 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 23:48:28 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
E-mail: zedchronicles(at)gmail.com
URL: http://unitedagainstislamicsupremacism.wordpress.com
Egoism, in the Randian sense, has nothing whatsoever to do with Predation. The prudent use of lies and deceit is an act which is against the nature of man. The nature of man, as a reasoning being, if he be objective, is to reject the secondhander mentality of the thief and the liar for these are the hallmarks of greed, not selfishness. For far too long the two terms have been seen as anonymous, and this must end. The selfish earn. The greedy steal. This will never change. The nature of a greedy thief and liar is one who holds to an altruistic ethics as the guiding rod of his emotive acts. The belief that others should sacrifice for the sake of his well-being is the divining rod of his volitional choice when lust is acted upon greedily. It is patently absurd for anyone at the Ayn Rand institute to advocate this concept of predation in a world of objectivist philosophy, since the "predator" quality of Altruism's nature is precisely what the nature of a selfish ego must reject if it is to remain free. Just as there is a difference between selfishness and greed, so too is there a difference between reason and rational thought. Rational Thought is a school based on the epistemology of conceptual thinking - it is not a way of thinking, it is a method. From the epistemology of rationale breed two distinct branches of modern thinking - one is reason, the other is rationalization. Ayn Rand, throughout her non-fiction efforts highlighted the fact that the battle of ideas, to actively pursue capitalism and reason in defiance of an altruistic or collectivistic impulse, is defined as the battle against the evil rationalizations of those who would live secondhand. He who is a prime mover, he who embodies the natural instincts of a selfmade and self loving individual, the man who can say, with every act, "By my life and my love of it" must reject predation as a secondhand tool of the greed inherent in the evil rationalizations of altruistic thefts the world over. [Theft has a place, but that place exists as a strategic arm of a solution to anarchy just before the gun is pulled in last resort in a world torn asunder-as demonstrated in Atlas]
As far as making people think anew about what they think they know already. Shatter. Preconceptions must be shattered if a moral/ethical impact is to be achieved. Proof is a matter of abstraction...if a liberal minded man lives his whole life being told that self sacrifice for the common good is the correct ethic to measure value and live life by--for anyone to challenge this belief is the same as attempting to upend a religion. However, if the argument can be demonstrably proven in a way that shatters the preconceptions, it will be effective. Man thinks by abstraction in order to conceptualize...therefore, the shattering effect must occur in the realm of the abstract, not the concrete. Concrete notions are generated by abstract thought...and that is why the novel has such value in the work of Rand.
Note - I didn't have enough time to actually watch the debate...but I will if I get a chance. These are just my offhand thoughts on the matter - and it is troubling to me that any professor would seriously argue for predation if he holds himself a capitalist egoist... I'm hoping it was just a practice round of thought.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
http://unitedagainstislamicsupremacism.wordpress.com |
|
| Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 23:52:27 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Ashley King
E-mail: atking(at)mtaonline.net
Maybe, that "everybody ought to know X." As in, everybody ought to know that man survives by producing. And that requires thinking. Predation stops both. That's why it is a crime.
I would reduce it to that. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 1:08:59 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
E-mail: zedchronicles(at)gmail.com
URL: http://unitedagainstislamicsupremacism.wordpress.com
Everyone knows that the greedy man lies and steals.
Not everyone knows that selfishness has nothing to do with greed.
Stolen wealth and earned wealth are painted as morally equivalent if greed and selfishness are given moral equivalence.
Convincing the trained altruist that greed and selfishness are opposites, ethically begins with mental exercise. The selfish earn. The greedy steal. The selfish earn. The greedy steal. Repeat. Repeat.
Perception is determined by repitition.
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace... If you repeat it often enough, on enough bandwidths, to enough audiences on a regular enough basis this premise starts to become common knowledge... Any time radical Islam is mentioned, a knee jerk reaction takes place and when someone is talking about Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or the Taliban, suddenly...their first trained response is to say "Islam is a religion of peace" as a predicate on every other thing they are planning to say. They don't know why they are saying it. It is a preprogrammed mechanism via the conditioning of the airwaves and the environment due to a CAIR, MPAC, MSA propaganda campaign. Never mind, that Islam is built on the supremacist ideology of a tribal collectivist pirate death cult, that develops suicide altruists as its most virulent form...the conditioned response is overwhelming for those who never think to reason why the sentiment may not be altogether a truism.
Every airwave and every father and mother figure and teacher of the average child in America has been programmed to reject Randian thought. Why? Read "Comprachicos" by Rand again and you will see. Monsters...the comprachicos engineer monsters...as do the progressives throughout the free world, who have inundated the higher educational spheres.
The first thing your argument must do, Greg, in the effort above...is to strike out the lines which read: "Morality is a set of principles guiding your choices and actions in life. And rationality is our fundamental tool for living."
Morality is not a set of principles guiding you...Morality is the volitional choices made by the reason of an individual mind. [Volition is a force of reasoned will.]
Rationality is not the fundamental tool for living...Reason is the faculty of man's productive survival and self-esteem.
The battle we face is massive. The battle of ideas (to paraphrase Rand) consists of exposing, not opposing...of disproving, not denouncing...the battle does not consist of evading, rather...it consists of boldly proclaiming a full, consistent and radical alternative."
