Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

Rate this topic


hernan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the record, let me state my emphatic disagreement with hunterrose, not simply in specifics, but with his fundamental approach.  In his approach, moral principles are essentially rules of thumb.  "This is unpredictable, so don't do it."

If you want my stance in such a format, it'd be: Man is rational, so don't do it. From man's rationality, I derived that man will act to prevent you from immorality, before, during, and after the immoral actions. I used some other things too, derived from identity, knowledge being contextual, and the nature of values. I could've included a lot of other stuff, but I believe that was sufficient. Aren't your positions derived from something similar?

I also didn't use "unpredictable" as you're using it, at least as a primary justification. And I certainly didn't justify morality by saying that moral actions simply carry more statistical probability of success than immoral actions.

The problem with questions such as "is robbing a bank moral if I can get away scot-free?" is that they attempt to take away the context of reality. Unfortunately, the problem with the answers is that you can only say yes, say no, evade, or give a contextually dependent answer i.e. yes in these circumstances, no in those circumstances. Which should I have given?

What grounds would I have to say "no" to such a moral question, when morality presumes men are rational, and identity exists? Of course, I could've evaded an answer by digressing, ignoring hypotheticals, attacking his moral status, claiming to not know, giving an undefined maybe, etc.

I imagine you still have disagreements with my stance, though, and I'd like to hear how this position is faulty. What immorality does my stance allow?

As far as it goes, I have some disagreements with your position, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robbing a bank is wrong because it violates life-based moral principles.  That's what it means to say something is wrong.

Of course, that begs the question... what are these objective life-based moral principles, and how does illicitly receiving, say, a million dollars in an undetectable way, violate these principles?

Once you validate a principle, that proves that a violation of the principle is destructive every time.  What's giving you trouble is that you think we validate a principle by looking at "every time" and determining (somehow) the effects of the action of man's life in each of those instances....

...That is the Objectivist position.

Well! Which of your validations was different from mine? ;) What are the differences between your argument and mine?

Haven't you misinterpreted me? Were you disagreeing with me because I used the validations instead of the principle first? I observed instances that validated my principle. And while I didn't state the principle, my instances all lead to that. As he didn't want the principle, but why the principle applied, I gave the validating instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with questions such as "is robbing a bank moral if I can get away scot-free?" is that they attempt to take away the context of reality. Unfortunately, the problem with the answers is that you can only say yes, say no, evade, or give a contextually dependent answer i.e. yes in these circumstances, no in those circumstances. Which should I have given?

Your answer should have been: "You should never do anything you have to 'get away with.'"

I imagine you still have disagreements with my stance, though, and I'd like to hear how this position is faulty. What immorality does my stance allow?
Frankly, I have no idea what you think your stance is. Rather than deliver a single cogent argument, you seem to be throwing all sorts of disconnected claims out there in the hopes that one will stick. That's also indicative of empricism.

As far as it goes, I have some disagreements with your position, too.

Feel free to raise them, then.

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I have no idea what you think your stance is.  Rather than deliver a single cogent argument, you seem to be throwing all sorts of disconnected claims out there in the hopes that one will stick.  That's also indicative of empricism.

The single and cogent argument was made in my first post [ (1) in post #21 ], and it wasn't empiricism :P

Living by driving a car is less "risky" than living by robbing banks :lol: Being a driver has a better chance for survival than being a robber, but the robber still might luck out. Either you misinterpreted my use of which lifestyle is better, or you were wrong about living by driving being no less "risky" than living by robbery <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite everything else said, I agree that morality based on principles is superior to morality based on probability. I've read your articles ("Thinking About Principles" and "Why Act on Principle?") I agree with much of your position, but I still have a few questions:

1) How can the million dollars not be an inherent value? Food is an inherent value to (physical) survival, both long and short-term. The only way to thus say that food wasn't inherently valued would be if there were other things associated with it, that is, would make the food's value ambiguous and/or contextual. Wouldn't it then be that food has some inherent value, but that the actual value would be dependent on contexts of how it was gained, what was its use, etc? If food wasn't an inherent need, then what would justify putting emergencies outside of the context of principles like honesty?

...Stealing isn't to his interest, and stealing isn't to his interest because man's basic interest is: adhere to reality in order to live in reality.

2) By this, you don't mean that a person can't exist by robbing banks, or some other vice, right? I'm not one with precise definitions, but I'm "seeing" two points from your argument. Exist - as in be alive. Survive - as in thrive, life to a maximal amount. Are you saying that, while robbery won't necessarily prevent him from existing, it would be impossible for him to survive? Similarly for the use of "unreality," "faking reality," etc. My terminology isn't 100% accurate, but I hope you get my gist.

3) I was originally trying to make the point that robbery isn't a "one-time" or occasional act, but a mindset that'll continually, by the existence of such a set of values, impede your life/survival/whatever. Your claims of empiricism aside <_< if this was derived from the nature of theft, couldn't a proper principle, with perhaps some other similarly derived validations, that such acts are always bad be derived?

If so, you can fault me for stating secondary (and tertiary) reasons not to rob, but you couldn't call my original and prime argument empiricism.

The only reason to act on principle, according to hunterrose, is because we can't know when we would be "get away with" and thereby benefit from an immoral act, and since we generally don't benefit from such acts, not acting immorally is a good policy.

I never said that was the only reason. I also didn't tie everything together, but it wasn't the prime reason, either. Obviously, I still take offense at that :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) By this, you don't mean that a person can't exist by robbing banks, or some other vice, right? I'm not one with precise definitions, but I'm "seeing" two points from your argument. Exist - as in be alive. Survive - as in thrive, life to a maximal amount. Are you saying that, while robbery won't necessarily prevent him from existing, it would be impossible for him to survive?
I'm not answering for DPW but I want to offer an example that might clarify things: Suppose someone jumps from a skyscraper and you only consider his fall from the top to the middle. Then you could say that he is still alive, he still exists as a living human being. And that's true. But that would be the mentality of a pragmatist who considers only the short-term. A principled egoist wants a long-term life and happiness. So he does not confine his view to the immediate future but looks at the consequences of a policy or course of action on his entire life. The person who jumps from a skyscraper (or lets say a large building) might get away with his irrationality because other people might have put one of these large rescue cushions onto the ground. But that doesn't change the fact that the jumper chose a self-destructive course (and just to make clear, I am in no way implying that jumping off a skyscraper is in all cases irrational, considering what happened in NY on 9/11. This example merely serves to demonstrate the consequences of pragmatism and acting on principle in a directly perceivable way).

Now apply that to your question of whether food has an inherent value or not. Let's take a different example. Suppose you live in New York and want to go to the supermarket in order to buy food. But instead of walking through the traffic with open eyes, you decide to close your eyes while walking to get your food. You might be lucky for some time and survive. You might even get to the supermarket but to conclude from that that you did something good is the same as concluding that it's good to jump from a skyscraper because you don't die when considering only the first half of the fall. Do you see now why food is not a value if obtained that way? Long-term you lose your life trying to obtain food that way. What's food worth if you are dead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not have a decent answer to post on this subject, but meanwhile the following though came up:

You define theft as immoral because the thief is "going against reality" by taking something (say, a 50 dollar bill) that is not his.

Well, the 50 dollar bill is certainly real, but the "fact" that the 50 is not his is as debatable as the ethics of stealing it in the first place. Is the concept of property not derived exaclty from the principle we are trying to prove?

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just read Don Watkins' posts and I guess I'm still processing them.

So at this point: Thanks, Don, for your marvellous posts! ;)

Well, the 50 dollar bill is certainly real, but the "fact" that the 50 is not his is as debatable as the ethics of stealing it in the first place. Is the concept of property not derived exaclty from the principle we are trying to prove?

I just want to recommend that you read a copy of Ayn Rand's Virue of Selfishness, which is where she starts the conceptualization process. I will read it again myself now that my understanding of concepts has broadened.

I always shared your empiricistic view. But now I'm no longer sure of it.

To Don Watkins:

Is there any supplemental literature on this?

I'd be glad to get help here and you are clearly the expert here. :D

I don't want you to do ALL the work. You already kicked me into a new direction. Most of the time, this (and good literature) is all I need.

Edited by Felix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick note. I will be responding to everyone's posts ASAP, but I had my wisdom teeth out today and I don't want to try to write philosophy all drugged up on Oxycodone.

To Felix: thanks for the kind words. As far as supplemental literature, the only thing I can suggest is OPAR, but I assume you're familiar with it. On the other hand, the second (November) issue of my magazine, Axiomatic, will have a more formal treatment of this issue, so be sure to subscribe when we go online.

Don Watkins

Edited by DPW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food is an inherent value to (physical) survival, both long and short-term. The only way to thus say that food wasn't inherently valued would be if there were other things associated with it, that is, would make the food's value ambiguous and/or contextual.

Precisely. Context is king. That is why intrinsicism (the idea of an inherent value) is wrong. Just look at reality. IS food always a value for a human being? Does it ALWAYS further his life? I can think of half a dozen cases where this doesn't apply.

1. You're allergic to said food (all food is specific food!)

2. You're fat and have high cholesterol and are a heart patient

3. You can't swallow

4. You're on a diet

5. You have a liver disorder

6. The food doesn't belong to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working on phrasing my thoughts as coherently as possible. I'll start off by saying that I do agree with the Objectivist virtues. Unfortunately, it seems to me that ethics are inevitably empiricist, even though I believe a non-empiricist ethics to be desirable. Hopefully, this example will be adequate to explain my misunderstandings:

The Artful Dodger lives by exploiting man. Pickpocket, con artist, panhandling, it's all been his MO since his earliest memories. He has some qualms, among which he won't murder another person.

A. Our Artful Dodger is being chased by thugs ( imagine that :thumbsup: ) In his goal of escaping, he runs down an alley which forks in two directions. One direction has objects that provide hiding places, a staircase to higher floors and the roof of an adjacent building, and a low brick wall which can be jumped to get into a heavily wooded area, and exits into an open street. The other direction has 25 foot walls on each side and is a dead end. What differentiates the two choices? Wouldn't whatever you call this be inherent value?

B. Oliver wishes to convince the Dodger that honesty is a virtue. "Sure it is... sometimes," the Dodger replies irreverently. Oliver replies that the Dodger will be better off if he adheres to the principle of honesty. "You're saying it's always against my interest to lie? What validates that, not sometimes, but always?" Oliver tells the Artful Dodger that honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value. The Dodger looks at Oliver peevishly :sorcerer: "... what validates that, and not just sometimes?" How does Oliver reply?

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What differentiates the two choices? Wouldn't whatever you call this be inherent value?

The choice is a value to who and for what reason? Thats what makes it objective and not intrinsic. To say that something has a value apart from any valuer (that its an intrinsic value) would be like saying that food is a value regardless of if its ever eaten or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Felix: ... the only thing I can suggest is OPAR, but I assume you're familiar with it.  On the other hand, the second (November) issue of my magazine, Axiomatic, will have a more formal treatment of this issue ...

In fact I don't know OPAR, yet, but I just ordered in at Amazon.com, since it is not available in Germany. This will take a month for shipping, but I'm not willing to pay more for shipping than for the book. :dough: I have enough to think about and I just started reading The virtue of selfishness again.

I look forward to the magazine, too. Already have it bookmarked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the core of my difficulty IMO:

Is there a non-empiricist validation of honesty?

Dishonesty, for example, we can see is the attempt to gain a value by faking reality.  But faking reality doesn't change the facts, and since no course of action opposed to reality can help you live in reality, you can't gain values through dishonesty.

But how is it faking reality? The Artful Dodger cons people for money. He knows this money can be used to acquire food, a stranger had the money, he presently has it, and he told a falsehood in order to "succeed." What non-empirical reason is there to differentiate this from cutting down trees to build a shelter?

Now, I can easily empirically defend that the Dodger would be better of had he not acted on the principle of dishonesty: any number of arguments show that the Dodger is more likely to suffer from such actions. But what is the non-empiricist defense?

Thanks to DPW for bringing these questions to mind. DPW is still recovering, so he hasn't had an opportunity to reply to the questions he's presented me. I'll wait, but I desire anyone's input that can help shed some light on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is the non-empiricist defense?

The non-emipirical explanation is the one Don gave: that dishonesty violates the principle of honesty, which is arrived at rationally by thus-and-so method.

Empiricism isn't (quite) the same thing as saying that your observations are backed up by data, which rational philosophy is, ultimately. Empiricism is the idea that everything has to be derived immediately from data. (Also that those data are not connected to anything else.) Thus, it actually becomes a form of subjectivism and pragmatism. The difference, as has been indicated, is that an Empiricist, confronted with the proposal "So, assume that I have this perfect crime with no possibility of any negative consequences" will say "Well, the immediate data would seem to say: go ahead and commit the crime." Whereas an Objectivist would say: "It doesn't MATTER if you've come up with a perfect way to get away with it, it's still in violation of the principles you require to live. Don't do it."

Examples of the many ways you can screw yourself by acting immorally can be helpful as a sort of illustration, but they are not, ultimately, the argument, and, as I demonstrated above, trying to use them AS the argument ends up in precisely that sort of sanction of immoral behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder what a non-empiricist explaination there might be.

Because to me, if there is a way to rob without getting caught, it means that you regard reality. Because that is real what you can see and touch. I still can't see how a principle can be more real that the fact that we get away with the crime.

This is the difference between the principle centered approach and the empiricist approach. I'm still curious. I hope OPAR will help.

Because as far as I see it, it would mean to disregard reality if you DIDN'T commit the crime even though it is perfectly safe to do so. I mean it IS safe. That's our premise. And saying that it is wrong because of a principle to me means the same thing as saying: It's wrong because Jesus would cry if you do so.

In science, if you show that a law is wrong in one single case, no matter how weird it is, the law is WRONG. It's no law.

How does this differ from this moral situation.

Why is the principle valid even though there is a way to break it?

I still hold my conviction that empiricism is valid. I can't see how it is not.

But I'm willing to hear arguments destroying my argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felix,

Your question has already been answered, by Jennifer and by me: the "prudent predator" doesn't have to show that he can "get away" with his predation; he has to prove that predation is to his interest. To prove that something is to his interest, however, he has to do more than show that it helped him achieve some isolated goal or object. He has to show that the entire enterprise was a net benefit to his life. The only way to do that is with principles.

Part of the difficulty here is that two different claims are being conflated: (1) That it is to a man's interest to violate moral principles when he can "get away with it", and (2) that predation is a proper moral principle. Which claim are you making?

If you are claiming the second, that predation is a proper moral principle, you are obviously mistaken. A proper moral principle is an identification of a fact, yet predation flies in the face of facts. That's why you have to stress that yours is a "prudent" predator -- one who only predates when he can escape the consequences of his actions. If predation as such was prudent, the modifier would be unnecessary (Objectivists don't talk about "prudent honesty" or "prudent justice" -- honesty and justice, like all moral principles, are always prudent).

And yet, for the very same reason that (2) is false, (1) is false. (1) is false because to violate proper moral principles and predate "sometimes" is to adopt predation as a principle. Quoting Peikoff:

There is no "no-man's land" between contradictory principles, no "middle of the road" that is untouched by either or shaped equally by both.  Even the most short-range mentality cannot escape the influence of principles; as a conceptual being, he cannot act without the guidance of some fundamental integrations, whether explicit or implicit.  And just as, in economics, bad money drives out good, so, in morality, bad principles drive out good.  If a man tries to combine a rational principle with its antithesis, he thereby eliminates the former as his guide and adopts the latter.  This the mechanism by which the conceptual faculty avenges itself on the unprincipled man. (OPAR 264-265)
And that's the point. You can't defend violating principles, you can only argue which principles are in man's interest.

You also write:

In science, if you show that a law is wrong in one single case, no matter how weird it is, the law is WRONG. It's no law.

How does this differ from this moral situation.

Why is the principle valid even though there is a way to break it?

You are mixing categories. You have not shown, and cannot show, that violating a principle is in a man's interest. All you have shown is that a man can violate a principle and escape disaster. Those are two different things. After all, a man can survive small pox, but that doesn't imply that he is better off than he would have been had he never contracted the disease in the first place. And violating a principle carries the same consequences as a disease. It inflicts damage on a man, first psychologically, then existentially. And the psychological damage I'm referring to is not primarily guilt -- it's pscyho-epistemological dis-integration, i.e., evasion. Is that what you uphold as to man's interest?

I have to be frank: I am sick of the context-dropping that goes on in discussions of this type. I uphold principles because I refuse to drop context, and yet this precisely what the predation arguments demand: "Forget about the full context of a man's life and look only at this one little sliver. Now tell me what's wrong with this little sliver without reference to anything wider." That is not a valid question. The valid question is, how should a being who survives by his mind use his mind? Notice, however, that the mind is the one thing absent from the predator's case. He wants values divorced from reason, divorced from the means of achieving them, divorced from the context necessary to identify them.

But to eat one's cake, one must buy it and bake it. A stolen cake may taste as sweet, but only until the poison kicks in.

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this quote from Peikoff's "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand." Even though it basically repeats what I've said ad nauseum, some of you may find it helpful.

Peikoff begins by recounting how Ayn Rand helped him grasp the principle of honesty by having Peikoff devise a con-man scheme, which Rand went on to show would lead to escalating lies that would ultimately have to backfire. Peikoff tried to change the example slightly, but with the same result. Then he tried once more, when Rand became fed up and asked him, "Can't you think in principle?"

--Quoting Peikoff--

Let me condense into a few paragraphs what she then explained to me at length. "The essence of a con-man's lie," she began, "of any such lie, no matter what the details, is the attempt to gain a value by faking certain facts of reality."

She went on: "Now can't you grasp the logical consequences of that kind of policy? Since all facts of reality are interrelated, faking one of them leads the person to fake others: ultimately, he is committed to an all-out war against reality as such. But this is the kind of war no one can win. If life in reality is a man's purpose, how can he expect to achieve it while struggling at the same time to escape and defeat reality?"

And she concluded: "The con-man's lies are wrong on principle. To state the principle positively: honesty is a long-range requirement of human self-preservation and is, therefore, a moral obligation."

This was not merely a new ethical argument to me. It was a whole new form of thought. She was saying, in effect: you do not have to consult some supernatural authority for intellectual guidance, nor try to judge particular cases in a vacuum and on to infinity. Rather, you first abstract the essence of a series of concretes. Then you identify, by an appropriate use of lgoic, the necessary implications or result of this essence. You thereby reach a fundamental generalization, a principle, which subsumes and enables you to deal with an unlimited number of instances -- past, present, and future. The consequence, in this example, is an absolute prohibition against the con-man mentality -- a prohibition based not on God, but on perception and thought.

(Voice of Reason, 340-341)

--End Quote--

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Again, Kudos!

So this is concept-formation. I never got it before.

The problem I always had was that I lived on its basis but never clearly identified why. I always had my convictions and lived by them no matter what but there was always the feeling that in this particular case I might have traded them for something good. I never did that, because I felt that this would make all my previous efforts void. That if I lose my convictions I lose all I have.

