Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"Ethical Egoism is Bothersome And Erroneous"

Rate this topic


MightierPen

Recommended Posts

I post in a very small 'Objectivist' (I highlighted that because most of the members aren't) forum on a social web site. One person posted a short essay with the title "Ethical egoism is bothersome and erroneous". Now I've been an Objectivist for about 3 years now. I've read most of Ayn Rand's non-fiction and all the fiction many times, but I'm having a huge amount of trouble understanding what this man is saying, and consequently I can't very well provide a decent rebuttal. I really trust you all, could one of you maybe read his post and break it down to what he's basically saying? Feel free to point out the holes in his arguments too!

I understand and share Rand's cynicism of anyone who avows that they wield the aegis of the righteous -- we saw it in the Nazis, in the Bolshevics, in democracy, in the execution of Socrates, and continually in politicians and "humanitarians" who call for more coercion. However, it is a giant, and fallacious, leap from this cynicism to espouse egoism. There is not train of logic from

(1) People who avow altruism tend to be immoral.

(2) Therefore, we ought to not avow altruism.

Even if (1) were modified so that all described people hereforto have been immoral, or will be immoral, this does not provide why we ourselves ought not behave in an altruistic way.

It becomes a logical impossibility to express egoism because all dictates of egoism must necessarily be contingent, empirical, or otherwise relative. "It is in my best interest to do such-in-such this time, but it may be in my best interest to do so differently next time." This begs the question as to what is defined as "self-interest" or "best interest" because we might say that it is in an existential nihilist's best interest -- if we consider his philosophy -- to do everything in his power to extinguish all life while it might be in the preist's best interest, if we consider his religion, to be chaste and help the needy. Moreover, it might be in my best interest today, to spend my hundred dollars on something I value. However, if I loaned it out and collected 105 dollars next year, it might have been in my best interest to have chosen this option instead of consumption. The role of time -- 'When is it in my best interest?' -- allows us to construct and accept contradictory maxims.

We are in no place to criticize either one's behavior because we lack the solidity of a moral point of reference. When we make use of such a reference, we must inherently reject the ambigiousness of "best or self interest". Essentially, if we accept qualified self-interest, there is no possibility for rational (to be taken as an ends-scheme meaning only, not the economical means-scheme) conduct.

We have to remove consequences, time, place, or any other subjective considerations in thinking about what is the moral thing to do. As Kant wrote in the Critique of Practical Reason, “The principle of happiness can indeed give maxims, but never maxims which are competent to be laws… For, since the knowledge rests of the mere data of experience, as each judgment concerning it depends very much on the very changeable opinion of each person, it can give general but never universal rules… Consequently, no…laws can be based on this principle.” If we are to speak of moral behavior, we are going to talk about action in accordance with duty.

However, when we remove our thought from the spatio-temporality sphere of consequentialism, we accept that there is good qithout qualification, viz. that it is valid at all times, at all places, for all actors, forever. Paraphrasing the second portion of Euthyphro, that God commands it because it is good.

It is your duty to not kill, even thought it might be in your best interest to do so. It is your duty to not steal, even if you might starve to death otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before going further, you should study Peikoff's work on the relationship between fact and value.

Now, on to your poster's argument.

I understand and share Rand's cynicism of anyone who avows that they wield the aegis of the righteous --
Ayn Rand did not "have cynicism for anyone who avows that they wield the aegis of the righteous". She herself avowed to wield that type of aegis, and she trumpeted others who did (like America's founding fathers). Ayn Rand was not a cynic, nor did she promote cynicism.

Most of this post is an attempt to knock down a straw man. Observe:

we saw it in the Nazis, in the Bolshevics, in democracy, in the execution of Socrates, and continually in politicians and "humanitarians" who call for more coercion. However, it is a giant, and fallacious, leap from this cynicism to espouse egoism. There is not train of logic from

(1) People who avow altruism tend to be immoral.

(2) Therefore, we ought to not avow altruism.

This certainly was not Ayn Rand's train of logic (in fact, those two statement's do not even address egoism). She did not justify egoism through altruism's failures. She justified it on it's own merits, and her justification is not addressed in the entirety of this person's post.

