Egoism as Framework?

Questions about Objectivism
1

I am revisiting Objectivism as a system of thought.

I am going to explain how I have interpreted Ayn Rand’s ethical theory, in order to make sure I understand it. I found that Objectivism is not as easy to understand as I would hope. I think that Rand talked about issues in a different way then people are used to, so it lends to misunderstanding if one projects their preconceptions on to her work.

The way I see it, Rand proposed Egoism as a starting point in ethics, not as a general conclusion about behavior. It is quite obvious to anyone who reads her in depth that she was against “Do whatever you want”. Egoism is an alternative starting point to where most ethical systems in the past have started.

Some people have criticized Ayn Rand for calling modern ethics altruistic when they are not narrow hardcore altruism. What she seems to have mean was any ethical system orienting ethics around other people. Egoism just means that ethics starts with the good of the individual, and if there is anything to say about others and interpersonal relationships, it will be rooted in this a secondary.

I want to explore the nuts and bolts of egoism beyond this. Altruism is obviously bunk. I think it would be helpful to my explanations of selfishness to others that there is more than just selfishness, there is also a method to figuring out how to live.

This raises a few questions in my mind.

  1. Where can I find a specific method of dealing with what is in Man’s best interest? A little more specific than “Reason”. I have heard ethics referred to as a science, like any science it has its own rules that are derived from the properties of the things being studied (Look at the difference between the way economists, physicists, and psychologists have to operate).

  2. Is it correct to understand ethics the science of figuring out what one’s obligation is to your own self? This is very important as it raises questions about how one can be obligated to oneself. It would also be convenient to me as a thinker that this was true because it would blow the Is-Ought thing to pieces.

I will ask more questions once these are dealt with.

2

1. If you have already read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR), I suggest picking up Tara Smith’s books on the subject: Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist and Viable Values. Both of these helped me clarify and concretize my understanding of Objectivist ethics.

2. An obligation assumes an agreement or contract - so innate and/or single-party obligations are a contradiction in terms. Objectivist ethics is about the choice to live and acting in accordance with reality to fulfill that choice.

“If I want to live, then I must ________.” <– Ethics fills in that blank.

Edit: formatting

3

Thank you for the suggestion. I am poor right now, so while I will probably purchase the book in a couple of weeks, I will continue the conversation as though it were not within my reach, because it is.

It is really hard to argue with moral nihilists the “If I want to live, ______” thing. Nihilism is that hardest thing for me to refute in my own mind.

If I were a nihilist, I would say something like “Well Mussolini was alive wasn’t he, was he moral?”. There must be a definition of life that does necessitate some values beyond the will and ability to survive.

Now I know there is something more than survival. This is the trouble, it is hard to define, and our culture lends towards spirituality or subjectivism. Find God, or you know, whatever it is you want.

I mean we have basically 4 options ethically.

  1. Altruism in some form. This can be radical altruism (Jesus), Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or whatever. This is usually bundled with spirituality so people can trick themselves into very temporary happiness.

  2. Subjectivism. This has various roots and forms. Reductionist, boring, but convincing to me on a fundamental level. There are a lot reasons for this I will start another thread about later.

  3. Egolessness. Just read about Buddhism or Taoism. They advocate something weird that is all about present orientation and breaking down the barriers between self and reality. A lot of it seem to amount to disassociation.

  4. Objectivism, Aritotelianism. Both advocate a better life through hard work and thinking. I would like it to be true. I don’t know if it is yet.

That is what we get to choose from. I know one is wrong, it doesn’t matter if two is right, I don’t like three and hope it isn’t true but it could be, and four is what I want to be true but haven’t been convinced by it.

Anyways, thanks for clearing up the obligation thing.

4

There is a reason Rand doesn’t discuss bare survival or merely staying alive as the proper goal of man’s life. She uses phrases like “man’s survival qua man,” which means to live as a man or in accordance with the nature of man (i.e. as a rational being). Tara Smith uses the term “flourishing” to emphasize the point.

Perhaps I should have been more descriptive. The choice which opens the door to rational ethics is not “Do I want to stay alive?” It is: “Do I want to live, as a man, in accordance with the nature of man?”

Man’s nature is that of a rational animal. Like other animals, it is man’s nature to eat, sleep, etc. These are required for bare survival, however, it is also man’s nature to reason. In fact, reason is man’s primary tool of survival. To live as a man is to reason. What actions should one take if one wants to continue thinking rationally? Objectivist ethics has the answer.

Great questions, and kudos for asking them. When I first read Rand’s fiction, the sense-of-life resonated with me and I read a bit of the non-fiction. I wasn’t unable to immediately integrate all of the ideas into a coherent whole, and unfortunately, I let my philosophic inquiry fall to the side for a few years. Keep at it.

Warning: the following is personal opinion and should not be taken as a representation of Objectivism…

I’ve recently come to realize that I thoroughly enjoy choosing. I see conscious choice (contrasted with animals’ instinctive selection between alternates) as a fundamental aspect of human nature. Not only is rationality the best way to stay alive, it is the best way to sustain my ability to choose, improve my methods of choosing, and increase the breadth of choices available to me.

5
  1. Where can I find a specific method of dealing with what is in Man’s best interest? A little more specific than “Reason”. I have heard ethics referred to as a science, like any science it has its own rules that are derived from the properties of the things being studied (Look at the difference between the way economists, physicists, and psychologists have to operate).

The method you’d be looking for is probably logic. In either case, if you have not read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, I would read that first.

6

Thank you. Now I need to prove that there is such thing as Man qua Man.

7

Thank you. Now I need to prove that there is such thing as Man qua Man.

Not sure what you mean by this. Man has a nature just as rocks and trees and coffee mugs have a nature. If we *didn’t* have a nature, that would mean that the Law of Identity doesn’t apply to reality, that A is not necessarily A, that contradictions CAN exist. It would also mean that there’s no way to know anything at all, and in order to prove anything, you have to be able to know SOMETHING. (If we can’t know anything, there’s no point in having any kind of discussion or of doing anything–we are helplessly at the mercy of an unknowable universe. We can simply throw that conception out the window as absurd, obviously absurd, axiomatically absurd.)

Therefore, the law of identity does apply, man is man. Now, what man is may be up to some debate–you can’t form conclusions about what man is by pulling them out of the air, you have to go out and observe men and form conclusions based on your observations. A lot of people stumble when integrating Objectivism because they think that the entire philosophy is *deduced* from the axioms instead of each stage being *induced* by reference to observational information.

The statement Man qua Man just means that we’re talking about, specifically, the characteristics that differentiate man from, say, plants or other animals rather than the characteristics we have in common. The main differentiating characteristic is that man has the faculty of reason and must use it in order to survive. The fact that reason is a requirement of survival militates against any scheme for preventing men from reasoning so that men can “survive” qua animals (living in caves or concentration camps) or qua plants (hooked up to some sort of Matrix-like control device) or whatever people want to propose for letting you “live” without living as a rational creature. Somebody’s reason has to create the means by which the victims of the Matrix or the concentration camps will survive–so the contradiction is clear. You cannot dispense with reason and the nature of man–man has to survive AS MAN, by the means and methods of men. Attempts such as these to reduce life to a Social Darwinistic Hobbsian war of all against all for brute animal or even vegetable existence are doomed to failure because of this inherent contradiction.

8

I agree. Like I said earlier, I am interested in having arguments that I can soundly have for myself, and that I can have ready for debate. I agree that people have a nature in the sense that rocks have a nature.

Here is what I am concerned with.

If Objectivist ethics are about acting within this nature then how is it a nature?

  1. Ethics is about acting according to one’s nature

  2. Men have a nature induced from observation, that which separates us from the rest of the universe.

  3. How is it that men can act against their own nature?

  4. One might propose that volition to act against one’s own nature is part of our nature. This on its face appears to violate the law of non-contradiction.

  5. I could conclude however, that volition is part of our nature, and their are choices beyond this, these choices have set consequences for us all.

  6. So being “Ethical” by Objectivist standards is making choices with awareness of these consequences.

Thoughts? Its late I wanted to write that down before I collapsed.

9

I agree. Like I said earlier, I am interested in having arguments that I can soundly have for myself, and that I can have ready for debate. I agree that people have a nature in the sense that rocks have a nature.

Here is what I am concerned with.

If Objectivist ethics are about acting within this nature then how is it a nature?

  1. Ethics is about acting according to one’s nature

Ethics is not about acting within a nature. One cannot act outside of one’s nature. ’

“What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.” – The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13

  1. Men have a nature induced from observation, that which separates us from the rest of the universe.

Man has the nature of being a volitional rational animal. Our defining characteristic is not observation - a dog can observe - it is reason - the ability to conceptualize and integrate concepts.

This does not separate us from the rest of the universe. That would be saying we are not part of existence. We are part of the universe - of existence - because it is not possible for something which exists to not be a part of the universe.

  1. How is it that men can act against their own nature?

It is not. Our nature is the ability to choose to reason. That means we can also choose not to reason.

  1. One might propose that volition to act against one’s own nature is part of our nature. This on its face appears to violate the law of non-contradiction.

Then one of the premises is incorrect - is the false premise that we have volition? Or that our choices to act against reason is against our nature?

  1. I could conclude however, that volition is part of our nature, and their are choices beyond this, these choices have set consequences for us all.

  2. So being “Ethical” by Objectivist standards is making choices with awareness of these consequences.

Thoughts? Its late I wanted to write that down before I collapsed.

Part of the problem you’re having here is you are starting without the proper context. You are starting with morality - with ethics - as they should apply to man without first understanding man’s nature. This will only lead to confusion built upon confusion.

As all knowledge is hierarchical - as one cannot understand integral calculus without first understanding counting, and arithmetic, and multiplication, and so forth - one also cannot understand ethics as they apply to a being without first understanding the nature of that being.

Therefore I suggest it necessary that you go back a few steps. I think you need to back up to understand the metaphysics and the epistemology involved before you delve into ethics.

10

Hairnet,don’t confuse nature with instincts. I think it may help you to understand what causality is. Causality simply states that existents have a nature and must act according to that nature. It is in mans nature that he possesses the rational faculty. As Greebo pointed out your starting down the hierarchy with ethics. You need to start with metaphysics and epistemology.

11

Hairnet,don’t confuse nature with instincts. I think it may help you to understand what causality is. Causality simply states that existents have a nature and must act according to that nature. It is in mans nature that he possesses the rational faculty. As Greebo pointed out your starting down the hierarchy with ethics. You need to start with metaphysics and epistemology.

Careful there, you’re applying a normative term (must) to something involuntary (nature). I think we’ve gotten a bit muddied up here.

Greebo is correct, that it’s not possible to act other than in accordance with nature. The thing is that the nature of man is such that he possesses the faculty of VOLITION. It is not that we choose to act in accordance with our nature, but that we choose to act in accordance with the methods that will, by our nature, result in our continuing to live. If we don’t choose to act this way, we will, by our nature, die.

12

Careful there, you’re applying a normative term (must) to something involuntary (nature). I think we’ve gotten a bit muddied up here.

Greebo is correct, that it’s not possible to act other than in accordance with nature. The thing is that the nature of man is such that he possesses the faculty of VOLITION. It is not that we choose to act in accordance with our nature, but that we choose to act in accordance with the methods that will, by our nature, result in our continuing to live. If we don’t choose to act this way, we will, by our nature, die.

I’m not sure that anyone would think I’m insinuating rocks have a will. But in case there are, no I don’t mean that.

13

Careful there, you’re applying a normative term (must) to something involuntary (nature). I think we’ve gotten a bit muddied up here.

That’s quite an… esoteric I think is the word I want … distinction. In common usage, it is generally understood that must can refer to the involuntary. For example, pure water, when reduced in temperature to 0 degrees, must freeze and become solid.

14

You basically confirmed what I was thinking though. I wasn’t really laying out an argument, just writing down contradictory thoughts. I know that post was a mess, it was really late and I was trying to distract myself from a panic attack I was having.

By the way, when I said “Separate from the universe” I meant “distinct from all other entities”. Sorry.

15

Careful there, you’re applying a normative term (must) to something involuntary (nature). I think we’ve gotten a bit muddied up here.

Greebo is correct, that it’s not possible to act other than in accordance with nature. The thing is that the nature of man is such that he possesses the faculty of VOLITION. It is not that we choose to act in accordance with our nature, but that we choose to act in accordance with the methods that will, by our nature, result in our continuing to live. If we don’t choose to act this way, we will, by our nature, die.

This is what I was trying to say.

The thing is you keep using the words “live” and “die” when ethics are clearly about more than that.

I will make another post about this later though. I think people are right when they say I should look into metaphysics and epistemology more.