Why Theft is Neither Ethical Nor Practical

[Paul McKeever]

source:

http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/01/13/why...-nor-practical/

Why Theft is Neither Ethical Nor Practical

January 13, 2009 by Paul McKeever

Tom, an acquaintance of mine, is about to commence an ethics course. The outline for the course states:

"The first part of the course addresses the challenge that the egoist (sometimes called the amoralist) poses for moral philosophy…The egoist is a person who doesn’t care about morality – all the egoist cares about is his or her own advantage and happiness, and he or she will be prepared to break any of our standard moral rules in order to secure it- just as long, that is, as he or she can get away with it."

Tom explains:

"…if I do decide to argue for egoism in that seminar, I know someone is going to ask something like: “Wouldn’t it be in your interests to steal, so don’t we need rights as a way of limiting peoples self interest, or everyone would be stealing and civilization would collapse”, so I’m going to have to make sure I fully understand why it’s not in someones rational self interest to violate peoples rights, to counter that argument. I’ll probably re-read a few chapters of [Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness] and [her book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal] to make sure I fully understand my arguments."

A year or more ago, I was discussing the ethics of theft with a student of Objectivism. I was surprised to hear him opine that theft is wrong because, for example, one might get caught and spend years in prison. However, one might, alternatively, never go to prison. One might be very good at not getting caught. And it is not the case that the virtuousness or viciousness of theft depends upon the skill of the thief. Neither is efficacy the same as practicality.

Accordingly, I gave to Tom a response similar to that which I gave to the aforementioned student of Objectivism:

"Do not make the mistake of making such arguments as “you might get caught and have to spend life in jail”. Though true, that is not essential. The essential point is that, when you attempt to make theft your method of continuing to exist, you make yourself dependent upon the production of others: you cannot steal what someone else has not produced. By neglecting rational production, you make yourself akin to a helpless baby, begging for a teat.

Thievery is not a mode of survival. It is the surrender of your fate to others. Moreover, because thievery entails a neglect of earning, happiness - not the alleviation of sadness, but happiness - cannot be obtained."

[Grames]

Lame. No epistemology in the answer. And there is also this response: thieves don't steal to be happy, they steal because they need to. They do other things to be happy.

This question is about principles, and acting in a principled manner. Why is it in one's rational self interest to constrain your own behavior in accordance with some abstract principle, when it looks like you can get away with violating the principle?

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Lame. No epistemology in the answer. And there is also this response: thieves don't steal to be happy, they steal because they need to. They do other things to be happy.

But doesn't this continue into:

Why would he steal if he needs to but doesn't need it for obtaining happiness?

Do they then need it to prolong his own suffering?

And why would they be capable of theft but incapable of doing anything else to obtain what they ''need''?

?

[Grames]

Why would he steal if he needs to but doesn't need it for obtaining happiness?

Do they then need it to prolong his own suffering?

Bingo! That is the frame of mind, the sense of life of the criminal mind (or at least, one type of criminal mind). Life sucks and everyone suffers, who gives a shit? Anyone with any spirit or vitality in them would attempt to rebel against this idea, but in the absence of philosophical thought or vocabulary the only rebellion possible is an emotional rebellion. Better to be the conqueror than the conquered, the master than the slave, the thief than the mark. But the little rebellions just delay and prolong the suffering. Life still sucks but in a different way.

Very insightful of you sir.

[Paul McKeever]

Lame. No epistemology in the answer. And there is also this response: thieves don't steal to be happy, they steal because they need to. They do other things to be happy.

This question is about principles, and acting in a principled manner. Why is it in one's rational self interest to constrain your own behavior in accordance with some abstract principle, when it looks like you can get away with violating the principle?

Hi Grames.

Do you say "Lame" because there is no epistemology in the answer, or because you think my answer to be incorrect? If the former well, heck, there are no axioms in the answer either. It is not necessary for every one-paragraph note to an acquaintance to include a full-scale reduction. It is quite appropriate to make a statement about ethics without opening up a discussion about epistemology and metaphysics.

