Is it wrong to "waste" food?

[Dan Bidewell]

So from an Objectivist stand-point, the killing of a turtle just for fun (because you are fancy it), which results in the loss of livelihood to another person - is it wrong because it is an irrational thing to do or is it wrong because it is wrong to irrationally damages another's interests?

p.s. I suppose that my answer is in my question. If it is wrong to do something irrationally, then it doesn not matter whether it damages another's interests or not, it is still wrong.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Dan Bidewell

[BurgessLau]

OK - this is not a trap (as in I am not asking this question so I can see people's replies, and then come up with another response I have already though of), but I would like to know if it would be bettter (economically) not to waste.

[bold added for emphasis.]

Dan, you have asked a lot of questions, and that is good. But I am puzzled because I don't know where all these questions are leading.

First, when you ask one question and other members here answer, you move to another, related question. What is the essential question, that is, what question is at the base of, the foundation of, your various questions about particular situations (such as shooting turtles). If you would identify the essential question, then others can address that and not need to keep addressing the inessential ones.

Second, with all these questions, and particularly with the essential one yet to be identified, what is at stake for you in your life? In other words, when the essential question is answered, how will that answer change your life?

Or, for example, is this a test of Objectivism? If you don't get an agreeable answer to your essential question, whatever that will be, will you reject Objectivism or at least Objectivist ethics (and therefore politics)?

P. S. -- Your Viewing Profile suggests that you might be a hedonist rather than an Objectivist. Is that correct? Do you agree with Objectivism to the extent that you have studied and understood it? Answering will help establish a context for answering your questions.

Edited November 30, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Dan Bidewell]

[bold added for emphasis.]

P. S. -- Your Viewing Profile suggests that you might be a hedonist rather than an Objectivist. Is that correct? Do you agree with Objectivism to the extent that you have studied and understood it? Answering will help establish a context for answering your questions.

Well, I don't think I can call myself an Objectivist because I do not know enough about it. For example, I knew a boy at unveristy who studied Geography. When people asked him what he was, rather than say "I'm a student" he said "I am a geographer"!. So I don't want to be as presumptively pretentious as he was!

I have read Ayn Rand (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, VOS and I have also read LP's Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology, but to be honest I on;y carried on reading that last one in the hope I would understand it, I didn't really).

Seeing as I did agree with everything Ayn Rand said, and I believe I understood it - if I find something I do not agree with in Objectvism, I will try and question it some more until I do. This is not based on blind faith that I should agree, but because I did agree with everything VOS said, I often think it is perhaps just that I do not understand. And it is always easier (I am being lazy I know) to seek an answer to a question, than to loom for that question answered elsewhere.

But don't worry, Christmas is coming, and my mother has been given specific instructions on how to use Amazon so that she can get me that book on logic by that Ruby character (and if it doesn't turn up in time, it's my birthday not long after)

That is why I ask so many questions. Once they are answered, I move on to the next one, until I cover all the bases and all my questions are answered. No-one is obligated to answer, and I am grateful to those who do, because it helps me to answer the questions I have. I think that my questions here have been answered. For example, look at my original question and then see how, with the help of everyone's answers, I moved on to my final statement.

Also, as someone who is not an Objectivist, I often want to know the answers to questions that other people will ask me. And I would like to know (which I think I do) that Objectivism does not condone the irrational damage to other's interests simply for the sake of it (please see my last post).

Personally, I do not like questions that "lead" anywhere, I prefer people to say what they have to say, rather than encouraging you into a statement, the reply to which they have already thought of, so none of my questions have been asked to lead to any conclusion of my own, only to find out the answer.

I would however reject Objectivist ethics, if at the base of it, it turned out that Ayn Rand had written, and Objectivists followed, something I do not yet know and I do not believe could be true.

[Inspector]

If it truly is a finite resource (that is to say, there is hardly none left) and someone wastes what they have left of it, just for the fun of it, could this be morally justified?. I understand that it is theirs to do with what they will, but surely they are just making it harder for other people to get any? Or is this of no concern, objectively?

Morally speaking, a man should do what is in his rational self-interest. If he could exchange this rare resource for things of great value to him, but instead destroys it, he has given up those things of great value he could have recieved. Assuming that he did not attain a still greater value by destroying the resource, then he was acting against his rational self-interest and thus immorally.

