Why do good things happen to bad people?

hernan · January 2, 2014

What would that brilliant Marx fellow say in this situation?

I'm not sure what situation you are referring to but what I found brilliant from Marx was his observation that factory owners relied on respect for their property. In a loose sense, he told workers to withdraw their sanction of ownership of property.

I imagine Rand to be the anti-Marx but it doesn't seem her concept of the sanction of the victim is as practical.

whYNOT · January 2, 2014

We all exist through or by other people. That is a fact of life. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. We are literally brought into existence, birthed, by others. Worse, as I noted, our possession of property is quite dependent upon the indulgence of others. You enjoy your house only so long as your neighbors don't burn it down. Marx was brilliant in noticing this.

No, your "on the shoulders of those who came before us" is the total obverse of my meaning.

My full context is that a "bad person" is without exception self-less to a larger extent than most. He has sacrificed his mind to those of others: he exists to force control upon their minds and bodies, to derive his self-worth from them, and/or to benefit from their loss. "Through and by" others, is through and by their standards and morality, their popular approval, their sanction, permission or authority and sometimes the unearned or stolen fruits of their work. He is often and commonly seen as 'selfish', while he's anything but.

This I believe is the broad meaning of self-sacrifice, implicit in Rand's view of the concept of altruism. Prior to the harm such a person does others, he has already harmed himself, quite ironically. Can "good things" happen to such a person at all, in fact? It might seen so, but largely as a perception- from the point of view of those who place selfish value in good things, those who are moral, iow. Marx was brilliantly immoral in structuring an altruist-collectivist ideology from his observations of men's self-sacrifice.

Edited January 2, 2014 by whYNOT

Spiral Architect · January 2, 2014

We are falling down Comte's idealism of why we need altruism here. People are of benefit, which is why it is in out self-interests to work together in a moral system, but not the prime mover for action. The necessity of one's life and living is why moral action starts with the self as the beneficiary of moral action. That runs counter to that argument. The illusions to Marx are true from there since he constructed a monstrous argument to justify self-immolation, likely to justify his life of feeding off of others. Marx is part of what I call the Unholy Trinity in philosophy, along with Comte, exactly for justifying people lives around others and setting us down the path to the primitive ethic systems of “interdependence” we are in today.

As for good things happening to bad people, or vice versa, there is actually no such thing. Events are cause and effect, and they may benefit (or not) people through their lives but only people’s actions can be good or bad since they are the entity that has the power to choose an action. In the long run, it is how they choose to live and prepare for life’s events that produce results. For example, I got a flat tire coming to work – Is that something bad happening to a good person? No. The tire either hit something in the road (random event) or it gave out due to tire pressure and wear (cause and effect). I can choose not to plan for these things and deal with them on the fly or I can have insurance to cover road side repair and check my tires regularly to prevent preventable failures in my vehicle. The good or bad is in my choice, not the event. The event simply is what it is.

An example from earlier, James Taggart is a bad person but the idea here is that “good things” happened to him. Yes – He scammed his way into a short term windfall, like the Bernie Madoff, but short term gains did not benefit him in the long run. Eventually, the immoral action comes home to roost, just like if I ignore my tire then look perplexed when it blows out one day. Good and bad come from our choices and moral choices are practical applications to day-to-day life. Even a bloodthirsty dictator living in a gold palace eventually has to realize he is alone and not thriving as a dependent upon a system he desperately stays one step ahead of so he doesn’t end up like Saddam in a hole. He will likely ignore that fact to keep power, but that is what Rand dramatized for us in Atlas Shrugged.

hernan · January 2, 2014

No, your "on the shoulders of those who came before us" is the total obverse of my meaning.

My full context is that a "bad person" is without exception self-less to a larger extent than most. He has sacrificed his mind to those of others: he exists to force control upon their minds and bodies, to derive his self-worth from them, and/or to benefit from their loss. "Through and by" others, is through and by their standards and morality, their popular approval, their sanction, permission or authority and sometimes the unearned or stolen fruits of their work. He is often and commonly seen as 'selfish', while he's anything but.

