Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Is Lying, Stealing And The Initiation Of Force Wrong?

Rate this topic


BluEarthRotting

Recommended Posts

i'm suspicious that these mindless repeatitions of "you will get caught" are toeing the line of faith, which if true would collapse the whole philosophy and make it the cult all my teachers tell me it is

How much actual reading have you done regarding this philosophy, and in particular this topic? How much are you relying on the answers you get SECOND HAND from this forum? This forum is not designed to circumvent actual study of the philosophy of Objectivism. Many folks here are relatively new, and many folks here have been (and still are) studying this philosophy for years.

Whether it's by "what your teachers tell you" or by what people on here tell you, how much are you willing to invest in pursuing knowledge more directly from the source as opposed to second hand sources?

The credibility of this philosophy does not generally rest on any particular member's ability to explain something to your satisfaction. Yes, it would be nice if someone can, or will, but you cannot rely on it to the point you think that the philosophy collaspes because of what you read here. Well, at least no rational person should.

With that in mind, you are free to believe what your teachers tell you. Reality is the final arbiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?

RAND: Yes, to a certain extent.

PLAYBOY: Why?

RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man's evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose -- a productive purpose.

Playboy Interview, 1964

Copyright ©, PLAYBOY

I hope this will shed some light on the issue of the murder.

If your professor brings up that the most powerful person can do whatever it is he wants, bring up Stalin. He was very powerful and in order to stay ahead of his competition for being most powerful he killed them off. While he was doing this, he killed those in his own country capable of producing.

As far as killing a deadbeat on the side of the road, only once, for your own pleasure, it seems to me if you killed the man for your own pleasure then it would be unlikely for you to kill only once. Psychology of murders has shown that the more they kill the sloppier they get, they obtain the feeling that they are invincible, which ultimately leads to their being caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard Objectivist answers to this question are rather unconvincing, in my opinion.

The argument that once you steal you leave yourself open for others to violate your rights and steal from you is obviously flawed, since even if you don't steal anything others may still steal from you. The reverse may actually be true, as thieves likely better know how to protect themselves from theft than non-thieves.

The argument that theft doesn't require reason or is anti-reason makes little sense considering the careful and often ingenious plans many thieves employ. In many ways, theft is more intellectually demanding than most forms of honest work.

The argument that theft is against the perpetrator's self-interest because it "destroys the source of the thieves wealth" is virtually never true. This is because theft always benefits the thief more than it burdens him. For example, if I steal a $2000 HDTV from Best Buy, I have benefited to the tune of $2000. The cost of that TV is borne by the enormous Best Buy company, its shareholders, employees, etc. Theoretically, the theft of the TV might raise the price of other goods I buy at the store. But practically, it raises the price (if at all) by a tiny fraction of a penny, if that. Thus I have a $2000 benefit, with the loss of a fraction of a penny.

Any argument of the "you will likely get caught" sort is frankly irrelevant to a discussion of the morality of the issue. For example, it is far more likely than not that a person starting a restaurant will fail in their endevour. This doesn't make starting a restaurant immoral, it merely makes it a risky career choice. When discussing the morality of theft, murder, etc you have to assume that we are talking about the non-physical and non-legal risks.

The only good argument based purely on self-interest for why it is immoral to steal is that it is psychologically damaging. A thief has to deal with the guilt of his actions, and live with the knowledge that his lifestyle is based on theft. Of course, one can easily imagine a person who has no such concerns and lives in complete peace of mind concerning his illegal career. But such a person is not the norm. Most people would have some qualms about such a lifestyle, even if they choose to ignore them. You can't base a system of morality on the individual mentality of a pathological thief. You have to assume we are talking about the average man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only good argument based purely on self-interest for why it is immoral to steal is that it is psychologically damaging. A thief has to deal with the guilt of his actions, and live with the knowledge that his lifestyle is based on theft. Of course, one can easily imagine a person who has no such concerns and lives in complete peace of mind concerning his illegal career. But such a person is not the norm. Most people would have some qualms about such a lifestyle, even if they choose to ignore them. You can't base a system of morality on the individual mentality of a pathological thief. You have to assume we are talking about the average man.

Have you read Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand? It offers a great demonstration of how violating the rights of other, no matter who you are, destroys your ability to achieve happiness and function in reality, even if you never get caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights are not exclusive to one group. Some groups have the advantage of being able to use rights that others don't, but everyone has the same rights. So in order to claim that you can ethically steal, and therefore have the right to, you would also have to say that it is ethical for someone else to steal from you. Because of this it is not in your best interest to steal because you would be granting others the right to steal from you. If stealing is ethical, then you have removed one of the few true purposes of government from its hands. Enforcing law. If you take that out, it's just there for the military and to steal your money to give it to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights are not exclusive to one group. Some groups have the advantage of being able to use rights that others don't, but everyone has the same rights. So in order to claim that you can ethically steal, and therefore have the right to, you would also have to say that it is ethical for someone else to steal from you. Because of this it is not in your best interest to steal because you would be granting others the right to steal from you.

Again, this line of argument seems to assume a false alternative, with the two choices being:

1.) Stealing is immoral, stealing is illegal, you don't steal, others can't steal.

2.) Stealing is moral, stealing is legal, you can steal, others can steal.

The situation where the ethical issue comes up is actually:

3.) Stealing is amoral, stealing is illegal, you can steal, others CAN'T steal.

Essentially, society exists as it does today with laws against theft. The only difference is that you break the law and are able to steal from others, while the others are prevented by law from stealing from you.

