Some loopholes I see with Objectivism

[DougW]

Hi, I am new to this forum, and not an expert on either Rand or Objectivism by any stretch, but I have read her 3 most popular books (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem), and read a bit of the forums. I think the biggest 'loophole' in objectivism from what I have seen so far is that while it gives a clear description of how to act at a high level, it seems to give little guidance in gray areas, and in fact can be construed to be encouraging what many people would consider bad behavior. I can think of a few examples where this can be pointed out.

One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).

Now if your answer to that is that a follower of objectivism would always choose the path that preserves human life, OK, all we have to do is lower the sights of the example slightly....say that instead of a deadly disease, the drug company has a cure for some basic allergies....nothing that will kill anyone, but certainly something that is the cause of some not-insignificant suffering to many people....again, what should the actions of the CEO be in that case. If he is always thinking of his own interests, how could he choose anything other than to raise the price of the drug and limit it's distribution?

And you can also bring the example waaaay down to the level that we all deal with every day...the owner of a small business is about to set pay guidelines for his company. If he knows that the economy is bad, and many people are out of work, should he lower pay across the board to his employees, knowing that they will be afraid to quit in the current economic climate, and keep all the extra money for himself? You might argue that if he is thinking rationally, he would realize that the 'bad will' he will generate from lowering salaries will have more value than the immediate gain of cash he would receive, but what if his intention is to sell the business in a few years, before that equation could tip?

Anyway, its these gray areas that are the biggest problem with objectivism, that and the fact that it seems to imply an inherent trust in individuals with great power to do the right thing, when in fact it seems that the more power someone has the less likely they are to do the right thing....

[brian0918]

and in fact can be construed to be encouraging what many people would consider bad behavior

Objectivism is supposed to give guidance about what one should do. Whether or not it agrees with what many people would consider should be done is of no concern. It's begging the question to assume Objectivism is wrong because it does not agree with what you've arbitrarily defined as right. The whole point is to create a foundation for determining what is right and wrong.

One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).

Many of the wealthiest businessmen in history got that way by selling their product as cheaply as possible, so I question your entire premise. If I price things too high, fewer people can afford it, so I have fewer people buying it, so I may end up making less over all than if I price it for a little cheaper and a lot more people buy it. It all depends on the market. As for what *should* be done - the cure they've developed is their own property, to do with as they please.

The profit motive is the greatest incentive for them to not keep the cure to themselves. Remove the profit motive - as an altruistic society would have you do - and people will lose all interest in developing these cures. But if they develop it, they should be free to keep it to themselves, if they decide to (for whatever reason, rational or irrational). The rational thing, though - what they *should* do - is profit from it.

You might argue that if he is thinking rationally, he would realize that the 'bad will' he will generate from lowering salaries will have more value than the immediate gain of cash he would receive, but what if his intention is to sell the business in a few years, before that equation could tip?

That is his choice and he is free to make it. What *he* should do depends on his values, and what his employees should do depends on their values. What *he* should do does not depend on what *they* value.

Edited September 29, 2009 by brian0918

[SapereAude]

One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).

Now if your answer to that is that a follower of objectivism would always choose the path that preserves human life, OK, all we have to do is lower the sights of the example slightly....say that instead of a deadly disease, the drug company has a cure for some basic allergies....nothing that will kill anyone, but certainly something that is the cause of some not-insignificant suffering to many people....again, what should the actions of the CEO be in that case. If he is always thinking of his own interests, how could he choose anything other than to raise the price of the drug and limit it's distribution?

One point you are missing is that the inventor of an important new drug needs not just charge for the cost of the drug, but the tens of millions of dollars spent developing it, the time it could've been on the market while the govt regulators dicked around, the probable multi-million $$$ lawsuits if anyone has an adverse affect from the drug, the loss of income when, by law, generics are allowed to start making the drug not to mention having enough to continue research on new drugs.

Objectivism doesn't tell people they can't choose to be generous.

But it does advise against benevolence at the costs of one's own self interest.

Say a company with a brilliant team of researchers started making some amazing advances in drug-cures and preventatives. Say they refused to take all the things I mentioned above into account and charged very little so almost everyone could afford it. Once all the things I mentioned above kicked in with their vast expense the company could be out of business. Meaning this great company couldn't come up with any new cures.

That is what is meant, in my opinion, by "rational self interest". That an Objectivist realises that the greater good is only served when everyone serves themselves primarily.

The drug creator's interest is in the health of the company first.

Without the company there would be no drugs for people to bitch about the expense of.

