epistemologue

I think that's a great criteria for judging a candidate, and actually Evan McMullin is pretty outstanding by that standard (his moderate policies aside).

This isn't a good analogy, because in this case one's actions still do not cause the death of these innocent Czechs. You aren't killing them, someone else is; you didn't cause their death, the Nazis did. It's not your moral responsibility, it's theirs. So you are entirely justified in "pulling the lever" in that case - you're acting in self-defense against these aggressors, and you are not the one causing the deaths of innocent people.

Would you like to state your opinion here? Or would you mind if I quoted you from the chat?

This is not the origin or justification for principles! Newton made careful observations of reality and identified a universal truth about the nature of reality: the law of gravitation. Rand, studying man, identified universal truths about the nature of man: the principles of egoism or individual rights, for example. These are not heuristics that are generally, pragmatically useful for making judgments under time constraints in order to achieve some outcome that you prefer! These are truths that are discovered about the fundamental nature of reality and of man. These are characteristics of identity, and so they apply universally, on pain of contradiction.

When Rand talks about seeking "joy" and "exaltation", these are different from moral values. As she writes in Galt's speech, "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values." In other words, happiness isn't the value itself, it's a result, a feeling that follows from having achieved one's values. Moral values aren't in the experiences themselves. Moral good refers to a person's virtue and integrity.

Yes it does

This is a false dichotomy you're making between "intention" and "competence". The issue isn't a division between whether you desire something vs. whether you act to achieve it; it's between whether you desire something and act to achieve it vs. whether you actually achieve it. It's action vs. outcome. Virtue and morality pertain to the action itself, not to whether or not you happen to achieve the effects that you desire, which can depend on other factors. Roark acted with integrity despite not achieving the effect he desired, to build the building the way he wanted, because actually achieving that effect depended also on the actions of others. If you're not sure whether rights enter into tragic situations, what about rationality, justice, or integrity? Individual rights are the application of moral principles to a social context. Whether or not the situation is tragic is irrelevant, the question of context pertains to whether or not the situation is social: if it is, then individual rights apply, for the same reason that rationality, justice, and integrity apply.

I have a benevolent universe premise and a benevolent people premise, so no, I do not identify with the alt-right. However, you seem vehemently opposed to the idea of persuading people who disagree with you through rational argument, which is characteristic of a malevolent people premise. Are you sure you don't identify with the alt-right yourself? See my thread on the subject here: Also, I have to say, this conspiratorial frenzy you've worked yourself up into over people like Louie and I, who have been on this forum for years, is absurd to the point of being comedic. Relevant Seinfeld:

