Morality

[Conserative Morality]

No, it's not valuing an amoral outcome. It is stating that, from a pure view of how society functions, the voluntary society would function in a way that initiated force, which tears society apart, would be the only prohibition. It has nothing to do with value, just from a pragmatic view, a voluntary society would function in a way that is the most beneficial to humanity.

Let's go over this one more time:

1. You have not made a convincing case for freedom and lack of force providing for your claimed results.
2. You have not made a convincing case for why your claimed results for an ideal society would be... well, ideal.
3. You have not made an argument meaningfully challenging the idea that there is no reason to pursue such methods for an amoral outcome; your argument hinges on the idea that your ideal society is, in fact, a moral outcome. If it was an entirely amoral outcome, you'd have no position on the subject. Rather, your conceptions of human functioning value the outcomes supposedly brought about by freedom and lack of force, thus bringing us back to square one.

[Sociobiology]

just as people see no reason to acknowledge yours as valid. the validity of morality is entirely opinion.

No, it makes them wrong. I don't NEED others to acknowledge my morals as right or wrong. People are entirely irrelevant.

Whether or not you believe the best path is the best path does not make it NOT the best path.

however so far the justification for your way being best is your say so.

[Sociobiology]

I would beg to differ with a few rhetorical questions that might make you want to reconsider. Would you agree that murder is wrong?

define murder.

If morality is subjective as you describe it and cannot be objective because it exists within the mind, then when did you decide that it was wrong?

generally we don't, evolution has programmed us to empathize very closely with those in our tribe and dislike anything that might cause them suffering. Because that kept us from doing things that would get us banished.

If our greatest ancestors simply just knew that murder was wrong without any catalyst, again it is implied that the idea of unjustified killing being wrong is intrinsic.

no it implies we evolved as a social species. I mentioned instincts more than once.

Further, if morality truly is subjective then why would you or anyone bother doing anything good?

why do you prefer to listen to music and not random noise even though what is music is entirely subjective.

If morality were subjective then it would stem to reason that society and humanity would collapse within short order.

[/quote]
why? Lots of things we do are subjective, laws are subjective, that does not mean they don't work.

[Sociobiology]

Quite a while back I had made a thread entitled "Moral Nihilism", which states morality is subjective.[...]

Sort of, but no.
Moral nihilism states that there is no moral truth.
The implication is that all moralities are equally valid, in that they all lack validity.

except validity and truth are two different things, validity is internal consistency, truth is whether it is actually exists. Many forms of morality are valid while not being true.

[GEUtest]

Morality takes various forms and definitions which change but i believe it ultimately is a set of rules , behaviours and traits of the self that define a good person whom is ultimately in the best situation to contribute to himself and the betterment of society. Many would tend to associate morality with religion , but i don't think it's a solely religious commitment. Examples of moral codes include , The Ten Commandments or The Moral Code of The Builder of Communism. However both these are the subject of extreme debate , political bias and prejudice of the self. Morality will always inevitably mediate the extension of " The Right to Expression " , because certain expressions can promote behaviours which are injurious morally such as obscene behaviour or certain elements which will promote psychologically or physically wrong ideas.

In effect it divides into two aspects , A Moral Person and an Immoral person. The GEU's policies base themselves strongly on morality ,

Some examples of Immoral Behaviour can include:-

Urinating in public when other facilities are available.
Cussing and Cursing loud in the presence of children , empowering violence or ethnic discrimination.
Hooliganism ( Adults dressed in animal suits and acting like them without cause )
Symbolism which promotes negative behaviour.

Some Examples of Moral Behaviour can include:-

Being Well Dressed , Orderly and Neat.
Empowering behaviour such as Honesty and Modesty , whilst negating practices such as lying.
Organization and Orderliness in one's behaviour not cutting through , not loitering around without cause.
The Ability to act on wrong and dismiss that which is injurious to society.
Respect for another persons ethinicity , religion and orientation and raising no questions on this matter , minding one's own business.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morality is the identity of what makes us human , it is the rejection of the darwinist belief that because we are descended from animals it is normal for us to act as such , it is the rejection of the belief that negative behaviour is merely " natural ".

[Sociobiology]

I did that long ago.

Why would I value an amoral outcome? Morals are just the application of values; your position requires that your nondescript 'benefit' for society: it requires that peace and efficiency are to be valued by the person in question. You assume that peaceful functioning is to be valued, that freedom and peace are connected, that force is counter-productive, and that counter-productive actions are undesirable.