No rational thief would ever advocate laws against theft being removed because it would result in anarchy and the breakdown of society. There would be no point in stealing because ownership of property, whether stolen or not, would be impossible.

A thief benefits when generally applicable laws prevent most people from stealing, but due to his cunning, skill or information, he has the ability to steal from others without getting caught by the law. Thus he in effect, benefits from the very law which he himself breaks.

The ethical question is then whether or not such behavior is immoral and if so, why?

Edited by Vladimir Berkov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard Objectivist answers to this question are rather unconvincing, in my opinion.

The argument that once you steal you leave yourself open for others to violate your rights and steal from you is obviously flawed, since even if you don't steal anything others may still steal from you. The reverse may actually be true, as thieves likely better know how to protect themselves from theft than non-thieves.

That argument is not the standard Objectivist answer to this question. It is the standard Kantian answer. Kantians call it the "universalizability principle." Something is only moral if it is moral for everyone to do in all circumstances.

Since Kant is the most influential moralist, many people with (not trying to be insulting, but) a relatively superficial understanding of ethics-- even Objectivists, will try to argue from this position.

But the Oist position has been represented in this thread (though not in detail, of course). I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the Ring of Geiges story is actually where the word "egoism" originates. I believe it was Aristotle who argued that a moral person wouldn't want to steal, even if he were wearing the Ring. Um, I don't remember his exact argument, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now according to objectivism I'm supposed to pursue my happiness at all costs. The caveat that keeps this from being a command to free-for-all is that it truely has to be happiness that i'm pursuing.

No, Objectivism is not eudaimonism. Life is the standard from which moral principles must be derived. Happiness is just the goal, and reward. The difference between these approaches may seem subtle at first, but they turn out to be tremendous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard Objectivist answers to this question are rather unconvincing, in my opinion.

The argument that once you steal you leave yourself open for others to violate your rights and steal from you is obviously flawed,

No, not really. Actively contributing to the general decline of honesty and respect for other people's rights is against one's long term self interests. Actively communicating to those around you that initiating force is an acceptable means of survival doesn't just mean you open yourself up to having your rights violated (which as you note may happen anyway), but rather that you are increasing the likelihood in the long term that your rights may be violated. If you don't accept that, I know of a couple of different neighborhoods you can try living in to see the contrast between those which are predominantly rights respecting and those which are not. You could also research the history of many crime-ridden neighborhoods and track the decline of living conditions as distrust and apathy grew because crime became more accepted. And by living, I mean living as a man qua man, not merely being capable of avoiding the morgue. You are assuming that there is no long term domino effect to continually violating other people's rights. I think history demonstrates otherwise.

At this point, I would strongly urge you to do some searching on this site for "prudent predator" and possibly some more reading of Objectivism before assuming that the brief generalizations of the arguments as you present them and attempt to counter are fully representative of the Objectivist arguments. The "prudent predator" has been discussed on here before, and several more in depth explanations were provided. You do neither yourself, nor this forum, any justice by arguing against positions less than fully understood or represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question largely boils down to: "why should one act on principle?"

Acting on principle is a fundamental part of Objectivism that should be understood by anyone seeking to debate ANY aspect of the Objectivist ethics BEFORE they attempt to do so: it bridges the gap between epistemology and ethics and explains why such hypotheticals as "but I won't get caught" and "no one else can steal except me" are considered completely beside the point.

A principle is an abstraction covering a vast breadth of concrete data, naming the essentials and subsuming it into a policy that covers ALL situations. A correct principle is one that will lead you to a successful outcome in the situations it covers, regardless of specific concrete happenstances.

Why should you act on principle? Because your mind is simply too limited to track the vast amount of data you would need to consider each and every case "on its own merits"; you would need to be omniscient to manage that, and humans are not omniscient.

The choice between acting on principle and acting on any random feelings is the choice between doing what you know can achieve success and doing what might achieve success if you happen to luck out. The person that does the former engages in a productive career and saves his money for a rainy day. The person that does the latter puts all his money into lottery tickets and horse races.

The Objectivist ethics rejects as practical (and thus as moral) any attempt to get away with living, knowing that such "victories" are temporary and accidental things. It rejects any gains through immoral means, imagined or real; it is not a gain to get $50 or fifty million dollars or a thrill that quite likely will wind up destroying you utterly; the risk is disproportionate to the reward, regardless of the care you take to "not get caught", it is impossible for you to know ahead of time everything that might happen. Someone walks around the corner at the wrong moment and boom, your plan is blown.

Rejecting principle ejects you into the realm of the unknowable. Every action becomes a wealth of variables so complex that you can no longer weigh them in your mind. Your reason becomes impotent to deal with reality. And since reason is the only means you HAVE to deal with reality, you become unfit for existence.

Think about lying. Have you ever told someone something that wasn't true? You make reality your enemy, and you dread every possible interaction that person could have with any person or thing that might reveal the truth. Is it even possible for you to predict when or where or in what respect that might come about?

The unknown is not necessarily dangerous to men, but the unknowable always is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not really. Actively contributing to the general decline of honesty and respect for other people's rights is against one's long term self interests. Actively communicating to those around you that initiating force is an acceptable means of survival doesn't just mean you open yourself up to having your rights violated (which as you note may happen anyway), but rather that you are increasing the likelihood in the long term that your rights may be violated.

I don't dispute that theft in a general sense harms all those with property. My point is that the marginal cost of one additional thief on each individual is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. The benefits one individual thief may gain from theft will greatly outweigh the costs of his actions which actually affect him. See my Best Buy example above.

This question largely boils down to: "why should one act on principle?"

Acting on principle is a fundamental part of Objectivism that should be understood by anyone seeking to debate ANY aspect of the Objectivist ethics BEFORE they attempt to do so: it bridges the gap between epistemology and ethics and explains why such hypotheticals as "but I won't get caught" and "no one else can steal except me" are considered completely beside the point.

A principle is an abstraction covering a vast breadth of concrete data, naming the essentials and subsuming it into a policy that covers ALL situations. A correct principle is one that will lead you to a successful outcome in the situations it covers, regardless of specific concrete happenstances.

Why should you act on principle? Because your mind is simply too limited to track the vast amount of data you would need to consider each and every case "on its own merits"; you would need to be omniscient to manage that, and humans are not omniscient.

The choice between acting on principle and acting on any random feelings is the choice between doing what you know can achieve success and doing what might achieve success if you happen to luck out. The person that does the former engages in a productive career and saves his money for a rainy day. The person that does the latter puts all his money into lottery tickets and horse races.

I agree, but I am not sure how this is applicable here. The problem with the decision whether or not to steal isn't a choice between principle and no principle, but rather between competing principles. A thief can live by principle just the same as any other person, the only difference is that their fundemental goals, assumptions and methods will differ. I can easily put forward an internally consistant principle which a thief could use to live his life.

The Objectivist ethics rejects as practical (and thus as moral) any attempt to get away with living, knowing that such "victories" are temporary and accidental things. It rejects any gains through immoral means, imagined or real; it is not a gain to get $50 or fifty million dollars or a thrill that quite likely will wind up destroying you utterly; the risk is disproportionate to the reward, regardless of the care you take to "not get caught", it is impossible for you to know ahead of time everything that might happen. Someone walks around the corner at the wrong moment and boom, your plan is blown.

Yes, but this is simply another "practical" argument which also applies to every other profession. There is no career choice with guaranteed success. Life is full of risks, random and chance hazards, etc. For example, a construction worker may get smashed flat by an accidentally falling beam, a stock broker may get cleaned out after the market shifts unexpectedly, etc. The fact that theft is risky doesn't really bear on its morality.

Think about lying. Have you ever told someone something that wasn't true? You make reality your enemy, and you dread every possible interaction that person could have with any person or thing that might reveal the truth. Is it even possible for you to predict when or where or in what respect that might come about?

Again, this is a practical not a moral argument. Lying is dangerous because it is often difficult for people to keep up the charade. But there are all sorts of situations in which lying or deceit seems perfectly moral. For example, an undercover cop posing as a 10-year-old girl on the internet trying to catch child molesters. Or a spy in an enemy country trying to get information to help his nation defend itself. Such activities are fraught with hazards, but that hardly makes them immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is a practical not a moral argument.

According to Objectivism, the moral is the practical.

At ARI's website, if you're a registered user, there is a great Leonard Peikoff lecture available now on the topic, "Why Should One Act on Principle?" (scroll down to about the middle).

What the question in this thread really boils down to is, "Why is the Objectivist ethics correct?" But I agree that the idea of acting on principle is the central one in dispute here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Objectivism, the moral is the practical.

This is why I am so interested in finding a good moral argument against stealing which is based on self-interest instead of collectivism.

What the question in this thread really boils down to is, "Why is the Objectivist ethics correct?" But I agree that the idea of acting on principle is the central one in dispute here.

I would say that it is more a question of whether Objectivist ethics can actually answer the question, or if further development of the ethics is required to make a satisfactory answer. Ayn Rand's ethics were certainly never intended to be complete, static and unable to be improved upon or expanded as new thinkers or knowledge comes forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conveniently, the quote at the top of the page is very applicable here.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.--Frederic Bastiat"

A lot of times, people seem to refer to rights as something inherent in existence and this is not an accurate view. I believe this mistaken idea comes from the unfortuanate inclusion of the "unalienable" and "endowed by their creator" phrases in the Declaration of Independence. The simple fact of the matter is that they can be taken away. They are taken all the time by criminals and police and judges(no equivocation meant there). In fact the social contract is quite voluntary for everyone. All it really boils down to is that all men of honest disposition and good charactor agree to not trample on the rights of others in return for the same promise. Next these sorts of people form a government to facilitate that end. Anyone who then chooses to not respect the rights of others for all practical purposes makes an enemy of all honest men who are then no longer required to respect the rights said criminal and can incarcerate or execute the individual, through their agents(the police and judges) and at their discretion. So criminals end up being quite outnumbered(until we start electing them, at least :( )

Practically speaking, being a criminal is a very poor career choice for even shortsighted people. If you are familiar with real life criminals you know that they have very likely been to prison because the likelihood of getting caught is extremely high. People get away with crime all the time, yes, but as a lifestyle you are just playing a numbers game. Sooner or later you will be caught. It is almost guaranteed. Sooner or later you leave a fingerprint or mug somebody tougher then you and the games over. Good criminals have to honestly assess the likely amount they will recieve against the years of the sentence

Consider for example, the average bank robber. He walks away with $2000-$20000 and when he's caught he's looking at probably 20 years. Best case scenario, He is making $1000/ year on a single robbery. To make $20,000/ Year he would have to rob 20 banks before getting caught. To make double the anual salary he would have to get away with a bare minimum of 60 bank robberies. (this of course doesn't begin to take into account all of the other costs associated with that kind of "business". He likely has 2 assistents plus a getaway driver helping him if he wishs to be successful(all people who reject the social contract but that he has to trust anyways, btw) which would bring the total to say 160 banks. Then, before he can spend the money he has to get it laundered which in all liklihood is gonna be 50% so now he need to clear 320 bank robberies before getting caught in order to make $60,000/ year. After that he has to throw in the risk of being shot by security gurads or swat teams or overzealous bank managers or his "trusted" accomplices as well as the 14 rapes and 3 marriages to bubba, zed, and bubba's cousin he'll experience while incarcerated. Now this is just the so called practical end of it.

