Objectivism 101

Lesson 4: Rational Ethics

Value-based judgments

Perhaps the single issue which, to my observation, presents difficulties to the person studying Objectivism for the first time, is the fact that Objectivist ethics is value-based and contextual.

Most of the other moral systems which we see are action-based (instead of value-based) and absolutist (instead of contextual). One obvious example of an action-based, absolutist morality would be the Ten Commandments. Take the following statement :

Thou shalt not kill.

This is a simple statement of morality. It states a category of action which should not be done : it is action-based. Furthermore, this commandment does not have a context : it is absolutist.

We object to such statements on the grounds that moral statements are :

contextual - A moral statement cannot classify a category of actions as "good" or "evil" regardless of context. Because the result of actions changes depending on the context, any category of actions is good or evil in certain contexts. What is absolute is the hierarchy of values, not the category of actions (i.e. "nutrition" is a very important value, but an action involving "eating" is not always good).

value-based - A moral statement must be based on values, or reflect an evaluation based on these values. Categories of actions cannot be "good" or "evil" because this evaluation depends on the context. It is the context that gives rise to the values which we must evaluate.

Any value-based statement must necessarily be contextual.

To put this back in our example, we can imagine a situation where killing is good. For example, defending yourself against someone who is about to shoot you. The case of self-defense is one where a higher value (one's own survival) is gained, and therefore the action is generally good.

Theologians try to weasel out of this by claiming that self-defense is not "killing". Fine. Their ad hoc gyrations do not concern us here. The important point is that the statement I quoted above is an example not to follow.

To make sure that your statements are in accordance with the principle of contextuality, do not use statements such as "killing is evil" or "thinking rationally is good". At least use modifiers such as "generally", such as in the sentence I wrote above :

"The case of self-defense is one where a higher value (one's own survival) is gained, and therefore the action is generally good".

If a precise context is being discussed, then use it. Here is an example :

"Here is the context I am referring to. You are walking in a dark alley when a complete stranger seizes you from behind and puts a knife to your throat, threatening to kill you. In such a situation, shooting him would yield a positive value (survival) and no negative values (apart from the possible small risk of retaliation). Therefore, in such a situation, self-defense is good".

Morality is not an easy subject, nor it is easy to apply. Yes, its principles are relatively simple, but the combinations of values are virtually limitless. There is no "easy formula". So do not fall into the trap of the "easy formula".

On the contextuality of the application of values, see O:PAR (last paragraph of p274 to p276).

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7