Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem.

I've always wondered why there isn't any debates on the merit of Objectivism when we have several prominent members in support of it - hopefully this debate can peak the interests of some who are willing to do the same. ==================== Auxiliary Issues ==================== Ultimately, I agree with my opponent that this point is irrelevant to this debate due to the current status of the debate. In fact, this entire section was started because I saw an error in my opponent's elaboration of meta-ethics in relation to Objectivism; she states that only moral relativism was the other option than Objectivism. If this was her argument, then she could conceivably argue that if I reject Objectivism then I must support moral relativism (which I think we both agree is an incoherent ethical theory). I simply wanted to avoid a potential strategy such as that. Since that's clear, no further discussion is needed here. ==================== Criticisms of Objectivism : Existence as the Fundamental Value Choice ==================== My opponent's lengthy response here can basically be summarized along the following lines: my arguments are misconstrued because they fail to realize that Rand's argument is that the purpose of one's life is to perpetuate their values. She states that since I have committed such a grave misinterpretation of Rand's work, I am in err. And one would think rightly so if this was the case - which is why I'll demonstrate otherwise. I find it ironic that though my opponent accuses me of a strawman, she has in fact done the exact same thing upon me. You see, the focus of this debate and my argument is about the META-ETHICAL aspect of Objectivism. In other words, this particular argument is focused on her claim that life is the intrinsic value (again, refer back to value monism) and not so much of whether or not one should live entirely for themselves or their values. You see, I agree that Objectivism argues that the PURPOSE of one's life is to further their own values. However, what I am looking at is what reason do we have to believe that LIFE is the determinant and foundation of this stated dictum? Again, while my opponent is stuck in the area of normative theory I'm looking beyond that at meta-ethics. So here I'll just concede the arguments about the animals - simply because the purpose of bringing them up in the beginning was begot as the discussion shifted. They were supposed to highlight something about the meta-ethical aspect of Objectivism, but now there's no character limits to do it (but whatever, I'll allow this to be a mutual assumption anyway). ""Objectivists state that since one would need life to have values, then life must be the foundation for value - the ultimate value one could say. Even if we are to accept this reasoning (which is ludicrous in itself). .. " Hold on, Mr. Straw Man :) Why exactly is that ludicrous? You'll notice that Pro hasn't explained how or why that it is, but merely that it is, and as such is trying to sway the reader against Objectivism in a fallacious way. " ----> If you read carefully, I stated that I will assume this reasoning for the sake of my argument (about the connection between the necessity of life for rationality and how this supposedly creates a meta-ethical platform). So whether or not I agree with such a reasoning is irrelevant; I already gave this to you for the sake of argumentation. So take heed for this my main argument on which you actually touch upon: "Furthermore, my opponent continues to note that rationality should be regarded as the ultimate value instead of life. Clearly my response to this is an obvious one: You need to be ALIVE in order to be RATIONAL, so why wouldn't life be the ultimate value? " ----> And here is another embarrassing logical flaw of Objectivism. Let's translate your argument into a syllogism, and once you see how the premises connect then the illogical conclusion can be seen. Furthermore, if we take a reductio approach you'll see even more bizarre results: P1. Humans are rational beings. P2. Humans are living beings (at least the ones that are relevant to this discussion). P3. Humans need to be alive to be rational. :. Life is the ultimate value. There are two fatal flaws in this syllogism. First, it makes the non sequitur connection between the third premise and the conclusion - so what if life is necessary for rationality? Why would this mandate it to be an intrinsic value; why would it bear fruit to a coherent ethical theory? This glaring question is something Objectivists have failed to answer, let alone recognize. Furthermore, if we take that same formula then we come across ridiculous conclusions. Sure, life is necessary for rationality, but isn't there many things necessary for life? There are precise physical fundamentals (and the existence of reality furthermore) that need to be in place for life, so can't we say that physical laws/the existence of the universe are the meta-ethical standard Objectivism is based on? Of course not, that's ridiculous and yet it's a consequence of this thinking. ==================== Criticisms of Objectivism : Existence as the Fundamental Value Choice ==================== "Utilitarianism posits that moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility. If one acted contrary to this value, it would mean that their actions did not contribute to the overall good of society and there would be no way to use that as an argument FOR utilitarianism itself, so Pro's example is completely non-sensical. " ----> WHICH WAS MY EXACT POINT. If a utilitarian came up to you and said you were acting not in accord with the Principle of Utility, and thus this is evidence for Utilitarianism, you'd give a crazed look and ask him how he could conjure up such an incoherent idea. Which I would agree with. But now look at Rand - she is guilty of the exact same crime. She states, as do you, that if you act contrary to life being the intrinsic value that Objectivists adopt, then you are acting in a way that chooses a little death. A rational person would then ask. .. well so what? Yes I know that driving without my seat belt or taking cocaine is dangerous for me (a choice that picks a little death), but how would this amount to Rand's philosophy being coherent? IT DOESN'T! ==================== Criticisms of Objectivism : Reason and Objectivist Ethics ==================== It seems my opponent has failed to respond to me reasoning that since Objectivism is an ethical egoist theory, then I'd say that at it's core it will have to boil down to some idea of the social contract theory. In other words, what is immoral for Objectivists is that what threatens your life - and thus this mutual understanding bears fruit the idea of rights. What I stated is that this is gathering an absolute (rights) from a generalization (that certain acts will always end with a net loss on your part). Her reply to my example of rapists and sadists fails to highlight my point about the social contract theory that practically every ethical egoistic theory takes inspiration from. She states that what they do is immoral - but that begs the question, why? It was exactly my point to bring up an example of those whose happiness can be derived from others, since my opponent said OTHERWISE. And even if she brings up the point of rational egoism, there are many rapists and murders who are rational or absent of mental illnesses (unless she wants to make the extraordinary empirical claim that anyone who commits a heinous crime is mentally ill). ==================== Conclusion ==================== Objectivism is an entertaining philosophy, and one that many people should look into. However, ultimately at it's core is has too many embarrassing mistakes and errors for it to pass as a coherent ethical theory.