Using Objectivism for everyday problems

[airborne]

A few examples of some problems and how Objectivism would suggest tackling them.

Parents offer to buy you a car. Your just starting university. If you take it things will be alot easier, you can visit friends, drive to work, save time.

However, this is not your money. you haven't earned it.

Objectivism advocates "independence" so wouldn't it be moral not to accept, and work your ass off for another one? I'm sure you could somehow argue that it is moral to accept. However, what would Howard Roark do? IMO not accept, work his ass off, not see friends, then claim it is in his self-interest.

A job requires work experience in a certain field... you know this field very well and feel capable. Is it acceptable to lie on your resume? If your discovered then you wont get the job, but can look for another one. If your not the subject will not be brought up again and you will have the job

this would be moral then under Objectivism?

Your family is having a big dinner, you know that these big dinners are extremely boring and you hate being there. Do you go? If you don't there will be very offended family members who could feel very unhappy

Now this is difficult. I think Objectivism would say 'no' you don't if your not financially Dependant on your family. If you are dependent however, it would be the moral thing for you to go.

There is this expensive tech store. You go there *just* to test out the gear but know in advance you will buy the same model at another cheaper store. The expensive tech store staff is under the impression you are actually interested in buying something, this is why they're helping. Is it moral to do this? The cheaper store wont let you test, so you don't know what your getting.

Something about this one makes it harder. I don't think its immoral because there may still be the chance that they can convince you to buy something or give you a deal, although this is highly unlikely.

Edited October 15, 2007 by airborne

[KendallJ]

Hi Airborne, first off, are you just guessing at what Objectivism might lead you to in terms of an action or do you have a basic principle by which you evaluate each of these senarios? The principle would help you because you appear to be sort of just shooting from the hip.

Parents offer to buy you a car. Your just starting university. If you take it things will be alot easier, you can visit friends, drive to work, save time.

However, this is not your money. you haven't earned it.

Objectivism advocates "independence" so wouldn't it be moral not to accept, and work your ass off for another one? I'm sure you could somehow argue that it is moral to accept. However, what would Howard Roark do? IMO not accept, work his ass off, not see friends, then claim it is in his self-interest.

By this logic, then, accepting food, lodging, and any other sort of provisions from your parents would be immoral too, right? wwHRd is not really a valid principle for analysis. A better question, is why would Howard Roark do it, and what it is about his situation that is particular to his context and not yours.

Making your life easier is certainly a value to you. The question might be what woudl be of value to your parents for such a trade? I think this is perfectly moral in the right contexts. Oh, by the way, I got my mom's car when I went off to college, and I later bought it from her when I started work.

A job requires work experience in a certain field... you know this field very well and feel capable. Is it acceptable to lie on your resume? If your discovered then you wont get the job, but can look for another one. If your not the subject will not be brought up again and you will have the job

this would be moral then under Objectivism?

Honesty is not a cost benefit analysis where you weigh the risks of getting caught. There are numerous discussionis chewing this particular analysis. Just search for "prudent predator".

Your family is having a big dinner, you know that these big dinners are extremely boring and you hate being there. Do you go? If you don't there will be very offended family members who could feel very unhappy

Now this is difficult. I think Objectivism would say 'no' you don't if your not financially Dependant on your family. If you are dependent however, it would be the moral thing for you to go.

Well, this depends on your relationship with your family. Sometimes you do things you'd rather not because you value the people you're doing them for. I think Objectivism woudl say that if you don't value your family that is would not be your duty to go. Not going because you happen to not like the activity, but still valuing your family is a bit shallow in my estimation.

There is this expensive tech store. You go there *just* to test out the gear but know in advance you will buy the same model at another cheaper store. The expensive tech store staff is under the impression you are actually interested in buying something, this is why they're helping. Is it moral to do this? The cheaper store wont let you test, so you don't know what your getting.

Something about this one makes it harder. I don't think its immoral because there may still be the chance that they can convince you to buy something or give you a deal, although this is highly unlikely.

Many businesses offer services to try to promote their products and entice you to buy. These services are offered with no obligation to make a subsequent purchase. Now maybe culturally, a clerk might get pissed at you if you take up his time, and then don't purchase, but I'm not sure this is unethical, per se.

Anyway, those are my (not necessarily Objectivisms) thoughts.

[DavidOdden]

In addition to generally endorsing Kendall's comments, I'd like to point out that Objectivism does not consider acquisition of cash to be the sole basis for deciding what to do. As a mental exercise, change your assumptions and approach the questions from the assumption that you are fabulously wealthy. Should you ever accept a gift? Yes. Should you be dishonest? No. Should you associate with people who you hate just to make them happy? No. (Should you think carefully about whether you really hate these people? Yes). Should you use a store as a product testing ground? Uh, that's complicated. Try going in and announcing "I have no intention of buying from you, but I'd like to try out the product", thus denying the implication that you are a potential customer.

[airborne]

Regarding using the store as testing grounds

I thought about it again and I can give you a reason why its not immoral. Tell me what you think to confirm it with me.

I enter with the intention of buying from another store, but I still understand that it is possible I can buy something there. They might have a product that the cheaper store doesn't. Additionally I can always ask for a price match after they let me test the computer. If they refuse, fine. I was doing business. The reason for testing before asking for a price match is because I believe they wont match price, but I definitely would like to be surprised. Would this be a fair argument for it?

Also is there any Objective writings on "family". I love my family but I cant really objectively define my love apart from financial support, which I don't really think is the biggest part of it. Especially now that they refuse to pay for everything. I can't tell you why I value my family. All I know is that I do and many times I'll do something for a family member because I feel its right. That's where I am now with the idea of family, feeling and less objectivity.

Edited October 15, 2007 by airborne

[DavidOdden]

I thought about it again and I can give you a reason why its not immoral. Tell me what you think to confirm it with me.

I enter with the intention of buying from another store, but I still understand that it is possible I can buy something there. They might have a product that the cheaper store doesn't. Additionally I can always ask for a price match after they let me test the computer. If they refuse, fine. I was doing business. The reason for testing before asking for a price match is because I believe they wont match price, but I definitely would like to be surprised. Would this be a fair argument for it?

I think you're thinking of this the wrong way, because you're looking for an excuse or rationalization, or some kind of escape clause. Since the question isn't whether you're committing a crime, and it is about morality, then the question is whether your actions are moral, that is, right. What are you trying to do? Are you trying to dishonestly trick the expensive store into being a testing ground? Or are you there to honestly negotiate the best deal you can. It seems to me that you're trying to avoid being honest with them. I think you should march in there and say "I'm thinking of buying a Dull Integron laptop, but I want to try it out first just because I want to play with it, and then I think I'll probably actually go to Snorf's and buy it from them because they are cheaper. But they told me they wouldn't let me try it out first. So can I try it out here? And maybe you can meet their offer". The exact details aren't important: what's important is, are you rationalizing and evading? You don't need to construct an argument, you need to decide whether you are actually being honest with yourself, and with others.

[airborne]

you're trying to avoid being honest with them

That's right, but I don't blurt out everything I think/feel to everyone.

Maybe I am being immoral if I don't ask for them to match price but if I do, even I come in with the intention of buying somewhere else its not.

Man A is moving overseas in 2 days. He's in the mall checking out gadget shops. I don't think it would be immoral for him checking out and testing gear knowing he's going to buy it overseas and I don't think he should walk in there saying "I just want to play with your stuff but I'm moving overseas and I wont buy here ever! so take that!". Apart from taking some of their staff chatting time he hasn't done any damage.

Edited October 16, 2007 by airborne

[Tenure]

Well often, that testing stuff, at least I've found as far as video games are concerned, is set up and paid for by the original manufacturer. Their concern is to get their product in the hands of the public, so it doesn't really matter whether you play it there and buy elsewhere. But this may just be video games.

[KendallJ]

That's right, but I don't blurt out everything I think/feel to everyone.

But then honesty isn't about what you tell other people either.

Again, it looks like you're just shooting from the hip. What principle do you ascribe the said action to? Objectivism speaks to what honesty is, and what living in principles means. How do you relate that to your proposed action?

[airborne]

But then honesty isn't about what you tell other people either.

Again, it looks like you're just shooting from the hip. What principle do you ascribe the said action to? Objectivism speaks to what honesty is, and what living in principles means. How do you relate that to your proposed action?

