Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Living The Objectvist Ethics..always?

Rate this topic


jinu

Recommended Posts

Objectivism as a philosophy is a guide to living your life, and if one was raised under normal conditions it's the best philosophy to live by. But in those cases where someone starts off in life on the wrong foot, is it not conceivable to only partly follow the philosophy? In a sense create your own version of Objectivism that best appliest to you. It would be the most selfish thing to do because it's what's best for your life, so really it follows the basic tenent of Objectivism that says your life is the only important thing, and that you should take those actions that better your life.

For eg. In "Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand" Peikoff makes it clear that stealing something for yourself isn't really selfish, cause ultimately your damaging yourself...it's unearned and you're not furthering your life for the better...

It's fine for someone to adopt this principal if he's trying to raise the life he's living, and ultimately he would be a "better" person than the next guy who does steal, but what if adopting this principal is counter-productive...like for someone who is living a lower-standard life, a poor person, but who's in a position where he has access to "hot" computers or "hot" automobile parts that he could not afford normally. How is it better for him to sacrifice these things that would clearly improve his life for some greater principal that supposedly betters his life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism as a philosophy is a guide to living your life, and if one was raised under normal conditions it's the best philosophy to live by.  But in those cases where someone starts off in life on the wrong foot, is it not conceivable to only partly follow the philosophy?  In a sense create your own version of Objectivism that best appliest to you.  It would be the most selfish thing to do because it's what's best for your life, so really it follows the basic tenent of Objectivism that says your life is the only important thing, and that you should take those actions that better your life.

For eg.  In "Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand" Peikoff makes it clear that stealing something for yourself isn't really selfish, cause ultimately your damaging yourself...it's unearned and you're not furthering your life for the better...

It's fine for someone to adopt this principal if he's trying to raise the life he's living, and ultimately he would be a "better" person than the next guy who does steal, but what if adopting this principal is counter-productive...like for someone who is living a lower-standard life, a poor person, but who's in a position where he has access to "hot" computers or "hot" automobile parts that he could not afford normally.  How is it better for him to sacrifice these things that would clearly improve his life for some greater principal that supposedly betters his life?

I guess the key to understanding this hinges on what you mean by "supposedly." A sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lower value. If you consider your character to be a lower value than a stolen computer, then whatever philosophy it is that you are practicing is certainly not related to Objectivism.

Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, meaning all parts of the philosophy are tied together by unifying principles. Consequently, you simply cannot take the pieces you want as if you were ordering from a restaurant menu, and go merrily on your way thinking that you are consuming the moral equivalent of a healthy meal.

I do not know what you have read of Objectivism. But, if you have read the novels, then try the non-fiction. If you have read the non-fiction, then try the novels. If you cannot clearly see the answer to your question after doing all that, then I doubt that the answer to your question much matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism as a philosophy is a guide to living your life

In fact, it is a philosophy which emphasises reality. It it applicable "to life", but it is not a philosophy of life: it is a philosophy of existence.

and if one was raised under normal conditions it's the best philosophy to live by.
Actually, it would not matter whether you were raised under normal conditions or "abnormal" conditions. Objectivism is a philosophy that emphasises the primacy of reality. So-called "normalcy" isn't a deterrent to Objectivism -- it applies to existence, not just "average existence", or "the greatest common good".

But in those cases where someone starts off in life on the wrong foot, is it not conceivable to only partly follow the philosophy?

There is no such thing as starting life on the wrong foot. Suppose you have no feet at all -- that's a fact of existence. Objectivism deals with that.

In a sense create your own version of Objectivism that best appliest to you.
No, because Objectisim is a philosophy which takes the nature of reality -- as it actually is -- to be central. Since there is only one reality, there can't be 20 or 100 million "versions" of Objectivism.

However, you need to bear in mind, if you haven't read any Objectivist writings, that "the facts" are not exactly the same for all people. Some people are good artists so it is in their nature to draw nice pictures -- it's not in my nature at all.

but what if adopting this principal is counter-productive...like for someone who is living a lower-standard life, a poor person, but who's in a position where he has access to "hot" computers or "hot" automobile parts that he could not afford normally.

You seem to be implying that living as a thief and a parasite is somehow "better" for a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fine for someone to adopt this principal if he's trying to raise the life he's living, and ultimately he would be a "better" person than the next guy who does steal, but what if adopting this principal is counter-productive...like for someone who is living a lower-standard life, a poor person, but who's in a position where he has access to "hot" computers or "hot" automobile parts that he could not afford normally.  How is it better for him to sacrifice these things that would clearly improve his life for some greater principal that supposedly betters his life?

In fact, they WON'T improve his life and the cost of the consequences, for him, will lead him to conclude that stealing isn't worth it. He will end up sacrificing greater values -- his freedom if he is convicted, his peace of mind until the theft is discovered, all the effort he must expend to keep the theft from being discovered, etc.

As a poor person, he would be better off using his freedom, his mind, and his effort getting an education, learning a trade, starting a business, and doing honest work even if is only driving a cab or shining shoes. The Objectivist virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Independence have helped many poor people become UNpoor enough to BUY computers and a WHOLE car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... like for someone who is living a lower-standard life, a poor person, but who's in a position where he has access to "hot" computers or "hot" automobile parts that he could not afford normally.  How is it better for him to sacrifice these things that would clearly improve his life for some greater principal that supposedly betters his life?

Do you think property rights are of lesser value than a car part?

By purchasing stolen products, you are supporting and encouraging the continued violation of property rights in your society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in those cases where someone starts off in life on the wrong foot, is it not conceivable to only partly follow the philosophy?

A natural consequence of Kant's philosophy is to regard morality as a luxury that only rich people can afford.

Objectivism's morality is supremely practical. Practice any other morality and you will ensure that you do *not* have success.

Or, to put it another way, one day the cops will show up and then you will discover that your former problems weren't so bad compared to your new ones. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, to put it another way, one day the cops will show up and then you will discover that your former problems weren't so bad compared to your new ones.    :)

Here's my question: why is money a value? Once you answer that question, that rest of these confusions take care of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question: why is money a value?  Once you answer that question, that rest of these confusions take care of themselves.

I wouldn't say money is a value qua value at all. I would describe money as a tool for obtaining and keeping values.

Rand described money as a representation of goods that have been produced but have yet to be consumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who practices a morality of sacrifice based on a conscious ethical system, is more of an Objectivist than a person who practices Objectivism on faith. Fortunately, Objectivism is not an esoteric philosophy and can be understood with reason and perception. From reading Romantic literature I have come to understand the importance of integrity in ethics or morality. It is dangerous to follow ethical principles if one does not understand them first hand. In today’s culture, it will take work and courage for a boy to understand that stealing is immoral. But if he refrains from stealing out of some categorical imperative, he will gradually sabotage his own mind. A person who does not own his ethical first principles, will have to refrain from many activities, not because they are immoral but because their status is arbitrary in his/her mind. Stealing, smoking, drugs, lying, promiscuity, may be unethical in fact, but if the person doesn’t know they are, then he is not immoral, just ethically ignorant. However, if the person has the opportunity and ability to understand such issues but has not, then he may be evading: evil.

However, Objectivism is a philosophy accessible to everyone, and because of reason, easier than any mystical system to understand. One needs the right tool, logic, in order to advance successfully and with thrust. I think kids should be taught logic at twelve.

So there is no such thing as be moral “always” without the ethical system being in the mind. It is only with the reference to one’s personal conscious ethics that one can be committed morally—“always”.

Then there’s the issue of the contextual nature of knowledge.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think kids should be taught logic at twelve.

I think it should be earlier. :pimp: I started studying (outside of class) the concept of mathmatical proof's and symbolic logic when I was 10. My brother in law plays logical and mental games with my nephews (7&10) all the time, I think that logic and and an overview of philosphy and religon (in historical terms) should be required courses in high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Logic being started earlier. That would be great. And I’m impressed, Nas, by you and your family. I’ve never learned logic yet but I’ve oriented myself with it. I know it’s crucial. But I do have a good psycho-epistemology and people tend to be impressed by my explanations.

Americo.

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...