Firstly, the accusation that I have attacked "objective morality" in that post (even though you may mean by extension) is unfitting. I did not even mention "objective morality"; and my eschewal of it is no more an "attack" than is my failure to mention the Loch Ness Monster. I simply did not see how either one informed my points about the ability people have to rationalize their interests in their interpretation of value.
Truly, I do not even know precisely what you mean by the term. Do you mean that every act has an attached and certain value which defines it independently of the interests, interpretations, and subjective points of view of human beings? If so: to suggest that the moral values which we embrace from time to time ought not to reflect human interests and concerns, and social and cultural mores, is to suggest that we are neither subjective nor distinctive--a suggestion which would strike me as both provocative and baseless.
As to your suggestion that people consciously act against moral values they hold...it may be that we have tangled up the premises somehow--as we sometimes do. Do you remember my repeated comments in this regard. I said (for instance): "Although I may very likely do things that I know YOU think are wrong. I will not do things that I have not justified for myself as the right actions to take under the circumstances of the moment."
People are not fixed in opinion or judgement or circumstance. If we were, then all learning would be a mockery and a pretence. Our assessment of the "right" thing to do is relative to the circumstance of the moment, and it involves the assessment of subjective perceptions and "facts", and the weighing and balancing of various strands of oughts and ought-nots.
As I said, the act justifies itself at that moment. There is no perfect (or objective) course of action. People WILL to choose the course of action which is least undesirable from their relative and subjective point of view. They discard an infinite number of alternative acts which were more undesirable. A choice is clearly the synthesis of many disparate (and sometimes incompatible) motives of value.
The existentialists call this need to decide...ANGUISH. And they admit that acts may be taken in "bad faith"--but this is a different concept than what you are advancing.
At each moment in time, it becomes necessary (if we are to act) to prioritize all the factors which inform our self interest and our goals of freedom, happiness, and the power to run our life (which as Rand suggests is our preeminent value), and to act to create our essence and our being. The synthesis at the time informs the predominant ethic. The fact that some or many tentative "values" may be conflicted does not give truth to your assertion that the person is acting against his own moral values. He is simply prorating and synthesizing them to advance his most fundamental values of pursuing happiness, freedom, power, and LIFE. When the act is justified it is a synthesis and accounting of many elements of thought and motive--but always (except for suicide) an attempt at the furtherance of the essential moral value of the person's LIFE.
The nature of human existence is such, that for most people to (successfully) pursue the goals of freedom, happiness, and power requires an abundance of good will and co-operation amongst and between people. Most people thus operate within certain essential moral parameters which are necessary to the natural mutual fulfilment of human needs.
All societies create rules and regulations and behavioural expectations in order to preserve the order of the system and to provide the framework and structure most conducive to their particular group identify and overall group goals. For the individual to survive (and hopefully to flourish) within that social grouping requires he adopt natural values which emphasize good will, willingness to assist, loyalty against "outsiders", obedience to authority, and so forth. There is nothing mysterious about any of this, and there is no need to appeal to fancies of the unknown and unknowable.
I am sorry, but I will not be able to respond until Tuesday when I will be here for a few hours if you wanna yak about this, Tim... |
