I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality.
>"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation."
Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution.
I think you would enjoy this blog:
(Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated.
For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is.
Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible.
I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place.
What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
Many people hold the highest moral good to be the elimination of suffering. They believe that we should work to improve the material conditions of the world's least-well-off humans.
Ayn believes these people are evil. However, talking to them, I do not believe these people are evil. I believe they are good people.
Their instincts are human. It is human nature to be made sad by the suffering of others.
Alleviating the suffering of others is one of many things that human value. However, holding this as your highest moral value can lead you to do things that others dislike. For example, you may be motivated to pass laws that take the property from one person and give it to another that needs it more.
Now, humans ALSO value property rights, and some notion of property rights seems just to most people. I am sure you place some value on property rights.
These two instincts drive people to take actions that contradict each other. It is the nature of humanity.
Now, the true believer will insist that there is one right answer and no real contradiction, but their arguments get flimsy and tired after awhile.
I was never "dissuaded" from Objectivism. Rather, I grew away from it over time. I guess I got tired of looking up the answers to tough questions in a book, instead of puzzling them out for myself. Also, the logic just gets thin and unconvincing over time, as when Ayn tries to prove that one moral axiom is better than another. You can't do it. They are axioms. You can't say that a person is wrong for feeling sad at other people's misfortunes (well, Ayn can). It is just a fact.
You will find, in real life situations, where freedom and personal property rights are protected, that almost everyone within that society has a higher standard of living than in countries that do not protect these rights. Most humans are compassionate and generous to the less well off. But if you restrict freedoms, and force compassion, I think its fair to say that you can see the real world consequences of that.
If her philosophy was to never help anyone under any circumstances without them earning it (which I don't think it was, this is often I think unjustly presumed by people), then I would disagree with her, and history shows that in free, affluent countries, most people do.
I am also aware that societies which protect property rights and refrain from excessive public welfare programs have higher economic growth rates than others. In the long run, economic growth surely benefits the least well-off as well as the most well-off.
However, many people's moral feelings lead them to choose a society with lower economic growth if it would benefit the least well-off in the short term. I can't think of any reason a priori to say that their feelings are wrong.
Bill Gates, however, has managed to spread technology to the world. His version of it is flawed - it's nowhere near as good as Jobs's creation - but at the same time, he managed to innovate and create system that could be used to help millions of people in corporations and at home, and he made it affordable in a way Jobs never could. But Microsoft has slowed progress in fields for a decade by being tyrannical, and more than that, wrong.
The question is, which is the Randian model? They both changed the world, while at the same time doing it using logic that negates the other person's mindset. The answer is that neither one is necessarily a better person, or is following a necessarily better model, than the other one. They've each done marvelous things and made the world a better place. But there is no "truer" accomplishment.
Although sadly Microsoft now has its share of lobbyists after running afoul of regulators who didn't like Gates' hubris.
I also get the feeling that Gates falls more to the altruistic side of things.
Please define 'lived as well as possible' with out reference to objectivist concepts or philosophies. Also please demonstrate objectively which is better, a life well lived or a one lived as long as possible, and in the the situation which maximizing both are impossible, the ratio which maximizes the value of life.
Alternatively please refrain from stating opinions as unqualified fact.
Some people value adventure and risk-taking in order to bring about new rewards and feel proud of them. They accept the risks which could shorten their life.
Other people want to live a long time and see a lot of things. They would not be risk-takers and thus would be happier with a longer life.
Does this make sense?
Replace "standard of value" with axiom and re-read what he just said to you, he suggested you examine your "standard of value" and see that others are possible and just as self consistent as yours.
Your reply thus makes no sense in response to his statement; you simply restate your axiom and tried to justify it again.