The Standard of Proof for Honesty

[MisterSwig]

What exactly is the standard of proof regarding honesty that you seek -- how do you arrive at / discover / objectively justify that standard?

To answer this question, let's first understand what we mean by an honest person. In her 1946 article Textbook of Americanism, Ayn Rand described the difference between an honest person and a collectivist: "The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means." And on page 268 of OPAR, Peikoff writes:

The man who fakes reality believes that he or others can profit thereby. The honest man does not believe it. He does not seek to obtain any value by means of deception, whether of himself or of others. In Ayn Rand's words, he recognizes "that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud..."

Put in my own words: an honest man chooses to live in harmony with the facts. This, I think, is our standard of proof. We must demonstrate that our subject consistently chooses to live in harmony with the facts.

How do we achieve this standard? By comparing our subject's words and actions with each other and with reality. If our subject says that he did something, and then we find out that he did, in fact, do it, then that is a point in his favor. If our subject holds a particular philosophical belief, and that belief is consistent with reality, then that is another point in his favor. If we ask him why he holds a particular belief, and his reason is logical, then that is another point for him. If the belief is inconsistent with reality, and you point this out, and then he agrees with you and changes his mind, then that is also a point in his favor--a big point. Depending on the fundamental importance of the words and actions that are in harmony with reality, you can evaluate these points as greater or lesser indications of the man's honesty. If he admits to his evangelical parents that he is an atheist, then that might be a huge point in his favor. If he tells you that he was the one who broke your vase while you were away, then that is also a big point in his favor, but maybe not such a big deal as admitting one's atheism to one's religious parents. If he tells you that his real middle name is Skywalker, because his parents were Star Wars fanatics, then that is not such a major point of honesty, but it's still a point.

A fundamentally honest person will, over time, continually demonstrate their honesty in all sorts of ways. It is your job, as the moral judge, to tally up these points as best you can, and to determine the weight and importance of each bit of evidence, in relation to the standard of proof. You should look for proof that the subject consciously devotes himself to being honest. Does he "mean what he says" and does he "know what he means"? Due to the often difficult nature of moral evaluation, you might not be able to identify the exact moment where you have achieved your standard of proof. But, after awhile, if you do your job, then the evidence will be so overwhelming that you will no longer be able to think of a valid reason for questioning your conclusion, and you will finally be certain.

Moral evaluation is so complex that I don't know if I can break the above process down any further without tackling a specific and detailed example. I'll save that task for a later post.

[jws1776]

Great post.....looking forward to the responses. I thought the one regarding judging people with respect to their honesty, etc was really interesting.

Moral evaluation seems really complex, especially with respect to intimate relationships where honesty is often expected if not required.

I was wondering what thoughts anyone had regarding The Standard Proof for Honesty and / or judging people when they are younger (18-30) vs. older (31---). I have found that if I qualify someone as "honest" or moral and they are in their late twenties or older that their established moral behavior is likely to continue along the same path, whereas when I was younger and knew people of the same age, that if they seemed honest at the time, the possibility of finding out they changed as they got older became apparent and vice versa, if someone was not necessarily honest but I kept dealing with them, by the time they got older they saw the flaws in their behavior and made the necessary corrections and turned out to be great people and good friends. So does the age of a person have an factor in how one would judge them and decide whether or not to trust or deal with them anymore, and is there a higher probability that negative behavior exhibited by someone in their earlier years can change as opposed to someone that is older not being able to change much at all?

jws1776

[MisterSwig]

I was wondering what thoughts anyone had regarding The Standard Proof for Honesty and / or judging people when they are younger (18-30) vs. older (31---) ... does the age of a person have an factor in how one would judge them and decide whether or not to trust or deal with them anymore, and is there a higher probability that negative behavior exhibited by someone in their earlier years can change as opposed to someone that is older not being able to change much at all?

