Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Critique of the Objectivist Ethics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It's not really an issue of helping others or not helping them, but what benefit are you deriving from helping them.

I would say rather that what benefit they derive from your helping them and what benefit you derive from helping them are both are part of the equation, both things to be considered.

Why restrict consideration of "benefits derived" only to yourself, since just about any action you can do (even breathing) will have an effect on both yourself and others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Me, me, me, me, me! What about the kid? Where did you consider his interests? When did you consider what would be beneficial to him? Maybe he wants to be in the water. Maybe he's practicing holding his breath. Maybe he wants to die.

And what about the effects he might wrought if he's saved? Maybe he is a little Hitler and will one day grow up to kill a whole bunch of people. That certainly wouldn't be beneficial to all involved, would it?

Your question is addressed to me, so surely it's unsurprising that I will answer it from my point of view? I think you're mixing something up here (see below).

As to the rest of your point - remember I qualified my statement with "reasonably"? You cannot reasonably be expected to act on information you don't have. Omniscience cannot be a standard of knowledge or morality. Absent omniscience, it is reasonable to act on a "principle of charity" (observably, there aren't many evil killer children about).

"Ought" implies "can." (I've seen this quoted as one of the very few secure conclusions in moral philosophy - and it is.)

It depends upon what's in my rational self-interests. See, I couldn't live with myself if I let the kid die just because I didn't want to ruin my suit (as Dr. Huemer first posits). So, it would be against my self-interest to let him die.

And yet, as Heumer points out, if you were to strictly follow the ethics of "selfishness" (if you consider "selfishness", as is done in the "official" definition of the term, to automatically imply sacrifice of other to self if necessary), that small bit of suit ruination would logically have to trump the kid's life.

Now, non-Objectivists don't understand that this isn't the kind of definition of "selfishness" that Objectivists work with (because the concept of sacrifice in the "official" concept of altruism is so integral to it). Likewise, you don't understand that the definition of "altruism" I'm working with isn't the "official" one (the one that includes the notion of sacrifice of self to other).

However, if I've got my own sick kid in my arms, and I'm rushing him to the hospital, and time is of the essence - he'll die if he doesn't get attention soon - then let the other bugger drown. And I'll live quite contentedly with myself and the son I saved. (A scenario Dr. Ghate actually brings up.)

Indeed. And (since this is an emergency) I don't think, if you polled peoples' instinctive reactions, you would get much of a different response. Most people would save their own child first. St Augustine and his chums might frown, but most people in such a situation would say "Blow St Augustine!" ;)

Again: informational assymetery. You know a lot more about your and your kid's situation than you do about the other kid's situation.

To see it, think about this: if your child were merely ill and time wasn't of the essence - i.e. your kid is in some pain, but you can be pretty sure its condition is not fatal, you're merely rushing him to the hospital because you don't have the facilities to deal with his relatively minor ailment at home - how would you feel about leaving the other child to drown then?

What counts as the right action is, in concrete terms, dependent on the amount of information you have. (Again: "ought" implies "can".) First consideration: look at the thing impartially, your actions must have as much positive benefit for yourself and for others as you can reasonably ensure. Second consideration, based on the "reasonable" condition: how much do you actually know about the situation, such that you can reasonably ensure anything?

How 'bout you? Would you let someone you cared a great deal for die so you could save the life of a stranger? If your answer doesn't begin with, "Well, it depends upon what would be best for all involved," then you're really just blowing smoke, and even you don't believe in your morality.

It depends on what would be best for all involved - in the omnipresent context of a limited quantity of information. "Ought" implies "can".

Look real carefully at these two phrases.

As I said above, you're mixing something up here, so it's a bit too early to crow that you've "caught me out" just yet. :) (Although of course I have been well aware of your efforts along those lines since about your second post.)

I am the agent in question who is charged with doing something about something under certain circumstances, I am the one who has the machinery wherewith to "do something" about the matter in question; so naturally any answer I give will be from my point of view of knowledge. This is quite distinct from the primary consideration that I should procure the maximum possible benefit for all concerned - but it supervenes on it, in practical terms. (Again: "ought" implies "can".)

My decision is based partly on empathy with the kid (and in taking thought of what it's like from the kid's point of view, I am discharging part of my moral obligation), but I am not that kid (absent omniscience, for all I know the kid might be enjoying drowning - should I save him, and he's pissed off that I saved him, there would still be no moral blame to me, because I did my best, acting on the information I had).

But it's telling me to consider others before myself. I'm genetically predisposed to be "nice," to consider the effect of my actions on others, to act not for myself but for others. I don't have an innate, genetic predisposition to be selfish, to regard myself before others. Right? So, why would my decision depend upon my sense of life? I'm merely supposed to act in ways which provide the greatest benefit to all. In such a situation, clearly I would sacrifice my life. I must since I'm old, and the child is young. The greatest benefit for all involved would be to save him at the cost of my own life.

No JeffS - you're still not quite getting my position. Let me set this in a broader context, to make it clearer (hopefully!). What I am saying is that the common sense morality, innate (to some extent) folk morality, is (in a trope) the morality of the small-band, hunter-gatherer group. In a small band, every member is valued and part of a team. Sacrifice as that is conceived in traditional "official" moralities is no part of this. Sacrifice of one to the other would be very rare, and more like you "sacrificing" yourself for your child. (To put it into concrete historical perspective, the idea of sacrifice only comes in with the Bronze Age and Iron Age, with religions, and the need for both serfs and cannon-fodder to service large, grain-store-defending agricultural communities with massive redundancy of persons. It's also part of the morality of the animal-store-defending raider/predator communities that prey on them. So, historically, what you have is an instinctive small-band, hunter-gatherer morality overlaid by a concept of sacrifice that does not value individual life. The concept of sacrifice "hooks into" the innate morality by means of the "have some care and consideration for others" sense that's natural to people, but twists that into "sacrifice yourself to X".)

