conflicting self-interests

[mb121]

Objectivism purports that self-interests never collide and that is how we get to the right to life.

My self-interest: keep my money

African children self-interest: food, which can be obtained with my money

Because I'm not giving them money they are dieing. Contradiction?

[softwareNerd]

The reason African children are so poor is that their parents and ancestors have yet to fully discover and implement a society based on rights. A few other places in the world -- China and India -- were that way as well (though not quite so bad), but they saw the light and people are less poor there.

[mb121]

The reason African children are so poor is that their parents and ancestors have yet to fully discover and implement a society based on rights. A few other places in the world -- China and India -- were that way as well (though not quite so bad), but they saw the light and people are less poor there.

Suppose the dillema actually exists. Suppose Africa does respect rights and yet there are still some poor, starving people there.

[DavidOdden]

Objectivism purports that self-interests never collide and that is how we get to the right to life.

I have a practice of asking people who make claims about what Objectivism purports to put their money where their mouth is. So please tell me what fact proves to you that Objectivism purports that self-interests never collide and that is how we get to the right to life.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Suppose the dillema actually exists. Suppose Africa does respect rights and yet there are still some poor, starving people there.

If they had a system that protected individual rights, then some people being poor would be the poor's own fault.

African children self-interest: food, which can be obtained with my money

It isn't in anyone's self interest to steal food from others.

[mb121]

If they had a system that protected individual rights, then some people being poor would be the poor's own fault.

It isn't in anyone's self interest to steal food from others.

Why is it not in my self-interests to steal?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Because its mean.

But seriously, there are whole host of threads about THAT. Just do a search on "Prudent Predator." I am not going to get into it, yet again.

[Mimpy]

I'm assuming when you say your self-interest is "keep my money" that you mean you don't want to donate to charities that help the poverty in Africa. If you valued helping the children in Africa because most of them can't help their conditions (they were basically born into them), then donating some money to them would make sense. Clearly you don't "keep [your] money" all the time...hopefully you spend it on the Internet bill, food, mortgage, etc.

Poor African children want food, that's true...but they have no right to it at your expense. They have a right to live, so they can try to find work to sustain their physical health. But their hunger gives them no mortgage on your food (ie, your money).

No contradiction exists. If the children want food, they have every right to earn it through rational means. You owe them nothing besides staying out of their way.

[mb121]

This was a rashly written post I apologize. I was debating my friend and he made the objection.

I searched a "prudent predator" post and couldn't find one with an adequete answer. This sounds like a common objection yet I can't find a common answer except pointing out that usually prudent predator's will have long-term negatives for their actions. i think this is not the case, however. Has anyone seen Scar Face? Big drug lords living in Columbian manchions with body guards and basically the ability to violate any rights they feel like could potentially live very happy, thriving lives with their own morality that is different from objectivism's. How then, do people's rational self-interests never actually conflict (which is what I meant to say originally)?

Edited April 28, 2007 by mb121

[IAmMetaphysical]

That makes it much easier then as it is never rational to steal. (It follows from that that irrationality is never in one's self interest)

[RationalBiker]

Why is it not in my self-interests to steal?

Which books have you read by Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff so far? Lectures?

I'm not trying to discourage you from asking questions, but it would be a mistake to use this forum to learn about Objectivism versus reading the books. On the surface, this seems a simple question, but there is a whole foundation of things that lead up to the point where one asks "Why is it not in my self-interests to steal?" This may be why a simple answer will not be sufficient for you.

[RationalBiker]

Has anyone seen Scar Face?

Is Scarface a good example of someone who lived a very happy, thriving life?

My self-interest: keep my money

African children self-interest: food, which can be obtained with my money

What right do African children have to your money?

[mb121]

What right do African children have to your money?

If it's in their rational self-interest to have it, then I suppose a great one.

I've read AS twice, Fountainhead almost 3 times, and i'm half way through OPAR. I've read Romantic Manifesto, VOS, Philosophy: who needs it, and bits and peices of her other non-fiction.

