Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Arguing for Selfishness to the Pragmatic

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yesterday I was arguing against a policy change to the GM of the facility I work at. The change removes the ability of the average worker to leave early once completing an evenly-allotted amount of work. His argument was that the policy generally left newer employees "stranded" toward the end of the night, which put the facility at risk of walk-outs by those employees, which might later be followed by an employee shortage. He is right, it does sometimes pose that risk. He also tried to argue for the importance of a "cohesive team" environment.

My rebuttal was that removing the policy always puts a heavier workload, sometimes much heavier, on the "veteran" employees, and that he was leaning on the veterans in favor of the new employees. I was also right, and he agreed. I noted that a "team" is really just a group of individuals, and that all of the individuals at this facility are always and will always be concerned with themselves first.

Then I feel I tripped up. I went on to "explain" that he is always going to be better off, as a rule, finding ways to get his individual employees to care about their own work, not the work of a team. I got an odd glimmer in his eye and a nervous laugh. I had nothing better to offer him and he had already made up his mind about a "team," so that was the end of that. The talk did not end on bad terms, but I really feel like I missed out on an opportunity. This man is open to ideas, but the whole thrust of the talk was about his day-to-day concerns. I didn't get any sort of management philosophy from him, thus I consider him to be primarily pragmatic, with the potential for change.

Due to the difference in our positions, I'll probably not get the opportunity to convince him again about the importance of "selfish" policies, or of principles in general. How would you explain to a future pragmatist the importance of being selfish and of principles, in everyday language? Is it possible? Is it just situational with no standard argument rule, and you can just hope for the best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you explain to a future pragmatist the importance of being selfish and of principles, in everyday language? Is it possible? Is it just situational with no standard argument rule, and you can just hope for the best?

This is a tough one. There are really two issues here: principles and selfishness. Start by decoupling them and focus on one at a time. I'd suggest the need of principles as a better starting place, because one's self-interest can really only be grasped through principles. Without principles, selfishness collapses into whim-worship.

Try pointing out that one can only determine what is practical by making use of principles. An action is practical if it 'works', i.e. leads to the correct results. But how can you know what the future consequences of an action will be? Only by reference to cause and effect, which is to say by reference to principles that capture our knowledge of what kinds of effects flow from what kinds of causes. Without principles, one is left with no way to decide whether an action will 'work' except how one feels, and emotions aren't a valid means of cognition. Everybody has had the experience of wanting or feeling something to be true, only to have the facts say otherwise. Emotions don't validate knowledge, and that's a big part of why we need principles.

Principles enable practical action. Without them you're just flailing around in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to argue against the arrogance of Pragmatism and in favor of moral principles in general (and everyone does that, when they argue in favor of morality, starting with the Greeks, and the Renaissance humanists - I just recently browsed through a book with some excerpts from Francesco Petrarch, who does a great job at dismissing the kind of arrogant "I don't need to care about good and evil, I'm too smart for that" attitude which later developed into Pragmatism). Dr. Peikoff makes an excellent argument in favor of principles in "Why Should One Act on Principle?", a talk that's available on th ARI website.

Then, you have to argue against the morality of altruism and in favor of a rational morality. This is where Objectivism comes in. The reason why Pragmatism could ever have gained such a prominent role in American philosophy is because of the disillusionment with the irrationality of altruism, and the absence of a substantive alternative. In reality, Pragmatism is an incredibly weak and immature system of thought, which should never have been taken as seriously as it has been.

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...