This next bunch is a blatant attack on Objectivity. It also leads me to believe that this person has read nothing of Objectivist non-fiction.

Even if (1) were modified so that all described people hereforto have been immoral, or will be immoral, this does not provide why we ourselves ought not behave in an altruistic way.

It becomes a logical impossibility to express egoism because all dictates of egoism must necessarily be contingent, empirical, or otherwise relative. "It is in my best interest to do such-in-such this time, but it may be in my best interest to do so differently next time." This begs the question as to what is defined as "self-interest" or "best interest" because we might say that it is in an existential nihilist's best interest -- if we consider his philosophy -- to do everything in his power to extinguish all life while it might be in the preist's best interest, if we consider his religion, to be chaste and help the needy. Moreover, it might be in my best interest today, to spend my hundred dollars on something I value. However, if I loaned it out and collected 105 dollars next year, it might have been in my best interest to have chosen this option instead of consumption. The role of time -- 'When is it in my best interest?' -- allows us to construct and accept contradictory maxims.

The choice of a standard of value must be made before one can have a code of ethics. Objectivist ethics hold that only one choice for this standard is valid -- man's life. Nhilism and religionism are based on invalid standards. No cantradictory maxims exist within the body of Objectivist ethics because it is based on the only valid moral standard.

We are in no place to criticize either one's behavior because we lack the solidity of a moral point of reference. When we make use of such a reference, we must inherently reject the ambigiousness of "best or self interest". Essentially, if we accept qualified self-interest, there is no possibility for rational (to be taken as an ends-scheme meaning only, not the economical means-scheme) conduct.

Again, this is not true if the moral point of reference is man's life on this earth, in this reality. We can judge others actions without rejecting self-interest, if we are interested in life on this earth.

We have to remove consequences, time, place, or any other subjective considerations in thinking about what is the moral thing to do. As Kant wrote in the Critique of Practical Reason, “The principle of happiness can indeed give maxims, but never maxims which are competent to be laws… For, since the knowledge rests of the mere data of experience, as each judgment concerning it depends very much on the very changeable opinion of each person, it can give general but never universal rules… Consequently, no…laws can be based on this principle.”
In this respect, Kant is correct. Happiness is not the standard of moral behavior. Given a proper standard of morality, and within a normal context, hapiness is the emotional response to values obtained through moral behavior.

If we are to speak of moral behavior, we are going to talk about action in accordance with duty.

However, when we remove our thought from the spatio-temporality sphere of consequentialism, we accept that there is good qithout qualification, viz. that it is valid at all times, at all places, for all actors, forever. Paraphrasing the second portion of Euthyphro, that God commands it because it is good.

A proper moral standard allows you to gauge what is right, given a context. I am not an expert on Kant, but this statement shows that he was trying to develop morals without reference to context. Any moral code that claims to do so has no relevance on this earth, and no relevance to man.

It is your duty to not kill, even thought it might be in your best interest to do so. It is your duty to not steal, even if you might starve to death otherwise.

In a morality based on man's life, some value-contexts require killing, while no value contexts require theft.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to translate...

I understand and share Rand's cynicism of anyone who avows that they wield the aegis of the righteous -- we saw it in the Nazis, in the Bolshevics, in democracy, in the execution of Socrates, and continually in politicians and "humanitarians" who call for more coercion.
I’m suspicious of anyone who speaks and acts with moral certainty.

However, it is a giant, and fallacious, leap from this cynicism to espouse egoism. There is not train of logic from

(1) People who avow altruism tend to be immoral.

(2) Therefore, we ought to not avow altruism.

Even if (1) were modified so that all described people hereforto have been immoral, or will be immoral, this does not provide why we ourselves ought not behave in an altruistic way.

(Okay, I can’t translate this; it doesn’t make any sense.)

It becomes a logical impossibility to express egoism because all dictates of egoism must necessarily be contingent, empirical, or otherwise relative. "It is in my best interest to do such-in-such this time, but it may be in my best interest to do so differently next time."
Egoism is based on reality. Egoism is pragmatism.