What I'm looking for are simple and concise statements to questions like "why is it not in my rational self-interest to steal?" and I can't remember reading one that doesn't involve some long complex "well, do you want to hide it fromothers, do you want to risk going to jail??!!" etc answer. The problem is people don't intuitively buy this in our culture (which steals all of the time on the internet for example through p2p sharing).

[D'kian]

Objectivism purports that self-interests never collide and that is how we get to the right to life.

That's not a claim ever made by Objectivism.

I suppose you're referring to a scene in Galt's Gulch where one character, possibly Galt, says something like "You see, Miss Taggart, there are no conflicts between men who do not seek the unearned."

[ammonius]

What I'm looking for are simple and concise statements to questions like "why is it not in my rational self-interest to steal?" and I can't remember reading one that doesn't involve some long complex "well, do you want to hide it fromothers, do you want to risk going to jail??!!" etc answer. The problem is people don't intuitively buy this in our culture (which steals all of the time on the internet for example through p2p sharing).

It seems to me that it very well may be in the self-interest for someone to steal. Especially if you are in a situation where you only other choice is death, particularly starvation. I can certainly imagine a person behaving quite rationally (in self-interest), given the choice between death and theft, choosing the latter to continue to exist.

To state that 'it is never rational to steal' is to posit, I think, a universal morality in a very Kantian sense. That is, an action is moral if and only if it is rational for everyone to do it all of the time. I think that's one of the reasons Kant's thought is flawed, though in line with of the overall universalization of the rational that is indicicative of much of the Enlightenment.

This is one of the reasons Nietzsche throws out the notion of morality ("Beyond Good and Evil") all together and revives (and modifies) the Spinozistic distinction between morality and ethics. Briefly, for Nietzsche ethics is the practice of living in the world, while morality is understood as the distinction between 'good' and 'bad', that is a matter of taste (or abstract idealism). The rejection of this (universal) morality is Nietzsche's amoralism, which he thinks is necessary for an living ethical life (which is always particular). It may be distasteful to steal given the particular laws, moral or norms, religion, etc. of a community, however it may be ethical to steal in a situation that threatens ones existence in the world, that is for life.

My question is how can one state there it is never ethical to steal without appealing some sort of transendental (or abstract) universal (universal reason, God, etc)?

Edited April 28, 2007 by ammonius

[Spano]

It seems to me that it very well may be in the self-interest for someone to steal. Especially if you are in a situation where you only other choice is death, particularly starvation. I can certainly imagine a person behaving quite rationally (in self-interest), given the choice between death and theft, choosing the latter to continue to exist.

Objectivism is concerned with the whole of reality, not some arbitrary slice of it. Likewise, the Objectivist ethics must be applied within the relevant context that includes all facts that impact a situation. In your example, there is no mention of how one comes to be starving -- it's just put out there, with no grounding to the rest of reality. In modern life, free people don't starve, and feed themselves quite handily without needing to resort to theft.

To state that 'it is never rational to steal' is to posit, I think, a universal morality in a very Kantian sense. That is, an action is moral if and only if it is rational for everyone to do it all of the time.

No, to state that one should never steal is one instance of saying that one ought to act on principle. It is never rational to steal because theft violates the principle of individual rights, and it is always irrational to violate rational principles. In other words, being rational requires being principled. For validation of this, I recommend listening to Peikoff's free lecture on ARI's website.

My question is how can one state there it is never ethical to steal without appealing some sort of transendental (or abstract) universal (universal reason, God, etc)?

Based on the fact that man's existence qua man (achieving values long term) requires that he use reason, and that using reason involves forming principles (recognition of cause and effect), and that theft requires violating principles, which means violating morality, which means violating reason, which means evading the facts of reality.

For more explanation, please see OPAR.

[KendallJ]

What I'm looking for are simple and concise statements to questions like "why is it not in my rational self-interest to steal?" and I can't remember reading one that doesn't involve some long complex "well, do you want to hide it fromothers, do you want to risk going to jail??!!" etc answer. The problem is people don't intuitively buy this in our culture (which steals all of the time on the internet for example through p2p sharing).

