The Prudent Predator argument

[Gary Brenner]

blackdiamond wrote:

I am not completely sure whether i am right (in assessing Mr. Brenner’s problem) or Inspector is right. Inspector says the main problem is that Brenner is concrete-bound, whereas I think he is just dishonest. This is complex because it seems to me that Brenner is intentionally concrete-bound, for the sake of evading the argument, by hoping that his opponents won’t notice his sophistry. This makes the case for dishonesty.

Yes, you might say that, just as you might say that the person who fails to see ghosts, angels or other phantasms is being intentionally bound to the non-spirit world, and that his failure to acknowledge the spirit world is dishonest.

Observe the discussion I had with him above. I gave him an example of one situation in which one can correctly state a valid principle about self-destructive behaviour even if there are apparent exceptions, i.e. people who did not die or get destroyed, regardless. The example i gave him was the principle of hygiene. The reason we are hygienic is precisely because germs are destructive to our lives (by way of diseases, etc), and a mother can correctly warn his son against bad habits that lead to death (or destruction). Brenner admitted that the argument of pointing out some exceptions is nonsensical with respect to disproving the validity of this principle. Thus, even if we can find people who were not hygienic but still did not die, we have not shown that the *principle* (of hygiene) DOES NOT apply to ALL men.

Instead of simply seeing how this directly relates to Rand\'s statement, Brenner decides that the example is invalid because it is not about a looter or someone who would gain something else from being unhygienic.

If the purpose of your example is to show that the looter faces risks, just as the boy with unclean hands faces risks, then your point is acknowledged. What is missing from the comparison is this question: why take risks at all? If one can choose not to take an action that carries the possibility of making one worse off, then isn’t one well advised to do nothing at all? The answer would be invariably “yes,” unless the risk is counter-balanced by the potential of gain.

Thus, we can change your story slightly and have the mother lecture her child on the importance of avoiding fire or deep holes in the ground or guns that shoot real bullets. However, as an adult the boy may come to understand that firemen, coal miners and soldiers can be rationally engaged in hazardous occupations because they have determined that the risks are outweighed by the likelihood of success and that rewards come on the completion of their mission.

But if what i am trying to prove is just ONE point, or one aspect of the discussion: that pointing out some “exceptions” does not disprove the universality of the principle at all, then this example is absolutely sufficient.

What definition of “universality” are you using? My dictionary defines “universal” as “1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide. 2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration.” (emphasis added)

Therefore, if we find a member or members of a group that do not have the attributes that are said to be universal within that group, we have to challenge 1) whether the examples do in fact belong to the group, or 2) whether the claim for the universality of those attributes is true.

If we agree that the successful predator is a man, his existence leads us, in the case of Objectivism, to challenge 2).

Had Brenner been consistent, he would have said “even in this case, the fact that the child’s uncle did not die shows that the principle is not true for ALL men.” But no, he decided to accept that in this case the principle is true even if there are men who have “survived” despite being unhygienic.

Let’s clear up the confusion. I endorse the practice of washing hands before eating on the grounds that the benefits of risk avoidance (health) generally outweigh the very minor costs involved (soap and water). Yet I can recall an instance where I conscientiously did not wash my hands before eating. While touring rural India I learned of an outbreak of highly contagious gastroenteritis. I scrupulously did not wash my hands before eating the packaged food I brought with me, as I knew that the local water source was more likely to be contaminated than my hands or my packaged food.

But he rejected its application to Miss Rand’s statement based on an unrelated fact about the boy in my example, which is a fallacy beyond description (he could have as well said “your example involves a boy, Rand\\\\\\\'s statement was about men, so it\\\\\\\'s invalid”).

No, I rejected it on the grounds that you had omitted (honestly or dishonestly) the vital element of motivation. Without the context of having a reward for not adhering to a principle, it appears as though there could never be a good, self-interested reason for violating the principle.

There is no way that Brenner doesn’t know that his grounds for rejecting the example is senseless -

And now that I’ve provided you with the reasons, there is no way you cannot know that your comparison is invalid.

I don’t believe a person can be that concrete-bound.

And I do not believe a person could be so blind as to ignore evidence that contradicts his alleged “universals.”

Edited April 26, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[blackdiamond]

If the purpose of your example is to show that the looter faces risks, just as the boy with unclean hands faces risks, then your point is acknowledged.

Geez, this is now getting scary. He still can't see the purpose of my example, even after restating it for the second time.

What definition of “universality” are you using? My dictionary defines “universal” as “1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide. 2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration.” (emphasis added)

Therefore, if we find a member or members of a group that do not have the attributes that are said to be universal within that group, we have to challenge 1) whether the examples do in fact belong to the group, or 2) whether the claim for the universality of those attributes is true.

So, for Christ's sake, do that to the principle of hygiene (in my example) and honorably REJECT it *as a universal principle*. You can't have your cake and eat it. You are the one who agreed that the boy's argument against this principle (by the method of identifying some "exceptions") is nonsensical. If it was nonsensical (in that example), then it is nonsensical when *you* do it.

Let’s clear up the confusion. I endorse the practice of washing hands before eating on the grounds that the benefits of risk avoidance (health) generally outweigh the very minor costs involved (soap and water). Yet I can recall an instance where I conscientiously did not wash my hands before eating. While touring rural India I learned of an outbreak of highly contagious gastroenteritis. I scrupulously did not wash my hands before eating the packaged food I brought with me, as I knew that the local water source was more likely to be contaminated than my hands or my packaged food.

Still concrete bound. The PRINCIPLE under discussion is not washing hands; the principle is hygiene.

No, I rejected it on the grounds that you had omitted (honestly or dishonestly) the vital element of motivation. Without the context of having a reward for not adhering to a principle, it appears as though there could never be a good, self-interested reason for violating the principle.

Brenner. I said very clearly that i was not addressing anything else, except the validity of your method: of rejecting a principle based on the apparent (concrete) exceptions to the stated effects of disregarding that principle. The element of motivation is not vital at all. We are not discussing whether there "could never be a good, self-interested reason for violating the principle"; we are discussing whether the principle can be rejected qua principle - rejected, not violated - on the basis of the "exceptions" (I don't know how many times one has to repeat something before you realise that this is ALL he is talking about. If that is my only purpose in this example, then MOTIVATIONS necessarily have to be omitted. Remember, I am not arguing FOR the principle yet, I am simply arguing AGAINST your method of rejecting it; and believe it or not, i stated this explicitly when i introduced this "story").

Edited April 26, 2007 by blackdiamond

[exaltron]

You are just fooling yourself here. The predator argument is about actions where you expect gains, and whether you expect to gain is dependent on how much information you have. In your example it is usually the case that the available information favours washing your hands, but if you knew the water was poisened you might refrain from washing your hands because the end is not to follow the principle "always wash your hands", the end is to be healthy as you point out. New information can render the principle inapplicable.

The predator argument is about expectations, and expectations is about information. If you had enough information to be sure you could embezzle 1M without getting caught, and you knew that you could turn this money into a benefit for yourself, then if the moral end was to benefit yourself this would be allright. The principle "never violate anyones rights" wouldn't apply, because the extra information in this case would reveal that the principle had an expected suboptimal effect vis a vis the end in comparison with the embezzlement. What you need to show is that no amount of information in the world about a particular state of affairs could make us rationally expect a gain from a rightsviolation.

Ethics does not require omniscience.

Edited April 26, 2007 by exaltron

[Freddy]

Ethics does not require omnipotence.

??? Nothing in my post rested on omnipotence or omnicience. It rests on rational expectations given your current state of knowledge.

[exaltron]

??? Nothing in my post rested on omnipotence or omnicience. It rests on rational expectations given your current state of knowledge.

It is not rational to expect to evade reality indefinitely. That would require omniscience.

[Freddy]

It is not rational to expect to evade reality indefinitely. That would require omniscience.

You lost me. Concider the principle (given in my reply to blackdiamond) "always wash your hands" and the new information that alters the validity of the principle in a given instance. How does any of that relate to evasion? Do you mean that we should follow a principle even though we expect subpar performance with regard to the very goal that propmted us to choose the principle in the first place?

Edited April 26, 2007 by Freddy

[exaltron]

You lost me. Concider the principle (given in my reply to blackdiamond) "always wash your hands" and the new information that alters the validity of the principle in a given instance. How does any of that relate to evasion? Do you mean that we should follow a principle even though we expect subpar performance with regard to the very goal that propmted us to choose the principle in the first place?

The point of ethics is not to tell you what you should do based on whether or not you can get away with it. The point of ethics is not to have to worry about what you can get away with, because your ethics is generally consistent with reality, so you don't have to keep making endless calculations about what your general approach to life should be.

[Freddy]

The point of ethics is not to tell you what you should do based on whether or not you can get away with it. The point of ethics is not to have to worry about what you can get away with, because your ethics is generally consistent with reality, so you don't have to keep making endless calculations about what your general approach to life should be.

So to connect to the handwashing principle, If I rationally expect to die from washing my hands because of bad water then I should ignore this and adhere to the principle instead, because washing my hands is generally consistent with my goal to benefit my health.

[Gary Brenner]

blackdiamond wrote:

Geez, this is now getting scary. He still can’t see the purpose of my example, even after restating it for the second time.

And it is just as obvious to me that you still can’t see the irrelevance of your example to the topic of this thread.

So, for Christ’s sake, do that to the principle of hygiene (in my example) and honorably REJECT it *as a universal principle*.

Why should I? Whereas health is essential to life and whereas the life of the organism is the standard of its values and goals, hygiene is beneficial. But that principle does not inexorably lead us to the iron-clad rule promulgated by the Mum in your story: “You must always wash your hands.” As Freddy and I have pointed out, in some circumstances hand-washing is extremely hazardous. Therefore, just as the principle of hygiene does not necessarily lead one to wash his hands with no possible exceptions, so the principle of one\\\\\\\'s life being the standard of one’s values does not lead one to refrain from looting in every single case.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. You are the one who agreed that the boy’s argument against this principle (by the method of identifying some “exceptions”) is nonsensical. If it was nonsensical (in that example), then it is nonsensical when *you* do it.

By definition, “hygiene” is “1. The science that deals with the promotion and preservation of health. Also called hygienics. 2. Conditions and practices that serve to promote or preserve health.”

Because I regard life as a value and because health is essential to life, I reject the boy’s argument against hygiene. If suicide were the goal, the boy’s argument might be valid.

By contrast, looting is not inherently in opposition to the life of the looter. In certain cases it may be life-promoting. Therefore, there is no necessary contradiction in valuing one’s own life and stealing from others.

Still concrete bound. The PRINCIPLE under discussion is not washing hands; the principle is hygiene.

Then why did you include the principle extolled by the little boy’s mother, i.e. “You must always wash your hands”? If you had wished strictly to discuss the principle of hygiene, then other principles such as hand-washing should never have been introduced into the conversation.

Brenner. I said very clearly that i was not addressing anything else, except the validity of your method: of rejecting a principle based on the apparent (concrete) exceptions to the stated effects of disregarding that principle. The element of motivation is not vital at all.

Really? Motivation has no role in deciding whether to practice hygiene? If X’s motivation (his preference for health and life over sickness and death) has no role to play, why should he care about hygiene at all?

We are not discussing whether there “could never be a good, self-interested reason for violating the principle”; we are discussing whether the principle can be rejected qua principle - rejected, not violated - on the basis of the “exceptions” (I don’t know how many times one has to repeat something before you realise that this is ALL he is talking about. If that is my only purpose in this example, then MOTIVATIONS necessarily have to be omitted. Remember, I am not arguing FOR the principle yet, I am simply arguing AGAINST your method of rejecting it; and believe it or not, i stated this explicitly when i introduced this “story”).

One does not reject a principle qua principle unless it is internally illogical e,g. “Looting is bad because it is good.” We accept or reject a proposition (including a principle) on the basis of its truth or falsity. We determine the truth of a proposition by testing its claims against the real world data that the proposition purports to describe. If the content of a proposition is contradicted by observable facts, then the proposition fails. This has been my case against Rand’s claim about the destruction of the looter.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[softwareNerd]

If the content of a proposition is contradicted by observable facts, then the proposition fails. This has been my case against Rand’s claim about the destruction of the looter.

But, you have not pointed to a compendium of facts that demonstrate that we would be better served by becoming predators, nor that we should be training our kids to be predators. You have not explained from personal experience how your own principled predation has helped you, other than an occasional event when you got away with something small. The idea that some people may be more suited to predation is hypothetical -- the only way to ground it would be to demonstrate real life examples of this working, not as an exception, but as a principle. One would also have to point to such real-life examples to explain why the same people could not have done better as non-predators. You're right that no amount of deductive reasoning will take the argument anywhere. There's ample inductive proof of the opposite -- read the first 50 biographies of successful rich (aka practically successful) businessmen -- and induce the principles therefrom. Of course the stories yield a mixed picture. So, one could propound a hypothesis that what we (Objectivists) consider the negatives were not incidental aspects, nor aspects that held back the person's practical success, but were -- rather -- actually the crucial elements of their practical success. Arguing -- abstractly -- that something could be, and could succeed, will never get one outside of hypotheticals. So, if you wish to really figure out if you'd be better served stopping your predation and learning other skills, study the people who have achieved practical success and figure out if the key determining factor is their predation, or something else.

Else...it's just theory.

[exaltron]

So to connect to the handwashing principle, If I rationally expect to die from washing my hands because of bad water then I should ignore this and adhere to the principle instead, because washing my hands is generally consistent with my goal to benefit my health.

If you want to live and be healthy, then certainly practicing good hygiene would be a principal that would help you achieve that goal. Washing your hands with contaminated water, however, would generally be considered bad hygiene. Seems pretty simple to me.

The point is, ethics must be contextual. As referenced several times in this thread, in an emergency situation, the general code of conduct can't be applied, so some exceptions msut be made. That doesn't mean that the general code is invalidated in normal circumstances.

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd wrote:

But, you have not pointed to a compendium of facts that demonstrate that we would be better served by becoming predators, nor that we should be training our kids to be predators.

I do not have to perform such a demonstration as it has never been my thesis that most people would be better served by becoming predators. Since you have been following this thread for some time, I know you will recall that I more than once pointed out that some people are not at all well suited for the profession of looting.

You have not explained from personal experience how your own principled predation has helped you, other than an occasional event when you got away with something small.

One does not have to be a stockbroker to know that stockbrokering can be a rewarding profession.

The idea that some people may be more suited to predation is hypothetical

No more hypothetical than the idea that some people are better suited to being musicians.

-- the only way to ground it would be to demonstrate real life examples of this working, not as an exception, but as a principle.

What principle are you referring to? My thesis is not that looting is superior to all other livelihoods, but rather that some people can prosper by looting from others.

One would also have to point to such real-life examples to explain why the same people could not have done better as non-predators.

I have already mentioned my cousin, whose goal was to make more money. He could not have done that by continuing in his seed and feed business that was failing because agriculture was disappearing in the county after the war. Instead he used his political connections to obtain a semi-monopoly on local liquor sales and became a multi-millionaire.

You’re right that no amount of deductive reasoning will take the argument anywhere. There’s ample inductive proof of the opposite -- read the first 50 biographies of successful rich (aka practically successful) businessmen -- and induce the principles therefrom.

The fact that Carnegie and Rockefeller became successful through production and trade does not serve as a disproof of the opportunities to prosper through looting.

Of course the stories yield a mixed picture. So, one could propound a hypothesis that what we (Objectivists) consider the negatives were not incidental aspects, nor aspects that held back the person’s practical success, but were -- rather -- actually the crucial elements of their practical success. Arguing -- abstractly -- that something could be, and could succeed, will never get one outside of hypotheticals.

Very well, instead of arguing hypothetically that one might be able join an organization that might pay one to loot others and might protect one from the reprisals of one’s victims, I will simply submit for your consideration the thousands who work for the IRS.

So, if you wish to really figure out if you’d be better served stopping your predation and learning other skills, study the people who have achieved practical success and figure out if the key determining factor is their predation, or something else.

Else...it’s just theory.

I’ll check and see if tax looters get their mortgage paid by cashing government checks or by moonlighting at the local gas station.

[softwareNerd]

The point is not whether it works for "some people". One side says that "some people" is the accidental occurrence of good or bad luck, while you say that the difference is something more specific, controllable, volitional. In other words, you are suggesting that there is a principle involved, a principle that goes beyond "some people" just by random.

Added:

Could you to clarify which of the following is closer to what you're saying:

a. That you have an alternate theory, i.e. that you have isolated a set of principles, or at least the beginnings of some principles that point to who should be a predator, or when one ought to be a predators, or such.; or,

b. That you simply see observe exceptions where predators succeed, and therefore conclude that "predation is impractical" is untrue

Edited April 26, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd wrote:

The point is not whether it works for “some people”. One side says that “some people” is the accidental occurrence of good or bad luck, while you say that the difference is something more specific, controllable, volitional.

If the success or destruction of the looter is an accidental occurrence of good or bad luck, then Rand is in error in claiming that the looter’s destruction is caused by the looting itself.

In other words, you are suggesting that there is a principle involved, a principle that goes beyond “some people” just by random.

What I contend is that Rand’s claim that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter does not conform with data in the world around us. We have exceptions by the millions. If there is a principle involved, it is this: those who join the larger criminal gangs tend to do better. Thus, high job security and low risk of death and injury for U.S. government looters.

Furthermore, if the argument against looting is that destruction is a high if not 100% certain risk, then we can make an Objectivist case against racecar drivers, coal miners and CIA spies in enemy territory.

[softwareNerd]

If the success or destruction of the looter is an accidental occurrence of good or bad luck, then Rand is in error in claiming that the looter’s destruction is caused by the looting itself.

I don't understand your point. The whole point is that the looter's success is accidental and his destruction is not. One can drive safely and still meet with an accident, but that does not mean that "safe driving" is a meaningless phrase.

As for your examples, you seem to assume a context where predation were the norm for rich people -- like Saddam's Iraq or Soviet Russia.

[exaltron]

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

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

Your response to my question about ethics. What you're implying is that one's preferences (also a species of the good, granted) are the same as one's ethics. So:

Vanilla vs. chocolate

Gay vs. straight

Looting vs. producing

Pursuing Law vs. pursuing Medicine

Carrots vs. peas

Murdering vs. not-Murdering

No fundamental difference between any of these? None have the capacity to be universalized?

[Gary Brenner]

I don’t understand your point. The whole point is that the looter’s success is accidental and his destruction is not.

What was “accidental” about the success of those who stole a Rembrandt and other masterpieces from the Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston, 1990, and have never been caught? The thieves knew what to take, how to disarm the anti-theft devices and how to get past the night watchman.

Why must we assume that looters are incapable of gathering information, drawing up plans and carefully executing an operation?

One can drive safely and still meet with an accident, but that does not mean that “safe driving” is a meaningless phrase.

Neither is the phrase “prudent predator.”

As for your examples, you seem to assume a context where predation were the norm for rich people -- like Saddam\'s Iraq or Soviet Russia.

No, I have used American examples of looting far more than foreign examples.

[exaltron]

I do not have to perform such a demonstration as it has never been my thesis that most people would be better served by becoming predators. Since you have been following this thread for some time, I know you will recall that I more than once pointed out that some people are not at all well suited for the profession of looting.

But looting is not a profession. It is an ethical choice. If you're claiming that not all people are suited for it, then you're calling it a preference, in which case no ethical statements can be made about it.

The point of ethics is to formulate a code of conduct that applies to man generally (which, as with all principles that apply to man generally can have exceptions; these need not invalidate the principle). That is precisely why we don't say that deciding to be an astronaut is an ethical decision. It is a post-ethical preference that depends on the individual. Deciding to be a producer, however, is within the realm of ethics, it is something that can be recommended to all, with universally good results (as you have observed politically and historically, but failed to connect with ethics).

[softwareNerd]

Okay, so is it your thesis that for certain people who can are good at planning things in great detail, action-oriented, or whatever, the best way to put their skills to use is in stealing Rembrants because they are likely to do better in practical terms?

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd

Okay, so is it your thesis that for certain people who can are good at planning things in great detail, action-oriented, or whatever, the best way to put their skills to use is in stealing Rembrants because they are likely to do better in practical terms?

Not necessarily. If at the time the thieves had an opportunity that paid more, then they should have passed up the museum heist for the better offer. The alternative, however, would have to have been near the $100 million mark.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

Your response to my question about ethics. What you’re implying is that one’s preferences (also a species of the good, granted) are the same as one’s ethics. So:

Vanilla vs. chocolate

Gay vs. straight

Looting vs. producing

Pursuing Law vs. pursuing Medicine

Carrots vs. peas

Murdering vs. not-Murdering

No fundamental difference between any of these? None have the capacity to be universalized?

Again, ethics is a set of principles of right conduct. A preference is a choice of one thing over another. I have not used the concepts interchangeably.

I do think that on a very fundamental level we can form certain ethical principles. However, I do not see how such an axiom as “one’s life is the standard of one’s values” leads without exception to a shunning of looting.

[softwareNerd]

In principle, in rational societies thieves end up in jail quite the same way unsafe drivers meet with accidents. That's what makes it impractical.

Of course, Objectivism's main moral argument takes a different tack. I think I understand that you're saying that having as much cash as possible is the route to happiness (i.e. money can buy happiness), and that whether one is producing things or stealing them. According to Objectivism, this is not true -- physical goods, as such are not the source of happiness.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

But looting is not a profession. It is an ethical choice.

It may be both a profession (an occupation requiring considerable training and specialized study) and an ethical choice.

If you’re claiming that not all people are suited for it, then you’re calling it a preference, in which case no ethical statements can be made about it.

Why not? Why can’t a retired jewel thief say the following:

1) I am not well suited for looting.

2) Looting is ethical.

The point of ethics is to formulate a code of conduct that applies to man generally (which, as with all principles that apply to man generally can have exceptions; these need not invalidate the principle).

That would depend on how absolute your principle is. If, generally, men would gain nothing and lose much by looting, then men, generally, should not pursue that profession. On the other hand, there may be a few who can by skill or opportunity experience a net profit from looting. While the fact that a certain looter’s success does not overturn the fact that looting is not advantageous to the many, by the same token the impracticality of looting for the many does not invalidate the utility of looting for the few.

That is precisely why we don’t say that deciding to be an astronaut is an ethical decision. It is a post-ethical preference that depends on the individual. Deciding to be a producer, however, is within the realm of ethics, it is something that can be recommended to all, with universally good results (as you have observed politically and historically, but failed to connect with ethics).

I have not connected the choice not to loot to ethics because there is no unbreakable logical chain between pursuing one’s self-interest and renouncing looting.

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd

In principle, in rational societies thieves end up in jail quite the same way unsafe drivers meet with accidents. That’s what makes it impractical.

In principle, in rational societies, unsafe drivers never get behind the wheel, corrupt politicians never run for office, and all churches are turned into reading rooms for freethinkers.

Of course, Objectivism’s main moral argument takes a different tack. I think I understand that you’re saying that having as much cash as possible is the route to happiness (i.e. money can buy happiness), and that whether one is producing things or stealing them. According to Objectivism, this is not true -- physical goods, as such are not the source of happiness.

I have never said that money can buy happiness for every person. I have never implied that. Compare money to food. Food is essential to survival, but the getting of food will not guarantee happiness.

[softwareNerd]

In principle, in rational societies, unsafe drivers never get behind the wheel, corrupt politicians never run for office, and all churches are turned into reading rooms for freethinkers.

I suspect you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure.