Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Integration of Virtues

Rate this topic


blackdiamond

Recommended Posts

The direction this thread is taking and the questions people are asking remind me of one of the prudent predator threads. An Objectivist will state that there is no such thing as a prudent predator and that it is impossible to live as a predator.

I have participated in a number of prudent-predator discussions, and i am quite certain that this is not similar to them (besides your questionable characterisation of the prudent predator debate itself).

The pro-prudent predators reject an Objectivist principle. In this thread I am only rejecting a particular interpretation of an Objectivist principle.

The opposition will point to concrete examples such as Hitler or Mao or the perfectly smart jewel thief. The answer of course is that there is nothing to steal if someone hasn't already produced it. That the thief cannot live as a thief on principle. That the only way to live on principle is to act rationally.

And no one has denied that. [Notice that you have now qualified "to live" as "to live on principle" which is a better characterisation of the Objectivist argument in prudent-predator debates].

To the extent one lives and is happy one is acting rationally and to the extent one acts irrationally one is unhappy and dying.

And no one has denied that.

The same is true of the Objectivist virtues. Remember that rationality is the cardinal Objectivist virtue and that all the other virtues are rationality as applied to specific aspects of life.

No one has denied this either. What is being asked is whether "rationality as applied to specific aspects of life" can in fact be applied in some such specific aspects while not being applied in other specific aspects. Would you reject the existence of its application in one specific aspect if there is another specific aspect in which it is NOT applied based on your premise that this - application in one and not others - is IMPOSSIBLE?

What you are asking is: "can one be irrational and rational at the same time?" The painfully obvious answer is that a rational man would avoid this at all cost.

This "painfully obvious answer" does not answer my question at all; it only contradicts your position as I understand it. At no point have I wondered whether he should avoid this or not (he should). What I have been asking about is what your statement in fact implies: by saying "a rational man would AVOID this," you are admitting that "this" is actually POSSIBLE. How can one strive to avoid a state that is in fact impossible to exist? (It would be irrational for a rational man to strive to avoid an impossible state, don't you think?)

Before you continue hitting your straw men as Miovas is chronically wont to do, I will paste what I have already stated earlier:

My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) and that one can practice vice in one area and virtue in another area quite consistently, although such a one will obviously not be happy because the virtues ought to be integrated in practice, as they are in theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Would you reject the existence of its application in one specific aspect if there is another specific aspect in which it is NOT applied based on your premise that this - application in one and not others - is IMPOSSIBLE? [emphasis added]

You are prone to mischaracterization and it is very annoying. So before I answer the rest of your post I demand that you either support this characterization by quoting me or retract it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are prone to mischaracterization and it is very annoying. So before I answer the rest of your post I demand that you either support this characterization by quoting me or retract it.

Read my last post: Your entire (previous) post was a mis-characterisation of my argument and an attack on several straw men. I did not accuse you of doing this deliberately as I am aware that mistakes are possible. But in your very next post you feel “very annoyed” that your argument has been mischaracterised and you “demand” that this be corrected before you proceed.

I will not do that because I do not see the mischaracterization (which is why you could have just corrected me yourself and merely proceeded – like I did). If you do not wish to proceed beyond your ultimatum, then by all means don’t. Sorry, I will not submit to such an unjust "demand".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is being asked is whether "rationality as applied to specific aspects of life" can in fact be applied in some such specific aspects while not being applied in other specific aspects. Would you reject the existence of its application in one specific aspect if there is another specific aspect in which it is NOT applied based on your premise that this - application in one and not others - is IMPOSSIBLE?

My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) and that one can practice vice in one area and virtue in another area quite consistently, although such a one will obviously not be happy because the virtues ought to be integrated in practice, as they are in theory.

I wouldn't claim that it is impossible to attempt to be rational in some specific area of one's life while attempting to be irrational in another. The problem is that this is a violation of integrity, and therefore that individual is not virtuous, which means that he is not being rational. And, in the long run, he is going to have to decide which mode of operating (rational or irrational) is going to be the controlling factor of his ethical life.

