How can man act against his own nature?

[iouswuoibev]

I have found what seems to be a contradiction in an edict of Objectivist ethics. This would be that: man can choose to act according to his nature, or he can act against it. This seems to contradict the law of identity, that things are what they are. If man is what he is, then surely any behaviour he exhibits is according to his nature. If man acts against his nature, then isn't that stating that man can choose to not be what he is? That man can choose to not be man? That A can choose to = non-A? How is this valid?

I've long held the belief that man is what he is, and any behaviour he exhibits is because of his nature - just as any animal acts according to what it is. I am aware of the concept of acting on a sub-human level. But this stating that man can become something other than what he is. I think it would be correct to say that man's nature can encompass things that are also of the nature of animals. But not that man acting 'sub-human' is acting outside the nature of the man - in other words, he can be something other than what he is - in other words - A is being non A. Right? Wrong? Someone explain please.

[meganfiala]

You forgot all about VOLITION, which is what separates man from animals and allows him to act either for his life or against it.

[Tom Rexton]

Your problem is an equivocation of the word "nature".

The law of causality states that "an entity cannot act in contradiction to its nature." You've read a passage that states that "man can choose to act against his nature".

What is meant by first, versus the second?

Resolve that, and the apparent contradiction disappears.

[Betsy]

I have found what seems to be a contradiction in an edict of Objectivist ethics.

Actually, Objectivism doesn't have "edicts" -- especially when it comes to ethics. Ayn Rand presents facts, reasoning, conclusions, observations, recommendations, identifications, etc., but not edicts.

Instead of "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots," Objectivism has "IF you want ..., then you must ..." statements along with the facts and reasoning to back them up.

[iouswuoibev]

Your problem is an equivocation of the word "nature".

The law of causality states that "an entity cannot act in contradiction to its nature."  You've read a passage that states that "man can choose to act against his nature".

What is meant by first, versus the second?

Resolve that, and the apparent contradiction disappears.

"man can choose to act against his nature" evaluates to "an entity (in the case of man) can choose to act against its nature" which evaluates to "an entity (in the case of man) can act against its nature".

The only difference between that statement and the law of causality, is the phrase "in contradiction" as opposed to "against". If the difference you were refering to lies here, well... I'm not seeing it. Please, could you explain further?

EDIT: I should have read more carefully. You said I equivocated in regard to the word 'nature'. In the second context, is nature taken to mean 'the nature which is proper to mans survival', as opposed to 'nature in full' ? I haven't read the essay containing the passage you mentioned for a while, and don't recall if this distinction is made. I will have a look now (Virtue of Selfishness, if I remember correctly...).

[iouswuoibev]

Actually, Objectivism doesn't have "edicts" -- especially when it comes to ethics.  Ayn Rand presents facts, reasoning, conclusions, observations, recommendations, identifications, etc., but not edicts. 

Instead of "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots," Objectivism has "IF you want ..., then you must ..." statements along with the facts and reasoning to back them up.

I'll use the correct terminology in future.

[noumenalself]

You're focusing too much on the language of the idea that man can "act against his nature," and not enough on what it means.

You're right: nothing can act against its nature. Human volition is no exception to this point. Human nature necessitates the fact of choice: we cannot help but be faced with the choice to focus or not (even if either option might be taken).

But when Objectivists talk about man's ability to act against his nature, they are simply using "acting against his nature" in a different sense. What that means is acting in a manner that is contrary to the requirements of one survival. The ability to act against these requirements is not contrary to nature: it is part of the fact of volition.

There is nothing metaphysically acausal about acting destructively. But there is something psychologically acausal about it. That is, a person who acts irrationally and destructively isn't doing anything metaphysically impossible, but he is consciously pretending that the impossible is possible. Either he is trying to enact an effect without the cause, or he is rejecting the effect itself (life in reality).

So don't get caught up too much in the language of "acting against his nature." This is just a loose but illustrative way of saying "acting in a way that consciously rejects his nature."

[iouswuoibev]

You're focusing ... ....

... ... ...

So don't get caught up too much in the language of "acting against his nature." This is just a loose but illustrative way of saying "acting in a way that consciously rejects his nature."

