Gary Brenner Posted April 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 hunterrose wrote: At what % does taking the risk become immoral? At the point that it exceeds the risk level of an alternate opportunity with roughly the same rewards What constitutes immoral conduct? Conduct that is deleterious to one’s goals. [*]Marty thinks [*]Marty subsequently suffers [*]Ergo, thinking isn’t necessarily beneficial Suffers from what? Heartburn? Toothache? Hepatitis? AIDS? Bi-polar Disorder? Since we are not told what his ailment is, we have no way of knowing whether there is a relationship between his suffering and his thinking. “Subsequently” means “following in time or order,” not “as a result of.” Therefore, the argument is invalid. [*]tax collectors loot [*]tax collectors don’t subsequently suffer [*]Ergo, looting isn’t necessarily detrimental In what way is one invalid that the other isn’t? Don’t suffer what? Leaky roofs? Crab grass? Noisy neighbors? Traffic jams? Again, since there is no relationship established between the two premises, we have no way of deducing the conclusion from those premises. Now try this: Looting leads to the destruction of the looter. Tax collectors are looters. Ergo, tax collectors will be destroyed by their looting. In terms of logical construction, this is a far better argument. Unfortunately, it happens to be invalid because premise #1 is untrue. There are simply too many real world counter-examples to accept the statement in its unqualified form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Brenner Posted April 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 exaltron wrote: Simply because not everyone (in fact I would argue a tiny portion of the population) has the ethical understanding to recognize the cause of their own discontent. Apparently I somehow implied that looters should have an automatic knowledge of the precise philosophical issues that cause their cognitive dissonance? The fundamental problem remains: you have hypothesized, not proven the looter’s discontent. It is not a scientifically measurable datum. Until we have an objective criterion for gauging an individual’s happiness, the idea that looting leads to the looter’s (mental) destruction is pure moonshine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Brenner Posted April 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 Inspector wrote: I find it hard to believe you are being honest in making a statement of that kind. Since looters clearly do not spontaneously combust upon their first act of looting, the fact is that Ayn Rand must have meant meaning other than instant and total destruction. I never said her use of “destruction” implied “instant and total.” Those are your words, not mine. And so is “spontaneously combust.” For the purposes of this discussion, let us stipulate that no looter in the long saga of mankind has ever spontaneously burned. Now, with that out of the way, why should we not take Rand literally when she wrote, “the price of destruction [is] the destruction of their victims and their own”? Did she absolutely not mean that looters could be “killed” (one of the literal, dictionary definitions of “destroy”) ? Absolutely not mean “ruined completely,” “defeated completely,” or “rendered useless or ineffective”? If those literal definitions don’t work for you, precisely what figurative interpretation do you wish to give to Rand’s use of “destruction”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 I have no problem taking "destruction" to mean exactly that, according to the qua man standard, because Rand was very clear in her view that the looter was foregoing reason: “The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. But just as animals would not be able to survive by attempting the method of plants, by rejecting locomotion and waiting for the soil to feed them—so men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. 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.” So as we debate the possibility of rational predation, it seems clear to me that such does not fit within the context of the paragraph above. If the argument is that rational predation is possible, then we need not try to make that conclusion fit with a conclusion ("destruction") that followed from a contrary premise (that the looter was foregoing reason). In other words, the essence of the argument is not about whether one who foregoes reason is destroyed by the qua man standard, but whether predation is necessarily irrational. The argument about what "destruction" means is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Brenner Posted April 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) Seeker wrote: I have no problem taking “destruction” to mean exactly that, according to the qua man standard, because Rand was very clear in her view that the looter was foregoing reason: “The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. But just as animals would not be able to survive by attempting the method of plants, by rejecting locomotion and waiting for the soil to feed them—so men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. 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.” I answered this in Post #1 on this thread: “Certainly, there is no animal that can synthesize carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water using sunlight as an energy source. But history and current events are full of examples of men who prey on other men and often survive quite well. To be sure, these predators face great risks, especially in nations where the law works against them. But stealing from productive men is hardly an impossibility, in the sense that sprouting roots on one’s feet and leaves on one’s hands is. . . “I would be the first to grant that enslaving and killing people is the surest way to make a society less productive. But a general decline in productivity does not necessarily bring about the destruction of the slave-owner or the dictator. The longevity of Stalin, Mao and Castro argues against the notion of predators not being able to survive beyond ‘the range of the moment.’” So as we debate the possibility of rational predation, it seems clear to me that such does not fit within the context of the paragraph above. If the argument is that rational predation is possible, then we need not try to make that conclusion fit with a conclusion (“destruction”) that followed from a contrary premise (that the looter was foregoing reason). In other words, the essence of the argument is not about whether one who foregoes reason is destroyed by the qua man standard, but whether predation is necessarily irrational. The argument about what “destruction” means is irrelevant. I do not doubt that one can “prove” that looting is irrational simply by defining “rational man” so as to exclude the entire class of looters. However, by the same technique, I can “prove” that eating meat is irrational by defining “rational man” to be a vegetarian. Edited April 6, 2007 by Gary Brenner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) My point is that the rational predator, if such exists, does not fit within the context of that paragraph because it is clear that Rand was referring only to men who reject reason and we're not really debating whether they're destroyed. In other words, you are simply arguing that rational predators exist, a well-known problem. But as such you would do better to focus on the real question rather than focusing on the argument that Rand actually made in the paragraph you cite - namely that irrational looters are destroyed. Edited April 6, 2007 by Seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 [A risk becomes immoral] at the point that it exceeds the risk level of an alternate opportunity with roughly the same rewards [immoral conduct is] conduct that is deleterious to one’s goals. Okay, so immoral risks/conduct consists of risks/conduct that is less likely (than another known conduct) to obtain one's goal. Probability determines what is moral and immoral conduct (to you, anyway). ...Then why do you so self-destructively contradict yourself here? 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 probability, we could call him foolish, but not immoral. Isn't a person immoral for doing immoral conduct, taking immoral risks Probability determines moral conduct... but it doesn't determine immoral conduct If nothing is immoral, then you still don't have an ethics. We are not told what his ailment is...He was hit by a meteor, remember? ...We have no way of knowing whether there is a [causal] relationship between his suffering and his thinking.Excellent, there's hope for you yet! How do I prove there is a causal link between Marty thinking and Marty getting hit by the meteor? What would constitute proof that a given tax collector lives a safe, comfortable life as a result of her looting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) Did she absolutely not mean that looters could be “killed” (one of the literal, dictionary definitions of “destroy”) ? Absolutely not mean “ruined completely,” “defeated completely,” or “rendered useless or ineffective”? They could be, of course, and many of them are. The point, which seeker addressed, is that they have rejected reason. What is destroyed is reason, man's sole means of survival. Physical destruction does follow the destruction of a man's reason. Not always instantly and totally, but always and inevitably. I do not see how it is anti-reason to observe that the theft of my bench did not destroy the principle of private property in America. Are you sure you know what a principle is and why, according to Objectivism, man needs them to survive? Edited April 7, 2007 by Inspector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 I never said her use of “destruction” implied “instant and total.” Those are your words, not mine. And so is “spontaneously combust.” No, but those were the definitions you were working with. Exaltron said, Is your argument that a looter won't necessarily suffer complete annihilation as a result of his looting? To which you responded with indignation. Which means that you were operating under the idea that it meant complete and instant annihilation. (despite the fact that I had been over that point with you before and you were so evasive about the point that you had to be asked multiple times before you made it at all explicit that you rejected that idea) You seem to have a standard in your head of instant and total annihilation as being what we have to prove in order to show that looting causes the destruction of the looter. But that is not the meaning of the original quote and is also not required to prove that looting causes the destruction of the looter, nor that looting is against reason, nor that looting is not in your self-interest, nor that looting is contrary to rational egoism. You us to establish a 100% probability of instant bodily annihilation because that is your criteria for declaring something a no-no. Otherwise, for you, there may be a situation in which it might be "advantageous," that is, if the other options available to you make it appealing. But this is totally, completely NOT how it works in the Objectivist ethics. It is not about probabilities. You've been told that before but didn't respond. Hunterrose has the correct approach here. Your disagreement is epistemological. You're speaking a different language than everyone else here (except Freddy). We've tried, so far, to appeal to your common sense but I submit to everyone that this is futile. So everyone, please, do not engage Gary on the same level he has so far mostly been engaged on. Look at his conversation with Hunterrose. He currently won't say, it appears, that anything is immoral. So what hope do you think you have of engaging him on that level? So long as ethics remains a series of probabilities to him, Gary will remain unconvinced. If you're going to argue with him, you're going to have to engage that premise of his. You're going to have to get him to think in principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) As a devil's advocate, it is your responsibility to bring only clear arguments into play, not jumbled nonsense like that. Mr. Inspector: Exaltron used as his evidence, "study after study" that has shown that being rich does not produce happiness. He argued that what produces happiness basically is productivity. So, i asked him to confirm that the wealthy mafia are not as happy (from their jobs) as "slave wage" workers - they are not slaves, by the way - who work like hell just to get their few cents. In short, have studies also shown that such low wage workers get more happiness from their jobs than the mafia bosses who basically work as looters? One would like to see such studies. If you do not understand an argument, Mr. Inspector, simply ask for clarification. Do not, like Leonidas of 300, kill the devil's messenger! Edited April 7, 2007 by blackdiamond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) Hunterrose has the correct approach here. Your disagreement is epistemological. You're speaking a different language than everyone else here (except Freddy). We've tried, so far, to appeal to your common sense but I submit to everyone that this is futile. So everyone, please, do not engage Gary on the same level he has so far mostly been engaged on....If you're going to argue with him, you're going to have to engage that premise of his. You're going to have to get him to think in principles. Aha! I think someone is now getting my point. My point is simply that, for as long as you keep going in this direction [basically, appealing to common sense], you will keep getting the same responses, so I do not understand why you are still going in this direction. ... I'm only playing Devil's Advocate to help other people see the essentials of this discussion so that it can stop going round and round in circles...and just stop. Principles. Essentials. My purpose as DA was to show that all the common sense arguments have been answered by the pro-looters by simply dismissing them as unproven. When i asked Garry if he thought a kid who just cheated on his tests by copying from others (and passed) was as happy as a kid who worked hard and got good grades, he simply answered that the cheating kid was happy because he had achieved his goals (of cheating). How does one deal with that? Common sense will tell you that the "happiness" of the cheating kid is unreal as it is not produced from self efficacy but from failure, whereas the happiness of the hard worker kid is produced from a sense of efficacy, with no pain (for failure to understand his course material, or reality) and no guilt (for cheating) and no fear (of getting caught, or discovered), but to Gary there is no way of proving all this unless some machine was invented to measure happiness! Exaltron, I do in fact agree with you that happiness is not caused by money and so on, but i'm just telling you that the pro-looters are demanding "evidence" even for common sense things like that, which is why the discussion can not work on that level as Inspector has finally realised. The pro-looters either have to concede some obvious points or the discussion should be abandoned, at least from that angle. Edited April 7, 2007 by blackdiamond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Mr. Inspector: Exaltron used as his evidence, "study after study" that has shown that being rich does not produce happiness. He argued that what produces happiness basically is productivity. So, i asked him to confirm that the wealthy mafia are not as happy (from their jobs) as "slave wage" workers - they are not slaves, by the way - who work like hell just to get their few cents. In short, have studies also shown that such low wage workers get more happiness from their jobs than the mafia bosses who basically work as looters? One would like to see such studies. If you do not understand an argument, Mr. Inspector, simply ask for clarification. Do not, like Leonidas of 300, kill the devil's messenger! Not that it matters much at this point, but I was simply pointing out that being rich is not a cause of happiness, that is all the studies show, you'll find plenty of articles referring to these studies here. You won't find any studies that compare criminals in a developed capitalist country with law-abiding citizens in an oppressive third world country. Too many variables and no control, totally unscientific. Any variation in happiness could be attributed to any number of variables, thus making the study results totally inconclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) Mr. Inspector: Exaltron used as his evidence, "study after study" that has shown that being rich does not produce happiness. He argued that what produces happiness basically is productivity. So, i asked him to confirm that the wealthy mafia are not as happy (from their jobs) as "slave wage" workers - they are not slaves, by the way - who work like hell just to get their few cents. In short, have studies also shown that such low wage workers get more happiness from their jobs than the mafia bosses who basically work as looters? One would like to see such studies. If you do not understand an argument, Mr. Inspector, simply ask for clarification. Do not, like Leonidas of 300, kill the devil's messenger! I see I wasn't clear enough myself. What I mean is that, since the "slaves" are not as wealthy as the mafiosos, that you have introduced a third variable into the equation, thus muddling it. Especially since the poverty of the "slaves" is caused by the millennia of non-capitalist, poverty-causing systems which preceded them. By introducing too many variables, you make the argument less clear. Yes, you have to make the "devil's" argument, but you don't have to make it is manipulatively unclear as "he" would. Edit: Ah, I can see Exaltron got this. Well done. You won't find any studies that compare criminals in a developed capitalist country with law-abiding citizens in an oppressive third world country. Too many variables and no control, totally unscientific. Any variation in happiness could be attributed to any number of variables, thus making the study results totally inconclusive. Edited April 7, 2007 by Inspector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Aha! I think someone is now getting my point. Principles. Essentials. You are absolutely correct sir, but to be fair, Kendall was the first to make your point. And I've been aware of it, not really as such participating in the discussion as pointing out things here and there. I did want it to be demonstrated to the point of ad absurdum because Kendall had already made clear the futility of continuing. People were continuing, ergo they did not "get it" and needed more demonstration. My only point in remaining was to make sure this demonstration was as clear as possible. Now, since I don't think there could possibly be anything more to demonstrate, I am reminding everyone to go and have a look at Kendall's last post to Gary, here, and of course the half dozen or so preceding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 Aha! I think someone is now getting my point. Principles. Essentials. My purpose as DA was to show that all the common sense arguments have been answered by the pro-looters by simply dismissing them as unproven. When i asked Garry if he thought a kid who just cheated on his tests by copying from others (and passed) was as happy as a kid who worked hard and got good grades, he simply answered that the cheating kid was happy because he had achieved his goals (of cheating). How does one deal with that? Common sense will tell you that the "happiness" of the cheating kid is unreal as it is not produced from self efficacy but from failure, whereas the happiness of the hard worker kid is produced from a sense of efficacy, with no pain (for failure to understand his course material, or reality) and no guilt (for cheating) and no fear (of getting caught, or discovered), but to Gary there is no way of proving all this unless some machine was invented to measure happiness! Exaltron, I do in fact agree with you that happiness is not caused by money and so on, but i'm just telling you that the pro-looters are demanding "evidence" even for common sense things like that, which is why the discussion can not work on that level as Inspector has finally realised. The pro-looters either have to concede some obvious points or the discussion should be abandoned, at least from that angle. I agree Mr. Black Diamond. I think the whole context of the purpose of ethics is being dropped by the pro-looters. The fact that some people can "get away with" looting, doesn't preclude it from being unethical. In fact I would challenge anyone here to give me an example of an unethical behavior that one can't conceivably get away with. The purpose of ethics is not to show us what will inevitably and universally lead to our demise or abject misery (for behaviors like this we don't need ethics; we don't say it's unethical to shoot oneself in the head if you want to live). Just as being totally ethical won't guarantee you success and happiness, neither will being unethical guarantee you failure and misery. All ethics can say is that in the general case, you are much more likely, based on the laws of reality, to lead to negative outcomes. It cannot prove in the manner of 2+2=4 that all looters will always suffer some sort of "destruction", spiritual or physical, it can only point deductively, based on the nature of man, to what the likely effects of going against that nature will be. Garry Brenner claims that Objectivism "fails to derive an ought" vis-a-vis looting. I would be curious Gary, to see what you would offer as a proper derivation of an ought would be, where no examples or evidence could be presented as exceptions (Perhaps this is redundant to the above, but I want to make it "unevadable"). As I've said before, to advocate looting as ethical is to advocate a contradiction. It is to advocate the rights of all to violate rights. If all are ethically sanctioned in being predators (ethics dealing in universals of course), than all are potential prey, including oneself. Simply hoping or "calculating" that one will never have to actually deal with what he has advocated as a universal rule is the hallmark of a pragmatist, ie, one who has completely negated the need for ethics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 As I've said before, to advocate looting as ethical is to advocate a contradiction. It is to advocate the rights of all to violate rights. If all are ethically sanctioned in being predators (ethics dealing in universals of course), than all are potential prey, including oneself. Simply hoping or "calculating" that one will never have to actually deal with what he has advocated as a universal rule is the hallmark of a pragmatist, ie, one who has completely negated the need for ethics. You don't see that the problem here is that Objectivism is an egoist philosophy. The contradiction you are talking about is within Objectivism, because you want both egoism and the categorical imperative. If you drop egoism and claim that a man ought not always do what is in his best interest, then the contradiction disappears. The contradiction you are talking about stems from your commitment to two contradictory principles, egoism and the categorical imperative. Those two principles clash in prisoners dilemma type of scenarios. The discussion is complicated by the fact that Objectivism lacks a clear notion of selfinterest. The fundamental alternative is existence and non-existence, but the obvious implication isn't generally embraced by Objectivism. Instead the preferred standard seems to be "what makes you happy", something that isn't compatible with Rands writings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 You are absolutely correct sir, but to be fair, Kendall was the first to make your point. And I've been aware of it, not really as such participating in the discussion as pointing out things here and there. I did want it to be demonstrated to the point of ad absurdum because Kendall had already made clear the futility of continuing. People were continuing, ergo they did not "get it" and needed more demonstration. My only point in remaining was to make sure this demonstration was as clear as possible. Now, since I don't think there could possibly be anything more to demonstrate, I am reminding everyone to go and have a look at Kendall's last post to Gary, here, and of course the half dozen or so preceding it. Yeah, good call linking back to that. I think I've now derived an ought from this experience to RTFT before I waste my time making arguments that have already been made much more thoroughly and eloquently. And Mr. Brenner continues doing the Black Knight dance hundreds of posts later. hmm. As far as I can tell, he's not even sure whether he is an ethical subjectivist or not: Nowhere have I argued that an ethical system must be subjectivist. To put it another way, where is it shown that there must be a single, universal morality for all men? Where is the demonstration that all men are or should be equal in a moral/political/legal sense? Before you call the predator contradictory or anti-reason, you must first prove that we are all endowed with the same rights and that reality forbids one to violate the rights of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exaltron Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 You don't see that the problem here is that Objectivism is an egoist philosophy. The contradiction you are talking about is within Objectivism, because you want both egoism and the categorical imperative. If you drop egoism and claim that a man ought not always do what is in his best interest, then the contradiction disappears. The contradiction you are talking about stems from your commitment to two contradictory principles, egoism and the categorical imperative. Those two principles clash in prisoners dilemma type of scenarios. The discussion is complicated by the fact that Objectivism lacks a clear notion of selfinterest. The fundamental alternative is existence and non-existence, but the obvious implication isn't generally embraced by Objectivism. Instead the preferred standard seems to be "what makes you happy", something that isn't compatible with Rands writings. Not so much. There are no "categorical imperatives" in Objectivism. To use your language there are only "hypothetical imperatives", ie, there is no duty to do anything there are only conditional derivations. For example, if you want to live as a man, you must recognize that your rational faculty is what keeps you alive. There is no contradiction between egoism and consistency (what you refer to as the categorical imperative). In order to be a rational egoist, you must recognize that a component of reason is consistency. To be a rational person, one cannot choose selectively when to use reason and when to abnegate it. Nor can one advocate a code of ethics prescribes the negation of his rational mind, eg, the ethics of the prudent predator. Again, as has been pointed out by other posters, you are confusing the standard of life, man qua man, with the purpose of life, enjoyment. If some students of Objectivism get this wrong, that in no way impugns Objectivism, since Rand set both correctly in their own conceptual territory. Her notion of self-interest is very clear, as I think the vast majority of posters in this thread have been. Please explain why it is in man's self-interest to (ie, why "ought" he) not always do what is in his interest? What has been established over and over is that looting is unethical because it is not in the looter's self-interest. No altruism is required, and in fact it is altruism that opens the door for the subjectivist ethics that enable looters to operate with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 It cannot prove in the manner of 2+2=4 that all looters will always suffer some sort of "destruction", spiritual or physical, it can only point deductively, based on the nature of man, to what the likely effects of going against that nature will be. Although otherwise correct and well done, this part of your post is incorrect. It is indeed true that all looters suffer some sort of destruction, since it requires abandoning reason and thus one's rational faculty. At the very least, one abandons the possibility of reason, happiness, and self-esteem. Those two principles clash in prisoners dilemma type of scenarios. Without addressing the accuracy of the rest of your post, the Objectivist ethics are not intended to apply to emergency situations. They only apply where the normal, human means of survival is possible. If the haven't read The Ethics of Emergencies, then you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted April 7, 2007 Report Share Posted April 7, 2007 By introducing too many variables, you make the argument less clear. . .Yes, you have to make the "devil's" argument, but you don't have to make it as manipulatively unclear as "he" would. Well. The Devil is in the details, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted April 8, 2007 Report Share Posted April 8, 2007 Not so much. There are no "categorical imperatives" in Objectivism. To use your language there are only "hypothetical imperatives", ie, there is no duty to do anything there are only conditional derivations. For example, if you want to live as a man, you must recognize that your rational faculty is what keeps you alive. Thus, If you want to be as old as possible then it is perfectly permissible to extends your survival at someone elses expense if thathappens to be the best route to this end. Those hypothetical imperatives implies subjectivism. If you want to live as a dictator you ought not respect other peoples rights. There is no contradiction between egoism and consistency (what you refer to as the categorical imperative). In order to be a rational egoist, you must recognize that a component of reason is consistency. To be a rational person, one cannot choose selectively when to use reason and when to abnegate it. Nor can one advocate a code of ethics prescribes the negation of his rational mind, eg, the ethics of the prudent predator. That is because you arbitrarly add adherence to the categorical imperative to your notion of self interest without connecting this adherence to the fundamental alternative. Rands notion of self interest goes back to existence or non-existence, not to the categorical imperative. Would you agree that it is possible extend your survival by means you don't see fit? If you could use your brain to embezzle 1 million dollar and buy yourself an top class health insurance, how is that not using reason to tackle the fundamental alternative? Why ought you sacrifice a part of your lifespan in order to adhere to the categorical imperative? You have two conflicting standards for what is rational here, causal efficacy with respect to tackle the fundamental alternative, and adherence to universal principles. This thread shows that you cannot have both because they can be in conflict. It's also a bit ironic that your reasoning is very Kantian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackdiamond Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 If you could use your brain to embezzle 1 million dollar and buy yourself an top class health insurance, how is that not using reason to tackle the fundamental alternative? ... Freddy, follow the link to Kendall's post above; your questions are answered in that post, so i don't know why you are still asking the same questions. Do you just want to be the one to have the last word in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 (edited) Freddy, follow the link to Kendall's post above; your questions are answered in that post, so i don't know why you are still asking the same questions. Here is the main point of the post: 4. If one recognizes 1 and 2, but argues the prudent predator, then he is simultaneously denying 1 and 2 for his victim. That is, if the principle applies to all men, then to loot is to deny that it applies to others, and essentially anti-reality, or anti-reason. It defies the very idea of a general principle. This is what is under debate. This is anti-reason if you are a Kantian and adhere to the categorical imperative. However, the categorical imperative is no causal principle on the indivudal level, its causal powers kick in on a global level. If everyone were a looter the system would collaps to noones benefit, but to believe that the system would collaps if only you were a looter is very irrational. The fundamental alternative pertains to indivviduals, and there is nothing in reality preventing a non-universal principle to have maximum causal efficiacy with respect to this alternative for a particular individual. There is no contradiction in reality if a person derives a survival benefit from clever looting. The whole problem here is that Objectivism is commited to two contradictory principles: 1) Causal efficacy with respect to individal survival (which might favor predation on the individual level) 2) Kant's Categorical imperative (which forbids predation on the individual level) As have been stated here, these prinicples might very well collide and this tension has not been resolved. Edited April 9, 2007 by Freddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 Here is the main point of the post: This is what is under debate. This is anti-reason if you are a Kantian and adhere to the categorical imperative. However, the categorical imperative is no causal principle on the indivudal level, its causal powers kick in on a global level. If everyone were a looter the system would collaps to noones benefit, but to believe that the system would collaps if only you were a looter is very irrational. You're missing the point: Advocating looting as following from the universal nature of man requires logical contradiction: that it is good for some men and not for others. It is not Kantian to derive one's ethics from the facts of what man is. That is not a categorical imperative, even though it is universal to all men. To put it another way, not all that is not Empiricism is necessarily Rationalism. All categorical imperatives are universal; not all universal facts are categorical imperatives. You're basically saying that because we have something that is gray (universal), then it must be an elephant (Kantian/Rationalist). This is faulty logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 Advocating looting as following from the universal nature of man requires logical contradiction: that it is good for some men and not for others. But the logical contradiction is there because you have committed yourself to two contradictory priniples. If you could extend your survival with looting, then the ethical reasoning going back to the fundematal alternative for that specific individual would yield the conclusion that this was a good thing to do for this individual, while the ethical reasoning going back to the categorical imperative would yield the conclusion that this was a bad thing to do. Nothing in reality is contradicted if a person can derive a survival benefit from an action that can't be universalized. The categorical imperative is not a causal principle on the individual level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts