Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Compromising Principles

Rate this topic


JeffS

Recommended Posts

First, some quotes:

There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

Source

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

If you pay taxes in the US (and, I imagine, anywhere else), then you live for the sake of other men. A significant portion of your taxes support those who do not produce. Why? If you don't, you'll quite probably be put in jail.

Is this not a compromise of our principles? By choosing to continue paying taxes simply because we wish to avoid jail constitute a pragmatic argument rather than a rational, moral choice? Or, can we justify this continued use of our productive minds and bodies as a rational and moral choice in that no rational person would choose jail over even limited freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I understand your point, softwareNerd, but morality didn't end for Galt then. He maintained his moral principles by establishing Galt's Gulch and gettin' outta' Dodge. His denial to compromise was a driving point of the last part of the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you, but I live for my sake, despite the taxation. What alternative do you propose that wouldn't be self-sacrificial?

But part of your life, part of your production, is forcibly taken from you for the benefit of others. This isn't any different from nearly killing yourself in order to keep the railroads running, is it?

As to alternatives, I imagine the only proposal which wouldn't be self-sacrificial would be a voluntary tax system.

I would think that pragmatism would consist of just accepting taxes and then trying to get the government to spend more on your particular projects. Or just trying to control the gun. As appose to trying to get people to put the gun down while not getting yourself locked up.

Other than trying to get the government to spend more on our particular projects, don't we simply accept taxes - even while trying to get people to put the gun down while not getting ourselves locked up? I mean, we know they're morally wrong, yet we pay them anyway. We compromise: I'll pay the taxes, just don't lock me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than trying to get the government to spend more on our particular projects, don't we simply accept taxes - even while trying to get people to put the gun down while not getting ourselves locked up? I mean, we know they're morally wrong, yet we pay them anyway. We compromise: I'll pay the taxes, just don't lock me up.

Well is not that we know there morally wrong and pay them anyway. There morally wrong because we're forced to pay them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you imagine your tax money goes to goverment services you approve of, but that you don't lobby the goverment to spend your money where you want. That just encourages more government control.

Also, you could donate to a charity with a cause that has value to you. Something like medical research, which would also benefit you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well is not that we know there morally wrong and pay them anyway. There morally wrong because we're forced to pay them.

But we're still compromising our principles. Actually, I think we're surrendering our principles.

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

I suggest you imagine your tax money goes to goverment services you approve of,

Jill, that would be a denial of reality - further compromising my principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand your point, softwareNerd, but morality didn't end for Galt then. He maintained his moral principles by establishing Galt's Gulch and gettin' outta' Dodge. His denial to compromise was a driving point of the last part of the book.

Galt had somethings that we don't: a valley, a super-advanced cloaking device, and a motor that exported (and ran on) unlimited energy.

If you can get all that (or a new planet), I'll be the first to join you. Until then, I can do a lot more for my happiness if I'm not sitting in some prison cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By choosing to continue paying taxes simply because we wish to avoid jail constitute a pragmatic argument rather than a rational, moral choice?

Miss Rand addresses the essential issue here:

Once in a while, I receive letters from young men asking me for personal advice on problems connected with the draft. Morally, no one can give advice in any issue where choices and decisions are not voluntary: “Morality ends where a gun begins.” As to the practical alternatives available, the best thing to do is to consult a good lawyer.

There is, however, one moral aspect of the issue that needs clarification. Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. To quote from an editorial on this subject in the April 1967 issue of Persuasion: “One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it. . . .”

-Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 235.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no more responsible for compromising principles by paying taxes than if I hand over my wallet to a mugger; in both cases, the threat of force is used to take something from me that I didn't choose to give. I have no freedom to choose a moral course, therefore a moral judgment of my action is meaningless. A moral judgment could be made if I went to the mugger (before he approached me) and offered him a part of my money in exchange for his not threatening me, or if I voluntarily choose to pay more taxes than I am required to by law, in the hope that the government would then not raise my taxes. The difference is whether a rational choice is available; in the presence of a threat to my life and/or liberty, it is not, and I must choose whichever evil I believe is least harmful to me.

Edited by Pokarrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're still compromising our principles. Actually, I think we're surrendering our principles.
If a mugger asks for one's money at gun-point, is it a surrender of a principle to give him the money? If so, I don't see it. Could you be more specific by phrasing the principle being violated? Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But part of your life, part of your production, is forcibly taken from you for the benefit of others. This isn't any different from nearly killing yourself in order to keep the railroads running, is it?
I don't run a railroad, and I can't speak for the motives of those who do. Some railroad-runner may be evading reality when it comes to the benefits to them (as opposed to others) of their work. I'm pretty clear about that issue myself: I work for my own sake, to produce good product. The fact that I get mugged on the way home, in a predictable fashion, doesn't mean that I am working for the muggers or anyone else.
As to alternatives, I imagine the only proposal which wouldn't be self-sacrificial would be a voluntary tax system.
I think the problem is that you don't understand what it means to "live for the sake of others". I do not have that alternative -- trust me, I've declared "Taxes Begone!" many times, and yet we don't have voluntary government funding. Taxation is not optional, it is not voluntary, and that means that I have not chosen to tay taxes. Tell me what I can rationally choose to do that isn't self-sacrificial.

