Benevolent Universe Premise. Are these two corollaries correct?

[Hotu Matua]

According to the Benevolent Universe premise, joy and happiness are the norm of life, not the exception. Disaster is exceptional

I would like to hear your opinion on these two optimistic corollaries of the Benevolent Universe Premise.

FIRST: Objectivism, Capitalism, Individualism will triumph.

In a individual scale, and in the short term, Objectivism can be accepted or rejected.

But in a global scale, and in the long-term, can it be defeated?

.

The universe is made in such a way that, if you act rationally, you will achieve happiness.

My point is that my fellow men are also part of that universe, that reality. They are metaphisically bestowed with reason as a tool of survival and... well... they have survived so far.

We have done quite well as a species.

And, although on a individual level, a particular person can choose to think or to evade reality, when you take mankind as a whole, and human history as a whole, what you see is progress, development, an increase of wealth, health, happiness and prosperity.

Since Objectivism is rooted in reality, and men generally use reason to approach reality, I believe that Objectivism will end up being the dominant philosophy in the world.

I am so sure that I can say that, provided no big asteroid hits the Earth too early, Objectivism and capitalism destiny is to become the dominant philosophy in the world.

SECOND: Benevolence to strangers is rooted in reason.

Flourishing needs love, friendship, and these in turn imply visibility: the confirmation of the existence of self by seeing my values reflected in others.

Since my fellow men have the faculty of thinking as their main tool of survival, and they have survived so far, it follows that most of people, most of the times, act rationally.

It means that conceptual formation, and an ethics based on man's life, is the norm and not the exception.

Therefore, most of strangers are, in principle, qualified to be treated as if they would share my most fundamental virtue: reason.

Most strangers, most of the time, will do more to my flourishing than to my damage.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Hotu Matua

[whYNOT]

Hotua,

Your general confidence in the future of Objectivism speaks highly

of both the philosophy and your personal character, I believe.

On the second part, of benevolence, I very much agree - with a small caveat.

Your basic premise (I may be wrong) seems to be that as all men

are governed by reality, so they can and must reach the identical

conclusions, via reason.

That every person we come across shares yours and my fundamental

nature and capability, metaphysically, indicates strongly how we should

receive them - respect for their existence, pleasure in their success, etc.

"Benevolence", in short.

My slight disagreement rests on "It means that conceptual formation,

and an ethics based on man's life, are the norm, not the exception."

If it were only so! Yes, all people, of any cognitive ability, do

in some semi-conscious manner, recognise the significance of concept formation,

and vaguely utilize it. But without objectively understanding it, and it shows.

(Only to look at myself, I realise that without the explicit teaching of O'ism, I could

surely have been as 'scattered' as are most people.)

They do 'naturally' (by their very nature) what Objectivists do consciously and deliberately.

Of course, they have no way of resisting various mixed premises that come along, because the concepts they do form, are often poorly articulated, or usually non-integrated with each other.

All of which results in a mish-mash of ethics. Experience and observation show

that people are highly prone to act against their own self-interests, and ultimately

their own best nature...

I say this to try to avoid those common disillusionments with others: that without the advantage

of this explicit knowledge and subsequent morality, many people can be disappointing, or downright harmful. However, nothing changes with regard to conferring benevolence - and as importantly, sovereignty of the individual, to each person we meet. In reality, one cannot expect equal

measure to be returned from other people, though, and that is the root of disappointment.

Each situation should be judged on merit, and when necessary walked away from.

Therefore, though I've struggled a while with the Benevolent Universe Principle

-regarding Man and men - because of my doubts in the short term and specific situations,

I think it is over-archingly true: purely by our inherent nature, as I think you indicate.

[logan]

Leonard Peikoff said that "the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition."

[Hotu Matua]

Experience and observation show

that people are highly prone to act against their own self-interests, and ultimately

their own best nature...

Thanks for your comprehensive and... yes...benevolent comment, wHyNOT

But I really think that people are not HIGHLY prone to act against their own self-interest.

At least, I would omit the "highly" and I would just say "they are prone".

Otherwise, capitalism would not be possible, and rational egosim would not be feasible, and Objetivist morality could not be lived in this earth.

The whole moral and political system Objectivism fosters is about believing that people basically are not suicidal. Man is, fundamentally, a heroe. Human choices are, generally, right.

Just look around you. Start with your workplace, your business, your neighbourhood, your school. Do you see people killing each other? Most of the time , you see people finding the way to cooperate with each other. You see traders, partners. You see people falling in love. You see skyscrapers, bridges, vaccines, iPads, songs, supermarkets, laboratories.

Watch the behaviour of infant mortality, calory consumption, productivity per man-hour, life expectancy, % of homes with electricity, people dieing fom AIDS. Took whatever parameter and examine it in a big scale (in a short scale, in certain countries and years, things can get pretty bad, but in the long term, for example, in a 50 year period of time, they all do fantastically well).

Mankind is getting better. Manking is becoming freer. This is attested by any rational analysis and by any indicator.

Objectivism will defeat competing philosophies for the same reason science has beaten religion in most of the planet: it works.

Those who believe, on the contrary, that most people act irrationally, like wolves, are the ones that claim that an ilustrated intelectual elite should gain control over the lives of everyone.

But Ayn Rand herself did not based her hopes for the future in intellectual elites. In the case of America, for example, she trusted in the sense of life of the common man.

This speaks highly of Rand's consideration for man.

Even when she forecasted that America was going Fascist, she always added that she believed that Americans (the common John Doe) would be able to stop it.

When personally asked in a TV interviewed about the fate of Africa, she expressed hope in African minds. "Teach them capitalism", she advised. Africans can learn capitalism, can apply it, can be transformed by it. It is worth the effort.

[Grames]

Mankind is getting better. Manking is becoming freer. This is attested by any rational analysis and by any indicator.

Citation needed, and citation provided: The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley

[Hotu Matua]

Thank you, Grames.

Yes, I had read The Rational Optimist and got inspired by it....