For someone with a more principled long term view,it is obvious that, even if he were extraordinarily skilled or lucky, he never does beat the system in any meaningful way. If he gets away with ton's of money and thinks he's is destined for a lifetime of happiness he has to think again. I read recently that upwards of 70% of lottery winners are depressed within the first year. Money is an effect, of productivity...so is happiness. Happiness is not an effect of money. They are truly not related in any other way. Examine any procuror of unearned wealth, inherited or otherwise. See if the money actually makes them happy. If they are happy at all, it is because of something else that they DO. The DOing is the important part, not the end. Happiness is mainly a derivative of pride. Pride only exists as the possession of a virtous individual. To possess the kind of self confidence needed to achieve a significat level of pride it is necessary for the virtous person to be fully aware of their own efficaciousness. Which means they need to know that they can achieve their values no matter who is in their way offering help or harm. In short, they must be productive, independent, honest, just, rational, and integrated.

For the criminal this problem is compounded since he realises that, as Megan said, he is fundementally unfit for life. He can only exist because other men are fit to live. He is a parasite dependent on the efforts of productive men and has no capicity to leven exist on his own, let alone, truly live. That's a hard pill to swallow, even for a seasoned evader.

So to some up, it is not in your longterm rational self interest to steal because the result is only poor self-esteem and a gang rape or two.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is a practical not a moral argument.

On what basis do you think the practical and the moral are somehow different and at odds with each other?

If something is not practical, on what basis would you consider it to be moral (assuming, of course, a rational code of morality which is based on reality for the purpose of living on this earth)?

Lying and stealing are immoral precisely because they are impractical - i.e. engaging in such behavior puts one in an adversarial relationship with reality.

I can't read your mind - but it seems to me that you are equating morality with some form of intrinsicism.

Exactly what is it, in your view, that would constitute acceptable proof that something is moral? Some sort of sacred text or dogma? As you well know, that does not exist. Are you asking people to prove that one has an intrinsic duty to not lie and not steal? Well, they can't - because there is no such duty. Are you asking people to prove that lying and stealing are, in and of themselves, intrinsically wrong in all instances whatsoever without regard to context? Well, nobody here will even attempt to prove such a thing because only a religious approach to ethics would demand a proof based on such a standard.

Lying is dangerous because it is often difficult for people to keep up the charade. But there are all sorts of situations in which lying or deceit seems perfectly moral. For example, an undercover cop posing as a 10-year-old girl on the internet trying to catch child molesters. Or a spy in an enemy country trying to get information to help his nation defend itself.
Yes! Exactly!

What you said is completely true and correct.

And what you point out poses a dilemma ONLY if one accepts a religious approach to ethics as one's standard. And the fact that you made such an argument in the first place suggests to me that, while you may not consider yourself to be religious, you have, nevertheless, accepted some of the basic premises to the religious approach to ethics and that forms the basis of that which you equate with "morality."

To an Objectivist, what you point out above is NOT a dilemma at all because, rather an an intrinsicist/dogmatic approach to morality, the Objectivist approach is contextual.

Objectivism regards it as immoral to engage in deception for very specific reasons which arise from certain facts of reality - i.e. as the result of a very specific context in reality, it is immoral (and, therefore, impractical) to engage in deceit in order to extract values from other human beings. This context, among many, many other things, presupposes one is dealing with peaceful and civilized human beings. It does NOT presuppose that one is dealing with criminals and thugs - and it does NOT demand that you sit idly by and self-sacrificially allow your enemies to use your honesty and moral character as a means of extracting values from you. One does NOT have a moral obligation to be honest when a bugler asks if there is any additional money hidden away in one's house. An undercover cop does NOT have a moral obligation to refrain from deceit in the example of the child molester because he is not attempting to cheat reality or extract values from an innocent person but, rather attempting to stop a criminal from harming the innocent.

Objectivism regards ethics as conditional. As Dr. Peikoff has put it in OPAR: "Lying is absolutely wrong - under certain conditions." (Italics mine)

What you seem to be demanding is proof that lying is immoral regardless of the context involved - i.e. independently of the facts of reality. Objectivism rejects such an approach as pure dogmatism.

Such activities are fraught with hazards, but that hardly makes them immoral.

The examples you gave of the undercover cop and the spy, far from being immoral, they are examples of profoundly moral behavior - and the people who engage in such activity are heroes. Yes, such people are engaged in lying and deceit. But, in this particular context, such behavior is warranted and necessary - and it is a context that is entirely different than the one assumed by the principle that lying and deceit are immoral.

If I were to kill you with a gun, that would be murder. If, however, you were coming at me with a knife, it would be self defense. If I were a soldier on the front and you were an enemy invader, even if you were the decent person you are and were merely unwillingly drafted into the army of a dictatorship under threat of harm to your loved ones, my killing you might be sad and tragic, but I would be justified in doing it and it would not be murder.

