Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Self-interest Of Honesty?

Rate this topic


Daniel Giterman

Recommended Posts

Over the past few days, I've been debating with a certain student, two years my senior (in Gr. 12), who firmly stands on the grounds of Christianity. He is a devout Christian who believes that altruism is moral, and selflessness results in a better society as a whole. What benefits society will benefit you as well, he says, and thus the very definition of morality is altruism and sacrife for others.

Most people on these forums would rightfully ignore this viewpoint, but he is a prominent speaker who has in fact participated in the International Speaking Tournament this year. I consider debating with him as a way of honing my skills, if you will.

He knows that I am an Objectivist, though only recent. I didn't have any philosophical view point, except an inherent suspicion of altruism. Quite honestly, the first thing I remember thinking when I read Robin Hood was "...Why?". After reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged just a couple weeks ago, I quickly became immersed.

We were discussing ethics today, and he asked a question that I had difficulty answering. He, of course, pointedly evades all of the contradictions I point out in his philosophy.

But regardless, the question is as follows. We lived in a perfect laissez-faire, caitalist society, where everyone is Objectivist. Mr. X has a business. He is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

I'd also like to ask, on a related note: In a society of rational individuals, no conflict of interests exists, according to Objectivism. However, what about competition in the market between businessmen?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a free market economy, there is no way in hell that a businessman will be able to keep his affairs a secret.

Markets themselves, including the entire price system, are informational in nature. People make decisions on information, this information eventually is used in a reasoning process that eventually levels out into a price on a market.

Someone will eventually get wind of any misdemeanour, circulate it in the market and before you know it, stock prices will plummet.

Further, for an Objectivist businessman to sacrifice another to himself would be an ethical sacrifice. It would be to sacrifice a principle for material gain. To abrogate a principle is ALWAYS a sacrifice. The rationally selfish person would value his principles over some material gain and hence choose the principle. You think any Objectivist will allow himself the psychological torment of knowing that he survives like a leech? On blood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to ask, on a related note: In a society of rational individuals, no conflict of interests exists, according to Objectivism. However, what about competition in the market between businessmen?

I recommend reading Ayn Rand's essay “The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests” in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness.” While you're at it, read the rest of the book – it's a great introduction to the Objectivist ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[someone] is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

As asked the answer is simple: according to the Objectivist ethics this is specifically immoral because the Objectivism says it is immoral to initiate violence against another person. This is regardless of the existence of a government or other retaliatory force.

Frankly, for a religious person, the above answer ought to be sufficient. This is our edict. So there! However, some religious people have this habit of taking their edicts on faith, while asking us to validate ours.. very odd!

However, for your own understanding, it is pretty important to understand why Objectivism says what it does, and how it validates it. David gave you one pointer. It would help if you could give us some background (perhaps in the "Intros" sub-forum) about what material you have already read.

And... welcome to the forum, Daniel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would help if you could give us some background (perhaps in the "Intros" sub-forum) about what material you have already read.

Well, my background is, so far, only The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and the Lexicon. Planning to read The Virtue of Selfishness in a few days, as David suggested.

... welcome to the forum, Daniel.

Thanks. Finally, a bastion of intelligence on the internet!

.

.

.

Alright. So a primary Objectivist ethical principle is neither sacrificing yourself to others, nor others to yourself. Since giving up a principle is always a sacrifice, contrary to your own rational self interest, the Objectivist would not initiate the use of force and act like a leech.

And so the second question should be answered by reading The Virtue of Selfishness.

Edited by Daniel Giterman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regardless, the question is as follows. We lived in a perfect laissez-faire, [Capitalist] society, where everyone is Objectivist. Mr. X has a business. He is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

Hi Daniel, I'm Tim and I'm in the 10th grade as well.

I'm surprised that no one has found a fault in the example to begin with.

In a Laissez-faire Capitalist, Objectivist society there would be no such opportunity as a Man is not allowed to use force against another Man unless that Man has used force against the first Man. If this man was allowed to use force without repercussion, that would not be Capitalism nor Objectivism. It would be anarchism.

So clearly one can not give a truthful answer based on a false example. The society presented is not Objectivist, but Anarchist.

Edited by studentofobjectivism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will never be opportunities for someone not to face the repercussions of their actions however.

Tim,

I see, by your sig and avatar, that you've read Terry Goodkind. That's actually the way I was introduced to Objectivism, through his transcripts!

But to address your statement, of course there shall never be an opportunity for someone not to face the full repercussions of their actions. However, the question was if an Objectivist was presented with an opportunity, through any means whatever, of evading the physical consquences of imposing physical force towards his own end, what ethical principle would keep him from doing so, given the fact that Mr. Objectivist is concerned with his own selfish interests?

If you say that the government exists for exactly this reason, you're admitting that an Objectivist would, in fact, do this if given the chance. Even worse, the Objectivist would seek these chances.

So far, the answer to the question is that one of Objectivism's ethical principles is to neither sacrifice yourself to others, nor others to yourself. Since initiating force is a betrayal of this moral principle, and thus a betrayal of your own pursuit of happiness, it would not be in the self-interest of Mr. Objectivist do the deed. This statement is based on the premises that happiness is the end, to which the means is the attainment of your values. Basically, sacrificing your moral principles is not in your best interest because it would stunt your hapiness, and one of the moral principles is, of course, to not be a leech, ie - not to initiate physical force against another for personal benefit.

I believe I just answered the question, with Andrew's help. Does anyone care to further crystallize the arguement, or is this good enough?

Edited by Daniel Giterman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We lived in a perfect laissez-faire, caitalist society, where everyone is Objectivist. Mr. X has a business. He is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

I don't think anyone has really addressed the main point here: namely, why is it self-interested not to initiate force in the above scenario? Why is it self-interested to uphold one's principles?

As has been pointed out, in an Objectivist society there most certainly would be the threat of repercussion from the government. Since the man is presumably not omniscient, he cannot know in advance whether he'll "get away with it." (Note your opponent's assumption that if the man can get away with it, then it would be in his self-interest, i.e. the moral and the practical are opposites.) Clearly, if he can't get away with it, then no one would argue that his action was self-interested. But in order to get away with it, he has to create and maintain a false reality in the minds of everyone he deals with. He is forced to depend on their ignorance. He has to live in fear of their discovery of reality. Inevitably, to maintain such an illusion indefinitely, he must himself evade the underlying reality. The surest way to maintain an illusion in the minds of others is to believe it one's self. Since Objectivism holds that a genuinely self-interested person must live only with a full recognition of reality, an evader cannot be said to be acting in his own self-interest.

Another reason that the initiation of force is never a self-interested act is that nothing which is unearned can ever be of value. For more on this, I'll just second the reccommendations above, partiularly "The Objectivist Ethics" and "The Conflicts of Men's Interests," both from The Virtue of Selfishness.

As for never sacrificing one's principles, there are epistemological reasons for this. Dr. Peikoff's lecture, "Why act on Principle?" which is available at aynrand.org (free registration required), is an excellent discussion of the reasons for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regardless, the question is as follows. We lived in a perfect laissez-faire, caitalist society, where everyone is Objectivist. Mr. X has a business. He is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

The fact that this scenario is a blatant contradiction to begin with, something I noticed no one else has pointed out. There is nothing in the Objectivist ETHICS to prevent people from being evil, it simply tells them a.) why they should be good and b.) what that entails.

In the Objectivist POLITICS, however, is the lovely fact that, WITHOUT the power of coercion no fraud, forcing of competitors off the market, etc. can succeed. That's what laissez-faire Capitalism is all about. My rejoinder to this question would be "come up with a method to drive a competitor off the market that doesn't involve either a.) superior production or b.) force and THEN I'll answer your ridiculous question." Why? Because in an Objectivist society force is removed from relations among men. Thus the ONLY way left to trounce your competitors is to out-produce them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a polemical point, but since Daniel began the thread speaking of a "debate" he was having...

If I had a dollar for every person who thought they could get away with a real crime, I'd be a millionaire today (quite literally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regardless, the question is as follows. We lived in a perfect laissez-faire, caitalist society, where everyone is Objectivist. Mr. X has a business. He is presented an opportunity where it is in his power to kill, or fraud out of business, one of his prime competitors with absolutely no fear of repercussion by the government. What, in terms of Objectivist ethics, would keep him from perpetrating this obviously immoral act?

This is a typical question from a Christian point of view. It starts with the fallacy that ethics are mandated by God instead of required by our nature as human beings.

In that scenario no real ethics are possible. All right and wrong is defined by the arbitrary will of God. As there is no God this means that who ever can define what the will of that imaginary construct is can have the power to dictate right and wrong according to their own whims.

In their point of view without God anything goes. No morality is necessary without the threat of punishment from an all knowing overseer.

Let him know that the only all watching overseer in his affairs is his own conscience.

Ask him this for me: If you were sure it was Gods will would you commit genocide? Would you murder other people for their property? It's no great stretch to ask that because just that kind of thing is in the Old Testament.

Edited by RosszValaki
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...