Of course, if the resource being wasted is his by right, then he must be legally allowed to engage in this immoral action, since anything otherwise would be a violation of rights, which would be a far, far greater harm to everyone than a wasted resource.

If what you are asking is if it is in your selfish interest to refrain from forcing the man to NOT waste the resource, then the answer is YES, because the principle of individual rights is vital to your survival. If your concern is "how is this just?" then remember that he had to trade a VALUE to obtain that resource.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Inspector

[BurgessLau]

Personally, I do not like questions that "lead" anywhere, I prefer people to say what they have to say, rather than encouraging you into a statement, the reply to which they have already thought of, so none of my questions have been asked to lead to any conclusion of my own, only to find out the answer.

I do not understand your statements. An answer is exactly what questions should lead to. So how can you say you want an answer but you don't want your questions to lead to anything?

Are you confusing "lead" here with the term "leading questions"? The latter phrase is what attorneys use to name the idea of using trickery in a courtroom to gain a predetermined answer that the questionner wants to hear.

When I ask what you are leading to in your many questions, I am asking you what the payoff is for you in your life. I still don't have an answer to that question. So far as I can tell, you have not explained how getting an answer to your essential question, whatever it may be, is going to change your life.

I would however reject Objectivist ethics, if at the base of it, it turned out that Ayn Rand had written, and Objectivists followed, something I do not yet know and I do not believe could be true.

Do you think a question about shooting turtles is a question addressed to the base of Objectivist ethics? For that matter, which of your many questions do address an issue at the base of Objectivist ethics?

My last question, by the way, is one more appeal for the essential question you are asking -- that is, which question lies at the base of all your other questions?

Edited December 1, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Dan Bidewell]

I did think you meant "leading questions" yes.

I did not have a predetermined idea as to the final answer I wanted to hear when asking my questions.

The pay-off for my life in finding an answer to my questions is that I am able to reconcile parts of an argument in which I find holes, and so then be able to understand a coherent rationale. I am not sure if that would change my life, but it would certainly make me more aware of my life if I am able to fully understand the context of it. Understanding the whole of anything makes it easier to understand the parts.

I do not think any of my questions address the base of Objectivist ethics. I do think however they chip away at the things surrounding around it, and so helping me to see the core better. I think my hunting turtles question was quite good, because it gave an example of destroying a finite resource just for fun (I did not want to use another example, like oil, because so many people say oil is not finite)

The question, I suppose, that lies at the centre of all my other questions is this (and committed Objectivists may have forgotten how this can perturb people), does a life led selfishly commit one to a life led at the detriment of others, and can that detriment (when it is purposeful and solely for the sake of it, not because of competition or somesuch) be called "wrong" by Objetivists.

I want to find that the answer to this question is "No, a life led selfishly does not commit one a life led at the detriment of others" and that Objectivism does not sanction that sort of detriment of others. I want Objectivism to be as good for man as altruism claims to be for mankind, because from my understanding of it so far it seems to be the cleanest and purest and strongest rationale for any kind of man or woman.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Dan Bidewell

[BurgessLau]

Dan, thank you for the clarification. I do have a better understanding now of some of what you are doing.

Before I unsubscribe to this topic, I have one final suggestion. I have been a student of Objectivism for 43 years. The two concepts that I have learned from Objectivism and that have been the most important to me are:

1. Objectivity.

2. Essence (essential, essential characteristic, essentializing).

Concerning the second, if you are not certain you know what "essential" means, then I suggest that you set aside other questions until you have made a special study of it and thoroughly understand it.

I did not understand it for about the first 33 years of my on-again, off-again study of Objectivism. The result was confusion and great waste of time -- as well as wasteful conflicts with more knowledgeable Objectivists. Put positively, knowing how to essentialize will save you thousands of hours of thinking time in your life and will lead to greater clarity.

P. S. -- For anyone new to Objectivism, you might begin investigating "essence" by examining the entries for "Definitions" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 117-121. Another option is to re-examine the many pages referenced under "Essential Characteristics" in the index of Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 310.