Therefore, in this effort, you can't simply say how do you change someone's mind that your selfishness is not a prescription for greed. That is like trying to prove to a cop that marijuana doesn't provide a gateway to harder drugs. It doesn't matter if you are right, in his mind the marijuana is still illegal.
The question then...is how do you present a full consistent and radical alternative to the premises of our altruistic friends that, when proclaimed, will ring true and refuse to evade the nature of a primemover?
So, if I was to challenge the premise of predation - the first thing I would ask would be...What would the world be like if everyone forgot the meaning and use the word "I"? In Anthem is a way forward... Predation is the gateway to a world without an "I"
The burden of proof might land on the objectivist stoop...but the creativity with which we handle that burden is up to each of us, in turn, as time shall serve. And in the end, all we have to do is prove that the self-esteem espoused by the predation is the gateway to a life of fear. Afterall, what was Howard Roarke when you first met him? Innocent of fear.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 6:33:45 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
At a minimum, if you think about what life would be like in a society where everyone was willing to kill anyone else for a dollar, you can see that it would be unbearable; in Hobbes's memorable phrase, it would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. So a rational egoist, in such a situation, would make it a high priority to get out of it, by moving to a society that had a functioning legal system, or by working with other rational egoists to set one up . . . because it's in the interest of an egoist to have a system of legal rights that prevents his being casually murdered.
Now, you might suppose that the egoist would want to have such a system of rules that binds everyone else, while himself remaining free to break those rules when he chose. But that's what a game theorist would call a prisoner's dilemma situation, where the rational strategy is to betray the other player. In reality, though, rational egoists aren't faced with a single momentary calculation, but with a lifetime of interacting with other people; and when you look at long series of interactions, the optimal choice is not to betray, but to act honestly and punish betrayal. So the alleged egoist who would murder for a dollar is necessarily a very short-sighted egoist. And short-sightedness is not suited to human nature; human beings survive by thinking and acting and interacting for the long range.
But even that is too negative a way of putting it. A rational egoist isn't motivated to respect other people's lives and freedom in a negative way, by the fear of being murdered or the fear of being punished for murdering other people, under the legal rules that protect him from being murdered. They're motivated in a positive way, by the much greater values to be gained from a society of people who are flourishing through voluntary cooperation. Consider, for example, the vastly greater wealth produced by market economies than by slave regimes. A person who really cares for their own interests will see that a society of voluntary cooperation, in which they participate, offers vastly greater rewards than being a criminal, or a slaveowner, or a dictator.
. . .
That's what I might say if I were in such a debate.
What I'm doing might be called a "ladder" strategy. That is, you start out where the other person is, and you question one of their premises, and show that changing it leads to a different view; and once you've done that, you question a more basic premise, and keep going till you get to your own position. I'm not proposing this as a panacea for discussion. But as a method of tutoring, it can be useful . . . and a discussion with someone who honestly seeks understanding, rather than just wanting to attack, is a kind of tutoring. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 7:47:50 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
"Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest. (There are possibilities other than maximization. One might, for example, claim that one ought to achieve a certain level of welfare, but that there is no requirement to achieve more. Ethical egoism might also apply to things other than acts, such as rules or character traits. Since these variants are uncommon, and the arguments for and against them are largely the same as those concerning the standard version, I set them aside.)"
I've posted on this before but it failed to generate any responses so perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree here and am just to dense to see it.
Greg wrote: "Huemer's reduction to absurdity on this was that the true egoist would do so even when the overall benefit is tiny and the offense is great, like killing someone for the net benefit of a dollar."
Does anyone else see the implication here?
(1) If Dr. Huemer is claiming that a true egoist would choose an action "when the overall benefit is tiny and the offense is great" despite the availability of actions with greater overall benefit to his interest, then he's contradicting the prescription above to *maximize* one's self-interest.
(2) OTOH, if Huemer is claiming that the situation is such that, of all actions the egoist may take, the one that *maximizes* his self-interest, in accordance with the prescription above, is of little net benefit and of great offense, is that action rightly called predation?
Now, one may claim that the Objectivist calculus of self-interest would never assign a net benefit to one's interest for the action of, for example, taking an innocent life. If that claim is true, then Dr. Huemer is assuming an impossible premise for his argument. However, *proving* that his premise is impossible is a difficult or perhaps intractable problem.
It occurs to me that a more promising approach is to ask the question: If there are circumstances in which one *knows* that, of all the actions available to him, the action that *maximizes* his (true, considered, long-term) self-interest is the taking of an innocent life, is that action predatory in these circumstances? |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 7:56:04 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Alfred asks: "If there are circumstances in which one *knows* that, of all the actions available to him, the action that *maximizes* his (true, considered, long-term) self-interest is the taking of an innocent life, is that action predatory in these circumstances?"
Predation is still predation, regardless of whether it's in anyone's interest or not. If it really was in Joe's interest to rape me, murder me, and steal all my money, he would be, as a matter of fact, predating on me. He would be destroying me in order to appropriate my values -- and that's what that predation is, regardless of whether he ultimately benefits or not.