Good

No, it's not valuing an amoral outcome. It is stating that, from a pure view of how society functions, the voluntary society would function in a way that initiated force, which tears society apart, would be the only prohibition. It has nothing to do with value, just from a pragmatic view, a voluntary society would function in a way that is the most beneficial to humanity.

If you are against the benefit of humanity, then good for you, because voluntaryism isn't forcing you to work with others.

there is a question that comes before morality,
"is this form of society stable" that is does it function in such a way that it is likely to persist. And the sad truth is societies that do engage in behavioral controls are not stable. either you can force people to obey the rules of your society or the society is not stable. This whole nonsense about "initiation" of force ignores the fact people disagree about what constitutes force and what force is justified, thus what constitutes initiation of force is arbitrary. which means you still need to enforce a definition of force to prevent initiation of force, which means you must initiate force to oppose initiation of force.
This is how laws work, by creating a formal definition of an activity it makes it easier for people to know what will get them in trouble and easier to thus prevent such behavior.

[Valica]

I believe that if you are happy and not hurting other people around you, then everything is A-OK (because I'm strong as an O-A-K).

[Neutraligon]

And hence subjective. For something to be objective it must exist outside the mind. morals do not exist outside the mind, and therefore cannot be objective.

I would beg to differ with a few rhetorical questions that might make you want to reconsider. Would you agree that murder is wrong? If morality is subjective as you describe it and cannot be objective because it exists within the mind, then when did you decide that it was wrong? Why did you decide it was wrong? Or, was this idea of murdering being wrong given to you by your parents or others? Or, have you always known that murder is wrong? If you have always known that murder is wrong, this therefore implies that the notion of murder being wrong had existed before and is inherent within humanity. Of course, you can counter that this idea was implanted by your parents and others long before you were cognizant of the idea and were able to recognize it as an artificial concept. I would then ask the same questions of your ancestors, what made them decide that murder was wrong?

Once all is said and done, there must have been something that gave rise to the notion that killing without justification, murder, was wrong. This would then imply and set a precedent on which the notion of murder being wrong is based, thereby implying objectivity within the idea and concept of morality. If our greatest ancestors simply just knew that murder was wrong without any catalyst, again it is implied that the idea of unjustified killing being wrong is intrinsic. Further, if morality truly is subjective then why would you or anyone bother doing anything good? If morality were subjective then it would stem to reason that society and humanity would collapse within short order. You could argue that we came up with these precedents known as morals as a form of self-preservation, artificial selection if you will. If this is the case, then the objective standard on which our morals are based is clearly outlined, the survival and preservation of the species. But, what makes survival of the species good? Why bother preserving the species? It would be argued that it is simply within our nature to preserve ourselves, but again, this implies that there was something automatic and de facto that drove humanity to believe that survival was good, therefore anything that worked towards the survival of humanity was/is intrinsically good and worth doing.

I could go on, but I'm going to rest my case there.

Depends what you mean by murder. If you mean killing someone, not all the time. While I personally am not of the opinion that the ends justify the means, other people feel differently. For instance, if murdering someone today meant that people would never be sick or hungry again, is it worth it? Is it justified? Is it wrong? My subjective opinion is that yes it is wrong. I decided it was wrong because the excuse of for the greater good could be used to commit atrocities. Killing on the other hand is not always wrong, as in cases of self defense. More than that, we tend to excuse murder during times of war (killing the other). Killing is considered wrong (in general) because people do not want to be killed. They use their empathy to figure out that other people also do not want to be killed, and collectively decide not killing is a "good" thing. Of course, part of that is also based on evolution of communal species, but there are people who do not mind killing, who do not feel it is wrong, thus it is subjective. Morality being subjective does not mean it arises from reason, it could arise in part from instinct, but instinct is still internal to the human brain, not external, and it is thus still subjective. Even if the morality comes from a god, it is still subjective, since it is the opinions of another creature.

