Can One be "Immoral" to Oneself?

[KevinDW78]

In various ethical dillemas I have been pondering, I am wondering if a person can be "immoral" when nobody else is involved. A person certainly could do things that are not in his own best interest, i.e. smoking, drinking, drugs, obesity, etc., but would these be considered "immoral", or simply unhealthy?

[DarkWaters]

I am wondering if a person can be "immoral" when nobody else is involved. A person certainly could do things that are not in his own best interest, i.e. smoking, drinking, drugs, obesity, etc., but would these be considered "immoral", or simply unhealthy?

An act can absolutely be immoral if it only hurts yourself. In terms of Objectivist ethics, life is the standard of value. Thus, an act is immoral if you knowingly behave in a way that harms your life. According to my understanding, this includes binge drinking, letting yourself become morbidly obese, chain-smoking, becoming a heroin or cocaine addict and the like. Please note that this does not include consuming alcohol, smoking or eating fatty foods in moderation.

More generally, Ayn Rand has argued that any immoral act is immoral because it is ultimately bad for you. This means that initiating force against others is immoral because doing so is bad for you.

[KevinDW78]

Ok that's an acceptable answer. Now I would like to extend it one more step. What about a man being a "hero" (as Rand described it) - if a man decides to take any inaction that would not further his being a hero, is it immoral? You say as long as things are not extreme that it's ok. What about a man who only maintains an average physique? Is he living his life striving for the hero-standard of physical strength? If a man doesn't go workout at the gym every day (and follow the rest of his life, eating, drinking, etc) as a means to that goal, is he being immoral? In other words, is any action or inaction that is not consistent with a man achieving a goal (or maintaining for those who have alreayd reached it) of heroism considered immoral?

[Tenzing_Shaw]

What about a man being a "hero" (as Rand described it) - if a man decides to take any inaction that would not further his being a hero, is it immoral?

First, I assume that by "being a hero" you mean being the best one can be in the context of one's abilities. Not everyone can be a hero in the sense of Galt or Roark. If so, my answer is:

It is immoral. Assuming a man has rational values, he must pursue those values to the best of his ability (anything else would involve some degree of self-sacrifice). It is not immoral, however, for him to choose not to pursue goals which other rational people strive for, but he himself does not hold as high values. To answer your specific example, therefore, a man who holds the rational value of physical strength as one of his top values should pursue it as much as possible. It would be very immoral for a man who dreams of becomming a champion athlete to be out of shape and make no effort to change that. It is possible that another man may hold physical strenght as a much lower value, and he should devote only as much effort to it as is consistent with its position on his hierarchy of values. A scientist or philosopher could be heroic without making any effort to become physically strong, or even moderately fit. DarkWaters correctly stated that any action which actively harms one's life is immoral. This is one thing that we can properly say about man in general. It would be wrong, however, to say that all men should hold exercise as a high value.

I think that Peter Keating concretizes this point perfectly. First, I don't recall him ever initiating force against anyone. Second, he pursued goals which rational men could value (getting good grades, becoming an architect, getting a job). In spite of this, he was deeply immoral, because he sacrificed his desire to become an artist (presumably, his highest rational value) to the wishes of others. The fact that becoming an architect is a goal which rational men (such as Roark) can value does not mean that all rational men should value it or pursue it.

To be moral, one has to discover one's highest values, and pursue those values to the best of one's ability.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Tenzing_Shaw

[Greebo]

First, I don't recall him ever initiating force against anyone.

There is a serious question about whether he knew that or at least suspected that, by confronting the elder partner, he would cause the elder partner to have a heart attack.

Deliberately triggering a heart condition to cause someone's death would count as force in my book.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I actually only remembered that scene after posting. Even if his action was an initiation of force (I don't deny this, but I would have to read the passage again to form an opinion), my point still stands. Keating's main evil was not the initiation of force or any obviously self-destructive actions (by which I mean things like binge drinking, reckless driving, etc.). He was evil because he did not act in his own long-term self-interest. The action you refer to is merely a consequence of many years of altruistic depravity.

If you don't like the Keating example, there are plenty of loathesome characters in Atlas Shrugged who never initiate force or harm themselves physically: Philip Rearden is an example.

A real-life example: Immanuel Kant was neither a thug nor a drunk, but was highly immoral nonetheless.

I believe that this issue is of the utmost importance. Taking the non-initiation-of-force principle as the basis of morality is altruism because it uses relationships with other humans as the standard for determining action. In order to be moral, one must actively pursue one's own happiness.

[Greebo]

Oh I agree - I was just recalling that one scene. Keating was lost until the end, because everything in him he saw as of value was derived from other people, not from himself. Even in the end, he had to take his drawings to Roark to find out what Roark thought.

When I went to see Dr. Bernstein at UMD College Park, this topic came up. The question was, why did Roark tell Keating it was too late, upon seeing his drawings. Dr. Bernstein felt that Roark said this because Peter was too old to develop his talent now. It was his Q&A, so I didn't say this then, but I believe Dr. Bernstein was mistaken. I think Roark said it was too late because even then Peter started taking up his original love again, he was too far gone - he could not pursue it without the approval of others. His ability to serve himself based on his own evaluation of his values was gone.

[JMeganSnow]

I would (sort of) agree with you, Greebo. In her description of Keating trying to paint, Ayn Rand explains that he felt an enormous, wistful tenderness for the entire earth but had only something tight, choked-off to express it with. Keating had systematically killed in himself everything that would enable him to do anything creative, such as paint. You can't be a second-hand hack for years without consequence because you will program over the parts of your mind that do creative work with the methods of a second-hand hack. Your psycho-epistemology will become the psycho-epistemology of a hack and eventually there's just no way to change the habits that go that deep.