OK. So I don't think I can. This would now mean I buy a product I was unable to test or pay alot more money, which seems like a sacrifice to me.

Following though, if someone goes to a luxury car dealership to test out a car he is not even close to being able to afford, is that being immoral?

It just doesn't make sense that that would be immoral. If your going to argue that he uses this amount of fuel exactly, and causes $4.39282 in losses then I could also say that the car serves as a great motivator for him to work for it in the future.

Also are most people who willingly try out those test-foods that people are made to hand out, with no intention of buying it, immoral?

Edited October 16, 2007 by airborne

[KendallJ]

OK. So I don't think I can. This would now mean I buy a product I was unable to test or pay alot more money, which seems like a sacrifice to me.

Airborne, I haven't yet said anything about the situation, I'm just asking you to articulate what principles you are relying on. Now you seem to have capitulated, but have yet to articulate any principles.

How is not trying a product before you buy a sacrifice?

How is paying more money for a product sacrifice?

[airborne]

How is not trying a product before you buy a sacrifice?

How is paying more money for a product sacrifice?

Your right, I can't say it is. But buying something more expensive when you know you can get it cheaper at another store is - if the reason is that you don't want to offend the staff by not buying there.

Now I think I can articulate a point for 'testing gear'.

The job of staff is to help 'potential customers', I would logically assume. Someone coming in with the intention to buy somewhere else is always under a possibility of finding something there which he prefers. This has actually happened to me a few times, without expecting it at all.

However, the only problem I see with what I said above is - would it be immoral to test first, because you know that the chance of getting a price match or finding something else you like or setting a deal will not be extremely high.

haha I know it sounds crazy, but I'm going in for the abstracts to understand this.

Edited October 16, 2007 by airborne

[KendallJ]

Your right, I can't say it is. But buying something more expensive when you know you can get it cheaper at another store is - if the reason is that you don't want to offend the staff by not buying there.

Well, here's my perspective. Price difference is about value difference. One is willing to pay a higher price for something because one either values the product differently, or one values additional aspects about the overall buying experience differently. It maybe the exact same good in both cases.

Now in this case lets assume that Store A is a high end shop, where you can try out the equipment, drink a cup of coffe, sit back in a nice leather chair, chat with the salesperson, etc. Store B is a discount store, where you can pick up a box and pay a lower price.

Aside from the fact that you're very unlikely to find the same equipment in either store (which is not by accident - it's meant to resolve this issue), what you're telling me is that you value the extra service that Store A provides, but you aren't willing to pay for it. That's simply dishonest.

The fact that the store offers it partially as a promotional service is true, and you could go in and walk out having obtained the value of having tried the equipment, and now knowing what you were buying over at Store B. Now, since the store offers that as a promotional service, if they are smart they are going to scope you out and see if you're serious, and if you're not, they'll get the hint after a while, and you will become an annoyance to them, rightfully so, because you're taking advantage of their good graces, intended for customers that at least have some probability of buying their products. Then they will probably go back to their manufacturers and compain that they can't sell high end merchanise if it is also avialble through discount chains or maybe they'll switch suppliers to ones who will only agree to see thier product through high end stores, all of these being attempts to prevent the sort of value leakage you're contemplating. It's dumb of the store to offer services for free knowing that some people might take advantage of their clerks time,and the equipment to do these things without trying to find way to assure that the people who use the equipment are serious about it.

Tenure's point is possibly valid, but if the manufacturer is providing sampling equipent, and merchanise, then it would be available at all stores. Since Store A is the only one providing it, then I'd say it's safe to assume that this is not that case. Store A is providing this service as a way to differentiate themselve and add extra value for which they will try to extract a higher price.

The reason David is having you think about announcing your intentions is that because in Objectivism, honesty is first with yourself. You value the extra service, but have no intention of paying for it. If you're ashamed to announce your intention to the clerk, then my bet is you haven't acknowledged that fact to yourself. IF the clerk knew that you had 0 probability of buying from him he would refuse to serve you, politely of course (at least I would). Serving you would be a sacrifice to him. He is not in the charitable business of letting people listen to his equipment. He's there to sell stereos.

