The Obligations of Society

[Christopher Brown]

I recently entered into a discussion about the obligations of the individual, versus those of the society. Their defining point is that we have evolved, or come to be, as logical, conscious human beings, through the evolution of our social affinity and collective societies.

Basically, because we are social, we have developed reason, and thus we owe Society/The Human Race something, because through our Race/Society we have (and will) evolve further.

Is this argument valid? How can I refute it?

[Zip]

I believe your opponent has this ass-backwards. We have developed socially because we have reason. Way back in prehistory men recognize the need to gather together for protection from man and beast, he sees that the division of labour enables him to do what he is good at and allows those he trades with to benefit from his skill as he benefits from theirs.

Reason wasn't born out of collectivism, it was/is a necessity of human existence. We have to choose reason.

If anything the collectivization of the nanny state, our so called modern society makes it possible for someone to disregard reason, witness the unwed and unemployed mother of the octuplets who now has 14 mouths to feed (when you add the other six kids she had)

[Christopher Brown]

Makes sense to me. I will inform him, lol. Although, this was my basic point to begin with. Thanks!

[The Wrath]

...witness the unwed and unemployed mother of the octuplets who now has 14 mouths to feed (when you add the other six kids she had)

My friends and I have taken to calling her "Octopussy."

[Hank Reard3n]

My friends and I have taken to calling her "Octopussy."

lol

i bet she had faith that one of her children would shit golden eggs. now she can't be blamed if she is so unlucky!

[K-Mac]

[phibetakappa]

Basically, because we are social, we have developed reason, and thus we owe Society/The Human Race something, because through our Race/Society we have (and will) evolve further. Is this argument valid? How can I refute it?

There is no such entity as society. Society is an abstraction, for designating a collection of individual men.

Further, to speak of "owing" society is to invalidate the meaning of the concept of "owe" or "debt."

Both concepts are genetically dependent, or inherited from the concept value, and as Ayn Rand has taught us, value has the necessary conditions and/or essential attributes, i.e., for a value to be a value, it requires both a "beneficiary," and a "standard," i.e., a value is a value to some person, for some purpose.

A debt or an amount ‘owed’ is a value from the perspective of another individual man who has made a loan, in other words, a ‘debt’ also requires some beneficiary and standard; else there would be no implicit obligation to return the ‘value.’ There would literally be nothing owed.

But, why is value dependent on “a” beneficiary, or some “one” person’s standard? What facts of reality give rise to the need for these concepts: beneficiary and standard in relation to value?

What is a value, at its root of roots? --at its epistemological base? A ‘value’ is at root only a concept. A man’s value is a certain kind of concept. Concepts are the ultimate tools of consciousness, of cognition, which is a clue to the ultimate refutation of this non-sense.

Consciousness is an attribute of an individual. As L. Peikoff puts the point in OPAR, on his chapter on the nature of men: men are neither ants or coral bushes, but individuals. Consciousness is not and cannot be shared among men. The point is not that men should be individuals, but that they are individuals, metaphysically, that is by the very nature of their being.

Now, combine this fact with the axiom of volition, i.e., the fact that each individual man’s consciousness, is his own, and only his own; and that that consciousness possesses the fundamental nature of requiring to be mediated at every level by the choice of that man.

Furthermore, each man only has direct access to his own consciousness, and the conclusion that others exist and possess a consciousness; a consciousness that is motivating their actions is a very advanced inference reached by some individuals mind, through a set of volitionally initiated and sustained steps of logic.

We can conclude that man is responsible for himself all the way down to the root and core of his being. This is not to say that each man should be responsible for himself, but that he “is” responsible by virtue of his nature.

All that exist are individual men, possessing individual consciousnesses, with individual volition, making them primarily, their own first cause, and prime mover, or the fountainhead of their own essential nature qua man.

Now, after recognizing these facts it is absurd to claim that any man owes a “society” for anything; it is absurd to state he is in debt to anyone qua man. As Ayn Rand acknowledges, man does owe some debt to ones parents qua baby, qua child, qua not-yet-fully-formed-man. But, this claim or debt is not unlimited.