Why do you want to deconstruct Objectivism into something that it opponents can intuitively "buy" from a soundbite? Philosophy is not a series of one-liners. If you need a really easy argument that you as a young student of Objectivism can throw at one of your debate opponents and win instantly, then I would question what you really are looking for.

If it were that easy, then all of the books you've read would already contain them and you would simply flip to the page you needed and spit it out. Shoot, Ayn Rand would have presented them all in Atlas Shrugged and everyone who read it would instantly "see the light".

The fascinating thing about philosophy in my mind is that it is so foundational that people can hold contradictions implicitly, that they don't realize are there but which, when extended out into their daily lives create incredible problems. To uncover these issues takes someone who is intellectually honest, a lot of time and commitment. (I know. I've been there.) There is no magic pill. If your opponents don't intuitively get it, it may be that they will need to spend much time reintegrating philosophical principles to even begin to intuitively get it. There is no way around that. The best you can do in that case is use their arguments to try to understand where they went wrong and call it good.

Don't get me wrong. I want you to ask questions. I'm just suggesting that your explicitly stated goal may contain an implicit mis-understanding of how this whole philosophy thing works, and as such there may not be a satisfactory answer.

The prudent predator problem is one that requires much integration, and which specifically needs those who "get it" to have a very explicitly correct understanding of the epistemology importance behind the concept of principles.

Maybe someone can tell me if Peikoff addresses the Prudent predator directly inductively in "Objectivism by Induction". That would be the one place that I would expect to get at something even remotely to what mb is asking for.

That's not a claim ever made by Objectivism.

I suppose you're referring to a scene in Galt's Gulch where one character, possibly Galt, says something like "You see, Miss Taggart, there are no conflicts between men who do not seek the unearned."

I would bet it's a misinterpretation from "Conflicts of Men's Interests" in VOS.

There are no conflicts of interests among rational men.

Edited April 28, 2007 by KendallJ

[aequalsa]

The fascinating thing about philosophy in my mind is that it is so foundational that people can hold contradictions implicitly, that they don't realize are there but which, when extended out into their daily lives create incredible problems.

On that note, it has occurred to me that many of the examples used in prudent predator arguments boil down to what seem to be contradictions, when in reality, they are bastardizations of the principles. If I call honesty a virtue that ought to be practiced, they can bring up the what if a criminal with a gun at your door asks where your children are? argument. Or if I argue against theft, they might say "what if someone steals your cookies and and you have an opportunity to 'steal' them back?" The concepts that honesty and stealing represent get switched without altering the words. It's a clever gimmick.

....Which is ultimately what the thread question seems to be based on. The question in its context really is, "when a group of thugs occupies and rapes a country, and the people in it are pushed to the point of starvation and genocide where they are forced to live range of the moment like animals should they steal food to survive?" In this more fleshed out context it becomes obvious that you(mb) are asking whether someone ought to respect property rights in a place where none are protected. In these circumstances the individual context becomes even more important to flesh out. Who are the steal-ers? Who are they stealing from? How did they come by the goods in the first place? Did they steal a grain shipment from a farmer or are they the farmer themselves? If the victim is the farmer, will he hire the potential honest moral thief in payment for food? Cause that would be more truly in the starving persons best interest. And if he is honest and hardworking, it is probably in the farmers best interest as well.

So, as short as I can get the answer to be, watch for the conceptual bait-and-switch. There will almost always be one.

[ammonius]

Objectivism is concerned with the whole of reality, not some arbitrary slice of it. Likewise, the Objectivist ethics must be applied within the relevant context that includes all facts that impact a situation. In your example, there is no mention of how one comes to be starving -- it's just put out there, with no grounding to the rest of reality. In modern life, free people don't starve, and feed themselves quite handily without needing to resort to theft.

Well if you want a "for example" story, see the one above, it's pretty good. Or, we could also talk about a hypothetical city on a coast that is hit by a devastating hurricane, leaving people without food (or shelter) starving outside of locked (flooded) stores without clerks, free people in the modern world.

No, to state that one should never steal is one instance of saying that one ought to act on principle. It is never rational to steal because theft violates the principle of individual rights, and it is always irrational to violate rational principles. In other words, being rational requires being principled.

What about not acting on the positive right to life? That's the issue here, what if acting to sustain one's (self-interested) right to life violates another's (self-interest) right to property? Also, just in case I misunderstand you, if rights are universal (for everyone, everywhere, all the time) then how do you justify them without recourse to a notion of universal reason (romanticized Nature, God, Mind, Absolute Knowing, etc.)? It sounds a lot like a very slight modification of Kant's Categorical Imperative. It wrong to steal because if everyone did it all the time humanity would destroy itself in contradiction (for the same reason that it is wrong to lie or kill, etc).

For validation of this, I recommend listening to Peikoff's free lecture on ARI's website.

Based on the fact that man's existence qua man (achieving values long term) requires that he use reason, and that using reason involves forming principles (recognition of cause and effect), and that theft requires violating principles, which means violating morality, which means violating reason, which means evading the facts of reality.

That's good, and thanks for the link. Though I don't understand how "man qua man" necessarily has anything to do with value, or if it means something like Man by way of rationality (after all Man, not woman or child, is the Rational Animal for Aristotle) is what constitutes value in Man. Since we have defined Man as the Rational Animal (distinguished from the rest of the Animal kingdom by rationality), the best Man is the most Rational (unlike the other Animals). Is that what that means? As far as recognition of cause and effect, I like that, but is there one recognition of cause and effect, or many? It seems to me that not only do many causes result in particular effects, but that folks have different ways that they express causal relations. We inherit and change these communal notions of cause and effect over time as desire for new effects emerges. But that is about desire or is that what reason is? That seems to me to be what people in the real world act out of, that is desire what they want to do, reason is an after thought and varies from person to person according to their own (self-interested) desire.

As for potential thief and the property holder, if stealing results in the starving man being fed he has fulfilled his own self interest by staying alive; while denying another his right to property (but they still have their life). Would it be moral for the starving to ignore their own self interest and deny themselves their right to life, or should they act in their own self-interest and steal, and stay alive?

Edited April 29, 2007 by ammonius

[RationalBiker]

If it's in their rational self-interest to have it, then I suppose a great one.

Just because they have an interest in it does not imply that they have a right to it. How in the world do you get that from Objectivism?

What I'm looking for are simple and concise statements to questions like "why is it not in my rational self-interest to steal?"

Well you may not get what you want. There may not be simple and concise answers to the questions you ask.

Moderator Note:

Now, if you want to stick to you question about conflicting interests that's fine (as that can be somewhat of a different topic), but if this becomes another "prudent predator" thread it will be closed. When we close threads on this board we don't expect another person just to start a new one on the same topic. You may have to seek elsewhere if you cannot find a satisfactory answer here.

Edited April 29, 2007 by RationalBiker

[John McVey]

Leaving aside the claim about what Objectivism purports (and rightly addressed by David), the scenario your friend is positing is an example of trying to equate the contexts of problems arising in a life-boat situation to that of problems in an ordinary civil society. What you should tell your friend is that his scenario is invalid for its intended purpose, that the reality is that the situation of starving Africans has absolutely no bearing upon normal life in a civilised society, and that the case for rights and the non-clashing of interests is predicated on people living under ordinary physical conditions that would be conducive to productive lives if those rights were respected.

Note that crop failures don't even count for this particular issue any more - maybe a hundred or more years ago, but not today. Australian farmers have been there done that for nigh on 200 years now, and besides large numbers of farmers going bankrupt over the years there has been no mass starvation here. In an age of easy transportation of bulk freight from anywhere to anywhere, famine is now exclusively a matter of social and political causes. Africa fails on the count of a lack of respect for rights both socially and governmentally, as indicated by softwareNerd. If this invalid scenario is used to deny rights and give sanction to the starving Africans stealing, then it will make the problem worse, not better.

In any event, this has been discussed before. See Miss Rand's essay "Ethics of Emergencies," and also this thread (among others, I presume).

JJM