exaltron

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.

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: 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??

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.

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

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? 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.

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.

You're right, I got that mixed up. It's really neither induction or deduction but just looking at free societies and their success and calling it good without recognizing what makes it good.

This is precisely the problem with libertarianism and conservatism, it is pure induction and empiricism. But without some objective acknowledgment of the abstract causes of this data, without some deductive reasoning vis-a-vis the principles that make it so, we will be mired endlessly in arguments about the concretes (cf, liberals who argue that all of our prosperity in the US is due to labor unions, FDR, anti-trust, Keynesians, etc., stepping in and correcting the "failures of the market"). So you reject the notion that "sympathy and fellow-feeling" could result simply from the recognition of the fact that advocating a certain code of ethics for yourself based on objective criteria necessitates advocating that same code of ethics for your neighbors? Where do these influences come from if not from rational ethics? How does one advocate or promote a "society that respects property" without advocating that all individuals respect property? Why do you assume that looters have no "conscience" that would cause them to see the contradiction of benefiting from a society that respects individual rights while at the same time undermining and subverting that system whenever it is "prudent"? Again, the purpose of ethics is to abstract from the individual case to arrive at a general code of conduct that applies to all. That is why Objectivists will continue to tell you that "Whatever furthers one's life" has about as much in common with a system of ethics as an acorn does with an oak tree. If that is the extent of your system of ethics, you're advocating a society where, when you wake up to find your neighbor gnawing on your leg in the middle of the night and ask him what the hell he's doing, he can simply respond "I'm furthering my life, it's completely ethical!".

I think you forgot the context of the lie (a common problem for looters), which was that it was already found out, as are all lies eventually, since they are by definition rebellions against reality. Here's the quote from Inspector: Now granted, you could say that jumping from being a liar to being a vicious killer is stacking the deck, my point was to demonstrate that lying in response to evil and force (eg, a rapist holding a gun to your head and asking you where your wife is) is fundamentally different from lying to an innocent person for purpose of stealing what is rightfully theirs. The point being that generally, liars are eventually found out. Again, it's the nature of lying and it's fundamentally different from an honest person taking a risk, since that person is not rebelling against reality. And again, when you're found out, whatever relationships you've forged will be exposed as fraudulent as well, based on a huge lie which had no justification and was meant to cover up not something honorable, but something despicable. Whatever elaborate sub-lies you came up with to delay your eventual exposure ("Oh honey, I was just pretending to rob the neighbors because I'm secretly testing their security system!") will only add to the devastation of the final reckoning.

Case 1: "Honey I've been lying about who I am and the nature of my job (that I produce that intelligence and security that our nation desperately requires for its continued security) to protect you and our national secrets". Case 2: "Honey I've been lying to you about who I am and the nature of my "job" (that I violate the rights of producers in order to steal the wealth they created) because if you or anyone else were to find out about what I do, I would probably be denounced and incarcerated". I think we would all agree that Case 1 is about 100% more likely to lead to your wife in a skimpy undergarment.

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I can't resist sharing my anticipation (I should have a chance to check it out this coming weekend). I loved Shaun of the Dead and I TiVo the BBC series "Spaced Out" (written by and starring Pegg and Frost) whenever it's on. I think they have that rare brand of humor that can make you laugh hysterically without being the least bit sarcastic, mean-spirited or contemptuous of its subject matter. And the fact that this has the stamp of approval of respected Objectivists is just gravy I'll come back when I've had a chance to see it. Thanks for blacking out the spoilers!

Ok, I'll bite, why did you choose not to filch the coins? Clearly your friend would not have missed the coins and probably would never have used the money. According to your ethics (do whatever furthers your life or enhances your survival), this should have been a no-brainer, so why choose the immoral path of walking away from all that value?

Thank you!! I (and several others I believe) have asked Gary point blank what it would take to derive an ought, ie, if Rand was unsuccessful, give us an example of a successful derivation of an ought (since I haven't seen him argue that it simply can't be done). I think this comes down to epistemology: we derive principles from generalizations. We can say that generally speaking, pointing a gun at one's head and pulling the trigger will lead to death. But according to Gary, unless we can guarantee that every single time from now until eternity, that doing so will lead to certain death, WE'VE FAILED TO DERIVE AN ETHICAL PRINCIPLE!! Madness I tell you, madness.

Do you not have the right to them because you didn't pay for them or because you downloaded them illegally (ie, from a site that didn't honor copyrights)? The reason I ask is that there is a ton of music out there (including my own) that's available free for personal use, as a promotional incentive. At this point in my career, it makes more sense for me to forgo what marginal extra profit I might make by not distributing any songs, in the interest of getting my name out there. The portion of listeners overall who will pay to download a single song by an unknown artist, nevermind an entire CD, is minuscule in my opinion, so it makes sense for unknown artists to put out free downloads. Are you sure you didn't download the song legitimately as a promo? [edit to fix html issues]

ha, ha! precisely. Even under a completely moral LF capitalist system, voluntary collective action would only be as rational as the individuals who undertake it. There could still be irrational individuals acting in tandem to evil ends, the only difference is that without the enforced complicity of the good, that evil would be impotent. As far as the anthills and slugs go, I would shun those idiots way before it occurred to them to shun me

But how useful is a system of ethics under an unethical system of government? Rand's system of ethics rightfully assumes freedom. Otherwise if we are not free to make our own decisions, how can we have morality? I think this is the mitigating factor when it comes to things like IRS workers.

You've offered no arguments against looting aside from arbitrary mandates (the CI) and subjectivist moral arguments. What then is the standard? From what do you derive your moral conclusions? Do you have to "converge" to reality to be happy?

This brings up an interesting point: Does the success of a looter under an unethical system prove that the looter is ethical? Or do we need to look at the ethics of the system and then assess the individual's choices? For example, I would argue that being ethical in an unethical system, like that of Soviet Russia or Communist Cuba, would be detrimental to one's survival, since the system is set up to enforce immoral ideals like sacrifice, need/incompetence as a moral claim on the service/property of others, etc. In other words, being moral in such a system would be akin to telling a murderer the truth when he asks where your children are hiding. Ultimately a morally bankrupt system rewards morally bankrupt individuals. This doesn't prove that under a truly moral, capitalist system, the looter approach would be practical.

Exactly. I would submit two questions to the looter-advocates: 1. True or False: For all men, Life is the standard; Happiness is the purpose. 2. What are the causes of happiness? Are they objective or subjective? I think if we had honest answers to these two, we could avoid a lot of wasted arguments.

What a deliciously apt quote for this thread. I'm assuming this is just a happy accident?

Yeah, I don't think we need a big debate over what is figurative or literal. But I did find that Webster's had a markedly different set of definitions for the word "destroy": Main Entry: de·stroy Pronunciation: di-'stroi, dE- Function: verb 1 : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed> 2 a : to put out of existence : KILL <destroy an injured horse> b : NEUTRALIZE <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c : ANNIHILATE, VANQUISH <armies had been crippled but not destroyed -- W. L. Shirer> intransitive verb : to cause destruction Interesting that #1 seems to describe perfectly what the looter does to the integrity of his mind..

I think some people would take the sense of destroy as in "It would destroy her if she knew her husband was cheating on her" to be a figurative or non-literal meaning, though it certainly wouldn't be "creating a new definition" as GB asserts. The problem is that figurative language can enter acceptable speech through wide usage, so to simply say "literal" is everything in the dictionary and "figurative" is some sort of "creative interpretation" that negates all word meaning drops the context. Context is always important. When Rand states in Galt's speech that anyone who initiates force, to any degree, "is a killer, operating on a premise wider than murder", I don't think that is to be taken literally (though I don't think that renders Galt's speech or that statement meaningless). Likewise in VOS where she advocates for the legal system to be implemented by impartial "robots", she is not suggesting that they should run on batteries. [edit to correct typo]

Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

What would be immoral under the Prudent Predator ethics?