The Prudent Predator argument

[Inspector]

Straw man. No accusations about the abandonment of causality and sanity were made. My argument was restricted to the specific point that figurative interpretations must be justified by explicit signals from the author.

If you say so, man. It didn't look like that to me, and still doesn't. But I've made my point of what the nature of my objection was, so I think we've spent enough time on the topic.

[Freddy]

I would submit two questions to the looter-advocates:

No one is advocating looting except those who really wants to be consistent with Rands initial premises (existence or non-existence, taken literally).

1. True or False: For all men, Life is the standard; Happiness is the purpose.

Niether, as evident in this thread "life as the standard" is a concept that easily can be retrofitted in order to encompass any persons moral sympathies. The meta-ethical argument collapses if not taken literally and is totally absurd if taken literally.

2.What are the causes of happiness? Are they objective or subjective?

Objective in the sense that there are things that can be quite generally said about it, but there a major subjective factors. One of the most important factors are genetic prediposition by the way. Do you have to converge to Objectivism in order to be happy? Certainly not.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Would that prove that the mortal continues to live as a result of firing a gun at himself?

As I said in my last post, the mortal is paid $1,000 per “shooting.” A portion of the money goes to pay for the mortal’s food. Food is required for survival. Ergo, the mortal continues to live as a result of firing a gun at himself.

Or that he continues to live as a result of Superman stopping the mortal’s destructive action? You still haven’t answered the question.

The monetary reward and the Superman safety net are both factors in the shooter’s willingness to participate in the stage show. Now compare: not only does the government compensate tax looters in order that they may pay for their creature comforts, the government also protects them from retribution by the victims they loot.

Forgot about looting for a half moment. You continue to say that no behavior qualifies as necessarily destructive. I must show your premise to be wrong (via a simple example like firing a gun at oneself) before I could prove that a complicated behavior (like looting) is necessarily destructive.

You agree to stipulate that certain factors must be isolated in determining the nature of looting. Since I have no idea what “certain factors” you agree must be isolated, how can I show that having a million-man army protecting you is a factor that must be isolated in determining whether looting is destructive?

Consider your task like that of medical researchers. In order to establish a link between cancer and cigarette smoking, researchers must rule out other possible causes of cancer. If you argue that looters are destroyed by their looting, then show that the forces that kill (or impair or render useless) other citizens are not the forces at work in the “destruction” of the looter.

You mention a million man army protecting the tax looter. But why should that be removed from the picture? Surely no tax looter would go to work for Uncle Sam in the first place if the law permitted the tax victim to enforce vigilante justice on him. You could just as well argue that scuba diving is destructive to the diver and then say we must isolate oxygen tanks from our analysis.

[Moebius]

If shipping is the trouble, then perhaps a CDROM would be a better medium? You might also write to the ARI; I believe they have Asian distribution channels and may be able to point you in the right direction.

The problem isn't with the shipping itself, but the fact that I don't want to pay that much money for it. I would prefer resources that are free and easily accessible. If such resources don't exist, then I appreciate you trying to help.

[hunterrose]

The mortal is paid $1,000 per “shooting.” ...Ergo, the mortal continues to live as a result of firing a gun at himself.

Your example involves two separate things: a monetary benefit and a physical destruction.

Is firing a gun at oneself by nature monetarily beneficial? No; the monetary benefit occurs if and only if there is a business agreement to receive pay for firing a gun at oneself. Working for pay is by nature monetarily beneficial, firing a gun at oneself is not necessarily so.

If firing a gun at oneself by nature physically destructive? Superman isn't a part of the nature of firing a gun at oneself; the only way to know whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive is to take Superman out of the equation. Don't you agree?

Show that the forces that kill (or impair or render useless) other citizens are not the forces at work in the “destruction” of the looter.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Would you clarify?

[Maarten]

What a deliciously apt quote for this thread. I'm assuming this is just a happy accident?

Yeah, it is. I've had that quote in my signature for a long time

[Inspector]

The problem isn't with the shipping itself, but the fact that I don't want to pay that much money for it. I would prefer resources that are free and easily accessible. If such resources don't exist, then I appreciate you trying to help.

You might try perusing the wiki, but honestly it won't come even close to giving you the complete picture that you need. I can tell you this, though: that CD has something like a dozen books on it and is well, well worth the price, if you're the kind who can read long texts from a PC screen.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Your example involves two separate things: a monetary benefit and a physical destruction.

Where is the destruction? According to your own scenario, Superman intervenes to catch the bullet before it does harm to the man pulling the trigger.

Is firing a gun at oneself by nature monetarily beneficial?

No, but so what? Doing other people’s tax returns, cleaning out septic tanks, herding lions through flaming hoops, and test-flying airplanes are not by nature monetarily beneficial either.

No; the monetary benefit occurs if and only if there is a business agreement to receive pay for firing a gun at oneself. Working for pay is by nature monetarily beneficial, firing a gun at oneself is not necessarily so.

No particular activity, including bringing diamonds out of the ground, performing brain surgery and being able to pick a winning racehorse, is necessarily monetarily beneficial. You are making no headway here.

Is firing a gun at oneself by nature physically destructive?

Firing a gun at one’s head with no intermediate protection has a very high probability of producing instant death or severe injury. Similarly, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute has a very high probability of producing instant death or severe injury.

Superman isn\\\'t a part of the nature of firing a gun at oneself;

And by the same logic we can say that scuba tanks are not part of the nature of staying underwater for 30 minutes.

the only way to know whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive is to take Superman out of the equation. Don’t you agree?

The probable destructiveness of firing a gun at one’s head is not in dispute. If you wanted to make the point that shooting yourself in the head is a good way to kill yourself, you needn’t have bothered to introduce Superman into the argument. This is getting us nowhere.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Would you clarify?

Show that IRS looters are destroyed as a result of their looting. Once you have done that, you will have demonstrated that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[hunterrose]

Superman isn't a part of the nature of firing a gun at oneself; the only way to know whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive is to take Superman out of the equation. Don't you agree?

And by the same logic we can say that scuba tanks are not part of the nature of staying underwater for 30 minutes.

I don't understand; scuba tanks are logically a part of scuba diving. Scuba tanks aren't part of the nature of free-diving, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You didn't directly answer my question.

I assume your answer was "No." So the other question remains: you agree that some things must be isolated, so how can I show that Superman (or any particular thing for that matter) is a factor that must be isolated in determining whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive?

Consider your task like that of medical researchers. In order to establish a link between cancer and cigarette smoking, researchers must rule out other possible causes of cancer. If you argue that looters are destroyed by their looting, then show that the forces that kill (or impair or render useless) other citizens are not the forces at work in the “destruction” of the looter.

Show that IRS looters are destroyed as a result of their looting. Once you have done that, you will have demonstrated that the price of looting is the destruction of the looter.

Neither of those answers the question.

This is getting us nowhere.

Nonsense. Progress: you've agreed that some things must be isolated. Now we just need to know how to determine what needs to be isolated, or at least how you determine what needs to be isolated. Then we can (without the isolated factors) determine whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive. If it (or something else) is a destructive behavior, I can show how looting is a destructive behavior.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

I don\\\'t understand; scuba tanks are logically a part of scuba diving. Scuba tanks aren’t part of the nature of free-diving,

Who said they were?

but I’m not sure what you\\\'re getting at.

What I’m getting at is the hypothetical scenario that you introduced into the debate. You proposed a Superman who could stop a bullet that a man fired at his own head. Just as no man who valued his life would go underwater for 30 minutes without a breathing apparatus, so no non-suicidal man would fire a gun at his head unless there was 1) a reward for doing so and 2) a way of stopping the bullet. Similarly, no tax looter would go around robbing people of their income unless government provided 1) a reward and 2) a means of protection for the tax looter.

You didn’t directly answer my question.

Sure I did. “Firing a gun at one’s head with no intermediate protection has a very high probability of producing instant death or severe injury. Similarly, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute has a very high probability of producing instant death or severe injury.”

I assume your answer was “No.” So the other question remains: you agree that some things must be isolated, so how can I show that Superman (or any particular thing for that matter) is a factor that must be isolated in determining whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive? Neither of those answers the question.

Why don’t you pay attention? I have already acknowledged that if you take Superman or any other means of protection out of the picture, the probability of killing yourself by firing a gun at your head is extremely high. See my last post.

Nonsense. Progress: you’ve agreed that some things must be isolated. Now we just need to know how to determine what needs to be isolated, or at least how you determine what needs to be isolated. Then we can (without the isolated factors) determine whether firing a gun at oneself is destructive. If it (or something else) is a destructive behavior, I can show how looting is a destructive behavior.

Again, you are not paying attention. Refer to what I wrote yesterday: “The probable destructiveness of firing a gun at one’s head is not in dispute. If you wanted to make the point that shooting yourself in the head is a good way to kill yourself, you needn’t have bothered to introduce Superman into the argument.” (emphasis added)

Here’s your task: Assemble data on all the tax looters over the past century who were destroyed. Isolate from that number those who were destroyed by causes other than looting. What you have left are those who were destroyed by looting. If that number is any significant percentage of the total of tax looters, then you might have a case that destruction is the price of looting.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[exaltron]

Similarly, no tax looter would go around robbing people of their income unless government provided 1) a reward and 2) a means of protection for the tax looter.

This brings up an interesting point: Does the success of a looter under an unethical system prove that the looter is ethical? Or do we need to look at the ethics of the system and then assess the individual's choices?

For example, I would argue that being ethical in an unethical system, like that of Soviet Russia or Communist Cuba, would be detrimental to one's survival, since the system is set up to enforce immoral ideals like sacrifice, need/incompetence as a moral claim on the service/property of others, etc. In other words, being moral in such a system would be akin to telling a murderer the truth when he asks where your children are hiding.

Ultimately a morally bankrupt system rewards morally bankrupt individuals. This doesn't prove that under a truly moral, capitalist system, the looter approach would be practical.

[exaltron]

No one is advocating looting except those who really wants to be consistent with Rands initial premises (existence or non-existence, taken literally).

You've offered no arguments against looting aside from arbitrary mandates (the CI) and subjectivist moral arguments.

Niether, as evident in this thread "life as the standard" is a concept that easily can be retrofitted in order to encompass any persons moral sympathies. The meta-ethical argument collapses if not taken literally and is totally absurd if taken literally.

What then is the standard? From what do you derive your moral conclusions?

Objective in the sense that there are things that can be quite generally said about it, but there a major subjective factors. One of the most important factors are genetic prediposition by the way. Do you have to converge to Objectivism in order to be happy? Certainly not.

Do you have to "converge" to reality to be happy?

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

This brings up an interesting point: Does the success of a looter under an unethical system prove that the looter is ethical? Or do we need to look at the ethics of the system and then assess the individual\'s choices?

For example, I would argue that being ethical in an unethical system, like that of Soviet Russia or Communist Cuba, would be detrimental to one’s survival, since the system is set up to enforce immoral ideals like sacrifice, need/incompetence as a moral claim on the service/property of others, etc. In other words, being moral in such a system would be akin to telling a murderer the truth when he asks where your children are hiding.

Ultimately a morally bankrupt system rewards morally bankrupt individuals. This doesn’t prove that under a truly moral, capitalist system, the looter approach would be practical.

I don’t disagree with your point about not following the morality of slave states. In fact, from the perspective of the prudent predator, we can go further. Whenever the ethics of a system are detrimental to one’s survival or long term goals, it is moral to defy the ethics of that system, be it capitalist or socialist. It is precisely because violating private property rights can in certain cases be in one’s self-interest, that I have serious reservations about the soundness of Ayn Rand’s argument.

[exaltron]

I don’t disagree with your point about not following the morality of slave states. In fact, from the perspective of the prudent predator, we can go further. Whenever the ethics of a system are detrimental to one’s survival or long term goals, it is moral to defy the ethics of that system, be it capitalist or socialist. It is precisely because violating private property rights can in certain cases be in one’s self-interest, that I have serious reservations about the soundness of Ayn Rand’s argument.

But how useful is a system of ethics under an unethical system of government? Rand's system of ethics rightfully assumes freedom. Otherwise if we are not free to make our own decisions, how can we have morality? I think this is the mitigating factor when it comes to things like IRS workers.

[softwareNerd]

I don’t disagree with your point about not following the morality of slave states. In fact, from the perspective of the prudent predator, we can go further. Whenever the ethics of a system are detrimental to one’s survival or long term goals, it is moral to defy the ethics of that system, be it capitalist or socialist.

The whole point is that in a Capitalist system such will not be the case in principle. Instead, you're claiming that under a system that general respects rights, there is no way to know in principle whether certain right-violating actions are good or bad. You cannot arbitrarily say that you there may be some other principle, without providing any evidence for such principle. If there is one -- or if you at least have a hypothesis about one -- then present it: e.g. as in "the following principle ... XYZ .. tells a person whether he will be able to get away with a rights violation -- on balance -- in a particular case, and in a way that is consonant with his long term happiness.

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:But how useful is a system of ethics under an unethical system of government? Rand\\\'s system of ethics rightfully assumes freedom. Otherwise if we are not free to make our own decisions, how can we have morality? I think this is the mitigating factor when it comes to things like IRS workers.

As an Objectivist pointed out earlier in this thread, you would need ethics even if you were alone a desert island, for ethics guides behavior even in the absence of other people.

Now, if we can imagine a society in which every one of our actions, including breathing and eye blinking, is controlled by the government, then, yes, all possibility for moral action would have ceased. But even Castro’s Cuba is very far from that extreme:

As the variety and amount of goods available in state-run peso stores has declined, Cubans have turned increasingly to the black market to obtain needed food, clothing, and household items. Pilferage of items from the work place to sell on the black market or illegally offering services on the sidelines of official employment is common, and Cuban companies regularly figure 15% in losses into their production plans to cover this.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...uba/economy.htm

I think this is the mitigating factor when it comes to things like IRS workers.

Mitigating in what sense? That IRS workers are not really part of a gang of looters?

Edited April 13, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd

The whole point is that in a Capitalist system such will not be the case in principle. Instead, you’re claiming that under a system that general respects rights, there is no way to know in principle whether certain right-violating actions are good or bad.

No, that is not my position. To be exact, what I have proposed is that under any political economy a person whose guiding ethical standard is his own life may ethically deprive others of the property they peacefully acquired. Thus, robbery is “good” if the rewards substantially outweigh the costs and risks.

You cannot arbitrarily say that you there may be some other principle, without providing any evidence for such principle. If there is one -- or if you at least have a hypothesis about one -- then present it: e.g. as in “the following principle ... XYZ .. tells a person whether he will be able to get away with a rights violation -- on balance -- in a particular case, and in a way that is consonant with his long term happiness.

I’m not suggesting any principle other than the ego-centered one that is the basis for Objectivist ethics. Furthermore, I have already made clear that I accept the evidence that Rand provides for holding one’s own life as the standard of one’s values. The prudent predator’s calculation of costs and benefits is no different than that of the stock investor or real estate speculator. I do not claim that every act of looting will be successful, anymore than Ayn Rand says that every capital venture will yield a profit.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[hunterrose]

I agree that the proof requires that certain factors be isolated.

1. Why do you say that a proof requires that certain factors be isolated?
   
2. Does proving that firing a gun at oneself is destructive require isolating means of protection (e.g. Superman)?
   

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

1. Why do you say that a proof requires that certain factors be isolated?
   
2. Does proving that firing a gun at oneself is destructive require isolating means of protection (e.g. Superman)?
   

You’re beating a dead horse. I’ve already agreed that proving that one thing causes another requires that we exclude other possible causes. Look at my example of establishing a scientific link between smoking and cancer.

Regarding your exceedingly silly example of the gun, in order to prove that a gun is destructive, you must show that the gun and only the gun is responsible for causing the large wound to the unfortunate human’s head. The Superman factor is absolutely irrelevant. If Superman stops a bullet, then the gun causes no destruction. But the same is true of an inch-thick steel wall. Or a distance of a mile between the victim and the weapon.

Why not say we have to isolate Superman from research into cigarette smoking?

[hunterrose]

Waitaminute. You're providing a method of proof for something totally different.

The point is that firing a gun at oneself is a destructive behavior, not that firing a gun at oneself will always result (no matter what) in one's physical destruction. What is your standard of proof for the former?

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Waitaminute. You’re providing a method of proof for something totally different.

The point is that firing a gun at oneself is a destructive behavior, not that firing a gun at oneself will always result (no matter what) in ones physical destruction. What is your standard of proof for the former?

An action is destructive if it causes destruction. Conversely, if an action does not cause destruction, it is not destructive. Intention is a different matter. If X desires to commit suicide, we can say that X’s firing a gun at himself has a destructive goal, even though the gun may misfire. It would contradict reality to say that X’s action of pulling the trigger was destructive when in fact it caused no damage at all. A is not non-A. In this case, the only thing that we can label as “destructive” is X’s motivation. Now suppose X is not suicidal and fires a gun at himself not with the intention of ending his life but to prove the worthiness of a bulletproof shield. If the shield fails, we can say X’s action is destructive, but not his intent.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[hunterrose]

I largely agree with that, but this is about behaviors, not actions or intentions. And behaviors can be destructive by nature even if outside factors can prevent them from resulting in destruction 100% of the time.

Perhaps a better example of the behavior/action difference: gravity accelerates objects at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. That's the behavior.

It doesn't mean that every gravity-affected object will have a net acceleration - action - of 32 feet per second per second. Gravity and non-gravity factors determine what action occurs.

So you couldn't determine the acceleration of gravity by showing that gravity and only gravity is responsible for an object's net acceleration. It'd be a highly erroneous standard of proof, leading (natch) to highly erroneous conclusions.

But this is exactly the type of thing you're trying to do (intentionally or not) with determining the nature of looting and firing a gun at oneself.

[Marc K.]

As an Objectivist pointed out earlier in this thread, you would need ethics even if you were alone a desert island, for ethics guides behavior even in the absence of other people.

You have negated your entire argument here.

[Marc K.]

You raise hogs for a profit. I give you a reasoned argument that you should not kill the animals, that their nature requires that they be free to fuel their bodies with what they can obtain from their environment.

You ignore my plea and kill the hogs anyway. But your gun is not an argument. Reason and force are opposites. You have abandoned reason.

Is this what you mean?

This is a joke right? Were you laughing one of those evil laughs when you wrote this?

The only way to properly respond to this level of evasion is to, with sarcasm dripping from my teeth, comment on all of the recent convictions of lions.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

I largely agree with that, but this is about behaviors, not actions or intentions. And behaviors can be destructive by nature even if outside factors can prevent them from resulting in destruction 100% of the time.

Explain what you mean by “nature” and “outside factors” and what they have to do with looting. Is the tax looter’s protection by U.S. law an “outside factor”? If so, you might as well say that the producer and trader’s protection by government is also an “outside factor” and that, without such protection, production and trade (and the resulting accumulation of wealth) would result in the destruction of the producer and trader (by theft and/or death).

Perhaps a better example of the behavior/action difference: gravity accelerates objects at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. That’s the behavior.

It doesn’t mean that every gravity-affected object will have a net acceleration - action - of 32 feet per second per second. Gravity and non-gravity factors determine what action occurs.

So you couldn’t determine the acceleration of gravity by showing that gravity and only gravity is responsible for an object’s net acceleration. It’d be a highly erroneous standard of proof, leading (natch) to highly erroneous conclusions.

But this is exactly the type of thing you’re trying to do (intentionally or not) with determining the nature of looting and firing a gun at oneself.

False. My task here is not to prove anything about the “nature” of looting or firing guns. I am merely examining Ayn Rand’s claim that destruction of the looter is the price of looting. The only proof for this claim that she offers is the modern dictator. Yet, I have provided several examples of dictators who clearly were not destroyed by looting. Therefore, in the absence of other, better proof, we must conclude that Ayn Rand’s claim is altogether false or that she meant that destruction is the price of looting only for some looters.