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

[ Introduction and Auxiliary Issues ] To clarify, obviously I acknowledge that there are other belief systems that are subject to objective morality. I apologize if my opponent thought I was saying that the only opposition to Objectivism was Relativism. I agree that since this meaningless issue has been cleared up, we can move on to the contentions at hand. I'd like to thank TheSkeptic for the fun debate; I wish philosophy were discussed here more often. [ Contentions ] 1. Existence as a Fundamental Value Pro begins by stating that I am stuck in the area of normative theory, while he is looking beyond that at meta-ethics. To clarify for the reader, normative ethics deals with what one ought to do, while meta-ethics is concerned with what is good. I've already explained my reasoning but will once more, by quoting Rand herself who addresses the issues that Pro has raised head-on in her work The Virtue of Selfishness: "It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of "value" is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of "life." To speak of "value" as apart from "life" is worse than a contradiction in terms. "It is only the concept of ‘Life' that makes the concept of ‘Value' possible." In answer to those who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between "is" and "ought." 2. Logic Syllogism Pro next introduces a syllogism which he claims to be false, and it is. The problem is that Pro completely misrepresented what the actual syllogism would look like thereby straw-manning the argument. He presented one that was disarranged and more importantly incomplete. The real, valid one of my argument would look like this: 1. Humans are living beings. 2. Humans are rational beings. 3. Humans need to be living in order to be rational. 4. Life is an end in itself (a value gained and kept by a constant process of action). 5. Rational living beings have values. 6. The concept of values are derived from the concept of life (life makes values possible). :. Life is the ultimate value. It's very easy for Pro to scrutinize the syllogism which he himself has created; he only had to provide a flawed one in order to accomplish this manipulative feat. He asks, "So what if life is necessary for rationality?" My 5th premise answers that, as does my 6th and my conclusion. So you see, Pro's insistence that "Objectivists" i.e. him and/or the people he stole his arguments from online are merely picking and choosing which aspects of Objectivism they'd like to critique without seeing that Rand herself actually addresses all of these issues (see quote). 3. Physical Laws and Meta-Ethics To some degree, I would have to say that the physical laws of nature do play some part in meta-ethics. Rand definitely believed in obeying one's nature, but that does not imply merely obeying for the sake of being a slave to something beyond oneself. One isn't a pawn in a cosmic game of evolutionary progression, nor in the effective "spreading of genes." Rather, one obeys ones nature precisely because one is an individual, who has his own life to lead, and because one needs to know how to live it. Hence the expression, "Nature: to obey, so as to be commanded." One Objectivist puts it, "The point of obeying one's nature is in understanding what it means to live qua man. It means, "Since I am a man, I can only live as a man. I can't photosynthesize, and I certainly don't have any instinctual method of survival." This investigation leads one to discover that man has a central capacity - reason - which can be applied in a certain manner - towards production (of live-serving values) - as well as a central purpose which gives purpose to all of that acting - happiness/flourishing/etc. [1] 4. Moot Point Pro then writes that Objectivism is non-sensical giving a horrible example/explanation in noting, "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!" Actually, good sir, this is absolutely in line with Rand's philosophy. As I have already pointed out in R1, Rand would argue that doing drugs IS unethical (and just not worth prosecuting). I'm sure she'd feel the same way about not wearing a seat belt. So, what exactly is your point here?! Whether or not you agree with Rand's philosophy certainly doesn't make it incoherent. I see nothing but consistency here. 5. Reason and Objectivist Ethics Pro says that Objectivism was essentially the Social Contract Theory. That could not be more wrong. The SCT implies that people give up rights to maintain a social order. With Objectivism, you are your own island, and you never relinquish any of your rights to anyone. An Objectivist is in full control of all of their rights, and thus this is completely in contrast with the SCT and Pro's point. Also, I've already illustrated how Pro's point about rapists is irrelevant. Objectivism implies that it is a moral system that is applicable and enacted by rational minds. A rapist or murderer does not have a rational mind; they are parasites in need of others, and have severe, brain alterings from the norm that result in mental illness. Ayn Rand addresses this directly in her book The Fountainhead with the main disabled villain - Toohey. [ Conclusion ] Pro concludes with saying that Objectivism is a philosophy riddled with embarrassing mistakes. I think what's embarrassing is trying to argue Objectivism without understanding (probably not even reading) Ayn Rand, and resorting to faulty online critiques from novice philosophers instead, as Pro has resorted to in this debate. Also, note that the objective of this debate was to examine Objectivism in relation to the is-ought problem - not the philosophy itself. Pro wandered completely off topic in failing to explain how Objectivism didn't adequately answer Hume's silly "problem." So, let's re-cap. The is-ought problem identifies the central problem in morality as being a choice. It essentially says that man is capable of choosing a lot of things, but that there is no justifying reason that compels him to any specific action. Objectivism counters that by saying "choice" is not the central concern here - life is. Ayn Rand takes note from Aristotle in pointing out that eventually all choices trace back to one essential choice - the choice to live. One cannot escape this choice; it's a choice which is inherently made when one chooses to act. Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff notes that choosing to die is simply to cease action. In other words, the fact that you exist (is) determines what you (ought) to do in consideration with Objectivist values of rights, and how morality pertains to those rights. As such, Objectivism provides an answer to the so-called is-ought problem and thus the resolution has been negated. [ References ] [1] http://forum.objectivismonline.net...