All three situations are examples of very different contexts - and the fact that these contexts exist does NOT, in any way, invalidate the basic principle that it is profoudly immoral to kill other people. The only people who would say otherwise are intrinsicists ( for example, the radical pacifists who would regard the killing in all three examples as equally immoral) and the relativists who would basically say that the three examples prove that morality is merely a matter of arbitrary perspective and opinion and that which is true for one person may not be true for another.

Objectivism regards morality and principles as absolutes. But it also regards morality and principles as conditional. They are absolute within the context of those conditions.

Vladimir - I have mentioned this before in previous discussions we have had elsewhere: before one can properly understand the Objectivist approach to ethics, it is VERY necessary to have an adequate understanding of Objectivist epistemology - most specifically, what Objectivism has to say with regard to the intrinsic verses the subjective verses the objective approach towards issues. These things are very interconnected. Most non-Objectivists regard morality as being either intrinsicist/dogmatic (for example, the religious approach) or subjective/relativist. Sadly, it not uncommon even for people who are enthusiastic students of Objectivism to sometimes buy into these same false premises - the obnoxious dogmatic rationalists that one sometimes encounters are an obvious and extreme example of those who still cling to an intrinsicist approach.

Objectivism offers a very different alternative to the standard intrinsicist verses subjectivist, moral verses practical dichotomies - an approach that is quite different than anything you have probably been exposed to in your college philosophy classes. If you wish to understand what the Objectivist position on ethics actually is then my strong suggestion is to read the relevant sections in OPAR which address what Objectivism calls contextual absolutism - and when I have a bit more time, I can certainly recommend specific page numbers if you are interested.

Edited by Dismuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't dispute that theft in a general sense harms all those with property. My point is that the marginal cost of one additional thief on each individual is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable.

That's because you, like the common thief, are only thinking in the short term. Rational self-interest is typically not well served by such short term thinking. Note that I don't mean to equate you per se to a common thief, but rather your thought process with respect to the effect that "one more thief" has on any given individual (including himself) in the area where he steals. Think slippery slope, because that is exactly what happens. I refer you back to my good neighborhood / bad neighborhood example. As your "one more thief" multiplies, the one thief increases the likelihood that he himself will be a victim of initiated force. You are denying a reality that is associated with your "one more thief" example.

I think that it's also important to note that, at least in America, the more a neighborhood declines, the more people are FORCED to be more collectivist in nature in order to survive, not live as men, but merely survive. In other words, individuals do not fare well at all in bad neighborhoods. That is a significant reason why so many kids join gangs; they DEPEND on other people to watch their back, it becomes a necessity. The ultimate example of this is the ultimate "bad neighborhood", prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but I am not sure how this is applicable here. The problem with the decision whether or not to steal isn't a choice between principle and no principle, but rather between competing principles. A thief can live by principle just the same as any other person, the only difference is that their fundemental goals, assumptions and methods will differ. I can easily put forward an internally consistant principle which a thief could use to live his life.

A thief can only live on principle IF there are others around from whom he can steal. His principle will not help him live on a desert island or in a society where others are more powerful than he is. Producers can live ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances. The thief can only get away with operating by his principle SOME of the time--he relies on producing when he can't manage to steal. How is he to know when to steal and when to produce? By reason? But by choosing to mix two opposed principles, he has jettisoned reason; he has allowed the unknowable into his universe and he is helpless before it.

He lives his life by one principle while depending on others enacting another principle (production) to enable him to live, yet his moral principles declare that production is unprincipled--thus that it is, in fact, immoral. Moral people do not depend on the principles of their antithesis in order to produce. He is a filthy little hypocrit that depends on the thing he condemns to support him.

Evil is not, nor does it seek to be, consistent; it CAN'T be consistent and still function. A liar does not consistently tell falsehoods about everything: he DEPENDS upon telling the truth MOST of the time to enable him to get away with his lies. A murderer doesn't consistently kill EVERYONE that he meets, a thief doesn't scrupulously steal everything that he finds.

In a "competition" between a principle that ALWAYS works and one that only works occasionally and in highly dependant situations, the principle that works, wins. Something is only moral if it is practical, and I've demonstrated that acting on the principle of production is practical, while acting on the PRINCIPLE of theft is NOT. THAT is your moral argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I am so interested in finding a good moral argument against stealing which is based on self-interest instead of collectivism.

Objectivists think that induction, as against deduction, is the main means of knowledge. i.e. They will not start with "self interest" and give an iron clad deductive argument, if that is what you are looking for. Rather they will look at reality, at the successful and unsuccessful people, and induce the principle that crime does not pay that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Is Lying, Stealing And The Initiation Of Force Wrong?

Every individual human being, no matter where or who he is, has a certain unique position in life. Some are in better positions than others; some may be multi millionaires with big mansions, and may have a great job that they love with a beautiful wife and lots of great friends, and live in a free country with other good rational people. This person, if you look at his situation holistically (that is, taking EVERYTHING into account, his life, society, and world he lives in) is in a great position. And even if this person weren’t rich but was born dirt poor, BUT lived in a free country with the ability to accomplish all his dreams, he would still be in a good position.

At the other end of the spectrum, let’s say somebody who may be dirt poor; lives in a slave state, with no chance of him or and nobody he lives with has a chance of rising up. This person is in a terrible position.

