Doctrine of the Mean

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The reason I asked my question was because Objectivism, too, does not give you an exact, step-by-step system of rules for each virtue. Meaning, Ayn Rand does not say, "If you encounter situation A, do A; if situation B, do B; if C, do not do C" and so on. Some systems do, or try to do, this. It cannot work. If this is what you meant by objective standard, then I would state that such a standard is impossible.

But that's not what Ayn Rand meant by an objective standard. For Ayn Rand, life is the standard and she objectively validated why it is the standard of value ("It is only the concept of life that makes the concept of value possible.") In any given situation a person, using life as the standard, can ask, "Will this further my life?", get an answer, and know what to do.

This is not so for Aristotle.

What is Aristotle's standard of value? Is it validated? How? How do you apply it in practice?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

What is Aristotle's standard of value? Is it validated? How? How do you apply it in practice?

This is what Ayn Rand said about Aristotle's ethical foundation:

No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.

[JRoberts 0]

What is Aristotle's standard of value? Is it validated? How? How do you apply it in practice?

This is what Ayn Rand said about Aristotle's ethical foundation:

No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.

Betsy,

Thank you for showing this. It is a very valid point, and a complaint I too have had with Aristotle. However, just because he did not set that standard does not mean necessarily that his ethics are wrong.

Let us say that somebody came to Galt's Gulch and loved it so much that they wrote a book describing what the people did. This does not mean that this description, or the people are wrong. But what it does mean is that the "why" was left out, and thus the system was not grounded. So if we are to critique Aristotle based upon his absence of an objective standard, I believe this to be a correct critique. It is true that Ayn Rand was the only philosopher to give an answer. But now that we have come to a conclusion that the "why" is absent, what about the "what"?

[Duke 0]

Let us say that somebody came to Galt's Gulch and loved it so much that they wrote a book describing what the people did. This does not mean that this description, or the people are wrong. But what it does mean is that the "why" was left out, and thus the system was not grounded. So if we are to critique Aristotle based upon his absence of an objective standard, I believe this to be a correct critique. It is true that Ayn Rand was the only philosopher to give an answer. But now that we have come to a conclusion that the "why" is absent, what about the "what"?

The "why" is important and is the whole difference between Kant's ethics and Objectivist ethics.

If you're going to argue that content matters without the reasons why it's founded, you should similarly be in favour of "Thou shalt not murder." After all, you're just evaluating the what and not the why, right? That moral commandment is good because... we feel it's good. Therefore it's right.

Ayn Rand didn't do things this way. You can't have a moral virtue without reference to a standard in her philosophy, because you would simply follow it on blind irrationality. Why do X or Y? Because you are motivated to do so by feeling.

[JRoberts 0]

The "why" is important and is the whole difference between Kant's ethics and Objectivist ethics.

If you're going to argue that content matters without the reasons why it's founded, you should similarly be in favour of "Thou shalt not murder." After all, you're just evaluating the what and not the why, right? That moral commandment is good because... we feel it's good. Therefore it's right.

Ayn Rand didn't do things this way. You can't have a moral virtue without reference to a standard in her philosophy, because you would simply follow it on blind irrationality. Why do X or Y? Because you are motivated to do so by feeling.

I used the Galt's Gulch example for a reason. Just because philosophy A and philosophy B both say "Be honest" does not mean that the contents of that virtue are the same. A could say, "Be honest, because it is necessary to keep up the health of the social fabric.", and B could say, "Be honest, because it is necessary to remain true to reality." Now, if the philosophy of B did not give an objective standard for this (what I mean is, did not even mention a standard, as opposed to promoting a wrong standard), does that negate the validity of the point philosophy B made? No. Objectivist all the time admire non-Objectivist for certain things, because they are doing these certain things correctly. We admire Galileo, even though he was a Christian. We admire the Founding Fathers, even though almost all of them believed in a deity. We admire people like Ayan Hirsi Ali, even though we may not agree with her entire philosophy. This is because something that is done correctly is in fact done correctly! So, just because Aristotle does not have an objective standard does not mean that we can't admire him or agree with his philosophy at certain points. If we followed the path you mentioned, then Objectivist would have to move to a desert naked with no money and begin from scratch to rebuild a society. Thankfully, this is not the case. We as Objectivist can find many valuable things in the world; many valuable people with valuable insights that can help to further our life.

[ewv 0]

Objectivist all the time admire non-Objectivist for certain things, because they are doing these certain things correctly... just because Aristotle does not have an objective standard does not mean that we can't admire him or agree with his philosophy at certain points. If we followed the path you mentioned, then Objectivist would have to move to a desert naked with no money and begin from scratch to rebuild a society. Thankfully, this is not the case. We as Objectivist can find many valuable things in the world; many valuable people with valuable insights that can help to further our life.

The doctrine of the mean is not one of them. If you listen to the Leonard Peikoff lecture you will find that he does in fact admire many aspects of Aristotle's philosophy, including some aspects of his moral philosophy. But this thread started out as a question of what is the Objectivist position on what is wrong with the doctrine of the mean, which you subsequently claimed is a form of objectivity in ethics.

[Jay P 0]

I was wondering if anybody had a reason (a passage/quote would be superb!) on why Ayn Rand rejected Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean as described in the Nicomachean Ethics.

If you want a definitive answer with direct quotes you will have to listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Aristotle in his series on the history of western philosophy. He criticized the doctrine of the mean on several grounds, as well as evaluating the other major positions taken by Aristotle.

Some of the early lectures of Leonard Peikoff's history of western philosophy series are also available in printed form from TJS (The Jefferson School). See http://www.capitalism.net/Peikoff.htm*. From that site:

The Jefferson School has begun the publication of the literary version of Leonard Peikoff's twenty-four lectures on the history of Western philosophy. Edited by Linda Reardan, Ph.D., this is the same excellent material you have probably heard on tape, but in the form of a polished literary rendition, so that you can now read and study it in the way it deserves. The lectures are the only available source of the Objectivist view on all of the essential doctrines of all of the major philosophers in history. They are being made available serially, one at a time, in booklet form over a period of several years.

The first five lectures are available now, and that includes the two lectures on Aristotle's philosophy. I don't have any more information than what is presented on the web site, e.g., I don't know when the other lectures might be available.

...

*If in the future this does not work, try searching from the root of that web site, http://www.capitalism.net.

[ewv 0]

I was wondering if anybody had a reason (a passage/quote would be superb!) on why Ayn Rand rejected Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean as described in the Nicomachean Ethics.

If you want a definitive answer with direct quotes you will have to listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture on Aristotle in his series on the history of western philosophy. He criticized the doctrine of the mean on several grounds, as well as evaluating the other major positions taken by Aristotle.

Some of the early lectures of Leonard Peikoff's history of western philosophy series are also available in printed form from TJS (The Jefferson School). See http://www.capitalism.net/Peikoff.htm*. From that site:

The Jefferson School has begun the publication of the literary version of Leonard Peikoff's twenty-four lectures on the history of Western philosophy. Edited by Linda Reardan, Ph.D., this is the same excellent material you have probably heard on tape, but in the form of a polished literary rendition, so that you can now read and study it in the way it deserves. The lectures are the only available source of the Objectivist view on all of the essential doctrines of all of the major philosophers in history. They are being made available serially, one at a time, in booklet form over a period of several years.

The first five lectures are available now, and that includes the two lectures on Aristotle's philosophy. I don't have any more information than what is presented on the web site, e.g., I don't know when the other lectures might be available.

...

*If in the future this does not work, try searching from the root of that web site, http://www.capitalism.net.

As I recall there is some question about a copyright violation, which you should check into. Apparently the people selling the transcripts (which I don't think were edited) once had the right to sell the tapes through a kind of Objectivist book store (not Second Renaissance) and later questionably extended it into creating and selling written transcripts, which I don't think Leonard Peikoff wanted released at all, let alone by people he had some other disagreement over in some big personal split inside ARI. The first few transcripts were released about ten years ago and then they seemed to suddenly stop. The Thomas Jefferson School also used to sponsor lectures by major Objectivists but disbanded after the break. Betsy, do you know anything about the copyright status and what happened with the transcripts?