This begs the question as to what is defined as "self-interest" or "best interest" because we might say that it is in an existential nihilist's best interest -- if we consider his philosophy -- to do everything in his power to extinguish all life while it might be in the preist's best interest, if we consider his religion, to be chaste and help the needy. Moreover, it might be in my best interest today, to spend my hundred dollars on something I value. However, if I loaned it out and collected 105 dollars next year, it might have been in my best interest to have chosen this option instead of consumption. The role of time -- 'When is it in my best interest?' -- allows us to construct and accept contradictory maxims.

Self-interest is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with reality.

We are in no place to criticize either one's behavior because we lack the solidity of a moral point of reference. When we make use of such a reference, we must inherently reject the ambigiousness of "best or self interest". Essentially, if we accept qualified self-interest, there is no possibility for rational (to be taken as an ends-scheme meaning only, not the economical means-scheme) conduct. We have to remove consequences, time, place, or any other subjective considerations in thinking about what is the moral thing to do. As Kant wrote in the Critique of Practical Reason, “The principle of happiness can indeed give maxims, but never maxims which are competent to be laws… For, since the knowledge rests of the mere data of experience, as each judgment concerning it depends very much on the very changeable opinion of each person, it can give general but never universal rules… Consequently, no…laws can be based on this principle.” If we are to speak of moral behavior, we are going to talk about action in accordance with duty.
In order to speak with moral certainty (of which, remember, we should be suspicious) our moral pronouncements must be completely unsubstantiated. Morality has nothing to do with reality. Since knowledge is necessarily knowledge “of reality,” which itself has nothing to do with morality, we can never have knowledge of morality. There's no reason to be moral; you just have to do it.

However, when we remove our thought from the spatio-temporality sphere of consequentialism…

However, when we remove our thought from reality…

…we accept that there is good qithout qualification, viz. that it is valid at all times, at all places, for all actors, forever.
…we accept that there is good without purpose or beneficiary…

Paraphrasing the second portion of Euthyphro, that God commands it because it is good.

…except for an arbitrary, unfathomable will.

It is your duty to not kill, even thought it might be in your best interest to do so. It is your duty to not steal, even if you might starve to death otherwise.

Theft and murder are practical, but don’t do it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Jacob bows** :P

(Okay, I can’t translate this; it doesn’t make any sense.)

I think what he is trying to say is that even if (1) were restated: People who avow altruism are immoral...

This person's writing is a chore to read, and it's a good window into his psyche. That isn't to say the window has a great view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow you guys really put it into perspective for me, thanks!

In further posts he goes on to say that one can have a rational morality by starting with an axiom, but he says that the axiom cannot be based on reality in order to be objective. Basically I think he is endorsing two kind of objectivity: Empirical objectivity and abstract. I have no idea why he thinks the two are mutually exclusive.

If you don't mind me asking, what is an intrinsicist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what is an intrinsicist?
Roughly.... someone who thinks things have value or not, without asking the question: of value to whom and for what. Someone who thinks value is intrinsic in the thing being valued, regardless of the valuer and his purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Okay, I can’t translate this; it doesn’t make any sense.)

I put it through my Dekantianator and this is what came out: <_<

"I want you to think that Ayn Rand's argument for egoism was based on being suspicious of anyone who speaks and acts with moral certainty, because it's easy to see that egoism doesn't follow from that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't mind me asking, what is an intrinsicist?

A man whose mind has produced so few true ideas that he doesn't even know that ideas are the products of man's mind. Instead, he thinks that ideas exist in their own right, "intrinsically," and the things we see are the products of those ideas.

For example, an intrinsicist would think that the idea of "Sunday" existed before any human existed, and now this idea is making you stay in bed longer and go to the shopping mall instead of the office.

To constrast it with another widespread fallacy, subjectivism, and with Objectivism:

  • A subjectivist thinks that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and has nothing to do with the object he sees as beautiful.
  • An intrinsicist thinks that beauty is in the object, and has nothing to do with the mind of the man who sees it as beautiful.
  • An Objectivist knows that it is the object that has the beautiful form and it is his mind that identifies its beauty.

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...