The problem of supposedly "prudent predation" cannot be eliminated by redefining the term "predation." That would be illegitimate semantics -- and the problem would still exist. The real response is that predation is never in a person's self-interest due to inescapable facts about human nature. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 8:16:10 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Paula Hall
E-mail: paula.hall(at)live.com
My initial thought is to focus on the virtue of pride. No Objectivist could esteem himself if he thought himself incompetent to deal with reality except through the destruction of others. And since life takes work, no Objectivist would continue to regard himself as worth the effort if he engaged in predation. In that sense, predation is tantamount to suicide. Put another way -- a person who hates himself cannot flourish. A self-hater might "survive," in the sense of keeping body and soul together, but he would not be enjoying the life of a man; he would have turned himself into an animal.
I have always meant to post on this very issue, using the example of gangsters to illustrate.
Why is that gangsters are always going on about how they need to be "respected?" In the Godfather movies, gangsters are referred to as "men of respect." Modern day gangsters are all about getting their "props." It is because they lack the fundamental self-esteem that comes from earning values as opposed to taking them through predation. A gangster choosing a life of predation thereby admits to himself and to the world that they are INCOMPETENT to deal with reality except through destroying reality. Gangsters cannot respect themselves, but on a deep level, they need to have self-respect. They attempt to replace what they cannot give themselves with "respect" they get from others. Of course, they never get "respect" from others, because they always seek it at the point of a gun. What they get from others is mindless subservience born of fear. Yet they keep insisting on respect because self-esteem is a fundamental need of human survival.
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon on pride (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html):
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earnedâ€"that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own characterâ€"that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mindâ€"that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustainingâ€"that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soulâ€"that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choiceâ€"that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itselfâ€"and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’s shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.
|
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 8:52:43 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Paula Hall
E-mail: paula.hall(at)live.com
I would add one further point: Objectivists are not second-handers. To engage in predation is to admit dependency on the existence of other producers to victimize.
I admit I have not yet had a chance to listen to the debate, so please excuse me if I'm stating things that were mentioned in the debate. I'm looking forward to listening to it! |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 9:59:38 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Dana H.
An important question is: How do you determine whether something is in your interest?
The common view is that you do it pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis. The idea behind Huemer's reductio is that you see a man holding a dollar, and through some sort of mental calculus and balancing determine that the dollar is of more value to you than his life, so you kill him and take the dollar.
Note that this whole scenario smuggles in pragmatism and implicitly rejects acting on principle. But you CANNOT determine what is in your interest by treating every situation in isolation, "on its own merits", "case-by-case", or according to any of the pragmatists other favorite slogans. Dr. Peikoff gave an excellent Ford Hall Forum talk 20-odd years ago entitled, "Why Should One Act on Principle?", which I recommend on this subject.
I think that getting across the need to act on principle, and the impossibility of being genuinely egoistic by any other means, is essential to refuting anti-egoism arguments like Prof. Huemer's. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 10:16:11 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Dana,
There is a parallel distinction in the ethical theory of utilitarianism, between act-utilitarianism, which says that act by act, you should calculate the expected payoff of different options and do whatever has the highest payoff, and rule-utilitarianism, which says that you should determine what the long-term average payoffs of different rules or policies are and choose the one that is best overall. Of course the basic starting point of utilitarianism, which assumes that people should act for the good of humanity as a whole, is wrong. But I might cite the distinction to someone familiar with traditional (non-Objectivist) moral philosophy, to suggest that egoism could be approached in two parallel different ways . . . and that a person who looks for long-term principles does not thereby cease to be an egoist (and since living by such principles is beneficial, such a person is in fact a better egoist). |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 11:35:49 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jonny Blaze
E-mail: j(at)blaze.com
Had Ayn Rand been alive during Civil War times, I bet every slave-owner in the South would have a copy of Atlas Shrugged on their nightstand. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 11:39:13 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: LukeM
Pride should not be part of the argument. Until you establish that predation is not in your self-interest, it's possible to take pride in successful predation. Without solving this, the real problem, you're relying on each person's moral intuition. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:07:36 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Carl Svanberg
E-mail: carl.svanberg(at)gmail.com
URL: http://svanberg.wordpress.com/
This is a contextual issue. There are so many options available. But I have found that the general approach should be to give the people you are taking to some examples and then integrate these examples to common knowledge. I generally approach the predation argument with the following arguments. The order of the presentation and what I will emphasize, will as always depend on context:
1. The need of principles to understand what's in your self-interest vs the non-principled, concrete bound approach. Example: You can pick virtually anything, but I usually go with Coca cola because it relates very well to me personally. (I used to be fat some years ago, because I drank a lot of Coca cola.)
Now, the question is: Is it in your self-interest to drink Coca cola? On the face of it, this could seem self-evident: It love the taste of a really cool cola. And that's why I love it. So why not? Here is the problem: Most people know it's a bad thing to drink too much Coca cola. But how do you know it? You cannot determine it by the short-term effects. The only short-term effects I can observe is that I enjoy to drink it. That's all. And that's all I experience, every single time I drink Coca cola. Day after, after day, after day.
However, the days goes by and one day you realize that your pants doesn't fit you as well as they used to. On the perceptual level of thinking, this is virtually inexplicable. To even grasp and later judge the (long-term) consequences of drinking too much Coca cola, you have to think conceptually about the issue. This how we all actually know that it's not a good idea to drink too much Coca cola.