I wanted to start a thread just for general discussion of a benevolent or malevolent sense of life, and in particular, the concepts of a benevolent universe premise (BUP), malevolent universe premise (MUP), benevolent people premise (BPP), and malevolent people premise (MPP). Which of these do you identify with personally, and why? And do you have any reservations or disclaimers you want to add? In general, one can have a benevolent or malevolent sense of life. A "sense of life" is the basic emotional stance one has on life that comes from one's implicit metaphysical value judgments. Metaphysical value judgments are one's overall value judgments or feelings about the essential nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence.1 If one has an overall positive judgment about the metaphysical nature of reality and of man, then one's basic emotional stance on life will be positive. One will have a benevolent sense of life. Likewise, if one has an overall negative judgment about the metaphysical nature of reality and of man, then one's basic emotional stance on life will be negative; one will have a malevolent sense of life. Someone with an overall benevolent sense of life has a philosophical conviction that their life and the universe are good and valuable, a conviction that is not shaken simply by going through trying circumstances. They have a conviction that joy, exaltation, beauty, greatness, and heroism are the meaning of life, and not any pain or ugliness that they may encounter. They believe that happiness is what matters in life, but suffering does not, and that the essence of life is the achievement of joy, not the escape from pain. Pain, fear, and guilt are inessential and are not to be taken seriously as a scar across one's view of existence. Their basic stance when it comes to any question is that they love being alive, and they love the universe in which they live. "We exist and we know that we exist, and we love that fact and our knowledge of it" (Augustine). One's sense of life can be further analyzed into two basic categories: one's judgment of the universe, and one's judgment of man. An overall positive or negative judgment about the nature of the universe is what Rand calls the "Benevolent Universe Premise" (BUP) or "Malevolent Universe Premise" (MUP), respectively; a positive or negative judgment about the nature of man is the "Benevolent People Premise" (BPP) or "Malevolent People Premise" (MPP)2. A fully benevolent sense of life will combine a benevolent judgment of the universe and a benevolent judgment of man: both BUP and BPP. One may have a characteristically mixed sense of life, with a benevolent universe premise but a malevolent people premise (BUP/MPP), or a malevolent universe premise but a benevolent people premise (MUP/BPP).3 A benevolent universe premise (BUP) is characterized by a reverence for the Universe, and the belief that the universe, by nature, is intelligible to man, and that his happiness is possible in a place such as this. It's the belief that the things around you are real and ruled by natural laws, and that reality is stable, firm, absolute, and knowable. Tragedy is the exception in life, not the rule. Success, not failure, is the to-be-expected. It's the conviction that man is not ultimately doomed in this universe, but rather that a human way of life is possible. A benevolent people premise (BPP) is characterized by a reverence for Man, and the belief that man, by nature, is to be regarded as rational and valued as good. It's the belief that man has the power of choice, the power to choose his goals and to achieve them, and the power to direct the course of his life. It is the conviction that ideas matter, that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters. It's this conviction that leads to a respect and goodwill toward men, and an attitude, in individual encounters, of treating men as rational beings, on the premise that a man is innocent until proven guilty. One is unable to believe in the power or triumph of evil; evil is regarded as impotent and unreal, and injustice is the exception in life, not the rule. Consequently one has confidence in one's ability to judge others, to communicate with others, and to persuade them by rational argument, and a belief that the great potential value of men is the to-be-expected. The rationality in others is what matters, not their irrationality, and in essence they are a potential source of value, not a potential threat of dis-value. 1. For more on "sense of life", see the chapter "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manifesto, by Ayn Rand 2. "Benevolent People Premise" is a term coined by Objectivist Dan Edge in blog posts back in 2007. You can find them here and here. Also see his thread here on Objectivism Online here. 3. See how Ayn Rand applies the BUP/MPP and MUP/BPP mixtures to the field of literature in her chapter "What is Romanticism?" in The Romantic Manifesto, where she discusses "volition in regard to existence, but not to consciousness" and "volition in regard to consciousness, but not to existence".

If there's not some immaterial soul - not of a mystical variety, but some metaphysical identity - wouldn't that contradict the Objectivist belief in volition (among other things)?

Another quote from Ayn Rand's letters relevant to positive utilitarianism:

Listen to Leonard Peikoff's answer to this question: http://www.peikoff.com/2008/05/26/if-five-people-are-in-an-emergency-room-dying-and-one-healthy-person-in-the-waiting-room-could-save-them-all-if-we-used-his-organs-is-it-morally-permissible-to-do-this-even-though-hell-die/

I'm at a loss at how to state this more clearly. Let me try to answer in the style of Dr. Seuss's "green eggs and ham": I would not murder someone in a house I would not murder them with a mouse I would not murder someone here or there I would not murder them ANYWHERE! I would not, I could not on a boat I will not, will not, with a goat I will not murder someone in the rain I will not murder someone with a train Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! You let me be! I will not murder someone! *** Seriously though, there is no trade you can offer me that would make it worth it, it doesn't matter what are the stakes, it doesn't matter how many murders, tortures, or rapes you put on the other side. Why? Because it's a moral principle based on the metaphysical nature of man. It's a matter of integrity, and as Rand has demonstrated in her fiction and philosophy, to sacrifice one's integrity is irrational. Intentionally killing an innocent man cannot add value to the world or to your life; all values that are produced in the world come from such men, and to murder them goes against the cause of your interests. All of those deaths you want to put at stake are not caused by this innocent man, destroying him can only add to the destruction and affirm the evil. If you want to stop the destruction and fight this evil, you must stop it at its cause. In a hypothetical where you are cut off from that cause and there is nothing you can do to stop it, the only choice remaining to you is to not add to the evil in the world in your own actions and in your own person. You can only fight evil by standing on principle for the good in your own person in the alternatives and choices available to you.

In Ayn Rand's concept of egoism, whether it's in Roark, Rearden, or others, she demonstrated that sacrificing one's integrity is not rational - in principle it goes against one's own judgment, and in practice, it contradicts one's own interests. I wouldn't deliberately act irrationally. The question is being posed as if doing something irrational would yield good results, but it can't, and even if it could, how could I know it? I can only know and act on a rational basis. If I make a choice to refuse to take some action, because such an action is self-contradictory, then I have an indisputable reason for my choice. I will stand by that reason against anything that anyone has to say, and I will do so with a sense of complete assurance. As for what Rearden would do, he was explicit. Murder is a human sacrifice. It's a violation of individual rights - and the violation of one man's individual rights is a violation of all men's individual rights. If he were asked to perform such a sacrifice, he would refuse, he would reject it as the most contemptible evil. He would fight it with every power he possesses, even if the whole of mankind were against him, with full confidence in the justice of his battle and of a living being's right to exist. How can his position be mistaken?

The reason I'm stressing outcomes and consequentialism is because that's exactly what you're suppporting. Look at the things you're saying and tell me this is not an outcome-based, consequentialist ethics: "If a moral principle (not stealing) leads to you dying...the principle doesn't apply" "If an action causes you to die, it's immoral." "If an action causes you to live and flourish, it's moral." "we want to bring about flourishing, We're able to measure flourishing by the effects it has on one's life concretely" "the value of habits and virtues is from their consequences" "outcomes are how to measure if something is part of [morality]" You can recognize virtue by the values it produces in reality. Everything of value produced by man depended on his acting virtuously. But the issue of having virtue is distinct from the fruits of virtue. You can have virtue and act virtuously while losing everything. Roark cared more about his integrity than he did about any concrete value. He didn't measure his integrity by the concrete results, he measured it according to the standards of rational, moral principle. Refusing the commission because he wouldn't compromise his standards was an act of integrity without any concrete results. He wasn't just trying to produce the "best" concrete results that he could, he was trying to produce results that were good, according to his standards. The value he cared about wasn't in the buildings (the concrete results), it was in buildings done his way, in the integrity of their design, and in his integrity as a designer. Roark: Dominique: Quotes from Atlas: To answer your last point, I no longer support utilitarianism as a moral philosophy*. It is inconsistent with Objectivism. Intentionally killing an innocent person is morally unjustifiable - i.e. murder - regardless of the circumstances. * See my post in the metaphysics of death thread for some discussion of that:

Would you say that you're not the same as Rearden? Or do you agree with Rearden when it comes to sacrificing yourself, but not when it comes to sacrificing other people?

Correct... I don't think white nationalism (a la stormfront, etc) is a part of the "alt-right" at all, actually.

I've been rereading your posts in this thread and the other, and your position as far as I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that "This is not an easy choice but depends on the context of the chooser", and that while pulling the lever IS murder, the question is whether or not one could live with such a thing as being a murderer in exchange for saving five lives (and presumably by "live with" you mean being able to live with yourself, as in psychologically and morally, not merely in terms of the legal or social consequences you'd face from the outside). If so, then I believe splitprimary is asking a legitimate question: if one is doing the right thing morally by killing the person, then why wouldn't they feel righteous, virtuous, and morally proud of their action? Why are you agreeing that it's murder, and that there these devastating moral and psychological consequences? If you were fully convinced it was the right thing to do wouldn't you argue that it's not murder, but rather a justified killing, and feel differently?