This I believe is the broad meaning of self-sacrifice, implicit in Rand's view of the concept of altruism. Prior to the harm such a person does others, he has already harmed himself, quite ironically. Can "good things" happen to such a person at all, in fact? It might seen so, but largely as a perception- from the point of view of those who place selfish value in good things, those who are moral, iow. Marx was brilliantly immoral in structuring an altruist-collectivist ideology from his observations of men's self-sacrifice.

I can appreciate that there are some who live a miserable existene because they have sacrificed their minds to others, they believe what they are told to believe, do what they are told to do, value themselves in proportio to their conformance to the expectations of others. And there are those who live upon others in a predatory (as opposed to constructive) way. It is, however, unclear to me that these are the same people. In fact, I would argue that the two exist in a symbiotic relationship, the later feeding on the former.

This is one reason why I thought Rand was onto something with her "sanction of the victim" theory. Good things happen to bad people who manaage to convince others to sacrifice for them. In some very loose sense at least, the sacrificers are sanctioning their oppressors.

But I don't think it's that simple for reasons I have cited previously. It's not enough to choose not to be among the sacrificers nor is it reasonable to use the term "sanction of the victim" to include circumstances beyond the control of the victim.

hernan · January 2, 2014

We are falling down Comte's idealism of why we need altruism here. People are of benefit, which is why it is in out self-interests to work together in a moral system, but not the prime mover for action. The necessity of one's life and living is why moral action starts with the self as the beneficiary of moral action. That runs counter to that argument. The illusions to Marx are true from there since he constructed a monstrous argument to justify self-immolation, likely to justify his life of feeding off of others. Marx is part of what I call the Unholy Trinity in philosophy, along with Comte, exactly for justifying people lives around others and setting us down the path to the primitive ethic systems of “interdependence” we are in today.

I read recently that Marx was not the actual inventor of Communism, that he got the idea from the French communes; it was an era of socialistic thought. And my praise of Marx' brilliance was intended very narrowly. We could spend all day picking apart Communism and it's various ideological cousins.

Instead, let's focus on that single idea: that one's private property depends on the sanction of one's neighbors. Or, more simply, people are vulnerable. Because people are vulnerable they can be bullied.

Remember Galt's Gulch. It was a fictional construction with a particular character: it was a sanctuary, immune to the bullying of the looters. I read now and then of simlarly fanciful ideas such as seasteading. If only we could wall out the evil ones. But we can't.

But is it really so asymetric? Is it really the case that makers are at the mercy of the looters? Atlas Shrugged suggested not.

As for good things happening to bad people, or vice versa, there is actually no such thing. Events are cause and effect, and they may benefit (or not) people through their lives but only people’s actions can be good or bad since they are the entity that has the power to choose an action. In the long run, it is how they choose to live and prepare for life’s events that produce results. For example, I got a flat tire coming to work – Is that something bad happening to a good person? No. The tire either hit something in the road (random event) or it gave out due to tire pressure and wear (cause and effect). I can choose not to plan for these things and deal with them on the fly or I can have insurance to cover road side repair and check my tires regularly to prevent preventable failures in my vehicle. The good or bad is in my choice, not the event. The event simply is what it is.

An example from earlier, James Taggart is a bad person but the idea here is that “good things” happened to him. Yes – He scammed his way into a short term windfall, like the Bernie Madoff, but short term gains did not benefit him in the long run. Eventually, the immoral action comes home to roost, just like if I ignore my tire then look perplexed when it blows out one day. Good and bad come from our choices and moral choices are practical applications to day-to-day life. Even a bloodthirsty dictator living in a gold palace eventually has to realize he is alone and not thriving as a dependent upon a system he desperately stays one step ahead of so he doesn’t end up like Saddam in a hole. He will likely ignore that fact to keep power, but that is what Rand dramatized for us in Atlas Shrugged.

Yes, in the end, Jim goes nuts. But is that really life or just the easy justice of romantic fiction?

I ran across this interesting article about a study:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-23/how-to-be-happy.html

In essence, it suggests that up to a certain point, people only care about surviving. But beyond some point their happiness depends upon earning what they have.