That makes sense.

I think what you say about getting caught up in the language - which is a valid point by the way - brings me to think that it can also be a good thing to get caught up in the meaning of things. Semantics are important - nobody can deny that - and so it is important to make sure that I understand the terms being used. It might be a failing on my behalf here with having had to ask this question, and not Rand's. I'd have to check if she kept her terms clear in regards to what she meant by man's nature.

[source]

Hi.

iouswuoibev,

The law of causality states that "an entity cannot act in contradiction to its nature."  You've read a passage that states that "man can choose to act against his nature".

"Man can act against his nature" doesn't mean "man can act in contradiction to his nature." That man can act against his nature means that he can act in such a way as to be able to destroy himself. To act in contradiction to his nature (if it were possible) would mean to do things which are physically impossible to a man himself or to act against his nature and somehow these actions to be turned in favor of his existence. Therefore, man can act against his nature, but cannot act in contradiction to his nature.

[iouswuoibev]

Thanks for clarifying that. In some contexts, "against" and "in contradiction to" are synonymous. I think that's where the source of my misunderstanding was.

[conan]

Instead of "Thou shalts" and "Thou shalt nots," Objectivism has "IF you want ..., then you must ..." statements along with the facts and reasoning to back them up.

Betsy,

I would like you to expand a bit.

Take "thou shall not commit adultery" vs. "I want to commit adultery, so I must".

thanks,

conan

[AMERICONORMAN]

I take the idea that man can act against his nature, as being an observation about man’s nature. Man’s means of living is reason and reason is volitional. It has to be turned on by choice, it has to be sustained by choice, improved by choice, and even turned off by choice. Since man is an animal, and a living organism, he can revert to those primitive levels of living. As soon as he chooses to evade, or operate his mind improperly, he’s on his way. Since man has automatic-animalistic functions, he can survive for a period on the animal level—but only with the help of thinkers—or men. But proper human survival requires that men acknowledge their rational faculty and choose to use it properly. It requires that men choose chosen values—chosen values that are life-advancing. And this is what distinguishes us from all other entities.

Aristotle names a type of cause called the final cause. I.e., the tree is the “inspiration” for the seed to grow into. Ayn Rand believes that the idea of final causation is only applicable to a volitional consciousness, namely humans. So, Aristotle was false. It is only men who can choose values, or long-term goals, and have them serve as efficient causes—this is all according to the nature of human consciousness. But they can also choose the wrong final causes. But men need final causes or they will remain still. Stillness means death. Animals may have “final causes” but they don’t know that. Men have to.

Ayn Rand describes the “anti-conceptual” mentality; this is the closest men can come—and psychologically—to being beasts. And this type of mentality shouldn’t be able to work in modern society. It certainly wouldn’t work on a desert island. This suggests that a “conceptual” mentality is what men actually need to survive. It might be helpful to understand the nature of concept formation; and the nature of logic; and the nature of how men’s conscious mind interacts with its own subconscious. I’m saying that even the better men in our world, can suffer from the anti-conceptual mentality, even though unwittingly. In business they may be fully conceptual but when it comes to God, anti-conceptual. To actualize the human potential takes a Herculean effort of understanding about the essence of man: rationality—on a personal realm and culture-wide.

This is where Nietzsche went wrong in his ethics. He underestimated the human potential: rationality. He certainly does not believe that men can act against their natures; men are born with different natures; and if the're mixed, they're born that way; men are born to be masters or slaves; and all men are destined to be pavement for the Superman.

I hope this helps.

Americo.

[Betsy]

I would like you to expand a bit.

Take "thou shall not commit adultery" vs. "I want to commit adultery, so I must".

The hypothetical ethical formulation, as Ayn Rand states is

Reality confronts man with a great many "musts," but all of them are conditional; the formula of realistic necessity is: "You must, if—" and the "if" stands for man's choice: "- if you want to achieve a certain goal." You must eat, if you want to survive. You must work, if you want to eat. You must think, if you want to work. You must look at reality, if you want to think- if you want to know what to do- if you want to know what goals to choose—if you want to know how to achieve them.

She was NOT saying you should pursue any old whim that occurs to you.