If the latter, what did you find incorrect in my statement? I did not state that thieves steal to be happy. Of course, clearly, individuals attempt to become happy by stealing. That such attempts will fail, clearly, was my last point.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Paul McKeever

[Grames]

Hi Grames.

Do you say "Lame" because there is no epistemology in the answer, or because you think my answer to be incorrect? If the former well, heck, there are no axioms in the answer either. It is not necessary for every one-paragraph note to an acquaintance to include a full-scale reduction. It is quite appropriate to make a statement about ethics without opening up a discussion about epistemology and metaphysics.

If the latter, what did you find incorrect in my statement? I did not state that thieves steal to be happy. Of course, clearly, individuals attempt to become happy by stealing. That such attempts will fail, clearly, was my last point.

Welcome back. I'm glad to see you attending to your thread.

Without any inkling of the epistemological issues involved, the answer given is doomed to be inadequate. As I stated, the issue is the general one of "why be principled?" which cannot be explained or justified on ethical grounds alone.

Furthermore, the answer you did give concerning happiness is incorrect. Thieves do not steal even as an attempt to be happy. In general, people who are not happy in the long course of their lives are not even trying to be happy, and probably don't even know what happiness properly is. Aristotle wrote that no man having full knowledge of a choice between a good and an evil act would deliberately choose the evil act. That is naive bullshit. It is equally false that all men desire happiness and act to achieve it. How can a man desire what he doesn't even know exists? Acting out of a neurotic attempt to relieve an anxiety is not equivalent to a pursuit of happiness.

Scolding a thief that he will never achieve happiness by stealing, though true, is so far beyond the range of his comprehension, and of the comprehension of most people in an undergrad ethics course, as to be useless, unconvincing, unpersuasive, and just flat out lame. A demonstration of the need and utility of principled thinking and acting has a better chance of being persuasive.

[JMeganSnow]

Without any inkling of the epistemological issues involved, the answer given is doomed to be inadequate. As I stated, the issue is the general one of "why be principled?" which cannot be explained or justified on ethical grounds alone.

Inadequate for whom? If you're assuming an audience that knows something about Objectivism, where principles come from, and why you should adhere to them, it's a perfectly adequate response. If you're assuming the audience possesses none of that context, then you'd have to reiterate Ayn Rand's entire philosophy for the answer to be adequate.

Why would you assume that the OP knows nothing of his audience?

[RationalBiker]

That is naive bullshit. It is equally false that all men desire happiness and act to achieve it. How can a man desire what he doesn't even know exists?

How can you know that they do not know what happiness is versus knowing what it is but simply laboring under a false belief that they cannot achieve happiness? How are you deriving that some men do not know what happiness is?

[Thales]

Lame. No epistemology in the answer. And there is also this response: thieves don't steal to be happy, they steal because they need to. They do other things to be happy.

They don't necessarily steal "because they need to", in fact, most of the time they probably steal because they want something for nothing. Sometimes they steal for kicks.

Paul is right, you end up living at the behest of others, but this is not only in terms of livelihood, it is also because you have to constantly hide what you have done from them, which means other people become your enemies. You put good people at war with you.

Now then, look at the other side of this equation, if you live, produce and trade honestly, then other honest people are no longer your enemies and are more likely to become your friends, where you will gain benefit of that sort of relationship. You don't have to fool anyone in such a case and you can take pride in your ability to produce. You can pursue your goals and live your life.

This question is about principles, and acting in a principled manner. Why is it in one's rational self interest to constrain your own behavior in accordance with some abstract principle, when it looks like you can get away with violating the principle?

The reason you follow principles is because that's the way the human mind works. There are a myriad of concretes out there and the only way for a human being to deal with them is via principles. They provide the star chart for our journey.

Btw, which principle can you get away with violating?

[Grames]

Inadequate for whom? If you're assuming an audience that knows something about Objectivism, where principles come from, and why you should adhere to them, it's a perfectly adequate response. If you're assuming the audience possesses none of that context, then you'd have to reiterate Ayn Rand's entire philosophy for the answer to be adequate.

Why would you assume that the OP knows nothing of his audience?

I have no need to assume anything. The evidence that the ethics course is for a general audience of non-Objectivists is provided in the original post which describes the content of the course. So although the OP is responding to his correspondent, that particular future student in this course will have as his audience a set of non-Objectivists and a good answer should be addressed to that ultimate audience. If I have assumed anything, it is that the OP does understand who his ultimate audience is, but I cannot reconcile this assumption with the inadequacy of the answer given. Hence my objection.

Addressing this question in terms of principles is going in the direction of more fundamental, logically prior knowledge and is therefore an application of the hierarchy of knowledge as applied to communicating and teaching, while a response in terms of ultimate happiness goes in the direction of a broader abstraction and unjustifiably assumes agreement on prior knowledge. The very question at issue here "why not steal?" is evidence that principles need to be explained and justified, and cannot be relied upon in formulating a more advanced answer.

And yes, a fully complete answer would would require a reiteration of a great deal Objectivism, but the longest journey begins with a single step and it helps if it is at least a step in the right direction.

[Grames]

How can you know that they do not know what happiness is versus knowing what it is but simply laboring under a false belief that they cannot achieve happiness? How are you deriving that some men do not know what happiness is?

Lack of the effect is evidence of absence of the cause.

An understanding of an effect (happiness) implies an understanding of the cause the creates it (principled thinking and acting). One would expect more people to be happier, if they actually knew what happiness was and how to achieve it. So I conclude that if people aren't achieving happiness, they aren't being principled. It is possible that the failure to be principled is not a failure of knowledge, but a willful choice to be evil but that is going to be a small minority of people. I rule out the possibility of systematic ineptness because I know people have volition and can learn to be more rational and wise.

[Grames]

Presenting the likely response of another's opposing viewpoint instead of your own is called "playing the Devil's Advocate". That is what i did in those quotes of mine. I have no objection to any of your response beyond what I have already posted above.

[RationalBiker]

One would expect more people to be happier, if they actually knew what happiness was and how to achieve it.

In other words, you have concluded this as an opinion, not as a fact.

[Grames]

In other words, you have concluded this as an opinion, not as a fact.

It is a generalization inferred from human nature. It is as fully true as the sky is high. But one cannot claim that a specific individual will choose to be happy, or that everyone will choose to be happy. Individuals have volition and can choose otherwise, therefore the statement must remain in a non-specific and qualitative formulation.

[Marc K.]

Without any inkling of the epistemological issues involved, the answer given is doomed to be inadequate. As I stated, the issue is the general one of "why be principled?" which cannot be explained or justified on ethical grounds alone.

The reason Paul McKeever's answer is perfectly adequate and your's isn't, is because his actually addresses the question.

In the description of the course the assertion is made that an egoist could be a thief without contradicting his nature. How does an egoist act? is the question and it is an ethical one.

If someone asks you why a selfish person shouldn't steal and you say: "because he is not acting on principle", then they will simply say: "yes he is, he is acting on the principle that all property is commonly owned" or some other ludicrous principle.

If the question is: "How does a selfish person act?" The proper, most direct answer is: "By relying on himself, not on others." It is a great answer because it is implied in the question and you will have immediate agreement on that point. There will probably be follow-up questions which may delve into epistemology and metaphysics after that, but it will be easier to make those links working backwards from a known endpoint.

[Grames]

The reason Paul McKeever's answer is perfectly adequate and your's isn't, is because his actually addresses the question.

In the description of the course the assertion is made that an egoist could be a thief without contradicting his nature. How does an egoist act? is the question and it is an ethical one.

"The first part of the course addresses the challenge that the egoist (sometimes called the amoralist) poses for moral philosophy…The egoist is a person who doesn’t care about morality – all the egoist cares about is his or her own advantage and happiness, and he or she will be prepared to break any of our standard moral rules in order to secure it- just as long, that is, as he or she can get away with it."

"By relying on himself, not on others." -this is not a description of how an amoralist acts. Attempting to use this definition in class would be nonresponsive to the subject at hand. Egoist as described above would not be an Objectivist, and could only be described as a criminal. When a definition is provided for a word with a variety of uses, stick with the definition provided in the context.