Each man owes only himself for each and every conclusion and/or recognition he makes, because it is only each man who can validate and convince himself of the truth or falsehood of any statement, whether it has been originated by some other individual man, or by himself.

That’s right, each one of your own conclusions, not only has to be validated, and argue for, and has to be volitionally accepted as true; but also, any such conclusion has to be maintained, sustained, and serviced over the entire course of one’s life. A conclusion once accepted does not become a dogmatic absolute, possessing intrinsic value: no.

It is true that, each previously accepted idea will resurface, automatically via the automatic functioning of our subconscious; and will do so at the first meta stages of the process of “recognition”; that is to say, we will recall a concept when the context of the events around us remind us of the utility of its use as a tool for our cognitive action. But once the concept resurfaces and is made available for explicit use; it is only with a new, volitionally initiated conscious affirmation that we can proceed.

It is only with a new process of logic (no matter how simple) that the recalled idea can be judged as right for the current context of the events unfolding before us. It is only with this new assessment that we can proceed with using that idea, and proceed with living our life, i.e., to proceed with the recognition of the present context, and with selecting the appropriate actions to succeed.

Now, again think of the absurdity of stating you owe some portion of your money, time, or effort to others, just because you interact with them; they, who just like you are individuals all the way down, having to engage in the same process, with every, single thought?

No, we only owe, what we agree to owe, when we freely decide to trade with another. A debt is owed to another, when that other has a good or service you want, and you have something he wants, and he believes that it is not a sacrifice on his part to extend the time required for completing the exchange in full. This is what we call a loan.

Regards,

Michael

[Christopher Brown]

Thank you for the great response. In this same conversation, the opponent has states "I'm a humanist. Empathy is one of the crowning achievements of evolution- and man, more than any other animal, has mastered it. Altruism is the cornerstone of our, and every other society."

Anyone else have something clever?

I believe in any ways this is equating altruism to reason, and saying that it is what furthers man (i.e. that it is the faculty of man's survival). Which is (for lack of a more descriptive word) disgusting.

So what is the best route of action against this one?

[Jake_Ellison]

Thank you for the great response. In this same conversation, the opponent has states "I'm a humanist. Empathy is one of the crowning achievements of evolution- and man, more than any other animal, has mastered it. Altruism is the cornerstone of our, and every other society."

Anyone else have something clever?

I believe in any ways this is equating altruism to reason, and saying that it is what furthers man (i.e. that it is the faculty of man's survival). Which is (for lack of a more descriptive word) disgusting.

So what is the best route of action against this one?

Asking for some evidence.

If none is provided, claiming that there are omniscient elephants on the dark side of the moon, and last night they told you otherwise. Turns out pretending to be bunny rabbits is the crowning achievement of Evolution, and hopping around while chewing on a carrot is the cornerstone of any good society.

[Christopher Brown]

Asking for some evidence.

If none is provided, claiming that there are omniscient elephants on the dark side of the moon, and last night they told you otherwise. Turns out pretending to be bunny rabbits is the crowning achievement of Evolution, and hopping around while chewing on a carrot is the cornerstone of any good society.

He re-wrote his meaning of altruism to be that he simply thinks altruism does not mean a duty, but rather that helping people out is good from time to time.

[Jill]

As Ayn Rand acknowledges, man does owe some debt to ones parents qua baby, qua child, qua not-yet-fully-formed-man.

Could you please provide the source where Ayn Rand says this?

[WarmTaffy]

Hello, all. I'm the one Christopher Brown is having the discussion with.

I stumbled on this page by accident and am quite glad I did.

I believe your opponent has this ass-backwards. We have developed socially because we have reason.

That, my friend, is "ass-backwards". As I stated to my good friend, Christopher Brown, we are social animals. Our ancestors' success in forming primitive clans and tribes on the African Savanna is the only reason our advanced cognitive functions evolved further than our fellow primates. A chimp's brain is quite similar to ours, except for the underdevelopment of certain areas. That is the only reason that chimpanzees are not on man's cognitive level. And yet, they are social animals (as are other apes, monkeys, dogs, dolphins, lions and many others). Their "reason" is almost no-existent compared to ours. There is a reason why social animals are smarter than others. Smarter animals don't decide to become social one day. Their intelligence, adaptability and survival is greatly increased because they formed these bonds with other members of their species long, long ago. We are no different, other than the fact that we went a little further down the evolutionary road. We did not gather together for protection because we "assessed the situation of our survival". We primitively reacted to our environment. It's not like our ancestors gathered together to discuss how they felt about the predators that were killing them off.

If anything the collectivization of the nanny state, our so called modern society makes it possible for someone to disregard reason, witness the unwed and unemployed mother of the octuplets who now has 14 mouths to feed (when you add the other six kids she had)

I don't know what exactly the point you are trying to make is here, because the only thing that made it "possible for someone to disregard reason" is the octuplet mother herself. We live in a society where we have the freedom to make dumb-ass decisions like that. I don't know any logical person that would do what she did. It wasn't a collective reason for her to ruin her life and her childrens' lives even more. Our society largely condemns her actions.

QUOTE (Christopher Brown @ Feb 20 2009, 05:46 PM) *

Thank you for the great response. In this same conversation, the opponent has states "I'm a humanist. Empathy is one of the crowning achievements of evolution- and man, more than any other animal, has mastered it. Altruism is the cornerstone of our, and every other society."

Anyone else have something clever?

I believe in any ways this is equating altruism to reason, and saying that it is what furthers man (i.e. that it is the faculty of man's survival). Which is (for lack of a more descriptive word) disgusting.

So what is the best route of action against this one?

Asking for some evidence.

Some evidence for what? That altruism is the cornerstone of our and every other society? Sure, I've got some. Look around. Compare the success of societies that practice altruism and societies that don't. The reason you can't is because every society on Earth practices some form of altruism.

(The altruism I speak of is the normal definition- not the "ethical doctrine".)

Edited February 21, 2009 by WarmTaffy

[John Donohue]

WarmTaffy, are you armed and dangerous or gentle and persuasive?

In other words, do you favor "helpingness" be compelled through government financing and edict, or are you making a case for people to be nice and helpingfull with each other without a law making them do it?

John Donohue

Edited February 21, 2009 by John Donohue

[WarmTaffy]

WarmTaffy, are you armed and dangerous or gentle and persuasive?

In other words, do you favor "helpingness" be compelled through government financing and edict, or are you making a case for people to be nice and helpingfull with each other without a law making them do it?

John Donohue

Well, obviously people are nice and helpful without laws being placed. You might want to clarify a little more because I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at.

Edited February 21, 2009 by WarmTaffy

[softwareNerd]

Compare the success of societies that practice altruism and societies that don't. The reason you can't is because every society on Earth practices some form of altruism.

(The altruism I speak of is the normal definition- not the "ethical doctrine".)

What is the "normal definition"? Do you mean a benevolent concern for other human beings that is fully integrated with aiming for the highest personal happiness that is open to oneself? Or do you mean something more, i.e. some significant personal sacrifice.

Also, I have a question: do you believe in God or are you agnostic/atheist? This might seem unrelated to altruism, but I wonder about it because of the way you look for evidence of success. For instance compare the success of societies that practice religion and societies that don't. The reason you can't is because every society on Earth practices some form of religion. Does it therefore follow that God exists?

[Christopher Brown]

What is the "normal definition"? Do you mean a benevolent concern for other human beings that is fully integrated with aiming for the highest personal happiness that is open to oneself? Or do you mean something more, i.e. some significant personal sacrifice.

Also, I have a question: do you believe in God or are you agnostic/atheist? This might seem unrelated to altruism, but I wonder about it because of the way you look for evidence of success. For instance compare the success of societies that practice religion and societies that don't. The reason you can't is because every society on Earth practices some form of religion. Does it therefore follow that God exists?

