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

Okay, here's what I would say to David Friedman if I were debating him... [ http://www.daviddfriedman.com... ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Criticisms of Objectivism: 1) Existence as the ultimate value of all living beings. Pro's argument is that not all living beings value their existence. There are several flaws with this argument. First, the example regarding the praying mantis does not adequately uphold Pro's point. While it's true that a male praying mantis does risk cannibalism as a result of mating, this in no way proves that he does not value his own life. In fact, the very article Pro cited goes on to detail explicitly the various measures that these mantises take in order to avoid becoming a victim of hungry females. This would prove that they ultimately do value their own lives. Additionally, what Pro excluded from this example is the reason why mantises go on to risk being eaten for the sake of mating anyway. Since most other animals do not have sex for pleasure, we can see that these insects clearly engage in this type of risky behavior because they are biologically inclined to reproduce and further their species. This is one of the main concepts behind evolution in general. Since Rand's philosophy is mainly about protecting rights, she would probably argue that if praying mantises had rights - which they don't - then they would have the right to engage in this type of risky behavior if they felt so inclined. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand writes, "It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil." In other words, a non-living thing or one that does not exist cannot provide a sufficient determination between right and wrong. Because of this, existence IS in fact the ultimate value of all living things. Life makes values possible. Regardless of what values or ethics Pro would present as a basis for morality, the reality is that unless a living being existed to implement these values or benefit from them, then they would be completely useless. Thus sustaining life is the ultimate value to implement other ethics, and choosing good over evil as a means to live that life is obviously preferred. We can see again that the praying mantis example is flawed insofar as these insects' choices are biologically determined to perpetuate life - not destroy it. I'd argue that because human beings don't need to endure these types of risks for reproductive success, that this argument is therefore irrelevant. A re-cap quote: Because values derive from life, and because only particular living organisms exist, ethics is inherently egoistic. Values are survival needs; they are ends required by a particular entity for its survival. To sustain and further one's life, one must pursue and achieve one's own values. What is or is not to one's interest is not self-evident -- it must be determined by reference to his survival needs, which, in turn, are determined by the kind of entity he is. [1] 2) Life or death as the fundamental value choice. This is actually a horrible example in support of the resolution. My opponent proposes that if one chooses an action that promotes death over life, such as a utilitarian accepting death for the purpose of a greater good (or rather not having their own life as a motive for their goal), then this disproves Rand's overall theory. However, this would only be relevant if my opponent has proven that utilitarianism - or any other proposed values of thought - were superior to Rand's regarding the self. Pro has not. Instead, he points out that sustaining one's life may not be their goal. While this is certainly true, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the most ethical standard. Thus Rand's philosophy still applies. Pro attempts to defend this idea when he says that a utilitarian could easily argue Rand by pointing out that as a non-utilitarian, and by not acting in the way that maximizes human happiness, one is choosing a little misery. This is incredibly flawed logic. Obviously this example would only apply if maximizing human happiness in general involves maximizing one's self-happiness as well. For instance, as a business owner, I might be able to maximize happiness by raising my employee's salary. However, doing so might make me less happy, and as such, the utilitarian argument would not apply to my own misery and thus not successfully combat Rand's. 3) The shift from surviving by reason to Objectivist ethics. First, Pro suggests that an Objectivist would argue that stealing is wrong because you'd have to escape the crime of stealing. That is a complete fabrication of Objectivist beliefs and I have no idea where my opponent came up with that conclusion. Instead, an Objectivist would argue that a harmony of interests exists among rational individuals, so that no one's benefit need come at the price of another's suffering. Because one person's happiness does not come at the expense of another's, a life of mutual respect and benevolent independence is possible for all [2]. So, I have absolutely no idea where Pro is getting the idea about this so-called claim from a generalization. What claim? And what generalization? Also, what does fraud have to do with any of this? Additionally, Pro claims that Objectivists on this website wonder why one would avoid doing things like drugs. He then says that he doesn't believe that there is a right/wrong code of morality, and instead, that morality is subject to preference. There are several more problems with these claims. First, so-called Objectivists on this site are irrelevant to this debate. Second, I have an extremely difficult time believing that Objectivists would question your decision to avoid doing drugs let alone challenge it. The Objectivist position on drugs is that drug abuse is an immoral abdication of reason and profoundly self-destructive, though there is nothing about it demands the initiation of force against others. This is just one of many reasons why they feel that drug use shouldn't be illegal, but again, this seems irrelvant. That said, we move on to the issue of moral relativism vs. moral objectivism. Believing in moral objectivism does not necessarily mean that one particular action is always right or always wrong, so Pro's introductory argument about meta-ethics is wrong. It doesn't matter if other theories support objective morality or not. Instead, moral objectivism holds that values are part of the fabric of reality; that is, there is some actual state of the physical world that corresponds to a value judgment. Whether an action is right or not depends on the nature of that action. The moral choice in every situation is to uphold one's own values without infringing upon the rights of others. For instance, a hunger strike to prove a point or uphold one's values would be ethical, whereas a suicide bombing according to Rand would be wrong. You cannot destroy things that are not yours. Conclusion: Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it is not necessarily your existence, but rather the perpetuation of your values that is of utmost importance. That is why she believes it is okay to sacrifice your own life for something that you extremely value or believe in, which completely negates Pro's first and second arguments even further. His third and final argument can be dismantled simply by considering the true objectivist rationale in terms of morality, which holds that the purpose of morality is to define a code of values in support of one's life. Morality isn't subjective; values are subjective. You have to support your values in a moral way; that is, not infringing on other's rights. References: [1] http://www.noblesoul.com... [2] http://www.objectivistcenter.org...