Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[Eric Mathis]

It is in you interest to uphold other's rights and support a government that does the same so that your rights have a better chance of being upheld also.

This answer works only to a degree. What about the Prudent Predator, i.e. a person who pretends to uphold rights in order to benefit from a stable society, while surreptitiously engaging in theft or other rights violations? Because his parasitism is concealed, he benefits from the unearned wealth of others and has the protection of government for his ill-gotten gains.

Now you may respond that the Prudent Predator risks losing everything by being found out. On the other hand, there are situtations where one can literally get away with murder with virtually no chance of getting caught.

In other words, how do we justify respecting others' rights when it may not always be in our self-interest to do so?

[EC]

In the long term, it is always in your interest. In the example of your murderer, to a certain degree he will have to live in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be at war with reality for the rest of his life in order to "get away with it". Is this in his long term self-interest?

[y_feldblum]

Moose, you're looking only at the short-term consequences of your actions. Ayn Rand's ethics are a moral code for the whole of one's life, for long-term action and long-term effects, not just for the short term.

Do you really think that over the long term, by government edict, your actions do not have consequences?

[The Wrath]

I'm just saying hypothetically. Many people's actinons do not wind up having negative consequences. Are they still immoral?

[Eric Mathis]

In the long term, it is always in your interest. In the example of your murderer, to a certain degree he will have to live in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be at war with reality for the rest of his life in order to "get away with it". Is this in his long term self-interest?

It may well be in one's long-term self-interest to murder. Suppose a man's reckless behavior causes him to lose favor with his wealthy aunt. If he kills her before she changes her will, he becomes a multi-millionaire. If she is old and sickly, murder could be accomplished in a variety of ways that would raise no suspicion. As for living “in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be[ing] at war with reality,” this would be troubling only for people who have a high regard for human life and the rights of others. It is certainly not true for everybody. Just look at those who occupy government offices if you don’t believe me.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

There was another thread on exactly the same question, in its essentials, just last week. I'll summarize my answer here.

There are a number of reasons why honesty, under normal circumstances, is self-interested. (By normal, I mean apart from the "inquisitive murderer" or similar scenarios where honesty leads to the betrayal of a value rather than its preservation.) One such reason is that anything unearned is never a rational value. Another is that "getting away with it" typically requires faking reality, unless you live in a society with no regard for property rights, as your "legal loophole" example implies, in which case rational existence isn't possible. Even if you legally get away with it, anyone who knows about it will judge you accordingly and will keep their dealings with you to a minimum. The alternative, again, is faking reality in their minds and, in the long run, in your own. Another reason is that Objectivism is not pragmatism: we hold to principles, not range-of-the-moment impulses. (I’ll repeat my recommendation of Dr. Peikoff’s lecture, “Why Act on Principle?”) In principle, honesty is an extension of rationality, which is the primary virtue required for life.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

As for living “in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be[ing] at war with reality,” this would be troubling only for people who have a high regard for human life and the rights of others.  It is certainly not true for everybody.

Being "at war with reality" is certainly going to be a problem for anyone who finds themselves in it. Those problems are mulitplied when you add that they are attempting to keep others in their own particular distorted version of it.

[Eric Mathis]

Being "at war with reality" is certainly going to be a problem for anyone who finds themselves in it.  Those problems are mulitplied when you add that they are attempting to keep others in their own particular distorted version of it.

Let's return to my example of the wayward nephew who kills his aunt for her fortune. Why must we suppose that the murder, if successfully concealed, poses a problem to the nephew? I am willing to grant that in some people, a psychological force known as "conscience" would be a recurring scourge driving one to either insanity or confession. What I do not grant is that this force operates effectively in all segments of a population. History provides all too massive a rogues’ gallery of predators, who not only bore no trace of penitence but who were completely unapologetic and self-righteous about their misdeeds.

[The Wrath]

There was another thread on exactly the same question, in its essentials, just last week.  I'll summarize my answer here.

There are a number of reasons why honesty, under normal circumstances, is self-interested.  (By normal, I mean apart from the "inquisitive murderer" or similar scenarios where honesty leads to the betrayal of a value rather than its preservation.)  One such reason is that anything unearned is never a rational value.  Another is that "getting away with it" typically requires faking reality, unless you live in a society with no regard for property rights, as your "legal loophole" example implies, in which case rational existence isn't possible.  Even if you legally get away with it, anyone who knows about it will judge you accordingly and will keep their dealings with you to a minimum.  The alternative, again, is faking reality in their minds and, in the long run, in your own.  Another reason is that Objectivism is not pragmatism: we hold to principles, not range-of-the-moment impulses.  (I’ll repeat my recommendation of Dr. Peikoff’s lecture, “Why Act on Principle?”)  In principle, honesty is an extension of rationality, which is the primary virtue required for life.

I'll take that.

[Iakeo]

I'm just saying hypothetically.  Many people's actinons do not wind up having negative consequences.  Are they still immoral?

If you know that acting unethically is wrong, and you know that an act is unethical,

then to perfrom that act is immoral. Period.

An action's consequences, positive or negative, are not the determiner of whether

it is an ethical action (is morally based). The determiner is whether the act

violates a moral imperitive, and if it does then it is immorally based and

unethically performed.

Is that a perverse enough rationale for you?

-Iakeo

[hernan]

If you really want to take a serious look at this question, and I do think it deserves a more serious look, I recommend investigating the field of game theory.

Game theory cannot provide final answers, it begins with certain simplifying assumptions, but it is very useful for framing the questions and seeing the space of possible answers. Game theory can provide theories to be tested against reality.

For example, in game theory, there are some situations where honesty is the best policy. And there are other situations where it's suicide. All those in favor of respecting the rights of Nazis raise their right hand.

For books on the subject, see Game Theory Book List

Edited May 18, 2005 by hernan

[JMeganSnow]

The principle of Rights is based on the Objectivist ethics, and the foundation of the Objectivist ethics is the idea that you must hold your life as your ultimate value; the good is that which supports and enhances your life, the evil is that which harms and destroys your life.

Now, then, since rights is based foundationally on this principle, in situations where rights would contradict and destroy the SOURCE of rights, such as upholding the rights of people who are trying to kill you, they cease to apply. Rights are a means of subordinating a government to moral law. If you uphold them as absolutes without always taking into account the FULL context of your situation and the foundation of rights, you are guilty of committing the fallacy of the "floating abstraction", and thus necessarily you will wind up with negative results in some situations.

[hernan]

If you uphold them as absolutes without always taking into account the FULL context of your situation and the foundation of rights, you are guilty of committing the fallacy of the "floating abstraction", and thus necessarily you will wind up with negative results in some situations.

In theory, "full context" could mean the actual arrangement each molecule in the universe which, of course, is impractical. We can make simplifying assumptions that narrow considerably the space in which we must weigh our options. Game theory is one tool for accomplishing this task. What's interesting is the counter-intuitive (if I dare use that term among rationalists) conclusions that it illustrates.

Edited May 18, 2005 by hernan

[ex_banana-eater]

In theory, "full context" could mean the actual arrangement each molecule in the universe which, of course, is impractical.

A basic leg of Objectivist epistemology is the concept of measurement omission, a means of distinguishing essentials and relevent data into a concept.

[jrs]

Respecting the rights of others, Why not only protect MY rights?

This is one thing I have trouble agreeing with. ...  But suppose the US congress makes a federal law saying "it's okay for David Kahn to rob a bank." So I rob the bank and I don't have to live in secrecy or fear of retribution. It's still immoral.

As I see it, there are two reasons to respect the rights of other people:

1. All of us of interconnected by trade, socializing, marriage, etc.. So if I hurt another person, then I am indirectly hurting myself.

2. If I hurt another person, then I am making him and all those who care about him my enemies. Maybe they will be unable or unwilling to retaliate immediately, but sooner or later they will get their chance. Even people who seemed beyond justice like Benito Mussolini (dictator of Fascist Italy) and Nicolae Ceausescu (dictator of Communist Romania) were eventually killed by their victims.

[Eric Mathis]

As I see it, there are two reasons to respect the rights of other people:

1. All of us of interconnected by trade, socializing, marriage, etc..  So if I hurt another person, then I am indirectly hurting myself.

It is true that theft is generally detrimental to productivity because to the extent that a producer is unable to retain the rewards of production he has less incentive to produce. However, on the individual level, it is quite possible to engage in thievery and prosper. As long as parasites don’t out-number the hosts, parasitism can be profitable. (Please note that I am not recommending theft as a lifestyle. I conscientiously respect the rights of others, but not purely for reasons of self-interest.)

2. If I hurt another person, then I am making him and all those who care about him my enemies.  Maybe they will be unable or unwilling to retaliate immediately, but sooner or later they will get their chance.  Even people who seemed beyond justice like Benito Mussolini (dictator of Fascist Italy) and Nicolae Ceausescu (dictator of Communist Romania) were eventually killed by their victims.

And who killed Chairman Mao? Or François Duvalier? And what about all the predators on a smaller level who commit theft both grand and petty and get away with it? It is one of the more unfortunate aspects of human existence that evil men do not always get their comeuppance.

[Hal]

In the long term, it is always in your interest. In the example of your murderer, to a certain degree he will have to live in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be at war with reality for the rest of his life in order to "get away with it". Is this in his long term self-interest?

Would this imply that breaking (immoral) laws is unethical? For instance, consider someone who engages in tax evasion - he will also have to spend the rest of his life 'at war with reality', engaged in elaborate rituals in order to cover up his lies. But I would not say this was immoral, if the amount of money he saved justified the inconvenience.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Hal

[The Wrath]

I've been involved in discussions on here before about why it is wrong to violate others' rights. The gist I've gotten from other people on here is not that we have a duty to refrain from violating others rights, but it is wrong because it is not in our self-interest. So, I pose this situation:

Let's say you're at a party at the house of someone you don't know. You get wasted and puke on their carpet, after which your friends drive you home. Prudence would dictate that you should either clean up or tell the person who owns the home and promise to make it up to him. But you don't...you leave and no one will ever know that it was you who puked on the carpet. Is it still wrong not to own up to it? Why or why not?

[ex_banana-eater]

Morality dosn't matter to this person because they are getting drunk and puking allover people's houses.

[The Wrath]

Does that not mean there is no moral answer to the problem? There's nothing immoral about getting drunk...and perhaps the puking was accidental.

[Captain Nate]

Does that not mean there is no moral answer to the problem?

No, he didn't say that. He said that the person doesn't care about morality.

There's nothing immoral about getting drunk...and perhaps the puking was accidental.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't really call the puking "accidental" since it came directly out of the choice to drink in the first place and that person should bear the responsibility for that decision.

Secondly, drinking impairs reason and to "get drunk" means you're making a conscious choice to impair the faculty required for life -- couldn't that be considered immoral?

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Morality dosn't matter to this person because they are getting drunk and puking allover people's houses.

That was my first reaction too.

Does that not mean there is no moral answer to the problem?  There's nothing immoral about getting drunk...and perhaps the puking was accidental.

It is immoral if you're getting drunk to the point that you throw up. Drinking to that extent is indicative of a desire to escape from or evade reality. (I'm not a teetotaler myself, but I rarely, if ever, have more than one or two drinks.) The puking may have been "accidental," but it was a direct result of the drinking. At least that's the implication of your question.

It's hard to imagine how you could expect a moral answer to a question which starts from immoral premises. The purpose of morality, in Objectivist terms, is to benefit one's own life. Your question begins with actions that are an objective detriment to the person's life. What values are they pursuing? None that I can identify. No rational values, anyway. Your question, "Is it wrong?" means what? Will it help or hinder their values? What values?

Let's assume for the moment that this activity is somehow in this person's rational self-interest. (I can't begin to imagine how this would be so, but I'll entertain the idea for the sake of answering your question.) Would they value the person hosting the party? Would they like more such parties to be held in the future by this person and others? What impact will the occurrence of random, unidentified puking have on the likelihood of such parties being hosted? Would any rational person risk being burdened with unremunerated damage to their property, in addition to the effort required to host the party? (That such parties are held demonstrates their irrationality.) If the person values these events, is it not in his self-interest to encourage more of them to be held?

[Dufresne]

I think Moose wants to know if it can be in one's interest to not repair the damage caused to a stranger's property if one can get away with it. The morality of drinking alcohol is not really important, right?

[Captain Nate]

I think Moose wants to know if it can be in one's interest to not repair the damage caused to a stranger's property if one can get away with it.

Is it MORAL to do it and get away with it? No, it's not. Just as being able to get away with robbing a bank isn't moral. Just because the government gets away with welfare & other collectivist programs doesn't make them moral.

The morality of drinking alcohol is not really important, right?

I think it's important since it led to the vomiting in the first place.

[Dufresne]

Is it MORAL to do it and get away with it? No, it's not.

Why? How do I benefit by spending $20 on cleaning a stranger's carpet that I messed up?