As it has often been pointed out- no use in railing against what someone else has- if they didn't have it it doesn't mean you would.

If the company that is "so greedy" didn't exist you wouldn't have the drug anyway.

They are not keeping you from anything.

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the forum.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that we should aim for some type of "greatest possible common good". So, your criticism appears to be directed against Adam Smith's "invisible hand" as opposed to being directed against Objectivism. In fact, Objectivism rejects the notion that achieving the common good is a good moral standard, or a good basis for government.

A supporter of Adam Smith would probably address your examples by pointing out that it is in the interest of a buyer that the seller make a profit; it is not in the interest of any employee that he be paid more than the market can bear. One might see these things are being in one's interest in the short run, but sellers/employers who act irrationally will go out of business... and then what?

Your pay example is the easiest to tackle. In very general terms, if the economy is bad, and people take wage-cuts, that is the sure-fire way of removing unemployment, and seeing a quick rebound. No rational employer will do things in a knee-jerk fashion. However, in general, if the medium-to-long term shows that wages are going to be depressed, employers would be well-advised to adjust downward to those lower wages. The employees of GM thought they were so smart when they insisted that their company pay them above-market rates. This approach drove their company into bankruptcy. Higher than market wages are not in the interest of an employee, in the long run; and, without government intervention, that long-run comes faster than it does today.

Further, during the period that employees are being paid more than a market price, the folks who are getting hurt are those who are unemployed. Today, for instance, with a year of deflation under our belt, we ought to have seen wages go down much more than they have. Unfortunately, employers don't do this; there is a reluctance to cut wages (what economists refer to as the "downward stickiness of wages"). As a result, unemployment is particularly high among groups that were just coming onto the job-market: younger folk with less experience.

So, that would be an Adam Smith type answer to one of your questions. However, Objectivism would go one step deeper and reject the notion that the "common-good" is a starting point for judging a political system.

[nanite1018]

In your small business example, he probably would reduce pay and explain to his workers that the company needs to make sure that it has enough money to last through the recession, or has the margin to cut its prices and still make money, otherwise they may have to shut down and everyone will be out of the job. And if it turns out it is not necessary, and he makes a bunch of money he doesn't require for his business, then good for him, he might choose to expand, open a new branch, or maybe just go on a few nice vacations. Its his business after all, and he needs to do what is in his best interests, not the interests of his employees (often these may coincide though).

As for the drug company example(s): The owner of the company should do whatever he wants. Perhaps he got into the drug business a long long time ago as a researcher and all he really wanted to do was come up with cures for diseases so he could make people's (including, indirectly, his own) lives better (and he found the search thrilling too, if he was a scientist). Then he got rich off of one of his discoveries, and went into business himself, so he could do more interesting things, tackling tough problems in disease, etc., or curing illnesses that would set people free to create and live productive lives (like curing malaria and aids). If that is how he got to be CEO of a major corporation, he would have to weigh the value he'd get from widely distributing his drug to the value he would get from making a lot of money and investing it to find still more cures. He would probably end up on some middle ground position between the two. If he got into drugs because he simply saw it as a great way to make a shitton of money so he could, idk, build an island resort with genetically engineered life forms resembling dinosaurs as attractions, then he'd probably work to maximize his financial profit. It all depends on what his reason for acting is.

What really matters, is that he created the cure, and he can distribute it in any way he likes, rational or not. And what is rational depends on what he actually values, why he is doing what he's doing. Just because I might like it more if he charged less for the drug he created, doesn't mean I'll call him an asshole for charging what he does. He has every right to do so, and if I want it I have to give him what he wants. The key is that with rational people, you don't have conflicts of interest, because everyone acknowledges that it is in their interest for everyone to be able to do whatever it is they want with what they create. To say "it would be better if he gave it away for free" is to say "it would be better if the creators were slaves to everyone else's desires" which is to say "it would be better if we were in the dark ages," and that is obviously not the case.

Edit:

Oh, and welcome to the forum too, haha. Hope you enjoy it here.

Edited September 29, 2009 by nanite1018

[SapereAude]

The key is that with rational people, you don't have conflicts of interest, because everyone acknowledges that it is in their interest for everyone to be able to do whatever it is they want with what they create.

This statement by the way, is what I meant by "the greater good". Not what society has made of it. ..before anyone starts jumping all over me....

[DougW]

Welcome to the forum.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that we should aim for some type of "greatest possible common good". So, your criticism appears to be directed against Adam Smith's "invisible hand" as opposed to being directed against Objectivism. In fact, Objectivism rejects the notion that achieving the common good is a good moral standard, or a good basis for government.

