Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Secondhand CDs

Rate this topic


TheAllotrope

Recommended Posts

However, I can only seem to see the upsides or really vague principles like "you'll become a parasite."

Have the concepts of "earn" and "justice" become unimportant values to you? Will your mind be at ease with idea that you are taking what is not rightfully yours from someone who does not deserve to become an end to you? Have you become incapable of producing the value you need for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Have the concepts of "earn" and "justice" become unimportant values to you? Will your mind be at ease with idea that you are taking what is not rightfully yours from someone who does not deserve to become an end to you? Have you become incapable of producing the value you need for yourself?

None of these questions are what I'm looking for. I need examples of why this will harm me, because I only undertake actions that benefit me as an egoist. "Will I be upset if I take it?" doesn't provide me with some kind of negative result I was looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you would completely dismiss the Fair Use section, and it's intent, out of hand. I do not understand why you would do so. It was an amendment to the copyright law. For a reason.
No, in fact if you search the IP threads, you will see that I support the purpose behind the Fair Use section; I dismiss what it actually says, after extensive consideration of its legal language. It fails to objectively state the criteria for the exception -- it is a monument of non-objective legal writing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you will be happy being unhappy then? Unhappiness is not a negative result?

Why do you not steal copyrighted material? Why would stealing it effect you negatively?

At the moment, the only thing that is emotionally "real" to me is the benefit of obtaining the material. So I'm asking what are the effects in reality from stealing it that will decidedly hurt my ability to live.

No, if I told myself not to feel guilty I would not feel guilty. What you're advocating there is hedonism anyway--I don't need to reference a feeling to find out if something is the right or wrong course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'ex_banana-eater' date='Nov 3 2009, 11:36 AM' post='235240'

Why would stealing it effect you negatively?

At the moment, the only thing that is emotionally "real" to me is the benefit of obtaining the material. So I'm asking what are the effects in reality from stealing it that will decidedly hurt my ability to live.

Man needs a rational standard of value in order to live his life successfully and happily.

Happiness is the result of achieving values.

If you hold irrational values - non-Objectivist values, then you are, of course, immoral and will violate the rights of others in pursuit of your own pleasure. E.g. stealing is using force against another to achieve an irrational value.

As Rand said in Atlas, "neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

One can evade the irrationality of such values and believe himself to be happy, but he will not truly be happy. You can start by "pirating copyrighted material" (excluding "fair use" of it), but the evasion will enable you to commit even greater crimes against others. Eventually, the evasion will become too difficult, the guilt will set in, and you will become psychologically troubled.

Hedonism says that the good is whatever gives you pleasure; you will have become a hedonist.

Objectivism says that the good comes from the adherence of a rational standard of value.

In other words, happiness is the purpose of ethics, not the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man needs a rational standard of value in order to live his life successfully and happily.

Happiness is the result of achieving values.

If you hold irrational values - non-Objectivist values, then you are, of course, immoral and will violate the rights of others in pursuit of your own pleasure. E.g. stealing is using force against another to achieve an irrational value.

As Rand said in Atlas, "neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

One can evade the irrationality of such values and believe himself to be happy, but he will not truly be happy. You can start by "pirating copyrighted material" (excluding "fair use" of it), but the evasion will enable you to commit even greater crimes against others. Eventually, the evasion will become too difficult, the guilt will set in, and you will become psychologically troubled.

Hedonism says that the good is whatever gives you pleasure; you will have become a hedonist.

Objectivism says that the good comes from the adherence of a rational standard of value.

In other words, happiness is the purpose of ethics, not the standard.

I commend you on your effort to answer but this is not what I'm looking for. As I stated, I know that stealing would be a violation of my principles, and I notice how such an action would violate my principles and that violation of my principles leads to negative results (abstractly). But in order to have integrity under Objectivism, you need to use full focus and look at the situation, to see why this particular instance would harm me. What you wrote here is that it would contradict my abstract principles--as I said I already know that. What is going to happen negatively from this one action, immediately? Every single act of immorality has an immediate negative outcome on the agent according to Objectivism, so why can't I see this immediate outcome?

