Doctrine of the Mean

[Carlos 0]

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.

You are package dealing a scientific method with being rationalistic or purely deductive. Since Science itself isn't even a purely deductive enterprise, your statement doesn't make sense.

And furthermore, what you are describing is an exact layout of the procedure I follow when improving my life. I ask whether something is beneficial or harmful to my life, then I carefully observe many different situations and form a broad conclusion, then act on it! To say that this procedure leads to dogmatist/rationalistic ethics would be to say the same about Physics or Chemistry.

[JRoberts 0]

You are package dealing a scientific method with being rationalistic or purely deductive. Since Science itself isn't even a purely deductive enterprise, your statement doesn't make sense.

I don't think it necessarily will lead to rationalism, but I have observed it many times.

And furthermore, what you are describing is an exact layout of the procedure I follow when improving my life. I ask whether something is beneficial or harmful to my life, then I carefully observe many different situations and form a broad conclusion, then act on it! To say that this procedure leads to dogmatist/rationalistic ethics would be to say the same about Physics or Chemistry.

Physics or Chemistry are not life. That you live your life this way speaks for itself.

[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?

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.

Well yes, the methods used to skin and tan the hide of a buffalo as performed by Native Americans will work today just as well as it would have 500 years ago, or 5000. But why go around advocating and using such a method in the modern world?

[JRoberts 0]

Well yes, the methods used to skin and tan the hide of a buffalo as performed by Native Americans will work today just as well as it would have 500 years ago, or 5000. But why go around advocating and using such a method in the modern world?

Ethical truisms do not change. Though we may discover or refine some smaller points, the simple point is that what is true is true. Any claim that "old" ethics are no longer valid or useful because of the "new" is a claim for subjectivism.

[Carlos 0]

That you live your life this way speaks for itself.

I pursue and achieve values with greater rigor and enthusiasm than most nearly all people I've ever personally known, so yes, I'd say it does.

[Carlos 0]

Well yes, the methods used to skin and tan the hide of a buffalo as performed by Native Americans will work today just as well as it would have 500 years ago, or 5000. But why go around advocating and using such a method in the modern world?

Ethical truisms do not change. Though we may discover or refine some smaller points, the simple point is that what is true is true. Any claim that "old" ethics are no longer valid or useful because of the "new" is a claim for subjectivism.

The point isn't antiquity vs being new, but about how good and advanced it is, which I would say that Objectivism is far better than anything you'd dig out of the classical world. Do you think Ayn Rand simply discovered and refined smaller points?

[JRoberts 0]

The point isn't antiquity vs being new, but about how good and advanced it is

Once again, this is subjectivism. "Good and advanced" does not make something "true" or "more true". Sadly, you persist on promoting subjectivism, and the continued discussion of this is a waste of my valuable time. I'll just say thanks but no thanks.

which I would say that Objectivism is far better than anything you'd dig out of the classical world.

Sorry to hear you say that, but most Objectivist would disagree. Dr. Peikoff said that he would leave the modern world to live in Ancient Greece in a heartbeat, with no reservations.

[Carlos 0]

Dr. Peikoff said that he would leave the modern world to live in Ancient Greece in a heartbeat, with no reservations.

He also believes America will be a Christian Theocracy in less than 50 years, so your point isn't that good.

[Carlos 0]

The point isn't antiquity vs being new, but about how good and advanced it is

Once again, this is subjectivism. "Good and advanced" does not make something "true" or "more true". Sadly, you persist on promoting subjectivism, and the continued discussion of this is a waste of my valuable time. I'll just say thanks but no thanks.

It's subjectivism to say that Tylenol is better for headaches than eating the crushed leaves from a catclaw tree?

[RayK 0]

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

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." Ayn Rand

I would advise that you read The Virtue of Selfishness again.

[JRoberts 0]

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

"What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code." Ayn Rand

I would advise that you read The Virtue of Selfishness again.

I have. And I have read Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics."

This might delve into a whole new topic, but why exactly would ethics be a science?

