Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[hernan]

The government IS permitted to act only by the governed consent. Do you know the purpose of the Constitution?

My friend, I have some very sad news for you: the constitution that you know and love is dead. It's been dead for some time now.

Now we have the new, improved "living" constitution.

[hernan]

You are saying in effect: "The world is a mess, I can't fix it, so I am going to loot with the best of them, and forget questions of morality altogether."

No, what I'm saying is that rational, egoistic ethics drive me to make the best of the situation in which I find myself. To be moral is to flourish in the real world. It is immoral to waste your life as a curmudgeon, angry at the world, cursing it with your every breath.

[nimble]

My friend, I have some very sad news for you: the constitution that you know and love is dead. It's been dead for some time now.

Now we have the new, improved "living" constitution.

i think you have some issues...that "living constitution" you named is the same one that was "born" in 1779.

Doctor says, "I have some sad news for you my friend, you are mentally handicapped."

You reply, "What does that mean?"

(sorry, I just found it hilarious that you said "sorry my friend....." like you were going to tell me i had cancer or something)

[nimble]

No, what I'm saying is that rational, egoistic ethics drive me to make the best of the situation in which I find myself. To be moral is to flourish in the real world. It is immoral to spend your life as a curmudgeon, angry at the world, cursing it with your every breath.

who curses the world? Not me. I love it.

[aynfan]

No, what I'm saying is that rational, egoistic ethics drive me to make the best of the situation in which I find myself. To be moral is to flourish in the real world. It is immoral to waste your life as a curmudgeon, angry at the world, cursing it with your every breath.

This a false choice. It is fine to assume no guilt for living in the world one is born to. That is why there is no guilt, for example, in accepting Social Security. You have paid for it. But, the choice you do not offer is the one to change the world, to fight to make it the kind of world where bold men can accomplish great thiings without the burden of supporting others.

[hernan]

But, the choice you do not offer is the one to change the world, to fight to make it the kind of world where bold men can accomplish great thiings without the burden of supporting others.

That's because I have not heard a persuasive rational, egoist argument for the benefit of such tilting at windmills.

You go change the world. I'll clap for you when you're done and adjust my own behaviors accordingly.

[aynfan]

That's because I have not heard a persuasive rational, egoist argument for the benefit of such tilting at windmills.

You go change the world. I'll clap for you when you're done and adjust my own behaviors accordingly.

We have to change the world or civilization will collapse just as surely as it did with the fall of Rome and mankind will yet again have to struggle through a thousand years of darkness. That could very well take place within our lifetime. We don't have time to steal the silver. The Huns are at the gates.

Go your way then without rancor but do yourself a favor, acknowledge the historical fact that Cortes was a sniveling coward and lying loser who by deception and theft brought down one of the world's most magnificent civilizations.

Despite his many schemes and Faustian bargans, he died in obscurity and in poverty. The human saga is repleat with his ilk, men who flame briefly, wreak havoc and are consigned to the ash heaps of history. You may as well celebrate Attila the Hun or Adolf Hitler.

I tried to read some articles on your site, but could not get past the sign-in gatekeeper. If there is a place to register, I could not find it.

[hernan]

We have to change the world or civilization will collapse just as surely as it did with the fall of Rome and mankind will yet again have to struggle through a thousand years of darkness.  That could very well take place within our lifetime. We don't have time to steal the silver. The Huns are at the gates. 

Go save civilization, then. I wish you well. Godspeed. Kill a Hun for me.

But before you rush out the door with battleaxe and shield, ask yourself this: what were the names of the Romans who died defending the empire from the Huns?

Just let me know when the great battle begins, I want to sell tickets.

[Ok, I know this subject deserves a more serious answer but have to be more realistic if you want to save civilization. If saving civilization depends on the objectivists I'm going to start brushing up on my Hunish.]

[aynfan]

Go save civilization, then. I wish you well. Godspeed. Kill a Hun for me.

But before you rush out the door with battleaxe and shield, ask yourself this: what were the names of the Romans who died defending the empire from the Huns?

Just let me know when the great battle begins, I want to sell tickets.

[Ok, I know this subject deserves a more serious answer but have to be more realistic if you want to save civilization. If saving civilization depends on the objectivists I'm going to start brushing up on my Hunish.]

I understand your skepticism.

[hernan]

I understand your skepticism.

