Moral Knowledge

I recently listened to podcast 1086 of Freedomain Radio where Stefan Molyneux explains and corrects an apparent contradiction with Ayn Rand's explanation of Objectivism and understanding morality.

According to Molyneux, Rand argues that morality is not inherently understood by man. This seems fair enough until one realizes that Rand classifies some of her characters like James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged as villains for acting viciously. The conflict here is that if morality is not inherently known, man does not know how to act virtuously. Consequently, one cannot hold people such as James Taggart responsible for his vicious acts because he just did not know how to act virtuously. For example, one cannot identify a two year old as ignorant because he does not understand two plus two equals four. The child has not yet learned that. Additionally, one cannot classify a doctor from the 16th century as ignorant for not prescribing penicillin because doctors from the 16th century were completely unaware of penicillin.

Of course, this is a problem if no one can be held accountable for their vicious acts. However, Molyneux disagrees with Rand's position, and uses Rand's own life to prove that man inherently understands morality on a basic level.

Rand grew up in Soviet Russia; therefore, she was completely unexposed to capitalism, individualism, free thought, etc. However, she understood that the Soviet Union's philosophy was wrong. If Rand is correct, someone from outside the Soviet Union had to educate her in morality. However, this did not happen. Rand was not educated on morality, but she knew communism was wrong. Therefore, Rand, and other humans must posses some innate knowledge of morality.

Molyneux goes on to say that innate moral knowledge does not necessarily mean that someone knows why something is wrong. A man will know that stealing and murder is indeed vicious; however, he may not know that the reason they are vicious is because man's nature gives every man natural rights, which no other man may violate. Thus, man can be held accountable for his vicious actions, for he knows they are vicious yet not why.

Originally thinking over Molyneux's argument, I agreed with it completely; however, after a conversation with my cousin I am not convinced that innate is the proper word to use. Molyneux's stance is that moral knowledge in humans is immediate; therefore, the moment a child is born, he understand what is virtuous and vicious. I am unconvinced that an infant immediately understands this. My cousin argued that man understands morality through perception, specifically perceiving himself as an independent individual. In other words, once a child understands that he controls his own body and thoughts, and controls no one else's body and thoughts, the child understands he is an independent individual. Obviously, the child will not be able to explain this; however, he will realize that he chooses to hit a ball and cause it to move and that he cannot use his mind to make someone else choose to a hit a ball and cause it to move.
Once a child understands that he is an independent individual, he can take the next step and understand morality by analyzing it selfishly. Independence and individuality are two elements of man's nature; therefore, when one comprehends his independence and individuality he then comprehends his natural rights. Once he understands his nature and natural rights, he understands that other individuals have the same nature and natural rights, for he observers others and sees they are the same as himself.

Therefore, understanding morality is not exactly innate; however, a child does understand his independence and individuality very early on. His physical interaction with reality will quickly lead him to understand this. Basically, life itself leads one to this understanding, and leads one to understand morality.

Additionally, discovering how man understands morality adds another element to man's nature. In the first part of the "My Philosophy" series, I explained that man's nature includes three characteristics, reason, independence, and individuality, and that these characteristics make a being man. Obviously then, animals do not posses all three of these characteristics. Molyneux's argument combined with my understanding of moral knowledge actually makes the distinction between man and animal more distinct.

I explained that reason was the ability to understand morality, or virtue and vice. Originally, I meant that reason was the potential to understand morality; however, now I understand reason also includes self identification as an independent individual. Therefore, a being that has reason understands his independence and individuality, then through a further application of reason the being understands what is virtuous and vicious, but does not understand why actions are virtuous and vicious. However, a being that has reason can ultimately discover why actions are virtuous and vicious, only after it understands what is virtuous and vicious. This obviously sets animals back even further. Not only do animals not have the ability to understand why certain actions are virtuous and vicious, but they do not even understand they are independent and individual. Since animals are controlled by instinct, the do not act for themselves. They act because their instinct ordered them to act a certain way. In order for animals to understand morality, they must first lose their instinct. At that point they can begin to understand that they are acting for themselves not to fulfill some unavoidable demanding urge. Essentially, animals have not even made the first step.