Louie, rights are a moral principle. You said, "I'd do this because defending values is itself virtuous and how I measure that I am in fact being virtuous." I know. That's precisely what I'm arguing against. The terms "principle" or "virtue" do not refer to the outcomes of your actions, and cannot be measured in that way. They specifically refer to the character of the action itself independent of the outcome. Roark had integrity because he followed his principles even in the face of huge threats, even in the face of huge losses. Remember the scene where Roark rejects a contract to build a skyscraper because they asked for a few minor adjustments - he was broke and this was his last hope before he would be forced to go work at the quarry. That is integrity. That is principle, that is virtue. "It's not that I am violating a principle for the sake of other people. I'd be acting for the sake of my values that my virtues enable me to find and protect." Theft and murder are violations of a moral principle, whether you do it for the sake of other people (which you wouldn't, I know), or for the sake of your own ends.

More needs to be said of the political philosophy of the so-called alt-right*. This is one of the most revealing things I've ever seen: What are the logical consequences of a philosophy that takes a "negative view of human nature" (a malevolent people premise)? The first thing to go will be individual rights. A negative view of human nature implies that there's no real basis for holding the non-aggression principle: that one ought to deal with others on the basis of consent. Here is a great article by Andrea Castillo discussing the alt-right neoreactionaries: https://theumlaut.com/2014/07/29/a-gentle-introduction-to-neoreaction-for-libertarians/ Remind you of someone? The political philosophy of the alt-right is monarchist. If that seems weird or obscure to you, think of it in these terms: what they desire is an authoritarian strong-man to oppose the Establishment Left. That should not be an obscure idea at all, at this point. What's interesting is the origin of this political philosophy; quoting from Mencius Moldbug, the father of neoreactionary political philosophy: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html This is not an oddball political movement that's come out of nowhere - the predecessor of this political philosophy is none other than the quintessentially D2 anarchocapitalism of Rothbardian libertarianism. Think about it - what is the next logical step down the path of D2 politics? It's the disintegration of the non-aggression principle itself on the basis of a malevolent view of human nature. Continuing from Castillo's article: The "Cathedral" that Moldbug discusses in his writing is the new secular "religion" that inhabits the media, Hollywood, academia, big government leftists, etc., that propound postmodernism, feminism, egalitarianism, democracy, etc. Note how this fits with the narrative of how the election is "rigged" against Trump, "a public-private partnership" which includes at its forefront "the media". Neoreactionaries see themselves as explicitly "enlightened", and "beyond libertarianism": One last thing I'll point out from this article, quoting from the "Dark Enlightenment" writer Nick Land: Well what we see right now is reactionary political philosophy becoming a popular movement in the Trump campaign. The threat is real, and we've been warned: its few slender threads of civility will not hold back the beast for long. Dismissing these people as "trolls" and attempting to silence them is extremely foolish; you are cutting yourselves off from the very people you need to be persuading. As Peikoff identified in DIM, we've been on a "distintegrating" (D-type) trend in our society for quite some time, and this is the next logical evolution of D-type political philosophy. I think in light of the apparent size and popularity of this mass movement as we see in the Trump campaign, we need to be re-evaluating what was already a very dubious prediction at the end of his book, that society will devolve into the previous, unmixed "stable state" of the M2-type. On the contrary, what we are seeing right now is the progression of the D-type trend into the unmixed "stable state" of the D2-type. That is a much more credible prediction of where society is going now, and we need to be ready for it. * the article quoted above identifies the original meaning of the term "alt-right"; it's an umbrella term that included the "manosphere", "neoreactionaries", HBD (human bio-diversity), the "orthosphere", the "Dark Enlightenment", etc.