If someone asks you why a selfish person shouldn't steal and you say: "because he is not acting on principle", then they will simply say: "yes he is, he is acting on the principle that all property is commonly owned" or some other ludicrous principle.

And this is a devastating critique because any arbitrary rule can work as a principle? You know better than that. They don't and need it to be explained to them.

Lame response overall, Marc.

[exaltron]

"By relying on himself, not on others." -this is not a description of how an amoralist acts. Attempting to use this definition in class would be nonresponsive to the subject at hand. Egoist as described above would not be an Objectivist, and could only be described as a criminal. When a definition is provided for a word with a variety of uses, stick with the definition provided in the context.

....

And this is a devastating critique because any arbitrary rule can work as a principle? You know better than that. They don't and need it to be explained to them.

You seem to be creating two different prescriptions for these concepts: in the case of "egoist" we should go with the subjective and invalid definition set forth in the original statement. Yet in discussing a principle we should nail down the correct definition of the concept in order to solidify our argument.

Rand's admonition to always define our terms is germane in this case. Allowing an adversary to arbitrarily define words like "selfishness" and "power" any way they wish is not the way to create a coherent argument.

[Marc K.]

When a definition is provided for a word with a variety of uses, stick with the definition provided in the context.

[...]

And this is a devastating critique because any arbitrary rule can work as a principle? You know better than that. They don't and need it to be explained to them.

So let me get this straight: you are willing to suffer arbitrary definitions but not arbitrary principles? If you start with arbitrary definitions all you will wind-up with are arbitrary principles.

I see your lame and raise you an illogical.

If a definition is wrong, correct it.

You correct them by saying an egoist isn't amoral at all, in fact, in your opinion they are the only objectively moral people on earth precisely because they are self-interested.

I think you have acknowledged that this is a moral question so it deserves a moral answer.

[Grames]

You correct them by saying an egoist isn't amoral at all, in fact, in your opinion they are the only objectively moral people on earth precisely because they are self-interested.

The meaning of a concept is its referents. The course description well described the concept at the heart of the course, a criminal cross between Nietzsche and a pragmatist having a low cunning able to calculate what he can get away with and rejecting the possibility of morality as such, and used the word egoist to stand for it or alternately amoralist. The definition of the concept was not arbitrary, just the word selection. One could possibly win this dispute with the instructor during an aside before the class proper even begins with a selection of citations showing ethical egoism already has a meaning in literature which is not this, with the result that the instructor uses the word amoralist instead. If not, the path forward is still the same: demonstrate this fool's inability to cope with reality is directly due to his inability to deal in principles.

I can't see how one could defend an amoralist as not really being amoral, that's a sure loser.

[RationalBiker]

It is as fully true as the sky is high.

But not by any proof that you have offered. Thus, this truth "as high as the sky" remains in the realm of your opinion.

[Paul McKeever]

I've quite enjoyed reading the back and forth. I'll just add the following:

1. Context of the statement: My statement to the person who was about to take the course was a one paragraph response. It was neither an essay nor a treatise. In my experience, a great many students of Objectivism wrongly make the argument that, according to Objectivist philosophy, theft is wrong because you risk getting caught. Because that has been my experience, and because the person to whom I was writing was speaking specifically about why it is wrong to steal, I wanted to save him some time. Specifically, I was providing him with a heads-up about a common error, and steering him to one of Ayn Rand's most influential discoveries: the second-hander. I quoted that student, in my post, where he says he is going to be reading Rand's essays first-hand. Moreover, I know the student also to be someone who, has for some time, been studying Objectivism. The purpose of my blog post (i.e., the entry above) was to share that response with others who may go down the non-essential path I describe in my response. I thought it particularly important to point out this non-essential argument particularly because at least one other student of Objectivism has told me that he had heard a tape in which Nathaniel Brandon made said non-essential argument.

