The Prudent Predator argument

[blackdiamond]

In your 100 000 dollar bills example, etc, you can indeed calculate your chances of succeeding and find them to be very high. True.

BUT, can you use that situation to derive a PRINCIPLE of the way you should live your life?

How you calculate your chances of succeeding in this situation involves one thing. But then there is also “calculating” whether such *a way of living* has high chances of success for your life. Principles are formed from taking more than just your current specific situation, but by taking all such situations, and even taking other principles that you’ve established (by the same method), into consideration.

So, Mao killed millions of people and got away with it. Could I use that to form my principle? Or should I just forget about forming a principle and just take every situation as it comes?

You seem to support the latter “strategy” which is why you keep bringing up your uncles and cousins and neighbours, etc. (You seem to be concrete-bound).

So, if you believe the latter approach, then you do not need ETHICS. You can’t understand ethics because ethics are for people who are looking for PRINCIPLES; they want to know what to do in every situation by reference to a few rules, without going back to first principles in every situation, which is a huge waste of consciousness. And every man who wants to live as a man – by principles – and not as an animal – by instincts or situationally – needs this study of principles, or ethics. If you know any other purpose for ethics, you can tell me.

When Ayn Rand says “this is destructive”, she means it as a principle. But in your counter-examples, you are interpreting it not as a principle but as a law, which is a fraudulent way of argumentation.

The reason I might judge you as dishonest, Mr. Brenner, is precisely because I believe you already know these things, and I will give evidence: you have said, for example, that a prudent looter should prefer to live in a capitalist society because this is the society that will increase his chances of becoming wealthy, being a more productive society, etc. But how can you arrive at that conclusion about capitalism without using the same method that you are ostensibly rejecting? How did you know that capitalism is the better system for such a looter? Isn’t history “full of examples” of countries that were rich in spite of being anti-capitalist and anti-individualist? So, how can you tell someone that capitalism is the right (or even better, or good) system (for a looter) when there have been so many exceptions? (And BESIDES, there have been MANY, MANY looters who became rich in socialist countries.)

Would someone be wrong to say that following the socialist path will destroy a country? Would you be against such politics, given a starting goal of creating a rich society, by simply pointing at countries that were rich in spite of being socialist? If you would, as you should, then on what basis would you support capitalism as a looter (not you, but your looter robot, of course)? Whatever you say in response to this, it can only boil down to this: the (societal) *principle* of individual freedom is supportive of wealth creation, the principle of collectivism is not. “Exceptional” societies don’t make any difference to this conclusion, and a rational (or prudent?) society will pursue the former. Yes?

So, it seems to me that you know that there are things called principles and you know their function. And you know exactly how they are formed and how they are applied in decision-making (like when you have to choose between a commandist economy and a free economy). And yet you evade this method when it comes to individual ethics and claim to instead see a logical gap in this reasoning. If that’s not dishonesty, it certainly appears to be so.

[Inspector]

The reason I might judge you as dishonest, Mr. Brenner, is precisely because I believe you already know these things, and I will give evidence

The leading theory for what's-up-with-Gary in my mind is epistemic failure. Allow me if you will, Blackdiamond, to present my case.

Observe how in the later part of my line of questioning, he was in fact not able to advocate capitalism on a principled basis, insisting that interventionism might be good for some - blank out that those some could have chosen different life-paths. He also considered my claims that capitalism and the spread of individual-rights philosophies resulted in richer, safer societies while advocacy of their opposite resulted in the crumbling of civilization and the onset of savagery - as "unproven assertion." Furthermore, he insists that working for the IRS is not a moral statement and does not serve to spread any philosophy.

I can't read minds, but there is a lot here to point to the fact that he is unable to think in principles. The remnants of principled thought that you see may not be evidence of dishonesty - but rather a quickly-atrophying appendage that is being strangled to death by the tourniquet of pragmatism.

[Gary Brenner]

blackdiamond wrote:

In your 100 000 dollar bills example, etc, you can indeed calculate your chances of succeeding and find them to be very high. True.

BUT, can you use that situation to derive a PRINCIPLE of the way you should live your life?

Presumably one would arrive at principles about what is valuable based on one’s hierarchy of needs, which is largely independent of one’s particular circumstances. But unless one has a basic reason to eschew theft, the choice to loot or not would be entirely a matter of potential benefits and risks.

How you calculate your chances of succeeding in this situation involves one thing. But then there is also “calculating” whether such *a way of living* has high chances of success for your life. Principles are formed from taking more than just your current specific situation, but by taking all such situations, and even taking other principles that you’ve established (by the same method), into consideration.

Granted. But I never claimed that looting had to be a lifelong career. Perhaps in most cases looting is only practical over a short term. There are exceptions, of course.

So, Mao killed millions of people and got away with it. Could I use that to form my principle? Or should I just forget about forming a principle and just take every situation as it comes?

So far we have not arrived at a reason to shun all acts of coercion based on an ethic of self-interest. Until we do, we don’t have a solid egoistic case against Mao.

You seem to support the latter “strategy” which is why you keep bringing up your uncles and cousins and neighbours, etc. (You seem to be concrete-bound).

Generalizations about “Man” should be consistent with the men who live and breathe in the world around us. If we are told that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter, we may well ask if that applies to all looters. If the answer is “yes,” then there is nothing improper about introducing counter-examples into the discussion. If the answer is “no,” then we are left to wonder precisely what is the rational self-interest argument against looting?

So, if you believe the latter approach, then you do not need ETHICS. You can’t understand ethics because ethics are for people who are looking for PRINCIPLES; they want to know what to do in every situation by reference to a few rules, without going back to first principles in every situation, which is a huge waste of consciousness. And every man who wants to live as a man – by principles – and not as an animal – by instincts or situationally – needs this study of principles, or ethics. If you know any other purpose for ethics, you can tell me.

I haven’t questioned the need for principles. What is being debated here is whether a prohibition on initiated force follows logically from the premise that an organism’s life is the standard of its values.

When Ayn Rand says “this is destructive”, she means it as a principle. But in your counter-examples, you are interpreting it not as a principle but as a law, which is a fraudulent way of argumentation.

Nope. I never claimed that Rand’s ethical principle was a law. I merely questioned whether it was a valid principle.

The reason I might judge you as dishonest, Mr. Brenner, is precisely because I believe you already know these things, and I will give evidence: you have said, for example, that a prudent looter should prefer to live in a capitalist society because this is the society that will increase his chances of becoming wealthy, being a more productive society, etc. But how can you arrive at that conclusion about capitalism without using the same method that you are ostensibly rejecting? How did you know that capitalism is the better system for such a looter? Isn’t history “full of examples” of countries that were rich in spite of being anti-capitalist and anti-individualist?

So, how can you tell someone that capitalism is the right (or even better, or good) system (for a looter) when there have been so many exceptions? (And BESIDES, there have been MANY, MANY looters who became rich in socialist countries.)

First of all, I am not aware that I have rejected any method of objectively determining that one economic system produces more wealth per capita than another. Secondly, I never said that looters could only benefit from a capitalistic economy. In fact, I have observed that certain looters have been able to attain a position of great power and affluence even within the context of a command economy. Have you forgotten my Mao example already?

1. Would someone be wrong to say that following the socialist path will destroy a country?

2. Would you be against such politics, given a starting goal of creating a rich society, by simply pointing at countries that were rich in spite of being socialist?

3. If you would, as you should, then on what basis would you support capitalism as a looter (not you, but your looter robot, of course)?

4. Whatever you say in response to this, it can only boil down to this: the (societal) *principle* of individual freedom is supportive of wealth creation, the principle of collectivism is not. “Exceptional” societies don’t make any difference to this conclusion, and a rational (or prudent?) society will pursue the former. Yes?

1. No.

2. If a system other than capitalism can provide the same degree of general peace, prosperity, and benevolence, I’d like to see the evidence for it.

3. I have already said that the looter has more to gain if there is more to steal than if there is less to steal.

4. Yes, but the fact that a society in general follows a path of individualism, private property and capitalism, does not mean that no one in it can ever benefit from looting another.

So, it seems to me that you know that there are things called principles and you know their function. And you know exactly how they are formed and how they are applied in decision-making (like when you have to choose between a commandist economy and a free economy). And yet you evade this method when it comes to individual ethics and claim to instead see a logical gap in this reasoning. If that’s not dishonesty, it certainly appears to be so.

I’m not evading anything. It is an observable fact of reality that a group of people can act in a concerted manner to improve the standard of living for all members, while one member of the group can act against the group’s rules for his own benefit. Suppose 100 neighbors build a reservoir for use only in times of drought. One of the neighbors, against the terms of the covenant, covertly transfers thousands of gallons of water to his own aquifer, and then uses it to irrigate his commercial vegetable garden. Unless surveillance and punishment are sufficient to overcome this defection from the group, the water thief’s illicit transfer may be considered in his rational self-interest.

[Gary Brenner]

The leading theory for what\'s-up-with-Gary in my mind is epistemic failure. Allow me if you will, Blackdiamond, to present my case.

Observe how in the later part of my line of questioning, he was in fact not able to advocate capitalism on a principled basis, insisting that interventionism might be good for some - blank out that those some could have chosen different life-paths.

Observe how utterly false this is, inasmuch as given that an economic system can be beneficial for the vast majority of people, one can on the principle of encouraging general peace and prosperity advocate such a system. Observe further, that there has been no “blank out,” since I made it clear that interventionism would not be good for the vast majority.

He also considered my claims that capitalism and the spread of individual-rights philosophies resulted in richer, safer societies while advocacy of their opposite resulted in the crumbling of civilization and the onset of savagery - as “unproven assertion.”

Notice that Inspector does not provide a reference for this false claim so that readers could look it up for themselves.

Furthermore, he insists that working for the IRS is not a moral statement and does not serve to spread any philosophy.

It becomes a moral statement only after it is established by logical argumentation that theft is immoral (or moral). But this argument has not yet been performed by Inspector.

I can’t read minds, but there is a lot here to point to the fact that he is unable to think in principles.

This is how Inspector responds to my repeatedly pointing out how his fallacious arguments violate the principles of logic.

The remnants of principled thought that you see may not be evidence of dishonesty - but rather a quickly-atrophying appendage that is being strangled to death by the tourniquet of pragmatism.

Inspector worries about “appendages” as a way of diverting attention away from the “heart” of the thread: Does looting really mean the destruction of the looter?

[exaltron]

Would someone be wrong to say that following the socialist path will destroy a country?

1. No.

So that's an unequivocal no? Despite the fact that we can point to several countries who have had socialist economies for decades and show no signs of suffering "destruction". One could argue that the citizens of these countries have severely curtailed liberty, but as to their survival, many Europeans enjoy longer lifespans than Americans.

How can you advocate a principle for nations that clearly doesn't stand up to your criteria of must-apply-100%-across-the-board, no exceptions? I don't see how this is any different than the ethical gap you see in proscribing looting for individuals.

[exaltron]

No, I’m advocating a society where people have the right to shoot at those who are gnawing on their legs.

So you're advocating anarchy? What gives you the right to shoot your cannibal neighbor? Where is the proof that he is ethically in the wrong in gnawing on your leg? And why do you say "I'm advocating a society..", how does one do that without making an ethical statement?

The same way proponents of property and limited government did before Ayn Rand was born. By showing the benefits of free production and free trade and inviting people to participate in a society that guarantees the protection of their rights in exchange for their renouncing the use of force against others. But just as Ayn Rand has said that some people are too irrational to argue with, so free-marketers must acknowledge that some people have too much invested in coercion to abandon it.

Which is why we claim an ethical right to incarcerate or shoot them. Precisely because they have abandoned any pretense of dealing with their neighbors peacefully and rationally, because they have decided to live as sub-humans.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

So that’s an unequivocal no? Despite the fact that we can point to several countries who have had socialist economies for decades and show no signs of suffering “destruction”. One could argue that the citizens of these countries have severely curtailed liberty, but as to their survival, many Europeans enjoy longer lifespans than Americans.

If you mean “destruction” in the sense of a catastrophic collapse, it is true that no European country has been destroyed. However, as Mises has shown, even partial socialism can lead to a misallocation of resources. Take, for example, government schools. If spending on pupils is not determined by those who actually own the dollars being spent, there is no incentive to spend wisely or frugally. Thus, the resulting waste, psychological abuse, mis-education and in many cases no education at all.

Lifespans are related to a number of factors other than standard of living. For example the Republic of Georgia, even under the Soviets was well known for being the epicenter of longevity.

How can you advocate a principle for nations that clearly doesn’t stand up to your criteria of must-apply-100%-across-the-board, no exceptions? I don’t see how this is any different than the ethical gap you see in proscribing looting for individuals.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I believe that 100% of a population must be scrupulous producers for laissez faire to work. I don’t pretend to offer a superior, non-looting life for looters if they clearly can do better by continuing in their chosen profession and circumstances. I have no illusions, for example, that Hillary Clinton would be more successful under laissez faire.

And as for the “no exceptions” criterion, I specifically said that exceptions would invalidate Rand’s theory that destruction of the looter is the price of looting if she meant that the principle applied to all looters.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

So you\'re advocating anarchy?

I am not aware that defending oneself from a cannibal constitutes anarchy.

What gives you the right to shoot your cannibal neighbor?

In most areas, statutes provide certain legal, self-defense rights for defenders against home invasion.

Where is the proof that he is ethically in the wrong in gnawing on your leg?

Courts of law operate on legal, not ethical principles. As for ethics, my leg is the “good.” The gnawer’s teeth are the “evil.” Therefore, I will employ the means necessary for good to prevail over evil.

And why do you say “I’m advocating a society..”, how does one do that without making an ethical statement?

I didn’t say I had no ethical principles. If I define my life, my property and the protection of it as a good, then I may ethically argue for a legal system that protects such things.

Which is why we claim an ethical right to incarcerate or shoot them. Precisely because they have abandoned any pretense of dealing with their neighbors peacefully and rationally, because they have decided to live as sub-humans.

Please show how “rights” are derived from Rand’s premise that an organism’s life is its standard of values.

[exaltron]

I am not aware that defending oneself from a cannibal constitutes anarchy.

In most areas, statutes provide certain legal, self-defense rights for defenders against home invasion.

So you're saying you have no ethical or moral rights other than what is granted by your government. That sounds more like permissions to me.

Courts of law operate on legal, not ethical principles. As for ethics, my leg is the “good.” The gnawer’s teeth are the “evil.” Therefore, I will employ the means necessary for good to prevail over evil.

Again, what good are laws that have no ethical foundation? What you are describing as ethics is totally subjective. The cannibal eating your leg is pursuing "the good": his own survival. His "good" is your "evil". How is that a valid, objective ethical system?

I didn’t say I had no ethical principles. If I define my life, my property and the protection of it as a good, then I may ethically argue for a legal system that protects such things.

I would like to see you do that without invoking Rand's derivation or some subjectivist utilitarian argument.

Please show how “rights” are derived from Rand’s premise that an organism’s life is its standard of values.

It's been done ad nauseum on this board, but as long as you view ethics as something that each individual can apply to himself without in turn applying the same ethical conclusions to everyone, you will continue to be confused. If looting is ethically good, then it is good for all, which in the case of production, you've recognized to be true. But if looting is good for all, then your ethics supports your neighbor gnawing your leg off. The fact that there may or may not be laws against it, or that you may be able to forcefully enjoin him from doing so, offers no defense for your "ethics".

You can't get around the fact that your ethics necessarily advocates your own demise as a principle.

[exaltron]

Furthermore, comments to the effect of "Well, the prudent predator's ethics aren't for everyone" represent a bald contradiction (you may not have said precisely that, but it seems consistent with your line of argumentation). Any "ethics" that does not apply to the general case of man, is not ethics at all. If we all get to just come up with our own plan for what is right and wrong, then this whole discussion is pointless, as is philosophy.

[Freddy]

Furthermore, comments to the effect of "Well, the prudent predator's ethics aren't for everyone" represent a bald contradiction (you may not have said precisely that, but it seems consistent with your line of argumentation).

The contradiction is inherent in the Objectivist approach to ethics. The fact that there can be a tension between what is optimal for a particular individual and what is optimal on the average is a fact of reality. If you start from the indivudal level and claim that an individual always ought to do what in his best interest, then this tension becomes apparent when an individual can propmote his interest in a way that cannot be universilized. If you start from a utilitarian premise, or a Kantian premise you avoid the problem (becuase they start at the universal level), but if you start from the individual level you have a problem to solve. And it becomes a bit ironic when the solution is to use Kantian or utiloitarian arguments, becuse then you abondon egoism.

If you can extend your survival by embezzeling 1M dollars and buying yourself an health insuraace then that is ethical, becuse when we reduce this action to the final arbiter (the fundamental alternative as it pertains to this particular individual) then this action will have a positive evaluation.

[exaltron]

The contradiction is inherent in the Objectivist approach to ethics. The fact that there can be a tension between what is optimal for a particular individual and what is optimal on the average is a fact of reality. If you start from the indivudal level and claim that an individual always ought to do what in his best interest, then this tension becomes apparent when an individual can propmote his interest in a way that cannot be universilized. If you start from a utilitarian premise, or a Kantian premise you avoid the problem (becuase they start at the universal level), but if you start from the individual level you have a problem to solve. And it becomes a bit ironic when the solution is to use Kantian or utiloitarian arguments, becuse then you abondon egoism.

There is in fact no tension because Objectivism recognizes that respecting the interests of others is in everyone's interest. Free individuals are of more value to me to trade with than to prey upon. Everyone gains from freedom and individual rights (even if in the short run we might gain some superficial value by abandoning these), directly and indirectly through sovereignty and the capacity to reason unencumbered and what we gain through trade with other free individuals.

Furthermore, "what is optimal on the average", is purely subjective, that is precisely the problem with utilitarianism and Kantianism. That is why it is permissible according to utilitarianism to sacrifice the interests of a minority of individuals "for the greater good", individual rights be damned. The utilitarian ethics, just as you are doing here, substitutes the standard (the general case, man and existence) with the purpose (the individual and his happiness). Therefore if we have 1M people living unconsciously in self-sustaining pods, that would be considered preferable to 500K living as free individuals who determine their own destiny. Or as you put it:

If you can extend your survival by embezzeling 1M dollars and buying yourself an health insuraace then that is ethical, becuse when we reduce this action to the final arbiter (the fundamental alternative as it pertains to this particular individual) then this action will have a positive evaluation.

The fundamental alternative is the foundation of Rand's ethics. You however are treating it like it is an ethical system unto itself. But no, it is just a starting point as I pointed out to Gary on the previous page. If you take "Whatever extends your survival" as the entirety of your ethics, you will be compelled to choose a purposeless, soulless, miserable existence that's guaranteed to last 100 years, over a life of happiness, freedom and fulfillment that is limited to 80. Is that what you think Objectivism is advocating??

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

So you\'re saying you have no ethical or moral rights other than what is granted by your government. That sounds more like permissions to me.

I’m saying that no one has presented a case for the existence of rights outside man-made law. We can’t say that there is “natural law” or a “natural right” to property, anymore than we can claim the existence of a “natural” automobile speed limit.

That is not to say there are no sound arguments for a society of protected private property. But there is nothing in nature that lays strict, observable boundaries between my parcel of land and everybody else’s. These boundaries are the constructs of men, not of nature. As an acquaintance of mine wrote on another forum, “You have rights not because God [or Nature] will come down and smite those who wrong you, but by consent of your fellow man.”

Again, what good are laws that have no ethical foundation?

Actually, the society of consent, property and capitalism has a foundation in the ethical preference for cooperation, division of labor and prosperity over alternative social systems.

What you are describing as ethics is totally subjective.

No, because men with different individual preferences can agree on certain legal principles that would benefit the vast majority of them.

The cannibal eating your leg is pursuing “the good”: his own survival. His “good” is your “evil”. How is that a valid, objective ethical system?

Again, if you will bother to read my posts, I made it clear that certain looters may not derive any advantage in submitting to the non-aggression principle of a free society. However, for most people renouncing the initiation of force would produce a great return in the form of a societal respect for one’s person and property and an overall rise in prosperity and civilization.

I would like to see you do that without invoking Rand\'s derivation or some subjectivist utilitarian argument.

I have already acknowledged in this thread that the utilitarian argument is imperfect. It is not a silver bullet that kills each and every incentive for coercion. But neither does Rand’s argument.

It’s been done ad nauseum on this board,

No, it has not been done in a seamless logical proof. As I have shown, respecting another’s property does not automatically follow from placing one’s own life as the standard of one’s values.

but as long as you view ethics as something that each individual can apply to himself without in turn applying the same ethical conclusions to everyone, you will continue to be confused.

There is no confusion on my part about what ethics can and cannot do. If you start with the premise that a man’s life is the standard of his values and the goal of his actions, you don’t by some inexorable process of logic end up with everybody in society renouncing the use of force. It is simply not in some individuals’ self-interest not to invoke or take advantage of government coercion.

If looting is ethically good, then it is good for all,

That is an unproven assertion. You might as well say if X’s being elected President of the U.S.A. is good, then it is good for all people to be elected President of the U.S.A. In fact, in this thread I have repeatedly said that it is to the looter’s advantage to reduce competition in his field.

which in the case of production, you’ve recognized to be true. But if looting is good for all, then your ethics supports your neighbor gnawing your leg off. The fact that there may or may not be laws against it, or that you may be able to forcefully enjoin him from doing so, offers no defense for your “ethics”.

Again, I do not claim nor is it true that something must be good for all in order to be good for one or a few. Furthermore, the fact that a cannibal considers eating my leg to be an ethical “good” does not invalidate my own ethical preference that my leg not be eaten. If you have been following me, you would understand that the advantage of a free society is that the vast majority of people can be secure and free to prosper in exchange for renouncing the initiation of force. Cannibals are not a part of this vast majority.

You can’t get around the fact that your ethics necessarily advocates your own demise as a principle.

No, as long as A =A, advocating against my demise does not equal advocating for my demise.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

Furthermore, comments to the effect of “Well, the prudent predator\'s ethics aren’t for everyone” represent a bald contradiction (you may not have said precisely that, but it seems consistent with your line of argumentation). Any “ethics” that does not apply to the general case of man, is not ethics at all.

If we all get to just come up with our own plan for what is right and wrong, then this whole discussion is pointless, as is philosophy.

Ethics is simply a set of principles of right conduct. If the standard of X’s values is X’s life, it follows that X’s actions should further or enhance his life. It does not follow that X should necessarily perform actions that further Y’s life. Thus X’s increasing of his wealth by stealing Y’s property may in fact be “right” conduct according to the standard of X’s ethics.

And the same would be true if we replace X with Y and Y with X in the above.

This does not mean we have a hopeless situation. As I have previously said, the beauty of a free society is that one gains the advantages of being secure in one’s life and property and of enjoying the benefits of capitalism as long as one renounces the use of force.

[exaltron]

Ethics is simply a set of principles of right conduct. If the standard of X’s values is X’s life, it follows that X’s actions should further or enhance his life. It does not follow that X should necessarily perform actions that further Y’s life. Thus X’s increasing of his wealth by stealing Y’s property may in fact be “right” conduct according to the standard of X’s ethics.

And the same would be true if we replace X with Y and Y with X in the above.

Thank you for demonstrating your understanding of ethics as being purely subjective and not expressing any universals. Now we can finally dispense with the pretense of an objective set of ethics that applies to the general case of man, his nature and his requirements. As you have expressed it, a given ethics need not apply to all men to be valid, but only to a given individual.

[RationalBiker]

I’m saying that no one has presented a case for the existence of rights outside man-made law.

Yes, the case has been made, redundantly I might add. Your refusal to accept it is not the same as it not having been made.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

Thank you for demonstrating your understanding of ethics as being purely subjective and not expressing any universals. Now we can finally dispense with the pretense of an objective set of ethics that applies to the general case of man, his nature and his requirements. As you have expressed it, a given ethics need not apply to all men to be valid, but only to a given individual.

Not at all. I have not dispensed with the ethical universal regarding what determines an organism’s values. I’m sure I need not remind you that Rand said that an organism’s life (not the life of other organisms) is its standard of values.

Now, is it true that what is good for X must also good for Y? What if X is gay and Y is hetero?

RationalBiker wrote:

Yes, the case has been made, redundantly I might add. Your refusal to accept it is not the same as it not having been made.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link.

[exaltron]

I’m saying that no one has presented a case for the existence of rights outside man-made law. We can’t say that there is “natural law” or a “natural right” to property, anymore than we can claim the existence of a “natural” automobile speed limit.

That is not to say there are no sound arguments for a society of protected private property. But there is nothing in nature that lays strict, observable boundaries between my parcel of land and everybody else’s. These boundaries are the constructs of men, not of nature. As an acquaintance of mine wrote on another forum, “You have rights not because God [or Nature] will come down and smite those who wrong you, but by consent of your fellow man.”

No one is saying there is a "natural right" to anything, but neither do we assume that rights don't exist until our "fellow man" recognizes them. As I said before, if your right depends on the consent of your fellow man (and doesn't exist without it), then it is in fact a permission, not a right. The legal right may require laws and a government, but as I'm sure you're aware, our government is expressly charged with securing our rights (not granting them), that is, our moral rights, which exist independently of any government to formally recognize them.

Perhaps you disagree that we cannot fully exercise our rational capacity without rights and freedom?

Again, if you will bother to read my posts, I made it clear that certain looters may not derive any advantage in submitting to the non-aggression principle of a free society. However, for most people renouncing the initiation of force would produce a great return in the form of a societal respect for one’s person and property and an overall rise in prosperity and civilization.

What precisely is different about those who will benefit from renouncing the initiation of force? Is their nature different from that of a looter? What does ethics tell us about the choice to become a looter or a producer if anything? Is it simply a matter of subjective preference?

I have already acknowledged in this thread that the utilitarian argument is imperfect. It is not a silver bullet that kills each and every incentive for coercion. But neither does Rand’s argument.

No, and I don't think it is within the scope of ethics to be a "silver bullet" that guarantees that no one will ever run astray. The point of ethics is to derive a universal code of conduct that applies equally to all men. That is why if you advocate a "society" or a code of ethics that values honesty, integrity and production, you will end up with wealth and prosperity. If you advocate the opposite, you will end up with the opposite.

I think the problem is you see a dichotomy between what is good for "society" and what is good for a given individual, where ethically, there is no difference. When you get into personal preferences, that's where the context of a given individual may come into play. There is almost nothing at that level that you can argue won't benefit someone to some extent, and that is precisely why it is outside of the realm of ethics, because ethics is only concerned with the universals, what applies in the general case.

[RationalBiker]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link.

No I won't. It's in this thread which you followed for some time now. Additional links to things already said won't make a difference.

[Freddy]

There is in fact no tension because Objectivism recognizes that respecting the interests of others is in everyone's interest. Free individuals are of more value to me to trade with than to prey upon.

The fact that this is often te case doesn't mean that it is always the case. Your arguments for that it is always the case is severly lacking. So far I've seen the utilitarian case (that is produces the most welfare for most people), tha Kantian case (that one must respect others beacuse it is rational, where the standard for what is rational is that is in accordance with the CI), the emotional oratory/murky psychology case (any gain from looting is no real gain because it makes you an immoral crippled halfman that cannot achieve true Galtian happiness).

Everyone gains from freedom and individual rights (even if in the short run we might gain some superficial value by abandoning these), directly and indirectly through sovereignty and the capacity to reason unencumbered and what we gain through trade with other free individuals.

True in most cases, but you need more than that because according to your own theory it is perfectly all right to prey upon others if you benefit from it. If I can emebzzle 1M from undetected collusion on online poker from people sitting on the other side of the globe, then why cannot this money be transformed into something beneficial for me?

Furthermore, "what is optimal on the average", is purely subjective, that is precisely the problem with utilitarianism and Kantianism. That is why it is permissible according to utilitarianism to sacrifice the interests of a minority of individuals "for the greater good", individual rights be damned.

According to egoism it is perfectly all right as well. The utilitarian case is a compromise, the best deal for most people. But the people for which utilitarianism is the best deal have all egoistic reasons in the world to "sacrifice" a minority.

The utilitarian ethics, just as you are doing here, substitutes the standard (the general case, man and existence) with the purpose (the individual and his happiness).

You sunder the standard from it's underlying foundation (the fundamental alternative as it pertains to specific individuals). This Peikoff quote says it all:

[...]Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of all values and of all proper action.

The fundamental alternative is the foundation of Rand's ethics. You however are treating it like it is an ethical system unto itself. But no, it is just a starting point as I pointed out to Gary on the previous page.

No, it's not a startingpoint. What Objectivist say is that existence or non-existence is an important alternative that can be trumped by a lot of stuff. But there is a huge difference between an important alternative and a fundamental alternative. The meta ethical argument is simply false.

If you take "Whatever extends your survival" as the entirety of your ethics, you will be compelled to choose a purposeless, soulless, miserable existence that's guaranteed to last 100 years, over a life of happiness, freedom and fulfillment that is limited to 80. Is that what you think Objectivism is advocating??

Yes, the fundamental alternative really is a silly underlying premise for ethics, no wonder no Objectivist wants to be consistent with Rands meta-ethics. Instead the advice is that the fundamental alternative should not really be taken literally (that is seriously) contrary to Rands explicit advice:

Take it literally. Don't translate it, don't glamorize it, don't make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: "Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!" and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

What's the point with a meta-ethcial foundation that you can't be consitent with unless you are allowed to rig the definitions in a way that makes your preconcieved believes follow? How does such a word game strengthen the case for your ethical beliefs?

The reason I push this fundamental alternative matter is that this alternative should underlie the notion of self interest. Without a clear standard for self interest the disussion strands since it is possible to reduce most moralities to egoism by pointing to a percieved psychological benefit of following a morality with which one sympathize.

[Inspector]

What's the point with a meta-ethcial foundation that you can't be consitent with unless you are allowed to rig the definitions in a way that makes your preconcieved believes follow? How does such a word game strengthen the case for your ethical beliefs?

Freddy, you've been told before: The Objectivist "Man Qua Man" is not an arbitrary or "rigged" definition - is it objectively true, given the fact of reality vis a vis man. Your definition of "Man" as "a creature able to utter the phrase 'I exist'" is completely invalid. Man is both mind and body - the entity which faces the alternative of existence or nonexistence includes one's consciousness as well as one's body.

I've already told you that the Objevtivist meta-ethical argument does not exist in a vacuum - it rests on already having identified the nature of man. Saying that the Objectivist meta-ethical argument is invalid because its qua man is invalid is literally beside the point. This discussion assumes that one agrees with all previous Objectivist statements but disagrees with the meta-ethics - ethics bridge, and qua man is a previous statement of Objectivism. If you wish to dispute qua man, then go start another thread.

Given that, the rest of your post is rubbish.

[Freddy]

Freddy, you've been told before: The Objectivist "Man Qua Man" is not an arbitrary or "rigged" definition - is it objectively true, given the fact of reality vis a vis man. Your definition of "Man" as "a creature able to utter the phrase 'I exist'" is completely invalid. Man is both mind and body - the entity which faces the alternative of existence or nonexistence includes one's consciousness as well as one's body.

I've told you before that this line of logic makes the Rands argument explode from all spawned inconsistencies. It follows straight from your redefined case that Hitler did not exist, and all I have to do is to point out the fact that you have commited yourselfs to a falsehood. It is as simple as that. If Hitler wasn't a man, huming being, Homo Sapiens, then why blame him for WWII? Why blame someone that didn't exist during WWII for WWII? If immoral people doesn't exist, then how can they be immoral?

I've already told you that the Objevtivist meta-ethical argument does not exist in a vacuum - it rests on already having identified the nature of man.

Of course not, you have to know what it is to exist, and I've given you a test that is so constructed that if you deny that a person that passes the test does exist then the rational integration of your mind falls apart. But you gladly deny that Hitler existed during WWII. Don't you see that there is a problem.

This discussion assumes that one agrees with all previous Objectivist statements but disagrees with the meta-ethics - ethics bridge, and qua man is a previous statement of Objectivism. If you wish to dispute qua man, then go start another thread.

This discussion rests on you giving a criteria for selfinterest that is consistent with the fundamental alterntaive. When we have a criteria for selfinterest (that dosn't in itself rest on the ethics, because that is clearly circular) then it is easy to go on to show whether there can exist a tension between the indivual case and the universal case, which is the heart of the debate.

Assume that life span maximization was the goal (that is, assume that we follow Rands advice and intepret the fundamental alternative literally), would you agree that there could be a tension between the individual and the universal in this case?

[Inspector]

It follows straight from your redefined case that Hitler did not exist, and all I have to do is to point out the fact that you have commited yourselfs to a falsehood.

Nothing of the sort follows from the premise that the entity choosing existence is both mind and body. If I say a man, call him Dan, is insane, this is the same as saying his mind is destroyed - i.e. doesn't exist (or partially so, in most cases). That's not a controversial statement in the least. The existence of a physical body - or even of a babbling, braindead vegetable which can only utter "I exist" - does not change the fact that the entity Dan, in the sense of the man that once was, no longer exists.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[Freddy]

Nothing of the sort follows from the premise that the entity choosing existence is both mind and body. If I say a man, call him Dan, is insane, this is the same as saying his mind is destroyed - i.e. doesn't exist (or partially so, in most cases). That's not a controversial statement in the least. The existence of a physical body - or even of a babbling, braindead vegetable which can only utter "I exist" - does not change the fact that the entity Dan, in the sense of the man that once was, no longer exists.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You admit yourself, Hitler did not exist. Why blame him for WWII then? The utter silliness of the statement "you don't exist unless you live as Ayn Rand saw fit" is so obvious that I really don't know how to give support for it. The way to express what you really want is to say: You are not moral unless you live as Ayn Rand saw fit. The communicational smoothness would increase if you used the right words.

[RationalBiker]

You admit yourself, Hitler did not exist.

The conceptual difference that appears to be slipping through your fingers is that yes, a biological mass that could walk and talk which was named Hitler certainly did exist. But that biological mass did not exist as a man, he existed as an animal. As has been said, the concept "man" exists as an entity of mind and body with a specific nature. Without either, he is not a man.

The utter silliness of the statement "you don't exist unless you live as Ayn Rand saw fit"

You are attacking a strawman here. The assertion is not that one should live as Ayn Rand saw fit, but as facts of reality dictate.

You are not moral unless you live as Ayn Rand saw fit.

Another strawman.