Talk:Objectivist ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] This article is unbalanced
Pursuant to WP:NPOV, articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, the "Criticism" section presents nothing more than straw-man arguments. Moreover, the authors of the section conduct original research in a veiled attempt to refute these arguments (the works they cite do not directly address the criticisms themselves, they are applied to the criticisms by the editors); a fact that violates both WP:V and WP:NPOV. The Criticism section needs to be completely rewritten to incorporate the criticisms of objectivist ethics in a neutral way.
- I think the fundamental problem with this article is a lack of verification. If the content was sourced, the OR would naturally fall away (in the sense that it is easier for editors to correct mistakes in writing than guess what the aim of the original contribution was). I suspect that too much effort, albeit made in good-faith, was made to present Objectivist ethics using original wording. I could be dead wrong, but the article *is* heavily soaked in OR. Karbinski 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Purpose of ethics
The criticism section says "In the Objectivist argument, it is simply assumed that the purpose of ethics is to preserve one's status as a human being..." but that's not what Rand says the purpose of ethics is. Rand says "'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness." and "Happiness is thus appropriately described as the goal or purpose of ethical conduct..." So, apparently someone needs to work on that criticism. RJII 04:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC) I just noticed it says the same erroneous thing in the Values section. RJII 05:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] EAmergency Situations
If we're going to bring in "emergency situations" in general, we ought to talk about lifeboats, and the fact that AR didn't want to talk about lifeboats, but did talk about the act of talking about them, so to speak. This is somewhat different from the gun-to-head hypotheticals quoted so far in this section. --Christofurio 15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you reference the essay to which you are refering? Crazynas 08:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, includes an essay, p. 47, called "The Ethics of Emergencies." The lifeboat question appears on p. 49 -- what should two good people do if they're on a sinking ship and the only lifeboat has room for only one? Shouldn't somebody be self-sacrificing in that situation? Her answer is to refuse to answer. --Christofurio 15:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Rand did give an answer "lifeboat situations" elsewhere. LaszloWalrus 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention, many of those hypothetical situations assume knowledge of the future such as (you know the boat will sink if more than one of you boards it), which would never occur anywhere but in the hypothetical. These forethought issues are typically the ones that make the morality hard to gauge, but they're unrealistic and sitting on a floating premise -- that one knows the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.204.19 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