A supporter of Adam Smith would probably address your examples by pointing out that it is in the interest of a buyer that the seller make a profit; it is not in the interest of any employee that he be paid more than the market can bear. One might see these things are being in one's interest in the short run, but sellers/employers who act irrationally will go out of business... and then what?

Your pay example is the easiest to tackle. In very general terms, if the economy is bad, and people take wage-cuts, that is the sure-fire way of removing unemployment, and seeing a quick rebound. No rational employer will do things in a knee-jerk fashion. However, in general, if the medium-to-long term shows that wages are going to be depressed, employers would be well-advised to adjust downward to those lower wages. The employees of GM thought they were so smart when they insisted that their company pay them above-market rates. This approach drove their company into bankruptcy. Higher than market wages are not in the interest of an employee, in the long run; and, without government intervention, that long-run comes faster than it does today.

Further, during the period that employees are being paid more than a market price, the folks who are getting hurt are those who are unemployed. Today, for instance, with a year of deflation under our belt, we ought to have seen wages go down much more than they have. Unfortunately, employers don't do this; there is a reluctance to cut wages (what economists refer to as the "downward stickiness of wages"). As a result, unemployment is particularly high among groups that were just coming onto the job-market: younger folk with less experience.

So, that would be an Adam Smith type answer to one of your questions. However, Objectivism would go one step deeper and reject the notion that the "common-good" is a starting point for judging a political system.

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate your patience with me, As I said earlier, I am new to this subject. You are correct, though, that I assumed Rand's theory's were in basic agreement with those of Adam Smith. If that assumption was wrong, I apologize. I guess I have to follow up, though and ask if objectivism isn't aiming to produce a 'common-good', what is it aimed at? Or are you saying that any attempt to calculate the 'common-good' will be flawed and should therefore be discarded? Having read a bunch of the postings on the forum, it seems clear to me that most of the people who post here believe in 'good' and 'evil' (in fact it is a bit intimidating how often posters accuse those who disagree with objectivism of being 'evil'....), so I have assumed that objectivism is thought of as a path that will lead to a 'good' result. Am I wrong? Should I perhaps be amending the words to 'successful' and 'not successful'. I think what I'm trying to get a handle on is whether objectivism is telling us to forget what we've been taught is 'right' and 'wrong' and start thinking of strategies that will be 'successful'. I understand the major philosophies of objectivism, but they seem so broad that it would be impossible to object to them... Is the interpretation of these ideas down to life-situations supposed to be up to the individual? Is the idea that the freely-chosen actions that are ultimately successful, and therefore help their owner's survive, must by definition be 'good'?

[DougW]

One point you are missing is that the inventor of an important new drug needs not just charge for the cost of the drug, but the tens of millions of dollars spent developing it, the time it could've been on the market while the govt regulators dicked around, the probable multi-million $$$ lawsuits if anyone has an adverse affect from the drug, the loss of income when, by law, generics are allowed to start making the drug not to mention having enough to continue research on new drugs.

Objectivism doesn't tell people they can't choose to be generous.

But it does advise against benevolence at the costs of one's own self interest.

Say a company with a brilliant team of researchers started making some amazing advances in drug-cures and preventatives. Say they refused to take all the things I mentioned above into account and charged very little so almost everyone could afford it. Once all the things I mentioned above kicked in with their vast expense the company could be out of business. Meaning this great company couldn't come up with any new cures.

That is what is meant, in my opinion, by "rational self interest". That an Objectivist realises that the greater good is only served when everyone serves themselves primarily.

The drug creator's interest is in the health of the company first.

Without the company there would be no drugs for people to bitch about the expense of.

As it has often been pointed out- no use in railing against what someone else has- if they didn't have it it doesn't mean you would.

If the company that is "so greedy" didn't exist you wouldn't have the drug anyway.

They are not keeping you from anything.

I wasn't trying to say that the drug company would give away the drug, or that it would do anything that would cause itself to go under. There are many, many more levels of complexity than that to this example. I assumed (and wrote in my example) that the profit margin would be low, which would mean a profit was made. Once profitability is reached, there are further decision that are made...does the company continue to raise the price, increasing profitability? If the public is truly desperate for this drug, the company can achieve staggering profits, at the cost of some lives...then once the money is collected, what to do with it...should it go to a huge CEO bonus, or plow back into R&D. And I am not asking this only from an economic perspective, I am asking from a perspective of describing the morality of objectivism. What does objectivism think the CEO should do? The general belief out there in the world is that the Rand/objectivism response is: "Why he should take as much as he can for himself, of course..." Is that true? Or does objectivism say, "we don't tell people what to do, it's their decision..." or does it say "After calculating the future net value of the actions versus the immediate monetary gain, it is clear that taking overly greedy actions in this case would in fact not be in the CEO's self-interest, as anyone who can calculate would see...."

