The Prudent Predator argument

[Inspector]

A sportscar may be an analogy for the lifestyle you subjectively prefer, and this lifestyle may be coupled with an expected lifespan.

But that's what you've missed: it isn't subjective. Man qua man is objectively how man survives and also objectively how his reasoning mind survives. You take away his reasoning mind and any survival is a pure coincidence. Happiness objectively requires it, not to mention survival, in principle. Even if you can find people alive who aren't living man qua man that doesn't mean a thing; exceptional coincidences don't prove a thing. Especially if you fail to consider the countless millions who try Mao's method and end up dead in a ditch. One lucky villain doesn't prove that villainy is good anymore than one guy becoming a millionaire playing Russian roulette proves that is a good idea. You have to think in principles.

You're also ignoring the vast evidence of history that shows that capitalism lets even the poor of today live better than the richest kings of yore. The principle of property rights is far, far more precious than any amount of loot a man could ever plunder, for its bounty is riches beyond your wildest fantasies of avarice. But to understand that requires thinking in principle, another one of those qua man things we keep pushing. And believe me, thinking in principle is the only way man can survive. Again, suicidal but not-yet-dead coincidences not being valid as evidence against this fact.

If that doesn't do it for you, and you are in fact interested in Objectivism, I do believe that this is actually addressed specifically in OPAR as well as, I think (not sure) in VOR. And from what Kendall says, in Tara Smith's new book, as well.

[Freddy]

But that's what you've missed: it isn't subjective. Man qua man is objectively how man survives and also objectively how his reasoning mind survives. You take away his reasoning mind and any survival is a pure coincidence. Happiness objectively requires it, not to mention survival, in principle. Even if you can find people alive who aren't living man qua man that doesn't mean a thing; exceptional coincidences don't prove a thing.

Most people in the western world live longer than Ayn Rand, and that certainly isn't a coincidens. If you look at reality the issue is quite simple. Survival is easy, most men is alive until they are killed by some terminal illnes over which they have no control. Thus, this survival thing isn't taking you where you want and it should be rather obvious. And if individual survival is the goal that determines good and evil, then a looter extending his existence thanks to his looting is perfectly moral. There is no way around that conclusion.

You're also ignoring the vast evidence of history that shows that capitalism lets even the poor of today live better than the richest kings of yore.

Since your standard of better seems to be longer that might be correct. Would you concede that the most moral political system is the one with the highest lifeexpecatncy? Or do you value things that simply cannot be captured by survival (that is, existence or non-existence)? It seems so.

The principle of property rights is far, far more precious than any amount of loot a man could ever plunder, for its bounty is riches beyond your wildest fantasies of avarice.

If you want to make a utilitarian case for rights that's fine, but then you have to concede that the individual men sometimes ought not to extend thiere survival, because it's bad for society.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Freddy

[blackdiamond]

And again, survival is the goal and survival means continued existence. And you exist if you pass my test.

I'm tired of this. Survival is not the goal. Read my post again and again and again.

And how does that make you a competent survivor? If your goal is to survive and you know you are exhibitng a life style that shortens your lifespan, then you are an incompetent and irrational survivor, which according to your own argument will make you unhappy.

A man who drives a car compared to one who just sits in the house, which one is increasing his chances of death? More deaths have come from driving cars than from sitting on couches (or just walking), so does that mean that driving cars is irrational when you have the option of walking? No. I told you, survival is not the goal. It is survival AT A HIGH LEVEL. Qua man. Or, if it will make you understand this better, QUA GOD. Christ!

Now you are driving at something completely different.What you are saying here is that that man can exhibit different lifestyles with different expected lifespans.

No, i did not say that. I said "except it MIGHT have a shorter lifespan." Or it might not. The lesson is that it does not matter and the reasons for that are very clearly explained, but somehow you derived the opposite lesson. You are just impossible.

A sportscar may be an analogy for the lifestyle you subjectively prefer...

This takes us full circle back to the begining and it shows you are not interested in anything i am saying, and you have no respect for my mind whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When i joined the debate with you, i thought that unlike Brenner, you were interested in actually understanding the principles of Objectivism and not just to argue for the sake of arguing (or to prove some point to someone that you've bet with that there is a logical "gap" in Objectivist ethics and there is no Objectivist who can convince you otherwise).