If I get someone to grasp this much, then I know that I have come a long way. Then I don't think it's that hard to show that you cannot know what's in your long-term self-interest without thinking about it conceptually, i.e., in terms of principles. You cannot take a single concrete, such as a dollar, or a bottle of coca cola, or a particular job, or a particular woman, a particular mushroom, and _outside the context of rational (moral) principles_, judge it as something good or desirable. It's the science of ethics to formulate and validate the principles by which you can grasp what's in your true interest.
2. The value of other people in general. The point here is that other people, in general, can be and/or is of a SELFISH value to you. The point to get across, is just to get people to realize that much, then you usually realize the rest on your own. The reason this is important to realize is that this is the first step of grasping that there are no conflicts of interests between rational people. There are, again, many options on how you can indicate this point. I usually begin by pointing things like this: you love your parents, you love your friends, you love your girlfriend, you love all of these people because they make YOUR life better, richer, more interesting in many different ways. So you have a SELFISH reason to value them.
What about strangers? One can point out their potential value and the fact that many if not most of your friends were at some point total strangers to you. Besides, every person you don't know who does something of value, is at least of a indirect value to you. Almost everybody have an idol of some sort, some person we look up to, admire, etc. It may be a writer, a rock star, or scientist, or whatever. The point is: we don't really know them personally, but we value them because of how they, through their work and achievements make our daily lives better or give us inspiration. The principle is essentially the same towards strangers, such as the strangers that cleaned up your workspace during the night, or the janitor, or the nice people who helped you out at the Apple computer store. Etc.
Again there are so many different ways of approaching this point. Finally I just want to say that it can also be advisable to integrate some basic concepts of economic in this discussion. Take for instance the existence of a division of labor, the law of comparative advantage. These facts implies, for one thing, that there is room for everybody; that everybody has something to offer. And I would argue that this law is not limited in the material realm, even if you are not the genius of the ages you may still be a very good friend. Think of Forest Gump.
Add, to this, the pyramid of ability (as identified by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged), and then you realize that the better people: the more ambitious, smarter, efficient, are of no threat to you. In fact the opposite is true. It is, in the long term, always in your interest that the better people are allowed to function free, to think, to produce, to invent, to discover, to reap the benefits from doing so, etc.
In the end, it this kind of observations, that make you grasp that you value human life, in general, because you recognize that they are, in general, such a enormous source of values.
3. The consistency argument. This one I try to avoid using, unless the space or time constrains forces me. Essentially it goes like this: It's in your self-interest to be objective, logical and rational. But you are not objective, logical and rational if you deny that all the facts that implies that you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, applies equally to everybody else. (This argument assumes, however, that the person I am talking with, at least on some sense, recognize that it's a good thing to be objective, logical and rational. If they don't recognize this, on some level, I don't engage in any conversation with them, since it would be an utter waste of time.)
Then, if there is any time left for it, I usually try integrate this, with two facts: the need of principles and the fact that good, rational people - the kind of people who make your life better, richer, need to be free to function as such. (Likewise, it is in your self-interest to oppose, fight, imprison and, if necessary, kill the people who make your life and the life of those you care about miserable or impossible.) If there, however, is no more time left, I will only briefly indicate these two points and then refer people to the relevant literature.
These approaches are in NO way exhaustive. I am just indicating some of the possibilities. And whatever you say, the general approach should be inductive. You should try to guide people in their thinking by advising them on where to look for the evidence, on their own. That's what I always try to do. And if you can't argue inductively, by providing examples, then at least try to integrate what you say with common knowledge or, if possible, the context of the person you are talking with. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:12:28 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Carl Svanberg
E-mail: carl.svanberg(at)gmail.com
URL: http://svanberg.wordpress.com/
Oh yes, I know that my grammar is really bad. I am working on it. Hopefully, you can still understand what I am trying to say. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:35:57 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
A spelling nitpick:
"stop pedaling the notion"
should be
"stop peddling the notion"
"pedal" -- a lever operated by the foot
"peddle" -- to sell or hawk |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:41:43 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Bill -- Objectivism is not akin to "rule utilitarianism," i.e. it's not "rule egoism." In fact, the problem of the prudent defector arises in a serious way for the rule-utilitarian, such that the doctrine is widely rejected as unworkable. So by citing that as a parallel, you're making the problem of the "prudent predator" seem worse rather than better. In particular, the rational approach would then seem to be what the rule utilitarian ought to do, namely to live by general rules most of the time, then defect on occasion when that seems likely to be in his interest. That's *exactly* Mike Huemer's view of how the egoist ought to act -- and it's not at all the Objectivist view. The Objectivist view is based on contextually absolute principles, not mere rules.
I don't have time to say more now, but this is an issue that I'd like to write more on at some point, precisely because I used to find the parallel attractive myself. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:44:14 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
A well-known troll writes:
"Had Ayn Rand been alive during Civil War times, I bet every slave-owner in the South would have a copy of Atlas Shrugged on their nightstand. "
You'd have lost the bet. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
"Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian, feudal South that maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped it outâ€"as capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century."
Bibles would still have been their tome of choice.
|
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 12:49:37 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Diana,
I would like to hear more about that, when you have time. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 13:04:01 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
D'oh! Thanks, Jim -- fixed! (Sorry for the distraction, this would explain why it felt a little funny as I was typing that word... :^) |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 13:13:04 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Kevin
E-mail: kevin(at)mcallister.ws
URL: http://logicaldisconnect.org/
Carl,
I like the concretization of long term vs. short term with drinking Coca Cola. That's great!
