Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Prudent Predator argument

Rate this topic


Gary Brenner

Recommended Posts

The conceptual difference that appears to be slipping through your fingers is that yes, a biological mass that could walk and talk which was named Hitler certainly did exist. But that biological mass did not exist as a man, he existed as an animal. As has been said, the concept "man" exists as an entity of mind and body with a specific nature. Without either, he is not a man.

And the two very obvious problems here are:

1) The fundamental alternative doesn't say "existence as a man or not existence as a man" (where man is the Objectivist ethical ideal). If the definition of existence is rigged, why not spell it out explictly? You cannot deny that Hitler existed, you can only deny that he existed as he ought to exist (what you call exist as man), which is a roundabout way to say that you deny that he was moral.

2) The fundamental alternative in this rigged incarnation is absolutely pointless. You have the alternative "either to exist as man ought to exist or not to exist as man ought to exist". But then you have to already know how man ought to exist to even understand what the initial premise means, that is you have to know the conclsuion before you can understand the premise that the conclusions are derived from. If that isn't the perfect embodiment of warped logic then I don't know what is. So where does the conclusions how man ought to live come from? They certainly cannot come from an argument having anything to do with the fundamental alternative, since the very meaning of this alternative isn't defined until the ethics is defined.

Edited by Freddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You admit yourself, Hitler did not exist.

I didn't do anything of the sort. As RationalBiker said:

The conceptual difference that appears to be slipping through your fingers is that yes, a biological mass that could walk and talk which was named Hitler certainly did exist. But that biological mass did not exist as a man, he existed as an animal. As has been said, the concept "man" exists as an entity of mind and body with a specific nature. Without either, he is not a man.

Yes, a biological mass that could walk and talk which was named Hitler certainly did exist. But no man, in the sense rational animal, existed. Only an irrational, and therefore suicidal animal existed. And that is what you pragmatists don't get: no matter how lucky any freak example of "suicidal animal" gets, they are all still suicidal, given the nature of what man is.

1) The fundamental alternative doesn't say "existence as a man or not existence as a man" (where man is the Objectivist ethical ideal).

The fundamental alternative does say: "existence as a rational man or existence as a suicidal animal," given the nature of what man is.

So where does the conclusions how man ought to live come from?

The rest of the Objectivist argument, which you are ignoring.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the two very obvious problems here are:

Not really, but I'll take one more shot because this still holds entertainment value for me.

As Inspector points out, you are trying to make distinction that isn't there. When Ayn Rand said, "existence vs. non-existence" she was of course referring to "qua man". Chipmunks and other animals do not need philosophy so she was not writing in that context. That you have failed to recognize the context isn't necessarily reflective of her inability to be clear.

If that isn't the perfect embodiment of warped logic then I don't know what is.

Well then, you said it yourself, you don't know what is.

Nothing about there being a proper way to live as man ought to live requires that a human know what that is in advance. The existence of his senses and rational faculty afford him the opportunity to figure this out that as he goes about living life. In fact, it is the existence of these senses and capacity for rational thought that prove life must be figured out because the logical extension of your misunderstanding is to assert that man should have pre-programmed knowledge of how he ought to live, or "instincts", in which case he would have NO NEED for a rational faculty.

[Edit - Tense Correction - RB]

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about there being a proper way to live as man ought to live requires that a human know what that is in advance. The existence of his senses and rational faculty afford him the opportunity to figure this out that as he goes about living life. In fact, it is the existence of these senses and capacity for rational thought that prove life must be figured out because the logical extension of your misunderstanding is to assert that man should have pre-programmed knowledge of how he ought to live, or "instincts", in which case he would have NO NEED for a rational faculty.

You have missunderstood me. Given the goal to live as long as possible we still need our brains to figure out how to do this, and this will also require an investigations into our nature. The logically consistent interpretaion of Rands argument is that the fundemental alternative gives us the goal to secure our existence (literally), and then we use our brains to carry out the implications, some of which are so patently absurd that I can understand why no one wants to be logically consitent with the meta-ethical argument.

