Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

Rate this topic


hernan

Recommended Posts

Why? How do I benefit by spending $20 on cleaning a stranger's carpet that I messed up?

You "benefited" from the party. But benefits have nothing to do with it. You acted imorally, just because you can get away with it doesn't make it moral. A criminal benefits from robbing the bank, that doesn't make it morally justified for him to get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You "benefited" from the party. But benefits have nothing to do with it. You acted imorally, just because you can get away with it doesn't make it moral. A criminal benefits from robbing the bank, that doesn't make it morally justified for him to get away with it.

A criminal does not benefit from robbing a bank. You cannot look at a single fact in isolation and call it a gain.

If you give me a dollar, did I gain? Obviously it depends on what (if anything) I did to receive that dollar. If I gave you a hundred dollars to get that dollar, my supposed gain was actually a loss.

The same principle applies to the robber. The robber may gain some money by robbing a bank, but he does not benefit: he sacrifices his mind, his moral character, his self-esteem...his ongoing ability to survive. And that's whether or not he is ever caught. To call that a benefit is to pervert the meaning of the concept.

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A criminal does not benefit from robbing a bank.  You cannot look at a single fact in isolation and call it a gain. 

If you give me a dollar, did I gain?  Obviously it depends on what (if anything) I did to receive that dollar.  If I gave you a hundred dollars to get that dollar, my supposed gain was actually a loss. 

The same principle applies to the robber.  The robber may gain some money by robbing a bank, but he does not benefit: he sacrifices his mind, his moral character, his self-esteem...his ongoing ability to survive.  And that's whether or not he is ever caught.  To call that a benefit is to pervert the meaning of the concept.

Don Watkins

That's a good point. All though, I think we can say that a robber gained, short-term, financially from the robbery. There is no denying that he has more money now than he did prior. Therefore, he can recieve the benefits of having money without the just efforted of earnining that money (presuming he gets away with it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good point. All though, I think we can say that a robber gained, short-term, financially from the robbery. There is no denying that he has more money now than he did prior. Therefore, he can recieve the benefits of having money without the just efforted of earnining that money (presuming he gets away with it).

That's the essence of context-dropping. Narrow your focus sufficiently and anything can be considered a gain.

Moose:

You've started similar topics before, asking why such-and-such isn't moral, even if you can get away with it. I'm inclined to think that this is somehow indicative of a concrete-bound or pragmatic mentality. The situation you suggest here isn't greatly different from the one in the thread I linked to; if anything, it's simply more trivial. You don't seem to grasp that rights are ultimately an essentially self-interested moral principle, because they are derived from the ethics of self-interest. I'm not sure how to help you remedy this, except to suggest that when considering a question of rights, ask yourself first how that righ tis derived from the Objectivist ethics. (Admittedly, this is something I still struggle with and must consciously remind myself of.)

If you're trying to understand how a principle might apply in a particular context, there's nothing wrong with that provided the context in question is relevant to your own experience. If you're simply inventing hypotheticals in an attempt to deny the validity of the moral principles involved (and given your explicit statements in the previous thread, I can't rule this out) then I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was tempted to delete this topic as it did seem rather juvenile (not to mention redundant), but I decided to wait and see whether it accumulated any replies.

Just a quick question: what, if anything, does puking on a carpet have to do with rights? Is there a right to carpet? A right to no vomit? What you're really looking at here is the principle of honesty, not rights.

The difference is similar to that between a civil matter and a criminal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no denying that he has more money now than he did prior. Therefore, he can recieve the benefits of having money without the just efforted of earnining that money (presuming he gets away with it).

Your "therefore" does not follow. What qualifies as a "benefit" of money depends on the full context of the role the money plays in a given man's life (including how he spends it and how he acquired it). As Rand pointed out, if gained at the expense of moral principles, money is not a value at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick question: what, if anything, does puking on a carpet have to do with rights?  Is there a right to carpet?  A right to no vomit? What you're really looking at here is the principle of honesty, not rights.

The difference is similar to that between a civil matter and a criminal one.

That carpet is someone's property, is it not?

You are correct in that this does involve the principle of honesty, but that's hardly the only principle involved. The question one must ask is: Honesty about what? In this case, about the damage to the host's carpet, i.e. to his property.

Just because something is a civil matter doesn't mean that no one's rights were violated. If I bring suit against someone in civil court, my task is to demonstrate that my rights have been violated. Otherwise there is no cause for the court to enforce a penalty against the other party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? How do I benefit by spending $20 on cleaning a stranger's carpet that I messed up?

Because then when he pukes on your carpet, you can expect him to spend $20 to clean it. What if you don't? Why would he then want to make retribution to you if he caused $20, or $2,000 damage to your house?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same principle applies to the robber.  The robber may gain some money by robbing a bank, but he does not benefit: he sacrifices his mind, his moral character, his self-esteem...

That's interesting. What exactly does it mean to "sacrifice one's mind"? Does a robber loose his ability to reason by robbing a bank? Can you exactly explain how the sacrifice works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting. What exactly does it mean to "sacrifice one's mind"? Does a robber loose his ability to reason by robbing a bank? Can you exactly explain how the sacrifice works?

He doesn't lose his ability to reason: he turns against his reason. To sacrifice your mind is to stop using it as your means of knowledge and guide to action. It means placing your emotions above your reason. That is precisely what a bank robber has to do by virtue of the nature of his undertaking. Since reason is man's means of survival, to commit such an act can never be in one's interest, no matter how much money ends up in one's pocket.

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original example is quite bizarre, but you can get a similar situation by assuming you have acidentally hit someone's unoccupied car in a carpark and knocked off their mirror. They arent around - do you a) shrug your shoulders and drive away, B) wait for them to come back and offer to compensate them, or c) paste a $50 note to their windscreen (or somewhere more discrete) and then drive away. Where is the self-interest in options B) and c)?

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original example is quite bizarre, but you can get a similar situation by assuming you have acidentally hit someone's unoccupied car in a carpark and knocked off their mirror. They arent around - do you a) shrug your shoulders and drive away, B) wait for them to come back and offer to compensate them, or c) paste a $50 note to their windscreen (or somewhere more discrete) and then drive away. Where is the self-interest in options B) and c)?

Try a more fundamental question: how do we determine what our self-interest consists of in the first place? Is it self-evident? Well, I will remind you of the Objectivist answer: the only way to determine what is in our self-interest is by reference to moral principles.

Assuming you agree that, for example, justice and honesty are proper moral principles, the answer to your above stated question is obvious: the self-interest lies in the fact that B ) and C ) [let's assume] are requirements of honesty and justice.

If you do not agree that justice and honesty are proper moral principles (i.e., that they are necessary means to achieving your values), that is another discussion altogether.

Any time you come upon a "dilemma" such as the one you cite, ask yourself the following questions:

-Must man act on principle in order to survive?

-If so, to which principles must he adhere?

-Finally, how do those principles apply in this particular circumstance?

Don Watkins

Edited to deal with the fact that my ( B ) and ( C ) turned into emoticons. :dough:

Edited by DPW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming you agree that, for example, justice and honesty are proper moral principles.
They are proper moral principles iff it is in one's self-interest to hold them. And in most situations, it is. But it is unclear why the values of justice and honesty are beneficial in the specifc context of the wing-mirror scenario. Driving away without compensating the car owner does not seem to hamper my quest to achieve values. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I picked a horrible example, but here's what I'm getting at. In my previous conversations, people on this board have expressed the view that morality is solely a function of what is in your own rational self-interest. However, situations arise in everyone's lives where they can do something which will give them material benefit at the expense of others, and then they can get away with it scot-free. I don't imagine anyone on this board is willing to say that it is moral to do so. My question is this:

Why is it immoral? Because it is not in your own self-interest or because it violates the rights of others?

I think the answer is undoubtedly the latter, but that isn't the impression I've gotten from other people on this board. You may counter with "it is always in your interests to uphold the rights of others," but there are dozens of examples where this does not apply...for instance, if I accidentally run into a parked car and then drive away without leaving a note on the guy's car telling him to call me for the insurance. I can get away with it, but it's still immoral because I have caused harm to someone else without paying the proper reparations.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are proper moral principles iff it is in one's self-interest to hold them. And in most situations, it is. But it is unclear why the values of justice and honesty are beneficial in the specifc context of the wing-mirror scenario.

This is completely backwards. We use moral principles to determine our self-interest. There is no other way to do it.

What you may be referring to is that our moral principles are contextual, but you don't determine the context of a principle by looking for cases where it "fails." Rather, the context in which a principle applies is the context in which it was formed: a rational being acting long-range to pursue values in order to sustain his life. So you tell me: in what way does this particular scenerio fall outside of that context?

The reason this is unclear to you is because you are taking it as self-evident that it is not in your interest to pay money if you can avoid doing so. Well, that's not self-evident. That's something that must be proven, and to prove that something is in your self-interest requires that you demonstrate it to be an instance of a proper moral principle. So let me ask you another question: What moral principle says that it is proper to destroy someone's property without re-emburssing them?

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't lose his ability to reason: he turns against his reason.  To sacrifice your mind is to stop using it as your means of knowledge and guide to action.  It means placing your emotions above your reason.  That is precisely what a bank robber has to do by virtue of the nature of his undertaking.  Since reason is man's means of survival, to commit such an act can never be in one's interest, no matter how much money ends up in one's pocket.

Don Watkins

Continuing with this: I will never live my life for another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. It's an entirely personal pledge. You can violate it, but would you ever want to? It's such an integral and personal sense of who you are to live like that.

You should clean up the puke for the same reason that Ayn Rand disparages the "pimp" from Chile in Atlas Shrugged. He could not bother to ash his cigarette in an ashtray accross the table. Is that the kind of man you want to be? Maybe it is, but Rand thought reason and ideals would lead you elsewhere.

You should follow principles religiously while understanding that they are not categorical imperatives. Ultimately it is reason that guides you in a selfish and spiritual quest to be a certain kind of man and a happy one. Your ideal self should be perfect, but not flawless. So, if you are in a hurry, better not to miss your flight, that would be much worse. You just have to move on. Maybe you could leave some money or a note or something, but you might be in too much of a hurry to think of it. It might be best, from a social perspective, to just let the mess remain anonymous and remember the mistake for the future. These should not be rationalizations of feelings but honest attempts to act in accordance with reality. It is the same rationality that reccomends principles and ideals in the first place.

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, situations arise in everyone's lives where they can do something which will give them material benefit at the expense of others, and then they can get away with it scot-free.

See my last reply to Hal. You are assuming what you must prove: that gaining a so-called "material benefit" at the expense of others is in your interest so long as you can get away with it. The trouble is, to prove that something is in your interest, is to demonstrate that it is an instance of a proper moral principle. I challenge you to name a moral principle that implies that violating the rights of others is in your interest. There is no rational way to do it.

Don Watkins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... morality is solely a function of what is in your own rational self-interest.  However, situations arise in everyone's lives where they can do something which will give them material benefit at the expense of others, and then they can get away with it scot-free.  I don't imagine anyone on this board is willing to say that it is moral to do so.

You started out fine with establishing the standard of the good, but then you did not use it to answer your own question.

The good is that which is toward your rational self-interest. Now, perhaps you can explain what you mean by situations where you can "gain material benefit at the expense of others" and how this does or does not coincide with rational self-interest.

Hal:

That you think fleeing a scene of a crime (when you're the criminal) can be done all the while still achieving values is troubling, but let's answer your question regardless.

Such a person is short-sighted and mindless. Suppose he gets away with it once, and convinces himself that in certain instances can be done again. Reality has now become his enemy--everytime he finds himself in such a situation, he must find a way to evade the fact that he's responsible for the initiation of force against another. However, man is fallible, and he is likely to not get away with it eventually. When this happens, he will pay the price.

So, in a nutshell, while mindless pragmatists might see the short-term benefit in getting away with the initiation of force, the long term effects are pretty damning. Even if you only did it that one time and you have no guilt over doing it, you become weary of police officers, of people asking questions about side-view mirrors and such, you become a slave of the illusion you've created.

Your mind works a certain way, and that is through the use of reason. Any act counter to reason throws sand into your mind's gears and will eventually erode your faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my previous conversations, people on this board have expressed the view that morality is solely a function of what is in your own rational self-interest.  However, situations arise in everyone's lives where they can do something which will give them material benefit at the expense of others, and then they can get away with it scot-free.  I don't imagine anyone on this board is willing to say that it is moral to do so.

Ah-ha! I think we've stumbled upon the problem! Ask yourself whether all values are material. If not, what other values are there? Ayn Rand identified three primary values, reason, purpose and self-esteem, and none of them are material. How about "my life" as my ultimate value? Is that material? Not really, it's an abstraction encompassing a wide variety of things: experiences, ideas, actions, choices. As long as you insist on counting only material values in your gain/loss considerations, you're going to run into problems. You'll also be confirming my "concrete-bound" hypothesis (see above), by the way.

My question is this:

Why is it immoral?  Because it is not in your own self-interest or because it violates the rights of others?

You've phrased the question in the form of a false dichotomy. It is not one or the other. One is a necessary corollary of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That carpet is someone's property, is it not?

You are correct in that this does involve the principle of honesty, but that's hardly the only principle involved.  The question one must ask is: Honesty about what?  In this case, about the damage to the host's carpet, i.e. to his property.

Just because something is a civil matter doesn't mean that no one's rights were violated.  If I bring suit against someone in civil court, my task is to demonstrate that my rights have been violated.  Otherwise there is no cause for the court to enforce a penalty against the other party.

Au contraire, if you bring a civil suit against someone there may be no rights violation of any kind whatsoever. MOST civil suits come about because two parties are unable to settle what amounts to a confusion or difference of opinion between them and they require the assistance of an objective third party with enforcement powers to handle things. If you puke on someone's carpet you haven't violated their rights: they let you come over, they let you get drunk, they can very well deal with the consequences. Much in the same way that, if someone climbs over my rickety fence and scratches themselves coming into my yard, it's their problem. I didn't force them to climb over the fence; I didn't even ASK them to.

The reason "owning up" is a good idea and in your self-interest in this example is that, if you don't do so you have made reality your enemy, and no one can survive in defiance of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sacrifice your mind is to stop using it as your means of knowledge and guide to action.  It means placing your emotions above your reason.  That is precisely what a bank robber has to do by virtue of the nature of his undertaking.

Why is it irrational to rob a bank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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