I believe he is an atheist, although I'm sure he'll respond.

Well, obviously people are nice and helpful without laws being placed. You might want to clarify a little more because I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at.

He is asking whether or not you believe we should be forced (through some form of authority) to be nice/helpful to others.

[WarmTaffy]

What is the "normal definition"? Do you mean a benevolent concern for other human beings that is fully integrated with aiming for the highest personal happiness that is open to oneself? Or do you mean something more, i.e. some significant personal sacrifice.

Also, I have a question: do you believe in God or are you agnostic/atheist? This might seem unrelated to altruism, but I wonder about it because of the way you look for evidence of success. For instance compare the success of societies that practice religion and societies that don't. The reason you can't is because every society on Earth practices some form of religion. Does it therefore follow that God exists?

This is what I told Chris:

Simple definition: Unselfish concern in the interests of others <----- the type of "altruism" I believe in

Ethical Doctrine: individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others.

As to your second question, I'm an atheist. You're religious societies hypothesis doesn't hold water, btw. You can measure the success of largely secular societies (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, France, England, etc.) to that of largely religious societies (Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, United States, etc.) and it's not too hard to see a pattern.

[John Donohue]

Well, obviously people are nice and helpful without laws being placed. You might want to clarify a little more because I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at.

"... every society on Earth practices some form of altruism.

(The altruism I speak of is the normal definition- not the "ethical doctrine".)

As if my rough and direct last post were not clear enough, I will try one more time. What I am getting at is this:

You are the one not defining.

1) what is the 'normal definition?'

2) what is the "ethical doctrine?"

Since you believe 'every society practices the 'normal' version, does that mean you are glad they do and it is a good thing?

What form of ethical system do you practice?

What form of political system do you advocate?

John Donohue

[John Donohue]

"Simple definition: Unselfish concern in the interests of others <----- the type of "altruism" I believe in

Ethical Doctrine: individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others."

I'll take this to mean you do not believe in government coercing people to have unselfish concern in the interests of others, but that inside a society devoid of such compulsion, you advocate personal committment to your soul driven by unselfish concern for the interest of others.

My response would be:

1) thank you for not advocating forced collecctivism

2) what is stopping you, if anything, from living by your personal code, and even attempting to persuade others to do so? It is not against the law, is it?

::::: Opera :::::

[softwareNerd]

Simple definition: Unselfish concern in the interests of others <----- the type of "altruism" I believe in

Ethical Doctrine: individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others.

Okay, and -- in addition -- you say you are arguing for the former, not the latter. From that, I understand that you are saying that when I help my neighbor because I like him, or because of I empathize with his situation (thinking "it could have been me") and so on, it is fine and you are all for that; but, it seems you are saying that you do not support the notion that this is the source of some major ethical pride, nor should I make my neighbor the focus of my life.

If that's a correct summary, I'm not sure what the argument is about. It appeared quite different from the first post in this thread.

You're religious societies hypothesis doesn't hold water, btw. You can measure the success of largely secular societies (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, France, England, etc.) to that of largely religious societies (Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, United States, etc.) and it's not too hard to see a pattern.

I disagree, but you can have the point, for the purposes of this thread. It would take things too far afield.

[Christopher Brown]

No one pointed this out, but those 'largely religious' and 'unsuccessful' countries have religions based deeply in altruism.

Namely Islam and Christianity. Just a thought.

[WarmTaffy]

No one pointed this out, but those 'largely religious' and 'unsuccessful' countries have religions based deeply in altruism.

Namely Islam and Christianity. Just a thought.

You could argue that Christianity and Islam are "based deeply in altruism", and you'd be partly right. Their advocacy is more to the "ethical doctrine" form of altruism. Which is irrational, mindless and dogmatic. I'd hardly think any logical person would use any theocracy (such as Iran) as an example for "simple altruism". Any religion-based altruism is bound to be radical, unwavering and closed to any kind of reason.

As for the questions asked by John Donohue, I started to answer when I re-read his posts. I strongly doubt you'd take my response into honest consideration before you merely attempt to refute it. The result of myself re-reading the posts gave me the likely suspicion that Mr. John Donohue sees the world in such a way due to his Objectivism that he would be rather stubborn and unaccepting of any contrary views on the world. I don't really think you respect or even care about what my opinion is. After all, I suspect your response would be the same whatever my answer may be.

Forgive me if I seem rather forward and am in fact wrong about you, John Donohue, but I've talked to too many "true" Objectivists in the past not to be skeptical and weary to talk to one again.

[Zip]

As I stated to my good friend, Christopher Brown, we are social animals. Our ancestors' success in forming primitive clans and tribes on the African Savanna is the only reason our advanced cognitive functions evolved further than our fellow primates.

Do you have some proof of this assumption?

A chimp's brain is quite similar to ours, except for the underdevelopment of certain areas. That is the only reason that chimpanzees are not on man's cognitive level. And yet, they are social animals (as are other apes, monkeys, dogs, dolphins, lions and many others). Their "reason" is almost no-existent compared to ours.

Okay, man is a social animal and that is why his cognitive functions evolved further than our fellow primates... Chimps are social animals but have not developed in spite of having a brain that is "quite similar to ours... Which one is it? Either social = development of cognition or social = primate...

There is a reason why social animals are smarter than others. Smarter animals don't decide to become social one day. Their intelligence, adaptability and survival is greatly increased because they formed these bonds with other members of their species long, long ago.

Penguins are highly socialized animals just where are they on your social cognitive scale, how about ants, bees, meerkats?

We are no different, other than the fact that we went a little further down the evolutionary road. We did not gather together for protection because we "assessed the situation of our survival". We primitively reacted to our environment. It's not like our ancestors gathered together to discuss how they felt about the predators that were killing them off.

So we are the same as monkeys and gorillas now? Just a little further down the evolutionary road? Speak for yourself son. If you did a little bit of study you would see that "apes" have been around for just as long as human beings, the split between the two happening either between 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. so since both are highly social animals why isn't my next door neighbour a Chimp with an engineering degree?

I don't know what exactly the point you are trying to make is here, because the only thing that made it "possible for someone to disregard reason" is the octuplet mother herself.

No, without other people enabling this person to ignore the reality of her situation, which is to say, no job, no way of supporting the six children she already had much less eight more she would not have been able to do so.

We live in a society where we have the freedom to make dumb-ass decisions like that.

No we live in a society where others are forced (at the point of a gun) to allow people like this woman to ignore reality because we pay to support her whether we want to or not through forced taxation.

I don't know any logical person that would do what she did. It wasn't a collective reason for her to ruin her life and her childrens' lives even more. Our society largely condemns her actions.

Saying "tisk, tisk, you really shouldn't have done that", while allowing this woman to live off of the loot of our forced taxation is not condemnation.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

So we are the same as monkeys and gorillas now? Just a little further down the evolutionary road? Speak for yourself son. If you did a little bit of study you would see that "apes" have been around for just as long as human beings, the split between the two happening either between 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. so since both are highly social animals why isn't my next door neighbour a Chimp with an engineering degree?

Actually the split between human progenitors and our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is believed to have happened about 7 million years ago. And from a taxonomic view humans, chimpanzees (bonobo and troglodytes subspecies) gorillas, and orangutans are all apes. In fact we are more closeley related to the chimpanzees than any other species, and in turn humans and chimpanzees together are most closely related to gorillas. Thus it would be wrong to produce a taxonomic group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas, but not us.

This fact--that we are, biologically apes--does not belittle us. We just happen to be the one species of ape with a rational/conceptual faculty, and that, of course, makes all the difference in the world.

[Grames]

As to your second question, I'm an atheist. You're religious societies hypothesis doesn't hold water, btw. You can measure the success of largely secular societies (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, France, England, etc.) to that of largely religious societies (Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, United States, etc.) and it's not too hard to see a pattern.

Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, United States! All third world failures because of their religious element!