To be a bit more literal about that, though, that’s the possibility of arbitrarily claiming that anything is an investment in a goal". I could claim that eating arsenic is an investment in some long-term goal, but that doesn’t make it so.
But, let’s say, that my long term goal is making money in order to live a comfortable life. Because it seems that, from what I’ve read so far here, man’s moral imperative is to selfishly (and I don’t mean that negatively) further his own needs and interests as a #1 priority. Man qua man, doing only the things he does for their own sake and not for the sake of anything else (I know, that’s aristotelian and Ayn Rand hated Aristotle, but I digress.)
So, I could justify embezzling money, robbery, even murder as me trying to further my own needs (ie to gain money to live comfortably) as is consistent with my moral imperative, if I also adopted the premise that I needn’t worry about doing anything to another man that might impede his rights.
Embezzlement is an investment in my long term goal, making money to live comfortably, and is justified by my selfish need to further only my own interests and not anyone else’s.
I know that my argument might be crappy but all I’m attempting to do is show a case where I could justify criminal activity as an investment in a long term goal. I hope I made sense.
… that’s aristotelian and Ayn Rand hated Aristotle, but I digress.)
You’ve got to be kidding.
So, I could justify embezzling money, robbery, even murder as me trying to further my own needs (ie to gain money to live comfortably)
Anyone who thinks the life of a criminal/embezzler is “comfortable”, regardless of how much money they have at any given time, needs to take a good hard look at reality. If your goal is to have a long, happy, comfortable life, then you WORK to earn value and build a solid financial situation for yourself. Have you ever met a “happy”, “comfortable” criminal, with no fear of being caught and no subconscious nagging feeling that he has no way to defend his own rights if he has no respect for others’?
Anyone who thinks the life of a criminal/embezzler is “comfortable”, regardless of how much money they have at any given time, needs to take a good hard look at reality. If your goal is to have a long, happy, comfortable life, then you WORK to earn value and build a solid financial situation for yourself. Have you ever met a “happy”, “comfortable” criminal, with no fear of being caught and no subconscious nagging feeling that he has no way to defend his own rights if he has no respect for others’?
No, I’m not kidding, I read in the introduction to Atlas Shrugged that Ayn Rand disagreed with a lot of what Aristotle wrote, and that she named the sections and chapters to reflect her disagreement. Is this not correct? Perhaps I used the term “hated” incorrectly, but I do remember reading the introduction to the book and it striking me because of how much I liked Aristotle and Nicomachean Ethics when I read it.
And as far as fear of punishment, etc, that a criminal feels… I guess what I’m trying to say is that regardless of any real consequences that might be visited on someone as punishment for their action, if my goal is to make money I could justify any action I take in order to meet my goal, if it’s true that according to Rand man’s goal and morality is selfishly motivated without regard to anyone else. I think you’re clouding the issue with the very real repercussions someone would meet if this were attempted.. but my point is the justification, philosophically, that anything I do that furthers my goal as a man qua man is justified if it’s true that man should be selfish in his motivations.
I think you’re clouding the issue with the very real repercussions someone would meet if this were attempted.. but my point is the justification, philosophically, that anything I do that furthers my goal as a man qua man is justified if it’s true that man should be selfish in his motivations.
“Very real repercussions” don’t cloud the issue, they are the issue. You can’t consider actions based on isolated consequences that wouldn’t be isolated in reality. You could just as easily say “according to physics, since it takes a number of seconds to land after jumping off a building, I can achieve my goal of flying by jumping off a building. Don’t cloud the issue with what would happen after that, it’s the flying part that matters”.
Man should be selfish in his motivations - he should use reason to determine them, and then use reason to achieve them. You’re not “furthering your goal” if you’re taking one step forward and three steps back.
No, I’m not kidding, I read in the introduction to Atlas Shrugged that Ayn Rand disagreed with a lot of what Aristotle wrote, and that she named the sections and chapters to reflect her disagreement. Is this not correct? Perhaps I used the term “hated” incorrectly, but I do remember reading the introduction to the book and it striking me because of how much I liked Aristotle and Nicomachean Ethics when I read it.
“Very real repercussions” don’t cloud the issue, they are the issue. You can’t consider actions based on isolated consequences that wouldn’t be isolated in reality. You could just as easily say “according to physics, since it takes a number of seconds to land after jumping off a building, I can achieve my goal of flying by jumping off a building. Don’t cloud the issue with what would happen after that, it’s the flying part that matters”.
Man should be selfish in his motivations - he should use reason to determine them, and then use reason to achieve them. You’re not “furthering your goal” if you’re taking one step forward and three steps back.
But selfishness implies a disregard for anything that doesn’t immediately pertain to the person. And if I am selfish in obtaining my goals as my moral philosophy then anything could be justifiable.
I just read the thread for the movie Avatar. Giovanni Ribisi’s character wanted that unobtanium, and it was in his interests to go get it. He was able to justify destroying the Na’Vi’s home tree in order to further his selfish (again, not negatively) need for the metal. It’s the same thing, in my opinion, as Utilitariamism’s Utility Monster… there’s a very real question about furthering what you want and your own needs at the expense of others whether it be Rand’s The Importance of Selfishness or the accumulation of many “utils” even though this accumulation causes others pain. If everyone adopted this philosophy of selfishness then there would be no repercussions for taking what you want as a means to your life goal or your own ends – embezzlement, destroying a native culture, whatever. I hope I’m making sense.
But, let’s say, that my long term goal is making money in order to live a comfortable life.
I think you should start by reconsidering your ultimate goal. As you should notice from your phrasing, making money is only a means to an end. Try to figure out what your ultimate goal is. Your primary choice is “Shall I exist; or shall I not exist?”. If you have decided to exist, then you must understand what “existing” is – you can’t just “exist, abstractly”, you have to have an identity. What is that identity? If you’re a cheetah you have to run really fast, but you’re not a cheetah.
I think you should start by reconsidering your ultimate goal. As you should notice from your phrasing, making money is only a means to an end. Try to figure out what your ultimate goal is. Your primary choice is “Shall I exist; or shall I not exist?”. If you have decided to exist, then you must understand what “existing” is – you can’t just “exist, abstractly”, you have to have an identity. What is that identity? If you’re a cheetah you have to run really fast, but you’re not a cheetah.
You’re probably right, I just adopted that “goal” for the sake of argument and might have done better to put more thought into my example.
But selfishness implies a disregard for anything that doesn’t immediately pertain to the person. And if I am selfish in obtaining my goals as my moral philosophy then anything could be justifiable.
No, that is not what selfishness implies. Selfishness means that you take into account everything you know about what type of creature you are, what kind of person you yourself are, what you know about life and what you rationally want from it - long term - and that you take actions to make that happen. If you go around acting on random whims or vague goals and don’t consider reality when forming your plans, you’re not being selfish, in fact you’re being self-destructive.
If everyone adopted this philosophy of selfishness then there would be no repercussions for taking what you want as a means to your life goal or your own ends – embezzlement, destroying a native culture, whatever. I hope I’m making sense.
Yeah, there would be. Because part of being selfish in a social context is ensuring that rights are protected. If there were truly no repercussions for anyone who decided to loot or kill me in pursuit of his own goals (necessarily short-term goals, since there’s obviously no plan for what he’ll do once I’m dead or have nothing left to loot), then it no longer makes any sense for me to continue living in society and I find some desert island or isolated corner of Canadian wilderness to live in alone.
Also, again - taking what you want is not a means to a “life goal”, assuming that the goal is “life”.
Yeah, there would be. Because part of being selfish in a social context is ensuring that rights are protected.
Yes, but whose rights? If I were selfish, I would only care about the self, ie. me. I would make decisions based on what I perceive to be my wants, my needs, and my desires based on an accurate self-inventory. Why would I care what affect furthering my own wants, needs, or desires had on other people unless it affected me also?
This is why I’m thinking that almost anything would be justifiable under this selfishness doctrine.
Yes, but whose rights? If I were selfish, I would only care about the self, ie. me. I would make decisions based on what I perceive to be my wants, my needs, and my desires based on an accurate self-inventory. Why would I care what affect furthering my own wants, needs, or desires had on other people unless it affected me also?
This is why I’m thinking that almost anything would be justifiable under this selfishness doctrine.
Because it does affect you also, if you have to share any part of your world with other people (and if you’re in a position to trample them to get what you want, then this applies). The right not to have force initiated against you is not some optional good idea, it’s necessary because human nature requires the use of reason. If you initiate force against another person then you have no right to be defended from them. So if you really do care about yourself, you’ll pay attention to that little detail.
It doesn’t mean you have to actually care what happens to them or whether they get what they want. It just means that the only way you get to act freely is if you aren’t stopping others from doing the same. Didn’t you say you’d read The Virtue of Selfishness? If not then you should, it’s a fairly clear idea.
I admittedly haven’t, I’m going off of what I read here and in other posts.
I plan to read it thought because it’s intrigued me. I just had a few questions.
That’s cool, I’m sure you’ll get around to it. It does answer all the questions you’ve asked here, much better than I can.
You probably already know this but reading the forum isn’t the best way to figure out what the philosophy of Objectivism says. There are lots of people with lots of different ideas floating around here and no way to tell whether their own understanding is accurate. The best strategy is to read the books and use the forum as a way to apply or test what you’ve read.
