amosknows
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by amosknows
-
-
IMO the moral thing is to do what she wants to in this situation.
Acting from a sense of obligation would create an immorality. Barring that, I can't immediately think of a context where Objectivism would say "saving this stranger is the moral thing to do" or "refusing to save this stranger is the moral thing to do."
You phrased that in an interesting way. In terms of charity ethics (and maybe emergency ethics) it might be correct to say that Objectivism says what you should not do, as opposed to what you should do. I wouldn't say that this means that choice or morality is not a factor though.
Seems to be a contradiciton in your answer. You seem to be saying that there is no moral component to this hypothetical. It's perfectly moral (right) to ignore the cries for help and it's perfectly moral (right although not an obligation) to risk your own life and run in and save the person. If this is your answer, than aside from the absolute elimination of obligation as a guide for one's behavior, objectivism seems to fail as a behavioral guide in situations like these. Decisions of what is right and wrong falling on either side of the equation - and without effect. In essence reducing decisions of what is right and wrong to whims - the only relevant consideration being this lack of an obligation to act.
This bring us back to value - as Rand has sated:
"An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means – and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil"
If the woman can value the life of the man more than her life than she is (by definition) NOT an objectivist. By Rand's standard saving the burning man is "evil". Although (by your acknowledgment) her actions are not outside the realm of acceptable objectivist decision making. Hm.
-
This understanding of Objectivism is incorrect, though it is a common mistake I've found among those just learning about Objectivism. Have you read Atlas Shrugged yet? In it, the culmination and embodiment of Rand's Philosophy, the main character, threatens seriously to kill himself if the woman he loved was going to be tortured (someone else mentioned that you should read that section, I concur) This is the most obvious and glaring counter to the notion that one's 'life' is one's highest value. However, the motto of that character is "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" which is what usually leads people to the understanding you seem to have here. The apparent contradiction is only from the superficial understanding of the philosophy.
The "Life" that is your 'highest value' is not merely your mechanical existence. Consider for a moment what kind of life you would have if everything you did was focused SOLELY on perpetuating your mere mechanical existence. You would spend every waking moment building barriers to the world and the various random threats it poses, you would not talk to people, lest you get sick and die, you would not visit people, lest they betray you and kill you, you would do nothing but wall yourself and try to find the biochemical fountain of youth. In short, you invalidate the possibility of valuing anything but your mechanical existence when your mechanical existence is supposed to be your highest value. You would readily and willingly sell or exchange anything else you value in order to secure your mechanical existence, be it your wife and child, or your career and principles. So when you see "Life is my highest value" you should not read that as 'existence is my highest value' the 'life' that Rand talks about, and is proper, is a particular KIND of life, and particular KIND of existence, one that is proper to sentient rational beings that exist in a real world, and one that is proper to YOU based on your values and interests. That is why in Objectivism the standard for morality is not "life" but "life qua man" (which should more precisely be - Life qua man qua YOU)
Two popular concretizations of this recently in film. In V for Vendetta, when Evey was being tortured by V, she learned that she did value something higher than her own existence, and this made her realize that her whole life had been spent cowering in fear. When threatened with execution to expose to whereabouts of V, she refused, thinking full well she would die, because the life (her existence) she would have lived if she did turn V would have been miserable, as she betrayed one of her highest values. In 300, Leonides 'condemns' Ephialtes, the deformed Spartan who betrayed his beloved land to it's greatest enemy for sex and out of spite of the King, to a 'very long life' because he knows he has betrayed that which he most loved, and his continued existence will be torture to himself.
Life as in mechanical existence is normally a pre-requisite for values, so it is a very high value, but it is not an end of it's own in the context of an individuals self value, it is not the goal of all actions. It is what is needed in order to achieve the things you value, it is a particular kind of existence that is our goal. An Aristotlean Eudaemonic life.
As sentient rational entities that live in an objectively real universe, we understand that things perpetuate beyond our own existence. We are not solipsists who think existence is a convenient figment of our own imagination, but it continues on regardless of our inclusion. As such, we know that things we value can perpetuate beyond our own existence as well, so no, values are not things relevant only in the context of YOUR existence.
Matus - one of the most thoughtful and insightful posts yet. I see the difference between doing for yourself and doing something at the subjugation of the will of another. And in this I concur. I also understand the concept of one's personal values and living a life that's in accordance with those values. But what I still can't get is the connection to what is moral in the context of Objectivism. - For example, if the woman saves the stranger because her conscious is such that she feels compelled to save him, can she still be an Objectivist because at that moment her value is to save the burning stranger? Or put another way, is acting with altruism, empathy, compassion and caring simply an acceptable component of Objectivism provided it's not the result of subjugation?
Finally, there seems to be some contradictions between being selfish (an acceptable Objectivist code) and some of the examples you gave above. In 300 Ephialtes values the people of his land more than sex and money and power. He chooses the non-selfish value. How does someone like Ephialtes form a value like that? I'm also not sure I would agree that V's motivations are selfish. She is willing to die to avoid pain. But then, what would be the source of that pain?