[Jay P 0]

As I recall there is some question about a copyright violation, which you should check into. Apparently the people selling the transcripts (which I don't think were edited) once had the right to sell the tapes through a kind of Objectivist book store (not Second Renaissance) and later questionably extended it into creating and selling written transcripts, which I don't think Leonard Peikoff wanted released at all, let alone by people he had some other disagreement over in some big personal split inside ARI....

I didn't know that there was some question about the copyright status of these transcripts. If Peikoff didn't want these transcripts produced or sold, or if their copyright status is in doubt, it would be proper for the moderators to delete my posting that links to the site that offers them for sale.

[ewv 0]

As I recall there is some question about a copyright violation, which you should check into. Apparently the people selling the transcripts (which I don't think were edited) once had the right to sell the tapes through a kind of Objectivist book store (not Second Renaissance) and later questionably extended it into creating and selling written transcripts, which I don't think Leonard Peikoff wanted released at all, let alone by people he had some other disagreement over in some big personal split inside ARI....

I didn't know that there was some question about the copyright status of these transcripts. If Peikoff didn't want these transcripts produced or sold, or if their copyright status is in doubt, it would be proper for the moderators to delete my posting that links to the site that offers them for sale.

It's still a legitimate topic to discuss, whether or not you were aware of the questions. They are still openly selling the first few transcripts so at least in a technical sense that much is probably legal or I would think it would be shut down after all the time that has passed. I don't know what the arrangements are or what kind of settlement might have been reached that you should perhaps not want to support anyway, even if Leonard Peikoff is getting royalties on something he didn't want to sell. Betsy, do you know anything about this?

[ewv 0]

If this discussion continues it should probably moved to its own thread.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, do you know anything about the copyright status and what happened with the transcripts?

No, I don't.

[JRoberts 0]

The doctrine of the mean is not one of them.

How is it not? It is immensely valuable to me, and I know my reasons why. Why is it not valuable to you?

If you listen to the Leonard Peikoff lecture you will find that he does in fact admire many aspects of Aristotle's philosophy, including some aspects of his moral philosophy. But this thread started out as a question of what is the Objectivist position on what is wrong with the doctrine of the mean, which you subsequently claimed is a form of objectivity in ethics.

I still hold by the claim that it is objectivity in ethics, and have not seen any adequate reason to believe otherwise.

[Carlos 0]

If you have a well organized hierarchy of rational values and you follow them selfishly, what more do you need?

On the other hand, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you where the correct balance is between work and play without presupposing some other standard that could have been used to begin with? On a Friday night when you have a project coming up, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you whether the right thing to do is to party or work that exact moment? A hierarchy of rational values could certainly do it on the other hand. You have failed to answer these objections in defending the doctrine of the mean.

[ewv 0]

The doctrine of the mean is not one of them.

How is it not? It is immensely valuable to me, and I know my reasons why. Why is it not valuable to you?

This has been explained to you several times. To summarize: good and evil are differences in kind, not in degree; there is no validation of why a "mean" as such represents the good; and there is no principle by which to decide what is the mean. Aristotle's ethics are purely decriptive, not a science of ethics validating his principles. He observed what he already thought was good behavior and called it a "mean" after the fact in every case.

If you listen to the Leonard Peikoff lecture you will find that he does in fact admire many aspects of Aristotle's philosophy, including some aspects of his moral philosophy. But this thread started out as a question of what is the Objectivist position on what is wrong with the doctrine of the mean, which you subsequently claimed is a form of objectivity in ethics.

I still hold by the claim that it is objectivity in ethics, and have not seen any adequate reason to believe otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you, not those who reject your unsubstantiated thesis. No argument, including by Aristotle, has been provided to establish the doctrine of the mean as an objective basis for ethics in any way other than descriptive of what is already believed to be the good on other grounds.