Seriously, if you want to fight a war for survival you've got to take the gloves off. I'm not saying I agree with your dark view of the impending collapse of civilization, but I'd have more confidence in a battalion of Catholic school nuns. For my part, I'd rather see a conquistador than an objectivist at the head of the column.

[C-Wolf]

Ah man, I leave this discussion for a while and it all turns to hell! I think we are casting this "war" in the wrong terms. It is a cultural and ideological war. We aren't at the president's gate yet, and I don't think that armed combat is in the near future. We need to change the moral and ideological infrastructure of the world. This is done by writing, teaching, art, media, etc. We don't need a Randian Gengis Khan; we need a Randian V.I. Lenin.

[Guest jrshep]

After seeing a post by AndrewSternberg, I realized that I had misidentified Dr. Peikoff's lecture recently made available for listening on the revamped ARI site. It's not "Why Act on Principle?" as I as said, but "Why Should One Act on Principle?"

If one is interested in understanding why rational morality is critical and why predation is not in one's interest even if one can "get away with it," then this lecture holds the key.

[hernan]

I haven't listened to this piece but this sounds very much like Tara Smith's argument.

Of course, one should act on principles, Smith makes a good case. But that doesn't answer the question. Predation might be a princple on which you are acting. One might argue that it is the objectivists who are evading the virtuous principle of predation.

That argument, ultimately, is circular.

[aynfan]

Seriously, if you want to fight a war for survival you've got to take the gloves off. I'm not saying I agree with your dark view of the impending collapse of civilization, but I'd have more confidence in a battalion of Catholic school nuns. For my part, I'd rather see a conquistador than an objectivist at the head of the column.

I'm not quarreling with you We should all do battle in the way in which we believe we can accomplish the most. You are young, I am old. I will change minds, you will lead the troops in battle. My hope comes in the fact that we both recognize the enemy.

[Guest jrshep]

If there is a rational egoist argument for respecting rights I haven’t heard it yet.

With respect to my suggestion that you listen to Dr. Peikoffs freely available lecture, "Why Should One Act on Principle?" you say:

I haven't listened to this piece but this sounds very much like Tara Smith's argument.

Of course, one should act on principles, Smith makes a good case. But that doesn't answer the question. Predation might be a princple on which you are acting. One might argue that it is the objectivists who are evading the virtuous principle of predation.

That argument, ultimately, is circular.

Well, you seem to be interested (Are you?) in a "rational egoist argument for respecting rights," and state that you've not heard it yet. Given your seeming interest, I recommend Dr. Peikoff's lecture. It's only one hour long. If you're truly interested in an answer to your own question, do yourself a favor and listen to his lecture.

[aynfan]

If you're truly interested in an answer to your own question, do yourself a favor and listen to his lecture.

He has read VOS which contains THE OBJECTIVIST ETHICS and MAN'S RIGHTS among other things by Rand. If he is not convinced after reading these two essays, we have no answers for him here.

[hernan]

jrshep, I registered on the ARI site but didn't find it there. He has that lecture on his own site but not for free. By chance is this argument presented in his OPAR book? I ordered that at AMERICONORMAN's suggestion, it should arrive next week. If so I'll take a look at it there.

anyfan, sorry to be so unbelieving but, hey, I'm looking for proof.

I have found this discussion very valuable. Thanks to everyone for their sincere efforts.

The conclusion I draw is this: aside from the rational, objectivist, egoist philosophy layed out so carefully and persuasively in VoS, objectivism also contains a shared sense of justice. That sense of justice is not demanded by the rational, objectivist, egoist ethics but because it is shared it it goes unchallenged. It serves as a selection criteria, not an argument. Tara Smith lays out a beautiful argument for this justice from rational, objectivist, egoist ethics that is, in the end, circular, relying on the justice to start, and I suspect that Peikoff makes the same argument (if I find otherwise I'll return with my observation).

I realize that challenging someone's sense of justice is rude, and I didn't realize when I began this thread that that's what I'd end up doing, so I do apologize if I made anyone uncomfortable.

In closing I would suggest that a serious, courageous Randian scholar should look again at this topic. My contention is that taking the virtue of predation into account will not overturn objectivism but it will sap it of some of it's self-righteousness for what it implies is that 1) non-objectivists are not as irrational as objectivists would have us believe and, 2) objectivists are not as rational as they would like to believe.

Justice is a complex topic that involves interplay of rational and irrational thinking. It is a rational irrationality.

[aynfan]

anyfan, sorry to be so unbelieving but, hey, I'm looking for proof.