I don't think that age is relevant to whether someone is honest. But of relevance might be the subject's level of intellectual maturity; and also of relevance might be the duration of the subject's honesty or dishonesty. It is true that older people are generally more intellectually mature than younger people, but you cannot count on that being the case, especially when you find yourself knee-deep in a culture that regularly disrespects reason. Also, it is true that older people have generally persisted in their honesty or dishonesty (and have made a great habit of such behavior) much longer than a younger person, but you also cannot count on that being the case, because it might be that the older person has only recently started telling lies (or chosen the path of honesty), while a younger person has been honest (or dishonest) his whole life so far. The fact is that people have free will and can change. So, while the statistics might not be in favor of an old, church-going religious woman converting to atheism, that doesn't mean that it can't happen, given the right circumstances and the right choices made.

[lex_aver]

I don't think that man needs a proof of his honesty. It may be that I misunderstand what you mean by 'proof', but proof to whom? Does man have to demonstrate to others that he is honest? Abolutely not, honesty is not a matter of consensus. In Ayn Rand's words, "Honest men are never touchy about a matter of being trusted".

If you mean proof to oneself, then I really don't see how anything apart from introspection can prove that. If I find myself evading, then I am dishonest. If I do not evade reality, then I am honest.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think that man needs a proof of his honesty.

You misunderstand the question -- what proof is required to judge another man as honest? It would be irrational to conclude that a man is honest, based on no evidence.

[lex_aver]

Alright.

I think man's honesty must be judged by precendent: if he consistently acts honestly, then I can conclude that he is honest. I can think of no more reliable proof, since subject's own words are unreliable if his honesty is in question and singular honest action is unreliable because it doesn't say anything about his premises. By observing subject for some time you can determine if he acts honestly consistently.

It is harder to determine wether he acts honestly on priniciple - I think you can only determine that by determining his whole philosophy, and I think you can only know it if he speaks exposes his basic premises.

Edited October 5, 2007 by lex_aver

[DMR]

In Ayn Rand's words, he recognizes "that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud..."

I have always found this sort of proof for honesty unconvincing. Why is cash obtained by fraud less valuable than cash obtained by honesty? If Rand wants to say that the cost of being dishonest outweighs the value of the cash, that's at least plausible, but it's a different argument. Cash is cash, and a given quantity of cash buys a given quantity of goods regardless of how you got it.

Some people who routinely engage in dishonest behavior often seems on the surface to have gotten used to it and to no longer be troubled by their dishonesty. Objectivists often claim that they must be suffering the psychological effects of their dishonesty deep inside, and while I don't claim that they are wrong to make this claim, I know of no empirical evidence to support it.

Instead, I tend to argue as follows: while it's easy to imagine artificial scenarios in which we can profit materially from dishonesty, these scenarios are usually either unrealistic or depend on there being some existing immorality in the world and responding to it (for example, cheating on your taxes). In realistic scenarios in a free society, attempts to profit via dishonesty can go wrong in too many ways for us to deal with effectively in general. While individuals may occasionally succeed materially via dishonesty in a free society, in general the most reliable strategy for material success is honesty.

Go ahead, tell me what a lousy excuse for an Objectivist I am.

[DavidOdden]

Why is cash obtained by fraud less valuable than cash obtained by honesty?

What does cash represent? Why is is a value? To say that cash is cash is like saying a tennis ball is a tennis ball -- it's uninformative. In fact, cash does represent something other than itself. And given what it does represent, cash obtained by fraud is not a value, for a rational man. That is because, above all, a rational man accepts the is / ought relationship -- a man ought to act in accordance to how he is, according to mans identity.

[DMR]

What does cash represent? Why is is a value? To say that cash is cash is like saying a tennis ball is a tennis ball -- it's uninformative. In fact, cash does represent something other than itself.

I'm not sure what money supposedly represents (I vaguely remember an exposition of it in AS), but in any case I hold that money does not derive its value by representing something, but by being something. If so, then what, if anything, money represents is irrelevant to its value. Thus, we might as well phrase the question as "Why is a tennis ball obtained by fraud less valuable than a tennis ball obtained by honesty?" A tennis ball has value because you can play tennis with it, and you can play tennis with a stolen tennis ball. Because of this, a rational man will choose honestly obtained tennis balls because of the overriding value of honesty, not because there is something wrong with stolen tennis balls AS tennis balls.

[Marc K.]

Cash is cash, and a given quantity of cash buys a given quantity of goods regardless of how you got it.

