Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[JMeganSnow]

I need specific concretes here people!

But you are speaking of a broad abstraction, founded upon many other levels of abstraction. To demand one jump from a very high-level abstraction down to concretes is ludicrous. It's like asking someone else to do your thinking for you, so that you can have the conclusion without understanding the intermediate stages. Well, your question alone is demonstration that this approach doesn't work.

Let's see if I can point you in the right direction, at least. Keep in mind that this is still a condensation; it will require more mental work from you if you are to understand it.

It's been said that operating on the prudent predator principle will (among other things) destroy your self-esteem. Well, let's explore what this means.

Firstly, what is your self-esteem? It is the value you place on yourself, the regard in which you hold yourself. It is not something that just happens automatically; self-esteem, like all other values, has to be earned. How do you earn self-esteem? By living successfully; essentially, by gaining mastery over reality and using it to sustain your life. This is the only way that men can live; someone has to do this if any men are to survive at all.

If, instead, you take up the prudent predator principle, what you are seeking for your sustainence is not mastery over reality, but mastery over men; you rely instead upon your ability to cheat, swindle, trick, and befuddle them. The con man says that this makes him better than the men that he cheats. It does not . . . it makes him utterly dependant upon them. He is their slave; he cannot do anything other than what will enable him to continue to feed off of them. That mysterious power which they possess, of mastery over reality, is at once his only salvation and a threat to him; he depends on it for his livelyhood, because they only have values worth stealing to the extent that they have learned to turn reality to suit them, but he also depends on them not recognizing reality where he is concerned He depends simultaneously on truth and falsehood, an unstable mixture that cannot long survive. He depends on inconsistency. Now THERE's a rock for you to stand on.

Instead of a real sense of his value to himself and confidence in his mastery over reality, he acquires a twitching sense of his own helplessness, a helplessness that can only be assuaged, temporarily, by engaging in yet another heist. This is why many con men are compulsive; they have to keep conning people in order to keep a sense of their own capability.

This is just one of the problems that arises when you try, in principle, to act in an unprincipled fashion.

[DavidOdden]

You are not understanding what I am getting at, and I am not sure how to explain it without repeating my question again.

On the other hand, I answered the question that you asked, though it might not have been the answer you wanted. I'm not at all convinced that I don't understand your question: I'm saying that the answer isn't something trivial like saying "You'll get warts if you steal".

I actually gave you the clue to how to be a psychologically consistent prudent predator: come up with a different basis for morality. If you reject my argument, then there must be some first point where you can say "This is where I disagree". I would suggest that it is your first claim that you think stealing is wrong. (By "you", I mean the hypothetical prudent predator who is hoping to rationalize theft as being in his interest). As an alternative, you could argue "But I'm psychologically okay with contradictions", or "I don't feel any need to be consistent in my life". There is no denying that you can avoid the morgue for many many years while stealing, if you are a clever thief who can avoid getting caught. As a policy for existence, evading reality is not life-conducive -- in extremis, it can result in semi-suicidal risky behavior such as thinking that you are intrinsically lucky and can't loose while playing Russian Roulette.

[brit2006]

Lets take illegal music downloading as an example. Do you honestly think that millions of college students worldwide lose any self esteem over downloading illegal music files?

[DavidOdden]

Lets take illegal music downloading as an example. Do you honestly think that millions of college students worldwide lose any self esteem over downloading illegal music files?

Do you mean "a good feeling about themselves"? Not in the slightest. But that is a consequence of the perverse emphasis on emotional "self-esteem" that became trendy starting some 30 years ago. Unfortunately, there has been a corruption of the concept self-esteem at the hands of the psycho-babblarians, who confuse one result of self-esteem for the evaluation itself, the hedonistic self-esteem that you're referring to is very widespread among the young (and middle-aged).

[brit2006]

So what do they lose then?

[JMeganSnow]

Acting on principle means it doesn't matter whether you actually lose something in any particular case, only that in general, you stand to lose if you violate the principle.

How can you defend intellectual property with the moral certainty required (after, say, you've spent 20 years developing a patent) when you've spent that time downloading music illegally? You're a hypocrit. And don't imagine people will hesistate to point that out.