[Allector]

Depends what you mean by murder. If you mean killing someone, not all the time. While I personally am not of the opinion that the ends justify the means, other people feel differently. For instance, if murdering someone today meant that people would never be sick or hungry again, is it worth it? Is it justified? Is it wrong? My subjective opinion is that yes it is wrong. I decided it was wrong because the excuse of for the greater good could be used to commit atrocities. Killing on the other hand is not always wrong, as in cases of self defense. More than that, we tend to excuse murder during times of war (killing the other). Killing is considered wrong (in general) because people do not want to be killed. They use their empathy to figure out that other people also do not want to be killed, and collectively decide not killing is a "good" thing. Of course, part of that is also based on evolution of communal species, but there are people who do not mind killing, who do not feel it is wrong, thus it is subjective. Morality being subjective does not mean it arises from reason, it could arise in part from instinct, but instinct is still internal to the human brain, not external, and it is thus still subjective. Even if the morality comes from a god, it is still subjective, since it is the opinions of another creature.

You make some excellent points. Anyways, I define murder as the killing of another human for purposes other than to protect the life of oneself or the lives of others. One thing I would like to bring up though is that simply because there are people who believe killing is a good thing does not necessarily imply that something must be subjective. They could just be wrong about something. It's the same way in the sciences and in mathematics, you may have a different answer than the majority or what is generally accepted as the right answer, but this does not imply that all answers are valid. Of course this brings up a whole new discussion on truth and correctness.

One more thing, if we have based our decision not to kill on empathy then we have a standard with which to compare our actions and decisions, hence implying at least some form of objectivity. Also, empathy, sympathy and all other interpersonal emotions rely on external experience meaning that while they exist as a concept within the mind, they require external stimuli to be applied.

[Neutraligon]

Depends what you mean by murder. If you mean killing someone, not all the time. While I personally am not of the opinion that the ends justify the means, other people feel differently. For instance, if murdering someone today meant that people would never be sick or hungry again, is it worth it? Is it justified? Is it wrong? My subjective opinion is that yes it is wrong. I decided it was wrong because the excuse of for the greater good could be used to commit atrocities. Killing on the other hand is not always wrong, as in cases of self defense. More than that, we tend to excuse murder during times of war (killing the other). Killing is considered wrong (in general) because people do not want to be killed. They use their empathy to figure out that other people also do not want to be killed, and collectively decide not killing is a "good" thing. Of course, part of that is also based on evolution of communal species, but there are people who do not mind killing, who do not feel it is wrong, thus it is subjective. Morality being subjective does not mean it arises from reason, it could arise in part from instinct, but instinct is still internal to the human brain, not external, and it is thus still subjective. Even if the morality comes from a god, it is still subjective, since it is the opinions of another creature.

You make some excellent points. Anyways, I define murder as the killing of another human for purposes other than to protect the life of oneself or the lives of others. One thing I would like to bring up though is that simply because there are people who believe killing is a good thing does not necessarily imply that something must be subjective. They could just be wrong about something. It's the same way in the sciences and in mathematics, you may have a different answer than the majority or what is generally accepted as the right answer, but this does not imply that all answers are valid. Of course this brings up a whole new discussion on truth and correctness.

One more thing, if we have based our decision not to kill on empathy then we have a standard with which to compare our actions and decisions, hence implying at least some form of objectivity. Also, empathy, sympathy and all other interpersonal emotions rely on external experience meaning that while they exist as a concept within the mind, they require external stimuli to be applied.

It however dos not necessarily make the opinion invalid, should there be evidence supporting the claim. More then that, it is the very fact that people disagree (have opinions) on the subject of right and wrong, even on the most fundamental questions that make it subjective. Morality cannot exist outside the mind because morality is entirely about interactions between people on an individual level, a person and society, and between societies.

Except some people cannot feel empathy, and who we feel empathy for varies between people. Also, how we respond to that empathy differs between people, thus making it again subjective. Requiring external stimuli does not make something less subjective, because people can have differing responses to that stimuli. Something is only objective if it exists outside of the mind. Two objects are two objects, even if no animal existed. That is something objective.

[Allector]

define murder.

The killing of another person with malice or malcontent towards the person which cannot be justified as defense of oneself or the lives of others.

generally we don't, evolution has programmed us to empathize very closely with those in our tribe and dislike anything that might cause them suffering. Because that kept us from doing things that would get us banished.

If evolution has programmed us to be empathetic towards others within our tribe and to not do things that would get us banished from our tribe this implies some objective standard, i.e. we must not do this because empathy and evolution requires us not to versus I must not do this because I would not like this done to me.

no it implies we evolved as a social species. I mentioned instincts more than once.

Instincts are themselves intrinsic, while at their origin they may not have been, since then they have become intrinsic. Also, instincts are based upon survivability an environmental suitability, again an objective on which instincts and then morals based on instincts is built.

why do you prefer to listen to music and not random noise even though what is music is entirely subjective.