As I have mentioned before, but you evidently took it to be a straw man argument, an individual is one person which means ultimately that he will have one overall operating code; it's just a question of which mode is going to win out.

It is possible for one to be so bifurcated that there is no obvious mode of operation -- say if he is a pragmatist and acts on the range of the moment for everything in his life -- but then his mode is so short-range that he has absolutely no integrity at all.

Will virtue in one area or vice in one area necessarily bleed over into other areas? Well, if he doesn't volitionally try to integrate reason into all aspects of his life, then the irrational will win out by default, because it takes no effort to be irrational. That is, if he is blatantly irrational in one aspect of his life (as opposed to being mistaken), he is going to have to effort tremendously to remain compartmentalized "rational" in that area of his life. If he can get away with being irrational, since it requires no effort and he might believe that he has gotten away with it, then why would he choose to remain rational in that one area? Why not simply be irrational across the board?

Of course, a better question is why does he decide not to be rational across the board? I mean, what's in it for him to be irrational in one area of his life?

So, can it be done? can he be bifurcated in such a way? It's not impossible, since man has free will, but he will pay heavily for this contradiction; most likely in become irrational across the board unless he seriously takes control of his life decisions and choses rationality across the board.

In other words, it's a very unstable position to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality check Thomas, people do not act the same way under all circumstances. Saying that a man is an integrated being of mind and body means you can't treat the mind and the body as separate entities. It does not mean that the mind is a machine that consistently acts the same way in every context. In fact, it takes effort to be consistently rational.

If it were only the case of "flipping the rationality switch" and BANG becoming "an integrated being of complete rationality" life would be much simpler. That is just not the way the mind works. I personally know people who completely break down under stress (i.e. need to take an immediate decision of import) that are completely honest and rational in other circumstances. Is such a person "rational"? It is hard to talk about the real world if you refuse to consider context in assessing virtues.

EDIT: Which is not to say that a person's principles, even when implicit, don't affect everything they do to some extent.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not mean that the mind is a machine that consistently acts the same way in every context. In fact, it takes effort to be consistently rational.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. I did not say nor did I imply that rationality is automatic and that all one has to do is to throw a switch in order to be rational. What I said was that if someone is blatantly irrational in some aspect of their lives, then they are not being rational. I even stated explicitly that it takes effort to become rational; in fact, that is why we praise someone who is rational, because they put forth the effort to be true to reality. Being irrational is the default position, so it is not as if one has to put forth an effort to figure out how to be irrational in some aspect of their lives, all they have to do is not think about it. To be rational, one has to think about it.

Now, are there people out there who do not give a great deal of thought to certain areas of their lives? Yes, there are; but these people are not rational; and I doubt if such people would be "fully rational" in some minor segment of their lives. It just wouldn't be in their nature to be blatantly irrational, say, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; but decide to become "totally rational" on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday.

When it comes to dealing with stress, I guess it depends on what kind of stress we are talking about. The fact that someone might not be able to handle stress well does not necessarily indicate that they are irrational. It would depend on what brought on the stress and why they felt out of control.

What I am talking about is someone being blatantly irrational in some aspect of their lives which is probably not even stressful; though I suppose if one is going to be blatantly irrational, there will be a lot of stress because such a person will be out of control during those times; but some people don't seem to care about that (being out of control of their lives that is).

Speaking of stress, I want to stress that being compartmentalized is not being rational. So that hypothetical person who is "rational" in some area of their lives, but blatantly irrational in others is not rational. In other words, one is not fully rational in one area of their lives if they are being blatantly irrational in another area of their lives; such a person is compartmentalized and is therefore not rational. That's one of the biggest flaws in some aspects of this thread.

Being rational means being rational 24 hours a day every day of the week and all year long.

If one wants to take a vacation from being rational, then one is not being rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to live a lie by having an affair on a wife one loves or staying with a woman one no longer loves will have dire consequences on a man's entire life, including his work performance. Love and sex are too important for it to be otherwise.

What is the mechanism by which this happens? What is step two below? How does this happen? There's got to be some sensible philosophical/psychological explanation for these questions.