The point I’m trying to get to is that, everybody has a unique position in life. And when you look at a persons position in life you have to look at EVERYTHING, the entire context; the car he drives, what he believes in, the food he eats, the country he lives in, the people he lives with (and their position also), the politicians who run his country, the social system he’s under, the company he works for, the countries he lives near, etc. And I think it’s clear, that striving to improve your position in life is in your self-interests, and degrading your position is against your interest.

Now, here are my questions, in what way can you, or this man himself, degrade his position in life? And in what way can you degrade your own position in life?

The Broken Window Fallacy

I think its important to keep the broken window fallacy in mind, I’m sure most of you have heard it.

If not, here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

The site I linked to says something very interesting that drives my whole point about looking at your particular situation holistically.

” The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered the positive benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the hidden costs to the shopkeeper and others. He was forced to spend his money on a new window, and therefore could not have spent it on something else. Perhaps he was going to buy bread, benefitting the baker, who would then have bought shoes, etc., but instead he was forced to buy a window. Instead of a window and bread, he had only a window. Or perhaps he would have bought a new shirt, benefitting the tailor; in that case the glazier's gain was the tailor's loss, and again the shopkeeper has only a window instead of a window and a shirt. The child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by the value of one window.”

The child not only made the town poorer, he also made himself poorer by breaking the window; this is because he is better off to live in a town with that window than without that window, even if itsnot his own window.

But the broken window only explains why you shouldn’t brake windows even if you don’t get caught, it doesn’t answer why stealing, even if you don’t, get caught is wrong.

Reductio Ad Claritatem on Stealing

Let’s say there are two people on a desert island, person A and person B. Person B finds an apple on the ground (remember, he doesn’t produce it, he just finds it). And person A wants the apple, so person A steals it from person B.

If you look at the situation holistically you can see that nothing has changed except who is in possession of the apple. The situation on the whole hasn’t been degraded (materially). But if you look at the situation from the perspective of person B, he is worse of now, because he doesn’t have an apple anymore and A is better off because he does have an apple. So why is stealing wrong again?

Now we will change everything.

Let’s say there are two people on a desert island, person A and person B. Person B is a producer, and through the use of his rational faculties he discovers a way to produce apples on his own. With this knowledge and skill he becomes a self-sustaining individual able to survive on his own; person B has improved his situation, and this is clearly in his interests.

Now, person A sees this, and he steals person B’s apples.

Lets look at this situation from person A’s perspective, he has improved his situation because he has stolen B’s apples and has something to eat…for now. So at least in the short term, he has improved his situation (but this is not a net improvement, as I will explain later).

Now lets look at person B’s situation, he lost apples for now but he still has the knowledge and skill to produce more apples for himself. So he may have lost some apples but his loss was small and only momentary. He is still an independent and self-sustaintinging individual that doesn’t need anybody else to survive and he can still produce his own apples, but person A is totally dependent on person B.

Now lets look at the situation holistically, when person A took the apples from person B he was degrading his situation because he was also attacking the source of values (person B the producer). Even though person B was hurt only a little, it is still hurt him, because the products of his own mind are what he uses to sustain his own life. If you take that away from him how will he survive, and if he dies how will person A survive when the producer of apples is gone? Remember he is dependent on person B!

Person A may have improved his situation momentarily but he degraded his situation in a more fundamental way by stealing sustenance from person B. So how is stealing in your interest again?

You can apply this to murder also, how do you gain from killing people? How can killing sources of values be in your interests? How could it possibly improve your situation even if you never get caught?

Does this mean that killing the unproductive should be allowed? Do you now have the right to go down the street and shoot the useless old homeless man lying on the ground? Again, even if you never get caught.

No, it doesn’t.

Lets say, for example, you are at a friend’s house and you are all alone. You see a big shinny window and you realize that you could break that window and nobody would ever suspect you of doing it. Why shouldn’t you break it?

A better question to ask is, WHY should you break it? Answer: There is no answer, because there is no reason to do it. If you did, it would just be breaking it for the sake of breaking it, destruction for the sake of destruction. Same thing applies to the useless homeless man, just because he’s unproductive and useless doesn’t mean you should kill him, there is no reason to kill him, he’s a nothing. Doing it would mean killing for the sake of killing, it would just be a waste of time.

Now you may tell yourself, ok youre right stealing, killing and lying does degrade your situation, but in many cases its only a little.Why shouldnt I kill and steal if its only a little against my interests?

My answer is, if you admit that it degrades your situation in life only a little, why would you WANT to degrade your situaion only a little? Why would you want to make your life worse EVEN if its only by alittle. Again, there is no reason to. It would only be destruction for the sake of destruction, destruction of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been said here, but I would like to re-emphasize: it is not possible to gain self-esteem by theft.

He lives his life by one principle while depending on others enacting another principle (production) to enable him to live, yet his moral principles declare that production is unprincipled--thus that it is, in fact, immoral. Moral people do not depend on the principles of their antithesis in order to produce. He is a filthy little hypocrit that depends on the thing he condemns to support him.

When you live by stealing the fruits of the labor of others, you become a second-hander. Sure, you might avoid the grave by this method (although it is a highly impractical means of doing so), but at the end of the day, what is your wealth? Where is the sense that you have earned it? You can never achieve self-esteem by this method.

That's okay, you say, as you only intend to live by theft some of the time; only when the chance to "get away with it" presents itself. So you want to have your self-esteem and eat it, too? Do you think this will work?

This is called evasion, and you're willing to gamble your self-esteem on the premise that if you try hard enough, you can wish the fact of your theft out of existence.