No offense has been taken that I am aware of. You are confusing me, however, as to what your question really is. We are talking about justice now.

To my thinking justice derives from political theory. If ones political theory subsumes that the initiation of force is taboo, the laws that follow must of necessity be pro man pro freedom. (I don't beleive I need to get into a discussion about why man must be free.)

Predation has to be wrong because it initiates force.

[aynfan]

Ps-I am not just any old fan, I am an Ayn fan.:-)

[hernan]

aynfan, I'm glad, truly.

It was C-Wolf who clarified the divergence on justice to me.

Exactly. If one does not assume that initiation of force is taboo then other possibilities open up.

[Guest jrshep]

jrshep, I registered on the ARI site but didn't find it there. He has that lecture on his own site but not for free. By chance is this argument presented in his OPAR book? I ordered that at AMERICONORMAN's suggestion, it should arrive next week. If so I'll take a look at it there.

hernan,

I've just rechecked the site. The lecture is still there.

If you successfully registered, then you should have been transferred automatically to your "Registered User Page," and on that page you would have found, if you scroll down, a brief statement about Dr. Peikoff's lecture and an image of Dr. Peikoff along with a link to listen to "Why Should One Act on Principle?" And you should have been sent, by email, a message from ARI which included your user name (your email address) and your password, a password that you could use to log back onto the site as a registered member.

If you weren't automatically transferred to your "Registered User Page," you can find a link to it on the upper left hand side of the ARI home page: http://www.aynrand.org.

Anyway, the lecture is still there and available for you to listen to without charge. I hope you can find it and take advantage of it. I think you'll find it helpful.

[aynfan]

Exactly. If one does not assume that initiation of force is taboo then other possibilities open up.

Still not clear. Are you in favor of no initiation of force, or do you favor the 'possibilities' that open up without this restrcition?

[Fred Weiss]

...If one does not assume that initiation of force is taboo then other possibilities open up.

Yeah, most especially the initiation of force against you, which is precisely why that "taboo" is considered the bedrock of any civilized society.

I might also add that by embracing force as a possible virtue in your dealings with others you are at the same time rejecting reason in those dealings, so for all your pseudo-protestations of upholding reason you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

I would encourage the Objectivists in the group not to waste any more energy on this guy. There are some issues about which one cannot be honestly confused and this is one of them. He is apparently seeking to justify his own neurotic predatory impulses and in some twisted way he seems to think that Objectivism can rationalize it for him. The last thing in the world we want is for creatures such as this to be claiming any influence of Ayn Rand.

Fred Weiss

[hernan]

"Still not clear. Are you in favor of no initiation of force, or do you favor the 'possibilities' that open up without this restriction?"

I am not "favoring" one or the other (well, ok, I do have an idea but I'm saving that for another time). I am simply observing that you cannot deduce the non-initiation of force from rational egoism, that these are two separate axioms, and that if you keep the rational egoism axiom and discard the non-initiation axiom you get an interesting, albeit heretical, form of objectivism. It is, I would argue, a more interesting general case. But obviously it is discomforting as any examination of judicial sentiment must be.

He is apparently seeking to justify his own neurotic predatory impulses and in some twisted way he seems to think that Objectivism can rationalize it for him.

Naturally, this comes with the territory of challenging another's sense of justice. In the Soviet Union people who did not believe in marxism were sent to psychiatric hospitals to be cured. And we all remember what happened to Socrates for corrupting the youth of Athens.

Again, I apologize for any discomfort my heresy has caused you.

[aynfan]

There are some issues about which one cannot be honestly confused and this is one of them.

You can not prove that statement is true.

He is apparently seeking to justify his own neurotic predatory impulses and in some twisted way he seems to think that Objectivism can rationalize it for him.

Thank you for your fatuous, gratuitous assessment.

The last thing in the world we want is for creatures such as this to be claiming any influence of Ayn Rand.

Who's we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or have I joined a collective? If anyone is a creature it is you. I have reported your arrogance at least 3 times, unfortunately no one is listening.

We don't need you to enter a post belately and pronounce judgement on it. Have you been hired for that job? If not, speak for yourself in the future. Hernan has been polite and interested in what we have to say here. That is a person worth talking to in my estimation. Behind all of this rhetoric, which you Fred Weiss, have lordly deemed a waste of time, is a very real question? What will Objectivists do when the jack-booted thugs break down the door? Shoot them or march off to the camps?