While a good analogy, that's entirely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with morality. Further, and I can't repeat this enough, just because one aspect of human nature is entirely subjective does not imply that all aspects of human nature are subjective. It's the same as correlation does not imply causation.

why? Lots of things we do are subjective, laws are subjective, that does not mean they don't work.

I'm not saying subjective things don't work, I'm simply saying that there are some things which make more sense to be objective than subjective. Also, laws are merely practical applications of moral beliefs.

[Seshephe]

Quite a while back I had made a thread entitled "Moral Nihilism", which states morality is subjective. The majority of everyone agreed.

But, what is your morality? How does it differ forms others'.

My morality is the basically accepted morality in the west, but with a bit of an extreme twist. I believe selflessness is morally good, and greed is morally bad. Coercion, I believe, is morally bad, and voluntary and egalitarian social relationships are good.

Morality is ultimately subjective, there's no objective morality outside of human experience. But there are some objective facts that underpin human relationships and morality and that any serious theory or moral framework needs to take into account if it is to be taken seriously.

So you might say that there is an objective morality, if you grant a few underlying axioms. Of course, what exactly those axioms should be is another matter.

Personally my morality is rather fluid, I wouldn't say that I have some sort of fixed moral theory that I ascribe to and I doubt that very many people do. Morality is nearly as much human nature as it is culture.

I believe selflessness is morally good, and greed is morally bad. Coercion, I believe, is morally bad, and voluntary and egalitarian social relationships are good.

I wouldn't be able to make broad general unconditioned moral statements like that. Selflessness is usually morally good but it can be overdone to the point of being morally neutral or even bad. Coercion is generally a bad thing but there are times when it is necessary so morally good or neutral.

Voluntary is a tricky concept because it has so many limits. Does a heroin addict choose to buy more heroin? Dubious. Is a brainwashed member of a sect choosing to stay in the sect? Dubious.

[Zottistan]

I don't really have any clear-cut moral or ethical opinions, being a moral nihilist. My behaviour is generally egoistic, but I'm neither a rational nor an ethical egoist.

[BOS Capital Chapter]

I think of it like this: If you are able to help someone, you have a morale right to help.

[Allector]

It however dos not necessarily make the opinion invalid, should there be evidence supporting the claim. More then that, it is the very fact that people disagree (have opinions) on the subject of right and wrong, even on the most fundamental questions that make it subjective. Morality cannot exist outside the mind because morality is entirely about interactions between people on an individual level, a person and society, and between societies.

Except some people cannot feel empathy, and who we feel empathy for varies between people. Also, how we respond to that empathy differs between people, thus making it again subjective. Requiring external stimuli does not make something less subjective, because people can have differing responses to that stimuli. Something is only objective if it exists outside of the mind. Two objects are two objects, even if no animal existed. That is something objective.

Again, just because there are differing opinions does not imply that something is subjective in nature. It's the same way with laws, which are supposedly based on morals. Simply disagreeing with a law does not mean that the law is negated or that your opinion of the law and what should be done is equally as valid as the law itself. Also, since morality is entirely based on interactions between people and structures of humanity as you have said, which are external in nature, this would then imply that there is a link between morality and external experiences, we do this because of that or we do that because of this essentially.

If someone does not feel empathy, upon which supposedly moral concepts or at least a moral concept, then they must in turn look to another source for how they are supposed to act. Often, they turn to societal norms which in turn are based on morals which are supposedly based on empathy and other interpersonal emotions. But why should they obey societal norms and conform to others' morals, what drives them to? If it is simply for their own benefit, then it is still objective in that the standard on which they are acting is that how you should act should be to your benefit (Randian ethics, which I am not a fan of by the way). Or, if they are doing it because it is what society demands and is to society's benefit, again that is the objective standard on which they act, act because society demands it for its own benefit (similar to utilitarian ethics, which I'm also not a fan of).

With regards to your objects argument we can examine the following
i. A is an object
ii. B is a concept or idea that exists within A
iii. Therefore, B is a creation of an object OR was created with the object, for the object
iiii. Therefore, by the nature of inheritance, B inherits object attributes from A
iiiii. Therefore B is objective in nature

Or more simply
i. A is an object
ii. B is an idea or concept existing within A
iii. Therefore, B is objective in nature

P.S.