[RayK 0]

Sorry to hear you say that, but most Objectivist would disagree. Dr. Peikoff said that he would leave the modern world to live in Ancient Greece in a heartbeat, with no reservations.

I do not think Dr. Peikoff meant this in literal terms. I have seen his toast when he said something slightly different and then gave his response when asked if he meant those statments in literal terms.

[JRoberts 0]

Sorry to hear you say that, but most Objectivist would disagree. Dr. Peikoff said that he would leave the modern world to live in Ancient Greece in a heartbeat, with no reservations.

I do not think Dr. Peikoff meant this in literal terms. I have seen his toast when he said something slightly different and then gave his response when asked if he meant those statments in literal terms.

It seemed pretty realistic to me. I will have to watch "Why Ancient Greece Is My Favorite Civilization" again, but I'm almost positive that he meant it.

[RayK 0]

This might delve into a whole new topic, but why exactly would ethics be a science?

Read the last sentence of Ayn Rand's quote.

[JRoberts 0]

This might delve into a whole new topic, but why exactly would ethics be a science?

Read the last sentence of Ayn Rand's quote.

This is a huge subject that not only would be an entirely new topic, but a highly controversial one. By me not believing ethics to be a science, I am not endorsing any sort of subjectivity or relativism. But, we can agree to disagree and end it here .

[Free Capitalist 0]

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 Aristotle's writings on ethics are descriptive, as you say (and I might not disagree with you there), then how can they also be bad, subjective, and all those other bad things you say? Either the writing is normative, and therefore falling within the subject of judgment, or it's descriptive and all you have to do is be grateful for the observation and move on.

[Arnold 0]

This might delve into a whole new topic, but why exactly would ethics be a science?

Because it is a study of nature; man's nature.

[RayK 0]

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 Aristotle's writings on ethics are descriptive, as you say (and I might not disagree with you there), then how can they also be bad, subjective, and all those other bad things you say? Either the writing is normative, and therefore falling within the subject of judgment, or it's descriptive and all you have to do is be grateful for the observation and move on.

I cannot answer for ewv, but an ethical code has to be defined and have a standard.

[JRoberts 0]

Because it is a study of nature; man's nature.

How would this differ from an art?

[JRoberts 0]

I cannot answer for ewv, but an ethical code has to be defined and have a standard.

Sure, this is correct, and Ayn Rand offered this. But how does that make an ethical system without these things not valuable?

[ewv 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.

You asked why Objectivism rejected the doctrine of the mean and you have your answer. Aristotle did not validate a standard for ethics through his doctrine of the mean or anything else. His ethics were purely descriptive of what he thought was the good, rationalizing the good as a "mean" for every case after the fact, i.e., after deciding what is the good on other grounds also not validated. That does not make the doctrine of the mean a "contextual tool".

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

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.

Ayn Rand was not a rationalist or a dogmatist or a Platonist and neither is science. Science is not Platonic, nor is it purely deductive. It combines both induction and deduction based on empirical fact. Ayn Rand's ethics are based on the nature of man. Neither Ayn Rand nor science nor any application of science start over with a new "hypothesis" with every "encounter", without regard to already known principles. You evidently do not understand either Objectivism or science. Your projection of your own "horror" of "people running around" on the basis of "science" in your own confusion of what science is speaks for itself. The "horrors" we experience today are because ethics is not widely regarded as a science.

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.

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.

Your statement that Aristotle's "objectivity implicitly lies" somewhere unspecified, and that "Aristotle did not have to" in response to the fact that "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" is not an answer; it is a claim that none is required. No one is going to go back and review Aristotle's writings to try to figure out how "beams in skyscrapers" is supposed to justify that while you tell us we are not "familiar with the subject matter" after your own failure to coherently make your own case. You asked why Objectivism rejected the doctrine of the mean and you have your answer. You have more than enough source material to refer to what the Objectivist ethics is and how it is validated, why Aristotle did not do that in his descriptive ethics, and therefore why Objectivism rejects his doctrine of the mean. That is what you wanted to know. This is not a place to promote a non-Objectivist ethics.