[Betsy]

Aristotle names a type of cause called the final cause.  I.e., the tree is the “inspiration” for the seed to grow into.  Ayn Rand believes that the idea of final causation is only applicable to a volitional consciousness, namely humans.  So, Aristotle was false.

Ayn Rand holds that final causation -- also called teleology -- applies to more than just volitional beings. It applies to all living things. They all have the ultimate goal of gaining and keeping their own lives. For details, see The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger.

Aristotle's error was in applying teleology to non-living things.

[pvtmorriscsa]

Ayn Rand describes the “anti-conceptual” mentality; this is the closest men can come—and psychologically—to being beasts.  And this type of mentality shouldn’t be able to work in modern society.  It certainly wouldn’t work on a desert island. 

You are right it would not work on a desert island, but that mentality just might thrive in a welfare state.

[nimble]

You are right it would not work on a desert island, but that mentality just might thrive in a welfare state.

well put.

[conan]

Betsy,

Thanks for your reply and for clarifying the statement. I am simply here to explore and understand this philosophy and examine what practical values it has and possibly does not have. I hope that is okay. However, I think I failed to communicate my question to you clearly. Allow me to try again in more detail.

You stated:"Actually, Objectivism doesn't have "edicts" -- especially when it comes to ethics. Ayn Rand presents facts, reasoning, conclusions, observations, recommendations, identifications, etc., but not edicts."

As one who is not famaliar with the various positions Objectivism might take on a number of issues, I would take the following statement(s) as a license to commit adultery (or other such transgressions). Therefore if the act is commited by two consenting persons whom observe the act to be safe and harmless (no one would ever know), it seems that this would be a case of "I want an erotic experience, so I must commit this act".

I am assuming that since Objectivism cannot address such an issue specifically (having no edict), the decision is simply a matter of individual judgement. This of course may have a number of different outcomes and consequences that could not be forseen by an infinite being.

So my question is simply this. Can the philosophy of Objectivism tell me if something like adultery is a good or bad decision given the hypothetical I am offering? Or is it always left to an individual's ability to make these decisions based on his/her limited knowledge of possible outcomes?

sincerely,

conan

[DPW]

So my question is simply this. Can the philosophy of Objectivism tell me if something like adultery is a good or bad decision given the hypothetical I am offering? Or is it always left to an individual's ability to make these decisions based on his/her limited knowledge of possible outcomes?

Not based on your limited knowledge of possible outcomes - Objectivism gives you the principles by which you determine which choices to make.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Betsy

Thanks for the clarification on how wide the final causation applies. However, I was aware that animals have final causation and I said so. I said that animals do not know they have final causes but that men have to know they do.

“But the concept of final causation, properly delimited, is valid. Final causation applies only to the work of a conscious entity—specifically of a rational one—because only thinking consciousness can choose a purpose ahead of its existence and then select the means to achieve it.” Ayn Rand, in The Art Of Fiction (Boeckman).

Animals actualize their final causes automatically and thus there is no difference, only in time, with regards to potentiality and actuality. But humans have a rational faculty and this is their potential and to actualize it they need volition. Then they can actualize their final causes, in the realm of work, by choice.

I haven’t yet read the Binswanger book. But I am tempted to read it to SEE that animals have no rights, that ethics is only about men, and to solidify that men are a part of nature. I’ve read The Objectivist Ethics and it is extremely helpful but the meta-ethics is hard to deal with. The quest for “necessity” keeps bugging me.

Again thanks,

Americo.

[Betsy]

You stated:"Actually, Objectivism doesn't have "edicts" -- especially when it comes to ethics. Ayn Rand presents facts, reasoning, conclusions, observations, recommendations, identifications, etc., but not edicts."

[...]

So my question is simply this. Can the philosophy of Objectivism tell me if something like adultery is a good or bad decision given the hypothetical I am offering? Or is it always left to an individual's ability to make these decisions based on his/her limited knowledge of possible outcomes?

Objectivism is like a roadmap, not a rule book.