-
Check your premise. According to Objectivism, is risking your life necessarily the same as sacrificing your life?
I would tell you no, but don't take my word for it
It's not immoral for the woman to choose to risk her life by saving the stranger. It's not immoral for the woman to choose to not risk her life by saving the stranger.
It would be immoral for this woman to risk her life (or not risk her life?) because she felt she was obligated to. If this pregnant woman was acting from a sense of what Jesus would want or even from what Peikoff would want her to do, then she is acting from improper moral standards. The sacrifice would begin at the point that she supercedes her values for the values of other people, not merely because she risks her life in helping someone else.
Another possibility is that the pregnant woman is not necessarily making a wrong decision according Objectivism, therefore it's not a matter of us fabricating an impropriety for her to be subject to.
Thanks for this. Questions:
If it's not immoral for the woman to either NOT risk her life for the stranger or risk her life for the stranger, than what exactly is the moral thing to do under this hypothetical? Help? Run? Nothing? In other words, you've stated this as a negative (not to risk as an acceptable moral choice) and as a nullity (risk as an irrelevant moral component). Can you give me an answer in the positive? Or is this simply not an example where choice and morality are even factors?
-
And this is why, amos, someone accused you of operating with an altruistic mindset. The altruist believes that man either lives by sacrificing himself to others, or by preying on others (or abstaining from the decision altogether and just dying). He believes this because he thinks this is the sum of man's existence: desperate, split-second decisions, involving the most impossibly horrific circumstances. He thinks this is the natural state of human affairs.
The fact that you keep bringing up examples of people who just suddenly have a feeling, an unreasoned impulse to act, in a moment where there is no time to think, or who are placed in situations where their life is immediately threatened, only further proves that you think this is how men live day to day. If you do not, then you would not be seeking to discover the meaning of value, in situations where values have been made impossible, situations which are not the the norm of man's life.
First, I don't know who the altruist is? Are you suggesting that I am an "altruist" - because if you are I'd suggest you'd have to know a hell of a lot more about me than what I post on line.
Second, I believe that you should question your beliefs in all circumstances - including in the context of those impossibly horrific hypothetical examples. Just my opinion.
-
I drew your stupid little friend a nice MSPaint comic to demonstrate the fundamental difference. Sometimes children need pictures with bright colors in order to learn.
Nice!
Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".
-
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Having an insatiable desire for something (i.e. greed) -- Dr. Peikoff recent broadcast led to this definition -- is not a moral wrong, and under Objectivism, it is not something that needs to be curbed. I have an insatiable desire to discuss Objectivism and its applications, which is why I participate on this forum. If someone has an insatiable desire for money, there is nothing morally wrong with that, so long as no force or fraud are involved in him earning his money.
You see, there are really two issues involved in this financial mess -- the purely economic assessment, and the moral assessment.
On the economic side, some of us have pointed out to you that the break between risk and reward was brought about by governmental interference; primarily Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act. There was an implicit -- and perhaps wrong -- assumption that since the government was demanding that banks deal with otherwise unsavory borrowers and provided a way for mortgage brokers to dump their risks, that the government was assuming all of those risks. Under capitalism, there may or may not have formed a company that was willing to assume the risk of most mortgages, in which case they would have had to declare bankruptcy once the market broke to the downside, which means mortgage brokers would once again have to assume their own risks. Unfortunately, Fannie and Freddie were bailed out, and Objectivists are against all of these bail outs.
On the moral side, Objectivism is all for greed, understood rationally. In other words, so long as one acts to gain and / or keep the values he is greedy about in a rational manner, then there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a virtue to want to live as much as you can while you are alive, and insofar as some people were willing and able to sell real estate at great benefits to themselves -- i.e. they were able to get rich -- then we don't have any problem with that morally whatsoever.
What we are against is people coming to the conclusion that the free market and the pursuit of greed led to this market crash, when we know that it was governmental interference in the economy. We would agree with you that risk and reward were sundered, but it wasn't the capitalists who did this, it was the government. And had there been that connection between risk and reward, then at some point the fury over selling real estate would have abated with few people getting hurt. But since the government was involved in many more ways that has been indicated in this thread, the entire economy of the United States and of the world was hurt -- hurt by bad decisions on the part of the government who thought they could regulate the market with no harm done.
To regulate greed means to regulate life, and Objectivism is against this -- in fact, we consider it to be evil to use force to come between a man's desires and his means of achieving that desire through legitimate means (free trade). So, the economic argument is insufficient in fighting for capitalism -- capitalism can only be fought by realizing that greed is good, and in man, is a foundation for having a higher and higher standard of living. A man has the moral right to be greedy and to live as well as he can, so long as no force or fraud are involved in his dealing with other men.
