” First, if there are no presupposed norms, then the question “why should there be norms?” is meaningless, as the word “should” requires some moral standard, so the answer to your question is that there must be norms so that your question can be meaningful. ”

This is a rather poor answer as it presupposes that “moral standard” as I use it and “norms” as you do are one an the same. I am sorry to say that they are not.

My question does not require “norms” to exist in order to be answered. On the other hand, it requires a moral code which then serves the purpose of helping the individual establish “norms”. The cause is the moral code. The effect is the “norms”.

” Second, there “should” be ownership because it is a prerequisite to argument. ”

Absolutely meaningless. Ownership is not a prerequisite to argument (and this is the fundamental error of AE) . All I need to enter an argument is to choose argument over a club. This choice requires an entity with a volitional consciousness actively valuing different options on a scale of values. All the entity needs to do is to understand the outcomes of the two options using reason, value one outcome over another and hence choose a particular course of action. “Ownership” does not come in anywhere in this.

” I challenge you to show me a concept that is wholly unrelated to action. ”

This is too simple. I’ll give you 3 – “Existence”, “Identity”, “Consciousness”

And here is a challenge thrown back at you. I challenge you to show how “preference” is not preceded by “valuation” and how demonstrating a preference is not expressing one’s valuations. I also challenge you to show how “preference” is possible without valuation. In continuation, I challenge you to show how valuation is possible without a rational entity with a volitional consciousness engaging in the valuation. I challenge you to show how such a valuation is possible without a standard of value.

” Similarly, I challenge you to show the distinction between “norms” crafted by a single reasoning person and a mere systematizing and refining of that person’s preferences ”

This is even simpler. I would respond by saying that there isn’t any such distinction. In fact, I would go on to say that absent “preference”, argumentation is impossible. However, my counter challenge to you remains the same.

” You are guilty of overrating individual reason and deifying it. ”

I am only saying that reason is man’s ONLY means of “knowing”. I am also saying that “reason” is what makes valuation and an ethical code possible. Finally, I am also saying that choosing argumentation over the club is made possible by reason and nothing else. If that’s “deifying”……

” Your entire philosophy requires that there be another motive for action than personal preference, yet you have not provided such a motive. ”

It does not. It all starts with choice. To choose is to prefer. So, your repeated questioning on the illusory alternate motive is rather pointless.

” Unless you can explain how man can act contrary to his preference, ”

Why should I? I see no reason to do so. Your repeated insistence does not make it necessary.

That apart, this question is as meaningless as it can get. Action follows choice. To choose is to prefer. (And taking that a couple of steps further, to prefer is to value. To value is to use a standard of value). So, to ask for action that contradicts preference is a self-contradiction. I wonder what your motive is in insisting on this.

Sorry about the break. Was on a short vacation. Had a few thoughts while I was driving.

” I’ll not bother trying to correct all of your multitudinous errors, but just focus on one of the big ones. ”

It is not a good technique of argumentation to claim that there are many mistakes. That would be smearing.

” Your fundamental problem is that your philosophy requires a motive for action other than personal preference. ”

I see a more fundamental problem with your approach. “Preference” is something possible only to a conscious being that has engaged in prior valuation. No “preference’ is possible unless there is a pre-existing hierarchy of values including a standard of value.

A code of ethics is a hierarchy of values guiding man’s actions in the face of choices. in simple terms, it is the framework that makes “preference” possible.

” You have not provided any alternative motive ”

I don’t see why I should. You are the one insisting on the “alternative motive”. My code of ethics takes my own life as the standard of value. As per this code, that is sufficient for this code of ethics to be applied.

That said, I fail to understand why a moral/ethical code should have anything other than the life of the individual himself as the standard of value. Are you saying that ethical codes originate outside the individual? I suspect you would because that corroborates your statement that “norms” evolve from argument.

” Your moral philosophy without such an alternative motive boils down to this: if man acts wisely, he benefits, and if he acts stupidly, he suffers, so man should act wisely. ”

This is a highly unintelligent way of phrasing it. The way you have worded it, it is as though what is “wise” is known before-hand. That is precisely the point of a code of ethics – to help man “know” what is “wise” an what isn’t. “Stupid” and “Wise” can be known only with the use of a proper moral code. Logic can only tell you which actions will lead to which consequences. It cannot help you differentiate the “desirable” from the “undesirable”. That requires a living entity that has a code of values a.k.a. an ethical code.

” as it is impossible for man to consciously act contrary to it. ”

This condition of yours makes no sense. If you subscribe to a moral code, you can’t be violating it simultaneously. Your statement indicates that you want an ethical code to permit having your cake and eating it too.

=

Randian

Your questions should be switched: why should there be “norms”? why should there be “ownership”?

First, if there are no presupposed norms, then the question “why should there be norms?” is meaningless, as the word “should” requires some moral standard, so the answer to your question is that there must be norms so that your question can be meaningful. Of course, your question doesn’t have to be meaningful; likewise, norms do not have to exist.

Second, there “should” be ownership because it is a prerequisite to argument. If we want to argue, we must assume the existence of ownership. Again, we don’t have to argue, and so ownership does not have to exist.

I challenge you to show me a concept that is wholly unrelated to action.

Similarly, I challenge you to show the distinction between “norms” crafted by a single reasoning person and a mere systematizing and refining of that person’s preferences.

You are guilty of overrating individual reason and deifying it. Your entire philosophy requires that there be another motive for action than personal preference, yet you have not provided such a motive. Unless you can explain how man can act contrary to his preference, you have no leg to stand on.

I’ll not bother trying to correct all of your multitudinous errors, but just focus on one of the big ones.

Your fundamental problem is that your philosophy requires a motive for action other than personal preference. You have not provided any alternative motive; in fact you cannot provide such a motive. Your moral philosophy without such an alternative motive boils down to this: if man acts wisely, he benefits, and if he acts stupidly, he suffers, so man should act wisely. This is not a moral code, as it is impossible for man to consciously act contrary to it. He may act stupidly, but his intention is always to act in that way which seems most wise to him.

Note: personal preference is not necessarily the same as whim–it may be supremely thought out or wholly un-thought out. Which is preferable is up to the individual.

…until it fixes itself before my eyes.

“A cow does not own itself because it is not demonstrably capable of understanding the concept of ownership, as it has not developed a *language* to convey this information.”

Confirmation of a suspicion that you don’t know cow *language*.

“I liked that a lot. Dogs know when they are owned by a human or another dog or when they own themselves.

Indeed, just like all other concepts, property is a creation of man’s mind. However, unless a concept manifests physically, it is objectively meaningless. Concepts manifest physically through human action. As I have said above, you may create whatever theories you like about things which only exist in your mind, but these have no bearing on physical reality.

This is most puerile. It is not “action” but man’s rational faculty, his power of reason that developed the concept “property”. Your failure to recognise this is at the root of your inability to reject AE for the nonsense it is.

Why should there be “ownership”? Why should there be “norms”? All you have shown is an arbitrary choice of trying to employ argumentation to identify norms.

That apart, all “norms” are concepts. All “concepts” are formed in the human mind. They do not exist in a floating consciousness. “Concepts” are formed in the human mind by applying reason to the material provided by the senses (I challenge you to show another way by which man forms concepts).

So, all “norms” exist as “concepts” in the human mind and nowhere else. It is nor argumentation that produces he norms but the human mind. Argumentation is just a tool to sharpen one’s reasoning by using the rational faculty of more than 1 human being.

You are guilty of overrating argumentation and deifying it.

” This means nothing at all, it is not a property right that makes argumentation possible, it is existence that does that. ”

You wouldn’t believe how many months I have been trying to drive this point through. Nice to see someone on this forum who sees things this way. I though I was in a small minority that thought AE is puerile. No more so. Thanks.