You are doing it again. At this point it is trolling.

Breathing is directed to survival. Breathing is necessary for survival. Breathing is not sufficient for survival.

Reason is directed to survival. Reason is necessary for survival. Reason is not sufficient for survival.

And that is not "equating" one with the other. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is, reason is how one actually directs their behavior to survive. Breathing is autonomous action.

reason is how the human navigates the world. — Garrett Travers

Even if we accept that in some general sense as true, it does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish.

Now you're lying by putting words in my mouth. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm pointing out that your argument against reason, is to talk about breathing because it also is required to live, as if it were a part of the discussion to begin with. It has never been. The discussion about Objectivism, and ethics in general, is how one standardizes, methodizes, and systematizes behavior for a maximal life. Which is through reason.

Even if we accept that in some general sense as true, it does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It depends on what you mean. If one understands ethics to be a conceptual framework with standards, then it isn't at all difficult to see why such a standard would be made, I explained. Individual humans are the source of ethics, ethics are standardized by that individual. If you mean to say that you are looking for an is/aught distinction, that's not something you'll be getting from me, because I don't think the philosophy has achieved something that is impossible.

And that is not "equating" one with the other.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

It is — Garrett Travers

I don't mistake that breathing and reason are not the same thing. I don't mistake that breathing and reason do not share all properties. I don't mistake that even the properties they do share are not necessarily held to the same extent. I don't claim that breathing is more important or less important than reason.

If you persist in insisting that I have claimed an equality, then you will be persisting in lying about me.

I'm pointing out that your argument against reason — Garrett Travers

You claim that I asserted an equality. I did not.

If you persist in insisting that I have claimed an equality, then you will be persisting in lying about me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't know what you thought you were getting across, but it wasn't an argument against how humans devise survival methods, or any other conceptual idea.

it isn't at all difficult to see why such a standard would be made — Garrett Travers

Saying "it is not at all difficult to see" is not a logical argument.

If you mean to say that you are looking for an is/aught distinction — Garrett Travers

I do not.

I don't know what you thought you were getting across, — Garrett Travers

I said exactly what my argument is.

Saying "it is not at all difficult to see" is not a logical argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I literally made the shortend version of the argument in the statement. If individual humans are the source of ethics, then ethics are standardized by the source from whence they came.

I said exactly what my argument is. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, I read your words.

Individual humans are the source of ethics, ethics are standardized by that individual. — Garrett Travers

That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.

I read your words — Garrett Travers

You read without understanding simple English. Or you understood, but chose to skip the most telling points. Then eventually to resort to putting words in my mouth.

same caliber — Garrett Travers

Another abysmally vague term.

And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that.

That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's not Objectivism's argument:

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.

It isn't an if and only if equation.

Another abysmally vague term.

And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then they wouldn't have been brought up together.

That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's not Objectivism's argument: — Garrett Travers

I didn't say it is an argument. it's the conclusion of an argument

You don't think that Objectivism claims that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish?

I didn't say it is an argument. it's the conclusion of an argument

You don't think that Objectivism claims that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish? — TonesInDeepFreeze

If and only if it is a benefit to one's own survival?

It isn't an if and only if equation. — Garrett Travers

'if and only if' is not an equation; it is an equivalence.

You don't think that Objectivism holds that if an act is ethical then it is selfish, and that if an act is selfish then it is ethical?

And even if it were only one direction of the arrow, no matter which direction, it doesn't follow by valid logic in the Objectivist arguments.

If and only if it is a benefit to one's own survival? — Garrett Travers

I don't see the point in quibbling whether we say "to benefit one's own survival" or "selfish".

Except, again, Objectivism says not just survival, but surviving to enjoy the exercise of one's rational values (which, is pretty much the Objectivist notion of selfishness).

And you just said it is not in 'if and only if ' form, yet you present your own version in 'if and only if' form.

'if and only if' is not an equation; it is an equivalence.

You don't think that Objectivism holds that if an act is ethical then it is selfish, and that if an act is selfish then it is ethical?

And even if it were only one direction of the arrow, no matter which direction, it doesn't follow by valid logic in the Objectivist arguments. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, it's a biconditional.

Yes, the standard has to be in accord with the benefit of the individual conceptualizing the behavior. Behavior that is self-oppositional is not something that follows from logic, or in function.

Another abysmally vague term.

And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Then they wouldn't have been brought up together. — Garrett Travers

That is absurd. Bringing up two items for consideration together is not in and of itself equating them.

No, it's a biconditional. — Garrett Travers

Good. That's what I said it is. I don't know why you said it isn't then changed your mind.

That is absurd. Bringing up two items for consideration together is not in and of itself equating them. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, because you weren't relating the two in function.

Whatever 'relate in function means', my not mentioning it is not an assertion of an equality.

Good. That's what I said it is. I don't know why you said it isn't then changed your mind. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Because it's two in the morning, and I've been going around with you for hours about nonsense. Yes, ethical conceptualizations are self-benefitting actions. Self-oppositional actions are not ethical, because they harm the source of ethics, and the source of values, and the source of conceptualizations generated to guide one's behavior. It is inconsistent in function, and in logic.

Whatever 'relate in function means', I did not claim to state the argument for the conclusion. I just said that the premises don't entail the conclusion. The conclusion is the biconditional I stated. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Function, as in what the purpose reason has been evolved to fulfill. What it is doing in function.

Whatever 'relate in function means', my not mentioning it is not an assertion of an equality. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Then there was no reason to waste our time on it. I'm going to bed now. I'll pick this up tomorrow.

Because it's two in the morning — Garrett Travers

It's been two in the morning for 16 hours for you since your second post.

nonsense — Garrett Travers

Yours.

Yes, ethical conceptualizations are self-benefitting actions. Self-oppositional actions are not ethical — Garrett Travers

Moreover, that should be bidirectional. With both directions, my original formulation is tantamount to yours.