Also the talk Dana H. mentions, "Why Should One Act On Principle?" is currently available to registered users of the http://aynrand.org/ site. Along those lines there is an excellent recording of Ayn Rand discussing the "conflicts of men's interests" available free, here http://tinyurl.com/djw9re. The example used is people competing for the same job, but it helps to analyze the concept, "self-interest." |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 13:15:09 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Kevin
E-mail: kevin(at)mcallister.ws
URL: http://logicaldisconnect.org/
Oops the auto clickable link code sucked my punctuation into the link. So here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/djw9re |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 14:38:40 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Sajid
Wow. The more I am thinking about this the more I am realizing it is not an easy issue at all.
I guess the main problem in this issue is how is one to define egoism. From m-w.com:
1 a: a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b: a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
2: excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance â€"
Only 1 (both a and b) apply to Objectivism. However, is this principle absolute in every conceivable ethical situation? Moreover, does the concept of egoism as defined here adequately represent Rand's conception of ideal human action?
The best counter argument to the assertion that egoism necessarily involves predation that I can think of is the following:
The fundamental purpose of man is his own happiness and his most fundamental tool is his own mind. If he always has to worry about predation from other humans, he will be on edge all the time and live in fear. This is the complete antithesis of long range planning. If man does not have to waste his brain on mundane matters like personal security 24/7 then he is free to plan far into the future. This liberates men to perform awesome feats like build the pyramids or a space shuttle or a giant dam.
Two points:
1. Must we define Objectivist ethics as unbridled egoism moderated by a social contract based on man's nature, or is a non-predatory social contract a part of the defintion of egoism?
2. One could say Objectivists know exactly what Objectivist ethics are and are just searching for a consistent language in in which to frame their theory. The term egoist is historically divisive since it is so Closely associated with egotist, a point Ayn Rand herself has made. Then this means that this particular issue is just an issue of semantics. If one didn't use the word egoist but defined Objectivist ethics as rational self-interest moderated by a social contract would too many people bring up the predatory argument in the first place? Since many people find it hard to prove that strict egoism necessarily involves non-predation, why not use a qualified definition of egoism until someone finally proves beyond any doubt that egoism involves predation. I personally know for sure that I strive to be as egoistic and non-predatory at the same time. Thus, a definition of this sort is perfectly fine for me for everyday use. To use a mathematical analogy, Fermat's last theorem was not proved for more than 400 years after he made his original conjecture. Just because there was no formal proof did not mean that we had to doubt the theorem since there was plenty of inductive (in the philosophical sense) evidence that the theorem as formulated by Fermat was indeed true. And just because Objectivists cannot give an airtight proof that egoism involves a non-predatory society EMPHATICALLY DOES NOT mean that Objectivists are ready to concede that using other men is a part of Objectivist ethics, especially given Ayn Rand's extensive development of the concept of a second hander. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 15:12:50 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Mel McGuire
"If I murdered for $1, that would invalidate any right to the life being served by the murder (mine) as well as the right to keep the $1. By invalidating the right to my own life and the right to be the beneficiary of my own actions, I would invalidate the egoism I'm trying to use as the basis for my crime. We all have tha same rights and, therefore, what I'm permitting myself to do, I have to also permit others to do. As an Objectivist, I see the implications of committing such a crime and would never do it. Suggesting such a crime is suggesting that I try to maintain a contradiction, which, as an Objectivist, I know not to do. An impulsive (irrationalist) crime can't be allowed as an assumption because that would make an absurdity out of trying to "pin" such a crime on Objectivism."
People will generally grant the premise that we all have tha same rights.
A comment about the debate.
I was sooo glad to see Ghate rebut Huemer's epistemology. I think it's a big mistake to leave an opponent's epistemology unanswered in a debate. For example, until atheists are able to do this, I see little or no progress being made in debates with religionists. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 17:04:01 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
W. Stoddard writes:
"A rational egoist isn't motivated to respect other people's lives and freedom in a negative way, by the fear of being murdered or the fear of being punished for murdering other people, under the legal rules that protect him from being murdered. They're motivated in a positive way, by the much greater values to be gained from a society of people who are flourishing through voluntary cooperation."
This is something that has been jumping out at me of late -- the extent to which mainstream ethical approaches all focus on negative motivations (from fear) rather than positive ones (from values -- or, to speak like a hippie for a moment, from *love*).
Two recent dismissals of Ayn Rand's ideas on the ground that she "doesn't understand human nature" that I ran across, manifested this tendency as well. I wonder if those people understand the true implications of saying that sticks are better than carrots for dealing with men. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 17:09:59 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Geek
E-mail: geek(at)gmail.com
Greg Perkins: "One of Huemer's big points was that egoism logically entails predation."
Either you don't know the meaning of "logically entails" or this is a gross misrepresentation. Huemer even says it's fine for people to pursue their own self interest most of the time. His point about predation was that Ayn Rand's version of egoism has *insufficient constraints* against predation. Dispute that if you want. It is fair to say Huemer said that Ayn Rand's egoism *permits* predation. However, he did not say egoism *logically entails* predation. That means egoism *necessitates* being a predator, something Huemer did *not* say.