[ewv 0]

I ask whether something is beneficial or harmful to my life, then I carefully observe many different situations and form a broad conclusion, then act on it! To say that this procedure leads to dogmatist/rationalistic ethics would be to say the same about Physics or Chemistry.

Physics or Chemistry are not life. That you live your life this way speaks for itself.

The science of ethics is about ethics, not about physics and chemistry. All three are sciences based on the facts of reality and validated as such. That is what they have in common. They do not have the same subject matter. Carlos did not say he makes personal choices based only on "physics and chemistry" and did not "speak for himself" in the way you insinuated.

[ewv 0]

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 Aristotle's writings on ethics are descriptive, as you say (and I might not disagree with you there), then how can they also be bad, subjective, and all those other bad things you say? Either the writing is normative, and therefore falling within the subject of judgment, or it's descriptive and all you have to do is be grateful for the observation and move on.

I cannot answer for ewv, but an ethical code has to be defined and have a standard.

Aristotle could not define and validate his standards to justify his ethics. He only described what he thought were examples of the good. It's not that all of his conclusions were bad with respect to our standards, or that he could not objectively report what behavior he saw or relate it to his eudaimonia principle, but that he lacked an adequate method to validate his idea of the good, leaving his entire ethical philosophy inadequate and even his own good beliefs vulnerable to being undermined and susequent reversal, which is exactly what happened.

[Free Capitalist 0]

but that he lacked an adequate method to validate his idea of the good, leaving his entire ethical philosophy inadequate and even his own good beliefs vulnerable to being undermined and susequent reversal, which is exactly what happened.

I don't think that statement can be supported. I grant you that it's important for the fundamental standard to be stated, but there are many more issues in ethics than just discovering the standard of value. For instance, one of the questions is what is happiness? In what way is pleasure different from happiness? ...is it? What is virtue? In what way does virtue contribute to happiness? Does it? Does maybe happiness contribute to virtue instead? Which is actually higher of the two? All of these questions are separate from 'what is a standard in ethics'. Even if life is the standard of value, maybe in some way happiness contributes to virtue and not the way around, and virtue is the highest goal. These questions are separate from knowing what the ethical standard is, and knowing just that one fact doesn't tell you a whole lot else (unless you believe that ethics are deductive). So there's a whole host of ethical questions, all of which are valid and important to pursue, aside from just that one question of the standard.

Secondly, not stating a standard is a far cry from lacking one. Even a cursory familiarity with Aristotle's Ethics, or with Epictetus' Discourses, or with Seneca, will quickly convince one that life was the only standard any philosopher could conceive of at that time period. If Ayn Rand stated explicitly something that Aristotle integrated into his ethics implicitly, it is a credit to her statement but does it invalidate his principles? Not at all. What needs to be demonstrated is that those ethics were in some way anti-life, i.e. violating that implicit principle; and something I haven't been able to determine from the Ethics, and something I highly doubt anyone could.

So all I'm saying is that I think a little bit more time needs to be given to considering what Aristotle had to say. He's not in competition with Ayn Rand, just as Tara Smith isn't. Everyone has slightly different expressions of the same principle, slightly different angles and different questions that they're interested in asking. If, unable to show that his Ethics were anti-life we still throw him out merely because he asked different questions, would mean throwing out Tara Smith's books as well, and is just a bad course overall. If Tara Smith's standard is life, I guarantee you so is Aristotle's.

[Carlos 0]

The point isn't antiquity vs being new, but about how good and advanced it is

Once again, this is subjectivism. "Good and advanced" does not make something "true" or "more true". Sadly, you persist on promoting subjectivism, and the continued discussion of this is a waste of my valuable time. I'll just say thanks but no thanks.

which I would say that Objectivism is far better than anything you'd dig out of the classical world.

Sorry to hear you say that, but most Objectivist would disagree...

What 'most Objectivists' disagree with the view that Objectivism is better than anything you can get from the classical world?