subjective. It's a matter of socialization, not objectively moral principles

[libertylover196]

`This truly an atheistic position of moral relativism. There are objective moral rules to follow that are provided theistically. It is this other worldly, beyond time being that can observe the depravity of morally subjective behaviour that is abhorrent to Him that observes outside the time-space continuum.

I can appreciate Ayn Rand's apologetic support of free-markets, but her social and moral postions do not hold water from an objective view. Sorry, I will not see her in Heaven. She had great potential, but alas her iniquitous behaviour and unrepentent attitude hurt her immensely.

[galtroark]

`Ayn Rand is a very interesting person to me.

I regard her as an exceptionally innovative ethical theorist--willing to attack the predominant philosophical tradition of altruism and self-sacrifice espoused by religionists and philosophers since the advent of kings and slavery. I find, however, that she sadly lacks cosistency with her own, self-proclaimed ideals of individualism and individual rights, and that the concessions she made to antithetical positions (depriving people of those rights) were largely politically and oportunistically motivated. Professing idealism, she, in fact, was a shrewd and skillful POLITICIAN, who maneuvered ideologically, leaving many basic questions of individual rights and national sovereignty untouched, or essentially agnosticized, so as to solidly keep a fan base drawn largely from New York City reform Jews.

For openers, she never opposed genital mutilation of minor males (neonatal circumcision) although American males were being circumcised in the 1950s and early 1960s at the highest rates in American history (approaching a peak of roughly 90% by 1964). To have opposed neonatal circumcision and defended the individual right of defenseless male babies to defer to adulthood such permanently scarring decisions regarding invasive surgery (when a personal, responsible decision could have been made) would have angered her Jewish fan base, subjected her to personal attack and probable contract abrogation from the same people who were publishing her books (Simon/Schuster and Random House), and deminished her overall fan base enormously.

Another example of her shrewd political and ideological maneuvering is her refusal to oppose U.S. aid and favoritism of Israel. Had she opposed aid to Zionist Israel and declared her opposition to the existence of Israel as a nation, she again would have lost much of her Reform Jewish fan base.

One more example of her self-imposed limitations which I find especially troubling is her refusal to condemn the institution of government currency. Apparently, she was too busy increasing her own profits in government currency to oppose this hideous insult to human intelligence. Government currency remains the most evil legacy of kings and slavery, and she never opposed it. It is true that she offered a glimpse of an alternative in Galt's Gulch (Atlas Shrugged), as Midas Mulligan circulated a private coinage there, but, philosophically and explicitly, she was at best an agnostic on this issue.

[auditore316]

`You touched on a number of things, so let me address them one by one.

As to the idea of government currency, let's consider the wise words of William T. Still, who said that the issue of currency is all about who controls the rate of inflation (and thus the indirect taxation of the people). Is that power a private corporation or the people themselves? Government currency is really no different from any other form of currency in that the important part is the issuing party's ability to honor their debts. In the case of our current government, that is clearly not the case; but of governments in general, that is not a foregone conclusion. Look at what Iceland is doing, for instance.

As for moral absolutism, I think Nature only has a few of those, which are not difficult to discover. Among them are:

The Laws of Conversation - You can't create something from nothing (unless you're the Tao).
The Laws of Power - Might makes right because who is going to make it otherwise without first gaining a greater amount of power?
The Laws of Survival - Compulsion to protect self, family, friends, and one's personal interests before the interests of others.
The Laws of Hierarchy - As above, so below; secondary principles give way to more fundamental ones when pressed.
The Laws of Sciences - Mathematics, physics, logic, etc. are what they are, regardless of how well we understand them.

From there, humans tend to rely on the principle of symbiosis and realize that cooperation tends to result in more favorable outcomes than does competition (often, though not always). This then gives rise to all suspensions of rights under natural law and a descent into the realm of contract law, from which all governments, corporations, and societies in general are formed.

Given the above, it's not difficult to see why Ayn Rand would be hesitant to criticize her own demographic. Maybe doing so would have been closer to the Truth, but as you noted, it may have been a necessary compromise at the time; for if she has alienated her supporters, we might never have had the chance to inherit her other wisdoms.

Humanity can only suffer one great change at a time. So Ayn Rand's work is an important milestone in intellectual progress, but far from the end of the road. It can certainly be improved upon and I think it's important to see it as being written for a people of a certain age and mindset. Compare it to the founding fathers who wrote of all men being created equal, yet still owning slaves and even writing provisions to uphold slavery in the Constitution (Article 4, §2, Claus 3). Again, laws of power. You need support to at least get your foot in the door and then worry about the details later.