Objective Ethics: Manifesto

[dimar]

This Manifesto proclaims the universal principles of objective ethics.

Purpose and meaning of the activities of a free man is to maximize common good.

Common good is freedom from any determinism, both natural and social. Common good is achieved by cooperation of all free people. Everyone brings their own personal creative contribution to this common cause. Recognition of the contribution by others is the only objective source of its value.

Natural determinism is needs, threats and any limitations imposed by nature on man. This includes physical needs (favorable habitat conditions, including movement in space), biological (destruction of sources of fear, hunger, disease), psychological and cultural (satisfaction of curiosity, boredom, the need for variety, knowledge and beauty). Overcoming natural determinism requires changing the world.

Social determinism is any kind of violence, coercion, pressure and injustice, which may affect the creative result of a person. In the process of cooperation, free people, by consensus, develop formal rules that allow them to overcome social determinism. Consensus is reached on the basis of openness, trust and honest account of the interests and opinions of all people, each of which is the same party in common contract. Those reasonable people who deliberately withdraws from the contract are considered by others as part of the natural environment (natural determinism).

Formal rules govern the activities of people in the public sphere of society, which includes the interaction between strangers. Morality of personal relationships is informal and out of place in the public sphere. Free man draws a clear line between the spheres. He prohibits any conflicts of interest between personal and public. Personal sphere of everyone is completely closed to strangers.


Possible types of violence, prohibited by objective ethics:

1. Physical, both individual and collective (including violence of power and majority), including indirect (threats, orders, creating dangers to life and health).

2. Economic and financial:
- Fraud, cheating, theft, misappropriation;
- Exploitation, vandalism;
- Use of market power, unfair competition;
- Inequitable distribution of shared resources;
- Manipulation of value of money, speculations, shifting risks to others.

3. Informational:
- Deception;
- Distortion, imposition, withholding information;
- Overflow by information, ignoring, silencing;
- Generation of confusing terms and meanings;
- Imprinting brands, slogans and symbols.

4. Moral and ideological:
- Imposition of moral norms, traditions and customs;
- Evoking feelings of guilt and responsibility;
- Calls for a universal brotherly love, for sacrifice in the name of "thy neighbor";
- Indoctrination, brainwashing, subjection.

5. Psychological:
- Blackmail, harassment, molestation, intimidation;
- Reference to authority.

6. Emotional: the deliberate evocation of feelings of pity, shame, complicity, desire, sympathy, hatred, resentment.

7. Propagation of the morality of personal relationships to the public sphere:
- Corruption, collusion, bribery, kickbacks;
- Clanship, friendship, kinship and other personal relationships in public companies or institutions;
- Concealment, mutual service;
- Tips, handouts, rewards for "personal" service.

8. Group morality, the opposition of "friend or foe" and discrimination on this basis:
- Nationalism, racism, regionalism, patriotism;
- Ethnic and cultural bonds;
- Moral and religious superiority;
- Professional and class solidarity.


Free man is not only guided by the described principles, but he also looks for ways of their widespread practical implementation through education and promotion of non-violence and universal equitable social contract. The present manifesto serves this purpose.

Only ethics makes people free!

(source:  "Cult of Freedom & Ethics of Public Sphere")

 

[Rade]

This Manifesto proclaims the universal principles of objective ethics.

 

Purpose and meaning of the activities of a free man is to maximize common good.

 

 

I disagree with the first assumption of your manifesto, and no argument based on a false assumption can stand true. 

 

The categorical purpose of the activities of any human is to continue their own existence, e.g., their individual life is the standard of all moral values, and happiness is the moral purpose.  The actions that lead to happiness require freedom of volition.  Thus freedom is secondary to happiness which is secondary to life itself as an axiomatic given, truths held as being self evident: [ life, happiness, and liberty (freedom) ].  The concept of 'common good' is a contradiction in terms.  No rational objective ethics can be based on contradiction...see this link why a concept of  "common good' cannot serve as a proper code of values based on an objective ethic.

 

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/common_good.html

[CraigD]

I don’t think Ayn Rand’s statement about the common good to which you link, Rade,

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

is correct.

 

Some tyrannies, such as that of a slave owner of his slaves, aren’t necessarily justified as being for the common good of the slave owner and his slaves. Another, and perhaps more common, one is that the slaves are less human than the slave owner, and thus their good is of lower priority than that of the slave owner.

 

That said, I agree with you in disagreeing with Dimar’s manifesto’s assertion that the “purpose and meaning of the activities of a free man is to maximize common good.” I believe, much like many positivists of the Randian sort, that altruism is most rationally motivated by “enlightened self interest”. Rather than this moral drive seeking to “maximize the common good”, I think should seek to “maximize the good for every person”. If a simple numeric value could be assigned to “good”, I would say that, for the good for 2 people, A and B, an action resulting in

1) A=A+1, B=B+2

is preferable to once resulting in

2) A=A-1, B=B+5

even though the increase in “common”, “net”, or “total good” is greater for (2) than for (1). I also believe that a “zero sum” action resulting in

3) A=A-9, B=B+9

is less preferable than (1) or (2), even though it is in the greatest interest of B.

