Meta-Ethics
-
Q&A: Explaining Egoistic Benevolence: 22 Dec 2013, Question 1
-
Question: How can we better explain how helping others can be egoistic? In your October 7, 2013 radio show, you observed that people often don't understand how acting kindly and generously towards friends is self-interested. Instead, they think that being benevolent toward anyone is "other-regarding" and hence, altruistic. How can we egoists untangle this seeming conflict for people?
Tags: Altruism, Benevolence, Communication, Egoism, Ethics, Manipulation, Meta-Ethics, Predation, Relationships, Sacrifice, Self-Interest, Self-Sacrifice
-
Q&A: Choosing an Ultimate End: 29 Sep 2013, Question 2
-
Question: Can a person choose an ultimate value other than his own life? Ayn Rand claims that each person's life is his own ultimate value. Similarly, Aristotle says that each person's final end is his own flourishing or well-being. Does that mean that a person cannot have a different ultimate value or final end? Or just that they should not?
Tags: Aristotle, Ethics, Life, Meta-Ethics, Objectivism, Values
-
Q&A: Aristotle on the Final End: 30 Jun 2013, Question 1
-
Question: Is Aristotle's argument for flourishing as the final end valid? In the "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle argues that flourishing (or happiness) is the proper final end. What is that argument? Does it have merit? How does it differ from Ayn Rand's argument for life as the standard of value?
Tags: Aristotle, Ethics, Flourishing, Happiness, Hedonism, Meta-Ethics, Objectivism
-
Q&A: The Meaning of Life as the Standard of Value: 16 Jun 2013, Question 1
-
Question: What does it mean to say that life is the standard of value? In "The Objectivist Ethics," Ayn Rand says that man's life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Does that mean mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying?
Tags: Egoism, Ethics, Flourishing, Life, Meta-Ethics, Objectivism, Philosophy, Self-Interest, Survival, Values
-
Q&A: The Reality of Mental Illness: 21 Apr 2013, Question 1
-
Question: Is mental illness nothing more than a myth? It seems that many members of the free-market movement are enthused about the theory, promulgated by the likes of Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey A. Schaler, that there is no such thing as mental illness. They say that if one cannot pinpoint a direct physiological cause for behavior considered "mentally ill," there are no grounds for referring to that behavior as a symptom of some "illness." Furthermore, they argue that the concept of "mental illness" is simply a term that the social establishment uses to stigmatize nonconformist behavior of which it does not approve. Is there anything to these claims? If not, what's the proper understanding of the basic nature of mental illness?
Tags: Ethics, Health, Mental Health, Mental Illness, Meta-Ethics, Philosophy, Psychology, Relativism, Subconscious, Subjectivism
-
Q&A: Living Longer: 14 Apr 2013, Question 4
-
Question: Should a life-loving person always wish to live longer? Suppose that a person was offered some medical therapy that would extend his life by 10 or 20 years, while preserving or even improving health. Would a life-loving person always choose to do that, assuming that he could afford it? Would refusing that therapy constitute a kind of passive suicide, perhaps even on par with that of a drug addict? In other words, assuming good health and no personal tragedies, might a life-loving person not wish to live any longer?
Tags: Death, Ethics, Life, Meta-Ethics, Motivation, Values
-
Q&A: The Is-Ought Gap: 7 Apr 2013, Question 2
-
Question: What is the solution to the is-ought problem? David Hume famously claimed that statements about what ought to be cannot be derived from statements about what is the case. Does that mean that ethics is impossible? Can the gap be bridged, and if so, how?
Tags: David Hume, Ethics, Meta-Ethics, Objectivism