Critique of the Objectivist Ethics

[gurugeorge]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Of course - but aren't you happy for them too? Don't you share in their joy, to some extent? Isn't part of the pride you have a reflection on the fact that someone else is enjoying your work?

I'm not saying it's the same for everybody (people vary in this): all I'm saying it's ok that you should feel this empathy with others, it's not irrational, it's not sacrificial, it's just a simple happiness for others' sake. It's ok to be happy because someone else is happy. There's no logical reason why you have to blank out others' joy, and your response to that, and turn it round so that it all reflects back solely on what's got utility for you - even though that utility, all the stuff you're saying here, exists and is valid, and is primary in the sense you mean. The primary nature of it comes from the knowledge side (you know more about your own case), it's not a primacy in the very terms of who ought to be benefitted by any action of yours. Everyone ought to benefit from any action of yours, it's just that you are closer to your own case, you know more, you are more intimate with it (and of course others know more about theirs, which is why 99.9999% of the time you can happily leave it to them to figure out for themselves what's good for them, and trade with you for it).

[gurugeorge]

Whelp, I tried. There's simply nothing I can do about evasion.

The thought is mutual.

[fountainhead777]

I ma happy for other people i value but if I saw a complete stranger who I could not identify with or share any common things in our individual selves then I would feel little or nothing. Even that empathy is a result of some system of valuing based in my self. Note that you said this varies among people. That is because it occurs in relation to shared values and personal tastes, connections to people, not some genetic predisposition.

None of this is altruism. Why do you keep trying to find a way to redefine things so that you can disagree?

[gurugeorge]

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.

No, in a simpler manner - i.e. without the necessary connotation of sacrifice of self to other.

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"

Well, that's a bit of a Pollyannaish saying, and there's no reason to expect it - but in spirit, as an ideal to aim for, yes, I agree. (That is, there will always be occasional conflicts between rational men because rational men sometimes make mistakes, but in theory there shouldn't be if they are being rational and haven't made any mistakes.)

[themadkat]

Well, that's a bit of a Pollyannaish saying, and there's no reason to expect it - but in spirit, as an ideal to aim for, yes, I agree. (That is, there will always be occasional conflicts between rational men because rational men sometimes make mistakes, but in theory there shouldn't be if they are being rational and haven't made any mistakes.)

I believe you misunderstand him. It's not that rational men won't ever have conflicts, it's that the INTERESTS (i.e. fundamental, long-term interests) of rational men do not conflict. This is chiefly because rational men do not seek the unearned or seek to evade reality, which are the two biggest sources of conflict. Say I'm in a grocery store, and I buy an apple. The cashier shorts me my change and gives me a big smile and a "have a nice day", hoping I won't notice. This really covers both - he's faking reality by trying to get me to believe I made the exchange on the terms I expected to (i.e. the real price of the apple) and he's trying to get something that was mine for nothing (however much change he shorted me, say $1). His "interests", such as they are at this point, are wholly irrational. The people who think that the interests of rational humans conflict basically have to believe that it's the most rational choice for a business to rob its customers (and certainly there are many people who think/act that way).

As to your earlier point about saving the drowning child, for me at least yes it is a moral issue. If I fail to save the child at trivial cost to myself, I fail to uphold my values. It is immoral to knowingly sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. I value the health, safety, and happiness of innocent children, and of course this valuing includes caring about them in a sense even if I don't know them well. But the point is that this value is MINE, I have chosen it, and if I really believe it then I will act on it to save the child, which I would. I would definitely have a negative judgment of someone whose value hierarchy put snappy dressing ahead of respect for a life.

[fountainhead777]

Mistakes are easily corretced when rational because you explain your side and one will realize the error of their ways.

Your definition does nto make sense to me because I cannot have concern for others without having a self. Altruism means unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Meaning you gain nothing from that concern, no values, no enjoyment, nothing for your self. The term does not make sense because true concern for others cannot exist absent the self. And your term is already defined in benevolence and other words.

You keep saying Rand redefined the term but this is the existing definition. That nature of selflessness implies a sacrifice because it presupposes no net positive value to self.

And you still fail to acknowledge that your argument is pointless because your only disagreement with Objectivism is a definition not held by Objectivism alone.

[DavidOdden]

That is, there will always be occasional conflicts between rational men because rational men sometimes make mistakes, but in theory there shouldn't be if they are being rational and haven't made any mistakes.

That's completely irrelevant, because Objectivism holds that "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men". Read the words again: that is a statement about objective fact, not about emotional response. Remember, words are selected not because they have some vague relationship to an idea, but because they have a precise meaning.

[gurugeorge]

There's nothing wrong with being good to others, I agree. But that does not make it altruistic.

In the sense of "sacrificing self to others" no, it doesn't. In the plain sense of "concern for others", yes it does.

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.

And that negative connotation is an aspect of the intrusion of the concept of sacrifice into morality. The concept of sacrifice infects the plain meaning of "egoism", but it also infects the plain meaning of "altruism". Rand saw the former, but didn't see the latter. (Consider: in Atlas Shrugged, the description of the 20th Century Motors debacle - is Ayn Rand not tremendously compassionate in her description of the human waste involved? I expect a stream of explanations that, no, it's not compassion, it's not a result of care about others' suffering, it's a plain description of what goes wrong when people don't follow the right philosophy. Yes, it's that too, but to deny that it's not also compassionate seems to me to be a subtle "blank out". To my mind, the whole of Atlas Shrugged is an immensely compassionate book. But that can't be officially admitted, can it? The reason why it can't be admitted is the reason why Objectivism has not already taken over the world, why it keeps splitting, etc., etc. )

What you are pointing to above is the result of the assymetry of information I am pointing to - yes, what is good for others is "subjective", in that it's their business to figure out. We are each in the best position to figure out what is good for ourselves, and that is why most activity one does in life cannot but be egoistic. But that doesn't forbid one taking joy in others' joy, in having concern for others.

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?

Again, that is not what I'm claiming.

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?

Yes!

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.

You are confused, thus: you are accepting an examined, clarified concept of egoism that has had the concept of sacrifice (of others to self) removed from it, as is proper, as is logical given the plain meaning of the term. But you are unable or unwilling to see that the same can be done for the concept of altruism - i.e. in its plain meaning it doesn't have the connotation of sacrifice of self to others. It is merely concern for others.

You still seem to think that if I give an apple to a hungry man on the street I have sacrificed the apple.

No, I do not think that at all. If I held "altruism" to be "sacrifice of self to other", then I would believe that, but since I hold altruism to be merely "concern for others", I don't believe that. If I myself had little food, and I gave an apple, that would be a sacrifice, and it's not something that can reasonably be expected of me. But if I have a satisfactory amount of food, giving an apple is not a sacrifice, and is allowable according to my ethics (should one decide it would actually benefit the other guy). But I would be doing far more for that person, in the long run, by dealing honestly with people, by following the rules of a liberal society, by not allowing socialist measures in government, etc. - that would create conditions which, in the long run, would allow him to better his own condition. That is a more powerful expression of my compassion; giving an apple (if it's not a sacrifice) is also valid, but it's just a stopgap measure.

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.

I agree, absolutely. This is precisely the informational assymetry I am talking about - all things being equal, you are the best judge of what's good for you, and the other fellow is the best judge of what's good for them. But if you ever wished and hoped that others would get what's good for them, then you are an altruist in the plain meaning of the term. And the best way you can make that concern effective is to follow the rules of a liberal society - to be honest, to trade, etc.

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.

An altruist, in the sacrificial sense, will tend to interfere with others' lives, based on a pretention of knowledge about others' individual cases, and in disregard of the fact that others are the best judges in their own cases. If they had any genuine concern for others for their own sake - if they were genuine altruists in my sense - they would see that others are self-steering, and the best judges in their own cases, and that the best way they could express their concern for those others in effective action, primarily, would be to ensure that they follow the rules of a liberal society, are civil, etc., etc.; and that, secondarily, if it's no sacrifice to them, they might give charity to selected causes (i.e. to organisations that are "closer to the ground" wrt others who have perhaps fallen and need help in some way).

[estheticidea]

Isn't part of the pride you have a reflection on the fact that someone else is enjoying your work?

I don't think that when you are proud of something you did, it should make you more proud when somebody likes it and less proud when somebody dislikes it.

I'm not saying it's the same for everybody (people vary in this): all I'm saying it's ok that you should feel this empathy with others, it's not irrational, it's not sacrificial, it's just a simple happiness for others' sake. It's ok to be happy because someone else is happy. There's no logical reason why you have to blank out others' joy, and your response to that, and turn it round so that it all reflects back solely on what's got utility for you - even though that utility, all the stuff you're saying here, exists and is valid, and is primary in the sense you mean.

The issue here is understanding how valuing an other person is selfish. One can value something for more than direct utility! When it concerns valuing an other person, it is rational to value his consciousness, and the character that he has shaped with it. The selfish value of a person, qua person, to you, is something he has already earned.

Guru, the fact that it is his consciousness that you value, as distinct from your own, doesn't mean that this is therefore an altruistic value. If you value someone, qua conscious being, a big part of what you value about it is, that he has his independent purpose, independent from yours. It couldn't be otherwise (you couldn't say, "I will only value an other consciousness if I can force my own purpose onto it, because letting him have his own purpose would be altruistic."

Having friends and in general, living in a world with other people in it adds to your happiness, quite apart from the fact that it offers utility.

[gurugeorge]

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.

Well, I admit I do take a bit of pleasure in stirring up some thought and controversy, but I'm not actually trolling - my point is deadly serious. I think I'm pointing to an inconsistency in Objectivism - an inconsistency that's preventing it from being as popular as it ought to be and actually having the beneficial effect on the world that it could have.

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.

There is, mine But as I've said - I'm not hung up about the term. In all the screeds of words I've written, the only thing that's really important, the only thing to hang on to, is to notice that insofar as any action one takes has effects on oneself and others, the true, final, and complete moral imperative is to do as much as one can reasonably do to ensure that those effects (on oneself and others) are beneficial (or at the very least not detrimental). The "self-facing" effects are the "egoistic" effects, the "other-facing" effects are the "altruistic" effects - that's all. IOW, the true morality is impartial and benevolent. But the "reasonable" condition means that in effect, most of one's actions will be egoistic, because one is the best judge of what's good in one's own case, others are the best judges in their own cases, etc. (what I am calling "informational assymetry").

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.

Totally, 100% agree. But that looks like a redefinition to most people because they hold the concept of "egoism" as necessarily including the idea of sacrifice of others to self - they accept a sacrifice-corrupted sense of "egoism". Well, I am saying that Rand herself accepted a sacrifice-corrupted sense of "altruism", and in doing so, missed the boat of having a complete, clear philosophy.

Furthermore, I am saying that in reality, in the secrecy of their own inner thoughts, and even in terms of the common-sense morality that Heumer is talking about (to some extent, although there is some corruption in the common sense usage), people don't operate with Comte's sense of "altruism", and when they hear "altruism", they think of it merely as being benevolent; while at the same time, they operate as egoists in a fair chunk of daily life (it's just that, because of the "official" position, they feel they have to excuse it, because they are convinced by the "official" usage, that their egoism is bad). I also say that this "bootleg" sense of true morality is partly an innate "tug" that comes from mental machinery that evolved in our ancestral environment, in which sacrifice would have been meaningless, but caring for oneself and others were supremely important. Sacrifice only came to have meaning, and to be touted as a virtue, in the agricultural communities of the Bronze and Iron Ages, with massive redundancy of persons, cheapness of individual life, rigid, heirarchical societies, zero-sum economics, etc.

And I am also saying that the only reason sacrifice got a hook into morality was because of peoples' innate sense of benevolence - "be nice to others" got corrupted into "sacrifice yourself to others" by the priestcraft of Bronze and Iron Age religions - they needed serfs, and they needed cannon fodder.

She wasn't being a jackass and just trying to screw with people. See the difference?

Oh come off it, she was also being a jackass and trying to screw with people. She's pretty impish and confrontational

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?

I understand that, but I think it's too complicated and "saving appearances"-ish. I think of it rather like this: one actuates one's benevolence, first of all, with regard to oneself, because one has the best information about oneself. But actually, if one is fully rational, one's benevolence is for all existence. One is at home in the Universe, the entire Universe is one's kith and kin, so to speak. It just so happens that the rest of the Universe is as capable of looking after itself as you are of looking after yourself, so your actions need not be directed concretely to others' benefit - your benevolence to others is most effectively actuated by your actions' having an abstract quality that redounds to others' benefit (i.e. following liberal - in the true sense - rules).

Or to put it another way: one feels a sense of benevolence for all of existence (including obviously oneself), but because of "informational assymetry" one can only "get to work" on one's own case with any great, beneficial effect. That portion of existence that is oneself is the only portion of existence whose lot one can concretely act to improve. When it comes to getting down and dirty with plans, projects, etc., etc., one can (and therefore must) only plan one's own life with any great surety of beneficial effect.

[gurugeorge]

That's completely irrelevant, because Objectivism holds that "There are no conflicts of interest among rational men". Read the words again: that is a statement about objective fact, not about emotional response. Remember, words are selected not because they have some vague relationship to an idea, but because they have a precise meaning.

It's true if you take "interests" to mean actual objective interests (regardless of anybody's estimation of objective interests), but people can be mistaken about what their objective interests are. Hence, it's more a description of an ideal than a description of fact.

[bluey]

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?

Dude, do your homework. I just answered this two posts ago. I ought to act in my interests, and it's in my interests to live in a world where life in general is a value and is protected. Therefore as a general rule I would do what I could to help in an emergency situation. Keep up.

[DavidOdden]

It's true if you take "interests" to mean actual objective interests (regardless of anybody's estimation of objective interests),

Generally, one should take X to mean what X actually refers to, and not someone's attitude towards X.

but people can be mistaken about what their objective interests are.

Objectivism systematically affirms that human judgment is non-automatic.

Hence, it's more a description of an ideal than a description of fact.

Peikoff's statement is a description of a fact, about the nature of man and the nature of "interest". It does not even purport to be a statement about individual behavior and attitude.

Well, I admit I do take a bit of pleasure in stirring up some thought and controversy

Why do you not take a bit of pleasure in applying appropriate standards of thoughtfulness to your own actions (posts)? The fine line between trolling and what you are doing is indeed fine.

[bluey]

Well, I admit I do take a bit of pleasure in stirring up some thought and controversy, but I'm not actually trolling - my point is deadly serious. I think I'm pointing to an inconsistency in Objectivism - an inconsistency that's preventing it from being as popular as it ought to be and actually having the beneficial effect on the world that it could have.

Could you please state concisely what this inconsistency is supposed to be so I can work with it?? As far as I can tell it's just that you think Rand redefined "egoism" while neglecting to similarly reconsider "altruism", so you're trying to do that for her and make them both legitimate moral principles. If this is your point then you are not properly understanding the Objectivist position.

There is, mine But as I've said - I'm not hung up about the term.

Well, as I've pointed out, Rand did not change the definition of egoism. So I'm not sure why you insist on playing word games rather than getting to the point so we can come to some conclusion on this matter.

... insofar as any action one takes has effects on oneself and others, the true, final, and complete moral imperative is to do as much as one can reasonably do to ensure that those effects (on oneself and others) are beneficial (or at the very least not detrimental). ... the true morality is impartial and benevolent. But the "reasonable" condition means that in effect, most of one's actions will be egoistic, because one is the best judge of what's good in one's own case, others are the best judges in their own cases, etc. (what I am calling "informational assymetry").

No - as I've explained, "morality" is a specific thing with a specific purpose. It is real and has a basis within reality. It is, specifically, the set of rules or guidelines that tell one individual how he/she ought to act given the facts that he/she is alive and wishes to remain alive. Concepts of morality are derived directly from reality. Given that an individual can only have complete knowledge of his own interests, and given that only individuals are capable of taking actions, can you see how egoism ("I should determine my own interests and work towards them") can be derived from reality, whereas altruism ("it is moral to act in the assumed interests of others") is basically arbitrary? You're calling this distinction "information assymetry" as though it were a morally trivial aside to the main point of "benefit". Instead though it is completely central to the issue, since it is the difference between facts derived from reality and arbitrary conjecture.

Totally, 100% agree. But that looks like a redefinition to most people because they hold the concept of "egoism" as necessarily including the idea of sacrifice of others to self - they accept a sacrifice-corrupted sense of "egoism". Well, I am saying that Rand herself accepted a sacrifice-corrupted sense of "altruism", and in doing so, missed the boat of having a complete, clear philosophy.

To quote myself on this point :

as a moral principle [altruism] can't be followed consistently without leading to sacrifice or demands of sacrifice ... 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.

You're saying that since Rand "appears to most people" to have redefined a term, you can go ahead and actually redefine a term and call that a parallel argument that we ought to accept because Rand did the same thing? Well first you would have to do what Rand actually did, and explain how the net result of altruism is anything other than sacrifice.

Furthermore, I am saying that in reality, in the secrecy of their own inner thoughts, and even in terms of the common-sense morality that Heumer is talking about (to some extent, although there is some corruption in the common sense usage), people don't operate with Comte's sense of "altruism", and when they hear "altruism", they think of it merely as being benevolent; while at the same time, they operate as egoists in a fair chunk of daily life (it's just that, because of the "official" position, they feel they have to excuse it, because they are convinced by the "official" usage, that their egoism is bad). I also say that this "bootleg" sense of true morality is partly an innate "tug" that comes from mental machinery that evolved in our ancestral environment, in which sacrifice would have been meaningless, but caring for oneself and others were supremely important. Sacrifice only came to have meaning, and to be touted as a virtue, in the agricultural communities of the Bronze and Iron Ages, with massive redundancy of persons, cheapness of individual life, rigid, heirarchical societies, zero-sum economics, etc.

I would say that it's because in reality, egoism works and altrusim doesn't. Besides, I wouldn't care if I did have some innate "tug" to do one thing, I would still want to know which I should do. Who cares why or if we evolved with a tendency? As soon as it's demonstrated that we can choose to act on that tendency or not, it becomes a moot issue.

I understand that, but I think it's too complicated and "saving appearances"-ish.

What appearance is it saving? I don't get it.

It just so happens that the rest of the Universe is as capable of looking after itself as you are of looking after yourself, so your actions need not be directed concretely to others' benefit - your benevolence to others is most effectively actuated by your actions' having an abstract quality that redounds to others' benefit (i.e. following liberal - in the true sense - rules).

Well, some things in the universe can't look after themselves. Lots of things die all the time, for example, and some people are really stupid. So it can't be that you aren't responsible, in practice, for looking after the other things in the universe just because they're doing fine on their own.

Also, why are you now saying that you don't need to act to others' benefit, weren't you saying something different before? Are you supposed to be an altruist sometimes and an egoist sometimes? When your actual, known interests conflict with your assumptions of someone else's interests, how do you decide which to benefit? Do you have a moral principle that would inform you in that situation?

Or to put it another way: one feels a sense of benevolence for all of existence (including obviously oneself), but because of "informational assymetry" one can only "get to work" on one's own case with any great, beneficial effect. That portion of existence that is oneself is the only portion of existence whose lot one can concretely act to improve. When it comes to getting down and dirty with plans, projects, etc., etc., one can (and therefore must) only plan one's own life with any great surety of beneficial effect.

So what the hell is the point of saying you "ought" to help other people anyway, even though you can't? What's moral or efficient about trying to do the impossible?

[whYNOT]

It is the most dogmatic of doctrines that state 'NEVER' (do this),and 'ALWAYS' (do that). Conversely, (and thankfully), Objectivism upholds Independence and Individuality above nearly everything but Reason itself.

If one lives uncompromisingly and long-term, by Egoism, the occasional exceptions of voluntary charity in one's life, are purely that: the exception that proves the rule.

I personally think there is a definite place down in the hierarchy of Values > Virtues > sub-Virtues, for good will and benevolence; I don't see this as contradictory, or a side-issue.

O'ist Morality is primarily geared towards the happiness of its practitioners. It is founded upon Reality, as in what is possible, and what just IS. A large part of Reality is 'other people'. Therefore, it seems to follow, our happiness can depend on how rationally and morally we deal with those others - and how we allow them to deal with us.

My own take on the perennial favourite "Altruism", is that I believe it comes in 3 closely connected parts:-- a. What one gives to others, in time, attention, money, by obligation and sense of duty - this one comes under scrutiny the most often,-- b. The extent one yearns for the approval of others - this has to do with living through others' eyes, faking reality, and the 'second- hander' syndrome. All of which indicate selflessness and 'other-ism'. And,-- c. The sacrifice of one's values to those people with lesser values, or non-values - usually from the desire for short-term gain or pleasure, through unconsciousness, or lack of moral courage and integrity.

Of these three, the last is the most damaging, I'm certain. (The occasions I've sacrificed my principles, or allowed someone else to make a sacrifice for me, caused me the deepest regrets .)

The least significant, actually, is probably the first; once one has become an Objectivist, that is. For me, doing something on occasion for another without any expectation of reward, isn't even a blip on my radar screen, by comparison. These were one- off occurences, that had little impact on my sense of self, good or bad.

A Selfishness vs. Altruism debate can be approached in this way : Objectivism places one, and one's life on the highest pinnacle. Other people, in descending order, from the most valued, loved, and admired - to those one respects or appreciates- to those one merely acknowledges - and those completely unknown to one- come beneath this. There are times, left up to the individual's judgement, when he might choose to act with benevolence, tolerance, or charity - or even risk his life - for others; even 'unknown others'. By duty, never; by choice, sometimes. Never arbitrarily, but as often as possible in context of the situation, and the individual concerned.

[Grames]

There is, mine But as I've said - I'm not hung up about the term. In all the screeds of words I've written, the only thing that's really important, the only thing to hang on to, is to notice that insofar as any action one takes has effects on oneself and others, the true, final, and complete moral imperative is to do as much as one can reasonably do to ensure that those effects (on oneself and others) are beneficial (or at the very least not detrimental). The "self-facing" effects are the "egoistic" effects, the "other-facing" effects are the "altruistic" effects - that's all. IOW, the true morality is impartial and benevolent. But the "reasonable" condition means that in effect, most of one's actions will be egoistic, because one is the best judge of what's good in one's own case, others are the best judges in their own cases, etc. (what I am calling "informational assymetry").

Or to put it another way: one feels a sense of benevolence for all of existence (including obviously oneself), but because of "informational assymetry" one can only "get to work" on one's own case with any great, beneficial effect. That portion of existence that is oneself is the only portion of existence whose lot one can concretely act to improve. When it comes to getting down and dirty with plans, projects, etc., etc., one can (and therefore must) only plan one's own life with any great surety of beneficial effect.

The true morality is impartial and benevolent, but we face "informational assymetry" that makes impartiality difficult (impossible?) to achieve. The conclusion is that no one can be truly moral.

What does impartiality mean? Where does it fit in among intrinsic/subjective/objective perspectives?

[Vigilantys]

Dude, do your homework. I just answered this two posts ago. I ought to act in my interests, and it's in my interests to live in a world where life in general is a value and is protected. Therefore as a general rule I would do what I could to help in an emergency situation. Keep up.

Sorry if my question offended you but I felt I needed some clarity on your stand point as I am new here and do not know your convictions at length. The way you worded the post you refer to above, as I understood, you implied that "humanity", "life", "safety" and "living in a world where people appreciate life enough to value it in each other" are abstract values and not the Objectivist quid pro quo values that they are. I also deduced that you implied that benevolence is not a selfish tenet. I think it is better that I clarify that for myself than go on assuming something that is false about you.

[Vigilantys]

An altruist, in the sacrificial sense, will tend to interfere with others' lives, based on a pretention of knowledge about others' individual cases, and in disregard of the fact that others are the best judges in their own cases. If they had any genuine concern for others for their own sake - if they were genuine altruists in my sense - they would see that others are self-steering, and the best judges in their own cases, and that the best way they could express their concern for those others in effective action, primarily, would be to ensure that they follow the rules of a liberal society, are civil, etc., etc.; and that, secondarily, if it's no sacrifice to them, they might give charity to selected causes (i.e. to organisations that are "closer to the ground" wrt others who have perhaps fallen and need help in some way).

George, to boil all this down, as I see it, you want to improve Objectivism and make it more "mainstream" by coining a new term "selfish-altruism" and using that to convince the laymen that Objectivism is great and without sacrifice of the other to ones self. Well before I go on, you clearly need to come up with a new term for "sacrifice" then no? Else you'll be stuck explaining sacrifice as you're stuck explaining "selfishness" now. However that does seem like a grand waste of time as those that are interested in Objectivism became so for far broader reasons than the definitions of a couple words.

I will also point out that there's no such thing as a selfish sacrifice of the self to others or vise-versa. If you sacrifice anything to anything that implies a greater value lost for a lesser value which is not selfish in the least. On the other hand you cannot "remove" sacrifice out of the meaning of altruism without creating this new "selfish-altruism" that you are fighting for... And I completely fail to see whom it is you're trying to fool with this contradictory arrangement?

Reason for edit: Spelling correction.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Vigilantys

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think GuruGeorge might be presenting ethics as some sort of impartial science that he mentioned earlier, in which our calculations of what to do take not only one's own benefit into account but also a no harm to others into account. There are ethical theories like this, but I think it is a compromise between egoism and otherism -- between selfishness and altruism. The reason I say this is that having a concern for others when one is trying to live one's own life taken that way is an aspect of altruism.

If I enjoy having intellectual discussions, and I do, then I am supposed to take others into account, such that my writings don't harm others. However, under Objectivism, if I think I am right and I can prove it, then I ought to present my case regardless of what it does to others because I am stating a truth -- and to hell with them if they can't take it. This is the virtue of independence, which means that one ought to understand existence using one's own mind and not worry so much about what others may think of it. If they can point out an error, then I can change my mind; but if they are rebelling against the truth and can't take it or are offended by it or it causes them confusions or even psychological problems, this is not really my concern. I do realize that I have to convince them to some degree if I am participating in a discussion with them -- else why do it? -- but my primary concern ought to be my relationship to reality and my understanding of it, not what it does to others.

And there have been many, many writers, thinkers, and pseudo-thinkers who have wanted to water down the Objectivist ethics to be more other-oriented. Ethics is a science, it is the science of living your life rationally -- by understanding existence and man's place in it. Having such a focus on other people is too close to second-handedness, when one ought to be living one's life in relation to reality as a primary.

[gurugeorge]

I don't think that when you are proud of something you did, it should make you more proud when somebody likes it and less proud when somebody dislikes it.

I agree: one has the quantum of pride one has in one's own work for its own sake, and that is fixed. Someone else's not enjoying your product doesn't diminish it. But someone's enjoying your work, I maintain, does add to your joy - it brings in another kind of joy, a delight in others' delight. The burden of what I am saying here is that it's ok to have that kind of delight in others' delight. It doesn't need to be excused as, in a roundabout way, just another example of one's own delight in one's own work.

The issue here is understanding how valuing an other person is selfish. One can value something for more than direct utility! When it concerns valuing an other person, it is rational to value his consciousness, and the character that he has shaped with it. The selfish value of a person, qua person, to you, is something he has already earned.

Guru, the fact that it is his consciousness that you value, as distinct from your own, doesn't mean that this is therefore an altruistic value. If you value someone, qua conscious being, a big part of what you value about it is, that he has his independent purpose, independent from yours. It couldn't be otherwise (you couldn't say, "I will only value an other consciousness if I can force my own purpose onto it, because letting him have his own purpose would be altruistic."

Having friends and in general, living in a world with other people in it adds to your happiness, quite apart from the fact that it offers utility.

I agree with everything you are saying here, except: "how valuing another person is selfish". It plainly isn't (just) selfish, it is plainly a delight in the other. I don't delight in the other's delight just because it delights me (although of course it does), I delight in the other's delight because I delight in the other's delight, plain and simple. I am happy for him, happy that he is happy. The delight is other-directed (altruistic, in the plain sense of the word, not the sacrifice-infested sense).

[gurugeorge]

Generally, one should take X to mean what X actually refers to, and not someone's attitude towards X.Objectivism systematically affirms that human judgment is non-automatic.Peikoff's statement is a description of a fact, about the nature of man and the nature of "interest". It does not even purport to be a statement about individual behavior and attitude.

Then what's the point of it? It is merely an unobjectionable statement of the obvious, granted the terms of discussion.

In objective reality, since knowledge isn't intrinsic, since the world doesn't somehow magically reach into our craniums to make our estimates of what's objectively the case valid, and since people only have their own subjective estimates of what's objectively the case to go on, their expressed, acted-on interests do indeed sometimes clash. That's where the problem lies.

[gurugeorge]

Could you please state concisely what this inconsistency is supposed to be so I can work with it?? As far as I can tell it's just that you think Rand redefined "egoism" while neglecting to similarly reconsider "altruism", so you're trying to do that for her and make them both legitimate moral principles. If this is your point then you are not properly understanding the Objectivist position.

As I said in my post to JeffS:

(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 interests;

(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. (Rationally and objectively, there can be no privileged "centre" to the Universe, neither oneself nor any other.)

(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. (Remember Heumer saying "common sense wouldn't go so far" in the direction of sacrificial morality - and he is right, although there may be some "bleed through" from (3) and (4) in their expression of (1) and (2), simply because (3) and (4) are so ingrained, official, and intimidating.)

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).

Rand pointed out (1), which to most people looks like a redefinition of (3). I am pointing out (2), which to Objectivists looks like a redefinition of (4).

Rand's failure to even notice (2) and distinguish it from (4) is what causes the "sticking point" with Objectivism for most people, because most peoples' "bootleg" definition of "altruism" is (2), and in denying (3) and (4) in favour of (1), and blanking out (2), it looks to them like Objectivism is denying (2) and that goes against peoples' instincts to be "nice". Meanwhile, they will secretly admit to (1), but when the Overseer's around, they will dis Rand for upholding it, because they can get kudos with the Overseer for denying something that (to them and to the Overseer) looks like (1), i.e. (3), and they can themselves blank out the difference between (2) and (4) and please the Overseer by visibly agreeing with (4), even though they secretly disagree with it, and in their heart of hearts actually only agree with (2).

Whew! Hope that makes sense!

The rest of your post has loads of points of agreement and disagreement worth discussing, but I'm fighting a many-cornered fight here. I would like to see if you can see any sense in what I've said above before we go any further. If we go further, I'll get back to you on the other things (e.g. the difference between my idea that an "informational assymetry" sets limits on what's morally possible, and the Objectivist idea of morality as deriving from conditions necessary for my life, which implies an actual "moral assymetry").

[gurugeorge]

A Selfishness vs. Altruism debate can be approached in this way : Objectivism places one, and one's life on the highest pinnacle. Other people, in descending order, from the most valued, loved, and admired - to those one respects or appreciates- to those one merely acknowledges - and those completely unknown to one- come beneath this.

Right, and this personal "Mandala" ("Mandala" is a term from Buddhism that comes from the image of a King, his Consort, then his Court, then the Country - from "centre" to "periphery") is what I am pointing to as resulting from "information assymetry".

As Bluey showed above, what Objectivism wants to say is that the Mandala reveals a moral assymetry, that the centre is somehow more deserving of attention, etc.

I say the Mandala represents only an informational assymetry setting limits on the kind of moral action that's possible.

[gurugeorge]

The true morality is impartial and benevolent, but we face "informational assymetry" that makes impartiality difficult (impossible?) to achieve. The conclusion is that no one can be truly moral.

What does impartiality mean? Where does it fit in among intrinsic/subjective/objective perspectives?

It's like this: to the rational intellect, there can be no privileged "centre" to the Universe. If there is to be benevolence, that benevolence can only be impartial - a desire to see all happy, fulfilled, etc.

However, we face an informational assymetry, in that we know most about our own case. (And others are in the same position wrt theirs.)

Therefore, granted that we love all, that means, first of all: we love ourselves. We are in a position to act for ourselves, we know about our own case, and our action has a chance of being effectively benevolent.

Granted that we love all, that means: we also love others. But, since (A) we have no such intimate knowledge of their particular cases as we do of our own, and (B ) they are capable of looking after themselves, and they are in the best positionto look after themselves, because of their own information assymetry, then:

The best way of enacting or making real our benevolence for others is to create the conditions whereby they can improve their own condition.

That means: all our actions must have the abstract quality of following liberal rules (honesty, property, etc.). In sustaining that abstract quality in our actions, in everything we do, we are fulfilling as best we canour desire to see others' do well.

(Actually I'd put it in a three-tiered way: for ourselves, we have that intimate identity between our knowledge and our interests and actions. For those that are at the periphery of our "Mandala" (see above post) we follow abstract, liberal rules; for those who are intermediate - we don't know them that well, but they are more than total strangers to us, perhaps they share culture with us, etc., etc. - we follow rules of politeness, civility and consideration.)

Edited July 20, 2009 by gurugeorge

[gurugeorge]

George, to boil all this down, as I see it, you want to improve Objectivism and make it more "mainstream" by coining a new term "selfish-altruism" and using that to convince the laymen that Objectivism is great and without sacrifice of the other to ones self. Well before I go on, you clearly need to come up with a new term for "sacrifice" then no? Else you'll be stuck explaining sacrifice as you're stuck explaining "selfishness" now. However that does seem like a grand waste of time as those that are interested in Objectivism became so for far broader reasons than the definitions of a couple words.

I will also point out that there's no such thing as a selfish sacrifice of the self to others or vise-versa. If you sacrifice anything to anything that implies a greater value lost for a lesser value which is not selfish in the least. On the other hand you cannot "remove" sacrifice out of the meaning of altruism without creating this new "selfish-altruism" that you are fighting for... And I completely fail to see whom it is you're trying to fool with this contradictory arrangement?

Reason for edit: Spelling correction.

I hope my recent posts to Bluey and Grames clarify things a bit more - please check them to see if they respond to your questions here. If not, I will try and go through it with you personally.