Killing the poor for the sake of my Good

[Veritas]

This is just a philosophical question. Don't think I am wanting to live this out.

I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped? Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

[CapitalistSwine]

Dear lord, and people wonder why objectivism isn't taken seriously! You'd think they'd be impressed with intelligent questions such as this.

Because it is not a very well thought out question at all. No offense intended to the original poster. This is basic stuff that you should know the answer to if you have so much as grazed a summary of what Objectivism is about and is easily answerable even still within about a minute if you are willing to use google, or reason-forbid, the forum's search bar. People don't want to answer the same basic questions over and over.

Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

People live in a society together because it is in everyones rational self-interest to do so. It allows for a greater amount of voluntary trade, production, and an exchange of ideas. It is in ones rational self-interest to live in a rational society, i.e. where individual rights are protected. This is why Rand loved this country so. It was unequaled in history and in many respects during her time (and, arguably, currently) above the rest in its respect for individual rights when looking at the overall picture. Is it in your rational self-interest to use force against another individual in society simply because you believe you would benefit/gain from such an action? No.

You would not benefit from such an action, and if so it would only be a short-ranged benefit. What you are suggesting as something interchangeable with the concept of rational self-interest is hedonism, or what Rand coined "selfishness without the self". You are thinking short-ranged, in the moment when doing such things. It is not in anyones interest to use force against others because not only does it have numerous consequences in respect to the fact that force is anti-mind and anti-rights but it will lead to the degradation of the society in which you live in. That means a disintegration of rights for everyone. You will likely be persecuted for your crime as well. A rational society is a society full of traders... specifically value traders. You are killing values and the structure which is required for those values to persist by using force and short-ranged thinking in this manner. For specific details I suggest you read, primarily, The Virtue of Selfishness (which I am assuming you haven't read because otherwise that question would seem absurd to you) and secondarily, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I would also look up quotes from those books in the online lexicon (just type in those book names in the search box at the lexicon site).

If you think any of that could be in your rational self-interest I suggest you give it a go and see how well off you are and for how long.

Edited June 26, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[SapereAude]

This is just a philosophical question. Don't think I am wanting to live this out.

I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped? Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

Leaving all the needless snottiness of the other replies behind.....

Simple.

There is, in many people, a difference between what they see as their short term self interest and what would be their rational self interest.

It is in your rational self interest to live in a world where people have a right to their lives.

In a world where it is acceptable to kill someone because you see them as inconvenient it would also be acceptable for someone to kill you because they find you to be inconvenient.

It is rational to respect that other people's lives are as valuable to them as yours is to you.

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

Edited June 26, 2010 by QuoVadis

[dream_weaver]

The best thing that you can do for the poor is not be one of them.

[DavidOdden]

I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped?

"Why isn't it" isn't a valid line of reasoning. If you have a specific reason to claim that killing the poor, sick, or handicapped is in your interest, you would have to state those reasons, and then we can refute your logic. The burden of proof lies on you to establish that it is in your interest.

Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly.

Are you complaining about an elderly relative? If your mother is no value to you, then you don't have to spend any time taking care of her. Thus your premise fails to justify violating the rights of another person. You've misidentified your interest -- your interest is to stop caring for your mother, and it is not killing your mother. So your proposed action is, simply, not in your interest.

What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting?

Nothing. Nobody said that all life is of value to all men.

I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

You haven't yet given any evidence that it is in your interest for some other person to be dead, and until you do, we can't help you. Make the claim non-arbitrary and then we'd at least be in the realm of proper human cognition.

[CapitalistSwine]

Leaving all the needless snottiness of the other replies behind.....

I don't like that some people just feel the need to troll about the forums. I had no problem with the original posters post, otherwise I would not have spent the time to answer it. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself you can let me know through a private message.

Edited June 27, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[2046]

So I have a sort-of related question, in regards to the "universalization principle." According to Kant, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. All rules aspiring to the rank of just rules must be general rules, applicable and valid for all similarly situated individuals without exception.

If someone may not initiate force against me, then I may not initiate force against him, or others, and so on for everyone.

What is the principle in egoism that proves why no man may initiate force on another, and that this applies to everyone?

Edited June 27, 2010 by 2046

[dream_weaver]

So I have a sort-of related question, in regards to the "universalization principle." According to Kant, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. All rules aspiring to the rank of just rules must be general rules, applicable and valid for all similarly situated individuals without exception.

If someone may not initiate force against me, then I may not initiate force against him, or others, and so on for everyone.

What is the principle in egoism that proves why no man may initiate force on another, and that this applies to everyone?

The six derivative virtues [of rationality] are independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. After we have discussed them, we will consider a widespread vice, which represents the destruction of all of them. The vice is the initiation of physical force against other men.

The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil begins on page 310.

[brian0918]

What is the principle in egoism that proves why no man may initiate force on another, and that this applies to everyone?

Initiating force is irrational, and contrary to your life as the standard of value.

That's a very concise statement, and will require a thorough understanding of what it means to chose to live as a human being, be rational, and act according to a moral principle.

Edited June 27, 2010 by brian0918

[Maximus]

Think of it this way, if you could arbitrarily decide that someone else's life was worth nothing, then the same could be applied to you.

[SapereAude]

I don't like that some people just feel the need to troll about the forums. I had no problem with the original posters post, otherwise I would not have spent the time to answer it. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself you can let me know through a private message.

I wasn't referring to you.

There was a post before yours that was later removed. That was the post I took exception to, not yours.

[claire]

"I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?"

At what point, when your neighbor can benefit more from having you dead, is it not good for him to murder you?

Just wondering.

[Maximus]

I don't like that some people just feel the need to troll about the forums. I had no problem with the original posters post, otherwise I would not have spent the time to answer it. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself you can let me know through a private message.

QuoVadis is not a troll.

[2046]

Okay so I get the "force and mind are opposites" and the "therefore man needs to be free to use his mind to survive" 100% and the "therefore it's not conductive to human life to have a society where force is not outlawed" argument, but isn't that utilitarianism? I mean, since when is the other guys requirements for survival a concern for mine? Since when are his needs a claim on my life? Since when is need the standard? I'm just having a little bit of trouble integrating this.

[CapitalistSwine]

QuoVadis is not a troll.

I was referring to Claire's post which seems to have been deleted. Apparently QuoVadis was referring to her post as well. I have never thought QuoVadis to be a troll and have the utmost respect for him as a member here.

[DavidOdden]

Okay so I get the "force and mind are opposites" and the "therefore man needs to be free to use his mind to survive" 100% and the "therefore it's not conductive to human life to have a society where force is not outlawed" argument, but isn't that utilitarianism? I mean, since when is the other guys requirements for survival a concern for mine? Since when are his needs a claim on my life? Since when is need the standard?

No, utilitarianism is the philosophy that whatever creates the greatest net happiness across men is what is morally worthy. For example, if living free from force results in a total pleasure factor of 10,000 Megayux added up across all men, and torturing Bart Obama to death results in a total pleasure factor of 10,050 Megayux added up across all men, the correct moral choice is torturing Bart Obama to death. Thus utilitarianism makes pleasure a primary.

For Objectivism, "the other guy's needs" aren't important, what is important is the nature of man. Since you've chosen to exist, that entails existing as what you actually are, which specifically means a being that uses reason when making a choice, rather than as a being that exists by employing overwhelming force. Therefore, your choices should be made by you employing reason. The same would obviously be true of any other thing that is a man.

[Black Wolf]

"I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?"

At what point, when your neighbor can benefit more from having you dead, is it not good for him to murder you?

Just wondering.

What would that benefit be?

[Dante]

This is just a philosophical question. Don't think I am wanting to live this out.

I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped? Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

Because others are not simply tools to one's own ends, and a mindset which sees them in that way is certainly not a mindset that will result in a state of self-respect and non-contradictory happiness. An Objectivist's goal should not be to move through life with the least amount of burden possible, but to take actions and make decisions of which he or she can be proud. As human beings, we owe each other a generalized sense of benevolence and good will towards one another, until such time as any particular person takes actions proving himself unworthy of such treatment. To kill people because they are inconvenient is understood by the general public to be "selfish" behavior, but Objectivism argues that true pursuit of self-interest requires treating others as ends in themselves. Any other treatment of others is psychologically damaging and will impoverish your ability to attain happiness.

[Maximus]

I was referring to Claire's post which seems to have been deleted. Apparently QuoVadis was referring to her post as well. I have never thought QuoVadis to be a troll and have the utmost respect for him as a member here.

Oh, Okay. Deleted posts cause confusion.

(Psssst... QuoVadis is a girl)

Edited June 29, 2010 by Maximus

[Dante]

since when is the other guys requirements for survival a concern for mine?

Since you live in a society where the value with which you sustain your life is produced largely by others, and the most effective method of that production is to allow them to pursue their own self-interest. Even the most powerful dictator of a country, running his economy solely for his own benefit, will find his standard of living sliding when compared with that of an ordinary citizen in a free nation. The more successful you are at doing the taking, the less value there will be for you to take in the future. The best and most reliable course for anyone to ensure that they are able to maintain their lives long-term is to nurture their productive skills and work ethic, rather than undercutting both by attempting to live off of others.

The Objectivist argument against coercion relies crucially on the fact that coercion undercuts the root of production; it's bad not only for the victim, but also ultimately for the thief. If this were not the case, egoism would then at times encourage predation.

[Chris Cathcart]

This is just a philosophical question. Don't think I am wanting to live this out.

I see why other people are valuable to my survival sometimes and why it is in my interest not to take their life sometimes but why isn't it in my best interest to take the life of the poor, sick, or handicapped? Wouldn't life be better well spent without having to care for thee people either directly or indirectly. What principle makes all life as opposed to simply my life, if I so chose to live it, valuable in as much as it serves my self interesting? I mean at the point that I see that I can benefit from something more by having my neighbor dead than alive why is it not good to murder him?

Quick and dirty response: what is it about Ayn Rand's definition of goodness that would lead you to ask this question? What sort of context must not have been taken into account? Where does Rand ever suggest or propose that someone's good can be realized by killing off the poor? What does any of this have to do with Rand?