Can there be honor among thieves?

[dream_weaver]

Do you think the distinction between 'dependent' and 'interdependent' could help to clarify the relationships between the thief and the producer contrasted against the relationships between the various producers within a complex economy?

[hernan]

Do you think the distinction between 'dependent' and 'interdependent' could help to clarify the relationships between the thief and the producer contrasted against the relationships between the various producers within a complex economy?

I understand the distinction you are making but the whole direction of the argument is suspicious because it entails determining the worth of an individual by his contribution to others, i.e. to society as a whole. I don't need manicurists therefore manicurists are thieves. Joe thinks stock traders are parasites, etc. Now to determine whether someone is a thief, to decide if it's rational to deceive them, we have to answer grand economic questions about people's contributions to society? You might as well say, ask God.

My claim is that whether or not it is morally correct to deceive someone should depend on facts readily available to a reasonable person, allowing for reasonable error.

[dream_weaver]

I understand the distinction you are making but the whole direction of the argument is suspicious because it entails determining the worth of an individual by his contribution to others, i.e. to society as a whole. I don't need manicurists therefore manicurists are thieves. Joe thinks stock traders are parasites, etc. Now to determine whether someone is a thief, to decide if it's rational to deceive them, we have to answer grand economic questions about people's contributions to society? You might as well say, ask God.

My claim is that whether or not it is morally correct to deceive someone should depend on facts readily available to a reasonable person, allowing for reasonable error.

Two cases were mentioned in #45, Objectivism holds it morally correct to deceive someone under such circumstances.

Deal honestly with those you deem to be honest (to the degree of honestly required in the dealing),

All relationships are based on value or worth to the two (or more) parties involved. If manicurist are not needed, don't visit them. This does not make them a thief. Joe does not have to trade stocks, this does not make stoke brokers parasites. To make that determination, however, Joe needs to understand how a bit how markets work.

Even friendships are based on the mutual value each is to the other.

Some of the questions asked belie a direct or reveal an indirect familiarity with Objectivism

[hernan]

Two cases were mentioned in #45, Objectivism holds it morally correct to deceive someone under such circumstances.

We could deal in examples all day but to make progress we need to reach a more general understanding. Examples are useful for mapping out the territory (e.g. refuting the claim that one must always be truthful) but they are not a general solution.

Deal honestly with those you deem to be honest (to the degree of honestly required in the dealing),

Surely, but this is the path that leads to factional honor, at best, or, at worst, bilateral or even unilateral honor. That's a very realistic view but something of a dog-eat-dog world.

All relationships are based on value or worth to the two (or more) parties involved. If manicurist are not needed, don't visit them. This does not make them a thief. Joe does not have to trade stocks, this does not make stoke brokers parasites. To make that determination, however, Joe needs to understand how a bit how markets work. Even friendships are based on the mutual value each is to the other.

This is a shift in criteria, from theft to need, which is more consistent with Objetivism but, as noted above, a rather bleak outlook.

Let's explore this further by asking how we might enlarge our "circle of trust." First, can we trust Objectivists? Well, in another thread, the question was posed wether it was moral to work for the government. I would presume that there are Objectivist government employees. Can you trust them? Can you trust your family? We discussed above the case where that was not possible but usually it is. Can you trust your spouse? This seems the best place to start building trust but who is totally honest even with their spouse?

Another approach is to ask who has a right to know what? If someone asks for information that they don't have a right to then they have no right to expect a truthful answer. But this may be another case of replacing one hard problem with another.

There is, I suspect, something of a continental divide on this issue. Step in one direction, conditional trust, and the logic leads to factional honor and human judgement. Step in the other, universal honesty, and the logic leads to pacifism and martyrdom.

I didn't mean to entirely dismiss your reference to learning how markets work, or more generally, learning how the world works, this is certainly an important element of judgement and it may be that if one chooses not to be a pacifist and martyr then one must do one's best to improve one's judgement. The better the judgement the better the decisions about who to trust and when to misrepresent the truth.

[dream_weaver]

How do we enlarge our "circle of trust"?

How can we learn to identify the principles that others have adopted for themselves?

You start by learning how to evaluate their answers to the questions you ask, or evaluating the questions they ask and how they respond to the answers provided.

Start by identifying the underlying principles at stake, and what those principles lead to.

I for one, do not go around seeking to be trusted. Those that trust me, do so because the principles I engender myself to resonate with (a) value(s) that they are seeking in life. Ask yourself why you are participating in this forum? Is it because you truly believe that Objectivism is pacifistic and leans toward martyrdom, or the values that you have discovered we do hold, have an allure to them you have not found in other idealogical systematic approaches for living?

Dog eat dog world. Ha. It's people who hold ideas like that to which the socialistic policy peddlers appeal to and count upon.

[hernan]

How do we enlarge our "circle of trust"? How can we learn to identify the principles that others have adopted for themselves? You start by learning how to evaluate their answers to the questions you ask, or evaluating the questions they ask and how they respond to the answers provided. Start by identifying the underlying principles at stake, and what those principles lead to. I for one, do not go around seeking to be trusted. Those that trust me, do so because the principles I engender myself to resonate with (a) value(s) that they are seeking in life.

Well, that's one approach, but it is a rather self-limiting one. Essentially that suggests that you are unable to form bonds of trust with non-Objectivists.

Ask yourself why you are participating in this forum? Is it because you truly believe that Objectivism is pacifistic and leans toward martyrdom, or the values that you have discovered we do hold, have an allure to them you have not found in other idealogical systematic approaches for living?

While I do not consider myself an Objectivist it is one touchstone that I go to in dealing with challenging philosophical questions. No, I don't think that Objectivists are, by and large, pacifists, though as I noted in the other thread, the language of Objectivism creates a bias in that direction.

Dog eat dog world. Ha. It's people who hold ideas like that to which the socialistic policy peddlers appeal to and count upon.

And, yet, that seems to be the realistic alternative to pacifism.

[dream_weaver]

And, yet, that seems to be the realistic alternative to pacifism.

It is the impracticable alternative to individualism.