But this isn't true. Stolen cash can buy you nothing except time in jail. You don't own the stolen cash or anything you buy with it.

Objectivists often claim that they must be suffering the psychological effects of their dishonesty deep inside, and while I don't claim that they are wrong to make this claim, I know of no empirical evidence to support it.

Really, no evidence? Have you ever been dishonest or observed someone who was?

In realistic scenarios in a free society, attempts to profit via dishonesty can go wrong in too many ways for us to deal with effectively in general. While individuals may occasionally succeed materially via dishonesty in a free society, in general the most reliable strategy for material success is honesty.

This is called pragmatism -- the "principle" of being unprincipled -- any "success" in living an unprincipled life is achieved by pure chance.

Go ahead, tell me what a lousy excuse for an Objectivist I am.

Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?

[DMR]

But this isn't true. Stolen cash can buy you nothing except time in jail. You don't own the stolen cash or anything you buy with it.

Stolen cash can land you in jail if you are caught, but if you aren't caught it works as well as earned cash. The risk of being caught is one of the things I included under "the cost of being dishonest."

Really, no evidence? Have you ever been dishonest or observed someone who was?

I have, and it has affected me negatively, but I am a sample of one. I meant evidence of a more scientific sort.

This is called pragmatism -- the "principle" of being unprincipled -- any "success" in living an unprincipled life is achieved by pure chance.

I don't see why you're jumping to calling me a pragmatist because I evaluate principles in terms of how well they work for human beings in real life. Isn't the point of principles to further human life? So-called "Pragmatism" is the abandonment of principles in order to further your life. This is mistaken, but it is not mistaken because it calls for the abandonment of principles, with principles seen as having some sort of inherent value. It is mistaken because principles are actually good for you--they are pragmatic.

Any success achieved by anyone, living by any principles or none at all (if in fact the idea of "living by no principles" is coherent), is in part a matter of chance. The question is, what way of living sets the odds in your favor? I hold that by adopting the sort of principles advocated by Objectivism, one gets the best odds.

Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?

No, that was just a joke. But I do not consider myself a principled opponent of Objectivism either. I am unsure if I agree with everything that Objectivism proposes, and since Objectivism is a closed system, I am reluctant to declare myself an Objectivist until I have a better understanding of it.

[DavidOdden]

I'm not sure what money supposedly represents (I vaguely remember an exposition of it in AS), but in any case I hold that money does not derive its value by representing something, but by being something.

From AS p. 382, salient points emphasized: "Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce". Money represents a trade, a voluntary exchange of value. Money which is a tool of force and the repudiation of the trader principle is not a value; it is not a thing that a rational man would seek to gain or keep, because it repudiates that which money does represent.

[intellectualammo]

I don't see why you're jumping to calling me a pragmatist because I evaluate principles in terms of how well they work for human beings in real life.(bold mine)

That is precisely why in the boldfaced.

According to pragmatism, the standard of truth, in morality as in science, is expediency. Ethical ideas, like all others, are to be accepted only so long as they continue to "work." Thus "Thou shalt not kill [or commit mass murder]" has the same status as "Twice two makes four": both are valid only so long as they are useful. Ethics, therefore, is mutable; virtue and vice, like truth and falsehood, are not "rigid" but relative; what counts is not abstract principles but "results." Again, by a somewhat different route, there are no moral absolutes.(bold mine)

Stolen cash can land you in jail if you are caught, but if you aren't caught it works as well as earned cash.(bold mine)

That's pragmatism. Ever hear of the prudent predator principle?

No, that was just a joke. But I do not consider myself a principled opponent of Objectivism either. I am unsure if I agree with everything that Objectivism proposes, and since Objectivism is a closed system, I am reluctant to declare myself an Objectivist until I have a better understanding of it.

That's the best thing to do.

Edited October 13, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DMR]

That's pragmatism.

If that's pragmatism, then there is no alternative to pragmatism.

Consider it this way: why should you adopt abstract principles at all? Since for the Objectivist, human life is the ultimate standard, all principles must be judged by whether or not they are consistent with human nature. But this is just another way of saying that those principles work. If you fail to invoke life as the ultimate standard, and therefore the means of evaluating principles, you are committed to the idea that principles have intrinsic value which is contrary to Objectivism (besides being really stupid).

