The Prudent Predator argument

[Gary Brenner]

RationalBiker wrote:

This is precisely why you aren’t getting it. You want to take out the part that shoots down your position and saying it’s non-sequitur. It is fulfillment and enjoyment of life (along with those things that are required in achieveing that) that separate it from the concept of staying on earth for the longest possible duration and simple doing all that helps one “avoid the morgue”. You are selectively taking one piece out of a huge body of work and ignoring the rest in order to try to make your point. It’s not working.

I’m not likely to become entangled in this thread as there are people more eloquent than I pointing out where you misunderstand things. However, I think once you understand the difference between (mere) “existence” and “life qua man”, you may be on the road to understanding better.

It is a non-sequitur because it does not follow from the premise. Rand’s ethics is based on the idea that “your life is your purpose.” She does not say, “a fulfilling and enjoyable life is your purpose.”

[RationalBiker]

It is a non-sequitur because it does not follow from the premise. Rand’s ethics is based on the idea that “your life is your purpose.” She does not say, “a fulfilling and enjoyable life is your purpose.”

As I said, this is precisely where you just aren't "getting it".

[RationalBiker]

Since you refer to Galt's speech, let's look at more of it (in fact the part just above the one you quoted so I'm not sure how you missed it);

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice: he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. "Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason."

[Marc K.]

Which proves that in order to resolve this dispute you have to resort to ethical argument that has nothing to do with this fundamental alternative.

I have porposed

1) A test for what it is to exist

Your test is invalid. It fails to identify the majority of entities who face the fundamental alternative.

[Freddy]

The fundamental alternative is an "ante" in my mind. That is it does not place a bet, but it creates the conditions under which a bet has any sort of validity. It say's "I'm in." or "I'm out." What "in" means comes next.

If you look at my last post to Inspector you can see why I believe this to be problematic. I've outlined the two approches and showed why only the approach where the fundematal alterantive implies a goal is going to get you any content into your ethics. I happen to not sympathize with this content, but at least the argument is easy to understand. The second approch where the fundamental alternative is rephrased as "either to exists as a man or not" will not resolve anything, because when you have a dispute with someone who don't share your values they will of course claim that there values are in according with what it is to live as a man. So I don't see why this starting point in ethics provide you anything to help you work out the ethics.

[Inspector]

If I utter the word I i refer to myself and have a lot of proporties and capacities and abilities. What we are interested in is what we ought to to.

And you can't get there without acknowledging what you are. You can't understand the fundamental choice without acknowledging the full scope of the entity making it.

You have claimed that there is a fundamental alterntaive of either existing as a man or not existing as man. I summarized the main problem here:

More specifically, the fundamental choice is: existing as a rational man or a suicidal animal*. (suicidal because it is suicidal to abandon reason; animal because a man without reason is merely an animal) This isn't an arbitrary assertion, such as the premise of duty to altruism; it is an identification of the fact of how man survives.

*Thanks, RationalBiker, that quote was eminently relevant.

when you have a dispute with someone who don't share your values they will of course claim that there values are in according with what it is to live as a man.

This is assuming that such a dispute cannot be resolved by examination of the fact of what man actually is. I am curious as to why you think altruists and such can't simply be proven wrong in their assertions on this topic.

[Freddy]

Your test is invalid. It fails to identify the majority of entities who face the fundamental alternative.

Look at it as a filter instead. I filter out a subset of all existents, and I use this subset to make my argument. The main point is that you cannot deny that the persons filtered out do exist.

[Freddy]

More specifically, the fundamental choice is: existing as a rational man or a suicidal animal*. (suicidal because it is suicidal to abandon reason; animal because a man without reason is merely an animal) This isn't an arbitrary assertion, such as the premise of duty to altruism; it is an identification of the fact of how man survives.

And it isn't an arbitrary assertion either that A) Most people survive longer than Ayn Rand, falling far short of converging towards your ideal 2) It's possible to extend your survival at someone elses expense using your brain. This discussion is all about why your claim above is not enough to get you where you want. In my last post to you I outlined two approaches to Rands argument. Your statement above is fully consistent with the first approach where existence is to pass my test, the goal is to remain in existence and being rational (using the brain) is a useful tool to this end.

This is assuming that such a dispute cannot be resolved by examination of the fact of what man actually is. I am curious as to why you think altruists and such can't simply be proven wrong in their assertions on this topic.

Natural end ethics (and altrusim as well as survival can be viewed as an natural ends) has been around for more than 2000 years, without any resolution. Rands contribution was supposed to bring something new to the table, and that is to relate the nature of man to the end of survival, but you don't accept that and therefore have to resort to the same startingpoint as Rands predecessors: to assert that there is something about man that determines what he ought to do. This is a rather uncontroversial claim, but when go down the path of working out an ethics with this starting point you will find out why the matters is not resolved.

[Inspector]

And it isn't an arbitrary assertion either that A) Most people survive longer than Ayn Rand, falling far short of converging towards your ideal

First, no that is not true. Most people live in third world pestholes and die young. Second, survive? What part of them survives? The physical body?

2) It's possible to extend your survival at someone elses expense using your brain.

And at the expense of other things you're not taking into account...

Natural end ethics (and altrusim as well as survival can be viewed as an natural ends) has been around for more than 2000 years, without any resolution.

...because reason was not held as the necessary tool for answering them.

I'm going to try and bow out here. It doesn't seem we're on a close enough wavelength to communicate.

[blackdiamond]

Look at it as a filter instead. I filter out a subset of all existents, and I use this subset to make my argument. The main point is that you cannot deny that the persons filtered out do exist.

Freddy,

Your existence test is invalid, as someone (Marc?) has already told you, particularly in the way you are using it for your argument. Firstly, by your test, all animals do not exist because they can't ask if they exist. And by your own test of absurdity, one can say "that animal does not exist because it can't ask if it exists." Even if, as you now claim, your test does filter out some things that DO exist, the fact that there are things not filtered out by it that do exist makes it a useless test for EXISTENCE. To define the test in such a way that existing men make it is through the filter is, according to you, to rig the test, because you already have in mind what men should be able to do. You might as well have said the test for a man's existence is if he is a man ("person"), which, "gives no information."

But even if we grant that your test is only for existing men as opposed to non-existing men, then all insane people who can't ask that question do not exist. Which means that if your friend asks you how your uncle Joe is doing, you can rightly answer "he does not exist" because uncle Joe went crazy last month and he is unable to ask any intelligent (and intelligible) questions. Again, this is what you yourself called an absurd conclusion (since we know Uncle Joe exists), so it still fails your own validity test.

The only way you can attempt to escape your own absurdity is to say that your test only applies to certain kinds of men (not insane ones). But this then makes your "test" for existence very similar to our "existence qua man" since you are now forced to separate, not just humans from other existents, but even some kinds of humans from others. Your existence test therefore does not make your argument, which means you still have not presented a valid argument.

Do you have enough honour to concede a point without just being dismissive - as you did to MarcK and others here - when you have to? Or are you (essentially or actually) Mr. Gary Brenner?

Have you honestly failed to see that virtues can objectively be derived from the fundamental alternative as applied in ethics (qua man) by looking at the *actual* nature of man (rather than what anyone, altruist or others, arbitrarily calls "man" without connecting it to man's scientifically proveable nature)? Or do you believe that if we scientifically study the nature of man, we can't tell whether the facts will support the altruist's claims about man's nature or the Objectivist's claims about the same, so that either (or neither) can validly say that his code of ethics is derived from the nature of man "qua man"?

[Freddy]

But even if we grant that your test is only for existing men as opposed to non-existing men, then all insane people who can't ask that question do not exist. Which means that if your friend asks you how your uncle Joe is doing, you can rightly answer "he does not exist" because uncle Joe went crazy last month and he is unable to ask any intelligent (and intelligible) questions. Again, this is what you yourself called an absurd conclusion (since we know Uncle Joe exists), so it still fails your own validity test.

My test only says that if you pass it, then you exist. I dosn't say that if you don't pass it you don't exist. But that's all I need to make my point. Even if the test is only filtering out a subset of all existing persons, I can use this subset to show that the fundamental alternative won't get you the conclusion you want unless you deny that the persons passing the test do exist.

Have you honestly failed to see that virtues can objectively be derived from the fundamental alternative as applied in ethics (qua man) by looking at the *actual* nature of man (rather than what anyone, altruist or others, arbitrarily calls "man" without connecting it to man's scientifically proveable nature)? Or do you believe that if we scientifically study the nature of man, we can't tell whether the facts will support the altruist's claims about man's nature or the Objectivist's claims about the same, so that either (or neither) can validly say that his code of ethics is derived from the nature of man "qua man"?

Yes I have honestly missed this. Can you propose a scientific test for whether a person is living according to his nature or not?

[KendallJ]

If you look at my last post to Inspector you can see why I believe this to be problematic. I've outlined the two approches and showed why only the approach where the fundematal alterantive implies a goal is going to get you any content into your ethics. I happen to not sympathize with this content, but at least the argument is easy to understand. The second approch where the fundamental alternative is rephrased as "either to exists as a man or not" will not resolve anything, because when you have a dispute with someone who don't share your values they will of course claim that there values are in according with what it is to live as a man. So I don't see why this starting point in ethics provide you anything to help you work out the ethics.

I see. You want a "litmus" test. Red for living as a man, blue for not living as a man?

Yet, the goals are contextual, given particular circumstances, and a particular purpose (your life).

I would submit that you've simply generalized the fundamental alternative and its "implied" goals to give you the easiest litmus test. What basis do you have for that? FOr thinking that now that we have a litmus test we can proceed with ethics, but not if we don't? Also I'd again refer you to a passage from Tara Smith's book.

Edited March 28, 2007 by KendallJ

[Freddy]

I would submit that you've simply generalized the fundamental alternative and its "implied" goals to give you the easiest litmus test. What basis do you have for that?

The reason is quite simple. I have a test and if a person passes the test then you are forced by the very meaning of the concepts involved to acknowledge that this person exist, otherwise you have to concede absurdities. The next step is to read what the fundamental alternative says: Existence or non-existence. That's all I do.

[blackdiamond]

Yes I have honestly missed this. Can you propose a scientific test for whether a person is living according to his nature or not?

Where did i suggest such a test?

[Freddy]

Where did i suggest such a test?

I thought it was implied.

[...]by looking at the *actual* nature of man (rather than what anyone, altruist or others, arbitrarily calls "man" without connecting it to man's scientifically proveable nature)? Or do you believe that if we scientifically study the nature of man[...]

[KendallJ]

The reason is quite simple. I have a test and if a person passes the test then you are forced by the very meaning of the concepts involved to acknowledge that this person exist, otherwise you have to concede absurdities. The next step is to read what the fundamental alternative says: Existence or non-existence. That's all I do.

Yes, got that.

a. what does it mean in reality?

b. and how do you assert that you cannot start ethical analysis without it?

[Freddy]

a. what does it mean in reality?

It means that if you accept that existence or non-existence is a fundamental alternative, then you will have to accept conclusions you don't want.

b. and how do you assert that you cannot start ethical analysis without it?

I don't. My own outlook is something akin to intuitionism and that doesn't stop me from ethical analysis. I concede that ethics is very tricky.

[KendallJ]

It means that if you accept that existence or non-existence is a fundamental alternative, then you will have to accept conclusions you don't want.

Can you give me an example? Or maybe you already gave one. I assume that the "have to" refers to Objectivism. What in the fundamental alternative creates the "want" in "don't want."

[Gary Brenner]

RationalBiker wrote:

Since you refer to Galt’s speech, let’s look at more of it (in fact the part just above the one you quoted so I’m not sure how you missed it);

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice: he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice.

“A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. “Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man\'s Life is its standard of value.

“All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

“Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason.”

Very well. According to Galt/Rand, man’s nature offers him the alternative of “rational being or suicidal animal.” Note, there is no third choice. So either you are a rational being or you are a suicidal animal. A common definition of “suicide” is “the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself.”

This makes it very easy for us to determine whether or not an individual is a rational being. If that individual has not intentionally killed himself, i.e. if he is alive, then he must be a rational being, as seen in step one above. Note, there is no third choice.

So of the thousands of bureaucrats the IRS employs to loot the productive class, we must assume that all of them are rational beings – unless the IRS hires dead people.

[Inspector]

This makes it very easy for us to determine whether or not an individual is a rational being. If that individual has not intentionally killed himself, i.e. if he is alive, then he must be a rational being, as seen in step one above.

Nope. I can find you a man we could both agree is both suicidal and alive. See, it's "suicidal," not "suicided."

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

Nope. I can find you a man we could both agree is both suicidal and alive. See, it\'s \"suicidal,\" not \"suicided.\"

Find him.

[Inspector]

Find him.

Here:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=10...p;id=1147072003

[Freddy]

Can you give me an example? Or maybe you already gave one.

There are lots of examples in this thread. For example, if you could extend your existence at the expense of someone else, that would be moral.

I assume that the "have to" refers to Objectivism.

I would suppose it refers to most people.

What in the fundamental alternative creates the "want" in "don't want.

It clashes with your basic intuitions, or as you might put it, your nature.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Freddy

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

Here:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=10...p;id=1147072003

Do we know for certain that Mr. Smith is still suicidal? Is he at this moment straining against the straps holding him to his hospital bed, hoping to jump out the window? The story is dated Friday, 17 Oct 2003. Much can happen in three and a half years.

But no matter, we can revise the standard if you wish. Following Rand/Galt, all individuals who are not currently attempting suicide are rational beings. That would include the vast majority of government leaders and the heads of criminal organizations.

[Inspector]

This makes it very easy for us to determine whether or not an individual is a rational being. If that individual has not intentionally killed himself, i.e. if he is alive, then he must be a rational being, as seen in step one above.

Retract this statement.

Do we know for certain that Mr. Smith is still suicidal?

It doesn't matter. He was suicidal at the time and not dead. Therefore you were wrong.