Edited December 1, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Poor Richard]

The problem is that many times there is a cost to not wasting and the owner has no obligation to incur that cost. If you don't finish your lunch because you don't have time and it won't be any good by the time you're hungry again - you probably also don't have the time to take the food and find someone who can use it (in order to avoid waste).

[RationalBiker]

I want to find that the answer to this question is "No, a life led selfishly does not commit one a life led at the detriment of others" and that Objectivism does not sanction that sort of detriment of others. I want Objectivism to be as good for man as altruism claims to be for mankind, because from my understanding of it so far it seems to be the cleanest and purest and strongest rationale for any kind of man or woman.

In what way are you distinquishing "Man" and "Mankind" in the context used above? Given that the focus of you concern so far has been the impact of one man's actions on another, it appears to me that these terms are actually saying the same thing in your statement above. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I think that the answer you seek, is actually the correct answer. Leading a selfish life does not commit one to a life led at the detriment of others. However, it does not prevent the occurrence conflicting interests either, nor the possibility that one person's rightful actions may have detrimental effects on other people. Context is the key. I think it would help you to realize that in many contexts, properly identified reality requires one man to help another for his own selfish interests, but it does not require it for all contexts.

With regards to Objectivism as a philosophy for life, I will make the following assertion; Objectivism is not just another philosophy with which a person can guide their life. Rather, Objectivism is a properly identified aspect of reality. I suppose it may sound dogmatic to this, but it is the only "real" philosophy by it's nature. If you accept that, then you must realize that it will not conform to anything we want it to be, it will be what it is. "Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed." Objectivism will best serve you, if like any other aspect of reality, you properly identify that aspect reality, your relationship to that aspect reality, and then use it to guide your actions accordingly. I think that you are honestly here to help properly identify "that aspect of reality", and I want you to understand that my responses to you are intended to help you with that identification, if I can. (I know that at times my responses seem cold and pointed.) Why do I wish to help you? Because it serves a selfish purpose for me. I gain value from understanding and learning this philosophy, and in using this forum. If I am indeed steering you in the right direction, then my selfish interests are also of benefit to you. Is that the beneficial edge for "man" that you want to see in a philosophy?

However, if you want reality to work out to everyone's benefit all the time, it will not. Reality will not yield to desire. It seems that there will always be folks who will choose not to properly identify reality, and upon failing to do so, their actions will have a negative impact on themselves and others. But, the more a greater number of people do properly identify reality, and who do properly define their relationship to it, the better off "man" AND "mankind" will be. But no matter how many rational folks there are in the world, there will always be conflicts of interest.

[Dan Bidewell]

In what way are you distinquishing "Man" and "Mankind" in the context used above? ... However, if you want reality to work out to everyone's benefit all the time, it will not.

By man I mean man the individual. Me as me and you as you. By mankind I mean the whole lot of us, lumped together as one people whose interests are better served as part of a whole - so me and you as two different people with different wants being told that what we are to be given is best for both of us.

I do see that reality will not always work out to everyone's benefit all of the time - bad things happen outside our control. Also, some people, like you say, refuse to deal with reality - the man who spends all of his money on drink and then has no money for food. I do not want to find a way to iron out Objectivism's harder edges for them. They would be able to avoid those harder edges themselves if only they recognsided reality. And for the man who does recognise reality but makes a mistake (invests all his money and loses it), as long as he remains rational, he will be able to to see that that is simply one of the aspects of life ("That's life - deal with it")

I can see that I cannot BEND Objectivism to what I want to it to be. I do not want to - that is what I find attractive about it.

Is that the beneficial edge for "man" that you want to see in a philosophy?

Yes it is - I rather have the idea that there will naturally be a trickle-down affect.

[RationalBiker]

but I think it's the terminology that's got me.

I have read the relevant section of VOS, and therefore, I understand your objection to my terminology. No actual conflict of interest can occur between rational men. I'm still not convinced that two rational men cannot through errors of knowledge think that they each have a right to an interest commonly shared.

Perhaps you might present an argument to explain how this is not possible.

Note that I'm splitting this off to it's own thread located here where any further responses should be directed.

[Dan Bidewell]

Hello!

I have another question about waste! Well, not so much a questions, more a musing.

I have put it in another topic "Waste of time"

It would be interesting to know what people think