Ever hear of the prudent predator principle?

I believe this is the question of why I ought to respect the rights of others if doing so would conflict with my self-interest. To which I would reply "Because otherwise the dingyfaddles will frobnicate" (Ask a silly question, you get a silly answer).

Seriously, the answer is that almost every analysis which suggests that violating the rights of others promotes one's self interest leaves something out. For example, we might come up with an artificial scenario of a one-shot transaction and ask whether it is rational to cheat the other man, ignoring the fact that in real life there are no one-shot transactions, and any small gain you make by screwing one guy over is going to be massively outweighed by all the losses you take as a result of screwing that guy over from him and everyone else. The point is that for real human beings in real life, being predatory is imprudent. This knowledge has been encoded into principles which enjoin predatory behavior.

[intellectualammo]

But this is just another way of saying that those principles work.

In that sense, yes, but I'd much rather say how they "apply" not "work". Whether or not the principles "work" was figured out already when they were abstracted and made into principles.

The point is that for real human beings in real life, being predatory is imprudent. This knowledge has been encoded into principles which enjoin predatory behavior.

Exactly. Nice and succinctly put.

[Marc K.]

Stolen cash can land you in jail if you are caught, but if you aren't caught it works as well as earned cash.

If you fail to invoke life as the ultimate standard, and therefore the means of evaluating principles, you are committed to the idea that principles have intrinsic value which is contrary to Objectivism

Do you see any conflict between these two statements? Which one is true?

Hint: refer to DavidOdden's post #12.

[DMR]

Do you see any conflict between these two statements? Which one is true?

There is, as far as I can tell, no conflict betwen the statements, and both are true. Certain conclusions which one might draw from both statements might be inconsistent, but I am not drawing those conclusions.

[Marc K.]

There is, as far as I can tell, no conflict betwen the statements, and both are true. Certain conclusions which one might draw from both statements might be inconsistent, but I am not drawing those conclusions.

In one you promote the idea of intrinsic value in the next you rail against it. Again, which is true?

[DMR]

In one you promote the idea of intrinsic value in the next you rail against it.

I'm pretty sure I don't. How do you see me as being committed to intrinsicism by my statement about money?

[Marc K.]

How do you see me as being committed to intrinsicism

I hold that money does not derive its value by representing something, but by being something.

This is the idea of intrinsic value. There is no value apart from a valuer.

a rational man will choose honestly obtained tennis balls because of the overriding value of honesty, not because there is something wrong with stolen tennis balls AS tennis balls.

Again, you need to recognize the contradiction in your statement here. You are saying in one breath that there is value in honesty and then in the next breath you say there is nothing wrong with using stolen property.

Tennis balls have no value apart from a valuer. A tennis ball as tennis ball is of no value to someone who doesn't play tennis.

Here is what DavidOdden said:

Money represents a trade, a voluntary exchange of value. Money which is a tool of force and the repudiation of the trader principle is not a value; it is not a thing that a rational man would seek to gain or keep, because it repudiates that which money does represent.

First I would like you to acknowledge that this is the Objectivist viewpoint and that you are indeed arguing against it. If you have questions about this position then feel free to ask. However, if you acknowledge that this is the Objectivist position but you disagree with and intend to argue against it, then this discussion needs to be moved to the debate forum where you may be engaged by someone.

P.S. -- Other problems I see:

Objectivists often claim that they must be suffering the psychological effects of their dishonesty deep inside, and while I don't claim that they are wrong to make this claim, I know of no empirical evidence to support it.

If you know of no evidence to support a claim why wouldn't you claim it to be wrong?

More importantly: do you consider the evidence of your senses to be empirical evidence?

I evaluate principles in terms of how well they work for human beings in real life. Isn't the point of principles to further human life? [...] principles are actually good for you--they are pragmatic.

If principles are good for you why wouldn't you just call them moral instead of pragmatic? Do you see some dichotomy between the moral and the practical?

Any success achieved by anyone, living by any principles or none at all (if in fact the idea of "living by no principles" is coherent), is in part a matter of chance.

