Value in and of itself always must be evaluated against an alternative - even if it is a standard. Value inherently is comparison and comparison can not exist with only one thing. A goal is nothing more than the conceptual idea of a present state and a future state. So even if they are visualizations, they constitute two separate and distinct states against which comparison and valuation may take place.

Philosophy is all about goals and ideals: what should be (a goal) and what presently exists. Time is merely a measurement for discerning different states of the same being or object - one being a present incarnation and another being a future possibility. But without a future possibility, there is no progress - no movement away from present towards future. Stasis. Standards are all about goals and the process of goal attainment.

No, it depends on identifying conceptually the proper standard for what is of value to the individual, not hedonism, Pragmatism, Utilitarianism, etc.

But that was the point of the post - not to rehash what others have said but to contribute ourselves. I've read the essay and I'm not interested in rehashing what others have said - anyone can do that. Thinking is an individual effort. We can use what others have said to bolster our own arguments, but we first must start with our own arguments!

If it doesn't accomplish something of value to the individual, it isn't worth pursuing, wouldn't you agree?

And through examining the goal of a philosophy or morality - just as you point out with Kant - we can learn much about the philosophy itself. But having no end goal is just as telling as having the goal to dominate all other people on the planet.

The biggest problem is in how humans define rational behavior. We approach the subject of animal intelligence with distinct prejudices. As animals that derive over 70% of our information visually, we tend to place much higher requirements for other animals to demonstrate perception and reaction on visual cues. For a canine that relies on its sense of smell for most of its perception, with the visual element a lesser player, our examinations of behavior are automatically prejudiced. For creatures that rely more on audible perception, such as porpoises, we only have a dim understanding of their perception-action cycle.

There also seems to be an element of fear in our assessments of animal intelligence. For some, it's an irrational fear that somehow recognizing more commonality with other animals makes us less human. For others, it's the unwillingness to accept the possibility that we eat creatures able to perceive their fate.

Science, which is supposedly in the wheelhouse of Objectivists, continues to disclose information about animal ability to discover, reason, and consciously act. Some of those discoveries can be unsettling, as in recognizing that animals lower on what we think of as the intelligence scale can have surprisingly sophisticated behaviors. Prairie dogs have a complex language developed as a survival defense. An octopus can solve problems with locking mechanisms faster than some humans. A variety of animals demonstrate the ability to develop problem solving skills independently and teach the next generation how to apply those skills. Simply waving off those accomplishments as instinctive, and declaring the same behavior in humans as different without sound scientific evidence doesn't seem very objective to me.

You can examine it to see what it accomplishes, but moral codes often are not framed that way about themselves. In particular the duty ethics of Kant says to do it because it's your duty, for no ends. What that "accomplishes" is destruction consisting of suspension of reason and causality and the obliteration of morality and its role and necessity in human life.

"Don't bother to examine a folly — ask yourself only what it accomplishes".

I had no intention of misconstruction. I was simply trying to be very clear. Hidden in the concept of morality are three other words that travel with it. They are, of course, moral, value, and principle. I can not do nearly as good a job discussing this as can David Kelly. Please see the essay below posted by khalling.

That way those who post here might learn what Objectivism is all about and that what they have heard and believed might need some rethinking. It might even clear up the issue of open and closed Objectivism. I happen to be for open Objectivism but do enjoy Peikoff's works I especially liked "The Ominous Parallels" but can see that that might not go over well with the more religious of the Conservatives who might post here. I am reading DIM but, not being a philosopher, I am finding it boring.

only if you assume resources are a zero sum or scarcity. Invention makes that moot. 1st world will invent, 2nd then 3rd world adopts (really steals) invention that is a game changer. Think Peak guano, peak whale oil, etc...

I'm glad you appreciate them. :)

You have misconstrued my argument. There is "morality" ( a noun meaning any particular set of principles as embodied in a philosophy) and then there is "moral" (an adjective describing one's evaluation of any particular principle or over-arching philosophy as adhering to some defined standard). To evaluate something as being "moral", you are simply saying that according to one's personal belief system, such-and-such action furthers the goal of a particular morality. A Fascist will hold that his acts are entirely "moral" from his viewpoint, as will any other philosopher! The only way to really start objectively evaluating any philosophy or moral system is to first identify the end goal of such (collectively or individually) and then determine what specific policies and principles will best further attainment of that goal.

Now one of the principles used by those in this forum is the principle of logical derivation and we hold that this is an integral part of a true philosophy. To that end, we evaluate various competing philosophies and principles according to whether or not they are logically valid and logically sound, but we must recognize that we are making these evaluations through the lens of logic as a cardinal principle.

"Being moral is a choice made by individual humans, not groups, tribes, or cults."

"Being moral" is not the issue at all and I am not implying that choices are made collectively. I am pointing out that anyone can claim that their philosophy is "moral". It is a meaningless statement until one has first correctly identified the goal. Only after one has this can one begin to establish principles in furtherance of that goal.

The principles of the various social systems have nothing to do with "being moral". What you see is simply the result of not identifying the underlying premises behind any particular belief system. Being moral is a choice made by individual humans, not groups, tribes, or cults.

The problem with over population is that it may not be possible to happen. The population will probably, as in a multitude of other dynamic cases, follow the well known S curve where it starts out slowly increasing, then goes exponential, and finally slows and becomes stable in regard to resources. That has been happening in some countries with advanced economies.

All depends on the degree of rationality of the animal. Some thinkers want to define ethics and morality on what looks like altruistic actions by some non-humans without taking into account the nature of humans and their necessity for making individual choices. Learning and morality are not the same thing. My several cats have started to torment one an other. To me it looks like they are having fun doing it. But they may have just learned that in certain conditions that that was behavior to do regardless as to any choice being involved.

They are not instincts in the sense of knowledge. They are nothing more than reflexes. Knowledge requires a mind to deal with it, not a brain without an emergent mind. Memories do not require a mind, just a bio-computer for processing and possible action dealing with them. Computer controlled machines do it all the time but cannot be said to have a mind.

Since the whole reason for this forum is about Rand and her Objectivism, I would think that short illustrative quotes would be welcome here.

Instinct may not exist. It implies some kind of built in knowledge which guides an organisms life. So far, there has been no instinct discovered, it is all physical actions due to chemical responses, tropisms, due to chemical or photo produced actions, etc. Knowledge implies some form of rational mind to recall and process the stored memories/knowledge.

The key philosophical issue is whether rational beings are to be considered as individuals who act due to there individual minds or whether they are to be defined as members of some collective with their individualism directed by the collective. The answer to which is the objective case in reality will direct how the science of ethics defines morality. The former points to the choice of morality and the latter to the destruction of individual choice, of morality.

I always like to use an organization like Ducks Unlimited as one that promotes the game bird species from the perspective of self interest: no game birds, no hunting. Idiot organizations like PETA that think we should turn all of our domestic animals loose so they can be "free" have no idea of how devastating that would be to the animals they supposedly care about. My line stops where supporting lower species harms our own, as in many instances where beneficial projects are stopped because some inconsequential insect might be "endangered" (usually only in one specific area, not in danger of extinction).

Thank you. I will consider doing as you suggest.

DrZ , Could you please expand upon your last sentence, especially the "within sensible limits"?

rational animal thinking through reason is not the same as "rationalizing" which I think you are referring to.

consider allowing Dale to be a beta test reader for you, I can suggest a couple of other O's as well who can be helpful, if you wish.

I fully accept the premise that humans have evolved away from "relying" on instinct to survive, but I do not believe we have fully evolved to the point where we have lost our instinctual biology. Our species has only been relying on rational volitional thought for a very short amount of time in the big scheme of things. I unfortunately believe that Rand's ideas on how evolved man has already become may have been ahead of its time, completely explaining how 50% of the population of the U.S. can still be Democrat... ;)