[brit2006]

Acting on principle means it doesn't matter whether you actually lose something in any particular case, only that in general, you stand to lose if you violate the principle.

How can you defend intellectual property with the moral certainty required (after, say, you've spent 20 years developing a patent) when you've spent that time downloading music illegally? You're a hypocrit. And don't imagine people will hesistate to point that out.

So what specifically do I stand to lose??

Because I am not afraid of a few people calling me names - I don't care how many times they point it out.

[RationalBiker]

So what specifically do I stand to lose??

You've lost any moral right to claim anything as "your property" because you are by your actions (not your words) denying that property has any meaning. Specifically, you can't legitimately claim that which you have taken as your property. No one else may never know that you are living off something you have stolen, but you will know, and generally speaking, the man who was stolen from will know that someone stole from him. And each time you make the claim that some stolen property is yours, you will be lying to yourself, you will be denying reality. You may be able to "survive" with that, but your actions are not that of a man of reason, or a man who recognizes that reason is the proper means of survival for human beings. In that sense you lose some status as a human being, becoming more animalistic. You actions, however seemingly small, WILL contribute to the overall notion in the society in which you live that it is acceptable to steal the work and effort of other men in order to live, to be a parasite.

This doens't mean you will sit here now and be convinced that this is of any real consequence to you. But if it doesn't, I would suggest you have taken that step to being more parasite and less human. I'm not trying to set up an argument from intimidation, I'm simply trying to point out facts of reality.

[Groovenstein]

I’d like to start a thread about the prudent predator principle. Why is it immoral to be a prudent predator? If there is minimal chance of getting caught for a crime and the benefits are large, then why is it not rational to commit the crime? . . . I need specific concrete reasons on why I would not be acting in my long term interest by acting like a prudent predator.

Why is getting this question answered important to you?

[DavidOdden]

So what specifically do I stand to lose??

Can you describe this person ("you", hypothetically) in more detail? Your question, completely out of context, doesn't make any sense. That is, I don't know what you mean by "loss". Do you have a standard for judging losses and gains? It's conventional to value money and to equate losses with a decrease in capital, but money per se is a silly standard of value (though it may be the one you're assuming). Is there intrinsic value in having a billion dollars? Or is money a secondary goal, which might be used to gain something else that is your real standard of value? Define "loss".

[gnargtharst]

I wasn't involved with the "prudent predator" thread on this forum -- not that I remember at least -- but I have been before, and I found that the thing that brought the discussion to a resolution was to ask the prudent predator advocate to describe in realistic detail his theoretical "perfect crime". In reality -- you know, actual REALITY -- there are very few opportunities wherein $1M goes up for grabs without anybody knowing. By fleshing out all these details, we start to hear how the prudent predator lies to his friends, conceals his assets with phony accounts, lives a lie in order not to divert attention, etc. In short order, it becomes pretty obvious what the predator "loses" when he steals/murders, etc. (and it's pretty much the same as the more common, imprudent predator that does all this for much less than $1M).

If you want a more detailed answer, could you describe the exact scenario wherein the predator steals $1M "without any possibility of being caught".

[intellectualammo]

I need specific concrete reasons on why I would not be acting in my long term interest by acting like a prudent predator.

For any human being to be "acting like a prudent predator"...is like trying to say that A is non-A...

John Galt in AS says, that "criminals are savages who play in short-range and starve when their prey runs out…"(p.977)

Ayn Rand writes this in "For the New Intellectual" in FTNI:

"He[,Attila,] approaches men as a beast of prey, and the consequences of his actions or the possibility of exhausting his victims never enters his consciousness..."

Are you familiar with Objectivist Ethics? The nature of man? The trader principle? Man's rights? The nature of government?

[brit2006]

You've lost any moral right to claim anything as "your property" because you are by your actions (not your words) denying that property has any meaning. Specifically, you can't legitimately claim that which you have taken as your property. No one else may never know that you are living off something you have stolen, but you will know, and generally speaking, the man who was stolen from will know that someone stole from him. And each time you make the claim that some stolen property is yours, you will be lying to yourself, you will be denying reality. You may be able to "survive" with that, but your actions are not that of a man of reason, or a man who recognizes that reason is the proper means of survival for human beings. In that sense you lose some status as a human being, becoming more animalistic. You actions, however seemingly small, WILL contribute to the overall notion in the society in which you live that it is acceptable to steal the work and effort of other men in order to live, to be a parasite.