No. Not at all.

almost every analysis which suggests that violating the rights of others promotes one's self interest leaves something out. [emphasis added]

So in your opinion it is theoretically possible to come up with a non-emergency situation in which it would be in one's rational self interest to violate the rights of others?

There is, as far as I can tell, no conflict betwen the statements, and both are true. Certain conclusions which one might draw from both statements might be inconsistent, but I am not drawing those conclusions.

So does the fact that you avoid drawing certain conclusions negate their truth?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Or to put the money issue another way:

You are locked into a fully-stuffed bankvault. You and a billion dollars in cash. And 40 metric tons of gold (currently valued at somewhere between about a billion dollars, a bit more than 2 cubic meters). And nothing else.

You have a BIG problem. You will die of thirst and/or hunger even though you are a double billionaire.

The money has no intrinsic value. Even the gold has no intrinsic value, other than the fact that a person values it and is willing to exchange other values for it.

[DMR]

This is the idea of intrinsic value. There is no value apart from a valuer.

I was being brief in order not to have to go into points that I did not think were relevant. In the context of this conversation, the statement you quote should be interpreted as "I hold that people value money not because they recognize it to represent something, but because they recognize it to be something."

You are saying in one breath that there is value in honesty and then in the next breath you say there is nothing wrong with using stolen property.

No, I'm not. What is unclear about "there is nothing wrong with a stolen tennis ball AS tennis ball"? I capitalized "as" in order to draw attention to it, in the hopes that you would not make the error that you did. What I meant is that the qualities of a tennis ball which make it valuable to a tennis player--its particular size, weight, elasticity, etc. which make it ideal for the game of tennis--are present in a stolen tennis ball as well as an honestly obtained tennis ball. Therefore, if I would rather have an honestly obtained tennis ball than a stolen tennis ball, it cannot be because I wish to have something which is better for playing tennis. Instead, I must have a more general desire for honesty.

First I would like you to acknowledge that this is the Objectivist viewpoint and that you are indeed arguing against it...[if so], then this discussion needs to be moved to the debate forum where you may be engaged by someone.

Whether or not my view is consistent with or contrary to the Objectivist viewpoint is not a major concern of mine. If the moderators wish to move this discussion to the debate forum, I'm fine with that. If you think they should, tell them.

If you know of no evidence to support a claim why wouldn't you claim it to be wrong? More importantly: do you consider the evidence of your senses to be empirical evidence?

As I explained when asked about my own subjective experience of dishonesty, I should perhaps have said "scientific" rather than "empirical." Basically, I am willing to entertain the idea because it is consistent with my own experience, and I know of no scientific study confirming or refuting it. What I would not do would be to count on it applying to everyone.

If principles are good for you why wouldn't you just call them moral instead of pragmatic? Do you see some dichotomy between the moral and the practical?

I see no distinction. However, Objectivists often seem to act as though their motto on this matter is "We must reject the pragmatic in favor of the moral." This is as incoherent as the motto "We must reject the moral in favor of the pragmatic." In order to explicate this, I am emphasizing the practical side of principles, which never seems to get enough discussion.

No. Not at all.

Does this refer to the coherency of having no principles, or whether a success in a principled life is in part a matter of chance?

So in your opinion it is theoretically possible to come up with a non-emergency situation in which it would be in one's rational self interest to violate the rights of others?

No. What I meant was that ignoring context was the mistake I always see in such analyses. Perhaps one could come up with a flawed argument which does not ignore context but makes some other mistake whose conclusion is that it is rational to violate rights.

So does the fact that you avoid drawing certain conclusions negate their truth?

No. I was thinking of something along the following lines:

Me: "Capitalism is moral. Additionally, capitalism will most likely lead to an unequal distribution of material wealth."

A socialist: "Aha! You have made a contradiction!"

Me: "No, I haven't. Had I drawn the conclusion 'Therefore, capitalism is immoral' from my second statement, I would have, but I didn't."

Socialist: "Just because you didn't draw the conclusion doesn't mean it doesn't follow."

Me: "Of course. It doesn't follow because it doesn't follow, not because I didn't draw the conclusion."

Socialist "ZOMG i r pwned!"