1. Man is irrational in one aspect of his life

2. ........

3. Dire consequences and/or man becomes increasingly irrational in other areas of his life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one wants to take a vacation from being rational, then one is not being rational.

One is not rational when he is in a dreamless sleep nor is he rational while anesthetized. Should he avoid sleep or anesthetics?

I can see a case for being rational when awake, however.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good ole blackdiamond, keeping the boards busy :)

There are two "understandings" here:

1. if one cheats on his wife, he can not exhibit productiveness at work (your position).

2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position).

I think my position would be between those two understandings (assuming the statements are correct representations of the positions.)

I don't think that infidelity will necessarily mean that this particular husband will be less productive at work in the long or short term.

But black, would you agree/disagree that infidelity would necessarily prevent one's productiveness qua one's marriage from being as virtuous as it could be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there something the good Aristotle wrote in there that is specifically applicable to the question at hand? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

He does an extensive analysis and exposition of virtues. I believe that is the topic under discussion. In fact he defines and identifies virtue. For this topic, Aristotle is a good starting point.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the mechanism by which this happens? What is step two below? How does this happen? There's got to be some sensible philosophical/psychological explanation for these questions.

The mechanism by which evasion leads to destruction is given in OPAR in a section quoted in another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post. All very well put. *applause*

Thanks aequalsa. *takes a bow*

********************************************

I will not do that because I do not see the mischaracterization (which is why you could have just corrected me yourself and merely proceeded – like I did). If you do not wish to proceed beyond your ultimatum, then by all means don’t. Sorry, I will not submit to such an unjust "demand".

So you consider it unjust to have to support your argument with actual facts? How very objective of you. The reason you won't provide evidence to support your statement is because you can't, I never said what you attributed to me. For the sake of your integrity I hope that when this thread is done, and you understand your errors, you acknowledge them.

Before you continue hitting your straw men as Miovas is chronically wont to do, I will paste what I have already stated earlier:

My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) and that one can practice vice in one area and virtue in another area quite consistently, although such a one will obviously not be happy because the virtues ought to be integrated in practice, as they are in theory.

Talk about strawmen! I'm sure no one in this thread or the "Judging other people" thread has suggested that something which is open to human volition, such as virtue, is subject to deterministic control.

What I have been asking about is what your statement in fact implies: by saying "a rational man would AVOID this," you are admitting that "this" is actually POSSIBLE.

Too bad you didn't read the very next paragraph in which I not only imply that some humans try to live a contradictory lifestyle, I STATE IT EXPLICITLY. I also state what is the inevitable outcome of such irrational behavior, here it is:

Then perhaps you want to ask about those unfortunate souls who try to live this contradictory lifestyle. The answer is the same as above: to the degree that one lives a rational life they will be happy and to the degree they try to live a contradiction they will be unhappy and slowly dying.

So it is not that it is impossible (in the metaphysical sense) for one to attempt to live a contradiction. It's just that it is impossible for one to live an irrational life AND be happy, it is impossible to be irrational AND live the life of a rational animal.

This is the sense in which this argument echoes that of the "prudent predator". "Prudent predators" think it is possible to survive as an animal or live as a vegetable AND be happy.

[Notice that you have now qualified "to live" as "to live on principle" which is a better characterisation of the Objectivist argument in prudent-predator debates].

This is the cause of your problem. I haven't now qualified "to live" as "to live on principle", this is the way "to live" (for humans) is always qualified. When speaking of virtue and how to live, Objectivists always mean: "to live on principle", "to live as man", or "to live as man qua man". You seem to forget that this Forum facilitates the discussion of Objectivism, thus the context is set.

*******************************************

As an aside blackdiamond:

I see that you are leaving us. I can't say I'm sorry to see you go. I agree with Inspector that your behavior seemed rude whether that was your intent or not. The primary purpose of this forum is discussion of Objectivism. You seemed to believe that this was a debate forum.

And so long as your purpose conflicts with the stated purpose of the Forum, you are bound to be at loggerheads with many here.

