Objective Philosophy: Anatomy of My Own View

The basic principles of my own view of Objective Philosophy are the following:

-This is as appended and I believe, improved, from Nathaniel Branden's own list, a former Randian 'Objectivist'-

1) That existence exists independent of human consciousness. i.e. even if this is not the form of reality we might expect, the fact that it exists in some form is a precondition to all consciousness, and that consciousness is not a precondition of reality.

3) That man is competent in principle to understand the facts of reality, and humans are competent enough to communicate that understanding to other human beings objectively.

4) That man's life is an end in itself, not directly subject to the opinions or actions of other men, that men are all barred from the use of force against other rational men, and that human sacrifice, either of self to others and vice versa, is not admissible as a value.

5) That the pursuit of knowledge and its conformity to reason is a precondition of the right to life and that this pursuit is the basis and delimiter of rationality. This includes the right to one's own life as well the right of all people to exist among other human beings, meaning that the extent to which one consciously rejects it or fails to embrace it when means have been available to obtain it ( i.e. granted that one lives in at least a semi-free culture) is grounds for a forfeiture of that right. Further, this forfeiture is to be considered the equivalent of hostile action, ethically open to not merely preemptive, but preventive action, acknowledging that preventive retaliation and preventive action are different, allowing retaliation only in those cases in which preventive reason rules out the permanent possibility of peace.

6) That limited means related purely to pragmatic ability is the only ethically viable excuse to fail to pursue knowledge and reason, and that psychology related to background, i.e. how one is raised, does not excuse one from this obligation as a precondition to its respective ethical rights.

7) That science is the more final arbiter of reason, that reason must rely on science in order to derive its final conclusions, understanding that all conclusions are provisional truths that must be acted upon, but are not basic primaries beyond question.

8) That man's own views must be based solely on the best, broadest, and deepest stretch of knowledge open to him, (i.e. especially in the absence of the means for scientific testing and research, but at default must include it), and that any form of 'tunnel vision' or compartmentalization in regards to reason and knowing are to be rejected.

9) That the most logical form of social organization is individualism and a government's role is to protect individual rights and uphold a separation of trade and state, as against oppressive groups i.e. governments themselves, corporations or religious sects , etc.

10) Objective Law: a) That the law cannot contradict the consensus of science, and must therefore be based on scientific conclusions as an additional check and balance to the vote of the citizenry as well as with all governmental branches. b) That ethical conclusions must, as rationally appropriate, be acted upon, and that law must be in accord with a united objective moral philosophy, derived from objective reality, not primarily from a political or social system. c) That all humans agree that one law with one set of standards based in reality must replace uneducated opinion, and that knowledge is a precondition to of the right to citizenry, i.e. the vote.

11) That the broadest knowledge within our means is to be acted upon at all times--meaning that (the best) probability is always to be included within the realm of action and ethics.

12. That the failure to act against evil is just as bad if not worse than the acts of evil themselves, so long as the boon from action can achieve victory in some significant and meaningful form and extent, that extent being contingent upon personal means. --Meaning that if it is within personal means to act against what is believed to be evil, and one does not, this would constitute the failure to act against unethical behavior. On the other hand, and for the same reasons, if it is not within one's means to act against, say, broad-scale evil acts, the liability is outside ones ability to act, and hence, is ethical for them not to act, at least not directly. However, in broad-scale situations, there is always something one can do - i.e. publish a book siting what is unethical or evil, and hence, the failure to act in some way substantial to oneself in relation to their society, is just as unethical.