You know that wealth must be produced, but you have discarded this fact. You must stifle it. To the extent that you live as a thief, you discard what you know to be man's sole means of survival - reason. Even if you employ reason in the course of your theft, you discard it in deciding that theft is good. And if you know that theft is not good, but evade that and seek short-term gain, then you make the facts your enemy in that way.

With all of these evasions and all of these contradictions, how can you think that this is an efficacious way to live? How can you submit your consciousness to such brutal mistreatment, and still think that it will be there to serve you in your times of need?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying and stealing are immoral precisely because they are impractical - i.e. engaging in such behavior puts one in an adversarial relationship with reality.

I still don't understand how theft puts one in an "adversarial relationship with reality."

Exactly what is it, in your view, that would constitute acceptable proof that something is moral?

An explanation of how a given activity is related to the fundemental principles of some ethical system. Since we are talking about Objectivism, I am looking for an explanation of how theft is against one's self-interest in some way beyond its obvious material risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thief can only live on principle IF there are others around from whom he can steal. His principle will not help him live on a desert island or in a society where others are more powerful than he is. Producers can live ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances. The thief can only get away with operating by his principle SOME of the time--he relies on producing when he can't manage to steal. How is he to know when to steal and when to produce? By reason? But by choosing to mix two opposed principles, he has jettisoned reason; he has allowed the unknowable into his universe and he is helpless before it.

The "desert island" idea I think is far too simplistic. For example, can a salesman live alone on a desert island because of his productive capacity? Can an entertainer? Can a lawyer? Just like thieves, the productive jobs I just mentioned all require people, goods or society to exist before they are of any use to anybody, including the person possessing the skills. If a salesman is stuck alone on a desert island, he isn't going to try to survive based on selling nothing to nobody. He will simply use reason, other skills, physical effort, etc. to try to survive. There is no reason to think that a thief cannot do this. A thief, stranded on a desert island is not going to say "Oh no! Life is unknowable and since I cannot steal from anybody, I have no idea what to do! Reason has forsaken me and I shall sit on the beach until I die of hunger!"

He lives his life by one principle while depending on others enacting another principle (production) to enable him to live, yet his moral principles declare that production is unprincipled--thus that it is, in fact, immoral. Moral people do not depend on the principles of their antithesis in order to produce. He is a filthy little hypocrit that depends on the thing he condemns to support him.

The only reason such a conflict seems to exists is because you have defined the principles too broadly. Being a thief doesn't mean that you hold all production is unprincipled and immoral. It is not a contradiction to apply one standard to yourself and another to other people.

My answer is, if you admit that it degrades your situation in life only a little, why would you WANT to degrade your situaion only a little? Why would you want to make your life worse EVEN if its only by alittle. Again, there is no reason to. It would only be destruction for the sake of destruction, destruction of yourself.

Because you are including only the cost into your calculation and neglecting to include the benefit. Stealing may degrade the situations of many individuals (including yourself), as the monetary costs of the theft are spread over a wide number of people. But in a society of any size, these costs will be so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. Whereas the benefit of the theft accrues entirely to you. As I said above in my Best Buy example. If you steal $100,000, your situation is not worsened to the amount of $100,000 due to the cost of the theft on society. It will be reduced a fraction of a cent, if that, leaving you the net benefit of $99,999.9999

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are including only the cost into your calculation and neglecting to include the benefit.

Then I don’t think you understand what holistic means. Like I explained in my post, you have to take everything into account.

Your response is the equivalent of a drug user who’s argument for using drugs is "well sure it can kill you but you’re only including the cost in your calculation and you neglected to include the great feelings the drug gives me."

My whole argument is that, sure there is a benefit to having a million dollars but the benefit is outweighed by the cost it imposes against the producers and the owners of the property. And in whole, when you take everything into account (including the benefit of the money) you are degrading your own situation.

Just like it wouldn’t be in your interest to engage in stealing on a mass scale, by starting a dictatorship and putting all property under your control. If you did this, the high position of your entire society would fall. You’d be rich but you’d be the richest man of a poor backward country.

Who would you rather be, a "poor" person in America? Or a rich man in the dark ages?

When you choose to steal, even on a small scale, you are taking a step towards the dark ages. If you know who is responcible for the wealth and success of your society why would you choose to attack them?

Are the people who have had it better than anyone else in the whole history of the world, Joseph Stalin and all the dictators in the world that have ever lived?

If that is the case, would you rather be born as Stalin(since he is better off with all his power) or into an average middle class familly?

Stealing may degrade the situations of many individuals (including yourself), as the monetary costs of the theft are spread over a wide number of people. But in a society of any size, these costs will be so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. Whereas the benefit of the theft accrues entirely to you. As I said above in my Best Buy example. If you steal $100,000, your situation is not worsened to the amount of $100,000 due to the cost of the theft on society. It will be reduced a fraction of a cent, if that, leaving you the net benefit of $99,999.9999

So you admit that you ARE degrading your situation and that its against your self interest. So whats your argument? The level of degradation is irrelavent, any choice to do somehting that is against yourself interest is destruction for the sake of destruction, there is no reason for it NO MATTER HOW SMALL.

There is no reason to steal. I gain nothing from stealing Thomas Edisons, Bill Gates, or the average Joe's property. I am better off with them keeping their own property and letting them produce all the wonderful things they are responsible for. Where would we be without them? I am better off by joining in, and being productive myself to improve my own position in life. We all benefit and together we all move forward together and all gain values in the process.

