| | Here's some "Rand" on that:
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness ... Or, the good (i.e., the valuable) doesn't reside in man's conscious desires, and
A psychological subjectivist is unable fully to identify his values or to prove their objective validity, but he may be profoundly consistent and loyal to them in practice (though with terrible psycho-epistemological difficulty). Or, consistently and loyally chasing after conscious desires is not necessarily moral, and
... one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Or, valuing (for man) is a mental capacity -- rather than a physical act, and
Values cannot exist (cannot be valued) outside the full context of a man's life, needs, goals, and knowledge. Or, you can't value outside of a full context, and
Since values are determined by the nature of reality, it is reality that serves as men's ultimate arbiter: if a man's judgment is right, the rewards are his; if it is wrong, he is his only victim. Or, genuine human values require accurate mental judgment, and
Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it "arbitrary postulate" or "subjective choice" or "emotional commitment")— ... Or, emotional commitments and personal choices aren't necessarily (human) values, and
The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, "intuitions," or whims, and that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment." Or, values aren't the product of man's consciousness, and aren't created by feelings, or desires, or emotional commitments, and
Ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or a whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, ... Or, desires aren't primary to morality, and
The subjectivist theory of ethics is, strictly speaking, not a theory, but a negation of ethics. And more: it is a negation of reality, a negation not merely of man's existence, but of all existence. Only the concept of a fluid, plastic, indeterminate, Heraclitean universe could permit anyone to think or to preach that man needs no objective principles of action—that reality gives him a blank check on values ... Or, reality doesn't give blank checks on personal values, subjective valuing being a negation of the field of ethics, itself.
Excerpts from:
http://aynrandlexicon.com
[under: "Objective Theory of Values", "Subjectivism (Psychological)", "Subjectivism (Ethical)", and possibly one other search term, I forget]
Ed
|
|