But there are three probelms with this: 1) There doesn't seem to be any evidence of satiation of taking in modern society. I cited previously another article that quoted Touqville which suggested that the more egalitarian a soceity, the more intolerant it becomes of inequality. Relatedly, 2) society has amply furnished the levelers with an entitlement philosophy that seems sufficient to their needs. People feel genuinely entitled to what they take. And finally, 3) this entitlement philosophy is aided by the mechanism of the state which seperates the taking from the giving. People might feel squimish about mugging their neighbor but feeding at the public trough is santized of blood.

Edited January 2, 2014 by hernan

whYNOT · January 2, 2014

Hernan: Yes, food for thought, and you've seen how significant it is for citizens of an egalitarian, entitlement Society to distance themselves from the reality of "Who pays? Who gets sacrificed to the common good?". Whatever happens, it seems, men will always be "...involved in the endless struggle to think well of themselves".[Eliot]

The most opportune way to achieve it is to self-justify that "everybody is in it together - not only myself". Here is basic altruism-collectivism for you: deriving a 'morality' from the immorality of an amorphous 'others' (collectivism) and - since one has sacrificed oneself, one's independent mind and one's adherence to reality- altruism.

I liked your "symbiotic relationship" between predator and sanctioner, but further, I also think of it as a false alternative, seeing as both have bought into the identical sacrificial morality - and both are ultimately interchangeable.

Like they say - bullies are all cowards.

hernan · January 3, 2014

Hernan: Yes, food for thought, and you've seen how significant it is for citizens of an egalitarian, entitlement Society to distance themselves from the reality of "Who pays? Who gets sacrificed to the common good?". Whatever happens, it seems, men will always be "...involved in the endless struggle to think well of themselves".[Eliot]

The most opportune way to achieve it is to self-justify that "everybody is in it together - not only myself". Here is basic altruism-collectivism for you: deriving a 'morality' from the immorality of an amorphous 'others' (collectivism) and - since one has sacrificed oneself, one's independent mind and one's adherence to reality- altruism.

I liked your "symbiotic relationship" between predator and sanctioner, but further, I also think of it as a false alternative, seeing as both have bought into the identical sacrificial morality - and both are ultimately interchangeable.

Like they say - bullies are all cowards.

I don't claim that it is a complete picture but I think it is a good place to start.

You can think of it this way: the sacrificers are funding the looters not only to loot the sacrificers but also those who withdraw sanction. In fact, as you probably realize, the sacrificers will be only too happy to sic the looters on those who would withdraw sanction, even if only verbally.

One problem I have with Spiral Architect's plan, other than it's conventionality, is that relying as it does upon a mass movement there is no way for individuals to experience individual gain by withdrawing ttheir sanction. Essentially, his model is the classic tragedy of the commons and with the predictable result. Yes, your points are all well taken and perhaps we can do no better than to educate our fellow man.

Now obviously Atlas Shruggeed is fiction. But I think Rand was onto something that merits further consideration and thought.

hernan · January 8, 2014

First and foremost, Ayn Rand remains among the few that recognises with crystal clarity, that we will not win the battle through just proving that freedom and capitalism works. It has already been proven beyond discussion. Nevertheless, we are still facing new attacks on freedom every day.

One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to assume that rationality will prevail, that just through superior economic performance, freedom will capture enough peoples' hearts in a democracy to win the day. This creates a major problem for those of us that like to argue rationally, rather than emotionally.

It creates a major opportunity for politicians that intuitively know that in a rational world, there would be little demand for their services. Only in an irrational, emotional universe, where opportunists can gain access to media and visibility to express “feelings” and try to take the moral high ground, no matter how unfounded in reality it is — only in such an environment can you survive without having to produce practical, productive results, and instead prosper and benefit from empty talk and third-rate acting performances.

This tendency, unfortunately, has only strengthened during the recent crisis. There is often a complete disconnect between the reality and the words used to describe it, the actions pretending to deal with it. In particular, this is very noticeable in the Eurozone these days.

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/broader-relevance-ayn-rand-society-710110757

Skylab72 · February 4, 2014

This seems to me such a muddled thread. HC (symbol for OP poster hernan) you seem genuinely confused. I hope I do not add to it. Read in small chunks…