And why should he do this?

Because, fundamentally, there's no objective reason to privilege anyone's interests above anyone else's. There is no point of view from which anyone's life is objectively "more important" than anyone else's. Existence is existence. If you care for one bit of existence, you care for the whole lot.

HOWEVER, because there is informational assymetry (you know more about your own case than others do, and others are in the same boat wrt their own cases) that limits what can be done, and therefore it limits where the major amount of concrete moral effort should be going (i.e. when effort to improve things is to be put out, it should be put out where you can be reasonably sure things will be improved by just that putting-out of action).

This means, roughly, as a rule of thumb, that most concrete activity you do will necessarily be to benefit yourself (because you are in the best position to know what will actually benefit yourself), while the best way you will be able to benefit others will be to follow general rules (i.e. the moral and political rules of a liberal society, in the true sense) that enhance others' abilities to do the same for themselves.

But what it also means is that there's no necessity to justify every other-benefitting action as a roundabout way of benefitting yourself. You make that other-facing effort and you have that other-facing care for others' sake, not just for your own (although it is true that in a large number of cases, benefit to others will feed back to you too).

What are the disadvantages to acting in such a way that the effects of his actions that impinge on others are not beneficial, or actually harmful?

Under most circumstances, none - since co-operative human existence is not a "zero-sum game".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why restrict consideration of "benefits derived" only to yourself, since just about any action you can do (even breathing) will have an effect on both yourself and others?

Because it is my life and my efforts, and I ought to be the primary beneficiary of my own actions. This doesn't mean that no one else will derive a benefit from my actions, but rather that when I am a trader, we both benefit but I do it for my benefit. The primary benefit of my writing about philosophy is me being able to better formulate and to understand my principles. If others benefit from that, it is all well and good, but I'm not doing it for their sake. When I make beautiful framed pictures at work, I do it because I get paid a reasonable wage and not primarily because it pleases the customer; I do have to please them and I do a good job for them, but my primary concern is to have a job so I can earn my life by trading value for value. So, it is not a question of who else benefits, say when I write a poem or a short story and publish it, but what I get out of it. Selfishness, understood that way, is a virtue, and not a vice; since it is my life and no one else has a claim on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the issue of emergency ethics, as if what you should do in an emergency defines what is moral. Fortunately, emergencies don't come up that often, so using emergencies to define a morality is dropping the context of how one ought to act in normal, everyday existence. Otherwise, ethics is rather useless, because it doesn't tell you how to live your life. Should I be continuing in this discussion? Well, how should I know, since it is not an emergency. Should I go to work and earn my keep? It's not an emergency, so I have no idea.

A rational ethics is about how to live your life to your own long-term benefit. It's not about dreaming up rare if ever scenarios that one may never encounter. This type of mentality about ethics completely divorces ethics from life and living, which is the point of emergency ethics scenarios.

Yes, I agree with this. I am not at all convinced by Heumer's analogy of morality to science.

As I've been pointing out in my response to JeffS, "ought" implies "can" - and what I'm calling "informational assymetry" has a fundamental shaping effect, not on the basic point of morality, but on what it's possible to morally do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think Jeff has been rather successful in slowly extracting a more precise definition from you on your morality.

I should hope so - that's why I'm engaging in these discussions, to get clearer on my own thinking by confronting it with challenges from others'! :)

You claimed to be a bit of an altruist and a bit of an Objectivist yet clearly that is not the case as that makes as much sense as a wet fire.

Well, not quite - I am a bit of an altruist as I think that ought to be correctly defined, and a bit of an egoist as that is correctly defined (as Rand defines it). But these are complementary, not antagonistic, when sacrifice is taken out of both definitions.

Your flaw is that you try to misrepresent your own interest with altruism simply due to societal compulsions imposed on you through the same ambiguously suggestive means as you now use. You might, or might not, save the child depending on the spur of the moment decisions but if you do, you'd clearly do it for the selfish regard of self as otherwise the non-action would torture you. Yet, it also makes you feel more justified to insist you'd do it for some greater good and not for a selfish reason.

No, this attempt at psychologizing is very confused. Here's the actual situation: I don't actually think there's anything wrong in justifying a moral decision because it's good for others.

What I am against is the concept of sacrifice - of one to another. I think Rand did a great job of removing this concept from the "self-facing" side, but Objectivists don't see it's possible to do the same for the "other-facing" side. (Remember my definition: insofar as an action of yours is going to have some effect, both on yourself ("self-facing") and on others ("other-facing"), then your duty is to do as much as you reasonably can to ensure those effects are beneficial, or at the very least, not detrimental, either to yourself or to others.)

You mentioned "kin-altruism" earlier... what the hell is that?

Look it up.

Are you saying that it is "altruistic" to save the life of your own child?

It depends on how you define "altruistic" - i.e. whether or not you include the notion of sacrifice as a necessary part of it.

The truly moral action aims to benefit both self and others - i.e. to benefit all concerned, in due proportion, subject to available knowledge.

Altruism explicitly implies an action that is not in your self interest. As in- acting based upon societal compulsions and restraints when they violate your own welfare. Yes, that is my own definition but I do not believe it violates the established one. Now by welfare I mean what you, solely, see as good for you and not based on any other standard.

Yes, altruism as that word is used in "official" definitions. But - have you not had trouble with people who say "that can't be right" when you try to explain the anti-altruism of Objectivism? What's happening here, I am saying, is that a natural sense of altruism as I am defining the term (i.e. as being merely the other-facing component of an innate morality that aims to benefit all concerned, oneself not excluded) has been infused with a concept of necessary sacrifice (something has to be sacrificed to something) that is actually alien to it. There's a conceptual clash: when people hear "selfishness" they think of the corrupt notion of "selfishness" (as inculcated by sacrificial altruistic codes) that includes the notion that others must be sacrificed to self. But Rand clarifies: no, egosim, strictly speaking, in logic, does not have the implication of sacrifice-of-other-to-self. I say the same is true for altruism. It's the "sacrifice" part that's the carbuncle on morality, not the sheer "be nice to oneself/others" part.

Now, I'm using the term "altruism", but I'm not particularly hung up on it. It's merely that "other-facing" component to our actions. But part of the reason I am using "altruism" is because it honours that instinctive feeling that people have, that care for others is a part of morality.

You will note that even Heumer says (something like) folk morality wouldn't "go that far" (i.e as far as the absolute sacrificial morality that religions and political parties have tried to foist on us).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is my life and my efforts, and I ought to be the primary beneficiary of my own actions.

But there's no way you can ensure "primary" here, and if you can't do it, then you ought not to do it.

What's actually the case is that: you will be the primary beneficiary of your own actions because you have most knowledge about your own case and what is actually, objectively beneficial to you.

This doesn't mean that no one else will derive a benefit from my actions, but rather that when I am a trader, we both benefit but I do it for my benefit.

You couldn't benefit the other in the same way as you can benefit yourself, because you don't have the insider knowledge about what's actually beneficial to the other - that's his job to work out.

However, suppose I am right, and your primary moral directive is to benefit all concerned, relative to knowledge, then, because of informational assymetry, the way you can reasonably benefit the other in the course of gaining your value is to follow the rules of liberal society (i.e. you trade, rather than steal).

If you had absolutely no concern for the benefit of the other, then trading would be pointless - you would just take what you want. But (I submit) because you do have benevolence, you do have some care and consideration for them, therefore you are honest, you work within the rules of justice, terms of trade, etc.

The primary benefit of my writing about philosophy is me being able to better formulate and to understand my principles. If others benefit from that, it is all well and good, but I'm not doing it for their sake. When I make beautiful framed pictures at work, I do it because I get paid a reasonable wage and not primarily because it pleases the customer; I do have to please them and I do a good job for them, but my primary concern is to have a job so I can earn my life by trading value for value. So, it is not a question of who else benefits, say when I write a poem or a short story and publish it, but what I get out of it. Selfishness, understood that way, is a virtue, and not a vice; since it is my life and no one else has a claim on it.

The self-benefitting effects of actions that benefit others often do exist, and are a part of the equation - but they cannot be the sole justification, and attempts to make them so are obviously strained and a bit convoluted. (e.g, above, you might have thought something like "well, if I were to cheat and steal, then I would eventually be caught", etc., etc. - you know, that line of justification - but while that may be true, that can't work as a justification, because that condition - that you might eventually be caught, etc. - will not always hold.)

No: you are a benevolent person, you wish well for all, but because of informational assymetery (because you know best about your own case, and others theirs) you can only calculate with any degree of objectivity the benefits of those effects of your actions that impinge on you.

IOW, because of informational assymetry, you are able to perform with any great degree of exactitude and efficiency, only that part of your moral obligation that pertains to you. That part of your obligation to strangers, you can only perform by making your actions conform to abstract principles (justice). (Intermediary - i.e. where someone is not a stranger, but perhaps someone living in the same town, or someone with shared interests - is that you have an obligation to be polite, considerate and civil.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is addressed to me, so surely it's unsurprising that I will answer it from my point of view?

Well, of course I'm asking you, and I expect an answer from your point of view. Do you remember your point of view? It goes something like this: Man has an innate, genetic predisposition to act in such a way that the benefit to others is maximized. From your point of view, you should be considering the benefits to others, at least to the child. Yet you've just been going on about how you feel, what your needs are, what you want. When are you going to consider the kid?

As to the rest of your point - remember I qualified my statement with "reasonably"? You cannot reasonably be expected to act on information you don't have. Omniscience cannot be a standard of knowledge or morality.

Hmmm, interesting. So, you're telling me that I can't be expected to act upon knowledge I don't have? Would that include knowledge about what would benefit nameless and unknown "others"?

Absent omniscience, it is reasonable to act on a "principle of charity"

Ahhh, a new concept. Goody.

And yet, as Heumer points out, if you were to strictly follow the ethics of "selfishness" (if you consider "selfishness", as is done in the "official" definition of the term, to automatically imply sacrifice of other to self if necessary), that small bit of suit ruination would logically have to trump the kid's life.

The "official" definition of "selfishness" is: "concern with one's own interests." It is not, "concern with the immediate gratification of the self." It is not, "willing to do whatever it takes to be number one," or however you want to redefine it.

We've already established that it is not in my own interests to not save the child. My "own interests" are to not have the guilt of not saving a human life when all that prevented me from doing so was a nice suit. This was clearly pointed out by Dr. Ghate in the debate, yet Dr. Huemer evaded it. You wish to do the same.

Now, non-Objectivists don't understand that this isn't the kind of definition of "selfishness" that Objectivists work with (because the concept of sacrifice in the "official" concept of altruism is so integral to it). Likewise, you don't understand that the definition of "altruism" I'm working with isn't the "official" one (the one that includes the notion of sacrifice of self to other).

You want to accept someone's incorrect understanding as correct understanding. I'm not going to. "Selfishness" has a definition. "Altruism" has a definition. You can either use those words correctly, or choose not to. However, as I pointed out earlier, slip dog from the and is down one but to win.

What counts as the right action is, in concrete terms, dependent on the amount of information you have. (Again: "ought" implies "can".) First consideration: look at the thing impartially, your actions must have as much positive benefit for yourself and for others as you can reasonably ensure. Second consideration, based on the "reasonable" condition: how much do you actually know about the situation, such that you can reasonably ensure anything?

So, in short, "I should act so there is as much positive benefit for myself and for others as I can reasonably ensure. Now, I know a lot about myself - so I know how to ensure positive benefit to myself. I don't know anything about the kid. He appears to be struggling, but he might be just joking, trying to get me to ruin my suit. He might just be practicing treading water. Of course, he might actually be drowning. In such case, I should probably save his life. I know my suit isn't worth as much to me as being free from guilt for letting him drown, but I don't know he's actually drowning. Furthermore, I'm not sure he doesn't want to drown. Maybe his life isn't very valuable to him and the greatest benefit he could receive would be to die. In that case, if I save him, I will have lost a suit, which is a negative, and his life would be saved, which would be a negative. In which case, I will have gone directly contrary to my moral code!

So, let me recap:

What I know: my suit is valuable to me, but not more valuable than living guilt free.

What I don't know: whether the boy is drowning, or whether he wants to be saved if he is drowning.

Maximum benefit for all concerned based upon what I know: save my suit."

Wow, really sounds like your moral code helped you come to a decision there.

No JeffS - you're still not quite getting my position. Let me set this in a broader context, to make it clearer (hopefully!).

Sorry, still an arbitrary, convoluted mess.

Because, fundamentally, there's no objective reason to privilege anyone's interests above anyone else's. There is no point of view from which anyone's life is objectively "more important" than anyone else's.

Really? There's no reason you should prefer your life over mine? In other words, "You are nothing, your people is everything."

Under most circumstances, none - since co-operative human existence is not a "zero-sum game".

Then what good is your morality? Why can't Crusoe simply do whatever he wants, and damn the consequences to others? There's no benefit to him in regarding others, and there's no disadvantage when he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've already established that it is not in my own interests to not save the child. My "own interests" are to not have the guilt of not saving a human life when all that prevented me from doing so was a nice suit. This was clearly pointed out by Dr. Ghate in the debate, yet Dr. Huemer evaded it. You wish to do the same.

Jeff - I agree with your position in this argument, but I think you have a problem in saying that the advantage to you is that you be free from guilt. Guilt is the result of an immoral action, so you're basically saying that you would do it because it's the right thing to do, which doesn't answer George's question.

I think a more concise description of what you're talking about, is that you would do it because you value "humanity", "life", "safety", "living in a world where people appreciate life enough to value it in each other", etc. more than you value your suit. Because these abstract values (while not necessarily the particular stranger/child) are more important to you than the suit, you would feel guilty (i.e. be acting against your own interest, which is a world where people properly value life in general more than clothes in general) if you watched a child drown rather than get your suit wet.

And George - I think the word for what you're advocating is "benevolence". Think about how that is different from altruism and see if that helps you clarify your thoughts on this point. No one is saying you should be callous towards your fellow humans; instead, because you are free to live your life and therefore to build a life you love and appreciate, you are also free to appreciate this capacity in others. In fact if you look at Rand's writings, she is very clear that it is the proper egoists who are consistently kinder and more charitable to other people. So what I'm saying is that if I understand you correctly, you're not advocating altruism at all, but the fact that you are naming this "vague concept" of yours "altruism" and then trying to defend it is just confusing everyone. Anyway, my 2c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course I'm asking you, and I expect an answer from your point of view. Do you remember your point of view? It goes something like this: Man has an innate, genetic predisposition to act in such a way that the benefit to others is maximized.

I'm afraid you still haven't got it JeffS, and until you do, your remarks really are off the mark, and frankly a bit silly.

Where did I talk about benefiting others only? Where did I talk about "maximisation"? And let's not get back into the "innate" business - judging by your last response to this subject, until you are more familiar with the kinds of literature I linked to, you are likely to misunderstand what "innate, genetic predisposition" means.

I repeat, the maxim is: insofar as one's actions affect oneself and others, one must do as much as reasonably possible to ensure that those effects are beneficial, or at the very least not detrimental.

We had a discussion about the word "altruism", about the way I was using it - throughout I have been telling you that I am using it without any connotation of sacrifice, simply to denote the "other-facing" aspect of one's actions - those effects of one's actions that impinge on others. I am not a proponent of altruism in the sense of "altruism" that denotes self-sacrifice. I don't care about the official definitions or the religious definitions. I maintain that the term, construed literally, does not have sacrifice as a necessary connotation - just as the term "selfishness" does not have the necessary connotation of sacrifice of other to self. Egoism and altruism are simply two sides of the same coin - concern for the welfare of all. There is no "blank out" at the centre in this morality. There is a positive assymetry in favour of the self (i.e. one will naturally be more egoist in one's deliberations most of the time), but that is simply a reflection of the informational assymetry - the fact that you are the best expert on your own case. You know more about your own life, and what would really benefit; others, theirs. You know less about your family and loved ones than you do about yourself - although you know more about them than you know about the people in your local community. And you know more about the people in your local community than you know about absolute strangers at the other side of the world.

And yet you do know something about those absolute strangers (see below).

From your point of view, you should be considering the benefits to others, at least to the child. Yet you've just been going on about how you feel, what your needs are, what you want. When are you going to consider the kid?

I did consider the benefit of the child. I also considered the benefit to myself.

Hmmm, interesting. So, you're telling me that I can't be expected to act upon knowledge I don't have? Would that include knowledge about what would benefit nameless and unknown "others"?

But they are not totally unknown, are they? You know they are human beings, beings of volitional consciousness, who need to exercise that volitional consciousness to live. You don't know any detail about their lives, but you know that they need to be free (from interference) to exercise volitional consciousness. So it comes down to this: the benefit you can do them, in any action you do, is to run every action you do through the fillter of individual rights, property rights, etc. In dealing honestly, for example, you are upholding, doing your bit to make real in society, a rule that will benefit those unnamed others, by creating conditions in which they can fully exercise volitional consciousness.

The "official" definition of "selfishness" is: "concern with one's own interests." It is not, "concern with the immediate gratification of the self." It is not, "willing to do whatever it takes to be number one," or however you want to redefine it.

It is not my redefinition. "Concern with one's own interests", being read contextlessly by most people, is read as "at the expense of others". Rand pointed out that the strict meaning of the "egoism" doesn't connote that. What she's doing is redefinition from the point of view of the more common reading. As above, I say the strict meaning of "altruism" doesn't connote "at the expense of myself".

We've already established that it is not in my own interests to not save the child. My "own interests" are to not have the guilt of not saving a human life when all that prevented me from doing so was a nice suit. This was clearly pointed out by Dr. Ghate in the debate, yet Dr. Huemer evaded it. You wish to do the same.

I have maintained throughout that my own interests are part of my consideration. But keep thrashing that strawman - who am I to interfere with your chosen form of intellectual exercise? :)

You want to accept someone's incorrect understanding as correct understanding. I'm not going to.

In case you haven't noticed, neither am I.

"Selfishness" has a definition. "Altruism" has a definition. You can either use those words correctly, or choose not to. However, as I pointed out earlier, slip dog from the and is down one but to win.

1) Plain, literal meaning of "Egoism" = concern with one's own interests;

2) Plain, literal meaning of "Altruism" = concern with others' interests;

3) Twisted, sacrifice-infested definition of "Egoism" = sacrifice of others to self in pursuit of one's own interest;

4) Twisted, sacrifice-infested definition of "Altruism" = sacrifice of self to others in pursuit of their interests.

I uphold both 1) and 2) and I think they are complementary, not contradictory, since I think that a fully rational morality can only be concern for everyone's interests.

3) and 4) are the "official" definitions, foisted on the people by religion and demagoguery, which people give lip-service to; 1) and 2) are the "bootleg" or "common sense" definitions, sustained by our innate sense of morality inherited from our small-band, hunter-gatherer ancestry. When the Overseer's around, people will shiver and genuflect in the direction of 3) and 4), but in their daily lives, in the privacy of their own thoughts, they live by 1) and 2).

I don't know anything about the kid. He appears to be struggling, but he might be just joking, trying to get me to ruin my suit. He might just be practicing treading water.

Don't be silly.

Sorry, still an arbitrary, convoluted mess.

Well, I gave it my best shot. Maybe try reading it a few times after you've read the books I linked to.

Really? There's no reason you should prefer your life over mine?

Nor should I prefer your life over mine. There is no preference for the rational intellect observing reality. Things just are. And "everything that lives is holy." (Blake)

It's just that you know more about the holy thing that you are than you know about the holy things that others are; therefore you know more about what will bring real benefit to yourself than you know about what will bring real benefit to others. Therefore, because you CAN benefit yourself in a more concrete and detailed way than you can benefit others, you MUST do so; while, when it comes to benefiting others, the only way you CAN benefit them without taking a huge risk of interfering with their lives and screwing things up, is (broadly speaking) to follow the individualistic and propertarian rules of a liberal society: therefore you MUST do so. There's also the issue of charity: if one CAN devote a portion of one's income, without detriment to oneself, to organisations that are in a better informational position to give relevant concrete help to others, then one MUST do so.

Then what good is your morality? Why can't Crusoe simply do whatever he wants, and damn the consequences to others? There's no benefit to him in regarding others, and there's no disadvantage when he doesn't.

Of course there are benefits to him in regarding others - broadly speaking, he gets to live in a nice society that he's partly supporting by his actions (or rather, by an abstract quality they have, of being law-abiding), etc., etc. It's not that the Egoistic reasons Objectivists give for behaving nicely aren't operative - of course they are. It's just that they aren't the sole reason to be nice to others, and it's a strained philosophy that has to justify being nice to others because it's a roundabout way of being nice to oneself.

You have felt the strain, haven't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And George - I think the word for what you're advocating is "benevolence". Think about how that is different from altruism and see if that helps you clarify your thoughts on this point. No one is saying you should be callous towards your fellow humans; instead, because you are free to live your life and therefore to build a life you love and appreciate, you are also free to appreciate this capacity in others. In fact if you look at Rand's writings, she is very clear that it is the proper egoists who are consistently kinder and more charitable to other people. So what I'm saying is that if I understand you correctly, you're not advocating altruism at all, but the fact that you are naming this "vague concept" of yours "altruism" and then trying to defend it is just confusing everyone. Anyway, my 2c.

Hey again Bluey - I am indeed not advocating altruism (in the self-sacrificial sense), and I am indeed advocating benevolence as the root and foundation of morality.

I am, however, using "altruism" in the plain sense of "concern with others' interests". The reason it's confusing everyone is the same reason using "selfishness" confuses non-Objectivists. I have simply done with the term "altruism" what Rand did with "egoism" - pointed out its plain, literal meaning, and the fact that it does not have any necessary connotation of sacrifice of self to other, just as Rand pointed out that the plain meaning of "egoism" does not have any necessary connotation of sacrifice of other to self. If I had just wanted to "get along" with Objectivists, I could have cast all this in a different language, but I wanted to see how people here would react. In fact, the consternation here perfectly mirrors the consternation most ordinary folks have when Objectivism, quite rightly, points out that "egoism" does not imply "sacrifice of others to self".

It's the "somebody somewhere has to sacrifice something to someone" concept that's the devil here, not (as I would say to non-Objectivists) the concept of concern for self, nor (as I would say to Objectivists) the concept of concern for others.

(The other big devil in morality is the concept of "original sin", to which we must oppose "original innocence" - innocence of being/becoming - but that's another story.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say I ought to be the primary beneficiary of my own actions, I do not mean that no one else will benefit, nor do I necessarily mean that I will benefit more than they do. In a trade situation, each side comes to the conclusion that making the trade is profitable -- by their own standards. When I do a picture framing job, often the customer loves it more than I do or more than the boss does, because for one thing we decided to take money for it instead of keeping it for ourselves. If it's a wedding picture, say, they may well treasure it for the rest of their lives, but for me it was a few hours of work and enjoyment. So, it's not that I profit more than they do, but rather given the terms of the trade, I get out of it what I want out of it. If I own some land and someone buys it off me, I hopefully make a profit, but if he turns around and builds something on it and makes a fortune, I didn't lose out because I sold it at the price I wanted to sell it at (otherwise I would probably have kept it, though some stocks I kept have ruined my portfolio, so one cannot always hold and make a profit). But my primary motivation to expend energy or effort ought to be doing it for my own benefit, not the benefit of others; though in a trade situation, both sides benefit.

By the way, if you think I am benevolent, I'm glad to hear it, because even some people on this forum think I'm a cold blooded, rude and obnoxious bastard :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not get the point of this debate at all. From what I gathered you don't really disagree with Objectivism in the least, you just feel a need to further redefine the term altruism in a more complex manner.

It seems kind of pointless to me. Of course you will not infringe on others if it is of little consequence to you just out of benevolence and the lack of sacrifice involved. Also if you did put yourself in others shoes and thought of them as rational individuals you woudl probably realize they do not wish you to sacrifice either and if they did, they would likely not be worth your time and effort if they wished your sacrifice to their needs.

I think the best statement on this is that "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should hope so - that's why I'm engaging in these discussions, to get clearer on my own thinking by confronting it with challenges from others'! .)

I was simply referring to you comment about nit-picking. Nit-picking or not it got me to get a more clear idea about your perspective.

Well, not quite - I am a bit of an altruist as I think that ought to be correctly defined, and a bit of an egoist as that is correctly defined (as Rand defines it). But these are complementary, not antagonistic, when sacrifice is taken out of both definitions.

No, this attempt at psychologizing is very confused. Here's the actual situation: I don't actually think there's anything wrong in justifying a moral decision because it's good for others.

There's nothing wrong with being good to others, I agree. But that does not make it altruistic. Ayn Rand did not state that everyone ought to be selfish, she vividly showed that everyone is selfish. And, more importantly, she showed that it is the sole mode of thought that is acceptable to a modern man, to realize that everything you do must be to the benefit of your self. She did not and never meant to define all possible forms of benefit and I don't think that is possible as it is subjective. Neither did she redefine "selfishness" but removed the need for apology for being ones self and she also removed the ambiguous negative connotation that a "moocher" attributes to being selfish.

More, to the point though... do you not think it is hypocritical to claim you do anything solely for the sake of another when it makes you feel good doing it? Is it not the epitome of evasiveness to give a penny to a pauper and then brag about how generous you are for doing so and how everyone should be just like you? Altruism and selfishness are mutually exclusive and you cannot be both at the same time as that defeats the point of having either term. You are either selfish or altruistic and the only reason you’d state to be a bit of both is out of the unnamed guilt for living for your own sake. But you can dismiss me as being confused again, nothing I can do about that.

What I am against is the concept of sacrifice - of one to another. I think Rand did a great job of removing this concept from the "self-facing" side, but Objectivists don't see it's possible to do the same for the "other-facing" side. (Remember my definition: insofar as an action of yours is going to have some effect, both on yourself ("self-facing") and on others ("other-facing"), then your duty is to do as much as you reasonably can to ensure those effects are beneficial, or at the very least, not detrimental, either to yourself or to others.)

You still seem to think that if I give an apple to a hungry man on the street I have sacrificed the apple. That is neither the definition nor the meaning Rand implied. One basic example of sacrifice is if you were to trade a $10 bill for a $5 bill on the street to a man whose reasoning was that "it is the right thing to do" and "that is how everyone does it and it is your duty". If you clearly understood that you'd be loosing $5 but believed the man's reasoning to be valid and did as told you'd be sacrificing the money. There's no such thing as duty before my fellow man as defined by anyone other than myself. You decide what an acceptable action is keeping in mind that every action you make grants the right to others to act in the same manner towards you. That is the epitome of civil conduct. We act civil because we desire others around us to be civil and not because there's some greater unnamed duty we all must adhere to. You keep going back to what you think an altruist would do versus what an Objectivist would do but the point is they would more often than not do the same thing but for different self stated reasons.

Look it up.

It depends on how you define "altruistic" - i.e. whether or not you include the notion of sacrifice as a necessary part of it.

The truly moral action aims to benefit both self and others - i.e. to benefit all concerned, in due proportion, subject to available knowledge.

Yes, altruism as that word is used in "official" definitions. But - have you not had trouble with people who say "that can't be right" when you try to explain the anti-altruism of Objectivism? What's happening here, I am saying, is that a natural sense of altruism as I am defining the term (i.e. as being merely the other-facing component of an innate morality that aims to benefit all concerned, oneself not excluded) has been infused with a concept of necessary sacrifice (something has to be sacrificed to something) that is actually alien to it. There's a conceptual clash: when people hear "selfishness" they think of the corrupt notion of "selfishness" (as inculcated by sacrificial altruistic codes) that includes the notion that others must be sacrificed to self. But Rand clarifies: no, egosim, strictly speaking, in logic, does not have the implication of sacrifice-of-other-to-self. I say the same is true for altruism. It's the "sacrifice" part that's the carbuncle on morality, not the sheer "be nice to oneself/others" part.

Now, I'm using the term "altruism", but I'm not particularly hung up on it. It's merely that "other-facing" component to our actions. But part of the reason I am using "altruism" is because it honours that instinctive feeling that people have, that care for others is a part of morality.

You will note that even Heumer says (something like) folk morality wouldn't "go that far" (i.e as far as the absolute sacrificial morality that religions and political parties have tried to foist on us).

First of all I know what "kin-altruism" is and believe that is a deliberate obfuscation of both altruism and the importance of ones family to ones self. Maybe I should have stated that but I assumed you'd understand based upon the statement I made about saving your own child...

You seem wordy there about altruism and sacrifice and not for the sake of clarity. However I do understand and have encountered on a number of occasions the difficulty of explaining to others the meaning of selfishness. This is because most people automatically and falsely attribute greed and inconsideration to selfishness. And if you point that out and the discussion is in good faith then the issue is quickly settled. There's no clear negative connotation to selfishness. I also do not think you need to speak about “people’s feelings” in such mystic terms, it’s all pretty clear cut and dry there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had just wanted to "get along" with Objectivists, I could have cast all this in a different language, but I wanted to see how people here would react. In fact, the consternation here perfectly mirrors the consternation most ordinary folks have when Objectivism, quite rightly, points out that "egoism" does not imply "sacrifice of others to self".

So you know you don't have an actual disagreement to present, you're just seeing if you can piss everyone off? Yeah, I kinda thought so, which is why I stopped replying for a while. Oh well.

I'm not sure there is a definition of altruism that doesn't entail, rather explicitly, putting another's interests ahead of one's own. You could say that definition itself doesn't necessarily imply sacrifice, but Rand's point is that as a moral principle it can't be followed consistently without leading to sacrifice or demands of sacrifice - as I'm sure you can observe is the result of following altruistic philosophies or religions or politics. Whereas egoism, while it does mean putting one's own interests ahead of another's, can be followed consistently without leading to sacrifice, which is what Rand pointed out. She didn't change the definition, she challenged the common misconception of the consequences of the concept. She wasn't being a jackass and just trying to screw with people. See the difference?

Finally, Objectivism places benevolence as a sense of life issue rather than a moral issue. Think of it this way: "My Life" is my end goal, "ethics" is the sort of map that identifies which actions are in accordance with that goal and which aren't, "moral" actions are those that are and "immoral" actions are those that aren't, and lots of actions are simply irrelevant to that goal. That's the way I picture it all together, anyway. So benevolence isn't the root and foundation of morality, unless your version of morality is somehow derived from something other than real life. It's a side issue. Sure, from my own perspective, another person who is benevolent towards me could be "good" and someone who is a crotchety bastard could be "bad", but for that individual himself, the way he treats me is a side issue. I can just avoid him if I think he's trouble. See the difference? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all.

Over the years of doing this kind of debating on the internet, I have learned that I agree with the core principles of Objectivism, but I have also learned something else: If I choose to take truth to be correspondence of a word/words with what it/they imply then in a sense false as opposed to true and moral/ethical right/wrong are also true. :) So to me Nazism is wrong, yet true because it was actually real and happened.

In the short version it means that it is true that I can both do right or wrong in a given situation. So I am going to define right and wrong this way:

Right is true and wrong is false, thus something wrong is something, which can't be shown to correspond. F.ex. God is wrong, because God is not true.

So far so good ;) But I have encountered a "problem" in my understanding of reality. It has to do with two different kinds of thinking/cognition. Namely linear one-dimensional and multivariate thinking. F.ex. if I abstract my life over time to be one A then it leads to a contradiction because I am not the same(A) now as I were yesterday - in other words linear one-dimensional thinking can produce a result which appears true, yet is not - I am and have always been the same in all senses and over all time that I have been an A. On the other hand I am the same A if I accept that I am a causal chain of connected, but different As in time,space and matter - I am one A over time, space and matter, yet different As at different times, spaces and matter. ;)

I have a challenge for all of you. It goes like this - is it possible as in being true and true right that two different persons can hold two different positions about what is a true and true right society and it is not a contradiction. Let me explain; let us call the one position X and the other as it is different, non-X. By linear one-dimensional thinking that is a contradiction, because X can't be X and non-X, but what about multivariate thinking???

I haven't solved that yet, because I can't figure it out! :) I know I have to check all words for being true and true right for both X and non-X, yet I am having a problem when I get to this point in my "construct" of X and non-X.

Imagine a true and true right Objectivist State. A person gets the idea to suggest a welfare union - it involves voluntary commitment to the idea that all members of the union will only trade with other members of the union and when trading involving money takes place between two or more member a "tax" is paid to the union, which is then used by the union as per majority decision among all union members. ;)

Yes, I know it is a variant of taxation with representation. :) But how do I show that to be false and thus true wrong? In other words how do I show it to be Irrational and against Human Nature? It is voluntary and thus legal within an Objectivist State, so it appears that it is not that which is the problem, but whether it is "better" at all? So what makes better at all true and true right?

I will leave it here, because I am not certain that I have gotten it true at all, but rather ask you. :) :) :)

With regards

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you know you don't have an actual disagreement to present, you're just seeing if you can piss everyone off? Yeah, I kinda thought so, which is why I stopped replying for a while. Oh well.

I'm not sure there is a definition of altruism that doesn't entail, rather explicitly, putting another's interests ahead of one's own. You could say that definition itself doesn't necessarily imply sacrifice, but Rand's point is that as a moral principle it can't be followed consistently without leading to sacrifice or demands of sacrifice - as I'm sure you can observe is the result of following altruistic philosophies or religions or politics. Whereas egoism, while it does mean putting one's own interests ahead of another's, can be followed consistently without leading to sacrifice, which is what Rand pointed out. She didn't change the definition, she challenged the common misconception of the consequences of the concept. She wasn't being a jackass and just trying to screw with people. See the difference?

Finally, Objectivism places benevolence as a sense of life issue rather than a moral issue. Think of it this way: "My Life" is my end goal, "ethics" is the sort of map that identifies which actions are in accordance with that goal and which aren't, "moral" actions are those that are and "immoral" actions are those that aren't, and lots of actions are simply irrelevant to that goal. That's the way I picture it all together, anyway. So benevolence isn't the root and foundation of morality, unless your version of morality is somehow derived from something other than real life. It's a side issue. Sure, from my own perspective, another person who is benevolent towards me could be "good" and someone who is a crotchety bastard could be "bad", but for that individual himself, the way he treats me is a side issue. I can just avoid him if I think he's trouble. See the difference? :)

Just curious... Is there a part in your morality that implies you ought to help the above mentioned child or does any aid you might render simply comes from "benevolence" and sidesteps your morality? Is helping others always a trivial matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far so good :) But I have encountered a "problem" in my understanding of reality. It has to do with two different kinds of thinking/cognition. Namely linear one-dimensional and multivariate thinking.

I think you are confusing yourself. Correspondence to reality means that a concept actually identifies some aspect of reality. Nazism does correspond to reality, because it was an actual political system. However, just because a man can do something doesn't mean that it does not contradict his nature. In other words, because man has free will and doesn't have to keep his mind corresponding to existence, he can act against his own nature. Man has to be man by choice -- it is not automatic that he will think and that he will act in his own best self-interest in the long-term. It is quite possible for a man to have an ideology that is against his own nature. Rationality has to be attained by an act of free will of him accepting reality, though he can accept an ideology that flies in the face of reality. There are no contradictions in reality, but there can be contradictions in a man's mind if he does not think according to existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no contradictions in reality, but there can be contradictions in a man's mind if he does not think according to existence.

What???

If I take it to be the case and true that "there can be contradictions in a man's mind" is a part of reality/existence and add that to "there are no contradictions in reality" as to be the case and true as a part of reality/existence then it is true, then as a fact and a part of reality/existence that at least at one time it has been/is/will be the case that at that time and in same sense a contradiction is and is not.

In short there are and are not contradictions in reality!!! Is that what you claim as true???

With regards

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What???

If I take it to be the case and true that "there can be contradictions in a man's mind" is a part of reality/existence and add that to "there are no contradictions in reality" as to be the case and true as a part of reality/existence then it is true, then as a fact and a part of reality/existence that at least at one time it has been/is/will be the case that at that time and in same sense a contradiction is and is not.

In short there are and are not contradictions in reality!!! Is that what you claim as true???

With regards

Mikael

My friend, while most things that you write I cannot even pretend to understand I think you are misusing the words "real" and "true". Fascism and communism are most certainly real but are very wrong. I don’t think the word “true” applies here. And reality has no contradictions; only men’s thinking can be contradictory. Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend, while most things that you write I cannot even pretend to understand I think you are misusing the words "real" and "true". Fascism and communism are most certainly real but are very wrong. I don’t think the word “true” applies here. And reality has no contradictions; only men’s thinking can be contradictory. Hope that helps.

Sorry, it doesn't. :) Are men’s thinking a part of reality??? If so there are and are not contradictions in reality, because the thinking is a contradiction and thus exists.

With regards

Mikael

Edited by Mikael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the universe as a whole." (OPAR, p.3)

All of Objectivism rests on Objectivist metaphysics. The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are (1) the Primacy of Existence, (2) the Law of Identity (Aristotle's "A is A"), and (3) the Axiom of Consciousness.

Thus as consciousness is a part the universe or if you like reality and this includes "my thinking is a contradiction", thus contradictions are and are not a part of the nature of universe as a whole OR consciousness and "my thinking is a contradiction" are not a part of the nature of universe as a whole and so follows ontological dualism as reality and non-reality(consciousness and "my thinking is a contradiction"). :)

With regards

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, it doesn't. :) Are men’s thinking a part of reality??? If so there are and are not contradictions in reality, because the thinking is a contradiction and thus exists.

Well, it is true that in a sense man's mind is a part of reality, since it exists, but when Objectivism refers to reality or existence in many cases it means what exists out there that we have to understand. The primacy of existence approach says that reality is the standard of human consciousness, but a man can certainly misunderstand existence, and a man can say that something exists and doesn't exists at the same time and in the same respect -- this is what I mean by a contradiction. Yes, man's mind is real, and I do include it in my concept of existence, as something that exists; however one must differentiate between the facts of reality and the content of one's consciousness. So, when we say contradictions can't exist in reality, what we mean is that apart from man's mind, that which exists cannot contradict itself -- even though a man can contradict the facts of reality by misidentifying the facts or by evading the facts.

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is true that in a sense man's mind is a part of reality, since it exists, but when Objectivism refers to reality or existence in many cases it means what exists out there that we have to understand. The primacy of existence approach says that reality is the standard of human consciousness, but a man can certainly misunderstand existence, and a man can say that something exists and doesn't exists at the same time and in the same respect -- this is what I mean by a contradiction. Yes, man's mind is real, and I do include it in my concept of existence, as something that exists; however one must differentiate between the facts of reality and the content of one's consciousness. So, when we say contradictions can't exist in reality, what we mean is that apart from man's mind, that which exists cannot contradict itself -- even though a man can contradict the facts of reality by misidentifying the facts or by evading the facts.

Hope that helps.

Yes, but let me try to explain my position: For all of reality including thinking, saying, writing and observing it is not possible to think, say, write or observe A and non-A at the exact same time and in the exact same sense. You can verify this yourself by trying to do the following - think A and non-A at the exact same time and in the exact same sense. That is one meaning of the word contradiction and it is true of all of reality including you. It is not just true of the facts of reality outside man's mind and thinking, but also true inside. Contradiction in this sense is in the broadest sense true of all of reality. :)

You then confuse this meaning with another one - when you observe in your thinking that you actually at one time and in the same sense, but at another time and in the same sense hold for the same time and in the same sense A and non-A to be true, then you know at least one of them are false. But in this moment you don't know which one, if neither are self-evident. You then must check for correspondence for both A and non-A.

But it is true of reality, that the following can happen: A and non-A are found to be contradictory and it is known that A is false as per correspondence and non-A is true, yet A is still used as true and a reason for further action. F.ex. "God exists and in the end I must thus kill you". ;) ;) ;)

So I can point out as true of reality: I think there are two similar, yet different meanings of the word contradiction and I can hold both to be true and use that as a reason to write this.

In fact all of this post is real, actual and exists as correspondence with reality, namely how I really and actually think, reason and thus act. And yes, that is true because I know through awareness of reality that it is and has happened - existence exists; A=A and consciousness.

With regard

Mikael

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...