The principle here is an honest open trade. [edit: I will qualify this. This does not mean that you can't enter into negotiations with someone and have assymetric information that you make use of. But in this case, you aren't really entering into even the possiblity of a trade. That is fraudulent in my opinion.]

Edited October 16, 2007 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

Practically, if you don't pay for the demo and the entire bricks-and-mortar setup that goes with it, where will you go for a demo once you've driven the shop out of business?

[airborne]

Wow KendallJ. That helps me understand alot.

softwareNerd: Right, well this is one of the concepts I have to get my head around. The fact that not testing out gear will be practical for me. Right now I don't think the fact that I test one piece of equipment will bring down the store.

[KendallJ]

Practically, if you don't pay for the demo and the entire bricks-and-mortar setup that goes with it, where will you go for a demo once you've driven the shop out of business?

Great point Snerd. We had just such a situation in my town. High end store set up shop, had lots of poeple come in, but not buy. There's lots of money in my town, and no reason why a store like that shouldn't have succeeded. They folded.

[airborne]

Just quickly, I can definitely objectively agree with what your saying now. Just the one point I cant agree on, because I cant bring the abstract to concrete is that me, one individual, doing one isolated immoral deed, can be impractical rather than more practical for the event. I've read both Fountainhead and Shrugged, re-reading Fountainhead now and there are still events which strike me as being impractical/not in Roark's self-interest.

Its either immoral and impractical or moral and practical from what I understand but somtimes it would seem that the moral is alot harder to do or actually seems more impractical.

Edited October 16, 2007 by airborne

[KendallJ]

Just quickly, I can definitely objectively agree with what your saying now. Just the one point I cant agree on, because I cant bring the abstract to concrete is that me, one individual, doing one isolated immoral deed, can be impractical rather than more practical for the event. I've read both Fountainhead and Shrugged, re-reading Fountainhead now and there are still events which strike me as being impractical/not in Roark's self-interest.

Its either immoral and impractical or moral and practical from what I understand but somtimes it would seem that the moral is alot harder to do or actually seems more impractical.

That would require a whole discussion of why one should live by principle, as opposed to a contextual cost-benefit analysis (which is not Objectivism, it's Pragmatism). The moral is not always the pragmatic. Again, I'd search for "prudent predator" to find all sorts of discussion of this idea. It is essentially what you are raising as an issue, right. If the store offers the service for free, and I can go in and "get away with it" why shouldn't I? That is prudent predator thinking.

[airborne]

That would require a whole discussion of why one should live by principle, as opposed to a contextual cost-benefit analysis (which is not Objectivism, it's Pragmatism). The moral is not always the pragmatic. Again, I'd search for "prudent predator" to find all sorts of discussion of this idea. It is essentially what you are raising as an issue, right. If the store offers the service for free, and I can go in and "get away with it" why shouldn't I? That is prudent predator thinking.

Will check it out.

[softwareNerd]

Its either immoral and impractical or moral and practical from what I understand but somtimes it would seem that the moral is alot harder to do or actually seems more impractical.

When you ask yourself "what is practical?", keep two things in mind, as part of the context of your question:

• firstly, what is practical in the long term; and,
  
• secondly, what is practical in principle
  

[airborne]

When you ask yourself "what is practical?", keep two things in mind, as part of the context of your question:

• firstly, what is practical in the long term; and,
  
• secondly, what is practical in principle
  

What do you mean?

what is practical in principle? and what is it in relation to what is practical in reality/long-term/short-term?

[Teloscientist]

That's right, but I don't blurt out everything I think/feel to everyone.

That is true - there simply isn't time for it. Here is a "just" rule (separating out politics from ethics for now). "You only need to share those things you think the other person would want to know - that would affect their choices if they knew."

In my book RelationDancing, I differentiate between the rule "share everything" from "hide nothing." Again, there are countless things I do not share with someone either because it is trivial, it is tangential, or it is too time-consuming. However, if it is something that I think they would want to know, NOT sharing it with them 1) reduces intimacy and partnership/interdependence, and 2) is unjust/fraud if I enter a contract with them while have reason to believe that they think the opposite to be the case.

Sins of omission are just as dishonest as sins of commission.

Of course, I might choose to hide something I think they would want to know from them. I do it all the time. However, I don't then pretend like I am not hiding something and take advantage of the person's trust. That is unjust - it is fraud.

Mark

[softwareNerd]

what is practical in principle?

I mean, a situation such that... ... it is practical for any and all rational persons who find themselves in a nearly identical context. The opposite would be if it were "practical" only under the assumption that the bulk of other people would do the opposite.

In a context where the financial implication is larger than checking out electronics, a certain course may only be practical if one can convince other actors to act a particular way. For instance, a factory owner might ship products by rail, because that's the cheapest mode. However, given his circumstances, it might be practical for him to ship a small amount by ferry, to keep a small fleet of ferry boats operational as a backup; but, this might only be practical if he can convince a certain number of other factory owners that it is in their interest to do something similar. If it's important enough, and if some long term decision has to be made on the assumption, it might only be practical to follow that course if some legally binding agreement (or some other means of assuring compliance) can be put into effect.

As a counter point, there's nothing wrong with checking out shop merchandise if one is unsure if one is going to buy it. Many retailers would like unsure customers to come in and give them a chance to sell. Similarly, some ways of checking out stuff cost a retailer so little, that they're happy to get the traffic, hoping that at least some people will be tempted to buy something, or will see something they'll tell someone else about, or that they will remember to come back for later, and so on. So, don't assume more moral obligation than is warranted. (As part of his job, a good salesman will try to "qualify" his prospect, often by asking questions to determine the likelihood that the person is going to buy the product from him.)

[softwareNerd]

I wanted to add some more examples, and summarize...

As a counter point,...

Sometimes, a manufacturer will franchise out his stores, knowing that many people will browse there, but buy direct. Sometimes, a store will get a cut on all direct sales from "their" zip codes.

Some stores will do some things gratis, but ask you for a commitment if you want them to do more. For instance, some furniture stores will offer to send an interior designer to the customer's home, to make suggestions about the furniture being purchased as well as other possible design aspects of the room. Even if you think you're going to buy exactly what you came to buy, the store is often happy to send the person over, because they realize the value of giving you a plan for your room: in two years, you might be back to buy the matching desk they recommended for the corner.

In some stores, if you tell the salesman that you saw the item priced lower online, he might explain aspects of the service, warranty or installation that you had not considered. Or, he might also offer to lower his price, for you.

Summary: I think the best principle to go by is: do not be dishonest about your intentions, but also do not assume more moral obligation than actually exists.

[Leonid]

A few examples of some problems and how Objectivism would suggest tackling them.

Parents offer to buy you a car. Your just starting university. If you take it things will be alot easier, you can visit friends, drive to work, save time.

However, this is not your money. you haven't earned it.

Objectivism advocates "independence" so wouldn't it be moral not to accept, and work your ass off for another one? I'm sure you could somehow argue that it is moral to accept. However, what would Howard Roark do? IMO not accept, work his ass off, not see friends, then claim it is in his self-interest.

A job requires work experience in a certain field... you know this field very well and feel capable. Is it acceptable to lie on your resume? If your discovered then you wont get the job, but can look for another one. If your not the subject will not be brought up again and you will have the job

this would be moral then under Objectivism?

Your family is having a big dinner, you know that these big dinners are extremely boring and you hate being there. Do you go? If you don't there will be very offended family members who could feel very unhappy

Now this is difficult. I think Objectivism would say 'no' you don't if your not financially Dependant on your family. If you are dependent however, it would be the moral thing for you to go.

There is this expensive tech store. You go there *just* to test out the gear but know in advance you will buy the same model at another cheaper store. The expensive tech store staff is under the impression you are actually interested in buying something, this is why they're helping. Is it moral to do this? The cheaper store wont let you test, so you don't know what your getting.

Something about this one makes it harder. I don't think its immoral because there may still be the chance that they can convince you to buy something or give you a deal, although this is highly unlikely.

a.It is appropriate to accept gifts from loved ones

b.You should state clearly that to participate in this dinner means great deal of sacrifice to you. If your parents love you they wouldn't demand that from you.

c I think it is moral as long as you oppenly state your intentions. I think they will help in any case since you are potential customer.