You on the other hand admit that the meta-ethical argument really is pointless, adding nothing to the ethical derivations. Ethics is "figured out" by processing the data from the senses you say. Well, exactly how is it figured out. That is the unanswered question. If you had a clear goal like survival it would be very easy to understand how to derive the ethics, but when your goal is to live as man ought to live then it's not easy from that startingpoint to figure out how we ought to live.

Yes, a biological mass that could walk and talk which was named Hitler certainly did exist. But no man, in the sense rational animal, existed. Only an irrational, and therefore suicidal animal existed. And that is what you pragmatists don't get: no matter how lucky any freak example of "suicidal animal" gets, they are all still suicidal, given the nature of what man is.

I have to remind you again that most people (in the western world) outperform Ayn Rand when it comes to survival, and they are certainly not suicidal in any literal sense of that word. Your use of many seemingly factual claims seems to be dressed up value judgements, not saying anything objectively testable about the person other than that you happen not to sympathize with his way of life. When you say that a person is dying, crippled and is going to be destroyed by reality, we would expect this to show up somehow and the best way would be to ask a doctor whether the person really was dying and crippled, but that dosn't seem to be a method you would accept. When you say "a looter destroys his mind" this is also something that we would expect to be testable. Does the looter lower his IQ, is he going to be insane and so forth? But no such methods are given and there is a suspicion that you don't actually possess such methods.

What is really missing in this debate is your secret method for determing what man really is (and what he therefore really ought to do). From Rands argument the most logically consitent interpretation is that the investigation of what man is should be made in relation to his the natural goal of staying alive (taken literally), and this can be done objectively in a rather ordinary scientific manner but won't give you the conclusion you want. So I'm still at loss at what method is actually used, and no one seem interested in giving any hints either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the goal to live as long as possible

But this isn't the goal as has been pointed out before. This certainly suggests that you have done very little reading of Objectivist literature and have probably been cherry-picking quotes here and there to try to make your argument. I'm not going to be you substitute librarian or researcher.

The problem here is that you aren't debating against Objectivism's meta-ethical argument but some perversion of it, something that I believe has also been pointed out before. I think the only reason you continue to get away with mis-representing it is because you are in the Debate sub-forum.

You on the other hand admit that the meta-ethical argument really is pointless

You will stop attributing to me admissions that I have not made. What I "admit" is that you have mis-represented the philosophy of Objectivism and from that flawed start you are arguing against things that it does not represent. Do not put your misunderstandings on me.

If you had a clear goal like survival it would be very easy to understand how to derive the ethics, but when your goal is to live as man ought to live then it's not easy from that startingpoint to figure out how we ought to live.

So the fact that having to figure out the right way to live isn't always easy makes the meta-ethical argument wrong???? I guess it might be better if we could just "google" all of our dilemnas.

As I had intended only one more stab at this for you by means of my last post, this was just a "bonus" response. You can reply if you like, but don't expect a response.

Best of luck to you figuring it out though if you think the "right" answer is going always going to be the easy answer. Sorry, but life isn't like an iPod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to remind you again that most people (in the western world) outperform Ayn Rand when it comes to survival, and they are certainly not suicidal in any literal sense of that word. Your use of many seemingly factual claims seems to be dressed up value judgements, not saying anything objectively testable about the person other than that you happen not to sympathize with his way of life. When you say that a person is dying, crippled and is going to be destroyed by reality, we would expect this to show up somehow and the best way would be to ask a doctor whether the person really was dying and crippled, but that dosn't seem to be a method you would accept. When you say "a looter destroys his mind" this is also something that we would expect to be testable. Does the looter lower his IQ, is he going to be insane and so forth? But no such methods are given and there is a suspicion that you don't actually possess such methods.

What is really missing in this debate is your secret method for determing what man really is (and what he therefore really ought to do). From Rands argument the most logically consitent interpretation is that the investigation of what man is should be made in relation to his the natural goal of staying alive (taken literally), and this can be done objectively in a rather ordinary scientific manner but won't give you the conclusion you want. So I'm still at loss at what method is actually used, and no one seem interested in giving any hints either.

Once again, you have correctly honed in on the meat of the issue. I will give you that.

The disconnect we're having is that we on the Objectivist side have accept a number of previous epistemological premises, mostly involving principles and their necessity for a conceptual being.

The case that you are looking for is contained within the Objectivist texts. The reason you aren't getting any traction is that it is huge - too big for a forum. If it could have been done simply, then OPAR would not have been the length that it is, or the order that it is. Each chapter requires acceptance of the previous, and the meta-ethical argument and bridge to ethics isn't until halfway through the book. That should tell you something.

The truth is, Freddy, that you have so grossly misunderstood and misstated the question that a presentation of the answer would require a complete, ground-up presentation of Objectivism in its entirety, down to every last detail. By asking us to simply give this to you, you are basically asking us to chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring.

No; it can't be done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this isn't the goal as has been pointed out before.

I use it as a foil to contrast the sloagan "man qua man", and if existence is taken literally then it certainly would be the logical implication. If you have a clear goal the ordinary scientific method do apply in the quest for finding out effective means, so if you could prove the validity of the goal the conclusions (means) would be objective. When you start to introduce vague slogans matters change drastically. As an analogy, If I say "reality dictates that the nature of man is only consonant with having pink as a rational preference for favourite colour", can you make sense of that? It just bogus, someone trying to dress up thier personal bias in objective language would use such phrases, and when asked for further clarifications they would reduce the phrase to more pointless slogans, none of which could ever be tested against reality in an objective manner, and this process would go on forever. No offense, but this is what I claim you do in your derivation of the ethics, you never touch the ground.

You will stop attributing to me admissions that I have not made. What I "admit" is that you have mis-represented the philosophy of Objectivism and from that flawed start you are arguing against things that it does not represent. Do not put your misunderstandings on me.

Sorry, I will try yo be more careful. Bu tell me, what is the point of the meta ethical argument? What does it provide you for your further ethical derivations? It's a simple fact that if you reduce the fundamental alternative to "either to exist as man ought to exist or not exist as man ought to exist", then it cannot be used to derive the ethics, because it says in a roundabout way that there is an alternative of either being moral or not. Well, how does that tell us what is moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exaltron wrote:

No one is saying there is a “natural right” to anything, but neither do we assume that rights don’t exist until our “fellow man” recognizes them. As I said before, if your right depends on the consent of your fellow man (and doesn’t exist without it), then it is in fact a permission, not a right. The legal right may require laws and a government, but as I’m sure you’re aware, our government is expressly charged with securing our rights (not granting them), that is, our moral rights, which exist independently of any government to formally recognize them.

So if X says that he has the right to the land south of the mountain, east of canyon, north of the river and west of the desert, how is Y supposed to know this “right” exists independently of any sort of legal grant or common consent?

Perhaps you disagree that we cannot fully exercise our rational capacity without rights and freedom?

I agree that it is important that when X, Y and Z form a society that they each recognize the liberties and limits of individual actions by codifying a set of rights. But of what use is it to say that X has a right that neither Y nor Z recognize? You might as well say he has a god that the other two don’t recognize.

No, and I don’t think it is within the scope of ethics to be a “silver bullet” that guarantees that no one will ever run astray. The point of ethics is to derive a universal code of conduct that applies equally to all men. That is why if you advocate a “society” or a code of ethics that values honesty, integrity and production, you will end up with wealth and prosperity. If you advocate the opposite, you will end up with the opposite.

No disagreement with having a code of conduct that applies equally to all in society. However, the question this thread deals with is whether a respect for the property of others can be derived entirely from the principle of acting on one’s self-interest.

I think the problem is you see a dichotomy between what is good for “society” and what is good for a given individual, where ethically, there is no difference. When you get into personal preferences, that’s where the context of a given individual may come into play. There is almost nothing at that level that you can argue won’t benefit someone to some extent, and that is precisely why it is outside of the realm of ethics, because ethics is only concerned with the universals, what applies in the general case.