You're an excellent debater and make some very excellent points. I quite enjoyed this discourse with you and I actually had a hard time coming up with a counter-argument to your last, so bravo good sire

[Zottistan]

It however dos not necessarily make the opinion invalid, should there be evidence supporting the claim. More then that, it is the very fact that people disagree (have opinions) on the subject of right and wrong, even on the most fundamental questions that make it subjective. Morality cannot exist outside the mind because morality is entirely about interactions between people on an individual level, a person and society, and between societies.

Except some people cannot feel empathy, and who we feel empathy for varies between people. Also, how we respond to that empathy differs between people, thus making it again subjective. Requiring external stimuli does not make something less subjective, because people can have differing responses to that stimuli. Something is only objective if it exists outside of the mind. Two objects are two objects, even if no animal existed. That is something objective.

Again, just because there are differing opinions does not imply that something is subjective in nature. It's the same way with laws, which are supposedly based on morals. Simply disagreeing with a law does not mean that the law is negated or that your opinion of the law and what should be done is equally as valid as the law itself. Also, since morality is entirely based on interactions between people and structures of humanity as you have said, which are external in nature, this would then imply that there is a link between morality and external experiences, we do this because of that or we do that because of this essentially.

If someone does not feel empathy, upon which supposedly moral concepts or at least a moral concept, then they must in turn look to another source for how they are supposed to act. Often, they turn to societal norms which in turn are based on morals which are supposedly based on empathy and other interpersonal emotions. But why should they obey societal norms and conform to others' morals, what drives them to? If it is simply for their own benefit, then it is still objective in that the standard on which they are acting is that how you should act should be to your benefit (Randian ethics, which I am not a fan of by the way). Or, if they are doing it because it is what society demands and is to society's benefit, again that is the objective standard on which they act, act because society demands it for its own benefit (similar to utilitarian ethics, which I'm also not a fan of).

With regards to your objects argument we can examine the following
i. A is an object
ii. B is a concept or idea that exists within A
iii. Therefore, B is a creation of an object OR was created with the object, for the object
iiii. Therefore, by the nature of inheritance, B inherits object attributes from A
iiiii. Therefore B is objective in nature

Or more simply
i. A is an object
ii. B is an idea or concept existing within A
iii. Therefore, B is objective in nature

P.S.

You're an excellent debater and make some very excellent points. I quite enjoyed this discourse with you and I actually had a hard time coming up with a counter-argument to your last, so bravo good sire

Of course there's a link between morality and external experience. Moral questions deal with deciding which external actions and experiences are desirable or valuable. It's the value part that's unobjective; there's no "objective" reason for preferring strawberry icecream, just like there's no objective reason for preferring a world where gays can or can't marry eachother. Morality is choosing between objective alternatives based on subjective values.

Egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian.

Your argument isn't using "objective" in the sense most people use it for moral discussion. "Objective" in a moral sense means "not arbitrary", not "not physical". The statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary; it's based on arational preferences decided by the physical constructs of our brains. It'd be similar to programming a computer to "dislike" a certain thing. "X is bad" just because.

[Neutraligon]

Again, just because there are differing opinions does not imply that something is subjective in nature. It's the same way with laws, which are supposedly based on morals. Simply disagreeing with a law does not mean that the law is negated or that your opinion of the law and what should be done is equally as valid as the law itself. Also, since morality is entirely based on interactions between people and structures of humanity as you have said, which are external in nature, this would then imply that there is a link between morality and external experiences, we do this because of that or we do that because of this essentially.

Of course there's a link between morality and external experience. Moral questions deal with deciding which external actions and experiences are desirable or valuable. It's the value part that's unobjective; there's no "objective" reason for preferring strawberry icecream, just like there's no objective reason for preferring a world where gays can or can't marry eachother. Morality is choosing between objective alternatives based on subjective values.

Egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian.

Your argument isn't using "objective" in the sense most people use it for moral discussion. "Objective" in a moral sense means "not arbitrary", not "not physical". The statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary; it's based on arational preferences decided by the physical constructs of our brains. It'd be similar to programming a computer to "dislike" a certain thing. "X is bad" just because.

You beat me to it. This is also why we need to define terms before we debate.

Allector I also enjoy this discussion, thank you.

[The Emerald Legion]

No, it makes them wrong. I don't NEED others to acknowledge my morals as right or wrong. People are entirely irrelevant.