So consequences are not an inherent part of either greed or objectivism? I asked this elsewhere but it morally okay for someone to have a hyper-abundance (unnecessary) amount of food while a child (or anyone) in arms reach starves? What I am trying to say is: Is greed which results in unnecessary affluence something that objectivism would view as morally wrong? Or does actual need also not play a part in your analysis?
I appreciate your responses so please, if you choose to answer this question, please provide a detailed explanation.
-
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe a rational person would believe humans have instincts when our survival, both as individual entities and as a collection of entities, requires an evaluation of a very complex level of interacting variables.
Not hard if you believe that reason was not always an available methodology and that instincts were once the primary mode of operation for we humans.
-
Point taken. I was referring to his blog where he is definitely promoting altruism. That blog was mentioned in one of the threads he started.
However, in this post he has not said that regulations are needed in order to curb greedy mortgage brokers. So, perhaps I ought to ask him that question: Do you think greed needs to be regulated, and why or why not?
Greed needs to be regulated by the individual via morality and then (if not) by any mutual agreement between the parties toward subsistence and survival. Most of these agreements are made under the threat of force and/or punishment.
-
No.
The only relevant force is man-made force, whereas the "force" being exerted on your hypothetical man are the metaphysical facts necessary for his existence. Suppose, as I've said elsewhere, that he's stuck on a desert island and his only option for survival is harvesting coconuts and fishing? Is he a slave *then*? To whom?
No, of course he's not a slave, the idea would be ridiculous. But by not understanding such things as the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made and how that relates to the requirements for human survival, you're conflating a man-made condition (slavery) with a metaphysical one (need to produce). Outside its proper context, the term slavery is *meaningless*.
Let's take another example so you can see how this context thing works: some people conflate *not saving someone's life* with murder. Look at what this would mean in full application: if a dictator in some foreign country orders a man shot, *I* am guilty of murdering him because I didn't board a plane, fly there, and physically interpose myself between victim and firing squad. Anyone should be able to see that this is utterly absurd, but I didn't "save his life" so I *must* have "murdered" him.
A man offering you employment you don't like as a chance to save yourself from starvation is not enslaving you, he is your *benefactor*, enabling the continuation of your life where that was impossible to you before. That's not to say that you should love the work and cease striving to better yourself, merely that you should recognize that doing unpleasant work is better than the alternative.
You could properly call it slavery, however, if the alternative was death *because* the man threatened to shoot you if you *didn't* do what he told you to do. YOU could be growing potatoes or fishing or something to sustain your own life in those circumstances, if it weren't for this jackass standing between you and your judgment. *That* is the only meaningful definition and application of the term slavery.
I see your point. However, in either case (the gravedigger or the coconut picker) the subject is being subjected to things he does not want to do. So he's essentially not free to choose what he spends his time doing to earn his subsistence. The distinction between the two (I believe) is that in the case of the gravedigger, if his circumstances are the result of another man's position or are in fact the result of another man's actions, than his lack of a choice had been inflicted. The infliction of a lack of choice coupled with an unfair wage would (in my opinion) be slavery.
If the outcomes are the same, I don't see the distinction between subjugation via physical force and subjugation via the intentional creation of conditions.
Force is physical, but it has ethical implications to man's life, because it robs man of his only means to direct his life: his mind. When force is used, it can be different from the actual acceleration of one body (a tree) into another (the ground). If someone slugs you, there is obvious physical contact; there is actual force. But if a menacing stranger points a gun at you or someone makes threats against you, that is also force, because you are faced with the same inability to use your mind to escape it. The aggressor is giving you no choice: deal with me or else. Just because the force is implied and isn't taking place immediately, it doesn't make it any less of a threat to you.Nice. I agree 100%. Repeating my self: If the outcomes are the same, I don't see the distinction between subjugation via physical force and subjugation via the intentional creation of conditions.
-
I'll leave your blog out of it for the time being, however your story about Amos saying the people will be punished for their greed ties in with your stance on this issue.
Sticking with what you wrote here, the initial break between risk and reward was set up by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that those mortgages could be sold to a secondary source, thus cutting out the risk. The problem with your stance is that you evidently don't realize that those secondary mortgage transfers were only made possible by government run agencies. So, it was not a failure of capitalism, but rather a built in failure scheme set up by the government.
As to the profit motive and the incentive to sell as many products as possible, there is nothing morally wrong with that and incentives to sell is what makes capitalism work so well. That is, as a sales person, which I am, selling as much as I can so I can get a raise or get a bonus is one reason I do what I do. If I had a static pay scale, and got paid the same no matter what, then what is my incentive to sell as much as possible with all of my hard work benefits going to my boss instead of to me? I once had a job whereby I would get a 3% commission in addition to my regular pay, and while that doesn't seem like much, it meant a few hundred dollars more per month for me, so yes, I sold as much as I could. The point is that if you take away the incentives, you will just get par and nothing else.