Eiuol, I'm happy to clarify. As I said, tragedies in art, and hypothetical emergencies like this trolley problem and others in ethics, present the most extreme cases, where one is forced to deal with a person who is irrational or a world in which one's interests are frustrated, to the point of becoming existential questions about how to deal with a world where such things are possible. Whether the case is a man with a moral code facing torture and death if he doesn't cooperate with the looters, or a man of genius and integrity driven to work as a day laborer in a quarry, or a starving man facing the choice to steal to live, or in this case one is faced with the choice to murder in order to save lives - these kinds of questions are designed to separate acting rationally and morally from the achievement of desirable outcomes. If you fundamentally rely on judging the ends in order to justify the means, then you are left without principles, without a moral code, helpless to make the right decision in these situations: you are forced to compromise your integrity, to steal, to lie, and to murder. You've stated elsewhere that in some situations you are willing to steal and to murder in order to save your own life. And now you've said you're willing to do it in order to save other people's lives. As an Objectivist you claim to stand for your integrity, for moral principle, and for individual rights. You claim to stand on the side of Galt, Dagny, Rearden, Francisco, Ragnar, and Roark. Yet, for the sake of your ends, you are willing to sacrifice these, like James Taggart, Wesley Mouch, Floyd Ferris, or Robert Stadler. Well we've shot your ethics out of a cannon, and it's exploded like a porcelain doll. You're not going to make it out of the quarry. The heroine who should have been your true love regards you with that merciless indifference of a zero which Dominique had for Keating in bed. You will not be contacted to enter the gulch. Such will be your status morally until you learn to justify your actions, not according to those values that come from the outcomes, but according to those individual rights and moral principles that come from the metaphysical nature of man.

Leonard Peikoff explains that line in The Fountainhead: From "Philosophy, Who Needs It?":

Replying to this from the other thread here... So you would murder an innocent stranger for the sake of the greater good?

Tragedy in art and emergencies in ethics take questions to the level of existentialism. What if you're faced with the situation of a man who is irrational or a universe that is malevolent? These questions completely separate your ability to make ethical decisions from the outcomes, and force you to justify your actions on the basis of being rationally self-consistent with your nature. Likewise in tragedy, it forces you to completely separate your judgment from whether or not you like the outcomes or the effect (you won't; it's a tragedy), and to evaluate the artwork according to its metaphysical self-consistency, especially when it comes to judging the characters in the tragedy according to these same ethical standards of rational self-consistency with human nature. Emergencies take ethics to its extreme to reveal the character of the system to the furthest possible extent. At what limit do one's principles break down, if at all? If the outcomes seem to be working against you, at what point do you break down to accepting a malevolent universe premise? What would break Roark? The only way to stress test that limit is to put them up against an extreme test: amidst a complete absence of his values, his ability to work, to have someone to love, etc, does he abandon his principles, or does he persist? If your ethics is a fragile, porcelain doll, you'd fold like a house of cards facing half of the adversity Roark faced. Only a consequentialist would be so deathly afraid of a hypothetical emergency that they'd evade the question or declare their inability to handle the moral question. Roark was given an ultimatum, that he must design according to popular styles, or be crushed by Wynand's power, and he did the opposite of evading the issue or crumbling under the pressure: he sketched what it was he was being asked for, and laughed it off as the most absurd thing he'd ever heard, as if to say, of course my principles are completely unbreakable, no matter how impossible you make it for me to succeed - this is my identity, and integrity compels me to act accordingly, regardless of the consequences. "I wish I could tell you that it was a temptation, at least for a moment." If the story had ended with Roark stuck in the quarry it still would have been a great work of tragic art. To stress the point, instead of relieving the conflict with Enright getting in contact with him, she could have pressed Roark further, have him face death itself, starving from lack of work or crucified, and made it an even greater work of tragic art by showing the furthest extent of his integrity. She took Galt that far - she did have him facing the threat of death, and even had him tortured. "It was the torturers who were trembling with terror... Wesley Mouch was first to break."