1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; — rogita

I'm fine with that part, and even though I buy that there are some free phenomena, it's less clear just what the balance might be. Free phenomena might be a very small minority.

it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development.

This part I have a serious problem with. I don't think there's any reason to believe that free phenomena would be responsible for the development of the universe--not that I'd be asserting the opposite; I'd be more agnostic on this issue. And re "the aim," I think that that idea is just nonsense. Only persons have aims.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. — rogita

This would undermine your first premise, that freedom is an objective property of the universe. If we can't know if there are free phenomena, then it might not be an objective property of the universe after all.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. — rogita

??? By whom? I wouldn't say that freedom/determinism have anything to do with good/evil.

If the idea here is that in terms of what we're allowed to do by others, people generally object to being controlled and prefer being free to do what they want, that's fine, but to try to blur that with good/evil assessments of ontological freedom/determinism in general is simply a conflation that's going to lead to ridiculous conclusions.

The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. — rogita

As with aims, duties are the ideas of individuals. There is no objective or correct duty, purpose or meaning.

Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom. — rogita

These statements would require some sort of argument if they're not to just seem like flowery statements of personal credos.

4) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom. — rogita

Again, there's nothing objective about the idea of duty. There's also nothing objective about normative criteria for being a man. Objective criteria for being a man would be biological facts.

The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. The animal follows the laws of the universe, submits to forces without trying to overcome them. — rogita

Humans are animals per biological classification.

5) There is no absolute moral law; — rogita

Correct.

quote="rogita;d866"]ethical norms are derived from the general contract.[/quote]

Ethics in general are simply matters of how individuals feel about interpersonal behavior (with respect to interpersonal behavior considered to be more significant than etiquette). Norms arise through interaction complexes, where people influence each other in a wide variety of ways.

The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. — rogita

The basis of what consent? Anyway, people who reject all forms of violence seem to be a minority.

Ethics of the contract includes the conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) — rogita

This just seems arbitrary--and how did "objectivity" sneak into there?

Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; — rogita

Ethical norms are probably more frequently informal. And whether they're improving is purely a subjective matter.

The meaning of the norms is to stimulate creative and constructive activities by limiting violence. — rogita

I'd say that norms are far more related to herd mentality, as well as dispositions such as purism ("it was such and such way, so it should be such and such way"), where both have deep evolutionary roots, since literally herds are necessary for survival as is sticking with what works to stay alive.

Personal relations are governed by a sacrificial morality (emotions, love, care, etc.), and catastrophic situations by a heroic morality. — rogita

I think it's far more complex and varied than that.

. . . anyway, what above is any sort of foundation for objectivist ethics?

You might like to look at Pirsig's Lila.

it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. — rogita

This part I have a serious problem with. I don't think there's any reason to believe that free phenomena would be responsible for the development of the universe--not that I'd be asserting the opposite; I'd be more agnostic on this issue. — Terrapin Station

Determinism cannot evolve. It is an eternal repetition of the same things.

And re "the aim," I think that that idea is just nonsense. Only persons have aims. — Terrapin Station

"Persons" are part of the universe. They are "the front edge" of the evolution.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. — rogita

This would undermine your first premise, that freedom is an objective property of the universe. If we can't know if there are free phenomena, then it might not be an objective property of the universe after all. — Terrapin Station

We cannot know freedom because it never repeat itself. It is unpredictable. But we can make this assumption because it explains evolution.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. — rogita

??? By whom? I wouldn't say that freedom/determinism have anything to do with good/evil. — Terrapin Station

By any sentient being. Freedom is what allows it to BE (to be not a biological object but an unique personality). Determinism perceived as any force. It forces compliance with laws of nature. It destroys freedom to be yourselves.

The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. — rogita

As with aims, duties are the ideas of individuals. There is no objective or correct duty, purpose or meaning. — Terrapin Station

That duty is bestowed upon sentient beings by freedom. They try to improve the world. But "to improve" means "to make it better" -> "to make it freer".

Humans are animals per biological classification. — Terrapin Station

Humans are a lot of things, for instance they are physical objects. Only freedom make them what they are - free beings. Being free means to have moral duty to bring more freedom to the world. Otherwise, if they simply follow the laws of nature, they become animals, that's right.

The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. — rogita

The basis of what consent? Anyway, people who reject all forms of violence seem to be a minority. — Terrapin Station

General contract requires agreement, consent to common ethical norms derived from it. Without the common basis the contract is impossible. Freedom is the only universal basis for the general agreement. And you are right - ethical people are rare. The current state of humanity is it is only at the beginning of moral progress.

Ethics of the contract includes the conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) — rogita

This just seems arbitrary--and how did "objectivity" sneak into there? — Terrapin Station

The contract is impossible without ethics. Rationality goes against the contract because it is rational to be animal, to follow the laws of nature, to survive and prosper. Freedom (therefore contract and ethics too) cannot be justified rationally.

I think it's far more complex and varied than that. — Terrapin Station

Everything is more complex is more complex. I presented the start point.

Determinism cannot evolve. It is an eternal repetition of the same things. — rogita

?? I have no idea why you'd think this. Determinism simply means that when, say, particle A acts on particle B, there's only one possibility re how this can happen/how particle B can move. Nothing in that implies repetition of anything.

"Persons" are part of the universe. They are "the front edge" of the evolution. — rogita

Yeah, but you weren't limiting your comments to persons at that point.

We cannot know freedom because it never repeat itself. — rogita

It doesn't have anything to do with that, because determinism has nothing to do with repetition.

By any sentient being. — rogita

I had just said "I wouldn't say that freedom/determinism have anything to do with good/evil." Are you arguing that I'm not a sentient being?

That duty is bestowed upon sentient beings by freedom. — rogita

Nope. Duty doesn't obtain unless there is a person thinking about things in a duty-oriented way.

They try to improve the world. — rogita

Non-sentient things do not try to do anything . . . anyway, you're just ignoring what I said essentially and doubling-down on the nonsense you started with. Your "argument" is garbage and you're apparently incapable of responding to objections.

Are you sure that the freedom you are talking about as existing in the universe is not luck, chance, the actualization of a contingent possibility?

If you think there is a causal difference between freedom and luck, then what do you see as that difference.

Existentially I think that free agency implies moral responsibility for our actions.

Are you sure that the freedom you are talking about as existing in the universe is not luck, chance, the actualization of a contingent possibility?

If you think there is a causal difference between freedom and luck, then what do you see as that difference. — Cavacava

Luck and freedom are not directly related. If our actions have causes they are not free. On the other hand, freedom requires a goal (as opposite to a cause). However, we may mistakenly perceive the cause for the goal (say, how can we know if the pleasure is our goal or the cause for our actions?). Accordingly, we may be lucky in achieving our goal but if we have the cause our actions were not free (and vice versa).

We choose to do or not do something, our choice is based on what we desire. Sure we take pleasure in realizing many of our desires, pleasure is kinda of an 'impure' goal, isn't it, it can't stand on its own it always needs the object of desire, something to take pleasure in, it is morally flawed.

If we are constrained to make a certain choice then we are not free, and therefore not fully responsible for our action. Moral luck works against some people, circumstances mitigate against any free choice, like people fleeing Syria who have few options.