In that case, we cannot necessarily derive an unwavering respect for the property of others based on the premise that one’s life is the standard of one’s values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disconnect we're having is that we on the Objectivist side have accept a number of previous epistemological premises, mostly involving principles and their necessity for a conceptual being.

As a simple test, assume for a second that life span maximization really was the goal. Now, would you agree that there could be a tension between the individual optimum and the global optimum, that is, that there would be circumstances where a man rationally would expect to extend his survival by rights violation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use it as a foil to contrast the sloagan "man qua man", and if existence is taken literally then it certainly would be the logical implication. If you have a clear goal the ordinary scientific method do apply in the quest for finding out effective means, so if you could prove the validity of the goal the conclusions (means) would be objective. When you start to introduce vague slogans matters change drastically.

And your alternative to these supposed vague slogans is to proclaim that the nature of man dictates that he try to live as long as possible? Why? From what facts do you derive your conclusion that man's goal should be to keep his heart beating as long as possible?

If I say "reality dictates that the nature of man is only consonant with having pink as a rational preference for favourite colour", can you make sense of that?

If you were to offer a sound argument in support of that, sure. But really, you're just analogizing with a straw man here. The existence of some things as rationally being open to preference does not preclude the existence of other things as not rationally being open to preference.

My favorite food can be granola bars, and yours crackers, and we're both rationally okay. Both function well as food by providing nourishment. Whichever you like more doesn't matter. If we were to try to subsist exclusively on those foods, of course that would be a bad idea, but that goes to the quality of one's overall dietary structure, not the rationality of one's tastes.

Conversely, my favorite pastime could be doing crosswords, and yours hitting yourself in the eye with a quarterstaff, and we're not both rationally okay. My pastime is a safe activity providing an entertaining rest from work. Yours is an activity providing blindness. Now, hitting yourself in the eye with a quarterstaff could seemingly be "rational" if one's chosen goal was vision loss or impaling oneself with medieval weaponry. But then the means fails to be rational because the end, the goal itself, is not rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if X says that he has the right to the land south of the mountain, east of canyon, north of the river and west of the desert, how is Y supposed to know this “right” exists independently of any sort of legal grant or common consent?

You fail to distinguish between existence and recognition. X has the right to whatever he has the right to regardless of whether it is legally recognized. To claim that a right exists only when it is recognized is to claim the legal equivalent of the primacy of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your alternative to these supposed vague slogans is to proclaim that the nature of man dictates that he try to live as long as possible? Why?

Because I have made the premoral chioce to live as long as possible, a position that cannot be rationally defended because it is premoral and therefore not itself subject to a standard, thus this choice is totally subjective. But if you don't choose to live as long as possible then the only option left is death, suicide, vacuum, nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generalizations about “Man” should be consistent with the men who live and breathe in the world around us. If we are told that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter, we may well ask if that applies to all looters. If the answer is “yes,” then there is nothing improper about introducing counter-examples into the discussion. If the answer is “no,” then we are left to wonder precisely what is the rational self-interest argument against looting?

Hm, the common sense method hasn’t worked. Devil’s advocate method hasn’t worked. Let’s try some story telling:

Mum: Listen, Baby. You must always wash your hands after using the toilet, okay?

James: Why, mum?

Mum: Because germs kill, James. But washing hands removes them from your hands.

James: But mum –

Mum: James, this is an important principle for you to remember. It is called being hygienic. It’s not just washing your hands, it’s also bathing, keeping your surroundings clean, and so on. Your health is very important, because your life is very important. Always be hygienic. Never forget that principle.

Son: But mum…I know my friend Peter doesn’t wash his hands after using the toilet and he is not dead; his life is not destroyed. In fact, uncle Chris never ever took out his garbage and his house was always smelling very bad because his toilet was always, always dirty. But he lived longer than many people I know. So, your principle is obviously wrong because it is only for some people, not Peter and not uncle Chris. If your principle is about “men”, then these two men should have died as well, no?

