| I never got down to that part of the argument; as far as I could see, the second point collapsed into a paradox that the original author (Ayn Rand, not nature of reality) never resolved. Far more competent philosophers than her tripped up on this problem (Ayer and Popper were forced to reformulate positivism and ultimately change one of it's core principles). But each step contains fallacies.
The core problem with morality part of the argument is that morality is attatched to actions, not to objects. Morality requires a moral agent: an object has no agency, and therefore has no morality. The actions (keeping vs giving) are different, and it is the action to which the morality is attached. The candy bar is an artifact of actions and it's final disposition is a consequence of actions, but it is never an agent of any kind.
An action is usually thought to consist of a behaviour (physical movement) and a cognitive orientation (intention -- requiring an intentional actor: an agent). Actions are instantaneous, although there may be consequences over time. For example, if I throw a stone, the action of "throwing the stone" happens when I release the stone from my hand. After that, I am no longer throwing the stone. The stone may be in mid air -- as a consequence of having been thrown, but my action of throwing it is in the past.
Put all of these elements together and you get the perfectly sensible situation where two actions consisting of the same behaviour, but different intentions can have a different moral value. In some cases giving the same person giving the same candy bar might be moral; in others it might not. In neither case is the candy bar itself moral or otherwise. |