But I could never validate it on rational grounds. I always looked at that particular case and how it might have worked out there. That's why I have such a strong interest in this matter. This can prove to me that what I did was right and remove that tinge of guilt that still haunts me because I didn't trade my ideals for a big short-time gain. I begin to understand, but I have a life-long conviction to break.

I don't do this to annoy you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got it. As a human being you must think in principles. It's not think in principles or think another way. It's think in principles or don't think at all. This means that you are bound to hold convictions or moral standards of any kind every moment you use your mind. So the moment you rob the bank you have switched your standards. Everything you did in your life before has to be reevaluated then by your new set of standards. Before you were stupid because you didn't rob the bank earlier. All your moral ambitions become worthless. You cannot wish away what you have done, so you have to evade thinking. And empiricism is one way to accomplish this (it's nothing but context-dropping).

Reality, then, has become your enemy. So the moment you make the choice to rob the bank you abandon the belief in property rights. And this very act will destroy your thinking. If you use money that you didn't earn, the only way to 'enjoy' it is to ignore where it came from. That's the point. You can no longer hold convictions promoting property rights, because you violated them. This will force you more often than you wish to ignore your mind.

Thanks for your persistence with me. It paid off.

You have just created a new full-blown objectivist. :confused:

I hope my post helps clarifying this for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The essence of a con-man's lie," she began, "of any such lie, no matter what the details, is the attempt to gain a value by faking certain facts of reality. Now can't you grasp the logical consequences of that kind of policy? Since all facts of reality are interrelated, faking one of them leads the person to fake others: ultimately, he is committed to an all-out war against reality as such."

Peikoff quoting Rand, Voice of Reason

What does "faking reality" mean (e.g. how is it differentiated from writing novels?) Does it essentially mean evading consequences? Which consequences is a dishonest man evading?

If faking reality means evading the consequences, I interpret that as two possible meanings: 1) dishonesty evades the enevitable consequences of having to fake other facts of reality 2) dishonesty evades the rights of others

1) What facts of reality is a dishonest man forced to evade if he is in no way "caught?"

2) Isn't it circular logic to say: honesty is validated by property rights, and property rights are validated by the principle of honesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What facts of reality is a dishonest man forced to evade if he is in no way "caught?"

The fact that he is an inhonest man. And any fact that reminds him of it. In addition he cannot rightfully claim ownership of his money.

2) Isn't it circular logic to say: honesty is validated by property rights, and property rights are validated by the principle of honesty?

Nobody said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it circular logic to say: honesty is validated by property rights, and property rights are validated by the principle of honesty?

Nobody said that.

...In addition he cannot rightfully claim ownership of his money.

Isn't that an example?

What facts of reality is a dishonest man forced to evade if he is in no way "caught?"

The fact that he is an inhonest man. And any fact that reminds him of it.

Forced to evade the fact from himself, or from others? Being forced to evade from others his dishonesty would ultimately be empiricistic. Being forced to evade from himself his dishonesty is something so far unstated and unproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it circular logic to say: honesty is validated by property rights, and property rights are validated by the principle of honesty?

Nobody said that.

...In addition he cannot rightfully claim ownership of his money.

Isn't that an example?

Being honest includes valuing property rights.

And if you want to have property rights yourself and claim them rightfully you have to value them yourself. Why else would you want to have them? Anything else would be stupid.

This is not circular logic, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not that they have to validate each other.

What facts of reality is a dishonest man forced to evade if he is in no way "caught?"

The fact that he is an inhonest man. And any fact that reminds him of it.

Forced to evade the fact from himself, or from others? Being forced to evade from others his dishonesty would ultimately be empiricistic. Being forced to evade from himself his dishonesty is something so far unstated and unproven.

In the end he is forced to evade it from himself. This is what destroys him.

This is what principle-based ethics is about. That to give up the ethical principles you objectively need to live your life means to destroy your life in the long run because you stopped valuing what you need to sustain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...