Your original question of where to find the Objectivist position on Aristotle's doctrine of the mean has been answered: with reference to the Leonard Peikoff lectures on the history of western philosophy, in particular the lectures on Aristotle, and Ayn Rand's summary statement.

[JRoberts 0]

If you have a well organized hierarchy of rational values and you follow them selfishly, what more do you need?

Under this logic, if you have a "well organized hierarchy of rational values", you wouldn't need: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, life experience, wisdom, friends, advice, etc. Just because your values are proper does not mean that that is all you need.

On the other hand, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you where the correct balance is between work and play without presupposing some other standard that could have been used to begin with? On a Friday night when you have a project coming up, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you whether the right thing to do is to party or work that exact moment? A hierarchy of rational values could certainly do it on the other hand. You have failed to answer these objections in defending the doctrine of the mean.

The doctrine of the mean has nothing to do with these situations. Please read Aristotle before attempting to answer a question.

[JRoberts 0]

This has been explained to you several times. To summarize: good and evil are differences in kind, not in degree; there is no validation of why a "mean" as such represents the good; and there is no principle by which to decide what is the mean. Aristotle's ethics are purely decriptive, not a science of ethics validating his principles. He observed what he already thought was good behavior and called it a "mean" after the fact in every case.

As I have said time and time again, the mean is not "good" because it is a mean. Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Also, ethics is not and should never be a science. It is an art.

The burden of proof is on you, not those who reject your unsubstantiated thesis. No argument, including by Aristotle, has been provided to establish the doctrine of the mean as an objective basis for ethics in any way other than descriptive of what is already believed to be the good on other grounds.

Explicitly, no-because Aristotle did not have to. But just as you do not need a person to TELL you that there are steel beams in a skyscraper before you enter the building, so too do you know by reading Aristotle where his implicit objectivity lies.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

On the other hand, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you where the correct balance is between work and play without presupposing some other standard that could have been used to begin with? On a Friday night when you have a project coming up, how does the doctrine of the mean tell you whether the right thing to do is to party or work that exact moment? A hierarchy of rational values could certainly do it on the other hand.

The doctrine of the mean has nothing to do with these situations.

Objectivism does and thus can guide someone, in principle, in making choices in life. Isn't that what ethics is really for?

If Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean can't be used for making everyday choices, what is it good for?

[ewv 0]

This has been explained to you several times. To summarize: good and evil are differences in kind, not in degree; there is no validation of why a "mean" as such represents the good; and there is no principle by which to decide what is the mean. Aristotle's ethics are purely decriptive, not a science of ethics validating his principles. He observed what he already thought was good behavior and called it a "mean" after the fact in every case.

As I have said time and time again, the mean is not "good" because it is a mean. Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

That is an admission that the mean cannot be the standard. Assigning the good to the mean is always an after the fact assertion for examples of the good identified by other means.

Also, ethics is not and should never be a science. It is an art.

That is not correct and is part of your problem.

The burden of proof is on you, not those who reject your unsubstantiated thesis. No argument, including by Aristotle, has been provided to establish the doctrine of the mean as an objective basis for ethics in any way other than descriptive of what is already believed to be the good on other grounds.

Explicitly, no-because Aristotle did not have to. But just as you do not need a person to TELL you that there are steel beams in a skyscraper before you enter the building, so too do you know by reading Aristotle where his implicit objectivity lies.

The doctrine of the mean is not a standard, explicitly or "implicitly". Aristotle did not "have to" do anything he didn't choose to try; the fact is that he didn't, and anyone who seeks an objective standard for ethics does have to validate any theory proposed. Ayn Rand did that; Aristotle did not. The fact is, Aristotle did not justify and could not have justified the doctrine of the mean as a standard for ethics for all the reasons previously stated, and neither have you. The burden of proof is on you, not those who reject your unsubstantiated claim. The statement about beams in a skyscraper is nonsensically irrelevant to this subject.

Your question about the Objectivist position on the doctrine of the mean has been answered. If you want to know more and in the exact form it was presented, listen to the lectures already cited and/or take it up with Leonard Peikoff.

