Mr. A
Member
My review of Tara Smith’s Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality
She critiques the historically major positions of morality and in so doing, show shows through the first chapters, just how they all fail to answer properly the very first question on which morality, morality as such, depends upon: “Why be moral?”
“It makes no sense to propose how human beings should live until we know why the guidance of a moral code is wanted […] [a]s long as that remains unknown, whatever elaborate explanations of morality’s demands constructs […] are as precarious as a house of cards.”
And that is precisely why she was able to collapse those house of cards in her critique.
She then goes on in the book to present not only the answer to that question that they all failed to answer before, but also the morality which arises from that question having finally been answered.
But before she does go on to it, she does a thorough treatment of the case(s) for intrinsic values, in which she shows to all fail to substantiate themselves against scrutiny (as with those others before) none can ultimately justify morality, as such.
All that was dealt with in the first 41% of the book.
What does the rest deal with?
Let me have her tell you her objective:
“I will elaborate and defend Rand's account [her morality of Objectivist Ethics]. Rand's thesis is that the foundation of morality resides in the nature of values. Values, in turn, depend on the fact that organisms face the alternative of life or death. We can understand what values are only against the background of this fundamental alternative. The requirements of human life furnish the standard of value for human beings and, derivatively, the basis for all moral prescriptions. Life is the yardstick by which we measure whether a thing is good or bad and whether an action is right or wrong. A person should pursue value and abide by a moral code in order to advance his own life.”
From 41% on, I have highlighted just about everything she says, so the rest of the book is basically solid gold. A sound case for the rational justification for morality, that is sustainable, unlike those other ones. It’s not a house of cards, but a philosophic structure made of steel, whose foundation is grounded in reality, a foundation that can fully support it, gives rise to it, certainly one not built upon sand, so that it can not only stand, but NOT collapse.
By the end of that chapter (4) on the case for Rand’s life-based morality, she says in conclusion:
“Breaking with the unwarranted assumptions and false alternatives that have stifled previous attempts to explain morality, Rand has grounded moral authority in inescapable facts and demonstrated the practical stakes of identifying and abiding by a code of values. She has presented the most convincing account of morality that I have seen and the most compelling account that I can imagine. Why be moral? Because our lives depend on it.
The key to understanding morality is understanding value. Since morality is designed to steer human beings toward good and away from bad, we must have a standard for identifying what things are good and bad. Rand has shown how the concept of value is intelligible only in relation to living organisms. It is only because organisms face the alternative of living or dying that we can distinguish ends that are good for them to pursue if they are to maintain their lives. This alternative, further, necessitates the achievement of value. Any person seeking to maintain his life must learn what types of actions his life requires and conduct himself accordingly.
The nature and requirements of life thus provide the foundation of morality. All prescriptions of what people should and should not do, of what sorts of actions are right and wrong, are grounded in actions' impact on this end. Life is the purpose of morality and determines the standard of morality.
A major implication is that value is objective. Contrary to traditional conceptions of value as either intrinsic or subjective, any particular thing's value is a function of the relationship in which it stands to a given individual's life. Whether the relevant relationship obtains is an independent matter of fact.
This constitutes the heart of Rand's theory. Given the central role of life in generating morality, it is important to understand life as fully as possible.”
To see that beautiful metaethical structure as Tara Smith erects for the reader, well… go read it to see it. In the following chapters to the end of the book, she goes on to the concepts of flourishing and self-interest. I can tell you that this work of Smiths (and her other book which I will be doing a review on later), along with Craig Biddle’s work (link), serve as the go to sources to understand Objevtivist morality and that Rand was right, and if the reader wants to deny the facts of reality that were presented in these works and of course Rand‘s own presentation of her ethics, that’s your choice to evade, but ‘A is A‘, regardless.
She critiques the historically major positions of morality and in so doing, show shows through the first chapters, just how they all fail to answer properly the very first question on which morality, morality as such, depends upon: “Why be moral?”
“It makes no sense to propose how human beings should live until we know why the guidance of a moral code is wanted […] [a]s long as that remains unknown, whatever elaborate explanations of morality’s demands constructs […] are as precarious as a house of cards.”
And that is precisely why she was able to collapse those house of cards in her critique.
She then goes on in the book to present not only the answer to that question that they all failed to answer before, but also the morality which arises from that question having finally been answered.
But before she does go on to it, she does a thorough treatment of the case(s) for intrinsic values, in which she shows to all fail to substantiate themselves against scrutiny (as with those others before) none can ultimately justify morality, as such.
All that was dealt with in the first 41% of the book.
What does the rest deal with?
Let me have her tell you her objective:
“I will elaborate and defend Rand's account [her morality of Objectivist Ethics]. Rand's thesis is that the foundation of morality resides in the nature of values. Values, in turn, depend on the fact that organisms face the alternative of life or death. We can understand what values are only against the background of this fundamental alternative. The requirements of human life furnish the standard of value for human beings and, derivatively, the basis for all moral prescriptions. Life is the yardstick by which we measure whether a thing is good or bad and whether an action is right or wrong. A person should pursue value and abide by a moral code in order to advance his own life.”
From 41% on, I have highlighted just about everything she says, so the rest of the book is basically solid gold. A sound case for the rational justification for morality, that is sustainable, unlike those other ones. It’s not a house of cards, but a philosophic structure made of steel, whose foundation is grounded in reality, a foundation that can fully support it, gives rise to it, certainly one not built upon sand, so that it can not only stand, but NOT collapse.
By the end of that chapter (4) on the case for Rand’s life-based morality, she says in conclusion:
“Breaking with the unwarranted assumptions and false alternatives that have stifled previous attempts to explain morality, Rand has grounded moral authority in inescapable facts and demonstrated the practical stakes of identifying and abiding by a code of values. She has presented the most convincing account of morality that I have seen and the most compelling account that I can imagine. Why be moral? Because our lives depend on it.
The key to understanding morality is understanding value. Since morality is designed to steer human beings toward good and away from bad, we must have a standard for identifying what things are good and bad. Rand has shown how the concept of value is intelligible only in relation to living organisms. It is only because organisms face the alternative of living or dying that we can distinguish ends that are good for them to pursue if they are to maintain their lives. This alternative, further, necessitates the achievement of value. Any person seeking to maintain his life must learn what types of actions his life requires and conduct himself accordingly.
The nature and requirements of life thus provide the foundation of morality. All prescriptions of what people should and should not do, of what sorts of actions are right and wrong, are grounded in actions' impact on this end. Life is the purpose of morality and determines the standard of morality.
A major implication is that value is objective. Contrary to traditional conceptions of value as either intrinsic or subjective, any particular thing's value is a function of the relationship in which it stands to a given individual's life. Whether the relevant relationship obtains is an independent matter of fact.
This constitutes the heart of Rand's theory. Given the central role of life in generating morality, it is important to understand life as fully as possible.”
To see that beautiful metaethical structure as Tara Smith erects for the reader, well… go read it to see it. In the following chapters to the end of the book, she goes on to the concepts of flourishing and self-interest. I can tell you that this work of Smiths (and her other book which I will be doing a review on later), along with Craig Biddle’s work (link), serve as the go to sources to understand Objevtivist morality and that Rand was right, and if the reader wants to deny the facts of reality that were presented in these works and of course Rand‘s own presentation of her ethics, that’s your choice to evade, but ‘A is A‘, regardless.