Whether or not you believe the best path is the best path does not make it NOT the best path.

however so far the justification for your way being best is your say so.

So? That's the only justification ANYONE has.

[Sociobiology]

however so far the justification for your way being best is your say so.

So? That's the only justification ANYONE has.

exactly, that makes their justification just as good as yours, not better, not worse, equal.
which gives your way no claim to being better or preferable, there is no best path just as there is no best music.

now people can have more consistent moralities and some would say that is better. To me a mark of a good morality is constantly questioning if it is correct, a morality the reevaluates and changes, but that is just me.

[Allector]

Of course there's a link between morality and external experience. Moral questions deal with deciding which external actions and experiences are desirable or valuable. It's the value part that's unobjective; there's no "objective" reason for preferring strawberry icecream, just like there's no objective reason for preferring a world where gays can or can't marry eachother. Morality is choosing between objective alternatives based on subjective values.

Egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian.

Your argument isn't using "objective" in the sense most people use it for moral discussion. "Objective" in a moral sense means "not arbitrary", not "not physical". The statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary; it's based on arational preferences decided by the physical constructs of our brains. It'd be similar to programming a computer to "dislike" a certain thing. "X is bad" just because.

Funnily enough, I actually used the programmer argument in a paper I wrote regarding objectivity within morality. Yes, the statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary because no reasoning as to why it is bad has been attached to it. However, if we state "X is bad because" or someone asks why X is bad and we provide a reason, it ceases to be arbitrary since the decision as to whether X is bad or not is based on some precedent, whether empathy or other interpersonal emotions, societal norms or basic instinct.

And, yes egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian, but Rand was arguably the most popular and largest proponent of such an ethical system.

Also, the very reason we assign value to something, whether negative or positive gives reason to believe that there is some non-arbitrary reason as to why we assign values to actions.

You beat me to it. This is also why we need to define terms before we debate.

Allector I also enjoy this discussion, thank you.

It's always important to define terms. And, you're welcome.

[Ikania]

I'm a humanist.

[Sociobiology]

I'm a humanist.

secular humanist?

[Scomagia]

My morals are derived from Secular Buddhist principles and basic reason. If the two ever conflict, I default to the second.

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

I'm secular humanist.

[Zottistan]

Of course there's a link between morality and external experience. Moral questions deal with deciding which external actions and experiences are desirable or valuable. It's the value part that's unobjective; there's no "objective" reason for preferring strawberry icecream, just like there's no objective reason for preferring a world where gays can or can't marry eachother. Morality is choosing between objective alternatives based on subjective values.

Egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian.

Your argument isn't using "objective" in the sense most people use it for moral discussion. "Objective" in a moral sense means "not arbitrary", not "not physical". The statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary; it's based on arational preferences decided by the physical constructs of our brains. It'd be similar to programming a computer to "dislike" a certain thing. "X is bad" just because.

Funnily enough, I actually used the programmer argument in a paper I wrote regarding objectivity within morality. Yes, the statement "X is bad" is always arbitrary because no reasoning as to why it is bad has been attached to it. However, if we state "X is bad because" or someone asks why X is bad and we provide a reason, it ceases to be arbitrary since the decision as to whether X is bad or not is based on some precedent, whether empathy or other interpersonal emotions, societal norms or basic instinct.

X is bad because Y.
Y is bad... just because.

Or,
X is bad because Y.
Y is bad because Z.
Z is bad... just because.

In any system of values you have to make that one fundamental value judgement that's completely devoid of reason and logic. The best you can do is "Z is bad because I don't like Z", which is still arbitrary. You can build a perfectly logical system of ethics out of these fundamental value judgements, but the systems are ultimately arbitrary, because they're based on one or more arbitrary judgement.

And, yes egoist ethics aren't necessarily Randian, but Rand was arguably the most popular and largest proponent of such an ethical system.

Unfortunately.

Also, the very reason we assign value to something, whether negative or positive gives reason to believe that there is some non-arbitrary reason as to why we assign values to actions.

Evolution and past experience. The way our brains materially are decides what we fundamentally value. But that also makes them arbitrary, because it removes the reason and logic from value.

I often thought the choosing of fundamental values was similar to an aesthetic judgement, in which case you could call a moral system or a moral action a work of art, and define morality as making the world more morally "beautiful". But like all beauty, moral beauty would be in the eyes of the beholder.