Your "what I can do now" options basically come down to this:

  1. Pay your taxes
  2. Don't pay your taxes and go to jail
  3. Refuse to produce and have no income
  4. Leave the country for an even worse situation
  5. Hide in the hills

Option 1 is the only rational, self-sacrificial option, at least for me. Option 5 which amounts to renouncing civilized society might be reasonable if, for some reason, I were a dirt farmer or fur-trapper, but I'm not.

There is no valid moral principle that says you must sacrifice yourself in order to prevent someone else from initiating force against you. Such a "principle" denies the basis of proper moral reasoning, and substitutes an allegiance to a floatingly-abstract concept for a reasoned application of egoism to an unreasonable situation (being the victim of taxation). My choice is based on what is best for me in a context where morality is not possible, not what is best for an abstract principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt had somethings that we don't: a valley, a super-advanced cloaking device, and a motor that exported (and ran on) unlimited energy.

If you can get all that (or a new planet), I'll be the first to join you. Until then, I can do a lot more for my happiness if I'm not sitting in some prison cell.

That's a pragmatic argument, isn't it? You're basically arguing, "It's not that easy for us to follow our principles, therefore it's okay to surrender them."

A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction.

This seems to contradict what she wrote about giving a burglar "a single teaspoon of one’s silverware..." Why is giving a burglar part of your property a surrender of principle, but giving the government part of your property not?

Pokarrin and softwareNerd -

As to the mugger example, I disagree with the analogy. Taxation is more like knowing the mugger has a gun, never actually seeing the mugger, but sending him your money anyway. As collectivists like to point out, we have a choice - we can leave. The moral question we're presented with is: Is it better to live under the threat of force if you don't reliquish your property, or not? Justifying the former by arguing the latter is unpalatable, or difficult, strikes me as pragmatic.

I don't run a railroad, and I can't speak for the motives of those who do.

My example was an allusion to Dagny Taggart. She continues to fight to keep the trains running, and it's only when she's fully ready to accept the principle of not living for the sake of others that Galt agrees to let her live in Galt's Gulch. All of the striking producers have to pass this test. They continue to bear the slings and arrows of a collectivist society presumably because they have neither accepted this principle, nor have an alternative. Galt provides the alternative when they're ready to accept the principle. Is this any different from our situation? We've presumably accepted the principle, yet we have no viable alternative. Isn't this simply a pragmatic excuse and a surrender of the principle?

There is no valid moral principle that says you must sacrifice yourself in order to prevent someone else from initiating force against you. Such a "principle" denies the basis of proper moral reasoning, and substitutes an allegiance to a floatingly-abstract concept for a reasoned application of egoism to an unreasonable situation (being the victim of taxation). My choice is based on what is best for me in a context where morality is not possible, not what is best for an abstract principle.

Is this not pragmatic; i.e. it works, there's no alternative, therefore it's a justified surrender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My example was an allusion to Dagny Taggart. She continues to fight to keep the trains running, and it's only when she's fully ready to accept the principle of not living for the sake of others that Galt agrees to let her live in Galt's Gulch.
I understood the allusion. What you missed, I think, is the question of whether there are any remaining rational values for her in running the railroad. I'm telling you that paying taxes is not the same as "living for the sake of others". The lack of value for your life is what makes staying and running the railroad altruism.
Isn't this simply a pragmatic excuse and a surrender of the principle?
You haven't identified the principle. There is no principle in Objectivism that says "you must withdraw fron society if anyone ever initiates force against you". Try to clearly identify the principle that you are proposing. Are you claiming that you must sacrifice yourself in order to prevent someone else from initiating force against you? That is not an Objectivist principle. Fill in the blank -- what Objectivist moral principle would you propose of the type "When someone initiates force against you, you should ____".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not pragmatic; i.e. it works, there's no alternative, therefore it's a justified surrender?

You clearly have no idea what "pragmatic" actually means. Living your life as best you can under the restrictions imposed on you by the society where you live is utterly *practical*, but it is not *pragmatic*. Objectivism as a philosophy is NOTHING if not practical--as Ayn Rand was wont to say, the moral IS the practical. Pragmatic, on the other hand, means doing whatever seems like a good idea at the time without reference to ANY principles or facts--it means eschewing the use of principles ON principle. No one here has done that, we simply embrace the principle that we live our lives for our own benefit, not the benefit of future generations or disembodied ideals.

It is not practical for many of us to abandon our lives and ambitions to hide in caves somewhere under the constant threat of discovery. We are not independently wealthy. We are not interested in moving to Somalia and fighting off pirates with guns in the "anarchist paradise". If you think it's so easy to leave, why don't you DO it instead of TALKING about it? For most people this is, at best, a romantic fantasy. At worst, it is the promise of death, quick or slow.

