Question

Rand calls her philosophy Objectivism as she declares this moral philosophy is wholly & entirely rational and that the world has an objective character: It is out there.

Hume, on the other hand dismisses all objective moral philosophies through the is-ought challenge which he described in his Treatise to Human Nature:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for sometime in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God. or makes observations concernine human affairs: when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not. I meet with no propositions that is not connected with an ought or an ought not....it is necessary that [this deduction] should be observed and explained;...for what seems altogether inconceivable, [is] how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

That is how can one in a deductive manner move from a proposition described using is to a proposition described using an ought; that is to move from the sphere of existence to the sphere of ethics in a deductive manner; in brief, one cannot move from facts to values.

However Rand argues in The Virtue of Selfishness:

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between "is" and "ought."

In Aristotelian terms, existence determines ethical essence. That is existence is ethical essence. She doesn't notice this means that the 'living entity' must then come already equipped with its ethics, rather than deducing them from some factual sub-stratum.

The question is how fatal is this to her ethical project? One might suppose that it is no flaw as no other moral philosophy bridges this gap, but then again they do not choose facts as their grounding; for example Kants Categorical Imperative, his foundational moral axiom is an ought.

Answer 1

Rand's assertion that the validation of value judgments can be achieved by reference to the facts of reality, thereby bridging the gap between "is" and "ought," is a central tenet of her Objectivist philosophy. However, the critique you presented suggests a potential flaw in her argument – the idea that existence determines ethical essence might imply that living entities come pre-equipped with their ethics rather than deducing them from a factual sub-stratum.

This could be seen as a challenge to Rand's ethical project, as it questions the foundational idea that one can derive ethical principles directly from the observation of reality. While Rand's approach attempts to ground ethics in the objective nature of existence, the criticism highlights a potential tension between the claim that "existence is ethical essence" and the idea of deducing ethical principles from observable facts.

Whether this is fatal to her ethical project depends on one's philosophical perspective. Some may argue that no moral philosophy completely bridges the gap between "is" and "ought," and Rand's attempt is as valid as any other. Others might see the critique as a significant challenge that raises questions about the coherence of Objectivism as a moral framework. Ultimately, the evaluation of this potential flaw in Rand's argument depends on the depth of one's commitment to her philosophical framework and the weight assigned to the issues raised by critics.

Answer 2

Rand and Hume present differing views on the connection between facts and values in moral philosophy. Hume argues that moral statements cannot be derived from factual statements, while Rand asserts that ethics can be derived from objective facts of reality.

Step-by-step explanation:

Both Rand and Hume offer contrasting perspectives on the relationship between facts and values in moral philosophy. Hume argues that it is not possible to deduce an 'ought' statement from an 'is' statement, as morals are based on human sentiments and are subjective rather than objective. Rand, on the other hand, asserts that there is a direct connection between facts and values. She argues that the fact of a living entity's existence determines what it ought to do, and ethics can be derived from this objective reality.