Or is it not like any of those?

[softwareNerd]

if objectivism isn't aiming to produce a 'common-good', what is it aimed at?

Here is an extremely brief introduction to Objectivism.

The part that you're asking about would be in ethics and politics. In ethics, "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." In politics: "a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit".

[MichaelH]

I wasn't trying to say that the drug company would give away the drug, or that it would do anything that would cause itself to go under. There are many, many more levels of complexity than that to this example.

<snip>

What does objectivism think the CEO should do? The general belief out there in the world is that the Rand/objectivism response is: "Why he should take as much as he can for himself, of course..." Is that true? Or does objectivism say, "we don't tell people what to do, it's their decision..." or does it say "After calculating the future net value of the actions versus the immediate monetary gain, it is clear that taking overly greedy actions in this case would in fact not be in the CEO's self-interest, as anyone who can calculate would see...."

Or is it not like any of those?

What *he* should do depends on his values

I'm collating what several people have said in this thread: Objectivism does not prescribe a specific course of action in this case. The CEO is morally obligated to make a rationally self-interested decision based on their own values. That is the guidance Objectivism provides for this, and most, decisions.

[RationalBiker]

I guess I have to follow up, though and ask if objectivism isn't aiming to produce a 'common-good', what is it aimed at?

It's there to provide a sound method for living life as a man, a rational being who must make choices according to his values. There is no "common good" for everyone, particularly not for those that usually have to brunt the bill to provide for everyone else who isn't providing for themselves.

so I have assumed that objectivism is thought of as a path that will lead to a 'good' result. Am I wrong?

That depends on what your meaning of good. What does good mean to you? Are you assuming that good means "the common good"? Are you assuming that good requires individuals to sacrifice of themselves for the sake of others?

"Why he should take as much as he can for himself, of course..."

Why is it assumed that this is the most rational course of action? Why is it assumed that the CEO does not have values that are not entirely financially motivated? Why is it assumed that the CEO does not value other people and does not have a desire to be benevolent and helpful to the afflicted?

If the public is truly desperate for this drug, the company can achieve staggering profits, at the cost of some lives.

What do you mean by "at the cost of some lives"? Those lives are not the responsibility of the company (or it's owner(s)) making the cure. This seems implicit in your argument, that the company somehow has some obligation to these people. Why?

Edited September 29, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Eiuol]

Once profitability is reached, there are further decision that are made...does the company continue to raise the price, increasing profitability?

Raising prices does not always mean increased profitability. You get more money per item sold, but could you end up selling less items if you increase the price?

If the public is truly desperate for this drug, the company can achieve staggering profits, at the cost of some lives

It doesn't "cost" lives. There are operating costs. Employees need to be paid. New drugs need to be developed. You could say giving away drugs for free costs lives as well.

...then once the money is collected, what to do with it...should it go to a huge CEO bonus, or plow back into R&D.

Yup, or a giant yacht, fund an awesome movie, donate to charity, whatever the person wants. It's up to the individual to decide what is rational, but the things I listed would typically be good and rational choices by Objectivist standards. Unless the person in question is only buying those things to "look good to others" even if they hate yachts/movies/charities.

And I am not asking this only from an economic perspective, I am asking from a perspective of describing the morality of objectivism. What does objectivism think the CEO should do?

He should do what is rational and in his self-interest. It implies following *his* values and not violating rights. It would also imply considering self-esteem, reason and purpose to be virtues. Morally, this is what he should do. But even if he is acting immorally, he should be allowed to do anything he wants as long as he doesn't violate anyone's rights.

The general belief out there in the world is that the Rand/objectivism response is: "Why he should take as much as he can for himself, of course..." Is that true?

Or does objectivism say, "we don't tell people what to do, it's their decision..." or does it say "After calculating the future net value of the actions versus the immediate monetary gain, it is clear that taking overly greedy actions in this case would in fact not be in the CEO's self-interest, as anyone who can calculate would see...."

Or is it not like any of those?

I'm not sure if I'd say any of those are a good response. I think my response to your previous quote is a good response.

[Jake_Ellison]

if objectivism isn't aiming to produce a 'common-good', what is it aimed at?

