Using others as a mean to your end

Questions about Objectivism
21

Philosophically speaking yes. You can make up all of these bullshit arguments about how a thief needs men of effort to exist. Practically speaking, however, don’t you think there are smart, intelligent CHEATERS out there that steal and make millions of dollars and will live until they die of natural causes happy lives?

It is not bullshit. It is fact. Futhermore, it is practical. To be practical one must deal with reality. What we have been telling is reality. Therefore it is practical.

If so, it is moral for them to do that if morality is a guage of what is best to sustain a happy life of purpose (their purpose is theft, and they are dang good at it).

No it is not moral. Morality is based on reality. To defy reality is not moral, it is immoral. Reality is not subjective, it is objective. The facts of reality, such as human rights, hold always. To be moral one must adhear to reality, one must respect human rights.

This might not be sustainable if EVERYONE lived by this philosophy;however, if a few people live by it they will LIVE happily and thus aren’t they “moral” under Rand’s definition?

They will not live happily. They will only have a delusion of happiness, not real happiness. And, no it is not moral under Rand’s definition as it breaches human rights and defies reality.

22

Firstly, dont resort to pointless attacks just because you have no good point to make. It is a cowards tactic to try to replace an argument with an unsupported attack on the arguments given by ones opponent. If you have no good argument, go away and think until you do or shut the hell up and go away.

If you think anything that enables you to stay alive (for a short time only in the causes you describe), justifies slavery, nothing I or any other here on this forum can persuade you. Its NOT in ones self interest to live by fraud, they will suffer the consquences eventually and boy will they be bad! You cannot defy reality, and if keep t rying then your in for a world of hurt.

Also the people you describe are not truly happy. happiness is the proper response to living life morally, quo man. But you reject that, so you might think such men can be happy, but I challlenge you to find one of them that is.

23

If you think anything that enables you to stay alive (for a short time only in the causes you describe), justifies slavery, nothing I or any other here on this forum can persuade you. Its NOT in ones self interest to live by fraud, they will suffer the consquences eventually and boy will they be bad! You cannot defy reality, and if keep t rying then your in for a world of hurt.

Indeed. If you try to fake reality by breaching people’s right you will not get away with it. Even if people don’t punish you for it, reality will. And believe me, reality will be harsher than any human.

24

I wrote earlier that you should be careful not to frame questions concerning Rawlsian ethics in utilitarian terms. I would make the same caution concerning Objectivism, since neither of them are “consequentialist”* philosophies. Thus, your continual pressing of the question “Will immoral acts necessarily lead to bad consequences?” is somewhat beside the point.

  1. Objectivist ethics is a theory of the moral life, not a theory of “immoral acts.” Objectivism is not a series of “Thou shalts” like one would find in most religion and traditional moral systems. Immoral acts are not immoral because they violate some moral code (e.g., Kantian deontology) or because they lead to bad consequences (utilitarianism), but instead because they are not compatible with the moral life. You ask the question of whether there’s a guarantee that the immoral person will get what’s coming to them in the end. The answer is no and yes. You’re right that it is entirely possible that someone who kills, rapes, and tortures puppies will live a long and prosperous life, dying surrounded by his grandchildren. In fact, history is full of tens of millions of people who have lived off plundering others and seemed to suffer no obvious negative consequences.** On the other hand, they would have not have lived a moral life, what Rand would call a life of man qua man. Objectivism ethics is a theory of how to live as man qua man, or as I like to put it, how to live “the good life” It’s true that acting morally doesn’t guarantee happiness, and acting immorally doesn’t guarantee unhappiness, but those are consequentialist problems.

  2. Objectivist ethics is teleological (oriented towards a goal). That means it is concerned with describing habits and codes of conduct that will put one on a trajectory towards “the good life.”*** The key insight to understanding “the good life” is that pleasures (obtained morally or immorally) last a moment, while happiness is a matter of a lifetime. Happiness requires a sense of self-esteem only possible when one is acting properly towards oneself and others. Thus, Objectivism doesn’t command one to be just because injustice is immoral (deontology) or because injustice had bad consequences for oneself or others (consequentialism), but because acts of injustice are incompatible with the goal of leading a just life, which is in turn important to being happy.

  3. One could of course claim that people who commit unjust acts go on to be happy. I could dispute those claims, and we could perhaps do psychological studies that would lead us around in circles. In the end, one has to ask how someone not on the road to happiness (only pleasure) even know if they’re happy? How many happy immoral people do you know?

I will close with the question, “Why is Tony Soprano depressed?” If one can answer that question, then one begins to understand the importance of teleological morality beyond mere consequences.

*I’ll use “consequentialism” and “utilitarianism” interchangeably, although there are subtle differences between the two.

** “Life isn’t fair, your Highness. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.” The Princess Bride.

*** Here’s an analogy to distinguish between consequentialism and teleology. Think of archery. Consequentialism is concerned with how many times you hit the target. Teleology is concerned with developing the techniques that will allow you to properly aim at the target. Sure there are ways to cheat, but will you find the archery satisfying if you do?

25

I didn’t mean to offend anyone. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this.

  1. Telling me that me that what I’m saying isn’t “reality” repeatedly might be true, but I’m not understanding why.

  2. By saying that people’s immoral (cheating and stealing) lives will catch up with them is begging the question of “why will it catch up with them if they don’t care?” Sure, someone with an objectivist “sense of life” would eventually be a depressed maniac if he cheated and stole repeatedly, but we’re talking about a Tony Soprano here who has a completely different sense of life.

  3. I, of course, think slavery is wrong. But my socialist professors sure don’t. So using the “well, if you don’t respect rights you get slavery!” argument is just going to get me a C here.

  4. Yes, Rand said that happiness is the psychological state of achieving one’s values. If one chooses the right values, happiness becomes the state of “non-contradictory joy” However, remember that this is a good cheater and there are plenty Howard Roarks for him to steal from until he dies. He engages in his mind to think of the most complex and interesting ways to rip people off. He lives a purposeful life with self-esteem AND can sustain himself until he dies. Furthermore, society is never going to figure out his practices and his rights are even respected (even though he’s really forfeited them..)! I do not understand how I could look a professor in the face and tell him this isn’t “non-contradictory” joy. He is living objectively in reality, using his mind, with purpose, self-esteem, and happiness. Now, what I REALLY couldn’t do is say that a poor person who is on the verge of dying shouldn’t steal money from others for his welfare check so he can live in “non-contradictory joy”. How would THAT be in his "rational’ self-interest.

I appreciate the posts here and didn’t mean to offend anyone. People here may be saying to themselves that “why is this idiot asking the same questions over and over again?” The reason why is because I think everyone is begging the question the with the answers they are giving me (elaborated above).

26

You’re really talking about two examples.

  1. The person steals and plunders because he wants to…

You never answered my questoin about how many happy immoral people you know? You keep saying that there could be this hypothetical evil-doer who escapes the consequences of his actions (which is possible), and is such a blithe spirit that he lives a life of joy, other people be damned.

Do such people exist? Possibly. To continue with my archery example, it’s also possible that someone who’s shooting at random might hit the target more than a skilled archer. The point of Objectivist ethics isn’t to cover for every unlikely scenario, but to describe the way to live a good life. It’s also possible that betting all your money on roulette will be the key to wealth, but you’re more likely to get there with a good job.

  1. The poor person faced with the choice between starvation and stealing a loaf of bread…

Historically, any society that ever presented its members with that dilemma usually enforced draconian penalties against theft (amputation or even death). Thus, if you are really presented with this dilemma, then your life is likely to be quite short anyway (unless you become a really good thief, which will likely put you in option 1). In an advanced industrial society, the chances that anyone would face involuntary starvation is extremely small–can you think of a single example since WWII?

The bottom line is that you can always think of perverse hypotheticals that would never happen that prove that acting morally might had adverse consequences. But once again, Objectivism is teleological (concerned with developing techniques to aim at the goal) rather than consequentialist. Learning the right way to shoot is the best way to hit the goal, but you can of course imagine weird scenarios where this wouldn’t be true.

27

I have had enough of your blatant evasions. I am not bothering any more. Good bye.

28
  1. I, of course, think slavery is wrong. But my socialist professors sure don’t. So using the “well, if you don’t respect rights you get slavery!” argument is just going to get me a C here.

A problem I see is that you wish to accept your professors’ premises and get to the conclusion that objectivism arrives at. Which cannot be done.

Objectivism doesn’t say live a life of virtue so as to get more cookies because cookies will make you happy.

It says living virtuously will allow your thoughts, emotions and body to be integrated and this internal state of non-contradiction will more likely lead to success in striving after your purpose in life, the accomplishing of which will yield self-esteem and pride if, and only if, that accomplishment is a direct result of your virtuous behavior and efforts.

What you are asking is that we take it as a given that cookies cause happiness and then proove that if someone steals cookies, they won’t be happy. See the problem?

29

Philosophically speaking yes. You can make up all of these bullshit arguments about how a thief needs men of effort to exist. Practically speaking, however, don’t you think there are smart, intelligent CHEATERS out there that steal and make millions of dollars and will live until they die of natural causes happy lives? If so, it is moral for them to do that if morality is a guage of what is best to sustain a happy life of purpose (their purpose is theft, and they are dang good at it). This might not be sustainable if EVERYONE lived by this philosophy;however, if a few people live by it they will LIVE happily and thus aren’t they “moral” under Rand’s definition?

Again, read the thread “Does looting really mean the destruction of the looter?” because it’s discussing the exact same problem you’re talking about. It really comes down to how Objectivism define the nature of man, and the it’s implications on ethics (which so far has been unexplained on that thread other than “well read OPAR and you’ll understand”).

30

Ok, it dosen’t seem like anyone has actually adressed the question that mb121 is asking, and I haven’t had alot of time to read other threads to see if there is a place to read up on this.

As I understand it, you’re asking “Why is it bad/immoral/evil for a man to steal, cheat, or otherwise mooch off of anyone at anytime if he can get away with it and will not be wrought with guilt?”

Bad/immoral/evil is a judgement of morality, which is the measure of an actions fulfillment or detriment to life qua man. Objective morality and judging it is something that requires the highest consciousness of philosophy one might hope to attain in order have any foundation to stand on.

There are actually two issues to adress in answering your question. One, you’re actually asking two questions. You’re asking why is it “immoral […]” ect. which I’m assuming, because you’re on an Objectivist forum, that you’re asking about morailty in terms of an objective moral ethic. In which case it is clear that in a social human environment, it is never in one’s self interest to cheat/steal/mooch in any sense of the word and in any interval of time.

Now, I didn’t support the last statement becuase that issue is covered extensively in this forum and is again being rehased above, but that’s not the crux of your question as I understand it.

The second question you’re actaually asking, and the issue I seem to think you want adressed, is why is it bad for the moocher to steal/cheat/mooch. Well in short, It’s not. Again bad/immoral/evil is a value judgement. And again you need a standard by which to judge something. In terms of the moocher you’re asking, "Is ‘mooching’ immoral for the moocher and the answer is no, because one would have to judge those actions fulfillment or detriment of life qua mocher. Which if you’re a moocher to begin with, it’s a good thing to mooch, that’s a moocher’s philosophy and is the basis of his life qua moocher.

wow I suddenly don’t like the word “mooch” lol

Everyone’s actions are a very clear window to their philosophy, becuase it is philosophy that guides action albeit sometimes not as a conscious effort.

I think the main problem you’re having is asking the right question.

It’s not immoral for the moocher to mooch if you’re talking about a moocher’s philosophy.

If you want to as why it is immoral to cheat/steal/mooch in a general sense then ask it, and read up in multiple threads here.

I feel this post could be alot less wordy but I haven’t the time to rehash it. I hope I can help.

31

This might not be sustainable if EVERYONE lived by this philosophy; however, if a few people live by it they will LIVE happily and thus aren’t they “moral” under Rand’s definition?

Being a thief is not something you can advertise openly, because it causes people not to trust you. How can you explain that you choose to steal from strangers but not your friends? What really determines the difference? Your friends would wonder if they are friends enough that you would not steal from them. And also if they know about your thievery, they have the ability to turn you in and be rewarded by the authorities. How can you trust them? Maybe you want to protect them from having the burden of knowing you are a thief, having to choose between protecting you and protecting themselves.

So you will have to keep your thievery secret. And yet if you choose to keep your thievery a secret, the facts will be out there, always threatening to expose the secret. This will be a constant source of tension and will make it more difficult to lead a happy life. You can be happy by ignoring the problem, of course, but if you ignore that problem it increases the risk that you will ignore the very thing that leads the cops to you (and you will get caught). Or you can worry about it. Worrying about it will cause you to be more careful about concealing the evidence, thereby increasing your chance of success in thievery, but on the other hand you will always worry, and so you will never be able to be truly happy.

In OPAR Leonard Peikoff compares this sort of lie to playing with a lighted fuse. The bomb, he says, may never go off. That’s how it is that some people die without ever having been caught. The thing is, you can never be sure.

  1. Objectivist ethics is a theory of the moral life, not a theory of “immoral acts.”

Actually this is a half-truth.

Man is a being with a specific nature. He can live or he can die, and in order to live, he has to perform certain actions and refrain from performing certain other actions. This much is also true of plants and animals.

Every living being has a means of survival. A lion survives by hunting; a bird by flying. Man’s means of survival is his mind. He uses his mind to think about what to do. And therefore he makes better choices than a mere animal can. The proper use of his mind is therefore key to his survival. Anything that threatens his mind, or its proper use, therefore threatens his life.

This is what leads to the idea of the moral life. The moral life is not just some idea that Ayn Rand cooked up out of thin air. It is a logical conclusion drawn from the facts of man’s very nature.

It is natural that a man should benefit from the minds of other men. That is why a proper civilization is a value to him. But when a man chooses to use the minds of other men as his means of survival – rather than using his own mind – he is making a choice that threatens his survival. It would be like choosing to walk with the legs of other men even though you have perfectly good legs of your own. It is not improper merely because of what would happen if everyone did it (although that is one way to expose the trouble with the idea). It is improper because the logic of it flies in the face of your nature as a man.

By saying that people’s immoral (cheating and stealing) lives will catch up with them is begging the question of “why will it catch up with them if they don’t care?”

If they don’t care about their lives, why not shoot themselves and have done with it?

If all they care about is experiencing pleasure, why not shoot themselves up with drugs and have done with it?

The whole point of being a thief instead of doing these is that you want to pretend you are living an honest life, but without actually doing so.

And that is the key to the psychology of a thief: pretense! By bothering to pretend, he is conceding that an honest life is a value to him!

But if an honest life is so valuable, why isn’t it worth going to the trouble to actually live one?

A thief is trying to live a contradiction.

I hope this gives you something to chew on for a while…