My analogy was very clear and its context was clearly set. I began by saying "imagine you are a proud owner of a sports car," which means i designated this type of car as your ideal, whatever that might be, for the sake of discussion. The analogy assumes that you accept that not just any lifestlye is ideal for man, which would be the reason why someone would be asking me what is moral and immoral in the first place. With that assumption, I was intending to prove which lifestyle is ideal, by showing, for example, that one that would involve being dependent on others would not be - and objectively so. If you could accept, starting from my premise of you being a proud owner of a sports car, that dependency is not ideal, I would begin to achieve something. But because you are so intent on just arguing, you decided to argue against the boundaries of my analogy itself for no reason.

I asked you if you would like a sports car that moves only by being pulled by other cars, and you ignored this question. I asked you explicitly if you do value independence, and to tell me why, but you ignored this question. I also asked you to tell me why you think societies always want political independence, and again you ignored this question. I could have also asked you why you think slaves should be free, and so on. From this discussion I wanted to demonstrate concretely how the nature of man is determined and how values are derived. But you are not interested in following the hierachy of the discussion and would rather just continue misrepresenting my position.

I have told you that this is not about survival but about COMPETENCE (and I wrote it in higher case in the hope that you would notice the emphasis, but you still missed it), which is what introduces the "qua man" aspect of the survival. You can know that the sports car is more competent to handle the road even if it does not outlive other cars (perhaps due to an accident), whereas the lesser car, which moves slowly due to the very reason that it is less competent to handle the road, or to "survive" the road, can even probably last longer (see me example of a driver and a walker above). The sports car that can only move by being chained to other cars can pass any "existence test" for cars, but it is still not the ideal, thus failing the "existence qua sports car" test, which is more useful to separate the ideal from the non-ideal because it considers certain scientifically determined properties or "values". You have showed no sign that you have taken any of these points into account when responding to my posts.

Unfortunately, you have convinced me that you are just wasting my time, and I will now leave this discussion to make better use of my consciousness.

[Inspector]

Most people in the western world live longer than Ayn Rand, and that certainly isn't a coincidens.

Why do people in the western world live longer? Individual rights. What would cause them to live even longer? Absolute respect for and enforcement of individual rights. What does that mean? No looting.

Survival is easy

You only think it is easy because you live in a vast system that promotes life on a historically unprecedented scale. Yet you wish to chew away at the foundation of that very system and somehow declare this is "rational" and "selfish."

And again, not a word from you on the objective fact that man's sole means of survival is his mind and his mind has objective requirements to function ("qua man"). Yet you would advocate chewing away at that very mind if you thought you might get some short-range "benefit" from it. The point is, if you destroy your mind for the sake of "survival," just how do you intend to go on surviving after that? Exactly what part of "you" would survive? If the me in "me" doesn't survive, I really don't care how long my walking corpse goes on drawing breath. But you do, for some reason. You'd be all for putting the icecream scoop to your cranium if someone offered you a million billion dollars - that is, if you could hire caretakers for the drooling zombie that remained. But only provided that the zombie could be trained to spit the words "I exist," as it defecated all over the floor.

Finally, you totally missed the big point: that man survives by means of principles. Short-range, unprincipled action is not a means of survival. Find me a principled argument for looting and not a range-of-the-moment cost-benefit analysis in an extraordinary, exceptional situation where some lone looter got lucky putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.

Again, if that doesn't do it for you, you might want to check out those books.

[Freddy]

Why do people in the western world live longer? Individual rights.

Ayn Rand lived in the western world. The question stands, why do most people live longer than Ayn Rand?

What would cause them to live even longer? Absolute respect for and enforcement of individual rights. What does that mean? No looting.

On a universal (avarage) level, that might be true (even though it's quite possible that positive rights can be beneficial for some people) on an individual level (the level where Rand starts her argument), not necessarily. You still have to reconcile your universal case with your individual case. And your individual case which rests on the premise of existence or non-existence would morally allow a looter to extend his survival on the expense of others. A clever looter support lawenforcement by the way, knowing full well that the system collaps if everyone were able to loot.

And again, not a word from you on the objective fact that man's sole means of survival is his mind and his mind has objective requirements to function ("qua man"). Yet you would advocate chewing away at that very mind if you thought you might get some short-range "benefit" from it. The point is, if you destroy your mind for the sake of "survival," just how do you intend to go on surviving after that? Exactly what part of "you" would survive?

I still have to point to the fact that most people outperform Rand when it comes to survival. You have reconcile your statements with this fact, either saying that they were more rational than Rand or saying that they did not really survive, in which case you still have to prove that to really survive is to live as you see fit. And you havn't done this. You keep coming back to the argument above all the time, and assuming the words you use have thier normal meanings, that argument isn't supporting your case.

Assume a hacker that makes clever loot and then he buys himself a top rate life time health insurance. Under the premise that you get what you pay for, this might very well contribute to his survival. Does this mean that his brain somehow disappears? I would think not.

You'd be all for putting the icecream scoop to your cranium if someone offered you a million billion dollars - that is, if you could hire caretakers for the drooling zombie that remained. But only provided that the zombie could be trained to spit the words "I exist," as it defecated all over the floor.

I'm not the one commited to the existence or not-existence premise, so it wouldn't be contradictory for me to turn down this offer.

Finally, you totally missed the big point: that man survives by means of principles.

And what are the standard for those principles? Survival. So if a longterm cost benefit analysis shows that commitment to a particular principle in a particlar situation is suboptimal, why ought you follow the principle and not the optimal option? I believe you underestimate the human mind.

[RationalBiker]

I believe you underestimate the human mind.

And I believe you misunderstand the philosophy of Objectivism and the purpose of this forum. This is despite redundant explanations of where your missing the boat. What you are attempting to argue against as Objectivism is not Objectivism. You are arguing against something else.

I would suggest you read the forum rules for the purpose of this forum before posting further.

I'm not sure why this thread survived so long in the general forum area, but I'm moving it to the Debate section where it belongs.

[hunterrose]

And what are the standard for those principles? Survival.

Part of your error is that "survival" is not the standard. Slaves are surviving, brain-dead vegetables are surviving, Castro is surviving...

[Freddy]

Part of your error is that "survival" is not the standard. Slaves are surviving, brain-dead vegetables are surviving, Castro is surviving...

The standard goes back to the fundamental alternative which is existence or non-existence. If you pass the simple test I gave further back in the thread, then you exist. Since this alternative is fundamental it is the final arbiter of good and evil, where the former alternative is supposed to be good. If anything is going to be resolved using this foundation we need a goal implied by the fundamental alternative and then we can measure up our actions in relation to this goal in order to determine their moral status. The obvious goal impled is that since it is good to exist, continued existence is even better. So the goal is basically longevity.

[...]remaining alive is the goal of all values and of all proper action[...]

I know that this isn't really what Objectivist want to say, but the commitment to the words survival, life, death, remaining alive, existence and so forth simply will not imply any other sensible interpretation. If you don't want the conclsuion, why are you using premises and concepts leading to that conlusion then? If you want existence to mean exist as man ought to exist, which is equivalent of being moral, why not use the concepts moral and immoral?

[softwareNerd]

Since this alternative is fundamental it is the final arbiter of good and evil, ...

Not sure what this means. Survival is not a standard of value, so I'm not sure how that would be different from being a "final arbiter".

[Freddy]

Not sure what this means. Survival is not a standard of value, so I'm not sure how that would be different from being a "final arbiter".

The goal is to remain alive, to survive, avoid death, secure your existence and so forth. The standard is a guide to this end. Read the Peikoff qoute. Also, if you have an fundamental alternative of existence and non-existence that has to mean anything. If you have a standard that says that you sometimes ought to promote your existence and sometimes that you ought not to promote your existence, how would you connect this standard to the fundamental alternative? What function does the fundamental alternative serve in the ethical argument?

[Inspector]

I'm not the one commited to the existence or not-existence premise, so it wouldn't be contradictory for me to turn down this offer.

What are you committed to?

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

She tried to socialize medicine. Living under socialized medicine is definitely a way to shorten the time before they bury you in the ground.

People who serve in high government positions are not inconvenienced (or killed) by state-rationed medicine, anymore than they are inconvenienced or made less safe by gun control. They continue to get the very best treatment regardless of what happens to the masses. Stalin, Mao and Castro never had to wait in line to see a doctor. Neither will Mrs. Clinton.

Furthermore, if we hold that the act of “shorten[ing] the time before they bury you in the ground” is suicidal, then we’d have to rule Ayn Rand herself suicidal. She continued to smoke for years after the Surgeon General and most doctors had found smoking to be a cause of fatal diseases.

Mrs. Clinton, not being found to be a suicidal animal, is therefore rational. There is no third alternative in the Rand/Galt dichotomy.

And Gary...

RETRACT THIS STATEMENT.

Done in Post #294:

“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.”

[softwareNerd]

The goal is to remain alive, to survive, avoid death, secure your existence and so forth.

No, that is not the goal. Obviously, staying alive is a starting point and a pre-requisite for action. However, staying alive is not the standard of value. Peter Keating and Roark might both be acting in a way that lets them live to 85, on that FH is silent. So, by your presumed standard of value, we would have to conclude that Rand was depicting them as being equally moral. Edited April 2, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Your premise is that M is someone’s standard of value... and then goes on to prohibit acts that are less likely to obtain M... without showing that said acts are necessarily not going to obtain M? Is this also a “logical gap”?

One should not prohibit the performance of certain acts without first being able to make a logical case that such acts are unlikely to help one attain one’s goals (or, further, that they are deleterious to such goals). For example, if my goal is to live long and prosper, it would make no sense to deny myself the convenience of automobile travel in order to reach my high-paying job, unless there existed a very high death rate among automobile travelers, say, equivalent to Space Shuttle passengers.

No, you would say that X ought not put his life savings into a lottery if there are other methods that are more likely to gain the same amount of money. If X does put everything into the lottery, and wins despite the “immoral” odds, is X immoral for doing what was less likely to work? Or moral for gaining his sought-after value?

If one’s life (and perhaps living well) is the standard of one’s morality, then one would be wise to choose the means most likely to attain such results. If one still realized those goals without paying attention to reason and probability, we could call him foolish, but not immoral.

Suppose we take selfishness to be a virtue and say that a man should not unnecessarily risk his life for the sake of another. At a wildlife attraction a crazed woman throws her infant into a pool of hungry alligators. A man, who is a non-swimmer and has never handled gators before, jumps in, grabs the baby and somehow makes it to shore. Does Objectivism hold that the man is immoral, even though he has survived?

If you don’t agree that firing a gun at one’s own head is destructive, how could I possibly convince you of something that isn’t so obviously destructive like looting when you’re not caught?

Of course I agree that firing a gun at one’s head approaches a near 100% likelihood to produce self-destruction. Now how does that compare to taking a $100 bill from under one’s grandmother’s mattress when she’s out of the house and is too confused to know how much she owns anyway? Or better yet, how does it compare to getting a job at the official agency for looting, the IRS, whose employees have never be sent to prison for doing their jobs?

You misunderstand me. We do look at the nature of the behavior to determine if it is beneficial/self-destructive. We do not look at ancillary factors that have nothing to do with the nature of the behavior in question.

E.g. I can get struck by lightning while tending a farm, but this is not something that must (or ought) be considered in determining whether farming is a beneficial/destructive behavior.

And I can get shot by an irate taxpayers as I toil at my desk in the headquarters of the IRS. But how often do tax collectors get killed (or even injured) by their victims? Is it substantially higher than the number of farmers who get struck by lightning? If you can find a statistic that supports your argument, I’ll look for another analogy.

Such as?

U.S. tax collectors who do not have to worry about violating the principle of the non-initiation of force.

[Seeker]

If you have a standard that says that you sometimes ought to promote your existence and sometimes that you ought not to promote your existence

It doesn't say that.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Seeker

[Seeker]

Let me try to approach the problem this way. All along we have said that the question whether one ought to choose existence is a primary. It is only to living organisms that this alternative exists, and only to man (rational animal) that this choice applies. For man, the question "to exist or not to exist" is the question "to think or not to think" - what Rand referred to as "throwing the switch". If you choose to think, i.e. exist qua man, then you need a moral code. Which is to say that the primary, pre-moral choice extends all the way to choosing to live qua man, i.e. the choice to live qua man cannot be derived ethically. For man, it is inseparable from the choice to live, period. You are free to choose not to think. In that case, ethics has nothing to say to you, and you have no need of an ethical code. But if you choose to think, i.e. live qua man, a code of ethics will be useful to you in surviving qua man.

Now Freddie will say that man has another choice, to live qua looter. Looters think, so they need an ethical code to help them in their looting. But the essence of looting is not reason but force. Force and mind are opposites. Initiating the use of force is destructive of the minds of other men who, in a society free of coercion, would have contributed to the looter's survival by trade. The looter is blindly working against himself and his own survival. Which is to say that survival and looting are actually at odds. Reason is man's basic means of survival. The alternative of living qua looter is the same as the alternative to not exist at all.

Then Freddie will say that plenty of looters survive by looting, and if they chose not to exist, they'd commit suicide. But all that means is that they don't understand the nature of themselves and their actions. The fact that they haven't chosen death consciously does not mean that death isn't the course that they are pursuing. They have chosen death, and just don't realize it.

Freddie will say that some looters live longer than Ayn Rand, so looting works better than thinking. In individual cases that might indeed be true. But the looters had no way of knowing that. They got lucky, but could never say when their luck would run out. Occasionally gambling pays off, but that doesn't make gambling a rational way to seek to earn a living. Leaving one's life to chance is certainly possible, and it works out for some, but that doesn't mean that looting works better than thinking as a general principle.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Seeker

[Moebius]

Freddie will say that some looters live longer than Ayn Rand, so looting works better than thinking. In individual cases that might indeed be true. But the looters had no way of knowing that. They got lucky, but could never say when their luck would run out. Occasionally gambling pays off, but that doesn't make gambling a rational way to seek to earn a living. Leaving one's life to chance is certainly possible, and it works out for some, but that doesn't mean that looting works better than thinking as a general principle.

So to borrow Gary Brenner's example, you're saying all IRS agents just happen to have lived because of some sort of cosmic coincidence?

[Seeker]

So to borrow Gary Brenner's example, you're saying all IRS agents just happen to have lived because of some sort of cosmic coincidence?

I wouldn't single out IRS agents. I'd include everyone who survives by forcibly confiscating the productive work of others. You seem to suggest that stealing can be a rational stragegy for survival. But reread what I said above: "Initiating the use of force is destructive of the minds of other men who, in a society free of coercion, would have contributed to the looter's survival by trade. The looter is blindly working against himself and his own survival. Which is to say that survival and looting are actually at odds."

[Freddy]

If you choose to think, i.e. exist qua man, then you need a moral code.

Think on what? That is the distinction between smartness and rationality that I made way back in the thread. Smartness is a general ability including intelligence and other useful things, while rationality is a proper application of those abilities. If you choose to think, you choose to use your smartness. That's fine, but we also need a focus for this smartness, an application. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all using there smartness to pursue thier goals, they all choose to think. The choice to think dosn't by itself imply anything, you also need something to think on. And that is where existence and non-existence comes in handy. The proper focus of smartness (that is rationality) is to secure your continued survival according to Objectivists. A looter using his smartness to extend his survival is rational, unless it is shown that this is a suboptimal strategy for him.

Freddie will say that some looters live longer than Ayn Rand, so looting works better than thinking.

Not only some looters, but most people in the western world. You have a philosophical system that predicts an early death unless you exhibit an absolute commitment to its tenets, and the person most commited to those tenets is a matter of observation outperfomed by the bulk of people. Your argument that they were just lucky seems a bit hollow.

In individual cases that might indeed be true. But the looters had no way of knowing that. They got lucky, but could never say when their luck would run out. Occasionally gambling pays off, but that doesn't make gambling a rational way to seek to earn a living. Leaving one's life to chance is certainly possible, and it works out for some, but that doesn't mean that looting works better than thinking as a general principle.

You have to make sure that your argument against looting excludes looting only and not activites with which you happen to sympathize. Arguments based on risk are notoriously non-exclusive to looting. And a looter not using his brain is probably not going to have much success.

[Inspector]

I wouldn't single out IRS agents. I'd include everyone who survives by forcibly confiscating the productive work of others. You seem to suggest that stealing can be a rational stragegy for survival. But reread what I said above: "Initiating the use of force is destructive of the minds of other men who, in a society free of coercion, would have contributed to the looter's survival by trade. The looter is blindly working against himself and his own survival. Which is to say that survival and looting are actually at odds."

To expand this, there are vast, almost incalculable benefits that are not happening because of those looters, which they would also have benefited from. By focusing on the relatively easy looking life they have, and ignoring the consequent depression of our economy, technological growth, etc, etc, you're missing a huge part of the picture.

And the example of an IRS agent is even more ridiculous, because their job skills would allow them to have any number of other jobs in a capitalist society where they would be required to work no different or harder.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Inspector

[hunterrose]

Read the Peikoff qoute... The goal is to remain alive, to survive, avoid death, secure your existence and so forth.

So you say. In what context was the quote said?

One should not prohibit the performance of certain acts without first being able to make a logical case that such acts are unlikely to help one attain one’s goals.

If one still realized those goals without paying attention to reason and probability, we could call him foolish, but not immoral.

Then what should one prohibit? I don't think, by your argued case, that anything would be prohibited... which would make ethics (and any question over whether looting is destructive) moot?

A man should not unnecessarily risk his life for the sake of another.

Objectivism wouldn't (and doesn't) say that. A major, major, major, major, major point you're missing is that there is a difference between risking one's life and throwing away one's life. An example would be a man who sees his hated enemy in peril, doesn't want to save him, but decides to do so out of peer pressure... but I suppose you consider acting out of obligation to not necessarily be self-destructive, just as you consider firing a handgun at one's head to be not necessarily be self-destructive?

In answer to the gator example, that man wouldn't be immoral by my standards. In my judgement, whether he survived or not wouldn't make a moral difference.

Of course I agree that firing a gun at one’s head approaches a near 100% likelihood to produce self-destruction. Now how does that compare to taking a $100 bill from under one’s grandmother’s mattress when she’s out of the house and is too confused to know how much she owns anyway?

The primary comparison is that neither act has a 100% likelihood of loss of one's particular goal, and thus neither act (to you?) can be morally prohibited.

And I can get shot by an irate taxpayers as I toil at my desk in the headquarters of the IRS. But how often do tax collectors get killed (or even injured) by their victims? Is it substantially higher than the number of farmers who get struck by lightning? If you can find a statistic that supports your argument, I’ll look for another analogy.

What... do you think my argument is?

U.S. tax collectors ...do not ... [violate] the principle of the non-initiation of force.

There is more disagreement on that matter around here than you might think.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Then what should one prohibit? I don’t think, by your argued case, that anything would be prohibited... which would make ethics (and any question over whether looting is destructive) moot?

I have already said. See my Post #314:

“If one’s life (and perhaps living well) is the standard of one’s morality, then one would be wise to choose the means most likely to attain such results.

“Conversely, one should deny (prohibit to) oneself acts that are unlikely to help one attain one’s goals (or, further, that . . . are deleterious to such goals).”

Objectivism wouldn’t (and doesn\'t) say that. A major, major, major, major, major point you’re missing is that there is a difference between risking one’s life and throwing away one’s life.

I agree completely. That’s why the case I’m making is called the prudent predator argument and not the foolish predator argument.

An example would be a man who sees his hated enemy in peril, doesn’t want to save him, but decides to do so out of peer pressure... but I suppose you consider acting out of obligation to not necessarily be self-destructive, just as you consider firing a handgun at one’s head to be not necessarily be self-destructive?

If you have statistics that show that of all the people who ever pointed a loaded gun at their heads and pulled the trigger, 100% have either died or suffered serious head injuries, then I will join you in saying that firing a handgun at one’s head is necessarily self-destructive. The problem is that in a few cases, death and serious injury did not result. Sometimes guns jam, sometimes bullets don’t fire. It is not 100%. It is not a certitude on the order of 2 + 2 = 4.

Let’s keep in mind that you are the one who introduced the example of shooting oneself in the head as an analogy of looting others. I have repeatedly pointed out -- and you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge -- the fact that looters have a much higher survival rate than those who shoot themselves in the head. In fact, a certain class of looters (those employed by the U.S. government) operate in a virtually risk free environment.

As for an ethical obligation to others, I don’t believe in it: for the simple reason that no one has made a logical case for it. Just as no one has made a logical case for the prohibition of initiating force based on the idea of one’s life being the standard of one’s values.

In answer to the gator example, that man wouldn’t be immoral by my standards. In my judgement, whether he survived or not wouldn’t make a moral difference.

Good, then to return to your earlier question, X is not immoral for doing what was less likely to work.

The primary comparison is that neither act has a 100% likelihood of loss of one\'s particular goal, and thus neither act (to you?) can be morally prohibited.

But I do not say that the only actions one should avoid are those that carry a 100% likelihood of loss. On this thread I have said it would be foolish to play the lottery or pickpocket a policeman – even though such actions carry a (very slight) chance of profit. To repeat, “If one’s life (and perhaps living well) is the standard of one’s morality, then one would be wise to choose the means most likely to attain such results. Conversely, one should deny (prohibit to) oneself acts that are unlikely to help one attain one’s goals (or, further, that . . . are deleterious to such goals).”

What... do you think my argument is?

You wrote: “E.g. I can get struck by lightning while tending a farm, but this is not something that must (or ought) be considered in determining whether farming is a beneficial/destructive behavior.”

There is more disagreement on that matter around here than you might think.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the straw man?

In Post #314 I wrote: “U.S. tax collectors who do not have to worry about violating the principle of the non-initiation of force.” I wrote this in response to your question, “Such as?”

However, in your last post my sentence has been completely twisted: “U.S. tax collectors ...do not ... [violate] the principle of the non-initiation of force.”

I said no such thing. I said they do not have to worry about violating the principle. They don’t worry because the government protects them and rewards them. U.S. tax collectors are a prime example of why Ayn Rand is clearly wrong when she says the price of looting is “the destruction of their victims and their own.” Tax looters are not destroyed. They live safe, comfortable lives with generous fringe benefits.

[exaltron]

I wouldn't single out IRS agents. I'd include everyone who survives by forcibly confiscating the productive work of others. You seem to suggest that stealing can be a rational stragegy for survival. But reread what I said above: "Initiating the use of force is destructive of the minds of other men who, in a society free of coercion, would have contributed to the looter's survival by trade. The looter is blindly working against himself and his own survival. Which is to say that survival and looting are actually at odds."

To expand this, there are vast, almost incalculable benefits that are not happening because of those looters, which they would also have benefited from. By focusing on the relatively easy looking life they have, and ignoring the consequent depression of our economy, technological growth, etc, etc, you're missing a huge part of the picture.

And the example of an IRS agent is even more ridiculous, because their job skills would allow them to have any number of other jobs in a capitalist society where they would be required to work no different or harder.

I think this is the crucial argument here. There is no "getting away with" destroying value. It matters not whether you think you are living the best life you could have (and I honestly have a hard time believing that the vast majority of looters sense this). When you destroy values by violating the rights of of other individuals, you are destroying something that could have led to your continued existence qua man and happiness in a way that looting could never provide. You are basically eating the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Morality is based on an objective criteria. The idea that something could be "moral for me as an individual" but not for others is a bald contradiction. If something is moral, it is something that everyone could or should do, with no negative consequences. Looting clearly does not pass the test, even setting aside the issues of self-esteem and happiness, which I think can be easily deduced if not quantified for a looter vs a trader.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

I think this is the crucial argument here. There is no “getting away with” destroying value. It matters not whether you think you are living the best life you could have (and I honestly have a hard time believing that the vast majority of looters sense this). When you destroy values by violating the rights of of other individuals, you are destroying something that could have led to your continued existence qua man and happiness in a way that looting could never provide. You are basically eating the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The prudent predator would argue that he is not destroying a value but transferring it from another person (or persons) to himself.

And the argument that the looter is somehow less well off simply does not make sense. Suppose I find a way to embezzle $1 million from a large corporation with a very low probability of detection. How have I eaten the golden goose? I had no product or service to offer the corporation in trade for a million dollars. So why should I think that I could have obtained the money by another, more legitimate means? Furthermore, why should I place my “continued existence qua man and happiness” above the million bucks? First of all, who are you to say that I’m not happy living with the stolen million? And where is the proof that I’m obliged to follow the man qua producer lifestyle instead of the man qua looter lifestyle?

[Moebius]

U.S. tax collectors are a prime example of why Ayn Rand is clearly wrong when she says the price of looting is “the destruction of their victims and their own.” Tax looters are not destroyed. They live safe, comfortable lives with generous fringe benefits.

Actually, most of the people they loot from end up surviving too.