And as I and others have pointed out, selling to high risk borrowers was set up by the government -- that was the regulation that broke the camel's back. Ordinarily, no, the banks are not going to loan to high risk borrowers, but by law they had to.
In other words, the failure was one of regulations and government interference in the economy. If someone else can shoulder all of your risks -- i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- then, sure, why not sell as if there is no tomorrow and as if the market will always rise? That was the incentive to create those mortgage backed securities -- and the fault rests on the government, not on those companies who did that.
By the way, you didn't answer my question about whether on not greed ought to be regulated.
First - I never said anyone was punished for their greed. The greedy people (like the CEO of Countrywide), the fraudulent appraisers. the high interest writing mortgage brokers, and the over-inflating real estate brokers, got off free and clear (in fact they made a lot of money). Again stop mixing apples and oranges and making outlandish assumptions based upon your own preconceived prejudices about me.
Second - the secondary mortgage market is not limited to Freddie and Fannie (they hold 90%). CMOs are also purchased by commercial banks. If government did not set up the secondary market - what makes you think the private industry would not as a way of bundling (and therefore reducing) risk and increasing available capital? You think if Freddie and Fannie disappeared so would the secondary market? Also, Fannie was privatized - therefore in essence since that time it's operated as a free market vehicle. Freddie and Fannie compete in the market as do other Commercial Banks.
Third - you totally discount (nor offer any solution to) the misuse of over-inflated appraisals, the fundamentally flawed products (no money down, no income verified loans), and the motivations to write bad loans at high interest rates inherent in a system with no regulation. Why? Because if you believe it's blue it has to remain blue. Like so many people your views and beliefs are unquestionable - even in the face of historical and factual shortcomings. We might agree that it's possible the an unregulated system would work and correct itself if in fact risk was tied to reward and there was accountability. Unfortunately, not only was the risk transferred, there was no accountability at the primary level, and the secondary level was bailed out. Nothing capitalist about any of that.
Ultimately the taxpayers got stuck with the bill for all the misuse of an unregulated system without accountability at the primary level. And the debt of the country is a trillion dollars more than it was. It's essentially a transfer of wealth from from the country and it's taxpayers to the participants.
Amos
-
Let's imagine we are a free country: these companies would've failed, and all the people who made those bad decisions would've been left unemployed. The companies which did not make those decisions, or did it to a lesser extent, would have survived, and eventually they would have taken over most of the business that belonged to the failed companies.
Do you agree so far?
If you do, what makes you think that these companies, which survived precisely because they haven't made the same mistakes, would now suddenly start behaving exactly like the ones that failed?
As far as your statement that "Unregulated the industry will do what it just did all over again.", are you really ready to stand by the assertion that the market is "unregulated"? What if I mention a single regulation, which by definition would negate your statement?
And finally, and more importantly than anything else: Who should regulate this industry (made up of free individuals trading voluntarily), and by what right?
Jake - the originating lenders (like Countrywide) did not fail. The secondary market (which was relying on the information from the originating lenders and the appraisers and the industry at large) is where the failures (could have) occurred (had the bailouts not occurred). Do you not see this an an inherent flaw in the system?
The regulations that are required involve lending standards (to prevent the originators from writing bad loans - for example a standard % for every loan to value ratio).
Amos
-
No. It was regulations that led mortgage brokers to take a bigger risk than they otherwise would. Given the manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve and regulations such as the Community Reinvestment Act, banks and other loaners had to deal with borrowers who could not actually afford to pay back the loans. In other words, it was not the profit motive that led mortgage brokers to take the risk that housing prices would always go up in value, it was regulations that led to the increase in demand that would not have been there had those regulation not existed. In a capitalist system, the profit motive is good, but all markets reach a saturation point where the industry is no longer as viable as it had been in the past. That is, due to the artificial demand brought about by regulations, far more houses where built than could be sold on the market, which led to the downturn in the real estate markets. Had the government not interfered, this supply meets demand ration would have happened more gradually, and home owner and builders could have taken account of the fact that their homes would not always increase in value over time.
As in your other posts, you are trying to take the position that selfishness and the profit motive are bad. They are not. It is the glory of man that he can earn more money year over year if he has the right skill set, and if he can find people to pay him. In other words, greed is good -- it is good, virtuous even, to want more and more out of life.
Again,you are coming from your altruist background and claiming that living and acting for profit is immoral, and that the bursting of the housing market proves this. You are wrong about altruism and you are thus wrong about greed. You've got it backwards, as no regulations would mean that the market would stabilize on its own; with regulations, especially their attempts at keeping housing prices higher than the market will bare, the housing market will take a very long time to level out where supply and demand can function properly.
Thomas,
I have no idea what my post has to do with altruism or my blog - can you please spare us all and beat that dead horse in private?
In the example I gave above, risk was clearly not tied to reward because of the secondary mortgage market and the ability to write bad paper and then sell that paper which eliminated (and transferred) the initial risk. Can you explain how this system unregulated would correct that? Or are you saying that a failure to tie risk and reward in a capitalist system is acceptable?
Additionally, you entirely fail to address the built in incentives to raise interest rates and prices on the part of the real estate and mortgage brokers. These both increased value artificially and decreased the likelihood people who took the loans could pay them back. The artificial demand is also created in my example by an ability to lend to people who should not otherwise qualify for a loan - i.e. writing bad loans intentionallty with the understanding that the originators did not have to maintain the risk. How does a lack of regulation fix this? Or does it not need to be fixed?
Amos
-
As person with some first hand knowledge of the mortgage meltdown, I am going to say that some regulation is a necessity. Here's why:
The parties involved were the Originating Lenders, Mortgage Brokers, Appraisers, Real Estate Brokers and the Secondary Mortgage Market.
Originating Lenders (like Countrywide) made money in points - that is a % of the loan they wrote. They only made money if they wrote and closed the loan. The bigger the loan the bigger the points.
Mortgage brokers also made money if the deal closed. Also on a % of the loan (or a share of the points). So they too made more money at a higher sale price. Mortgage brokers also made more money based upon a higher interest rate - 1/4 % point increase in the rate could equate to a 1% fee from the originating lender. So there was incentive for the sale of loans with higher interest rates.
Appraisers worked with mortgage brokers to make sure that appraisal values were in line with the amounts of the loan (it's implied by the loan amount and appraisers that wanted to get referrals from mortgage brokers necessarily had to appraise homes at or above the loan amount).
The CEO's of the originating lenders (and the management) made money by bundling and selling their mortgages on the secondary mortgage market. As a result the quality of the loan was irrelevant to them - they needed volume to make money. The parties buying bundled mortgages were relying on the quality of the work of the people below (including the appraisers who were motivated to appraise at levels above actual value). When the Originating Lenders sold the loans they transferred any exposure they had and got to keep the points they obtained at the closing. So it really didn't matter what they wrote - as long as the loans closed. What's more the CEO's were getting huge bonuses based upon volume - and they knew when the bubble burst they could walk away (and they did).
Real Estate Brokers intentionally set the prices high to get a bigger commission - driving demand when otherwise unqualified buyers got loans and driving up the home prices artificially.
As a result of all of the above, the originating lenders were able to close more loans at a higher interest rates. They sold many loans that they knew people could not maintain to make a higher profit. Also, no income verified loans and no money down loans with closing costs built in were becoming common place
For all the reasons above it didn't matter what the Originating Lenders were writing - all the parties simply required the loans close.
In essence a lot of people made a lot of money and these are the same people who caused the real estate bubble and the collapse.
The only way to stop what happened from happening again is to somehow change this system so that the risk is tied to the reward and the people who are borrowing are actually qualified - both of which require regulation. Unregulated the industry will do what it just did all over again.
Comments?
-
Define "no choice".
Under your (implied) definition, we are all inevitably slaves to reality because we all must eat, drink, sleep, breathe, and poop just to stay alive, and reality doesn't pay us a "fair" wage for all of this work. The force presupposed by slavery is, exclusively, man-made force, NOT the requirements of reality that may lead us to take a job that *you* deem "unfair" by some undefined means.
If there is *man-made* force (i.e. violence) that drive you into a specific form of work, *that* is slavery. But if no one is threatening you with violence, there is no slavery nor possibility of slavery. You remain free to choose what you will do--whether you will take a job or relocate or find some uninhabited stretch of land or chase down a deer and eat its raw meat. You don't properly have the option to force other men to provide you some "minimum" level of sustenance because these men may not even exist or have sustenance to provide you. Morality doesn't start by assuming "other people have stuff, therefore they must give me stuff", because what possible use is such morality to you if you find yourself alone on a desert island? Are you going to complain that you're a slave because you now can't choose whether to have a coconut or a hamburger and the corals aren't providing you with a "fair" wage?
What a crock. A proper morality covers all possible situations, it doesn't start philosophizing in midstream talking about "employment" and "wages" as though they were primaries of existence--both are derivatives of derivatives and thus not fundamental conditions for determining the moral status of *anything*.
I accept your position that without force or violence that slavery is impossible. But then you have to define force and violence in order for me to understand at what level someone is a slave. Isn't the man who can't get any job other than grave digging "forced" to work as a grave digger?
-
This is plain silly because it rests on the premise that the welfare of the worker is the purpose of employment--it is not. You hire someone because hiring someone makes your business more productive, no other reason. Your proposal is also completely ignorant of the forces that set wages and prices.
EVERYONE has complete choice of employment regardless of the number of "employers" in their immediate vicinity. They can employ their skills by going to work for one of those employers, or they can go to work for themselves in one capacity or another, or they can sit around on their butt. They can even relocate and look for other employers if they want to--any employer on earth is potentially their employer.
As for a "fair" wage--the wages offered by the employer are inherently "fair". If you don't like them, don't work for him. If they're below what people can earn for themselves via applying their skills elsewhere, that employer will have to raise the offered wages or close their business. If they're above what the employer can afford, they'll go broke and have to close their business.
Setting a "fair" wage apart from the individual interests of the people involved is no more or less than economic suicide, as many rational economists have shown. The end result of a "minimum" or "living" wage is unemployment--those who would be willing to work for less than the minimum wage are not allowed to offer employers their cheaper services. Employers who can't afford to pay the higher wages cut staff.
As explained in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: if prices for labor are left free, they tend toward the level where everyone who seeks employment can find it.
The *return* on your work does not depend on how much *money* you get, but on the general level of economic wealth enjoyed in the world, and mandates for a given "wage" don't increase *total wealth*. When there is a vast abundance of wealth due to various labor-saving improvements, the same amount of work gets you a greater return. When there's basically no wealth because people live by digging in the dirt, you are left with no option but endless backbreaking labor just to fill your stomach. This is a metaphysical issue, not a man-made one, and men cannot fix via decree the *fact* that if there's no food then starvation is our fate--they can only go about producing food. The "fairness" you cry for is nothing more or less than the attempt to wish or magic away metaphysical facts, when the proper thing to do is to leave men *alone* so they can go about *dealing* with those facts without your "wishing" getting in the way.
Jennifer
You have shifted focus from the condition of the laborer to the functionality and productivity of the system and the business (and by default the employer). I am not advocating a fair wage (or "crying" for fairness). You seem to have predisposed opinions and you are over-looking the question. I am simply stating (as a point of contention) that at some point a wage below subsistence without a real choice is slavery. Do you disagree with this? If so why?
Slavery makes a "business" more productive as well. I don't see how what sets a wage or how a wage is set is relevant TO MY QUESTION. What is relevant is the actual rate of the wage itself and the lack of a choice for a particular laborer. Can this ever happen in a capitalist system - you appear to say "no" because if it's working to perfection everyone should be able to get a job at a fair wage. However, the fact that everyone can find work does not equate to a real choice - I don't like digging graves, but if that was all that was available and they paid me less than basic subsistence (in my view) I would be a slave. Do you disagree?
Finally, whether or not any laborer could find themselves faced with a lack of a real choice at a level of wage which is above subsistence in a capitalist system is unquestioned. Currently in the US we are facing double digit unemployment (although we don't have a true Laissez-faire capitalist system. And whatever we have is currently being hijacked and destroyed by the current band of private and government thieves and crooks).
Amos
What is a "real choice" and a ""fair" wage"?Having limited options for employment and having someone put a gun to your head and telling you to toil around are different things. Slavery isn't just having limited options available to you, it's somebody initiating physical coercion against you to steal your time(labor) and wealth.
Agreed. we would need some definition to really answer the question. Suppose the only available jobs were grave digging at a rate of wage which was actually below the poverty level (or a real level of subsistence). What say yee? Slave? Or Free Man?
-
Well, there are two very different responses to that.
First, let me accept your terms, with rage being an irrational behavior. That does not change my earlier comment. Since you quoted Rand, I was pointing out that Rand was referring specifically to evasion. She was not referring to all non-rational behavior as one class, nor was she referring to "instinct" (if it is something real, then it would be only one category of non-rational behavior).
By mentioning rage, you're basically asking: "What about this other type of non-rational behavior?" Well, what of it? For the sake of argument, let's say there are 5 categories of non-rational behavior, and that evasion is one such category. I was pointing out that Rand was referring to evasion, not to any of the other non-rational behaviors.
Secondly, I don't accept the characterization of rage as not being based on rational thought. That is not an essential. It may, or it may not. Surely there are times when it is very reasonable to be angry, and times when it is completely unreasonable. Not only are emotions often reasonable, but they are also an essential part of human nature. Emotions are an essential part of the mechanism by which we savor life, enjoy it, and value it. Negative emotions are also useful, just as it is useful when our skin feels pain and we know we must act.
Why would rage have a rational component in humans but not in animals?:
Man and the higher animals, especially the primates, have some few instincts in common … similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude and magnanimity; they practise deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humour… ‘The Descent of Man’, published 1871 (2nd ed., 1874) by Charles Darwin; Ch. 3
-
I think you're missing the point. You're so caught up in your theory of instinctual behavior in humans that you do not see the meaning of what people actually try to communicate with you because you interpret what they say according to your theory that human beings have instincts (which no one here agrees with).
Text is kinda hard to read tones from, so I'll just add this is said in a nice tone. I'm trying to point out something helpful to you.
Human beings do not have instinct at all, they do not have automatic knowledge. We have a bunch of reflexes, automatic sensations, and emotions that arise automatically as calculations based on our subconscious ideas. Why is this not an instinct? Because those ideas did not come to be in your mind from mother-earth. They are there because at some point in your life you put them there. Even the most simple example about food - the sensation of hunger alone needs to be learned to be associated with food. In other words, at some point as a baby and child you learned the connection between hunger and food. And as an adult, whenever you're hungry you immediately think of food. This association is not an instinct, but a result of previous learning.
To explain more how emotions come from ideas; Humans obviously have automatic emotional mechanisms. We feel sad when we lose a value, we feel happy when we achieve a value, we feel angry at injustice. So far this is all automatic. But notice that different people feel emotions in response to different things. One man can see a dog and feel affection and another person can feel fear (whereas if it was an instinct all humans would react the same way). The reason for this is because people judge their environment differently. One man got bitten by a dog, and therefore fears dogs, another had a loyal pet-dog and is thus fond of dogs. So the emotion they feel, though calculated quickly and automatically, is based on their subconscious ideas (not on some instinct).
So now to attend to your question: since a man does not have instincts, his only way of survival is to think and learn the nature of reality. If you have ever seen the show "Survivorman" on the Science channel, you'll see this clearly. Even to catch simple prey or build himself a shelter to make it through the night, the guy has to think so much and know so much, that it becomes clear how without reason it is practically impossible to survive. There is no instinct there to save him. Just pure thinking (and acting accordingly).
Granted, after you have learned something, after investing some thought into it, it can become a habit. And then you don't need to think so much every time you do that action.
But without that initial process of thinking and learning, you'd be lost. And in every day life, the amount of things we need to think about in order to succeed at a task is above what we have already automatized. So without being rational it is not possible to survive.
Hope I was helpful. Good Luck.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Without getting in to the specifics of your post, first I don't disagree with much of what you say. Obviously survival changes when reason is entered in to the equation. Second, most Evolutionary psychologists agree that animals have a predisposition for numerous instincts (stealing, hoarding, killing, selfish behavior, reproductive, numerous emotions (fears)), and that as humans so do we. If your premise is wrong (humans do not have instincts) than your conclusions are wrong.
I find it hard to believe that any rational person could think that animals come hard wired, that evolution is real, that we evolved, and yet that somehow we were un-wired as a result of an ability to become rational creatures.
-
I would agree that capitalism is not a system of slavery provided that people have a real choice of employment and that they are paid a "fair" wage in relation to the amount and skill of their labor.
However, even under a capitalist system, a total lack of choice and a failure to pay a fair wage would place labor under the umbrella of slave labor.
From a historical standpoint - slaves have had no other choice in their work and have been paid less than a fair wage for their labor (i.e. minimal subsistence).
Any opinions?
Is a minimum wage worker unable to make their bills who can not find another more preferable job in a capitalist system a salve?
Does slavery need one need to be forced in to a particular job or is the mere fact that a choice is lacking result in slavery provided less than a fair wage is paid?
-
http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/01/04/wha...want-you-to-see
On Israel and Gaza:
If you would kindly review the video and then tell me under what circumstances it's morally okay to kill innocent children and women in a conflict and why, it would be greatly appreciated.
Also, can anyone tell me the objectivst point of view? Under what circumstances is the killing of innocent parties as a result of a need to protect one's own existence ever justified?
In either of the above questions we MUST assume some of (and not all of) the people killed in Gaza are in fact innocent (answers which include things like "they are all terrorists" will be ignored).
I am not implying a specific opinion here (so please no personal attacks), I am simply asking a few questions concerning current events.
Thanks.
Amos
-
That is because there is such a thing as unearned guilt. She is probably operating under the mistaken premise that she is obligated in some way to save the stranger at her expense. This is not too hard to understand since many people probably tell her that her life is not worth as much as the next guy's and that the ultimate "good" is to give your life for another. What a horrible and shameful premise to have to live with.
However, not knowing more context, which you don't seem to think matters, it's difficult to tell. One has to fill in way too many blanks in your question to make any answer meaningful. You see, no one ever faces a dilemma like that in the vacuum you create with your scenario. You will never understand many of the answers you are being given until you realize that.
Gotcha - Adding contect:
She's an Objectivist who thinks her life is more valuable than any other and her secondary value is her unborn baby - at the second she hears his screams she fells compelled to run in and save him. Impossible? If not than (as an objectivist) why does she do this? what's the source of her motivation?
-
I think the only way to decide upon a course of action in any matter is by analyzing the available information. In matters such as war our main source of information is history.
What, in human history, leads you to believe that appeasement or restraint against an enemy who is ideologically conditioned to attack you (and is in fact attacking you at the present time), is the right course of action? When has such an enemy been stopped, unless they were facing the certain knowledge that any attack would mean their total destruction?
These calls for restraint, coming from Europe and America are completely baseless. Not a single western politician has offered a single rational argument to why preserving the status-quo is in Israel's best interest. Their only argument is the threat of withholding aid (from America), and cutting off trade (from Europe), and that may work to convince Israel, but it is the most vile tactic to use against an ally (to protect an enemy), the most self-defeating act they could perform. I'd say it is time for Israel to call their bluff, and prove once and for all that both the Europeans bureaucrats and the American politicians are powerless to carry out such absurd threats.
As far as the Arabs are concerned, what they think is completely irrelevant: they live in dictatorships, and their dictators are fully aware of the consequences of attacking Israel, so they will never do it.
Jaek
One rational argument would be that stability and not instability is in the interests of the United States (but not necessarily in the interests of Israel). Of course no politician in America is going to say "he it's all about us, so cut that out".
How is this bombing solving the problem again? Because i think you are correct, in the world view of kill or be killed, elimination (and not suppression) of your enemy is the only logical conclusion one can reach. Worked for the US via an few atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. What do you say Jake - it's only 1.5 million people?
Amos
-
Voluntary slavery defies the definition of slavery as pointed out in the original post. If I -want- to haul the rocks up the pyramid for free, I am not a slave. (Just an idiot.) You can't be a volunteer slave just like you can't be a bird and a rock. Individual rights. Capitalism is moral because it allows human beings to coexist for mutual benefit without the use of force.
If you have no choice but to haul the rocks up the pyramid and all they will pay you in return is a cup of water and piece of bread for every 1000 rocks you haul - this would be slavery. Slavery involves the elimination of choice and an unfair wage.
Capitalism is only moral while choice and a fair wage are inherent in the system. When those leave then it becomes slavery.
-
I encountered this attempt to equate capitalism with slavery today:
My response follows:
Incorrect. You've confused a definition with a single characteristic of a concept. A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the entities subsumed under a concept; a definition identifies the characteristics common to these entities, setting the concept apart from all others.
Now, the definition you attempted to provide is not sufficient to define slavery - i.e., it does not sufficiently identify the characteristics common among slaves, and set them apart from other concepts, such as "tree" or "car" -, and is thus not a definition of slavery.
It is one aspect of slavery, but not a defining aspect, in the same way that "red" is an aspect of "apple", but you could not rightly say, "An apple is anything red."
I believe I sufficiently rebutted his post, but would like to know if I correctly identified the error in his argument, and whether I explained his faulty reasoning clearly enough.
Slavery involves the subjugation of other individuals for one's personal benefit. It would not ordinarily be assigned to workers in any system of production in which the worker's had a viable choice of work and were able to obtain a "fair" wage based upon the labor they offered and the level of skill which they provided. Since the definition of "fair" is subjective, it's difficult, but not impossible, to identify slavery in every instance. If capitalism resulted, for any individual, in a lack of a choice and an unfair wage, then irregardless of whether someone was paid something, I would classify that as slavery.
-
The bottom line is this: in the context of your whole life (which is the only context in which values apply), your child is obviously a lesser value than your whole life, unless your child is your whole life (then he is an equal value). However, nothing is a bigger value than your life, because values exist only in the context of one individual's life. They don't exist in the context of a group(like your family), in which individual lives are assigned values depending on the importance of that individual to the group. In such a context you could discuss which life is more important (you or your child), but that's not what "values" mean, in Ayn Rand's view.
That (your second paragraph) then sounds like a rational argument against risking your life to save your child. I don't agree with it. Some have argued that life and survival aren't the same thing; others -I too- have said that survival is a primary choice you make, which is always required in order to achieve any purpose, and choosing death is the -sometimes rational- end of all values.
One rule that we should all agree to is to not apply the concept of values, except in the context of one individual's life, with that context's existence (the survival of that individual) being automatically the primary condition of the existence of the values. In other words, a child is a value to you only if you exist. Once you die, your world of values is over.
A statement such as "my child is a higher value to me than me" is a logical contradiction.
A statement such as "there are higher values than ourselves" is worse than that, since it leaves room for anything to be declared as the object of the value (the standard by which we judge values). While Ayn Rand defined my standard of values as "their importance to me", a statement which doesn't specify the object of the values as the individual himself allows for that object to be anything and anyone. (God, the President, etc.) If you were to build an ethical system on that, you'd end up with all sorts of unwanted consequences and conflicts of interest between individuals.
Jake - I am so confused by your post. So please excuse me if these questions sound dumb:
How could death be the rational end of all values if value is only relevant in the context of being alive?
Also, are you saying that a belief that one's child is actually a higher value is irrational or just contradictory given what the definition of "value" actually is?
As I really don't understand, can you succinctly tell me what "value" means in Ayn Rand's view?
Thanks.
Amos
Altruism Hard Wired In the Brain?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052701056.html
If this is true than being self-interested would seem to make inherent biology a contradiction. Any one have an opinion of (if this were true) how it would affect Rand's arguments concerning the nature of humans?