Diana Hsieh: “In particular, the rational approach would then seem to be what the rule utilitarian ought to do, namely to live by general rules most of the time, then defect on occasion when that seems likely to be in his interest. That's *exactly* Mike Huemer's view of how the egoist ought to act -- and it's not at all the Objectivist view.”
This puts words in Huemer's mouth. He did not say an egoist *ought* to be a predator given the opportunity. What he said was that Ayn Rand's version of egoism has *insufficient constraints* on being a predator, and therefore *permits* predation.
Geesh! Ayn Rand said truth is the recognition of reality. Some of her fans sure fail to recognize reality when the reality is what somebody *actually* said. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 18:12:45 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
"Geek" -
You may want to try for more comprehension and less snarkiness.
"logically entails" != "logically entails maximally, at every conceivable opportunity"
Not even a Mafia boss or a dictator operates by predation all of the time.
If egoism entails predation *sometimes*, then egoism entails predation. The Objectivist argument is that rational egoism *never* justifies predation, so I have no idea why you think that Greg and Diana want to exaggerate the position of Dr. Huemer (or other critics of pure egoism). You also appear to have missed the previous post on this topic. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 19:03:26 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
Diana wrote: "Predation is still predation, regardless of whether it's in anyone's interest or not."
Diana, thanks for your reply. I know you're busy and I appreciate you taking the time to host this blog and promote these discussions.
At the risk of being scolded to 'give it a rest, Alfred', I would ask you to consider the following hypothetical scenario:
Suppose an egoist *knows* that (1) the action of an innocent individual (innocent in the sense that the individual has no way to know of the consequences of his action) will result in the deaths of many people and (2) that the only way to stop this from occurring is to kill the innocent individual and (3) the only one in a position to kill the individual is the egoist.
Now, further suppose that it is, *slightly* in the interest of the egoist to kill the innocent individual (maybe the benefit is equivalent to $1). Would the prescription that the egoist kill the innocent individual because it is in his self-interest to do so be considered predation in these circumstances?
OTOH, if it were slightly *not* in the interest of the egoist to kill the innocent individual, how would the prescription to 'let' many people die because the egoist might (metaphorically) "get his clothes dirty" be morally judged?
I suppose my point is that it is not at all clear to me that "predation is always predation". What am I missing?
(Yes, I'm aware of "The Ethics of Emergencies" but it is not clear to me how this would be considered an emergency from the perspective of the egoist.)
Thanks in advance for comments and/or flames.
Alfred |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 19:34:11 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Mike
E-mail: mikedialjatnetscapedotnet
Wow, what a wide chasm to breach in a few words. First, you have to go after his definition of egoism. Egoism properly defined is the belief that he who does the work has the right to keep the fruits of that work, and is not defined as predation. Perhaps he is conflating egoism with egotism? Second, I'd point out that it is not in my interest to set a precedent of murdering for a dollar, or murdering at all, if I want to live a long, happy and prosperous life. Third, I'd point out that anyone who uses his mind has no need to prey on others. People who prey on others are called criminals, not egoists. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 20:57:31 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Alfred -- The case that you outlined is not an instance of predation. Predation is when a person harms another person (particularly by violating his rights) in order to gain something for himself, not to help third parties. Lions don't predate on gazelles to feed the cheetahs, but to feed themselves.
Your case is actually a variant of the "trolley problem." And it's a lousy basis for any reasoning about ethics. It's a fantasy scenario with totally arbitrary constraints: nothing of the sort has likely ever happened in all of human history. And yes, it is definitely a kind of "lifeboat scenario." Although the decision-maker is not in danger personally, the basic idea of that various other people are in the lifeboat (or in the water) and the decision-maker must decide who to save and who to abandon.
Significantly, the trolley problem is a conundrum for the altruist, not the egoist. The problem involves nothing egoistic: the decision involves nothing of personal value, yet the person supposedly has a duty to help. That's a demand of altruism, not egoism. The conflict for the altruist in these kinds of artificial cases involves two conflicting intuitions: (1) it's better to help more rather than fewer people and (2) intervening to cause some harm is worse than passively permitting some harm to occur. Of course, because all other context is dropped by stipulation, the case seems to be a terrible dilemma.
However, those two conflicting principles -- while paramount for the altruist -- aren't relevant to the proper analysis of these (insane) kinds of cases. The relevant principle in such cases is that of individual rights: it's not justifiable to kill innocent persons in order to prevent them from accidentally killing other innocent people. If that were justifiable, then we ought to summarily execute all doctors, as they're pretty likely to cause someone's death at some point. That's absurd.
Undoubtedly, I've now gotten way off the topic of predation in egoism. That's because the example you raised had nothing do to with that topic. Hopefully, I've made that reasonably clear. Basically, my impression is that you're thinking from a quasi-altruistic framework, and that's seriously confusing you. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 21:51:37 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Geek writes: "Either you don't know the meaning of "logically entails" or this is a gross misrepresentation ... he did not say egoism *logically entails* predation. That means egoism *necessitates* being a predator, something Huemer did *not* say."
