Rand's training in meta-biology

[The_Rational_Animal]

Can we firstly agree that Ayn Rand was heavily influenced by Aristotle? But say this influence is not limited to traditional philosophy, and extends into his natural philosophy as well.

Aristotle's scientific study in biology led him to believe that the life of an organism (for example, a tree) is purposed by reaching adulthood. Neither he (nor Rand) thought favorably about an alternative, that the singular mission of that tree is in reproduction, that is, reaching adulthood to reproduce. Aristotle's theories were replaced by Darwin in the 19th century.

Modern biology, with great explanatory power, supports Darwin's thesis, that no biological life is interested in preserving its own life as an end in itself. Biological life treats itself as a means, to the end of reproducing. To assert that one (a human being) must treat himself as an end is contrary to nature and thus reason.

And if Rand's life-to-value thesis is invalid, her entire ethical system is untenable under that heading. Instead, the human animal shall act as all animals act: preserving oneself in order to pass one's genes onto the next generation. This in itself would be egoism; rational or not is the question.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Can we firstly agree that Ayn Rand was heavily influenced by Aristotle? But say this influence is not limited to traditional philosophy, and extends into his natural philosophy as well.

Aristotle's scientific study in biology led him to believe that the life of an organism (for example, a tree) is purposed by reaching adulthood. Neither he (nor Rand) thought favorably about an alternative, that the singular mission of that tree is in reproduction, that is, reaching adulthood to reproduce. Aristotle's theories were replaced by Darwin in the 19th century.

Modern biology, with great explanatory power, supports Darwin's thesis, that no biological life is interested in preserving its own life as an end in itself. Biological life treats itself as a means, to the end of reproducing. To assert that one (a human being) must treat himself as an end is contrary to nature and thus reason.

And if Rand's life-to-value thesis is invalid, her entire ethical system is untenable under that heading. Instead, the human animal shall act as all animals act: preserving oneself in order to pass one's genes onto the next generation. This in itself would be egoism; rational or not is the question.

Actually this is the same line of thinking that Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionists use to try to derive "altruistic" ethics from evolution. An organism will tend to help its close relations because genes that encourage that behavior (and happen to be in both the organism in question, and its near relative) will tend to survive. I do think it's a misuse of the word altruism, however, since a) the creature doing this for this reason would be non-volitional, and it wouldn't be true altruism anyway; you are paying a price for a value.

I *do* think (and this is probably not Objectivism) that your biology pre-disposes you to value close relations like your children and parents; in many cases you see people refusing to believe their murdering relatives are really evil; *that* is biology triumphing over that individual's (under-exercized) rational faculty. Biology and evolutionary psychology are probably what you get when you stop thinking rationally.

Even if you are right about that logic for non-rational creatures, once you DO think rationally your own survival, rather than reproduction, becomes the standard of value.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Modern biology, with great explanatory power, supports Darwin's thesis, that no biological life is interested in preserving its own life as an end in itself. Biological life treats itself as a means, to the end of reproducing. To assert that one (a human being) must treat himself as an end is contrary to nature and thus reason.

While Aristotle was mistaken about final cause being applied to anything other than man, because only man can have a purpose, where in the world do you get the idea that Darwin claimed that the nature of life per se was to reproduce? He described how it is that in reproduction certain biological traits are handed down to the off-spring, and that over time the off-spring, having a few differences from the parents, can become a new species. I don't think he said that the goal of life was reproduction. In fact, his theory of evolution rests on the idea that each living being does what it can do with what it has biologically to survive and to flourish.

Besides that, if the final goal of an individual life form was to reproduce, that would not be a form of egoism in any rational sense of the word. Egoism means of the self, not of others, which means the survival of the individual as an end in itself.

The implication of your stance is that once a living being reproduces, it has fulfilled it's life's goal and no longer needs to live. And further, that if an individual does not reproduce, then that individual has not fulfilled his role as a living being. As you may well know, Ayn Rand had no children, so by implication you are saying she was not a worthwhile human because she didn't fulfill her biological necessity. In other words, by your standards as stated, you are saying that Ayn Rand was worthless and didn't accomplish anything. The facts clearly show otherwise.

Reproduction is just one of the things that a living being can do -- it is not the final goal of being alive. The final goal of being alive is being alive and flourishing as that living entity -- and there is no obligation to reproduce, morally or otherwise.

Rational egoism, which only applies to man, means living one's life to the fullest using the utmost of one's rational powers to live as well as he can. Life is self-sustaining, self-generative action for all living beings, but only man can do this purposefully and of his own free will.

[The_Rational_Animal]

While Aristotle was mistaken about final cause being applied to anything other than man, because only man can have a purpose, where in the world do you get the idea that Darwin claimed that the nature of life per se was to reproduce? He described how it is that in reproduction certain biological traits are handed down to the off-spring, and that over time the off-spring, having a few differences from the parents, can become a new species. I don't think he said that the goal of life was reproduction. In fact, his theory of evolution rests on the idea that each living being does what it can do with what it has biologically to survive and to flourish.