My personal productive goal in life is to become a novelist and game designer--how, exactly, am I going to do that living in a cave in the wilderness somewhere? Do I *owe* it to someone to give up everything I want in my life in order to prove a point? NO. My freedoms are limited and infringed, but this is not a dictatorship yet and I can still speak out and be heard and help to reverse the trends. And, in the meanwhile, I can live a happy and productive life while enduring some annoying taxation. (Actually, cough, I made so little money last year that my federal refund was LARGER than the amount of taxes I paid.)

Being an Objectivist means applying principles to YOUR personal, concrete, immediate situation, not deciding that because your situation shares one or two factors in common with John Galt's situation that you should do exactly what he did. That is applying the philosophy as a dogma divorced from reality instead of as a guide to living. A novel is a STYLIZED version of reality. We don't live in a novel, we live in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fill in the blank -- what Objectivist moral principle would you propose of the type "When someone initiates force against you, you should ____".

Doesn't Rand fill in that blank with her teaspoon quote:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

Unless she is making a distinction between "voluntarily offering" and "offering at the demand of another". In which case it seems like she is equivocating - that sentence would suddenly make no sense if she is using the first sense of "offer".

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Priority #1 - Living my Life.

Things that will negatively affect #1

1. Dying

2. Being severely crippled

3. Being imprisoned

.

.

.

.

12. Paying Taxes

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So paying taxes is not contradictory to swearing that you will "never live for the sake of another man"?

Imagine a slave forced to work in a cotton field. Every day that he does not try to escape, or put down the agressor (the slave master), isn't he living for the sake of another man? How is that different from forced taxation, and how would a slave or taxpayer ever be able to say "I swear by my life... never to live for the sake of another man"?

And if a slave/taxpayer can't be seen to ever be living "for the sake of another man", then what is an example of someone actually living for the sake of another?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless she is making a distinction between "voluntarily offering" and "offering at the demand of another". In which case it seems like she is equivocating - that sentence would suddenly make no sense if she is using the first sense of "offer".
An offer entails being voluntary -- there is no such thing as "involuntarily offering". There is "surrendering". If you offer a burglar anything, you have willingly given. If the burglar holds a gun to your head and demands that you hand over the spoon, that is not an offer. That is a partial surrender, the surrender of a lesser value (a spoon) to retain a greater value (your actual existence). In such a situation, the victim must decide which is more valuable. I consider the proper choice to be self-evident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So paying taxes is not contradictory to swearing that you will "never live for the sake of another man"?
No, because paying taxes or handing over the silver is motivated by your highest rational interest, your own life. You have two choices, surrender a little, or surrender a lot (for example your physical freedom). Moral principles are based on choice qua man, that is, when there is no element of force. When morality is not possible, the decision how to act is much harder. It requires you to blank out facts of reality (that the product of your mind is fully yours by right and should not be destroyed). In the context of modern America (as of today, not necesarily true in another month or year given the way things are going), suicide or jail would be irrational choices, since there is something much better that you can do. Shrugging sounds neat, but totally unrealistic -- at least, that is my personal evaluation, given my central purpose in life. Others with a different purpose might find the option of living under a bridge more palatable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An offer entails being voluntary -- there is no such thing as "involuntarily offering". There is "surrendering". If you offer a burglar anything, you have willingly given. If the burglar holds a gun to your head and demands that you hand over the spoon, that is not an offer. That is a partial surrender, the surrender of a lesser value (a spoon) to retain a greater value (your actual existence). In such a situation, the victim must decide which is more valuable. I consider the proper choice to be self-evident.

Then I don't understand the point of her quote. She makes it sound like she's saying, "don't let a burglar take your property - that is a recognition of their right to your property", but what she is actually saying is, "if a guy walks up to you and asks you to voluntarily hand over your property - let's call him a 'burglar' even though isn't holding a gun to your head - don't give him anything - that would be a recognition of his right to your property".

You say an offer isn't a surrender. She says, "offering [would be] a total surrender".

Here is the quote again for easy reference:

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.
Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless she is making a distinction between "voluntarily offering" and "offering at the demand of another". In which case it seems like she is equivocating - that sentence would suddenly make no sense if she is using the first sense of "offer".

She is, and her brief summary statement in that quote is explained at great length elsewhere in Objectivist literature written by her AND by Dr. Peikoff, so stop quoting out of context and start using your own brain. Dr. Peikoff, particularly, covers this in his lecture "Why Should One Act On Principle?" which was largely incorporated into OPAR--it is an example of why principles are ALL or NOTHING, not an exhortation that you must refuse to hand over money at gunpoint as part of some rationalistic, intrinsicist ideology.

Peikoff explains that, suppose a random stranger were to come up to you and demand ALL of your money and you, under no duress of any sort, as your idea of a compromise, decide to offer him, say, half of your money. That would constitute sanctioning the burglar's activities and leave you with no means to protest when he comes back tomorrow.

If, instead, the stranger threatened you with force and, under those circumstances, you parted with the money. There is no question of sanction: you are acting under duress. It doesn't matter whether the threat was open, obvious, and immediate or discreet and implied--the duress is real and the term "voluntary" no longer applies.

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...