This doens't mean you will sit here now and be convinced that this is of any real consequence to you. But if it doesn't, I would suggest you have taken that step to being more parasite and less human. I'm not trying to set up an argument from intimidation, I'm simply trying to point out facts of reality.

I am not bothered about claiming that the property is mine. The music I have downloaded is on my computer and this is good enough for me. I would not be lying to myself. I am not claiming that the files are mine or that they should be mine, just that I am enjoying them for free.

Why is getting this question answered important to you?

Because I am interested in philosophy and am unconvinced that Objectivism is the right philosophy. I like Objectivism it's just that simple questions often go unanswered such as in this thread.

Can you describe this person ("you", hypothetically) in more detail? Your question, completely out of context, doesn't make any sense. That is, I don't know what you mean by "loss". Do you have a standard for judging losses and gains? It's conventional to value money and to equate losses with a decrease in capital, but money per se is a silly standard of value (though it may be the one you're assuming). Is there intrinsic value in having a billion dollars? Or is money a secondary goal, which might be used to gain something else that is your real standard of value? Define "loss".

Loss is anything that happens to harm me. This could be losing money, self-esteem, a loved one, etc.

I wasn't involved with the "prudent predator" thread on this forum -- not that I remember at least -- but I have been before, and I found that the thing that brought the discussion to a resolution was to ask the prudent predator advocate to describe in realistic detail his theoretical "perfect crime". In reality -- you know, actual REALITY -- there are very few opportunities wherein $1M goes up for grabs without anybody knowing. By fleshing out all these details, we start to hear how the prudent predator lies to his friends, conceals his assets with phony accounts, lives a lie in order not to divert attention, etc. In short order, it becomes pretty obvious what the predator "loses" when he steals/murders, etc. (and it's pretty much the same as the more common, imprudent predator that does all this for much less than $1M).

If you want a more detailed answer, could you describe the exact scenario wherein the predator steals $1M "without any possibility of being caught".

What about downloading music that is illegal. The crime is a faceless one, involves no lying, concealing etc

For any human being to be "acting like a prudent predator"...is like trying to say that A is non-A...

John Galt in AS says, that "criminals are savages who play in short-range and starve when their prey runs out…"(p.977)

Ayn Rand writes this in "For the New Intellectual" in FTNI:

"He[,Attila,] approaches men as a beast of prey, and the consequences of his actions or the possibility of exhausting his victims never enters his consciousness..."

Are you familiar with Objectivist Ethics? The nature of man? The trader principle? Man's rights? The nature of government?

Yes I am familiar with all these, but you still don't answer the question.

What specifically do I lose by downloading illegal music?

I have recieved a PM from someone who has come closest to answering my question. He was basically saying that the prudent predator would be in massive internal conflict. His reason for this was that the human psyche is not comfortable with contradicitons.

Do you see why this answers my question while other posts here have not? He has specifically said that I will lose sanity (massive internal conflict) and backed it up with a reason why he knows this to be true - ie the psyche does not cope with contradictions very well.

If you guys agree with this, can you expand more? Specifically, why does the human mind not cope well with contradictions? What psychological principle says that this will lead to massive internal contradictions?

Also, even if the above is true, downloading illegal music will not cause massive internal contradiction. Millions of college students do it, and I don't see them losing anything because of it.

Just in case people haven't understood my question, I have put it in bold above.

[brit2006]

From the music downloading thread:

"If one clings to a possession and fights a theif for the right to keep it, and yet steals music from musicians, he is sealing his status as a hypocrite. Though in the short term, he may be able to mask this, eventually people will come to not trust him based on his actions."

This is another reason that I can accept. Loss of trustworthyness. Do you see how this is a specific loss and how this answers my question?

However what if you tell no one about your illegal downloading? This comes into what gnargtharst said. Ie I am now having to listen to my music in secret, that or lie to people and say that I have paid for it.

[RationalBiker]

I would not be lying to myself. I am not claiming that the files are mine or that they should be mine, just that I am enjoying them for free.

This is another reason that I can accept. Loss of trustworthyness. Do you see how this is a specific loss and how this answers my question?

However what if you tell no one about your illegal downloading? This comes into what gnargtharst said. Ie I am now having to listen to my music in secret, that or lie to people and say that I have paid for it.

First, downloading it on "your" computer and playing it back for "your" enjoyment IS by action "claiming" this to be your property. You certainly haven't borrowed it as that would imply you sought permission from the rightful owner. Your actions are contradicting what you are saying. You are taking what belongs to someone else, without their permission, for your use as you see fit, for as long as you desire as though you have a right to do so. This IS claiming it as your property. That does not require that you make proclaimations to other people by saying "Hey, I own this property." I think you may be having difficulty accepting or understanding that your actions would be (or are) speaking louder than your words. You are contradicting the concept of property by your actions, while claiming the property for your use.

What's interesting to me about your other acceptable reason is that it has more to do with what other people think of you than what you think of yourself. It's not important that you actually be honest or earn your property, but it's important to you to appear to others as though you are honest and have earned your keep. You would be honest only because other people would not trust you otherwise. If not for that, it would appear that stealing is okay with you if you think you can get away with it. For me, it's important that my mind be my toughest moral critic.

I (like many other people on here) have done considerable reading to come to the understanding we have of the philosophy of Objectivism. As another poster noted, you wanted simple answers to questions that require a substantial foundation of knowledge to understand, knowledge that requires some reading and more effort on you part. If you are unwilling to do the reading that that has been suggested to you, then I'm unwilling to provide you any further assistance in your understanding. When at all possible, I will not willingly feed parasites.

[DavidOdden]

Loss is anything that happens to harm me. This could be losing money, self-esteem, a loved one, etc.

Although you talk of "loss", you're not describing loss. A loss is the situation where you have something, and later you don't have it because you failed to keep it. The prudent predator is not losing something, because he didn't have it to begin with. Stealing itself does not harm your psyche -- you have to destroy any vestiges of a rational moral code before you steal, in order to allow yourself to steal in the first place. The harm has been done before you get to the stage of actually stealing. Your answer in terms of "harm" simply delays answering the real question -- what is harm? Especially, what is "harm to psyche"? What is a concrete example?

You're concentrating on the short-term consequence and you are inverting cause and effect. And most importantly, you are constructing an impossible scenario. The presumption of the prudent predator objection is that a man can be infallible and omniscient, and can violate the rights of others with absolute impunity (so as to deflect the observation that you will suffer great harm -- loss of money, freedom, loved ones, trust of others -- when the crimes are uncovered). The presumption of immunity from detection is a fundamental flaw in the prudent predator con.

The predator is not a psychologically healthy being: he must either expressly accept contradiction and reject reality (reality is not contradictory, even if you mentally construct contradictions), or he must live with the constant psychic turmoil of evading his contradictory standard of moral evaluation. He presumes that he has a right to his property -- where does that right come from? -- but that others do not have a right to their property -- what is it about his nature that gives him, and only him, a right to property? The predatory must evade this contradiction. If there is something about the nature of existence whereby the "moral" code of the predator would correct and would enhance his existence, then those same facts would apply to others; and that would mean that it would be right for those others to steal your property, even to take your life. You can either refuse to consciously accept that fact, or you you can consciously reject logic by embracing contradiction. Neither is consistent with the principles necessary for survival, especially the fact that the nature of reality is what it is, regardless of your wishes to the contrary.

Your superficial and rationalist treatment of valid arguments against prudent predation as a possible moral principle does not bode well for future interaction. Perhaps once you have read some Objectivist writings and grasp the points being made, there might be some benefit coming from further discussions with you.

[intellectualammo]

This is another reason that I can accept. Loss of trustworthyness. Do you see how this is a specific loss and how this answers my question?

Yes. So, generally when a person lies, decieves, commits crimes, felonies and so forth you would like to know what generally is going on in the persons mind when they have actually done one or all of the aforementioned.

Okay, even if the chance of being caught in a crime is low, it still effects a person's "psyche" in that they have to make sure that they are consistent in their lying, or hiding, or evading for if they are not, they risk getting caught. This risk of being caught can or may cause worrying, fear, anxiety, paranoia, guilt...various emotions can arise depending upon the severity of the crime and the chance of getting caught. Also, it would have various effects short and/or long term on the person whether or not the they KNOW or THINK it is wrong, yet they still do it. Guilt, remorse, regret...you start to despise oneself, you lower your self-worth, self-value, because of what you have done knowing it was wrong, but did it anyways, maybe for example, because you thought that the risk of "being caught was minimal and the benefits large" from commiting such and such. Of course this is all general, which is the way that you wanted it kept for the most part, but living by the prudent predator principle instead of using the trader principle in regards to social interactions, is like living the life of a parasite/looter/thug/brute, and not the proper life of man qua man qua rational being as a trader/producer/individualist. Not living by the proper ethical moral code of man, but that of something that is non-man can lead generally to grave effects physically(like punishment/death if caught), psychological(like self-esteem), and physiological(the resulting emotional effects). Man cannot fake reality, because he survives off of and flourishes long term/short term from his capacity to understand reality, through reason, rationality, cognition.

This is more like a response that you initially had wanted to recieve from your question(s), no?

[gnargtharst]

In answer to my request for Brit2006 to provide a conrete example of his "perfect crime", he provided this example: "What about downloading music that is illegal. The crime is a faceless one, involves no lying, concealing etc"

Okay, well, apparently the price of this prudent predator's integrity has dropped dramatically, from $1M, down to $.49 -- the cost of a song download at many sites. So, let's run with this example. Some questions for Prudent Predator: (btw, these questions are addressed to Prudent Predator, not necessarily Brit2006, as I don't know to what degree his arguments were rhetorical only)

1. You've resorted to force for forty-nine cents. How do you figure the amount of for which you're willing to trade coercion? Is it a difficult calculation?

2. When a friend asks you "do you steal?", do you tell the truth, or do you lie? Or is there another complex calculation involved to determine when to tell the truth and when to lie? If you tell the truth, and your friend accepts theft as acceptable, does he remain your friend? Does it make you nervous to have friends who are also willing to trade cash for coercion.

3. How do you deal with the (presumably repressed) shame of knowing that in actual practice you were unable to produce $.49 of wealth to trade?

4. Do you share a comraderie with other criminals, who were themselves "prudent predators" before they imprudently got caught?

5. Do you listen to your stolen music in public, and if so, are you nervous about being asked where and how you downloaded this music?

6. How much work are you willing to expend to protect your stolen reputation? If stolen music becomes more of a problem and efforts are made to catch downloaders, will you lie to investigators? Friends? Employers? Will you guard the secrets of other thieves who share your secret? And will they sell you out for $.49?

...these questions could go on without limit. As Peikoff pointed out, the liar makes an enemy of reality, and must lie about an ever-widening circle of facts in order to remain undetected. The choice is: lie about everything in order to conceal anything, or hole up like a hermit in order that reality not confront one with the necessity of lying. Neither of these choices seems consistent with the type of life any normal person would want to live.

Why not be a prudent predator? Because there's no such thing. Prudence entails recognizing that everything is interconnected, whether you want to to be or not; there's no "getting away with" anything, mentally, morally, practically.

[FeatherFall]

What specifically do I lose by downloading illegal music?

You lose the opportunity to act on a principle that furthers your life as a man.

By respecting property rights one is respecting the principle that men deserve any value they have acted to create. If a musician has created something of value to you, it is the musician who deserves to be rewarded if you choose to take part in that value.

The alleged "prudent" predator is ignoring this principle, and acting on the principle that people do not deserve the values that they have acted to create. He has chosen to delay progress in living as best he can (qua man) for a paltry value, while denying the source of that value. He has also reduced the incentive for musicians to create more of the music that he enjoys.

The fact that thousands of college students either don't understand or ignore this principle is an indictment of their lifestyles and their ability to effectively deal with reality.

[Groovenstein]

Because I am interested in philosophy and am unconvinced that Objectivism is the right philosophy. I like Objectivism it's just that simple questions often go unanswered such as in this thread.

Why this question in particular? Are you engaging, or planning to engage, in this behavior? Is this the only question about Objectivism you have? If not the only question, is this the most important question about Objectivism that you have? If the most important question, why? If not the most important question, why not ask the more important ones first?

Moving now from questions to a practical suggestion. If you are truly seeking input, you are probably going to get better input if you refrain from expressly or subtly insulting the people whose input you seek.

[softwareNerd]

"Brit2006", You chose a difficult example. It's like the politician asking, "How can a 1 cent gas tax hurt anyone?"

A better starting example would be more extreme; take a person who's life is fundamentally based on living off others, and ask: how would my self-esteem be affected if (for instance) I were a street-bum mooching off passers-by, or a bank-robber, etc. If you can see how those pursuits are impractical and affect your self-esteem, then go on to the music-download example, which would be asking a second question: given that the big evils are impractical and wrong, what about the small ones? Also, in your example, do not start with assuming any extenuating circumstances.

So, let me replace your example, with one that is much more stark...

First, imagine that you live in a country that is very free, as nearly capitalist as you can imagine. Second, imagine that the majority of people in that country are moral and hard-working. Finally, assume that you are an ordinary person; while you are no genius, you also have no particular disease or disability; assume you have an average upbringing and reasonable education.

In this context, do you think it would be practical to be a moocher or a thief? Also, if you were one of those, do you think you would have more self-esteem than the other careers open to you?

[An oblique, but related, reference: There's a book called Freaknomics, which was discussed here. The chapter titled "Why do Drug Dealers still live with their moms?" is interesting. It explains what an impractical career it is. it shows how average-Joe drug dealers wanted to quit the trade and become janitors!]

[hunterrose]

Paradoxically this question is usually asked by honest people.

True, Dagny Effect?

Yes I have read that thread. It is completely unsatisfactory to me.

Well! I myself am not entirely convinced by the points made there, but I admit that there are some very good ones. I would suggest you reread the topic. But since grasshopper is impatient...

I accept that stealing is wrong.

Yet if there is minimal chance of getting caught and the item in question is worth $1 million, why should I not steal it?

First off, such a person doesn't accept stealing is wrong... otherwise they wouldn't have to ask such a question, no? One couldn't accept that stealing is wrong and actually commit theft.

Why is it immoral to be a prudent predator? If there is minimal chance of getting caught for a crime and the benefits are large, then why is it not rational to commit the crime?

I need specific concrete reasons on why I would not be acting in my long term interest by acting like a prudent predator.

If something is wrong, then accepting it as a principle would be to suffer a "specific concrete" loss. Plus, it's difficult to reject the detrimental value of theft once accepted. Another loss?

The question of whether specific types of stealing are wrong is an entirely different question

[IAmMetaphysical]

QUOTE(brit2006 @ Feb 12 2006, 12:45 PM) *

I accept that stealing is wrong.

Yet if there is minimal chance of getting caught and the item in question is worth $1 million, why should I not steal it?

First off, such a person doesn't accept stealing is wrong... otherwise they wouldn't have to ask such a question, no? One couldn't accept that stealing is wrong and actually commit theft.

If one believes that stealing is wrong, and then actively engages in such wrong doings one will think themselves to be wrong, to be bad, to be evil. That is a loss to self esteem. Simple enough?

[Jim Austin]

According to Ayn Rand, happiness "is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless 'kicks,' like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction." ("The Objectivist Ethics")

For the record, there can be no such thing as a "prudent predator." A predator is by definition destructive, and happiness qua happiness can only attained by productive work. The "prudence" of the predator is thus a stolen concept.

Thieves and mystics and drivers of hotrods are only faking happiness. Ask them the source of their happiness. Blank out. By contrast, those who follow the Objectivist philosophy experience intensely gratifying happiness throughout their conscious hours on this earth.

[The discussion on driving hotrods -- and whether this is a fake thrill or a legitimate pursuit -- has been split into a separate thread.]

Edited February 16, 2006 by softwareNerd

[brit2006]

After thinking about what everyone has posted here I have concluded that it is wrong to steal, and that stealing does indeed cause a loss of self esteem.

I've just purged my computer of about 100 mp3 files downloaded illegally. He he he. The hypothetical me was actually me.

At the moment I feel fine about this and don't feel I have lost anything from deleting "my" music. I've just done a day of studying listening to free internet radio and there was some great music played - even found out about a new band that I think I like. I'll also buy some music on iTunes soon as well.

Cheers guys!