All humans "is_es" are "Ougth_s"

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was reading Ayn Rand's Objectivism's Ethics and came across this;
(btw, I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in totality.)

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

I was reading Ayn Rand's Objectivism's Ethics and came across this;
(btw, I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in totality.)

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

Views?

Well, I think the key point would be to explain why it only applies to non-evil acts.
And then the rule: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." seems to be how we determine what the oughts are, but clearly there is another source. What is that source?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was reading Ayn Rand's Objectivism's Ethics and came across this;
(btw, I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in totality.)

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

Views?

Well, I think the key point would be to explain why it only applies to non-evil acts.

I missed the point.
As far is to evil acts, it is the 'ought-not'.

And then the rule: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." seems to be how we determine what the oughts are, but clearly there is another source. What is that source?

Not sure of your point.

The only source "is" from the individual's human nature.
The fact that a living entity "is" a human being and not an animal has an inherent ought-not to kill babies for pleasure and other moral oughts and ought-nots within a human based moral FSK.

[Sculptor]

I was reading Ayn Rand's Objectivism's Ethics and came across this;
(btw, I do not agree with Rand's philosophy in totality.)

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

Views?

Clearly there is a problem with quoting complete idiots who are philosophically illiterate.

[Iwannaplato]

I missed the point.
As far is to evil acts, it is the 'ought-not'.

And then the rule: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." seems to be how we determine what the oughts are, but clearly there is another source. What is that source?

Not sure of your point.

The only source "is" from the individual's human nature.
The fact that a living entity "is" a human being and not an animal has an inherent ought-not to kill babies for pleasure and other moral oughts and ought-nots within a human based moral FSK.

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

If we are working with what Ayn Rand said there MUST be another source.
The living entity determines what it ought to do based on what it is.
But, there is an exception to this rule. Not when it comes to evil acts.

This means we cannot simply follow the is of the organism. If that is leads to evil acts, we cannot follow the is of the organism.

So, we have some criterion not coming from what she calls 'what the organism is'.

She say this herself.

What the organism is, determines ought.
But, not in the case when this leads to evil acts.

So, Hey that led to a good act. Great. Hey, that led to a neutral act, ok.
Hey that facet of the being of the organism led to an evil act, that's not ok.

Well, that last evaluation and in fact all three come from something other than the bare is of the organism leading to acts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I missed the point.
As far is to evil acts, it is the 'ought-not'.

And then the rule: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." seems to be how we determine what the oughts are, but clearly there is another source. What is that source?

Not sure of your point.

The only source "is" from the individual's human nature.
The fact that a living entity "is" a human being and not an animal has an inherent ought-not to kill babies for pleasure and other moral oughts and ought-nots within a human based moral FSK.

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

"Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

Ayn Rand argued the above do not extend to evil acts.

If we are working with what Ayn Rand said there MUST be another source.
The living entity determines what it ought to do based on what it is.
But, there is an exception to this rule. Not when it comes to evil acts.

This means we cannot simply follow the is of the organism. If that is leads to evil acts, we cannot follow the is of the organism.

So, we have some criterion not coming from what she calls 'what the organism is'.

She say this herself.

What the organism is, determines ought.
But, not in the case when this leads to evil acts.

So, Hey that led to a good act. Great. Hey, that led to a neutral act, ok.
Hey that facet of the being of the organism led to an evil act, that's not ok.

Well, that last evaluation and in fact all three come from something other than the bare is of the organism leading to acts.

The general principle of Morality for Rand is the following;

1. The "is" of what is human nature is surviving as a human being [as long as possible till the inevitable].
2. To achieve the above, humans are driven by morality which is basically what is 'good' and 'evil'.
3. Since the 'good' will facilitate all humans ought to do good.
4. Since 'evil' will hinder 1, all humans ought-not to do evil.

For Rand, to achieve 1, every individual must live to its full potential of thinking, reasoning and rationality, co-operatively within a society.

In addition, Rand adopted Kant's 'end-in-itself' not means principle;

• "The basic social principle of the Objectivist Ethics is that
  just as Life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself,
  not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and,
  therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

This principle is to deter humans from using others and means to serve their own ends via evil means.

In the above sense, I agree with Rand's
All humans "is_es" are "Ougth_s"

However, Rand's model or moral FSK is rather crude and lack completeness.

I suggest you read Rand's articles to get a clearer picture.

[Iwannaplato]

The general principle of Morality for Rand is the following;

1. The "is" of what is human nature is surviving as a human being [as long as possible till the inevitable].
2. To achieve the above, humans are driven by morality which is basically what is 'good' and 'evil'.
3. Since the 'good' will facilitate all humans ought to do good.
4. Since 'evil' will hinder 1, all humans ought-not to do evil.

Well, that's quite different from the OP. The OK must have a different source for the judgment of evil, since it isn't coming from it.

But now let's work from this.
1) First, she or an advocate for her position, given she's dead, would have to demonstrate this is true...in general. IOW examples of how this is true in some cases is not enough.
2) I don't think most people's ideas about good and evil, fit with the behaviors of good and bad entailed by that sequence of assertions. For example all sorts of acts of cruely may well extend the life of certain individuals.
3) The 'is' of human nature is vastly more complicated than number 1.

For Rand, to achieve 1, every individual must live to its full potential of thinking, reasoning and rationality, co-operatively within a society.

