Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[JMeganSnow]

First, I when I say government I do not mean a coercive type that enforces its laws on those who have not already consented.

Coercion is the only power government has, which is why governments must be strictly limited, not abolished. A government without the power of coercion is not a government, it is a country club meeting and about as effective.

Or do you mean a government shouldn't coerce you into "joining" its "sphere of influence?" Of course not. However, if you refuse, it can cheerfully boot you out of its geographical area or refuse to let you in. Or, throw you in jail if your refusal comes in the form of actually committing a crime.

[Hal]

I think that anarchy-capitalism is based on a misunderstanding of political language. If multiple private protection agencies (PPAs) are competiting in one area, its highly likely that one will 'win' and force the others out of business. If we now only have one PPA, then it is a state. The fact that people dont want to call it a state and would rather pretend that anarchy exists even though the PPA is functionally identical to a state changes nothing. Theres nothing magical about a government/state- its simply a group of people who claim monopoly force over a given area. A PPA which has eliminated its competitors satisfies this definition and hence constitutes a state. Anarchy can only exist if you have multiple PPAs, and theres no reason to believe that this situation would last for a particularly long time.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Hal

[DPW]

A PPA which has eliminated its competitors satisfies this definition and is hence constitutes a state. Anarchy can only exist if you have multiple PPAs, and theres no reason to believe that this situation would last for a particularly long time.

I believe that's Nozick's argument, but it kind of misses the point even if it's valid (which I'm not sure it is). The problem with anarchy isn't that it wouldn't last...but what would happen if it did.

[Rug burn]

What does any of this have to do with murder and Objectivism? I would like to see this get back on topic. I too have a lot of friends here at college that hate Objectivism because they think selfish can justify bad things.

[Fred Weiss]

Rule of law would exist under anarchy.

That is precisely what is absent under anarchy, virtually by definition. One of the defining characteristics of "The Rule of Law" is that there is a final arbiter, a political power which can make a definitive ruling on some disputed matter and enforce it. Long's answer to this - as others have indicated - is no answer.

More fundamentally, the basic fallacy of anarchy is that it does not grasp the distinction between economic and political power. Economic power is the power to produce and trade by voluntary means. Political power is the power to coerce. It is the power of the gun. You cannot convert the one into the other without disastrous results. What you get are coercive monopolies. In the political realm, absent the constitutional protection of rights, what you get is dictatorship. And that is precisely where anarchy ends up.

Furthermore, our rights are not something to "compete over", as if it were optional which ones some "protection agency" wishes to protect to the exclusion of others, or as if you could arbitrarily decide which rights you wanted to protect in contrast to your neighbor.

Consider this example. Suppose you believed you had the right to abortion but your neighbor opposed it. You decide to have an abortion. Does your neighbor have the right to stop you? Does his "protection agency" come to arrest you, while your "protection agency" comes to defend you? What do they do, shoot it out?

Fred Weiss

[nimble]

More fundamentally, the basic fallacy of anarchy is that it does not grasp the In the political realm, absent the constitutional protection of rights, what you get is dictatorship. And that is precisely where anarchy ends up.

First, I'd like to say, I apologize earlier for getting a little testy over this subject. And that is why I don't want to discuss this anymore after I answer Fred.

A constitution gaurantees nothing. It is a peice of paper and nothing more. Unlike other contracts, there is no one to enforce this one. The people with the guns are the ones you have to hope enforce it on themselves. Historically, this has never happened. This to me, is sufficient reason to doubt a constitution's power.

Furthermore, our rights are not something to "compete over", as if it were optional which ones some "protection agency" wishes to protect to the exclusion of others, or as if you could arbitrarily decide which rights you wanted to protect in contrast to your neighbor.

Protection Agencies wouldn't make the rules, they would enforce the rules, much like the police. Court systems would most likely make the laws, and most would probably agree on the laws so that they would save money by not having to have lots of legal battles. When the courts are uniform, enforcing the laws becomes less costly, so that you wouldn't have to fight a 10 million dollar war over a disagreement on abortion.

Consider this example. Suppose you believed you had the right to abortion but your neighbor opposed it.  You decide to have an abortion. Does your neighbor have the right to stop you? Does his "protection agency" come to arrest you, while your "protection agency" comes to defend you? What do they do, shoot it out?

Wars are costly, my guess is that they wouldn't shoot it out. Chances are those people in conflict don't pay the protection agency enough to wage war against another, and when service for the agency is not compulsory, workers would probably refuse to risk their life over something like abortion. But like I said, agencies don't make laws, they enforce them. They would probably go make sure the dispute doesn't get out of control and subpoena them to appear before some court, which is probably uniform.

I realize that none of this is proof of what will happen, but you cannot say what would happen in any system, simply because humans have free will. Even with a good constitution and moral politicians, all the citizens could just go on a killing rampage. But we assume most people are reasonable and thus dont. And using that assumption that people are reasonable, I make speculations as to how things would pan out.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, and this is my last post here on the subject of anarchy, unless moderators don't care that I speak of it. But I am pretty sure it is against the forum rules. I just felt that Fred deserved an answer.

Edited July 6, 2005 by nimble

[AisA]

A constitution gaurantees nothing. It is a peice of paper and nothing more. Unlike other contracts, there is no one to enforce this one. The people with the guns are the ones you have to hope enforce it on themselves. Historically, this has never happened.

Even with a good constitution and moral politicians, all the citizens could just go on a killing rampage.  But we assume most people are reasonable and thus dont. And using that assumption that people are reasonable, I make speculations as to how things would pan out.

So, the mere presence of government, the presence of a system of checks and balances on government power, and the presence of constitutionally defined individual rights prevents people from being reasonable -- while the absence of government, the absence of checks and balances and the absence of a constitution result in people being so reasonable that people with the guns will properly enforce the rules on themselves -- even though (according to you) this has never happened before. This is determinism, a denial of free will. It ties rationality to the non-existence of government institutions.

I know that you said you would no longer reply, but you might want to think about this. You also might want to think about why the greatest and most successful society on earth developed after the creation of limited government, checks and balances and constitutionally defined individual rights -- while those areas of the planet where anarchy reins are in utter ruins and chaos.

[Fred Weiss]

A constitution gaurantees nothing. It is a peice of paper and nothing more. Unlike other contracts, there is no one to enforce this one.

I believe if you read our Constitution you will discover that the means of enforcement are clearly spelled out. So, I don't know what you are referring to. One of course can argue about specific points in the Constitution but the means exist to change it and in fact a number of amendments have been added over the years. The important point is that it institutionalizes the fundamental principle of a civilized society, namely, that disputes are settled peacefully rather than through armed conflict. In the one major instance in our history where that was not the case, the results were catastrophic - but that was the result of a major philosophical contradiction in the Constitution regarding slavery and it had to be resolved.

Protection Agencies wouldn't make the rules, they would enforce the rules, much like the police. Court systems would most likely make the laws, and most would probably agree on the laws so that they would save money by not having to have lots of legal battles.

So the "protection agencies" would work for the courts - or what? What would be the basis of the laws? To what would they appeal in their rulings? Where does the power reside? The "protection agencies" I assume have the guns, so why wouldn't they exercise the power which resides in them? Who and what would stop them?

I realize that none of this is proof of what will happen,...

Ya think? But then don't feel bad, since this is typical anarchist argument style. Since anarchism is pure fantasy, you don't need evidence or proof for anything. Arbitrary pronouncements are clearly sufficient.

...but you cannot say what would happen in any system, simply because humans have free will. Even with a good constitution and moral politicians, all the citizens could just go on a killing rampage. But we assume most people are reasonable and thus dont. And using that assumption that people are reasonable, I make speculations as to how things would pan out.

Well, ultimately any political system will generally reflect a broad consensus of a population's convictions regarding their rights and of the rights of minorities who may differ with them - and that ultimately will rest on their view of reason and its proper role in guiding one's life. But for a population generally committed to reason and rational values, the last thing in the world they would want is anarchism. Of that you don't have to speculate.

Fred Weiss

[HaloNoble6]

I've asked nimble to stop defending anarchy, since that is contrary to the purpose of this forum, and so I ask others in this thread to not challenge him to defend the indefensible any longer--let's leave the arguments presented here as is and let readers decide for themselves who's views are reality-based.

[derEikopf]

So I rob the bank and I don't have to live in secrecy or fear of retribution. It's still immoral.

The problem is that it's a double standard and irrational. You recognize your right to property (and, therefore, life), but not anyone else's right to life. If you recongize your right to life, why don't other people have that right? What seperates their existence from yours? While they may hold different beliefs, ideals, concepts, etc., this does not change their existence or their consciousness...which means they still have the right to life. If you give yourself the right to life because you are a human, then it stands to reason that every human should have that right to life.

[Robspe]

The problem is that it's a double standard and irrational.  You recognize your right to property (and, therefore, life), but not anyone else's right to life.  If you recongize your right to life, why don't other people have that right?  What seperates their existence from yours?  While they may hold different beliefs, ideals, concepts, etc., this does not change their existence or their consciousness...which means they still have the right to life.  If you give yourself the right to life because you are a human, then it stands to reason that every human should have that right to life.

I think this is what Ayn Rand means by Man "qua" Man. No Man can preserve his integrity without obeying the laws of rationality. Without his integrity, he is only an animal. And this is why I like objectivism. It gives a personal, moral context to life as well as a practical guide to action.

[nimble]

This is one thing I have trouble agreeing with. If I want to rob a bank, knowing that I can get away with it completely free, it's still immoral. Yeah, I might have to live in secrecy. But suppose the US congress makes a federal law saying "it's okay for David Kahn to rob a bank." So I rob the bank and I don't have to live in secrecy or fear of retribution. It's still immoral.

Someone may have already said this, but here it goes. Any government that is willing to decree, "it's okay for David Kahn to rob a bank" is the type of morally corrupt government that would allow for a law that says "its okay for John to rob David Kahn". Thus supporting that type of government won't be beneficial to you in the long run.

Edited August 3, 2011 by softwareNerd
Anon fix

[Robspe]

There do seem to be three types (at least) of crimes that one can commit and, even if you can get away with them, you need to think carefully about because of the moral effects. One is malum per se, such as murder or violent theft, where the wrong is clear and will definitely have bad effects on your moral thinking. You will never be able to look into the mirror and consider yourself moral again.

Then there are violations of society's mala prohibita, such as the drug laws and income tax non-compliance, that are arguably bad, even vicious laws, but whose violation will have long-term negative effects. You have to think carefully before violating these laws because abiding by them is not always or necessarily wrong in and of itself. But, if you do violate them, you can still respect yourself as a moral man.

Then there are laws that compel you to commit inherently immoral acts, such as a requirement in a totalitarian society that you inform on those who oppose the regime. These laws you cannot morally obey, despite the possibly drastic negative effects violating them may have on you.

Probably if Howard Roark tried to blow up that apartment building today, he would be jailed as a terrorist.

[One Prime Mover]

Well, after a brief break from Objectivism to get my whole law school adventure under control, I'm back in the thick of things and I've stumbled upon another roadblock to my understanding. Hopefully y'all can help shed some light on this as you did with my Determinism problems awhile back. It has to do with reconciling an ethical system based on self-interest with the moral prohibition against 'sure-thing' theft and the like. I know this is a hot topic in the Ethics room, but most of those threads began with antagonism and I'd like to start fresh in a more learning-friendly atmosphere I learn best from arguing my position as if I were defending it to the death, then watching as it's torn to pieces. So don't read too much into my attempts to persuade you of my position.

The fundamental alternative on which the entire Objectivist ethics is based is life. Those things that further a human's life are of value to it, and those things that work against one's life are not. I'm golden up to this point; I get lost when Objectivists attempt to justify certain choices as moral or immoral -- choices that, in many cases, I perceive to have an opposite effect on the individual's life.

Let's take a common hypothetical. Hypotheticals help me learn. Feel free to modify the hypothetical or add necessary context if you feel it'll benefit understanding.

I'm a robber, and I've got a plan to rob a bank. To determine the morality of this action, I will weigh the values of each alternative -- to steal or not to steal. Whichever alternative presents itself to me as having the highest value to the furtherance of my life is the alternative I will select, as per the foundation on which Objectivist morality is based.

Rob The Bank!

What will I get from robbing the bank? Money. Now, I've heard some Objectivists here say things like 'money has no value unless it's honestly earned.' Huh-what? Value is based on the furtherance of an individual's life, and having lots of money does that however it was received. Having more money opens doors. Money has an intrinsic value insofar as it directly enables the acquisition of other things that are inarguably valuable (medicine, food, shelter, etc). The intrinsic value of food and water doesn't depend on whether or not they've been earned; if I eat and drink, I live. If I do not, I die. Period. Therein lies the fundamental alternative embodied in material goods, and money clearly leads to their acquisition (and to LIFE) whether it was earned or stolen. Regardless of the 'cons' to follow, the money to be acquired from robbing the bank certainly has some value in and of itself.

Be A Good Christian!

What value is to be had in choosing not to rob the bank? First, I avoid the chance of being convicted of robbery, which would not only eliminate the value of the obtained money but also effectively destroy my life. I also maintain a purity of character, in that I can be confident that everything I own has been earned through the voluntary exchange of values. This is an issue of self-esteem, in that I can be comfortable with the knowledge that I am worthy of all that I have.

To decide whether or not to rob a bank, the values of each competing alternative must be weighed against one another. Fortunately, this is a hypothetical so I can play God with the facts . Imagine that I am so confident of my plan -- certain, in the context of my knowledge -- that the chance of capture is so remote as to be outweighed by the far more likely eventuality of financial windfall (which, let's pretend, is of an absurdly high amount). As for self-esteem, what if I have placed a value on my capacity for subterfuge, manipulation and the required mastery to pull off a successful heist? These would all rest solidly on the foundation of 'ethics as furthering life,' because all can be used to acquire things that have value to that end. Perhaps I take pride in the successful application of these skills to the task of robbing a bank, in the application of valued skills to the acquisition of a further value (money). Or perhaps my self-esteem will take a hit, but it is outweighed by the value of money I'll be receiving.

I'm sure that many of you will respond to this with specific weaknesses to my hypothetical. I am hoping that at least a few of you will look not only at this scenario, but also towards any number of other situations I could have drawn up in its place and the deeper philosophical issues that would underpin them all. I can only see two ways out of the dilemma of which my hypothetical is but one example, neither of which I find very persuasive:

Position #1) Eliminate any possibility of positive value for all immoral acts

This is what that 'money has no value unless it's honestly earned' argument seeks to do: It's an example of the claim that immoral choices cannot result in positive value by definition. It's not hard to imagine that every immoral scenario will have some potential for negative value (acquiring a dishonest reputation, a blow to one's perception of self-reliance, etc). So, if it were possible to obliterate any chance for positive value, every immoral act would have negative value and, thus, be immoral. I see the logic. I just don't see the premise. How in the world can one make the logical claim that "telling a lie" obliterates the pro-life value of a hundred million dollars, if it were possible to acquire the latter by doing the former? What if I need that money for life-saving surgery I can't otherwise afford? Clearly, I can shape my hypothetical by heaping value after value upon the benefits of robbing a bank; the possibilities are endless. What if I knew how to save the world from a natural disaster but no one believed me, and I needed the money to build my anti-doomsday machine? At some point, even the most stubborn Objectivist has to recognize the potential for value in at least a few bad deeds. And once they do, the entire ethical system falls apart because it depends on its absolute nature (Rand: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.").

Position #2) The negative value of an immoral act always outweighs the positive value

Here's where I think people are arguing from when they list the flaws in any given hypothetical. It's as popular a tactic in these forums as it is frustratingly irrelevant, because it misses the forest for the trees: It only addresses the specific hypothetical and not the philosophical point it's making. Regarding my hypothetical, I might hear things like: "What if you get caught?" or "What if your grandmother hid her engagement ring in a safety deposit box at the bank you robbed and cuts you out of the will when she finds out you took it?" From a thread on the Ethics forum regarding the ethics of owning up to vomiting on a stranger's rug: "Do you want to be the kind of person who pukes on stranger's rugs?" or "What if he stops having parties because people keep puking on his rug?" While I maintain that specific instances of this strategy are ineffective as they apply only to the specific hypothetical under analysis, beneath all of them is an implicit statement of Position #2 which would apply to all immoral acts. I can't see how this can be logically supported. How can one say that every immoral act will have some net negative value to the furthering of one's life? If a game were played between someone holding this opinion and a creative author, with the author constantly reworking a hypothetical situation to respond to any negative values the Objectivist suggested, eventually the author would end up with something that the Objectivist couldn't find any compelling fault with. Sure, it's a hypothetical situation, but it wouldn't be an impossible one -- and a moral code that speaks in absolutes must apply to possible hypotheticals, otherwise the moment 'possible hypothetical' becomes 'reality' the code falls apart!

Anyways, that's the crux of my issue, and it goes a lot further than lies and theft. I see this having implications on any absolute characteristic of Objectivist ethics, and I'd really like some help figuring this out so I can move on to politics.

[DavidOdden]

Value is based on the furtherance of an individual's life, and having lots of money does that however it was received. Having more money opens doors.

Do you really believe that? For example, imagine the most disgusting, degrading acts performed upon you in public for money (let's say $5,000). Would you do it? If not, then there's something that's more important to you than cash (and if you wouldn't do it for $5,000 but would for $50,000 then we have a more accurate estimate of the value of degradation for you).

if I eat and drink, I live. If I do not, I die. Period. Therein lies the fundamental alternative embodied in material goods, and money clearly leads to their acquisition (and to LIFE) whether it was earned or stolen.

But don't confuse life qua man (to use the full form of the expression) with mere physical existence.

Imagine that I am so confident of my plan -- certain, in the context of my knowledge -- that the chance of capture is so remote as to be outweighed by the far more likely eventuality of financial windfall (which, let's pretend, is of an absurdly high amount).

You have a healthy imagination. You cannot describe the context where it would be rational to assume that you can't get caught. It is certainly possible that you might actually manage to get away with it in some instance, but you could also not get away with it and you will lose your life instantly if you get caught. The issue is always whether you are willing to gamble with losing your life. The best that you can hope for is to say "In the context of my knowledge, I do not know the circumstances under which I will get caught red-handed".

It's not hard to imagine that every immoral scenario will have some potential for negative value (acquiring a dishonest reputation, a blow to one's perception of self-reliance, etc). So, if it were possible to obliterate any chance for positive value, every immoral act would have negative value and, thus, be immoral. I see the logic. I just don't see the premise. How in the world can one make the logical claim that "telling a lie" obliterates the pro-life value of a hundred million dollars, if it were possible to acquire the latter by doing the former?

One important question is whether you accept that acting according to your nature is a virtue; if you hold that acting contrary to nature is a virtue, then that might be the source of your problem. You are adhering to a contradiction, since you want your rights as a civilized human, but deny those rights to others. (I'm assuming that you would not seriously believe that it's equally okay for some other guy to kill you at random, if he could get away with it. I'm not talking about pretend claims like saying, for the sake of argument, "Sure, I don't mind". I mean really believing this). Since there are actually no contradictions, then that means that you reject reason and thus the essential characteristic of being a man.

What if I need that money for life-saving surgery I can't otherwise afford?

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! As surgeon, I shall take your money and have a little accident at the very beginning, saving myself hours of annoying time on surgery. It's the right thing to do.

While I maintain that specific instances of this strategy are ineffective as they apply only to the specific hypothetical under analysis, beneath all of them is an implicit statement of Position #2 which would apply to all immoral acts.

That's correct. The argument is based on two facts. First, you cannot see the future, so there is a risk. Second, I will blow your head off if you come near me, and so will all decent people who I know. Not to mention all indecent people. There may be a few pacifists out there who would let you get away with this, but that's a really huge gamble on your part. The question is (1) how can you be so sure you won't get caught, and (2) to quote Inspector Callahan, are you feeling lucky?

[JMeganSnow]

Morality does not exist primarily to determine one's proper relationship to other men, to tell you whether or not you should steal, murder, etc. It's first function is to tell you how to live your own, singular life.

You are taking, as primary in determining how men should live that banks exist and that one can obtain money by robbing them. The existence of banks, money, wealth, goods, and anything that might make this exercise meaningful depends on the existence productive men, yet you are rejecting, explicitly and on principle that productiveness is a virtue, and prescribing as a method of living it's opposite. You are depending on something that you are actively seeking to destroy in the course of your argument.

Perhaps you will now say, "But I'm not saying that ALL men should rob banks to live, I'm only asking whether or not I should." But moral principles are not a halfway, sometimes, approximate, when-I-feel-like-it proposition. It is one or the other. Either productiveness is a virtue, or it is not. And if it IS a virtue, how DARE you propose to CASH IN on it while explicitly denying it.

It is much the same as the discussion over determinism.

Is it ethical to rob a bank? Not if you remember whence banks come.

[EC]

To add to David and Jennifer's excellent posts also remember that the ends can never justify the means. To say "I know I can get away with it, so..." one would need to proceed to violate property rights, the ethics on which they rest, the reason on which ethics rest, and eventually reality itself. So how can one claim benefit to one's life while denying and contradicting the reality in which one's life exists?

[Proverb]

The fundamental alternative on which the entire Objectivist ethics is based is life.

This proposition is the root of your issue here

It would be correct to say that:

The principles of Objectivist Ethics are based on the furtherance of your (the individual's) life, and (the missing corrollary) the recognition of other's sovereignty over their life and furtherance thereof.

Because only you have the ability to live your life, you only have right to your life no one elses. Such that you are morally sanctioned only to create, keep (defend), and dispose of your values (use and trade).

This, if applied to each's life, lays the groundwork for the concept of property.

To rob is to deprive someone of their property over which you have no right.

To kill is to say that you have a right to a person's utmost value, which you do not. (This is not to say that killing is never justified, that's another thread)

and to reiterate Rational_One's point:

The only moral ends are one's attained through moral means.

[source]

In the long term, it is always in your interest. In the example of your murderer, to a certain degree he will have to live in secrecy, telling lie after lie, and always be at war with reality for the rest of his life in order to "get away with it". Is this in his long term self-interest?

You are working with a premise that he will actually be asked about it. What if he doesn't? Why is it not in his own self interest to kill a man, regardless of whether or not the society will judge him for it?

I think I have an answer to that.

Let's say you kill once in your whole life and it is not a justified course of action. You hide this and you do not speak of it. Such an act is not easily forgotten. Try to think of a situation when you will trying to teach your children for example, the principles of individual rights. Will you be able to tell them about it, without deep within yourself feeling like a hypocrite?

Even if you don't ever teach anyone about the principles you have violated, it is still an issue. Whatever you accomplish in your life, you will always know within yourself that the means to your getting there was killing a person. It is not through your own effort. When it was tough you decided to remove those who were making it tough, rather than compete them as an honest person would do. You will never be able to reach the kind of happiness that you could if you did not allow yourself this serious moral breach. You killed a man, and by doing so you have destroyed your own life.

And if this person was not someone in your way to such "success," then you acted to satisfy a temporary whim and that says a lot about your integrity (i.e. you have none), and it is doubtful that you will in this case ever accomplish anything.

[Marc K.]

You can't be serious. Trying to use the Objectivist ethics to justify thievery? Why not go for the entire ball of lint and attempt to justify murder?

And while I would have preferred this (to be polite) dubious question go unanswered, I do understand the desire to refute such nonsense and applaud David and Jennifer's eloquent responses. (Though I doubt this person is open to persuasion since he is a self described cynic).

I would, however, like to disagree with an absolute statement made by Rational One:

remember that the ends can never justify the means.

On the contrary, the ends are the only thing that can justify the means.

After all, if my end is my life, doesn't that justify productive work as my means?

[Proverb]

You can't be serious. Trying to use the Objectivist ethics to justify thievery? Why not go for the entire ball of lint and attempt to justify murder?

If you are addressing me, you have misinterpreted my post.

On the contrary, the ends are the only thing that can justify the means.

I think you mean to say that the only way to an end is through a means.

I am almost certain that you would NOT agree with me if I said: "I killed three people and took a sum of $400, of which gain allowed me to buy a PSP and a few games which filled a high value in my life, therefore my murder was justified"

If you are unclear with what I am saying here you have no business posting on this topic.

[Marc K.]

If you are addressing me, you have misinterpreted my post.

Wow!!!! Yes, you are confused. No, I wasn't addressing you. Did you attempt "to use the Objectivist ethics to justify thievery?"

I think you mean to say that the only way to an end is through a means.

I meant to say precisely what I said: the ends are the only thing that CAN justify the means. Of course, only moral ends are justified and they may only be attained through moral means, which is similar to what you said, but which is not a reiteration of what Rational One said: "the ends can never justify the means."

If you are unclear with what I am saying here you have no business posting on this topic.

I don't like your tone here. I am unclear on much of what you say and yet you still have no business telling me where I can post. And nothing I have said in this thread or any other justifies your presumptuousness in doing so.

[JMeganSnow]

*dons Moderator hat* Proverb and Mark K., knock it off. There's no need to take umbrage at One Prime Mover or at each other. OPM is, from my experience, trying very hard to understand Objectivism, which is why I don't mind responding to questions like this even though they may seem hostile. *doffs Moderator hat*

Steven Brust, an author I very much like, once wrote a brief vignette in one of his books (The Paths of the Dead I believe) which I will paraphrase here:

It's not a question of the ends justifying the means, but of determining them.  If I want to visit a friend that lives South of me, I cannot proceed to leave my home and travel North and hope to achieve my purpose.  Likewise with anything else.  If you wish to achieve honorable ends, you must therefore use honorable means, otherwise you will have defeated your own purpose.

So, it follows that if it appears you can achieve an honorable end by dishonorable means, then either you are mistaken in your conclusion or the end itself is flawed in some way.

[One Prime Mover]

Please do not read hostility into my posts; I am arguing so that I can watch what is said in rebuttal. Eventually, I'll get it, and in the meantime I am sorry if the method of study that works best for me doesn't appeal to you.

imagine the most disgusting, degrading acts performed upon you in public for money (let's say $5,000). Would you do it? If not, then there's something that's more important to you than cash

You're arguing by degrees when you need to be defending an absolute. Would I perform a heinous crime for a moderate sum of money? Of course not. Question: How does this weaken 'there are some crimes that are worth the potential rewards?' Answer: It doesn't.

(and if you wouldn't do it for $5,000 but would for $50,000 then we have a more accurate estimate of the value of degradation for you).

Multiplying a degree by ten doesn't turn it into an absolute. What are you trying to do here?

But don't confuse life qua man (to use the full form of the expression) with mere physical existence.

I haven't. Are you saying that the value of my whole life can be weighed against any shred of voluntary immorality and always lose out? I'll die if I don't get the water, but any immoral breach to get it -- however slight -- is worse than death? Not defending this position as an absolute opens the door to some flexibility, and then the question becomes 'how much wiggle room?'

An interesting possibility here may be that, due to the hierchical nature of morals and values, the slightest rejection of one value necessitates the collapse of the whole structure. That would help defend this morality as absolute, but requires the entire moral code be universally rigid. This is only possible if values never conflict in any way, or one value would have to be flexible enough to give way to the other in such a situation. But the heart of my problem here seems to be that very possibility. What if I end up committing some glorious accident that, by some chance of fate, presents itself in a manner that I know will result in me receiving a life sentence? Here, the value of honesty is conflicting with the value of life (which, regardless of any pangs of conscience or blows to self-image that telling a lie may entail, will certainly suffer a net loss if the value of honesty is upheld in this instance). Either I am misrepresenting this conflict, or an absolutely rigid system has no solution here; both values cannot be upheld.

At heart, any hypothetical I could devise to justify an immoral act involves holding one conflicting value against another -- i.e. the first value prompts an action that the second value deems immoral.

One important question is whether you accept that acting according to your nature is a virtue; if you hold that acting contrary to nature is a virtue, then that might be the source of your problem.

Hmm... I like this a lot. I think my error might be in here somewhere. Let me try to mull this around a bit and hope it doesn't get too tangled.

If I were to act in my nature, the first thing I need to do is decide how to define that nature. There are lots of possiblities; "man" is just one example in a conceptual hierarchy of natures that runs from "organism" to "Canadian" and beyond. As far as I see it, the nature that is most closely relevant to the choices I make -- not to mention the closest to me perceptually -- is my nature as an individual consciousness. That nature infuses everything that I am; all of my beliefs, values, thoughts and concepts come from the relationship between Existence and my Consciousness. On a perceptual (introspective) level, there is a fundamental difference between 'Me' and 'You,' so why does "my nature as a man" take precedence over "my nature as an individual" in the construction of my own moral code? If it is possible to identify what is valuable to my nature as an individual consciousness, then it would be moral to choose the course of action that is in the best interests of those values. Thus, honesty is a virtue only insofar as it safeguards my values as an individual. If being honest in a given situation would oppose more values than it upholds, wouldn't it be according to my 'nature qua rational individual' to be dishonest?

The question I can see coming next would be "where do your values come from?" Good question. As an individual, volitional consciousness, my life and my liberty are primaries for the same reason they're important to a morality of man. From my liberty arises a value in anything that increases the range of choices available to me, so that covers things like money. Then there were some deeper, instinctual places I couldn't reduce further. I hate boredom, for one. I can't tell you why... any ideas? Regardless, from there comes a value in mental stimulation -- i.e. 'fun' and the integration of challenging and novel things (travel, debate, education, etc). Rand seems to respond to this by sliding down a slippery slope that leads to purposeless hedonism ('animals grunting in the mud' or some similar imagery), but the values and aims that 'my nature as an individual' gives rise to are a far cry from her dire warnings. Even if they weren't, though, describing the potentially extreme results of a logical conclusion doesn't invalidate it. Holding 'my nature as an individual' as my moral foundation seems to give rise to a lot of values, none of which result in 'honesty' or 'respect for the rights of others' being supported as unflinching absolutes.

Please keep in mind the disclaimer I started this whole thing off with. I'm not a sociopath seeking justification for heinous crimes I'm planning to commit. Right now, my morality is not based on logic -- it's based on that nameless emotionalism that drives most of the world, and with all of the bad comes the standard suite of 'Thou shalt not steal/kill/etc.' I'd love to adopt the confidence of having a morality based exclusively on inarguable logic flowing from axiomatic principles, but before I can accept it I have to push hard against all the cracks I think I see and hope none of them give . It would be very, very bad for me to adopt a moral code based on logic if I haven't figured it all out yet.

You are adhering to a contradiction, since you want your rights as a civilized human, but deny those rights to others.

How is this a contradiction? If my morality is based on my nature as an individual consciousness, then there is a very relevant difference between 'my rights' and 'the rights of others.' Since everything of value to me can be traced back to my nature as an individual, nothing can have value outside of that context. In other words, there is no value to the rights of others beyond the impact that violating those rights will have on me. And now we're back to weighing the pros and cons of any potentially immoral decision.

(I'm assuming that you would not seriously believe that it's equally okay for some other guy to kill you at random, if he could get away with it.)

Let me improve your hypothetical by bringing it in line with what I'm actually arguing: Would it be moral for another man to kill me if he knew he could get away with it and stood to gain something worth the possibility of being wrong about avoiding capture? In that case, it would clearly not be moral for me to let him do this, because it is a violation of my values. However, it would be moral for me to do the same right back at him, because in the reversal of this scenario my values stand to benefit at his expense.

So, what if everyone adopted this morality? Would we dissolve into anarchy and chaos, with everyone ending up far worse than they are now? Not if people were rational, because everyone's highest value remains their own benefit. In such a society, it would become beneficial to band together for protection, make agreements of fairness and enforce them. Sound familiar? Objectivist morality arises from this 'nature as an individual consciousness' morality only when cooperating returns greater value than cheating. That's the critical condition that underlies the Objectivist ethic, and so defeats its status as an absolute as I see it. What logically follows is a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma played on a civilization-spanning level: It's moral to cheat unless not cheating stands to benefit you more, in which case the Objectivist morality asserts itself and we come full circle.

It appears that adopting an Objectivist morality can happen only if it is an objective fact that 'always cooperating no matter what' provides greater value than 'cooperating most of the time and cheating only if doing so would provide greater value than not cheating.' It's actually an act of deductive logic to demonstrate how that is fallacious.

moral principles are not a halfway, sometimes, approximate, when-I-feel-like-it proposition. It is one or the other. Either productiveness is a virtue, or it is not. And if it IS a virtue, how DARE you propose to CASH IN on it while explicitly denying it.

But if morality is a guide to living my life, which is distinct from the lives of others, then why must I subject it equally to all human life? There's only one life that is mine, and morality is a guide to that life, so that life and those things it values should take precedence over all else. Can't I apply it differently to myself than I do to others and profit from the fact that they aren't smart enough to do the same? Sure, it's unfair and hypocritical, but that doesn't have an negative impact on the things I value unless others know about it, does it?

Again I feel the need to emphasize that I'm only trying to understand, and I tend to do it by arguing with my teachers

The principles of Objectivist Ethics are based on the furtherance of your (the individual's) life, and (the missing corrollary) the recognition of other's sovereignty over their life and furtherance thereof.

On what logical grounds do we add that missing corollary? How does absolutely recognizing another's sovereignty benefit me, my life or my values?

[Proverb]

My apologies Marc I misuderstood your ends. Thank you Jennifer for showing me the means to my end.