Objectivism is a philosophical system meant to guide a person through the course of their life. That is what all philosophies are meant to do, but they often don't do it in accordance with reality, and they do not regard man as an end in itself.(every man as an end in him/herself)

Objectivism does both those things.

Or are you saying that any attempt to calculate the 'common-good' will be flawed and should therefore be discarded?

Objectivism holds that a man is not an end to a higher calling, beyond him/herself. That may sound wrong to someone who hasn't fully thought through the implications of his own person being an end to someone, or something else, so you should start with that:

What are you, Doug, for? What is the purpose of your existence? If it is to further the common good, what is it exactly, in what way are you doing it right now, and if you ever stop acting to further the common good, why is that? While you're enjoying a movie, or listening to music, for instance, you are acting solely for your own pleasure. Why aren't you instead using that time to do whatever the widespread morality of altruism tells you is good?

In contrast to that, Objectivism holds that a man is an end in itself, and he must act to further his own life, and Objectivist Ethics is a guide to do just that.

In fact, any man that does not act to further his own life, necessarily dies. That is the nature of reality, every living organism must act to sustain itself. The difference between men and animals or plants is that the latter does it by instinct/automatically, while man has free will, and therefor must choose to do so. This choice is made through the use of man's rational faculty, to determine which choices will, and which choices will not, further his life. Or one can choose to not act to further his life, and die.

Only a creature able to choose between life and death, and willing to choose a life sustained by his most basic virtue, reason, needs Ethics, the craft that guides men who have consciously and consistently chosen to live a life qua man. (a proper life, simply for the sake of living it, rather than a life of confusion, without purpose, or a life dedicated to a purpose that contradicts reality and reason-such as an imaginary God, or a socialist future).

Having read a bunch of the postings on the forum, it seems clear to me that most of the people who post here believe in 'good' and 'evil' (in fact it is a bit intimidating how often posters accuse those who disagree with objectivism of being 'evil'....), so I have assumed that objectivism is thought of as a path that will lead to a 'good' result. Am I wrong?

You are right about the existence of good and evil, moral and immoral. But it is pointless to talk of a good person, or an evil person, based on a disagreement with pretty much anything.

Evil is the refusal to think. Allow me to explain why: As I said above, reason is man's only means of survival. Not using it leads to the destruction of one's life. Depending on the degree of the refusal to think, one can survive but be miserable, or one can simply die. Most humans are a mixed bag, they are able to think in certain aspects of their lives, and refuse to do so, or evade reality, in others.

Should I perhaps be amending the words to 'successful' and 'not successful'. I think what I'm trying to get a handle on is whether objectivism is telling us to forget what we've been taught is 'right' and 'wrong' and start thinking of strategies that will be 'successful'. I understand the major philosophies of objectivism, but they seem so broad that it would be impossible to object to them...

No, successful does not tell you what a person is successful at. Someone can be a successful football player, and awful at living in general for instance. Which example should I pick, oh there are so many...

Good is a person who consistently chooses to think, in every aspect of his life. Evil is the act of evading reality, and sets his life on a collision course with it. It's not enough that a person is successful as a footballer, if his favorite past-time is drowning pitbulls after a fight.

Is the interpretation of these ideas down to life-situations supposed to be up to the individual? Is the idea that the freely-chosen actions that are ultimately successful, and therefore help their owner's survive, must by definition be 'good'?

Proper moral principles are objective. Everyone must be independent, rational, honest, productive, etc..., if they wish to live a life qua man. If someone chooses to be a junkie, that person has made an immoral choice, not a moral one. If someone chooses to to evade the reality of a truck coming his way, that person made a bad choice, most certainly not a good one, just because he chose it.

However, the application of moral principles depends on the individual's context, and any action must be freely chosen.

For details, please check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon (to begin with), on morality (Ethics), url=http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html]values, free will, etc. (this part has been discussed a lot lately, I don't really wish to write a huge overview of Ethics, but I would love to answer specific questions, objections, etc. )

[DougW]

Here is an extremely brief introduction to Objectivism.

The part that you're asking about would be in ethics and politics. In ethics, "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." In politics: "a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit".

Thanks, I had already read the first few pages, and that is sort of what prompted me to get started here. When I read the 'Intoducing Objectivism' and 'Essentials of Objectivism', I'm not seeing anything about Objectivism being a guide to how to act....which I guess is in line with what QuoVadis was saying in his earlier reply.

What is a bit confusing to me is saying "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life" without later expressing what is meant be 'rational', and not seeming to deal with the concept of people who are made 'happy' by gathering and using as much power over others as they possibly can. Isn't every dictator on the planet pursuing his own self-interest and happiness? Are there more detailed explanations of what is meant by these statements, or are they purposely very 'high-level', and is the belief of objectivism that it's better to live with the occaisional fallout from 'irrational' people acting in their 'self interests' than to even consider restricting the rational people in any way?

I remember a quote a long time ago from Roy Cohn when someone asked how he could defend the first amendment rights of some neo-nazi group, and he responded by saying something like "we can never win over these people by restricting their rights, we must ultimately defeat them in the marketplace of ideas...' or something like that. Is this what objectivism is saying? Something akin to: "All men must have freedom to pursue their own self-interest and happiness, and we understand that may include some very powerful and irrational people who will do a lot of harm to the world, but ultimately it will be less harm than having a goverment that restricts the freedom of men..." ?

Edited September 29, 2009 by DougW

[AllMenAreIslands]

One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).

Hi DougW and welcome to the forum.

I selected the paragraph quoted above to comment on several items:

(1) the idea that low price is what "saves lives." It's often not the price tag that is the real impediment, but the concern about being a guinea pig, or about spending ANY amount of money on a relatively untested substance. No matter how much testing is done prior to release, a new drug is likely to have adverse side effects that won't materialize until a vast swath of the population has ingested it and discovered them. Such side effects may be rare, but overcoming the fear that one will draw the unlucky lottery ticket means price alone isn't going to be the determining factor (within reason of course.)

(2) the idea that extracting as much money as possible by charging what the market will bear is directly responsible for killing "many." Again, it is people's stubbornness against trying the new drug which will be more likely to cause their deaths, going on the assumption that the drug DOES work and WOULD work for all individuals who take it. Charging "market" rates also means having the wherewithal to deal with people who experience side effects.

In addition, in respect of points 1 and 2 - people who are earning a living and who value their own lives enough to pay for a life-saving drug will do so. Why is it that so many of this kind of example always omit the fact that those without the means to purchase reasonably priced health care products are also unwilling to do anything to support their own lives?

(3) the idea implicit in this kind of example that it is evil to earn huge profits, especially when alleviating human suffering or disease? This approach stems directly from the altruist concept that morality consists of sacrificing one's rights in the name of ministering to someone else's "need."

Were rational selfishness prevailing, the vast majority of individuals would see it as in their own self-interest for drug companies to earn large profits (providing the drug in question actually gets the job done of course.) To resent the company and/or begrudge them the profits is to desire the unearned - to want to take the fruits of the labors of scientists & businessmen, use them to one's own profit but not be required to pay anything for them.

One should not begrudge the drug company owner his profits. Whether he plows the money back into the company or not, the good thing that is the health-giving, life-saving drug is here. Remember, too, that there are two sides to every trade. Even with zero gov't b.s. & intervention, a man who develops a drug that can save millions of lives usually has invested years of his life into the project. The potential customer has the right to refuse to pay the price asked, but a smart businessman tries to price his product so that the majority of people CAN afford it. Why should that situation be interfered with in order to benefit the kind of people who won't shift themselves to support their own lives?

[kainscalia]

Doug, allow me to suggest three books for you to read:

1. The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

2. Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith

3. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith

I think your question concerning ethics will get good replies here, but I think that the important thing is that you understand the principles behind the ethics of Objectivism. Until then, you will not be able to properly judge what is concordant with an Objectivist outlook and what isn't. VOS is a smaller book and one of the essentials to read, and Smith is a very clear and lucid writer. I think you would benefit from reading these books.

[softwareNerd]

Are there more detailed explanations of what is meant by these statements, or are they purposely very 'high-level', ...

Yes, there are more levels of detail. Also, at some level of detail one goes outside the province of Philosophy into the special sciences. For instance, at some level of detail Philosophy would tell you to stay healthy, but a special science would tell you the specific choices you need to make.

For the next level of detail on ethics, I suggest the first essay (about 40-pages) in "The Virtue of Selfishness". It addresses the question of why man needs Ethics in the first place, and why there has to be a standard, and what that standard ought to be. Then, it lists what would be considered virtues, given such a standard; this is probably the next "level of detail" you're looking for.

Edited September 29, 2009 by softwareNerd

[themadkat]

Hi Doug!

What is a bit confusing to me is saying "The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life" without later expressing what is meant be 'rational', and not seeming to deal with the concept of people who are made 'happy' by gathering and using as much power over others as they possibly can. Isn't every dictator on the planet pursuing his own self-interest and happiness? Are there more detailed explanations of what is meant by these statements, or are they purposely very 'high-level', and is the belief of objectivism that it's better to live with the occaisional fallout from 'irrational' people acting in their 'self interests' than to even consider restricting the rational people in any way?

With regard to the dictators, the answer is a most emphatic 'no'. By Objectivist morality, dictators and absolute rulers are the worst kind of altruists (yes, really) and true happiness is not ever going to be found by having power over others as this is a second-handed lifestyle. To understand what is meant by 'second-handed' and why a dictator is 'altruist' does require a more in-depth explanation of the Objectivist POV but I think you are beginning to see how the layers interact now and that there's a lot going on here.

Remember when discussing higher-level 'outcomes' like what is "better" in a global sense (which is a bit of a misleading question given our context but most people do want to know this) that Objectivism is primarily from the point of view of the individual trying to decide how to live their life, and it's got to be by the same principles for every person. The content of everyone's life is different, but reason and rights form the "ground rules" by which people can interact with each other in a mutually beneficial way. There will always be irrational people, if that's what you're asking. But so what? When irrational people act irrationally within their rights, rational people choose not to deal with them. A good example of this would be a business owner who refuses to serve a class of people, like blacks. A rational customer will no longer do business with him and may tell their friends too. When an irrational person's behavior crosses the rights-violation line, rational people (actually anyone) then do what is necessary to defend themselves. An example of this would be is if someone is trying to harm you, you can legitimately do whatever is necessary to stop that threat to yourself. However in civil society we delegate this function to the government as this is the whole point of having one. But of course in the heat of the moment no one would expect you to die waiting for Johnny Law to show up.

Does this help to clarify things?

[Clawg]

One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).

The CEO does not have the drug out of the blue. It has to be _created_. The creation of something which requires the protection of intellectual property requires a certain type of environment, i.e. a society which respects intellectual property.

If society would not allow that the creator of a drug can set any price he likes then there wouldn't be such a drug in the first place. So there isn't really a choice involved from the point of view of the victims of the illness, if they demand lower prices there wouldn't be a drug.

[D'kian]

Ah, for once a hypothetical that is not entirely hypothetical.

Back in the XVIII Century a certain Benjamin Franklin discovered lightning was an electrical discharge (he did not discover electricity as legend has it). He realized then that lightning strikes could be prevented by the simple means of erecting a metal rod at a building's highest point, and running a conductive wire from the rod to the ground. This is what came to be known as a lightning rod.

Without this technology buildings do tend to get struck, which can cause damage and injury, and even death. By devising the lightning rod, Franklin saved countless lives over hundreds of years (as long as humanity endures, perhaps). You can look up what he did about it.

[DougW]

The CEO does not have the drug out of the blue. It has to be _created_. The creation of something which requires the protection of intellectual property requires a certain type of environment, i.e. a society which respects intellectual property.

If society would not allow that the creator of a drug can set any price he likes then there wouldn't be such a drug in the first place. So there isn't really a choice involved from the point of view of the victims of the illness, if they demand lower prices there wouldn't be a drug.

What?!? Our society DOES set the maximum price that can be charged for the drug, and DOES put other limitations on the ownership of the intellectual property! You may not like those regulations, but they exist, right now! And yet, somehow, the research goes on.... the drugs DO exist....so clearly evidence suggests that restricting profit at some level does NOT stop invention/creation...

Anyway, by coming back with more economic arguments, you are failing to address the real question. Once all the costs are covered, and the factories paid for and the Maseratis all have a new coat of wax, and there are apartments in South Beach loaded with strippers, EVEN THEN is it not immoral to play the capitalism game to squeeze a few more pennies out of the system, since after all, we're just talking it from completely replaceable workers anyway?

I don't begrudge the owners of companies or the creators of intellectual property from profiting form their efforts. I spent most of my life as an entrepreneur. I built a company from 2 people working in a converted bedroom into one that sold 2.5 million dollars of software in one year, and then sold the company for a nice profit. But when I sat in the office with my partner, and had to argue with him for 2 hours about giving bonuses to our long term employees after the sale, I began to wonder a bit.... Then I stayed on for 3 years with the company that bought us, and got to see firsthand how a lot of 'C'-level businessmen operate. In my career I have sat in rooms with Lou Gerstner, Donald Trump, Vince McMahon, and a bunch of other very wealthy individuals whose names wouldn't mean anything to anyone, and it was very, very, very rare that any of them cared one iota for anything but increasing their personal power.