A roadmap does not say, "Thou shalt not go to Los Angeles." Instead, it shows you where Los Angeles is and where New York City is and the roads that go to each place. The map is very useful for finding your way, but you must decide which direction to go in and choose among the various options (the fastest route, the scenic route, etc.) for getting there.

Likewise, Objectivist Ethics is a map for reaching success and happiness in life. For instance, if you want good relationships with your fellow men, Objectivism shows why you should treat them fairly, deal with them by exchanging value for value, and never initiating force. Objectivism lays out the direction to professional success (doing what you love, working hard, etc.) and the optional roads to get you there (the many possible careers).

Objectivism, like a roadmap, requires that you choose the destination and choose and travel every step of the way yourself. If you don't know where you want to go and want someone to tell you what to do and how to do it, then you want a rule book -- and every religion has one -- rather than Objectivism.

[Betsy]

“But the concept of final causation, properly delimited, is valid.  Final causation applies only to the work of a conscious entity—specifically of a rational one—because only thinking consciousness can choose a purpose ahead of its existence and then select the means to achieve it.”  Ayn Rand, in The Art Of Fiction (Boeckman).

That was in the context of writing fiction -- and Romantic fiction at that. Naturalistic writers build their stories on the Fate motif where men don't have causal efficacy. The contrast was between the Romantic and the Naturalistic, not man and lower animals.

In "The Objectivist Ethics," she shows why the actions of ALL living things, including plants, are goal directed, but obviously not the same way human actions are.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Betsy,

I agree with you that all living organisms have final causation. And I distinguish men from the other species by the fact that humans need to know of final causation. The topic began with the question about man acting against his nature. It is part of man’s nature to be able to choose to act against or according to his nature. But it is proper for man to act according to his nature.

In the passage of Rand which I quoted, I disagree that she is only talking about literature. She merely uses literature as an example of final causation, specifically with regards to the writing process. But prior to this she is actually making meta-ethical statements. That man should act according to man’s nature, is absolutely a referent for when one is writing and if one wants to write properly, i.e., romantically. Thus, Naturalism portrays men as acting against their nature, i.e., by choosing not to acknowledge chosen final causation, i.e., fate. However, even a naturalistic character is acting accordingly by choice, i.e., for some goal. He is thus acting analogous to animals by not recognizing the role of his choice to his destiny.

The passage I quoted was on 20. The discussion begins on 19 to 21. I will quote the last sentence of another paragraph:

“…Proper human action is action by means of final causation.” (Rand)

Americo.

[conan]

Hi Betsy,

Thanks for you reply.

Objectivism is like a roadmap, not a rule book.

A roadmap does not say, "Thou shalt not go to Los Angeles."  Instead, it shows you where Los Angeles is and where New York City is and the roads that go to each place.  The map is very useful for finding your way, but you must decide which direction to go in and choose among the various options (the fastest route, the scenic route, etc.) for getting there.

From what I have been reading, this is a good summary for Objectivism. I like your roadmap anaology for it presents Objectivism as a useful tool for achieving a particular goal. However, there is a difference in reading a roadmap and driving on roads of reality. The "edicts" as you call them are like road signs you encounter on your journey. We can be navigating correctly, but if we ingnore signs such as "bridge out", "one way", "caution", etc..., the roadmap may no longer be an issue as other issues may complicate the journey.

While I appreciate your reply, I feel like my question has been avoided. Perhaps you might deal specifically with the hypothetical I mentioned. I would like to see the roadmap principles for making a moral decision (i.e. adultery).

Likewise, Objectivist Ethics is a map for reaching success and happiness in life.  For instance, if you want good relationships with your fellow men, Objectivism shows why you should treat them fairly, deal with them by exchanging value for value, and never initiating force. 

I find it hard (perhaps immpossible) to believe that we can have "rock solid" ethics without a standard of right and wrong. Also, "never initiating force" sounds alot like an edict or a rule. How is this different that what other systems offer?

Objectivism, like a roadmap, requires that you choose the destination and choose and travel every step of the way yourself.  If you don't know where you want to go and want someone to tell you what to do and how to do it, then you want a rule book -- and every religion has one -- rather than Objectivism.

What exactly distinguishes Objectivism from say Egoism or Epicureanism?

Anyway, I think your position on religion and rules is a bit of a sweeping generalization. In many cases (religions) you may be right, but that is not an accurate summary of what Biblical Christianity is. Anyone who joins a church, or practices "religious christianity" becuase he/she wants someone to think for him/her, is misguided. Being a Christian is living a transformed life as a result of having recieved Christ. The law (edicts) are wriiten on your mind and heart. You keep them becuase you want to, not becuase your trying to follow a rulebook.

Thanks again for the dialogue.

conan

[MinorityOfOne]

What exactly distinguishes Objectivism from say Egoism or Epicureanism?

The Objectivist ethics are egoistic. Objectivism doesn't need to be distinguished from egoism, but rather, from other types of egoism.

Most historical egoists were, to one extent or another, hedonistic. They held pleasure as the standard of value, whereas Objectivism holds that life is the standard, and happiness (as against pleasure) is one's moral goal. Happiness, defined by Rand as "a state of non-contradictory joy" (and I would add, a LONG-TERM such state), is the concomitant of a life well lived. So while Epicureanism is one of the best of the historical egoistic ethical systems, it still falls prey to this error. Epicurus did recognize that pleasures couldn't be just momentary, because one pleasure can come in conflict with another, and he gave some useful (and some not-so-useful) advice about how to avoid such conflicts. But for him, the standard was still always pleasure.

Intrinsicist egoism is more rare, since it tends to devolve into non-egoism eventually. But on one interpretation at least, the bromide "virtue is its own reward" can be seen as a statement of intrinsicist egoism: it claims that, somehow, what's good for you is something out there without regard to how it affects you. (To be clear about this, I don't think this is at all the prevailing interpretation of the phrase.)

So the essential in distinguishing Objectivist egoism from other egoist systems is that Objectivism is, simply put, objective. It recognizes that the standard is neither something out there in reality apart from one's relation to it, nor is it one's feelings apart from any facts. It is one's relationship to reality, and the natural reward for creating a proper and healthy relationship with reality is happiness.

[Betsy]

I like your roadmap anaology for it presents Objectivism as a useful tool for achieving a particular goal. However, there is a difference in reading a roadmap and driving on roads of reality.

True, whether you are talking about metaphorical roadmaps or real roadmaps. You have to constantly do reality checks as you go to verify and apply the roadmap.

The "edicts" as you call them are like road signs you encounter on your journey. We can be navigating correctly, but if we ingnore signs such as "bridge out", "one way", "caution", etc..., the roadmap may no longer be an issue as other issues may complicate the journey.

Reality presents facts, not edicts. What we do with those facts depends on what goals we are trying to accomplish. One-size-fits-all edicts may not fit at all.

While I appreciate your reply, I feel like my question has been avoided. Perhaps you might deal specifically with the hypothetical I mentioned. I would like to see the roadmap principles for making a moral decision (i.e. adultery).

If by adultery you mean promising to have an exclusive sexual relationship with a spouse while actually not being exclusive, and doing this without the spouse's knowledge and consent, it is a very bad thing. The problem is the dishonesty involved and the faking of reality. That is immoral by Objectivist standards because faking reality is not in one's self-interest. If two married people agree to a non-exclusive sexual relationship and are honest about it, it is not necessarily immoral.

[i find it hard (perhaps immpossible) to believe that we can have "rock solid" ethics without a standard of right and wrong.

You can't. The Objectivist ethics hold the factual requirements of life as man, as a rational animal, as the standard of right and wrong. That's a rock solid standard and it's a heck of a lot more solid than faith.

Also, "never initiating force" sounds alot like an edict or a rule.

That's Libertarianism's standard, not Objectivism's!

What exactly distinguishes Objectivism from say Egoism or Epicureanism?

Objectivism is a form of egoism whose standard of what is in a man's self-interest is markedly different from the usual concept of egoism. I don't know enough about Epicureanism to state this with certainty, but I believe it is a form of hedonism -- the view that pleasure or happiness is the standard of the good. This differs from the Objectivist view that, while happiness is the goal of ethics, it is NOT the standard. The factual requirements of human life are the standard.

For further discussion of the points you and I have raised, see Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfisness.