Proper Application of Principles - Responses Requested

[Dante]

I’ve recently become very interested in the ideas of Objectivism. I have been reading this board for about a month or so, having posted very infrequently (as you may see), but I have a rather complicated question that I’d like help exploring. I’ve found Ayn Rand’s ideals and conclusions incredibly appealing, but per Objectivism I am attempting to derive/validate them for myself, step by step.

Okay, so my question basically concerns the use of principles to guide moral action. As a particular example (the example that brought me to this question, in fact) let’s take the Objectivist principle that one should not seek to gain values through faking reality. As I understand Rand’s reasoning, this principle derives from the fact that when you gain, say, friendship by lying or deceiving others, you basically make yourself dependent on them. You must continuously keep up the deception so as not to allow the gap between their knowledge and reality to collapse (as illustrated quite passionately in the AS scene in Galt’s Gulch concerning Galt, Dagny, and D’Anconia). I concur that this is obviously contrary to long-range self-interest.

However, let’s take a situation in which it is quite likely that the person with which you are dealing will never see you again, nor will they encounter anyone you know. In fact, if they are on their deathbed, this condition is almost certain (if no one else is around and they will not have any other visitors before their passing). It would seem to me that applying the principle “one should not seek to gain values by deceiving others” to this situation is an instance of context-dropping, in the same way that applying Newtonian physics (contextually true, within the context in which he experimented) to the subatomic level is context-dropping. The context of long-term contact with this person from which the principle was derived is fundamentally different from the given context. I would love it if people in this forum would give me your take on why the principle of refraining from deception applies to this situation, if you think it does.

I don’t want to put words in people’s mouths, but I also would like responses to actually be helpful, so I will go through a few objections I’ve seen to similar questions that I haven’t been able to validate with my own reason. One common objection is that this would be destructive of one’s self esteem. One would be living as a “moocher” or “leecher” and the subsequent destruction of one’s values of independence and self-esteem would be destroyed. This seems to me to take one’s derivative values (never desiring an unearned benefit) as a primary over the ultimate value to which they serve as means (life). If one cannot validate that connection (i.e., if in this case the principle of never gaining values through deception does not connect to rational self interest, because the context is different) then one’s low self esteem would be the irrational part, not the action taken.

I’ve also seen some objections to similar questions along this vein: principles are shortcuts that people use based on their previous knowledge, and if you don’t consistently act on the principle of non-deception (I’ll nickname it), it will get you in trouble eventually. This also doesn’t make sense to me. If people are using Newtonian physics, but then we discover that in some circumstances it gives us the wrong answer, we obviously should not ignore this because it’s still right the vast majority of the time. We don’t throw out Newtonian physics, but we DO revise the context in which we apply it. When that context doesn’t apply, we use the Theory of Relativity. Similarly, could not one be cognizant of context such that the original principle is not abandoned but is still not used in cases like the above deathbed scenario?

I’d really appreciate some help and feedback as I explore these ideas. I’ve learned a lot already from reading these boards; I hope to get good value out of this thread as well.

[nanite1018]

Well, my first thought is that this is an area which everyone acknowledges is outside the realm of ethics, principles, etc. You are dealing with a dying person, about to disappear forever, and by stipulation anything you do will not be known by anyone else. That is a very atypical situation, one in which man's life as a rational animal is impossible (one of the people is destined to die very very soon after all). It something of the lifeboat scenario, there's a lifeboat that can only hold 4 people, there are currently 5, so what do you do? That is a case where life is impossible, and the only solution is force and barbarism, at least on some level.

My response as to "why should he not do that" is because he will likely feel he took advantage of a dying man for personal gain, which is disrespectful to that person and reflects on his general character (that his principles are not particularly deeply engrained, that he is willing to do anything if he thinks he can get away with it, etc.). That would probably damage his self-esteem, or at least make him feel nervous about other people, since if they should find out about what he did they will rationally think less of him which will hurt his life (both their reaction if they found out, and the anxiety he would feel about the possibility).

[Eiuol]

However, let’s take a situation in which it is quite likely that the person with which you are dealing will never see you again, nor will they encounter anyone you know.

Why would it matter if he's dying or not? The only thing I can thing I can think of right now to justify deception is if something extremely important involved, like if a thief is trying to rob you. What reason would you have for deceiving a dying person? It would be either pity (because he "needs" a friend and he's dying) or attempted fraud (in order to get in their will or something by making up friendship that you don't want). Or maybe to lie about an incident years ago when asks "Was it actually you who accidentally ran over my dog 10 years ago?" If anything, if someone is about to die, telling the truth should be even easier. What reason would there be for deception? The action itself isn't usually what makes something right or wrong, it's the why.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Eiuol

[DavidOdden]

It would seem to me that applying the principle “one should not seek to gain values by deceiving others” to this situation is an instance of context-dropping, in the same way that applying Newtonian physics (contextually true, within the context in which he experimented) to the subatomic level is context-dropping.

"Newtonian physics" refers to something specific, namely the physical theory proposed by Isaac Newton; similarly, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Both are closed systems. We do throw Newtonian physics out, because the theory that he proposed is false. You can propose an alternative physical theory that greatly resembles Newtonian physics, one which corrects Newton's errors by modifying his equations. But the plain fact is, actual Newtonian physics is false, as an identification. However: concepts also have to serve the concrete cognitive function of economically encapsulating knowledge. Relativity sort of fails on those grounds, since it's not practically possible to use relativity to do practical calculations. Therefore we begrudgingly accept the "actually false" because that beats not being able to compute force at all.

Applying your suggestion (and my Newtonian correction) to the moral question, you would be claiming that the principle which you had previously identified was simply wrong. It would be kind of like saying "Moral actions are those which do not use force" -- that's simply wrong, but it's somewhat related to something that is right.

The question then is, what is the right principle (if you don't accept the principle that one should not seek to gain values through faking reality)? I'm not asking you to justify the principle (at least, not yet), I'm just asking you to identify the principle. (Similarly, I'm asking you to identify the corrected neo-Newtonian equations which have the property of universality that Newton ascribed to his laws). We have Rand's claim, and I accept it as valid according to everything that I know. I could imagine that there is some other principle that is as good as or even better than Rand's, but until I see that actual principle, I can't give this arbitrary, imaginary principle any attention.

The concept of "context" should not be freely invoked as a way of excusing errors in identification. Either the principle "one should not seek to gain values through faking reality" is a correct identification of reality (the nature of man), or it is not correct.

I also think you have misidentified the nature of the ethical argument. It is not "if you don't, you'll get caught". It really comes down the the question of whether man has a definite nature (of course), and if so what is it; and -- since we are volitional, thus capable of ignoring our nature -- why should we act according to our nature?

This is an area that is clearly and squarely within the realm of ethical principles. I just can't tell what principle you are proposing as a replacement for the principles of Objectivism.

[Tyco]

Hmm, interesting question. I think the answer is that the dying person represents someone at their most vulnerable, and if you harm them (ie. violate them somehow even if just by lying), you will suffer a legitimate lack of self-esteem because in future interactions with people you will know just how unworthy of trust/respect you are. If you found out someone else had done the same thing, you would naturally distrust them, so you will therefore naturally have a low opinion of yourself. I do not think this is irrational.

However I think there might be some circular logic in there... or rather I suspect... but I'll leave you to find it if you can