I think that your argument that guilt will eventually begin is false. An egoist really shouldn't have that much guilt for the sake of other people anyway (you mentioned "guilt" for "crimes against others"), violating a moral principle should cause guilt with himself for damaging himself. But I can't see the immediate damage that will come.

In other words, I'm not looking for a philosophical treatise or a discussion on Objectivist meta-ethics since I am familiar with everything you wrote there. I'm looking for why this particular act would be bad for me.

Edited by ex_banana-eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commend you on your effort to answer but this is not what I'm looking for. As I stated, I know that stealing would be a violation of my principles, and I notice how such an action would violate my principles and that violation of my principles leads to negative results (abstractly). But in order to have integrity under Objectivism, you need to use full focus and look at the situation, to see why this particular instance would harm me. What you wrote here is that it would contradict my abstract principles--as I said I already know that. What is going to happen negatively from this one action, immediately? Every single act of immorality has an immediate negative outcome on the agent according to Objectivism, so why can't I see this immediate outcome?

I wrote what I did to help determine your mindset here. Now I see you are only focused on a single act, setting aside all other acts before or after it.

Given you know an act is wrong and you do not evade that fact during the act, then you will feel guilt. Otherwise, you would have to be evading what you otherwise know to be wrong. You are, in essence, classifying the act in your subconscious as either being moral or merely a mistake; in either case, you might not have an immediate negative outcome.

An egoist really shouldn't have that much guilt for the sake of other people anyway (you mentioned "guilt" for "crimes against others"), violating a moral principle should cause guilt with himself for damaging himself. But I can't see the immediate damage that will come.

Egoism does not result from selfishness of the kind you are describing.

Violating others' rights will make a moral man feel guilty for what he did; he will have other emotions when recognizing the damage.

Edited by TLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you not steal copyrighted material? Why would stealing it effect you negatively?

Because those are not the actions of a virtuous rational man.

What you're advocating there is hedonism anyway--I don't need to reference a feeling to find out if something is the right or wrong course of action.

I'm kinda surprised that a long-standing member such as yourself would say something like this. It seems you don't understand that happiness resulting from virtuous action and the achievement of rational values is not hedonism. You don't stop by referencing the feeling and that's it - you analyzing why you feel that way and compare it to your nature as a rational being.

I'm also surprised that someone who would identify himself as an egoist (although I guess technically you didn't claim to be a rational egoist), would not consider what goes on in their mind as something that can have a "negative results that impact my life". That sounds more like the thinking of a Utilitarian than a rational egoist - if it works it must be good. It's particularly unusually that you would say that right after saying you want to stay in "full focus" which I took to mean that you considered you thinking to be of importance. Along the same lines as what TLD said, you cannot escape the contents of your mind and you will eventually be faced with the impotence of your own actions being unable to earn what you value and using other men as slaves to your desires.

So are you just concerned with the material effects that stealing could have on your life and have no interest in virtuous, rational, or just principles?

If so, I'm not sure there is any real chance you would be criminally prosecuted or civilly sued. Other than that, there is a fair chance that if you let it be known on this forum that you think it is okay to take the unearned and use others as an end to yourself, you would probably not be very well regarded by many members. Of course that may not be of importance to you, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going to happen negatively from this one action, immediately? Every single act of immorality has an immediate negative outcome on the agent according to Objectivism, so why can't I see this immediate outcome?

....

In other words, I'm not looking for a philosophical treatise or a discussion on Objectivist meta-ethics since I am familiar with everything you wrote there.

I can't reconcile the contradiction of these two statements. Why would you ask about the short-range immediate negative consequences? Do you deny that man needs to act long-range?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because those are not the actions of a virtuous rational man.

Right, but as rational egoists, we don't just refer to principles, the principles are guides to tell us that each individual act will have immediate negative consequences. If we look and keep full focus on the situation, then we can see those immediate negative consequences.

I'm kinda surprised that a long-standing member such as yourself would say something like this. It seems you don't understand that happiness resulting from virtuous action and the achievement of rational values is not hedonism. You don't stop by referencing the feeling and that's it - you analyzing why you feel that way and compare it to your nature as a rational being.

That's because immediate guilt over the action is not a product of a long-term break from reality. That guilt you mentioned is just a trained reaction. So if we were to judge by "guilt" for that act, and make our decision based on that, it would be hedonism. Now, I know that happiness is impossible to those who take irrational actions, but your bringing up of guilt for another person is not what results from irrational actions. Confusion and uncertainty stemming from not being able to deal with reality is what results from irrational actions, in the long term.

So are you just concerned with the material effects that stealing could have on your life and have no interest in virtuous, rational, or just principles?
No, I am concerned with the material, psychological, and spiritual effects on my life. But all that was provided were general principles like "acting irrationally does not lead to happiness" when I was looking for some type of immediate example why this particular act would be harmful to me psychologically. Of course I know that acting irrationally hurts. What I need to do, though, to make this feeling go away, is to see how even in this instance, violating my moral principle would not be good for me. And that means applying the moral principle as a concrete and seeing the potential negative results in this concrete situation, not just referring to the moral principle as an end in itself.

Other than that, there is a fair chance that if you let it be known on this forum that you think it is okay to take the unearned and use others as an end to yourself, you would probably not be very well regarded by many members.
Well, I never once said that so drop it right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commend you on your effort to answer but this is not what I'm looking for. As I stated, I know that stealing would be a violation of my principles, and I notice how such an action would violate my principles and that violation of my principles leads to negative results (abstractly). But in order to have integrity under Objectivism, you need to use full focus and look at the situation, to see why this particular instance would harm me. What you wrote here is that it would contradict my abstract principles--as I said I already know that. What is going to happen negatively from this one action, immediately? Every single act of immorality has an immediate negative outcome on the agent according to Objectivism, so why can't I see this immediate outcome?

If we had to have a non-abstract answer to every question, to direct our actions, what would be the point of abstract thought?

The answer is that a moral man has to be independent, has to have integrity, and his self esteem relies on all of the above. (Integrity, by the way, means 'to apply moral principles one holds true', not search for concrete justifications every time one applies a moral principle.)

Focusing on concrete reasons is a pointless exercise. If you're having trouble with applying the philosophy of Objectivism, look into it deeper, and look into yourself deeper. Focusing instead on becoming concrete bound would be a bad idea, as many a Pragmatist will prove it.

Not that there isn't a concrete answer, it's just that it's extremely complicated, and you'll have to say exactly what product you are thinking about stealing. And of course, the main consequence, once you go down on that road, on principle, is that you won't be an Objectivist, you'll be a Pragmatist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't reconcile the contradiction of these two statements. Why would you ask about the short-range immediate negative consequences? Do you deny that man needs to act long-range?

To put it more accurately, I should have said what are the short or long term negative effects of the single, isolated action that my emotions tempt me to do. Of course anyone can reply with "It will impede long term happiness" but that doesn't make the issue real to me and calm the emotions since it is so abstract.

A good example would be like this: "I know it's wrong to lie, but what if I get away with this little white lie to my mother about not doing my homework." And then somebody replied with, "In that single instance, you will have to become a slave to that lie, and further create more lies in your mind just to keep it consistent. She may ask you what you studied today, and you'll further become a slave, because it's all connected."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I need to do, though, to make this feeling go away, is to see how even in this instance, violating my moral principle would not be good for me. And that means applying the moral principle as a concrete and seeing the potential negative results in this concrete situation, not just referring to the moral principle as an end in itself.

Ok, that's different though. Go through the motions. What will happen is that you will not be acting in accordance with Objectivism.

But what will you be acting in accordance with? Nothing. Why? Blankout. (unless you have an answer to the question What's wrong with Objectivism?, and you have a better philosophy, in which case please share)

How do you suppose not knowing why you just did something will feel?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had to have a non-abstract answer to every question, to direct our actions, what would be the point of abstract thought?

The answer is that a moral man has to be independent, has to have integrity, and his self esteem relies on all of the above. (Integrity, by the way, means 'to apply moral principles one holds true', not search for concrete justifications every time one applies a moral principle.)

Focusing on concrete reasons is a pointless exercise. If you're having trouble with applying the philosophy of Objectivism, look into it deeper, and look into yourself deeper. Focusing instead on becoming concrete bound would be a bad idea, as many a Pragmatist will prove it.

Not that there isn't a concrete answer, it's just that it's extremely complicated, and you'll have to say exactly what product you are thinking about stealing. And of course, the main consequence, once you go down on that road, on principle, is that you won't be an Objectivist, you'll be a Pragmatist.

I disagree. What I am doing is exactly what the virtue of integrity demands. A pragmatist would say "let's evaluate this action without principles." I am saying "My principles say this would effect me negatively, so let's see how it would actually effect my negatively so I don't have to continually battle against my emotions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, go through the motions. What will happen is that you will not be acting in accordance with Objectivism.

Re-read what I wrote. Applying a moral principle means laying down an abstract to a particular situation and seeing how the principle will benefit you in that situation. In no way could "applying a moral principle" mean "violate the moral principle" which is what you seem to have gleaned from that paragraph.

Edited by ex_banana-eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying "My principles say this would effect me negatively, so let's see how it would actually effect my negatively so I don't have to continually battle against my emotions."

First, you are ignoring the guilt that I just explained will persist.

That is the automatic emotion that should haunt you.

Second, as I think Jake was implying, if you understand the abstractions involved here (which you claim to do), then the concretes that apply should be automatically recognized. E.g. holding the value that stealing is wrong will necessarily cause a single act of stealing to generate a negative emotion.

I know it's wrong to lie, but what if I get away with this little white lie to my mother about not doing my homework.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is an act opposing your values again, then you won't truly "get away with it" - the emotion, remember? I trust you are not now saying that little white lies or little acts of theft are not significant enough to generate those emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, you are ignoring the guilt that I just explained will persist.

That is the automatic emotion that should haunt you.

I wouldn't hold any guilt for something that I could only see benefits me.

Second, as I think Jake was implying, if you understand the abstractions involved here (which you claim to do), then the concretes that apply should be automatically recognized. E.g. holding the value that stealing is wrong will necessarily cause a single act of stealing to generate a negative emotion.

Regardless of this, the reason why we practice the virtues is not for themselves, but because violating them cause problems in one's life even if they aren't aware of the said virtues. There would be no reason to practice the Objectivist virtues in this instance if the only negative downside to violating them is that one would feel guilt for breaking them--then one could just throw them out in that particular instance and say they didn't apply there.

No, I disagree and all the Objectivist literature disagrees that you will automatically recognize how the concretes will harm you. Look at Tara Smith's discussion of integrity in Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. She says it takes a consistent state of full focus and deliberate thought in order to see the harmful consequences when your emotions run up against your principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I never once said that so drop it right now.

Hence the "if" in case you missed it. You asked about the possible consequences. That means sometimes you get answers you don't like. Don't ask questions you don't want answers to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hold any guilt for something that I could only see benefits me.

I disagree and all the Objectivist literature disagrees that you will automatically recognize how the concretes will harm you. Look at Tara Smith's discussion of integrity in Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. She says it takes a consistent state of full focus and deliberate thought in order to see the harmful consequences when your emotions run up against your principles.

You are evading what people are trying to tell you. Or you are just playing a game here.

You can only see a benefit because you are evading and suppressing the emotion.

By "automatic", I did not mean independent of thought; just look at the example used.

Sure it takes focus...; but an Objectivist does that fully. His recognition of the concretes that relate to the understood abstractions is immediate. It's like playing tennis: learn the game well and you do not need to consciously focus on all the fundamentals in order to apply what you learned when playing.

If you are just asking everyone to come up with something you already know, then just spit it out.

Otherwise, there can not be much more for anyone to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the "if" in case you missed it. You asked about the possible consequences. That means sometimes you get answers you don't like. Don't ask questions you don't want answers to.

That would not be a necessary effect of stealing the material, it would be an effect of telling people. Anyway, you didn't answer my question and I am seriously puzzled why any of you follow the Objectivist ethics if you can't give an egoistic reason not to steal copyrighted material in this instance. There should be a reason, apart from getting caught or apart from obeying one's morals for morality's sake, in which I would be harmed from doing this. Afterall, that's the reason the Objectivist ethics were created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are evading what people are trying to tell you.

What am I evading?

You can only see a benefit because you are evading and suppressing the emotion.

We don't follow the virtues because a negative emotion (stemmed only from the fact of feeling immoral) would result if we violated the virtues. We follow the virtues because a negative effect from being in conflict with reality would result.

By "automatic", I did not mean independent of thought; just look at the example used.

Sure it takes focus...; but an Objectivist does that fully. His recognition of the concretes that relate to the understood abstractions is immediate. It's like playing tennis: learn the game well and you do not need to consciously focus on all the fundamentals in order to apply what you learned when playing.

No, not at all, this is why we need a whole virtue devoted to this called integrity when an emotion in contradiction with your values comes up. I don't think one immediately sees a whole situation fully and clearly, especially when you're battling your emotions. It often takes a lot of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hold any guilt for something that I could only see benefits me.

Regardless of this, the reason why we practice the virtues is not for themselves, but because violating them cause problems in one's life even if they aren't aware of the said virtues. There would be no reason to practice the Objectivist virtues in this instance if the only negative downside to violating them is that one would feel guilt for breaking them--then one could just throw them out in that particular instance and say they didn't apply there.

No, I disagree and all the Objectivist literature disagrees that you will automatically recognize how the concretes will harm you. Look at Tara Smith's discussion of integrity in Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. She says it takes a consistent state of full focus and deliberate thought in order to see the harmful consequences when your emotions run up against your principles.

ex, it is not clear what consequences that you are looking for. I am tempted to say that moral consequences are not like a Newton law of motion, e.g., there will not be a physical reaction for everything you do. (Although, there is an emotional reaction within each of us for every act we take. I do not understand why you are dismissing that. You said something about telling yourself to not feel guilty, but we know that is impossible in the short term.)

The consequences of moral actions are cumulative and far-reaching. To live in a society in which intellectual property is stolen constantly is to live in anarchy and with less and less creativity available. The rational egoist recognizes the long-term, general consequences. He recognizes that his moral principles apply to all men at all times, and that if he were to violate them he is in effect saying that it is proper for any and all men to do so.

It seems as if you are asking what are the consequences if you alone do something once. The immediate result of ignoring your moral principles will be that you will more readily accept the emotional impulse to ignore your moral principles. That is called evasion. You will tend to become more controlled by your emotions over time. It is the conflict between emotions that are not rooted in your philosophy vs. your mind. If there were no conflict you wouldn't feel as if the theft of intellectual property was something that you want to do. The consequences to you will be self-destruction. That is what Tara Smith meant by full awareness. The moral principles are there for your happiness and success, in the most reality oriented, absolute fashion you can imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seriously puzzled why any of you follow the Objectivist ethics if you can't give an egoistic reason not to steal copyrighted material in this instance. There should be a reason, apart from getting caught or apart from obeying one's morals for morality's sake, in which I would be harmed from doing this. Afterall, that's the reason the Objectivist ethics were created.

It's called being rationally selfish.

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...