[Rade]

I don’t think Ayn Rand’s statement about the common good to which you link, Rade,

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

is correct.

 

Some tyrannies, such as that of a slave owner of his slaves, aren’t necessarily justified as being for the common good of the slave owner and his slaves. Another, and perhaps more common, one is that the slaves are less human than the slave owner, and thus their good is of lower priority than that of the slave owner.

 

That said, I agree with you in disagreeing with Dimar’s manifesto’s assertion that the “purpose and meaning of the activities of a free man is to maximize common good.” I believe, much like many positivists of the Randian sort, that altruism is most rationally motivated by “enlightened self interest”. Rather than this moral drive seeking to “maximize the common good”, I think should seek to “maximize the good for every person”. If a simple numeric value could be assigned to “good”, I would say that, for the good for 2 people, A and B, an action resulting in

1) A=A+1, B=B+2

is preferable to once resulting in

2) A=A-1, B=B+5

even though the increase in “common”, “net”, or “total good” is greater for (2) than for (1). I also believe that a “zero sum” action resulting in

3) A=A-9, B=B+9

is less preferable than (1) or (2), even though it is in the greatest interest of B.

 

Hello,

 

Here is how Rand defined concept of tyranny:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tyranny.html

 

So, I'm not sure Rand would define the slave owner-slave relationship as a political system, which is how she defines an action of tyranny ?  But this is a minor point. 

 

In the link I gave above, Rand defines the literal concept of 'common good' as the sum of the good of all individuals for any circumstance under consideration.  In this way, I think Rand would agree with you that common good for a social group could be quantified using mathematics.   I also think Rand would agree with your example #1: A=A+1, B=B+2 as a proper goal for a rational good for a group of two humans, the important point being that it is never proper for any individual to have a (-) negative goodness value.   As in your example, what is good or proper for the life of the rational human B may well be 100% greater in goodness value (#2) than what is proper for the life of rational human A (#1).  Some folks are more happy than others, more good than others.   If correct, this raises the interesting possibility that the overall goodness, or happiness, of social groups could be mathematically quantified, with a goal never to have any (-) negative goodness values for any individual in the group, and thus the identification of such (-) individuals becomes a goal to achieve the 'common good' for the group following an objective ethic ?  

[Buffy]

I've always believed that the whole reason that social groupings as a natural and programmed genetic trait of higher species evolved precisely because--as Craig's preferred math above would indicate--that there is a benefit to the individual gained by supporting the "common good." There are efficiencies and economies of scale as social cooperation increases.

 

There are endless examples of this in social groups ranging from bee colonies to humans having arguments about healthcare, all showing that cooperation leads to survival of the individual due to cooperation with the group.

 

Rand would probably rail at the tyranny of the Queen Bee, but quite frankly a worker bee wouldn't last long after leaving the hive.

 

The fact that we argue about this in human society though is due to two key elements:

• When we talk about individualism, and throwing off tyranny, it's never as absolute as a worker bee leaving the hive: those individuals rarely are really talking about leaving society completely, just changing the ruler, while they still go about benefiting from the other 95% of being a member of a group that they don't really want to throw off.
• In a society where individuals do have an ability to operate somewhat independently (unlike a worker bee), The Prisoner's Dilemma can provide significant apparent advantages for the individual by not cooperating. In healthcare, it's easy for individuals to see how they can benefit from "throwing off the tyranny of Obamacare" even though every individual would benefit from lower insurance rates if every individual contributed to the common good of an enforced insurance pool.

 

It always seems so beneficial to "opt out of society" when there are specific costs, but people rarely really mean, "leave the hive altogether" and that's the real rub in the theory, but it does explain the motivation to avoid cooperation when it's inconvenient.

 

 

This sounds like what a bully might say. This person might care more about themself then other people. She wants to be free from rules, :phones:

Buffy

[dimar]

I disagree with the first assumption of your manifesto, and no argument based on a false assumption can stand true. 

 

The categorical purpose of the activities of any human is to continue their own existence, e.g., their individual life is the standard of all moral values, and happiness is the moral purpose.  The actions that lead to happiness require freedom of volition.  Thus freedom is secondary to happiness which is secondary to life itself as an axiomatic given, truths held as being self evident: [ life, happiness, and liberty (freedom) ].

 

This approach makes human equal to animal. All actions of such an animal are deterministic and do not require any freedom at all (other than "a freedom" to kill/force/exploit others, which is not freedom in any meaningful sense).

That said, nobody is required to agree with the manifesto. To be free or to be a rational animal is a free choice. But keep in mind that you have to make this choice only once because afterwards nobody will believe you (just kidding).

[pgrmdave]

This approach makes human equal to animal. All actions of such an animal are deterministic...

 

Are you saying that people aren't deterministic? Or that we're not animals?

[dimar]

Are you saying that people aren't deterministic? Or that we're not animals?

Exactly. Freedom and ethics are what makes people different.

[pgrmdave]

Exactly. Freedom and ethics are what makes people different.

This is where I have to disagree then - I don't think that there is any physical evidence for free will, and ethics are just acceptable vs unacceptable behaviors within a society - something many animals (including humans) have.