Edited by Al Kufr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An explanation of how a given activity is related to the fundemental principles of some ethical system. Since we are talking about Objectivism, I am looking for an explanation of how theft is against one's self-interest in some way beyond its obvious material risks.

That explanation requires an understanding of what Objectivism regards as actually being in one's self interest and what is required for his long term success and happiness. There is an entire chapter on this in OPAR, so it is not reasonable to expect anyone to provide a full and complete answer in a discussion board forum which assumes a certain level of familiarity with Objectivist literature.

A very short - and not complete - answer would be that Objectivism regards it as necessary for every individual to live by his own independent judgment and by his own effort. Why this is the case is made clear in the Objectivist literature. Theft and any other form of mooching undercuts the very requirements that Objectivism regards as essential to a man's long-term well being and happiness - and, on that basis, it is immoral. It is immoral because such behavior is contrary to one's own rational self-interest.

Also key to understanding this is an understanding of what it is that Objectivism regards as being in one's self interest.

Objectivism does not equate self-interest with whim worship. In other words, in order for to regard an action as being properly selfish, it has to be in one's actual self-interest. Just because one happens to desire something, it does not necessarily follow that the object of that desire is, in fact, in one's self-interest and that the pursuit of it is rationally selfish.

Another thing that is key to understanding this is context. For example, let's say that there is a really cool movie that you desire to watch. Watching the movie in your free time is a good thing in that it provides you with spiritual and aesthetic fuel not to mention fun and entertainment. On this basis, watching that movie is a value in that it enhances your well being and happiness and is, therefore, rationally selfish. But let's say you have an upcoming test that you are simply not prepared for and need every possible available minute to study for it and feel a similar desire to see the movie. In this context, acting on that desire would NOT be rationally selfish - i.e. in your own actual self-interest - because, while you might have a very enjoyable few hours, the subsequent lower grade on your test might have adverse academic and career ramifications that will impact you for decades. So, in this context, acting on that desire to see the movie would be a highly immoral thing for you to do - especially when you can just as easily see the movie once your test is out of the way.

One of the errors in your arguments about the alleged practicality of theft is that they drop context and look only at the range of the immediate issue at hand. When dealing with the issue of how to behave ethically, one must do so long range - i.e. one must recognize that tomorrow does come and keep the context of one's entire life span. Yes - you may "get away" with telling a given lie. Yes - you may "get away" with a given crime. But it is no different than getting through school by cheating on one's tests and hiring someone else to do one's homework and papers - in the end, it catches up with you and you are unable to function in the real world once you graduate because you have ultimately screwed yourself out of an education. To say that academic cheating is in one's self-interest because it produces a desired result of a higher grade on a particular test drops the context of what such actions will ultimately do to you in the long run both in terms of being prepared for a career and in terms of one's own self-esteem because, while you may be able to pull the wool over other people's eyes for a while, YOU will know full well that you are merely a fraud.

Objectivism holds that in order to live a moral - and therefore, practical - life, one must live in a very specific way which upholds certain specific virtues, which Ayn Rand identified as rationality, honesty, independence, integrity, justice, productiveness, and pride. The validity of these virtues is explained in detail in the Objectivist literature. If one is to practice these virtues, one must do so as a matter or principle - and doing this at all times is sometimes hard. To practice the virtue of honesty, you must actually be honest on principle. A person who lies only on very rare occasion is not an honest person - he is a liar. To practice the virtues of independence and productiveness requires that one live one's life in a certain manner as a matter of principle. A person who steals only on those rare occasions when he feels like it is not an independent person - he is a parasite.

I have only once in my life ever been tempted to shoplift. I took some time off from work to do a major project at my house and I was running behind. I discovered that, in order to finish up, I needed a bolt of a certain size. Time was short and I ended up having to make my third 10 minute each way trek for the day to Home Depot - which was very frustrating. When I got there, I located the bolt which was priced at 10 cents. The store was massively understaffed with only one checkout line open. The line was very long and some person in the front of the line was disputing the price of a cart full of lumber thereby holding it up. It occurred to me that all I had to do was walk down an empty aisle, reach for my keys or something and nobody at all would see me drop the half inch bolt into my pocket - and they sure as heck did not put any sort of electronic security device on a ten cent bolt. I cannot tell you how tempting it was for me to do simply walk out without paying for that bolt. Home Depot would not miss 10 cents - heck, it would cost more than that in labor for them to merely run my purchase up. Stealing the bolt would have saved me the desperately needed half hour I ended up spending in line. Why did I not simply do it? Because I sure as heck think more of myself than to sell out and become a shoplifter for the grand sum of 10 cents. Sure, that was not very practical in terms of my time management for that particular day. But I can sit here and, in all honesty say I have never shoplifted. If I were not able to do so - well, let's just say my opinion of myself would be rather different.

Your arguments about the practicality of theft drop the context of the long range dedication to certain principles which is necessary if a person is to live a successful and happy life. They are also based on a premise that equates the pursuit of desires (whims) with self-interest as opposed to actions that actually are in one's rational self-interest. Such arguments only look at the benefits of the immediate moment - i.e. they take the perspective of the whim worshipping drifter who lives his life by range of the moment expediency and ultimately never gets anywhere.

Again, all of the issues you are bringing up here are covered in great detail in OPAR - and, as someone pointed out, in it Dr. Peikoff discusses at great length Ayn Rand's views on why lying and theft is highly impractical.

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...