Each organism competes to reproduce. For the ones that do not, they die and do not pass on their genes. When you say "do with what it has biologically to survive and flourish" implies that an organism uses its reproductive capabilities for its genes to survive and flourish, not that organism itself surviving and flourishing. Just as an apple lives as a uterus for apple seeds, any organism lives as a casing for its genes, moving them from place to place until they are ready for interaction with complementary genes.

The consciousness we possess is the product of a long development of evolution; the conception of rationality we derive and are so proud of is simply an enhancement of a faculty purposed as a vehicle for the purposes of copulation.

Besides that, if the final goal of an individual life form was to reproduce, that would not be a form of egoism in any rational sense of the word.

I meant 'egoism' in the sense that "I must survive so that I may pass on my genes", a selfish motivation of fulfilling a biological function. I made no assertion that it is rational.

The implication of your stance is that once a living being reproduces, it has fulfilled it's life's goal and no longer needs to live. And further, that if an individual does not reproduce, then that individual has not fulfilled his role as a living being. As you may well know, Ayn Rand had no children, so by implication you are saying she was not a worthwhile human because she didn't fulfill her biological necessity. In other words, by your standards as stated, you are saying that Ayn Rand was worthless and didn't accomplish anything. The facts clearly show otherwise.

Presenting objections such as these does not weaken the claim.

Reproduction is just one of the things that a living being can do -- it is not the final goal of being alive. The final goal of being alive is being alive and flourishing as that living entity -- and there is no obligation to reproduce, morally or otherwise.

To say that reproduction is simply an ability and not a necessity is another comparison fallacy. Organisms outside the human realm exemplify the error in your claim: reproduction is not simply "yeah, I'll do it if I feel like it" or "yeah, I'll do it once I find the right partner". It is a biological necessity, an instinct. Humans have lost the necessity thereof through time, but this is an invalid comparison.

Rational egoism, which only applies to man, means living one's life to the fullest using the utmost of one's rational powers to live as well as he can. Life is self-sustaining, self-generative action for all living beings, but only man can do this purposefully and of his own free will.

Ultimately, a human being is a rational animal. Humans defecate, sleep, and breathe as animals do, we are a product of evolution. Man may be different in many aspects from his ancestors, but this does not make Rand's theory of life being an end in itself any more valid than one's life being a means in itself.

[KendallJ]

Modern biology, with great explanatory power, supports Darwin's thesis, that no biological life is interested in preserving its own life as an end in itself. Biological life treats itself as a means, to the end of reproducing. To assert that one (a human being) must treat himself as an end is contrary to nature and thus reason.

I think the use of "interest", "purpose", and "treats iteself as a means..." confuse the object and subject of the discussion. One should make a careful disction when these are used in the collective sense as opposed to an individual sense. THere is a reason why Dawkins uses selfish in terms of genes or memes. It is the genes or memes (ideas) that could be said to have an "interest" in seeing themselves reproduce.

To invalidate Rand's theory just by saying "life" is "interested" in reproduction rather than it's own perpectuation is rationalistic. You've already said that this was not meant in a rational sense, but you're using it that way to try to make the argument.

Whether or not Rand's philosophy is good for an individual, vs whether or not it is competitively more advantaged in an evolutionary sense are two different aspects of it. One has to remember that man can not only pass bioligcal information, but ideas to others including it's offspring. So one might ask if those ideas have a bearing on reproductive competitiveness and if so, then her ideas should not only be good for the individual but should perpetuate themselves as well.

Already the idea of life on this earth, flourishing and survival (which are the core of Rand's ethics) would seem to indicate that there might be a causal link. Alread the fact that regligion during the Dark Ages, and secular rationalism of Communism and Nazism haven't been very good for the survival of those who bought into them. Also the fact that where pro-reason ideas take hold, there life and population flourish. All these would seem to integrate to the fact that this set of ideas has evolutionary validity. i.e. what's good for the flourishing of an individual, ought to be good for the flourishing of it's offspring, (assuming that there isn't anything in the ideas that specifically discourage reproduction - given Rand's view of sex - that it's darn good - I harldy see that to be true.)

So instead of just asserting rationalistically that her ideas aren't valid, maybe instead you should set about asking the question if there isn't anything in the idea of the flourishing in the individual that is specifically anti-competitive when it comes to perpetuating the species. That is, dont' make the assertion on some rationalistic set of syllogisms that misuse the terms they employ, but rather make an inductive argument using your observations. That would be your best method to assert such things. I look forward to you bringing it.

Edited April 5, 2008 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

This earlier thread contains some discussion of whether reproduction is one's ultimate purpose (point #3 in the first post, and various responses to that).

[The_Rational_Animal]

To invalidate Rand's theory just by saying "life" is "interested" in reproduction rather than it's own perpectuation is rationalistic. You've already said that this was not meant in a rational sense, but you're using it that way to try to make the argument.

I can offer empirical evidence that organisms kill, rape, and sacrifice themselves to ensure their own reproductive success. Perhaps you are misusing terms; I did not use 'rational' in an epistemological sense, only in the sense which Rand uses the word to mean consistent with or based on or using reason. There is nothing rational about ensuring reproductive success for oneself because the lowest organisms are driven to it by instinctual means.

Thornhill and Thornhill (1987, link) introduced a theory by describing the sexual behaviour of scorpionflies, in which the male may gain sex from the female either by presenting a gift of food during courtship (in which case the female submits voluntarily) or without a nuptial offering, in which case force is necessary to restrain her. Socio-biologists propose that human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. If he can succeed in impregnating one or two 'stolen' women before being castrated or lynched by the 'owner' males, then his genes (and thus behavioural tendencies) will have been passed on to the next generation of males.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Socio-biologists propose that human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction.

So, if reproduction is the ultimate standard for the worth of an individual, then the rapist is more worthy than someone who doesn't rape and doesn't reproduce. In other words, the individual who doesn't reproduce but rather lives his life to the fullest while being rational about it is worthless under this theory, but the rapist, why he is the ultimate success.

Rape is an aberration, it is a denial of reason when it comes to having sex, which, for man, is to experience the pleasure of having sex; and for man, this does not have to lead to reproduction. Rape is about the initiation of force, instead of earning a lover or a wife. It is thievery, and I don't think rape is about reproduction. But one can only understand that by having a rational ethics, which you want to deny based on some theory that reproduction is the ultimate goal, and therefore coming to the conclusion that so long as a rapist produces an off-spring in his criminal and immoral act, then he was successful.

This type of rationalization is what happens with an improper standard for ethics -- anything goes so long as the irrational standard is met. Which, in this case, means that if a man murders millions of people, that is OK, so long as he has an off-spring to pass on his killing spree.

The Objectivist ethics is based on man's life qua rational animal as the standard. By that standard, rape and murder is evil, whether it leads to an off-spring or not. It is gaining a value without earning it.

An ethics divorced from man's factual nature can only lead to disaster; and if a meta-ethics comes down to saying anything is acceptable so long as an off-spring is produced, then you know it is a false theory, as it denies the life of the individual.

[softwareNerd]

And if Rand's life-to-value thesis is invalid, her entire ethical system is untenable under that heading. Instead, the human animal shall act as all animals act: preserving oneself in order to pass one's genes onto the next generation. This in itself would be egoism; rational or not is the question.

You misunderstand Rand's ethical theory. She does not look nature to find an inexorable purpose that we must necessarily follow.

To anyone who accepts evolution, it is clear that (at least in general and in simple terms) behaviors that tend to increase the populations over time will propogate. That's biology. It does not follow that humans must adopt this as their standard of action.

This topic has been discussed quite a bit in the thread to which I linked above.

[Marc K.]

I can offer empirical evidence that organisms kill, rape, and sacrifice themselves to ensure their own reproductive success.

I don't think you can because the emphasized portion is a logical impossibility.

There is nothing rational about ensuring reproductive success for oneself because the lowest organisms are driven to it by instinctual means.

And you see no difference in the actions of mice and men?

I bet I know where this is going.

Yup:

Socio-biologists propose that human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. If he can succeed in impregnating one or two 'stolen' women before being castrated or lynched by the 'owner' males, then his genes (and thus behavioural tendencies) will have been passed on to the next generation of males.

the idea that behavior is determined by the genes, or, genetic determinism. You know where that idea leads don't you?

[X-Factor]

Values are a matter of choice. Man, as trees, is equipped to reproduce, but that doesn't mean that this has to be his ultimate value. Man is also equipped to scratch his head, but that is certainly not an end in itself.

PS. Oh, a German Objectivist (at least, I hope so). Rare enough. Bist Du im StudiVZ?

[KendallJ]

I can offer empirical evidence that organisms kill, rape, and sacrifice themselves to ensure their own reproductive success. Perhaps you are misusing terms; I did not use 'rational' in an epistemological sense, only in the sense which Rand uses the word to mean consistent with or based on or using reason. There is nothing rational about ensuring reproductive success for oneself because the lowest organisms are driven to it by instinctual means.

Nope. I'm using rationalistic in the sense of rationalism.

As to your evidence, the fact that a strategy for reproduction exists does not make it a better strategy than another. And because you might claim that an individual is best served by it, that does not make it effective for the species as a whole, which was the basis for your original claim.

The evidence you'd have to bring is that Objectivism would have a bias against reproductive success when pitted against rape. Still waiting...

Socio-biologists propose that human rape appears not as an aberration but as an alternative gene-promotion strategy that is most likely to be adopted by the 'losers' in the competitive, harem-building struggle. If the means of access to legitimate, consenting sex is not available, then a male may be faced with the choice between force or genetic extinction. If he can succeed in impregnating one or two 'stolen' women before being castrated or lynched by the 'owner' males, then his genes (and thus behavioural tendencies) will have been passed on to the next generation of males.

A reproductive strategy for "losers." That's the best definition of an abberation I've heard of. A reproductive strategy may be effective for one man; another for another, but since we're discussing what the good is (ethics) rather than what the effective reproductively speaking is, you'd have to bring up a different point.

Well since you've attempted to invalidate Rands ethical base by the use of evolutionary criteria, are you then suggesting that the standard of good for men in general should be that which gets our genes reproduced? What would you propose as an alternative?