Mr. Brenner, would you say your argument is quite the same as the one given by the smart boy in the short "story" above? Do you believe that by simply pointing at “men” who were not “destroyed” you have proved that Ayn Rand’s principle about looting and destruction was wrong? Is the mother of the boy wrong in saying that unhygienic behavior is destructive (and therefore wrong) – given your LIFE as your standard of value?

Now listen. Your predictable response is “all I am saying is that you have not proved that theft is wrong.” Let's grant that. But I just want to know if you understand that your method of finding an exception is NOT disproof of the principle in question; in short, i want to reduce the noise level in this debate.

Even if you argue that your counter-examples are meant to show that the principle does not apply to ALL MEN, you must see how this is ridiculous, as shown by the last part of the little conversation above. There are men who have not died despite maintaining very unhygienic habits; does this prove that THE PRINCIPLE of hygiene does not apply to ALL men? Are you sure you understand the meaning, function and formation of PRINCIPLES? Would you allow your son to get away with the above nonsense as an argument against the principle of hygiene?

[Also: I do not believe you understood Exaltron’s point above on capitalism; I’m glad he saw what I was trying to tell you, but I’m disappointed that you haven’t got it. You are making Inspector look more and more right about you, unfortunately, mr. Brenner].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I have made the premoral chioce to live as long as possible, a position that cannot be rationally defended because it is premoral and therefore not itself subject to a standard, thus this choice is totally subjective. But if you don't choose to live as long as possible then the only option left is death, suicide, vacuum, nothing.

1. If you choose to live, you must live as something, ie, man (according to your nature as a volitional, rational being) or animal (against that nature). To the extent that you live in accordance with that nature you are morally good.

2. If you choose to live, you must choose to live as long as possible, regardless of the state of your existence, your happiness or misery. As long as you have a heartbeat and can mouth the words "I exist", and/or complete a moderately hard Soduko puzzle, you are alive; Ethics has nothing to say about the type of life you are living.

Does one of these sound just slightly more logical than the other? Or are they both just completely arbitrary to you?

The only pre-moral choice is the choice to live or die. If you choose to die, then morality is not for you. Morality by its very nature only applies to people who want to live. It cannot apply to people who do not wish to live. If you think that is arbitrary, please explain why.

Once you have chosen to live, the question of how to live is certainly within the scope of morality. If morality can't tell you why should choose 80 years as a rational, free, fulfilled human being over 120 years as a mindless animal, what the hell good is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groovenstein wrote:

You fail to distinguish between existence and recognition. X has the right to whatever he has the right to regardless of whether it is legally recognized. To claim that a right exists only when it is recognized is to claim the legal equivalent of the primacy of consciousness.

But how does anyone, including X, know precisely what he has a right to? What is the objective evidence for his “right” to a particular parcel of property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blackdiamond wrote:

Hm, the common sense method hasn’t worked. Devil’s advocate method hasn’t worked. Let’s try some story telling:

Mum: Listen, Baby. You must always wash your hands after using the toilet, okay?

James: Why, mum?

Mum: Because germs kill, James. But washing hands removes them from your hands.

James: But mum –

Mum: James, this is an important principle for you to remember. It is called being hygienic. It’s not just washing your hands, it’s also bathing, keeping your surroundings clean, and so on. Your health is very important, because your life is very important. Always be hygienic. Never forget that principle.

Son: But mum…I know my friend Peter doesn’t wash his hands after using the toilet and he is not dead; his life is not destroyed. In fact, uncle Chris never ever took out his garbage and his house was always smelling very bad because his toilet was always, always dirty. But he lived longer than many people I know. So, your principle is obviously wrong because it is only for some people, not Peter and not uncle Chris. If your principle is about “men”, then these two men should have died as well, no?

Mr. Brenner, would you say your argument is quite the same as the one given by the smart boy in the short \"story\" above? Do you believe that by simply pointing at “men” who were not “destroyed” you have proved that Ayn Rand’s principle about looting and destruction was wrong?

Is the mother of the boy wrong in saying that unhygienic behavior is destructive (and therefore wrong) – given your LIFE as your standard of value?

What a delightful story! Unfortunately, it bears no relationship to the case of the prudent predator. The boy with dirty hands has nothing to gain by not washing them (unless large cash prizes are awarded for filthy fingers), whereas the prudent predator can earn a comfortable livelihood by stealing from others in certain circumstances. Note, too, that unless one examines one\'s hands under a microscope one has no knowledge at all about whether pathogenic mircro-organisms are present. On the other hand, a predator can case his victim, weigh the risks against his own strengths and make an intelligent decision about whether to go ahead with the theft.

Furthermore, if destruction-avoidance is a high priority for Objectivism, where are the Objectivist criticisms of coal miners, racecar drivers, soldiers, and American spies in Iran? Surely those jobs tempt destruction far more than, say, tax collecting.

Now listen. Your predictable response is “all I am saying is that you have not proved that theft is wrong.” Let’s grant that. But I just want to know if you understand that your method of finding an exception is NOT disproof of the principle in question; in short, i want to reduce the noise level in this debate.

I’ve answered this before. If in saying that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter, Ayn Rand meant all looters, then we need only one non-destroyed looter to prove her wrong. If Rand meant many or most looters, then we are left to wonder just what is the case against prudent looting given the premise that a man’s life is the standard of his values and selfishness is a virtue?

Even if you argue that your counter-examples are meant to show that the principle does not apply to ALL MEN, you must see how this is ridiculous, as shown by the last part of the little conversation above. There are men who have not died despite maintaining very unhygienic habits; does this prove that THE PRINCIPLE of hygiene does not apply to ALL men?

It is irrational to take unnecessary risks (not washing one’s hands) when there is little or no reward as a counter-balance. Additionally, it is irrational to undertake a job with good rewards but extreme peril (standing on a beginner’s archery range with an apple on one’s head). If three out of four or even one out of 20 tax collectors were shot by their victims, we could make an excellent case against participating in that form of looting. But my searches have not been able to yield one example of such an event in the recent or distant American past.

Are you sure you understand the meaning, function and formation of PRINCIPLES? Would you allow your son to get away with the above nonsense as an argument against the principle of hygiene?

Yes. No.

[Also: I do not believe you understood Exaltron’s point above on capitalism; I’m glad he saw what I was trying to tell you, but I’m disappointed that you haven’t got it. You are making Inspector look more and more right about you, unfortunately, mr. Brenner].

I am disappointed that you didn’t get my response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how does anyone, including X, know precisely what he has a right to? What is the objective evidence for his “right” to a particular parcel of property?

I don't understand the purpose of these questions to the point I originally made.

As to your first question, are you suggesting that X must know of a right in order to have it?

As to your second question, are you asking that I provide to you a complete explanation of property rights? I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to do that. If you are genuinely interested in comprehensive discussion of property rights, I know of an article by Professor Mossoff which I believe is called "An Integrated Theory of Property". Or do you mean to imply, by way of what I have heard called the fallacy of the gray area, that such evidence does not exist or does not suffice?

As to either question, is there another purpose I have not listed, and if so, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in saying that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter, Ayn Rand meant all looters, then we need only one non-destroyed looter to prove her wrong.

And before we do that, we need to have a good idea of what she meant by "destruction". What do you think she meant, and what evidence do you have to offer in support of your interpretation?

In fact, I think this discussion should not continue until an adequate interpretation of Rand's use of the word "destruction" in the passage quoted in the thread's first post is provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groovenstein wrote:

I don’t understand the purpose of these questions to the point I originally made.

Let’s recap:

I gave an example of a man, X, claiming a “right” to a certain parcel of land. I asked how Y is supposed to know this “right” exists independently of any sort of legal grant or common consent?

You, wrote, “You fail to distinguish between existence and recognition. X has the right to whatever he has the right to regardless of whether it is legally recognized. To claim that a right exists only when it is recognized is to.”

I responded, “But how does anyone, including X, know precisely what he has a right to? What is the objective evidence for his ‘right’ to a particular parcel of property?”

As to your first question, are you suggesting that X must know of a right in order to have it?

No. I am suggesting that in order for anyone to know if X or anyone else has rights, the existence of such rights must be established by objective evidence. We would demand no less of those who proclaim the existence of a god.

As to your second question, are you asking that I provide to you a complete explanation of property rights?

Not if you do not wish to. However, in this discussion I am not going to take “rights,” in the sense of entitlements independent of man-made agreements, as a given. The existence of these “natural” or “independent” rights has yet to be proven.

I have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to do that. If you are genuinely interested in comprehensive discussion of property rights, I know of an article by Professor Mossoff which I believe is called “An Integrated Theory of Property”. Or do you mean to imply, by way of what I have heard called the fallacy of the gray area, that such evidence does not exist or does not suffice?

I will attempt to find Mossoff’s article. In the meantime, I’m going dispute any claims to rights outside those specified in statutes and contracts.

As to either question, is there another purpose I have not listed, and if so, what?

The “so what” can be found in my response to Exaltron’s claim to “rights” in Post #581 (“Which is why we claim an ethical right to incarcerate or shoot them.”):

“Please show how ‘rights’ are derived from Rand’s premise that an organism’s life is its standard of values.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Groovenstein wrote:

And before we do that, we need to have a good idea of what she meant by “destruction”. What do you think she meant, and what evidence do you have to offer in support of your interpretation?

In fact, I think this discussion should not continue until an adequate interpretation of Rand’s use of the word “destruction” in the passage quoted in the thread\'s first post is provided.

See my Post #1 in this thread. I quoted Rand from “The Objectivist Ethics”:

“Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.” (The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 25-26)

Thus from the context, I would assume that Rand meant that the looter would experience the same kind of destruction he visited upon his victim: loss of life, property or freedom (the very things that Rand is making a case for protecting). I rather doubt that Rand would suddenly and without a hint shift the meaning of the word “destruction” within the same sentence.

However, I have several times made the offer to entertain the case for the non-physical destruction of the looter.

That’s my interpretation. Let’s hear yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “so what” can be found in my response to Exaltron’s claim to “rights” in Post #581 (“Which is why we claim an ethical right to incarcerate or shoot them.”):

Please note that I did not say "so what." My question was as follows: "As to either question, is there another purpose I have not listed, and if so, what?" There is a comma between so and what. I will rephrase the question.

"As to either question, is there another purpose I have not listed, and if there is, what is it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If you choose to live, you must live as something, ie, man (according to your nature as a volitional, rational being) or animal (against that nature). To the extent that you live in accordance with that nature you are morally good.

2. If you choose to live, you must choose to live as long as possible, regardless of the state of your existence, your happiness or misery. As long as you have a heartbeat and can mouth the words "I exist", and/or complete a moderately hard Soduko puzzle, you are alive; Ethics has nothing to say about the type of life you are living.

Does one of these sound just slightly more logical than the other? Or are they both just completely arbitrary to you?

Don't you see the difference between 1 and 2? First, observe that "To the extent that you live in accordance with that nature you are morally good" is a tautology", it cannot be denied because it is two ways to express the same thougt, if you have an opinion about how man ought to behave then that is a statment about his nature. And furthermore, if you are alive you will have to be alive as something specific, that is also a tautology. Thus, translated, the first statement sasy "if you wish to be alive, then you can either be moral or immoral". Nothing substantial is communicated (except that you are only subjected to morality if you do not wish to commit suicide, but I won't pursue that any further here).

Now, if you look at number 2 a substantial claim is made, that is, what it is to be moral, a clear goal is stated, and it is because we can rationally understand the implications that we can disagree with it. Thus 2 can be subjected to rational scrutiny while 1 is just fluff.

The difference between 1 and 2 lies at the heart of the debate, there is a massive failure to communicate something substantial in terms of methods or criterias that can be used to determine the case at hand. When substantial statements of type 2 is asked for, type 1 fluff is provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a delightful story! Unfortunately, it bears no relationship to the case of the prudent predator. The boy with dirty hands has nothing to gain by not washing them (unless large cash prizes are awarded for filthy fingers), whereas the prudent predator can earn a comfortable livelihood by stealing from others in certain circumstances.

I am not completely sure whether i am right (in assessing Mr. Brenner's problem) or Inspector is right. Inspector says the main problem is that Brenner is concrete-bound, whereas I think he is just dishonest. This is complex because it seems to me that Brenner is intentionally concrete-bound, for the sake of evading the argument, by hoping that his opponents won't notice his sophistry. This makes the case for dishonesty.

Observe the discussion I had with him above. I gave him an example of one situation in which one can correctly state a valid principle about self-destructive behaviour even if there are apparent exceptions, i.e. people who did not die or get destroyed, regardless. The example i gave him was the principle of hygiene. The reason we are hygienic is precisely because germs are destructive to our lives (by way of diseases, etc), and a mother can correctly warn his son against bad habits that lead to death (or destruction). Brenner admitted that the argument of pointing out some exceptions is nonsensical with respect to disproving the validity of this principle. Thus, even if we can find people who were not hygienic but still did not die, we have not shown that the *principle* (of hygiene) DOES NOT apply to ALL men.

Instead of simply seeing how this directly relates to Rand's statement, Brenner decides that the example is invalid because it is not about a looter or someone who would gain something else from being unhygienic. But if what i am trying to prove is just ONE point, or one aspect of the discussion: that pointing out some "exceptions" does not disprove the universality of the principle at all, then this example is absolutely sufficient. Had Brenner been consistent, he would have said "even in this case, the fact that the child's uncle did not die shows that the principle is not true for ALL men." But no, he decided to accept that in this case the principle is true even if there are men who have "survived" despite being unhygienic. But he rejected its application to Miss Rand's statement based on an unrelated fact about the boy in my example, which is a fallacy beyond description (he could have as well said "your example involves a boy, Rand's statement was about men, so it's invalid"). There is no way that Brenner doesn't know that his grounds for rejecting the example is senseless - I don't believe a person can be that concrete-bound.

Inspector. I say this is a case of dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observe the discussion I had with him above. I gave him an example of one situation in which one can correctly state a valid principle about self-destructive behaviour even if there are apparent exceptions, i.e. people who did not die or get destroyed, regardless. The example i gave him was the principle of hygiene. The reason we are hygienic is precisely because germs are destructive to our lives (by way of diseases, etc), and a mother can correctly warn his son against bad habits that lead to death (or destruction).

Inspector. I say this is a case of dishonesty.

You are just fooling yourself here. The predator argument is about actions where you expect gains, and whether you expect to gain is dependent on how much information you have. In your example it is usually the case that the available information favours washing your hands, but if you knew the water was poisened you might refrain from washing your hands because the end is not to follow the principle "always wash your hands", the end is to be healthy as you point out. New information can render the principle inapplicable.

The predator argument is about expectations, and expectations is about information. If you had enough information to be sure you could embezzle 1M without getting caught, and you knew that you could turn this money into a benefit for yourself, then if the moral end was to benefit yourself this would be allright. The principle "never violate anyones rights" wouldn't apply, because the extra information in this case would reveal that the principle had an expected suboptimal effect vis a vis the end in comparison with the embezzlement. What you need to show is that no amount of information in the world about a particular state of affairs could make us rationally expect a gain from a rightsviolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackdiamond, allow me to present a counter-point to your case. Not because I think your case unlikely (it is likely), but because I'd like to explore all angles.

Brenner admitted that the argument of pointing out some exceptions is nonsensical with respect to disproving the validity of this principle. Thus, even if we can find people who were not hygienic but still did not die, we have not shown that the *principle* (of hygiene) DOES NOT apply to ALL men.

Ah, but did he admit that? Or did he look at your example in a pragmatic fashion, refusing to see a principle at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...