In addition, Rand adopted Kant's 'end-in-itself' not means principle;

• "The basic social principle of the Objectivist Ethics is that
  just as Life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself,
  not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and,
  therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

The four assertions listed does not lead to this. It certainly leads to not sacrificing himself, but sacrificing others has extended the lives of people with power in many eras.

This principle is to deter humans from using others and means to serve their own ends via evil means.

In the above sense, I agree with Rand's
All humans "is_es" are "Ougth_s"

However, Rand's model or moral FSK is rather crude and lack completeness.

I suggest you read Rand's articles to get a clearer picture.

Rand's isses are oughts is not demonstrated by any part of what is written here. I read Ayn Rand long ago. My main point is really the OP and now the extensions and additions here don't make a full argument. They are primarily assertions and some not connected to others.
For a general critique of Rand's 'morals'

From the left, again defined broadly, the main criticisms are (a) that Rand’s individualism atomistically isolates each of us from genuine society, (b) that her advocacy of free markets enables strong-versus-weak exploitation, and in left-postmodern critique (c) that her philosophical fundamentals commit her to an untenable foundationalism and absolutism.

Here we will focus only on the arguments over Rand’s account of self-interest, which is currently a minority position and subject to strong criticism from both the philosophical left and the philosophical right.

The contrasting view of self-interest typically pits it against morality, holding that one is moral only to the extent that one sacrifices one’s self-interest for the sake of others or, more moderately, to the extent one acts primarily with regard to the interests of others. For example, standard versions of morality will hold that one is moral to the extent one sets aside one’s own interests in order to serve God, or the weak and the poor, or society as a whole. On these accounts, the interests of God, the poor, or society as a whole are held to be of greater moral significance than one’s own, and so accordingly one’s interests should be sacrificed when necessary. These ethics of selflessness thus believe that one should see oneself fundamentally as a servant, as existing to serve the interests of others, not one’s own. “Selfless service to others” or “selfless sacrifice” are stock phrases indicating these accounts’ view of appropriate motivation and action.

One core difference between Rand’s self-interest view and the selfless view can be seen in the reason why most advocates of selflessness think self-interest is dangerous: conflicts of interest.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The general principle of Morality for Rand is the following;

1. The "is" of what is human nature is surviving as a human being [as long as possible till the inevitable].
2. To achieve the above, humans are driven by morality which is basically what is 'good' and 'evil'.
3. Since the 'good' will facilitate all humans ought to do good.
4. Since 'evil' will hinder 1, all humans ought-not to do evil.

Well, that's quite different from the OP. The OK must have a different source for the judgment of evil, since it isn't coming from it.

But now let's work from this.
1) First, she or an advocate for her position, given she's dead, would have to demonstrate this is true...in general. IOW examples of how this is true in some cases is not enough.
2) I don't think most people's ideas about good and evil, fit with the behaviors of good and bad entailed by that sequence of assertions. For example all sorts of acts of cruely may well extend the life of certain individuals.
3) The 'is' of human nature is vastly more complicated than number 1.

For Rand, to achieve 1, every individual must live to its full potential of thinking, reasoning and rationality, co-operatively within a society.

In addition, Rand adopted Kant's 'end-in-itself' not means principle;

• "The basic social principle of the Objectivist Ethics is that
  just as Life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself,
  not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and,
  therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

The four assertions listed does not lead to this. It certainly leads to not sacrificing himself, but sacrificing others has extended the lives of people with power in many eras.

This principle is to deter humans from using others and means to serve their own ends via evil means.

In the above sense, I agree with Rand's
All humans "is_es" are "Ougth_s"

However, Rand's model or moral FSK is rather crude and lack completeness.

I suggest you read Rand's articles to get a clearer picture.

Rand's isses are oughts is not demonstrated by any part of what is written here. I read Ayn Rand long ago. My main point is really the OP and now the extensions and additions here don't make a full argument. They are primarily assertions and some not connected to others.
For a general critique of Rand's 'morals'

From the left, again defined broadly, the main criticisms are (a) that Rand’s individualism atomistically isolates each of us from genuine society, (b) that her advocacy of free markets enables strong-versus-weak exploitation, and in left-postmodern critique (c) that her philosophical fundamentals commit her to an untenable foundationalism and absolutism.

Here we will focus only on the arguments over Rand’s account of self-interest, which is currently a minority position and subject to strong criticism from both the philosophical left and the philosophical right.

The contrasting view of self-interest typically pits it against morality, holding that one is moral only to the extent that one sacrifices one’s self-interest for the sake of others or, more moderately, to the extent one acts primarily with regard to the interests of others. For example, standard versions of morality will hold that one is moral to the extent one sets aside one’s own interests in order to serve God, or the weak and the poor, or society as a whole. On these accounts, the interests of God, the poor, or society as a whole are held to be of greater moral significance than one’s own, and so accordingly one’s interests should be sacrificed when necessary. These ethics of selflessness thus believe that one should see oneself fundamentally as a servant, as existing to serve the interests of others, not one’s own. “Selfless service to others” or “selfless sacrifice” are stock phrases indicating these accounts’ view of appropriate motivation and action.

One core difference between Rand’s self-interest view and the selfless view can be seen in the reason why most advocates of selflessness think self-interest is dangerous: conflicts of interest.

My main interest with the article was these in the OP;

1. "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

2. "Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.”

The above make sense and this is supported by a detailed explanation in the article I linked in the OP.
https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-o ... st-ethics/

You have to explain from the basis of her article why the points I raise are not supported in the article.

I don't see anything wrong with the ethical principles she proposed, but the problem is she did not discuss its implementation in practice.