The value derived from participation on this Forum comes in manifold form. Among the most important to me are learning and teaching and so long as neither of these is possible, because the other person is arguing for argument's sake, I derive little value.

This is not to say that debate is not valued here and even supported; it is -- in its place, with willing participants, following strict rules of logical argumentation. (Hmmm??? You might not like it there either. :thumbsup: ...Sorry, I guess that was a passing jab, unresistable).

Please don't take this as a lecture, just a friendly suggestion for the future.

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the mechanism by which this happens? What is step two below? How does this happen? There's got to be some sensible philosophical/psychological explanation for these questions.

1. Man is irrational in one aspect of his life

2. ........

3. Dire consequences and/or man becomes increasingly irrational in other areas of his life

Hi Alethiometry:

I agree that there must be some reasonable explanation and I'm not saying I know what the mechanism is. But one way to shed light on the issue is by asking yourself how you would respond to such a person and why.

(To take an extreme example to illustrate the point). Say you knew someone to be a thief (or murderer), would you trust them to act virtuously in any aspect of life? If yes, how and under what circumstances. If no, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the extent that the linkage exists, I suppose it isn't a "step 2" as much as a "wider" aspect of steps 1 and 3. In other words: irrationality in one sphere, means that one is practicing irrationality, one is inculcating a habit of irrationality; rationality in another sphere does the opposite. People do not think consciously to themselves: "I'm going to be rational here, and irrational there". It is "natural" to integrate. It is natural that one's rationality in one sphere starts to make one apply that practice of rationality in other spheres. The same for irrationality. When both these exist, a person has to have some means of resolving it, by some type of evasion or compartmentalization. Even so, as long as both sides exist in the same mind, one will probably influence the other, despite one's best efforts at evasion and compartmentalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the mechanism by which this happens? What is step two below? How does this happen? There's got to be some sensible philosophical/psychological explanation for these questions.

1. Man is irrational in one aspect of his life

2. ........

3. Dire consequences and/or man becomes increasingly irrational in other areas of his life

One can't assume there even is a step two in all cases, in some cases you don't even need a second step...

Due to the inital degree of a persons irrational actions in one aspect of his life, it can lead directly to your step 3. Think: criminals, and the degree to which they are. They can experience dire consequences from just that one irrational act. That's all it takes in cases like that.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the mechanism by which this happens? What is step two below? How does this happen? There's got to be some sensible philosophical/psychological explanation for these questions.

1. Man is irrational in one aspect of his life

2. ........

3. Dire consequences and/or man becomes increasingly irrational in other areas of his life

I've recently developed some understanding of this but it might be hard to explain, so I appreciate your patience.

In sales, when someone is purchasing anything with parts or options, it is important to close the largest part first. For example, if a girl goes to buy a dress for the prom, you sell her the $400 dress first, then when she looks at shoes, spending $85 instead of $49 is easy because the scale is already raised in their mind.

With immorality I believe it happens in the same way. The process seems to be, commit some moral error, and then in the process of trying to rebuild self-esteem justify smaller crimes of other people as well as yourself. Once justified, it is easier to commit more crimes.

Another more well known circumstance where this psychology seems to exist is in weight loss and dieting. People will often put themselves on some strict diet-say carb restriction...make a mistake and eat a big piece of warm bread at dinner, and then think, "I messed up as usual...guess it doesn't matter." and then instead of getting back on track, eat 4 jumbo sized reeses peanut butter cups and a quart of haagendaz.

This allows for a negatively spiraling behaviour pattern with eating, alcoholism, or any other dishonestly motivated activity. I think the same occurs with immorality generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Inspector that your behavior seemed rude whether that was your intent or not.

Not only that, but he also grossly engaged in malevolent misinterpretations of what you said, just as he did for me. When I read you posts in this thread, the meaning was perfectly clear to me. When I saw his replies, it was like they came completely out of left field. I have no idea where a person could come up with the meanings he did for what you said. It made no sense at all. Just like what he did to me, and to other folks he's debated with.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I for one see the point you're making and don't buy into his bizarre interpretations of your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...