2. I see nothing in Grames' response to my question to him/her that would indicate Grames considered anything I said to be false. Accordingly, based upon what Grames has written since I posed by question to him/her, I take Grames' "lame" response to mean that he/she thinks other information - a different tip to the student in question - would have been more helpful because my response to the student "assumes agreement on prior knowledge". Well, yes, my response does assume agreement on prior knowledge: ( 1 ) the only person I was trying to help, with my response, was the student in question, not his class, ( 2 ) the student in question has given me reason to believe that he has an interest in, and has studied to some extent, Objectivism, and the student made it clear that he was going to be reading Ayn Rand's works first-hand to obtain his understanding of ethics as it applies to the issue of theft such that, even if he has not a firm grasp of the importance of thinking in terms of principles, he will soon obtain one and will see how my comment about second-handers relates thereto. Doubtless, in his efforts, he will read numerous essays by Ayn Rand in which she does not reduce everything to, say, the axioms. I fully expect he will read essays by Rand in which she writes of second-handers yet does not write that "mind you, what I've been saying about second-handing a lame point because you might not have read my other essays in which I write about principles per se". Though many a Rand essay does not reduce things to, say, the axioms or to the importance of thinking in principles, I am quite certain that the student will not find such of her essays to be lame, and that each one will fill-in a hole in his knowledge. As to "agreement on prior knowledge" when it comes to sharing, on my blog and here, my response to the student: my blog, and this discussion board, are read primarily by students of Objectivism, many of whom are quite well versed in Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Yet, as I say, they nonetheless commonly make the error of thinking that the reason one should not steal is: one might get caught and have to spend time in jail.

3. As to whether the other students in the class would find a response about principles to be more helpful in their studies than a response about second-handing, we'll have to agree to disagree. If a person who knows nothing about Objectivism - someone who, quite probably, knows little about philosophy at all - and wants to know why theft is wrong, I think they will find "because existence exists", for example, to be rather useless. Ayn Rand drew people's interest to her philosophy primarily because of her portrayal not only of the ideal man, but of the second hander and his chronic misery. Give a philosophy student a quick glimpse of the impracticality of second-handing, and his interest in the viciousness of it will follow...and, thereafter, if all goes well, he will learn about epistemology and metaphysics.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Paul McKeever

[Marc K.]

The meaning of a concept is its referents.

Yes, its actual referents in reality, not just what someone asserts. Concepts are objective.

The definition of the concept was not arbitrary, just the word selection.

You are right, it wasn't arbitrary, it was incorrect. So what I should have said was:

So let me get this straight: you are willing to suffer [incorrect] definitions but not [incorrect] principles? If you start with [incorrect] definitions all you will wind-up with are [incorrect] principles.

[Grames]

I agree that your response to the student himself was a good one. If in your experience it is a common error to think theft is wrong due to the possibility of getting caught then that was a good and relevant point to bring up. Further, I conclude from the course description the class is actually all about the classic "prudent predator" or "Ring of Gyges" problem not any version of ethical egoism. The only way to address this problem is by identifying principles and their necessity.

A good answer would be crafted in accordance with the principle of the hierarchy of knowledge. Such an answer would both serve the student and the class. Of course one would not leap to "existence exists", the hierarchy of knowledge should be traversed one step at a time with the connection explained at each step. Stating that "a thief can't be happy because he neglects earning" is as fully a leap into the darkness as responding with "existence exists", and for the same reason: it jumps to a different place in the hierarchy of knowledge with no derivation.The scope of the discussion can legitamately end before getting to the three axioms, context is everything here.

I applaud your various efforts to explain and advocate Objectivism but I urge you to also integrate the hierarchy of knowledge more fully into your practice. It could only make you more effective.

[Paul McKeever]

I applaud your various efforts to explain and advocate Objectivism but I urge you to also integrate the hierarchy of knowledge more fully into your practice. It could only make you more effective.

I think you may quite enjoy my coming paper on Libertarianism vs. Objectivism, for that reason (i.e., the focus on hierarchy). It's a first-time approach for me, based on a journal I used to enjoy as a grad student in psych: Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, I think it was called. The approach involves:

1. I write an article

2. Another person writes an article contra

3. I rebut

4. A number of invited commentators comment

5. The whole package is released to the readership at once.

I've a little left to do on my article. Philosophy Ph.D. student Peter Jaworski (from what I can tell from my past debates with him: a Humean skeptic-libertarian) will write the contra piece (he'll have about a month to write it...we're both very busy).