[JRoberts 0]

Objectivism does and thus can guide someone, in principle, in making choices in life. Isn't that what ethics is really for?

If Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean can't be used for making everyday choices, what is it good for?

The Doctrine of the Mean deals with virtues, and how to act in certain virtuous situations. Aristotle does not tell you what to eat, how to cut your steak, or how you should part your hair. But he does tell you what courage is, why it is important, and why you should be courageous. The Doctrine of the Mean tells you more about the nature of courage, and is a tool to help one properly act in regards to virtues.

In regards to a hierarchy of values, Aristotle discusses that too in Book I. He states that our ultimate goal is eudaimonia (or as Tara Smith says, flourishing). Everything we do must be teleologically oriented towards that end. He then goes into a deep discussion about how some values are better than others, how to properly organize your values, etc. The Doctrine of the Mean does not apply within this realm, which is why the statements by Jordan are null and void. Aristotle, just like Ayn Rand, would tell you to choose the most important and most rationally egoistic thing to do (Aristotle is considered the first true Ethical Egoist). He would not tell you to find the mean between two values, or to find the mean between a super good value and a horrible value. Aristotle would be appalled at any application like this-if you found a wonderful spouse, a horrible spouse, and chose your "average Joe", Aristotle would properly be disgusted. But as I said, the Doctrine of the Mean does not apply in these situations.

[JRoberts 0]

That is an admission that the mean cannot be the standard. Assigning the good to the mean is always an after the fact assertion for examples of the good identified by other means.

The mean is not the objective standard. It is the fault of modern philosophers (I say modern as Descartes onwards) and ethicist who have taken Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean and turned it into a standard. Aristotle's implicit standard is life, as described by eudaimonia. If an action furthers your ability to "flourish", to live well (as opposed to just merely "living"), then that action is good. The Doctrine of the Mean is a contextual tool.

That is not correct and is part of your problem.

How so? Could you imagine the horror if people ran around acting as if Ethics were a science (those people are called rationalist or dogmatist). I do not reach an encounter, form a hypothesis about it (I think I should be honest in this situation), try it out many times(honesty in situation A, B, C, etc.), and then form it into a law (honesty must always be used in situations A and B and C). To say that Ethics is a science is to say that Ethics is deductive-something Plato would have loved.

The doctrine of the mean is not a standard, explicitly or "implicitly". Aristotle did not "have to" do anything he didn't choose to try; the fact is that he didn't, and anyone who seeks an objective standard for ethics does have to validate any theory proposed. Ayn Rand did that; Aristotle did not. The fact is, Aristotle did not justify and could not have justified the doctrine of the mean as a standard for ethics for all the reasons previously stated, and neither have you. The burden of proof is on you, not those who reject your unsubstantiated claim. The statement about beams in a skyscraper is nonsensically irrelevant to this subject.

I have given you an answer to this. If you believe that the statement about skyscrapers is irrelevant, then in order to continue in this conversation, you should be familiar with the subject matter. Read the Nicomachean Ethics, Books I and II.

[Carlos 0]

If you have a well organized hierarchy of rational values and you follow them selfishly, what more do you need?

Under this logic, if you have a "well organized hierarchy of rational values", you wouldn't need: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, life experience, wisdom, friends, advice, etc. Just because your values are proper does not mean that that is all you need.

My statement was what more knowledge of philosophy or ethics would one need to be happy.

[JRoberts 0]

My statement was what more knowledge of philosophy or ethics would one need to be happy.

Values are dependent upon the individual. What is a value to John may not be a value to Sarah. Though the essence of your statement is true, the contents of those values are up to the individual. If something brings value to their life and helps to further it, that is what matters.

[Carlos 0]

Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Why spend time learning about an abacus and how to use one when we have a quantum supercomputer available?

[JRoberts 0]

Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Why spend time learning about an abacus and how to use one when we have a quantum supercomputer available?

This reeks of relativism. In philosophy, what was true 10,000 years ago was true 5,000 years ago is true today and will be true in 2,000 years.