Didn’t they massively benefit from destroying and enslaving dozens of millions of lifes?
Didn’t they massively benefit from destroying and enslaving dozens of millions of lifes?
Benefit how? You and I both know that destroying and enslaving people prevents them from living productive lives. A productive life in the context of modern civilization includes trading a value with others for another value. Hitler or Stalin wouldn’t deny the enormous benefits of the division of labor, yet that is exactly what they did in their lustful crusade for power over people. They weren’t acting in their own self interests, in the long run. Sure, you can force anyone to do anything with the threat of physical harm, but the “benefits” from that “anything” can last only until the ruled break down or revolt; it’s always short-lived. How is that in a dictator’s interest?
Sure, you can force someone to make you lemonade while pointing a gun at them, but when it’s certain they are then always looking for ways to poison you as soon as you look away, the gain of the lemonade is quickly overshadowed.
No, they didn’t.
Anyhow, I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of “rational self-interest”. “Rational self-interest” refers to those intermediate goals that rationally further the ultimate goal (which is, existence, qua man). If you got your understanding from an economic class, they’re probably talking about something different.
Benefit how? You and I both know that destroying and enslaving people prevents them from living productive lives. A productive life in the context of modern civilization includes trading a value with others for another value. Hitler or Stalin wouldn’t deny the enormous benefits of the division of labor, yet that is exactly what they did in their lustful crusade for power over people. They weren’t acting in their own self interests, in the long run. Sure, you can force anyone to do anything with the threat of physical harm, but the “benefits” from that “anything” can last only until the ruled break down or revolt; it’s always short-lived. How is that in a dictator’s interest?
Sure, you can force someone to make you lemonade while pointing a gun at them, but when it’s certain they are then always looking for ways to poison you as soon as you look away, the gain of the lemonade is quickly overshadowed.
The benefits that Stalin and Hitler gained from their violation of others’ rights were not short-lived – both of them lived long and (in their opinion) happy lives.
No, they didn’t.
Anyhow, I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of “rational self-interest”. “Rational self-interest” refers to those intermediate goals that rationally further the ultimate goal (which is, existence, qua man). If you got your understanding from an economic class, they’re probably talking about something different.
Hitler and Stalin’s actions furthered their ultimate goal, which was having massive power in their hands (to them, happiness).
It’s really easy to say “rational self-interest is moral” when you can just refute any argument with: “that person think they acted in their self-interest, and while to them they lived happy lives and reached their goals, they in fact were not happy and did not use reason.”
I think you need to look up the definition of rational self-interest. Also, even just a glance at John Galt’s speech would have answered the question:
"“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.
“To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.
“Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
“To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
“Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’-and neither is possible to man without the other."
Thanks for all the replies – I feel I have learned a lot.
This is an original topic worthy of attention.
Hitler and Stalin’s actions furthered their ultimate goal, which was having massive power in their hands (to them, happiness).
That cannot be an ultimate goal, because it depends on something else, namely existing. Logically speaking, you have to first decide whether you will exist or not, thus you have to make a choice between life and death. If you choose death, they you kill yourself and that is the end of the discussion. If you choose life, other choices are therefore possible. Those secondary goals must be evaluated in terms of whether they advance your primary goal.
That cannot be an ultimate goal, because it depends on something else, namely existing. Logically speaking, you have to first decide whether you will exist or not, thus you have to make a choice between life and death. If you choose death, they you kill yourself and that is the end of the discussion. If you choose life, other choices are therefore possible. Those secondary goals must be evaluated in terms of whether they advance your primary goal.
Dave, but they did choose life over death – their life over their death, at least.
Dave, but they did choose life over death – their life over their death, at least.
Now, once you make the ultimate choice, then you have to understand what that choice specifically means. It is impossible to simply “exist” or “live”, you have to exist as something. Existence implies identity (back to the axioms!). So you must determine what it means to exist as a man – you must understand man’s nature. This is where the Hitlers of the world screw up, they simply do not come close to correctly identifying man’s nature. And the reason is, very simply, they they are irrational. They have rejected reason as their proper tool for cognition and survival, and have instead embraced mere emotional sensations as their guiding light.
Now, once you make the ultimate choice, then you have to understand what that choice specifically means. It is impossible to simply “exist” or “live”, you have to exist as something. Existence implies identity (back to the axioms!). So you must determine what it means to exist as a man – you must understand man’s nature. This is where the Hitlers of the world screw up, they simply do not come close to correctly identifying man’s nature. And the reason is, very simply, they they are irrational. They have rejected reason as their proper tool for cognition and survival, and have instead embraced mere emotional sensations as their guiding light.
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but what is the problem with not living according to man’s nature (reason, rights, etc.) if that maximizes your long term happiness?
… Stalin and Hitler … lived long and (in their opinion) happy lives.
No, they could not and did not live happy lives.
Stalin: he started his carrier as a bank robber, had to watch his back all the time, and continued to watch his back until his death, terrified that his comrades will kill him before he will kill them. Besides, he died from a light cerebral attack laying for two days in his excrements, because doctors were afraid to enter his room uninvited.
Hitler: last time he was happy was entering the conquered Paris - this was 1940. Shortly afterward he realized that Stalin fooled him and he cannot avoid fighting on two fronts. He tried to avoid this by preventively attacking Russia, and ended hating the German people for being unworthy of him. Besides, happy people don’t commit suicide in order to avoid a well deserved punishment.
Sasha
No, they could not and did not live happy lives.
Stalin: he started his carrier as a bank robber, had to watch his back all the time, and continued to watch his back until his death, terrified that his comrades will kill him before he will kill them. Besides, he died from a light cerebral attack laying for two days in his excrements, because doctors were afraid to enter his room uninvited.
Hitler: last time he was happy was entering the conquered Paris - this was 1940. Shortly afterward he realized that Stalin fooled him and he cannot avoid fighting on two fronts. He tried to avoid this by preventively attacking Russia, and ended hating the German people for being unworthy of him. Besides, happy people don’t commit suicide in order to avoid a well deserved punishment.
Sasha
So, the argument is that even if a person thinks and says he’s happy, if you see some action of theirs which isn’t one typical of a rational happy person you can just say he’s unhappy and immoral?
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but what is the problem with not living according to man’s nature (reason, rights, etc.) if that maximizes your long term happiness?
Well, firstly man is a rational being. The only happiness that is possible to him is that of the realization of his rational self-interest goals.
To go against his nature is to essentially deny himself the only possibility at achieving the level of happiness which is that of a non-contradictory joy. In other words? Precisely the kinds of lives that Hitler and Stalin, Chavez and Correa and Peron live and lived.
I think the example illustrates the principle at work beautifully.
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here, but what is the problem with not living according to man’s nature (reason, rights, etc.) if that maximizes your long term happiness?
What is “happiness”? It is the emotion that results from achieving your goals – so it cannot be the goal itself.
So, the argument is that even if a person thinks and says he’s happy, if you see some action of theirs which isn’t one typical of a rational happy person you can just say he’s unhappy and immoral?
My argument was much simpler: people who are aware of failing to accomplish their most cherished goals - whatever those goals are - cannot feel happy.
You claim that Stalin and Hitler thought and said they were happy. I believe this to be a psychological impossibility. Where did you find this information?
Sasha
I think that Hitler and Stalin were acting quite irrationally, actually.
A helpful section on this is Dr. Andrew Bernstein’s “Objectivism in One Lesson” Chapter 3 “Egoism vs. Cynical Exploitativeness” as it explains the difference between egoism and the idea that happiness can be achieved by sacrificing others to self. The key is, as David has been explaining, the nature of man, which egoism says should be neither host nor parasite, and the “sacrifice others to self” says man is a parasite, or at best another dog in a dog eat dog world. But this is thoroughly irrational of course, because man is a rational being and can only survive by production. In order for something to be expropriated, it had to first be produced, so parasitism is a self-contradictory system, adds nothing to production, and is only capable of achieving a second-handed existence.
From Ayn Rand’s interview in Playboy magazine, March 1964:
PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, “What’s the most depraved type of human being?” His reply is surprising: He doesn’t say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, “The man without a purpose.” Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?
RAND: Yes, to a certain extent.
PLAYBOY: Why?
RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man’s evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose — a productive purpose.
PLAYBOY: Weren’t Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn’t they have a clear purpose?
RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.