I will read the books that were suggested a couple of posts above, because I want to find out what is underneath the high-level tenets of objectivism. I think we are living in a very dangerous world, and we are going to need something to help us survive the next few centuries without killing off half the population of the planet. I like the idea that Objectivism says "Freedom First", because I believe we could very easily end up with a planet where a few hundred people make ALL the rules, and that would not be good.... But, I also believe that honesty within the framework of any philosophy is crucial to that philosophy's long-term survival (Hopefully objectivism won't be satisfied becoming the common-man's version of scientology...). So, I need to get to the truth of the sacrifices that objectivism is willing to make in order to achieve the freedom that is so central to its framework. Is the only acceptable sacrifice the sacrifice of oneself? If so, great! Or are we saying that in order to achieve the freedom we deserve we will just have to put up with some brutal dictatorships out there in the world where they don't affect us so much, and we may have to have some suffering for the mentally challenged (hey, they're just lazy anyway!), the emotionally challenged (does objectivism even recognize emotional disability, or are all men expected to have the gumption to pull themselves up by the bootstraps...). If the idea behind objectism is that these sacrifices should be made, then fine, I understand, but I think this should be stated.

Edited September 30, 2009 by DougW

[DougW]

Doug, allow me to suggest three books for you to read:

1. The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

2. Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith

3. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith

I think your question concerning ethics will get good replies here, but I think that the important thing is that you understand the principles behind the ethics of Objectivism. Until then, you will not be able to properly judge what is concordant with an Objectivist outlook and what isn't. VOS is a smaller book and one of the essentials to read, and Smith is a very clear and lucid writer. I think you would benefit from reading these books.

Kainscalia,

thank you! I will get these and read them. I hope everyone realizes that the reason I'm asking questions and posing the situations I pose is because I want to understand. Rand's message is a very powerful one, yet it is also unquestionably seductive to those of higher intelligence. We all love to be told that we are special, that we deserve better than we are getting, and I greatly fear to buy into any system without really looking deeply into how its core tenets play out in the real world.

Thanks again for the information!

[Plasmatic]

So, I need to get to the truth of the sacrifices that objectivism is willing to make in order to achieve the freedom that is so central to its framework

Its very simple. NONE ! Objectivism regards sacrifice as evil.

[DougW]

Its very simple. NONE ! Objectivism regards sacrifice as evil.

You may not be understanding what I am saying...I'm not talking about sacrifice at a personal level. I mean sacrifice at the systemic level...as in... "In order to achieve freedom for all men, we understand that there will be some who use their intellectual/financial/political/charismatic power to harm others, but putting in an inordinate number of rules to control these abuses is a larger evil than the abuses themselves, so the system must be willing to sacrifice the suffering of a few less powerful individuals in order to achieve the most perfect system..."

And, if you have a second, I'd also like to follow up on your statement....are you saying it's evil to feed a paraplegic? Is that not sacrifice? Should we close down blood banks, being as they are inherently evil? Saying 'sacrifice is evil' is so incredibly broad a statement, I think this is what is driving me crazy about trying to understand Objectivism. It feels like everyone has a 10-word-or-less answer to the great problems that have confused our best philosopher's for centuries! Please be more specific. Having pert one-line answers for those who question/object to your belief system sounds much more like the tactics one would expect from a dogmatic religion or hard-core communist system. I understood that Objectivism is supposed to be an intellectual approach to these issues.....

Anyway, hopefully what you were doing is taking a statement like "it's evil for a central power to 'force' sacrifice on it's membership...", which makes much more sense. I can't believe that personal sacrifice as a choice is evil....even Rearden supported his family, and was willing to continue to do so until they began to actively move against him, was his willingness to support them evil?

Edited September 30, 2009 by DougW

[Plasmatic]

Having pert one-line answers for those who question/object to your belief system sounds much more like the tactics one would expect from a dogmatic religion or hard-core communist system. I understood that Objectivism is supposed to be an intellectual approach to these issues..

And making broad comments about essential summations of topics which have had volumes dedicated to it by Rand, is a bit anti intellectual as well . No?

Sacrifice is evil on any level. Your problem is from not having a proper definition in mind for sacrifice. Sacrifice is when one trades a higher value for a lesser one. The only reason for doing something is because it is a value to you. Value for value trade, whether it be blood for money or a kidney for someone you love, it is not a sacrifice if you are not giving up a higher value for a lesser one.

Try this:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

Edited September 30, 2009 by Plasmatic