Well, Geek, it's ironic that you would accuse others of gross misrepresentation. Both Huemer and I of course know what "logically entails" means, and what I said perfectly represents his message. Care for a key quote? In his opening presentation of this point, he said that "if egoism is correct, then it would follow that you should kill the innocent person. In fact, you would be obligated to kill the innocent person -- it would be wrong not to. |
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 21:53:29 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Greg Perkins
E-mail: greg(at)eCosmos.com
URL: http://dianahsieh.com/blog
Geek writes: "Either you don't know the meaning of "logically entails" or this is a gross misrepresentation ... he did not say egoism *logically entails* predation. That means egoism *necessitates* being a predator, something Huemer did *not* say."
Well, Geek, it's ironic that you would accuse others of gross misrepresentation. Both Huemer and I of course know what "logically entails" means, and what I said perfectly represents his message. Care for a key quote? In his opening presentation of this point, he said that "if egoism is correct, then it would follow that you should kill the innocent person. In fact, you would be obligated to kill the innocent person -- it would be wrong not to." |
|
| Friday, March 13, 2009 at 6:15:42 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
Gosh, Diana. In an earlier post of mine in this thread, I wrote that I'm looking to attack the claim "egoism doesn't rule out predation" from a *different* direction so I think it should be clear that I'm not trying to find an 'answer' to the trolley problem using quasi-altruistic thinking.
Instead, by taking an example that we agree has nothing to do with predation, and then reasoning about it from the alleged egoist perspective ("Now, further suppose that it is, *slightly* in the interest of the egoist to kill the innocent individual (maybe the benefit is equivalent to $1)", I hoped to show that a statement like "according to egoism, if one could receive a net benefit of $1 for killing an innocent person, one ought to do it" does not necessarily imply predation.
Oh well, it seemed like it was worth a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. |
|
| Friday, March 13, 2009 at 7:05:05 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Alfred -- I didn't mean to accuse you of anything untoward. I misunderstood how you were attempting to use this "trolley problem" case. And I still don't understand it. Why graft a trolley case onto a prudent predator case? What is that supposed to illustrate? How is that relevant to your original question about the definition of the concept of "predation"? I'm completely baffled.
I have serious objections to using these kinds of impossible fantasy scenarios as a basis for ethical or epistemic judgments. Can you make your point by taking about something real? If not, then you'd best not ask me about it. |
|
| Friday, March 13, 2009 at 11:16:48 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Alfred Centauri
E-mail: alfredcentauri(at)bellsouth.net
I will do some more thinking about this later and, when I find a better way to make my point, I'll e-mail you.
But now, the honey-do list beckons me!
Thanks,
Alfred |
|
| Friday, March 13, 2009 at 15:56:27 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: RT
Dana wrote: "An important question is: How do you determine whether something is in your interest?"
And an interesting assumption of most anti-egoists (from which they manufacture most of their 'gotcha' examples) is that they assume that any amount of money (or material goods), regardless of any context whatsoever, is self-evidently 'in your interest'. And just about anything else, isn't in your self-interest.
They're wrong on both counts. |
|
| Friday, March 13, 2009 at 21:11:22 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: rrlv_frsh
I still maintain that the focus on egoism in general is a distraction. Here is how Ayn Rand put it in her introduction to VOS:
"In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment." [p. vii pb]
Ayn Rand's rebuttal is that man is a being whose basic means of survival (and cognition) is *reason*, with everything this implies.
Reduced to barest essentials, Dr. Huemer evidently expresses the same basic view of selfishness described by Ayn Rand, though Dr. Huemer expresses it in more formal academic language. Greg writes: "One of Huemer's big points was that egoism logically entails predation. The idea is that there are times when it is in one's interest to lie, cheat, steal, etc. -- so it logically follows that a true egoist selfishly seeks to exploit others when he would so profit."
Can't we cut through a tremendous amount of confusion at the outset by emphasizing that Objectivism advocates *rational* egoism -- not egoism in general, not "pure" eogism (as envisioned by Dr. Huemer and other critics of egoism), but egoism tempered by (and founded on) *reason* -- which means: *reason* identified as man's basic means of survival (as well as, indeed, because of, man's basic means of cognition)? And isn't adherence to reason the exact opposite of initiating physical force and of sacrificing others to oneself by force or fraud? I'd like to see someone try to sacrifice others without violating the ban on initiating physical force (or fraud, which is an indirect form of physical force, as is willful breach of contract). He wouldn't be able to do much harm to them, and he would quickly learn that it is absolutely not the most effective way to benefit from what others might be able to offer in an honest trade relationship. Does Dr. Huemer deny that upholding reason (rationality) implies that initiation of physical force against others is morally evil?
If Dr. Huemer's greatest concern is how to guide ordinary people living together in a society, wouldn't they be able to see (in a fully rational society) that adherence to reason entails acceptance of the ban on initiating physical force? Historically, it was, indeed, exhaltation of reason that led, over time, to political revolutions and the American Declaration of Independence. Surely an average person can understand a principle that says: "You must never initiate physical force against others, and if you do, our society's government will meet you with certain and swift retaliatory physical force to stop you and/or exact restitution and retribution from you." That moral and political principle alone should be adequate guidance to the average person to leave others alone if he truly cannot restrain himself from trying to sacrifice them. If you want to see an unusually spectacular example in real life today, look at Bernard Madoff -- and ask how long he would have been tempted to defraud his investors if he had thought longer range, with more respect for principles and for the fundamental economic untenability of a pyramid scheme. What he did may well be blamed on egoism (or "irrational exhuberance" or "infectious greed" etc.) by many observers, but I doubt that anyone would seriously try to blame it on reason. Does Dr. Huemer deny that there would be a government-enforced ban on initiation of physical force in a fully rational society?
I grant that if the task is to *discover* Objectivism in the first place, one needs volumes of thought (as Ayn Rand herself has noted). But *after* Ayn Rand, if a fully rational society and its corresponding political system were to exist, why wouldn't it be relatively easy for citizens to understand what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do, and what they should or should not do toward others if they want others to help them in any manner?
|
|
| Monday, March 16, 2009 at 2:28:41 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Carl Svanberg
E-mail: carl.svanberg(at)gmail.com
URL: http://svanberg.wordpress.com/
In my last post I explained, in essence, how I would go about to deal with this issue. But did not provide any example of how I would formulate myself. Well, a couple of minutes ago I read this post at ObjectivismOnline.com: "I see in Objectivism the value of not harming yourself, but if your own life is the standard of value what benifit is the life of someone else? Why not just kill them if they are bothering you? What is the objective value in valuing another persons life at all? How does Ayn Rand address this?"
This is my answer. Please notice the method I am using:
Veritas, I suggest that you try to understand the ideas of Miss Rand by reading her books and novels. Start with the Anthem, then The Fountainhead, then Atlas Shrugged. Then again, I don't know if that would help you since your problem seems to stem from your faulty _methodology_.
You seem to try to _deduce_ the value of another person from the fact that man's life is the standard of value. I do not think that is possible. And given your inability to draw the proper conclusion, I know that it can't be the proper method. Instead you should start with the facts, especially the facts of your own life, and _induce_.
Do you have any friends? Do you not value them? Don't you get some pleasure from their existence? Don't you enjoy their company? Do you have some love partner? Have you ever been in love? If so, then you have in essence already answered your own question. Other people are, for a variety of different reasons, of a selfish rational value to you, precisely because they make your life better, richer, more enoyable, etc.
Of course, only good, rational, honest people can be of a true, objective value to you, because they are the only kind of people whose existence can make your life better and more enjoyable. That's why you want John Galt or Thomas Jefferson as your neighbor, not Saddam Hussein or George W Bush. Incidentally, that's why it's so important to practice the virtue of justice.
How do you benefit by killing a John Galt or a Eddie Willers or a Thomas Edison or a Thomas Jefferson or any of your friends or your love partner? The answer should be obvious. (Yes, it would be in your rational self-interest to imprison or, if necessary, kill bad people in self-defense.)
In fact, the only way you can benefit from the existence of good people, is if you let them enjoy their life in freedom, i.e., recognize and respect their individual rights. An enslaved John Galt or Thomas Jefferson, in Cuba or North Korea or Iran, you will never notice. But you will notice what a free Steve Jobs or Bill Gates can do to improve your life. That's why life in the USA is great and life is rotten in places like Cuba or North Korea or Iran. |
|
| Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 13:32:33 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: Elisheva Levin
E-mail: elisheva(at)unm.edu
URL: http://ragamuffinstudies.blogspot.com
An interesting side note:
Within evolutionary biology, predation is a species interaction, and there are a number of other such as well (mutualism, parasitism, hebivory, commensalism, and competition). All of these describe the interactions between species with respect to how energy is moved through the ecological community. None of them describe the interactions among individuals of the same species. In reality, members of the same species do not prey upon one another (except in the direst of emergencies, and in such cases the particular population is well on the way to collapse). There are all kinds of good reasons why this is so, but ultimately they all share one common idea: it is not beneficial to the survival of individuals (the unit that passes on genes) to do so.
In reality, dogs do not eat dogs in the normal course of things, and thus there is no need for an Anti-dog-eat-dog rule. I am sure Ayn Rand enjoyed the irony to no end when she had the railroads in her novel make up such an irrational rule, because the net result of it was that unnatural condition of some railroads eating others, as they approached collapse.
|
|
| Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 16:28:00 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Tom Rowland
E-mail: trowland08(at)gmail.com
This is one of the most interesting real problems in ethical theory that I am aware of. And I have been aware of it for years without really finding a satisfactory answer.
By satisfactory, I mean an argument that a killer could not evade easily. The standard arguments presented above, are not, for reasons already given. The universality of rights is not such an argument, punishment is not an argument, and the value of another person is not an argument. In each case, the person who lies, cheats, steals or kills has a series of sometimes very telling rationalizations that can come close to the ethics of emergencies. Like Jean ValJean stealing a loaf of bread they can be moving examples of what people will choose to do who have few existential choices. They invariablly include appeals to the values the perpetrator was pursuing in commiting his evil act.
The central problem is this: the arguments against lying, cheating, and stealing to gain a value, all speak to our self interest, not the self interest of the liar, cheater, or thief. Each of them has found a way to pursue his self interest. The question is do we accept that he is. And indeed we seem to say that we do when we say that he acts to gain a value. In responce, we point out that there is a difference between long-term and short term values. And he says, "Tell me about it. If my short term values were taken care of, I'd be set for those long-term values you want me to pursue."
Julie and I think we have found an answer that avoids these pitfalls. You'll have to read the book, though. Since we've already spent two years on it, it should be in first draft form before December. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Greg Perkins
Comments
