The Rational Egoist: Debating Objectivist Ethics with Professor Michael Huemer
The Rational Egoist: Debating Objectivist Ethics with Professor Michael Huemer and Host Michael Liebowitz
Welcome to a new episode of "The Rational Egoist," a stimulating podcast with host Michael Liebowitz, where philosophical concepts, ethical frameworks, and the power of choice are brought to the fore. In this episode, Michael engages in a thought-provoking debate with Professor Michael Huemer, a respected professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a strong proponent of ethical intuitionism, direct realism, and libertarianism.
The central point of discussion is the contentious Objectivist Ethics. Professor Huemer, known as one of the most ardent critics of Objectivism, disagrees with using 'life' as the standard by which morality is judged. The debate heats up as Liebowitz passionately argues for the necessity of a standard to measure from, drawing analogies with health and physical attributes to drive home his point.
In their discourse, they reflect on Ayn Rand's philosophy, emphasising her use of 'life' as a standard of value. The conversation evolves into an exploration of the implications of this philosophy. What happens when we value life? What does it mean for our actions and their moral implications?
They delve into the concept of a 'life force' that all living things possess, behaving in ways that promote and extend this force for as long as possible. According to this view, valuing life leads to actions that promote life and avoid death.
This conversation extends beyond just knowledge, delving into 'evaluation'-a different type of cognition. It's not just about understanding; it's about weighing and assessing.
In this compelling discussion, both Michael Liebowitz and Professor Huemer grapple with the question of whether morality requires choice, reaching a consensus that for an action to be right or wrong, morality is necessary, and humans, unlike animals, can choose their behaviours.
Tune in to "The Rational Egoist" for this engaging debate on Objectivist Ethics. This episode is a must-listen for anyone seeking to better understand the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of their actions and decisions.
Michael Liebowitz is a philosopher, political activist, and host of the Rational Egoist podcast. He is a passionate advocate of reason and his views have been heavily influenced by the philosopher Ayn Rand.
Liebowitz has dedicated his life to promoting its principles of rational self-interest, individualism, and reason. In addition to his work as a podcast host, Liebowitz is also a prominent spokesperson for the Libertarian Party for Connecticut - USA and has been involved in a number of political debates advocating for individual rights and freedoms through his KZread videos and interviews.
Liebowitz's life story is a testament to the transformative power of the writings of Ayn Rand. After spending 25 years in prison, he was able to turn his life around by embracing the principles of rational self-interest and morality espoused by Ayn Rand. He has since become an influential voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, using his own experience to inspire others to live their lives in accordance with reason, individualism, and self-interest.
Liebowitz is also the co-author of "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime," a book that explores the ways in which misguided societal attitudes towards punishment and rehabilitation have led to a rise in crime and recidivism. In addition to his work in politics and philosophy, Liebowitz is a regular guest on the Todd Feinburg show at WTIC, where he provides expert commentary on a range of political and social issues.
Пікірлер: 70
Objectively, the interviewer talked at least twice as much as the guest, many times even *over* him.
@s0lid_sno0ks
Жыл бұрын
Objectively
@simonphuket7782
7 ай бұрын
That’s because the guest was confounded! Clearly no standard for saying whatever he says. Great job Mike!
Michael Liebowitz is the type of guy that would love to be in a room filled with PhDs in philosophy and passionately recite the Wikipedia article on Rational Egoism. Filibuster then brag to your friends that you got one over on Michael Huemer, who was kind enough to give his time to you. You're almost as bad as Matt Dillahunty.
The thing is, its that Michael Huemer does believe in objective morality and thinks it can be accessed through moral intuitions so I am not really sure why there was a debate about it at the start of the video. What Huemer is contesting, that on a secular account, you can't necessarily define what is "good" or think in order to recognize what is "good", you must know what exactly the actual standard is. Huemer agrees that people can recognize what is good (moral epistemology) but from what it appears, he doesn't think you can define what IS the good (moral semantics). Under the secular and even theistic traditions of objective morality (including ethical intuitionism), good is indefinable. Under a religious or Christian perspective, the good is God's nature (moral ontology). In other words, God's nature is the very standard of morality. Very frustrating that the interviewer doesn't let Huemer talk at all or explain thoroughly. I suggest everyone to read Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer.
@matthewstroud4294
Жыл бұрын
Can we know where intuitions come from? Are they innate knowledge in the brain, formed by DNA? It seems to me that taking "instinct" like drawing away from heat, etc, and then extending that to "ideas" like morality is a leap that is without evidence.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
If you ‘just know’ what’s to explain, you just know. That should make for a very short book.
@micchaelsanders6286
6 ай бұрын
We don’t have “intuitions”. We have observation and logic, and we build up from there.
@jocr1971
5 ай бұрын
somethings you just know. like seeing someone bashing a baby with a bat. normal people know it's both wrong and an immoral act without needing a code.
@user-rm8lr3tt7m
4 ай бұрын
@@jocr1971if that were true then why do kids beat other kids? Don't they know it's just wrong? 😂
Huemer's example in the beginning of "well if life's the standard of value I should just stay inside at home and never leave the house" is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Rand's argument. He's reducing "life" to only maintaining the biological processes in that case, not the mind (and virtues) which is the POINT of human life. And staying inside is objectively BAD for the physical organism too (lack of sunlight and exercise, social settings, live music/theatre, going on dates or to the doctor, etc.)
@RefinedQualia
Ай бұрын
Well the point of human life isnt the same thing as life. So either Rand is a really bad communicator or a complete moron.
With regard to purpose in non-conscious entities, I’d suggest Harry Binswanger’s book, “The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts”. There are two relevant instances of purpose here - consciously held objectives, and systems which serve a purpose or end. If I am acting to build a table, my actions are guided by my objective; if I am a bacteria, the actions I undertake without mind serve the purpose (or end) of serving my life. For most living things that is the ‘purpose’ implicit in all of the actions taken in service of its life - the standard implicit in evolution by natural selection.
The comments of people who think Huemer lost this debate make me despair for humanity
@micchaelsanders6286
11 ай бұрын
Huemer got destroyed because his arguments are disconnected from reality. He’s delusional.
@alastairbowyer7936
11 ай бұрын
@@micchaelsanders6286 can you give me an example of an argument he made that was disconnected from reality?
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
He didn’t ‘just lose’, he was destroyed in this debate. He never really presented arguments, he just knew - the central problem of intuitionism. Perceptual data you just know, but meaning is conveyed conceptually - it requires explanation.
@alastairbowyer7936
10 ай бұрын
@raybanseyes intuitions have propositional content. Hence, they can be used as assumptions our reasoning begins from and as premises in arguments. All else being equal, if a claim contradicts an intuition, that is reason to deny the claim.
If you’re going to have Michael Hummer on your show, treat him like a respected guest.
The interviewer seemed to constantly either conflate epistemology with ontology in reference to some standard or switch between them knowingly for the purposes of dodging rebuttals from his interlocutor.
You were completely *annihilated* by Professor Huemer
@micchaelsanders6286
11 ай бұрын
No he wasn’t. Look at all these idiot groupies who give zero examples.
I'd be happy to debate you about objectivist ethics.
Video game announcer: "Total annihilation!"
The clarity of thought or thinking process of The Rational Egoist is incredible.
@michaelliebowitz7439
8 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@RefinedQualia
Ай бұрын
You mean incredibly bad I assume
@kib9749
Ай бұрын
@@RefinedQualia if that is your assumption, maybe you need to listen to it again with your self interest and intellectual honesty in mind.
@RefinedQualia
Ай бұрын
@@kib9749 The host couldn't control himself long enough to track a single point and bounced around like an excited ping pong ball in a shoe box. He also made many obvious errors in reasoning. Maybe I'll listen again and make a list of them for you.
Interviewer is more interested in lecturing to nobody than have a convo.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
You can only get away with intuitionism if you can ramble on without challenge, he could get no leverage because all of his propositions were challenged - especially entirely false claims about Rand’s actual views. The professor knows that if he can present a false claim and get away with it, he can win an argument. Unfortunately, this isn’t a classroom filled with kids who don’t know anything or who fear to challenge the prof.
Interviewer has a real testy, belittling tone. Not a fan of THAT
@michaelliebowitz7439
3 ай бұрын
Me neither. I had an off day.
The host interrupts so much it's really annoying.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
That’s because he challenges each unsupported claim.
Rational Egoist, is your ethical worldview essentially Aristotelian?
Most of the conversation about recognising a person's voice on the phone and whether or not you need a theory to know who someone is before hearing them speak seems to me to be a conversation concerning implicit and explicit knowledge - and/or standards. Someone answering the phone has an implicit epistemology standard for identifying whether he is speaking with someone he knows or a stranger, that implicit standard is sense perception (his hearing + automatised knowledge of the persons voice). He could not identify a familiar voice without it or act on it without this standard. If he just treated every discrete change around him as the new he would be, as rand said, in the position of a new born baby.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
Yes, because the voice over the phone, at least in the opening of the call, presents only perceptual information, the standard is a number of references that exist in memory. If the caller had a cold which altered the voice or if his voice was damaged in some way, then the reference would change and might not be recognized until some other reference in memory, say their personal history was used in identification. You don’t just ‘know’ without a process, you identify with reference to a standard. In the case of perceptual data, memory.
This was a really bad interview. It was confrontational and you steamrolled the guest each time he started speaking.
@micchaelsanders6286
6 ай бұрын
He did, but his points were much better, because they correspond to reality.
Why is so excited the guy from the right?
Host embarrassed himself
33:54 Everyone in the comment section claiming that Michael Huemer won the debate has to admit that if he won it, he won it by "Intuition", so in essence, these are the same people that would claim a prophet would have won the debate based on "revelation". Am I surprised? Not really, after all, the majority of the world still has primitive religious beliefs.
@npc-lowlife6940
7 ай бұрын
its not the same use of the word intuition lol
@user-rm8lr3tt7m
4 ай бұрын
@@npc-lowlife6940it's never the same when it comes to rationalists. They can just claim knowledge is a priority and that's somehow different from revelation.
Huemer is almost a popperian. He says that we are rational in believing something if there isn’t a criticism of it. This is popperianism.
Terrible interview. Please correct your disrespectful behaviour and stop cutting of the person you are interviewing. Was really hard to listen to.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
Yeah, don’t challenge arbitrary assertions or incorrect claims.
Honestly, Mike Huemer dismantled everything you said and you weren't sharp enough to catch it because you were too busy trying to interrupt without thinking.
@micchaelsanders6286
11 ай бұрын
Name one thing Huemer “dismantled”. This should be good.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
It doesn’t require anything to ‘just know’, that’s just lazy philosophy.
All i can say is that im very glad im not going to UC Boulder
This was a fantastic discussion.
I'm not a fan of Huemer, but why is the host so aggressive?
@michaelliebowitz7439
5 ай бұрын
Not my best day.
@RefinedQualia
Ай бұрын
Low IQ gets angry easily
This host is very confused
@jocr1971
5 ай бұрын
he defeats himself about living things acting purposely at 25:15.
Excellent debate Michael Liebowitz, it’s obvious his students are weighing in! Your logic was flawless and tied him up in neat little bow.
@michaelliebowitz7439
7 ай бұрын
Thank you very much.
Amazing how a guy who spent 25 years in prison makes 1000x more sense than a guy who spent 25 years in academia.
@damiendeecee
11 ай бұрын
😂😂 You obviously weren't watching this video
@micchaelsanders6286
11 ай бұрын
@@damiendeeceeI obviously was. You’re obviously dishonest and second handed.
@raybanseyes
10 ай бұрын
Well, I sure was. The profs main claim was that his views don’t need to be justified, he just knows.
@bebopbountyhead
6 ай бұрын
The point of Heumer is that we, typically, don't have any collection of strict rules that we could put together to explain a specific account of knowledge, let alone one to explain a whole host of general accounts of knowledge. In this case, the host of general accounts of knowledge is the collection of ethical truths. I tend to agree with him on this point, but I'm not an ethical intuitionist. I don't believe that we have the ability to know things of ourselves, and drilling down into the epistemic bedrock of any claim about the world exposes this fact. Stating "life" as the bedrock of ethical considerations is to put your metaphysical cart before your epistemological horse. You don't get to say that you know about something before you establish how you know things. Dr. Heumer was at least attempting to give a justification for knowledge.