matis,
Sanchezero, you seem to be saying that until we have perfect knowledge of reality, we cannot have a good system of morality.
Not at all. This would imply that only scientists on the bleeding edge could have any hope of acting morally.
We don't need to know everything or even a whole lot. We need a basic, factual understanding of how the world works and that it, in fact does work.
There are schools of thought that teach that reality doesn't really exist or that we can mould it to our whim as if in a dream. Take this as a foundation for your philosophy and it becomes impossible to develop a cohesive moral standard. How do you know how to treat others if they don't really exist except as props in your subconscious?
How can we advance human welfare if we willfully ignore the wisdom that has been painfully accumulated over millennia?
I see no reason to ignore wisdom, old or new. Again, you don't need to be religious to be moral. Neither do you need to look to religion to find examples of morality.
Khornet,
1st, just because something is an accident doesn't render it worthless. I believe the discovery of antibiotics was an accident.
What do you base your morality on if not something higher than man?
By higher than man, I'm gonna stick my neck out and label that God. Since we can't actually base our morals on God (he being all-powerful, we being not-so-all-powerful), then there must be a reason given to us by God to act a certain way. This is fear. Whether it be fear of eternal hellfire or of spending your next turn on 'the wheel' as a cockroach, religion uses fear to enforce morality.
I don't believe fear is necessary. Humans have the capacity to reason, to perceive their environment and to make choices based on their knowledge. Certainly today, we see many people who seem to have lost the ability to do any of that, but that doesn't mean the capacity isn't there.
A coupla sound bites from the essays I linked to earlier:
Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears.
If I die, the world doesn't cease to exist. Lucky for you guys.
Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.
This doen't mean that we'll ever know everything, only that we can learn about our world and apply that knowledge. It seems like a no brainer but Plato and Kant disagree.
Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.
In the essay, the word rational is italicized for emphasis.
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit.
This trading and mutual consent/benefit is not just for business, but for all aspects of life.
Thanks for your time.
