Please rationally support this decision


mpp

Recommended Posts

I have the opportunity to get to a lot of money. I purposely did not write "earn" or "make".

I know on some level of consciousness that I shouldn't do it and I am almost sure that I won't do it. But I'm having qualms because it is such an easy opportunity and because of that my mind isn't fully convinced that I shouldn't do it. I'm not totally objective.

Please help me make clear the full implications of this case, what doing it would do to my consciousness, my mind, my integrity, my self-esteem. I have to learn that I'm not passing anything up, that there is nothing to regret by not doing this. That it's in my rational self-interest to say no.

Here is the deal:

Someone I know, Peter, knows someone, Mark, who works at a place that is responsible for printing some kind of ticket. Mark therefore has access to the blank papers on which the ticket is printed. Mark is printing his own tickets and selling them privately (illegally behind the company's back). Since it is not some kind of event, the company doesn't notice if additional tickets have been sold. Neither do they control the amount of blank paper.

The value of the ticket is around 500-600 USD. He is selling them for 50 to dealers. These dealers are then selling it for 100 to people they know with the info that they should sell it for 150 to people they know and so on..I think it's called a pyramid scheme.

I have the opportunity to get the tickets for 50 USD because they guy I know, Peter, who gets them from Mark, gives them to me at no extra cost.

I could therefore sell the tickets for 100 USD to people I know and have them sell more for me with ever increasing profits until the price has been saturated at around 400 USD. I could very easily make several thousand USD, which is a lot of money for me. I'm a student. My risk is small as well since I'm not in direct contact with the source dealer. And the nature of the ticket sale is such that it is untraceable.

If it is, ...

Why is it not in my self-interest to do it?

What are the implications of it?

Why is it evil?

What would it do to my mind?

It's also very easy to make rationalisations about it: "oh the customers wouldn't buy the tickets for 600 anyway", "ah the company won't even notice if a couple hundred tickets have been sold extra (they sell millions)", "the company is subsidized by the government so I'm just getting my tax money back", etc.

I have arguments to why I think it's a bad idea but I'm not 100% convinced I shouldn't do it.

What do you think of it? Since you're not able to profit from this, I'm counting that you will be more objective than me. Please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's dishonest. If you have to ask why...

It will quite likely land you in jail.

Since you've published the details of the scheme on the web (not a clever move) you are even likelier to be caught and successfully prosecuted if you go through with it. Even if you don't, you already stand a good chance of being subpoena'd when Peter and Mark go on trial. That will be trouble enough, and it's too late to undo it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's dishonest. If you have to ask why...

It will quite likely land you in jail.

Since you've published the details of the scheme on the web (not a clever move) you are even likelier to be caught and successfully prosecuted if you go through with it. Even if you don't, you already stand a good chance of being subpoena'd when Peter and Mark go on trial. That will be trouble enough, and it's too late to undo it.

Thanks for the reply. Although this is not the kind of reply I'm looking for. I need moral reasoning, not fear mongering. Besides, I obscured the case enough that it wouldn't be traceable. But I don't care about this, since I don't plan on doing it. If I did, I wouldn't have posted about it, indeed.

To round it out even more, I have people who would buy from me and more so I have the ability to convince people of to buy.

I know I shouldn't do it and I don't plan to but I need to be fully rational about this because I do not want to be tempted. For instance, I would never steal in a store or commit insurance fraud, because I know the full implications of my actions. Therefore I'm not even tempted. Neither have I ever been tempted to keep the countless iPhones that I've found, because I know what keeping them would do to my mind and I know objectively why it's wrong.

With this, however, maybe because it's so easy and -- I admit quite exciting in a Thriller/adventure kind of way -- I'm not 100% turned off to it. My emotions haven't caught up, my mind isn't totally objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To round it out even more, I have people who would buy from me and more so I have the ability to convince people of to buy.

I know I shouldn't do it and I don't plan to but I need to be fully rational about this because I do not want to be tempted. For instance, I would never steal in a store or commit insurance fraud, because I know the full implications of my actions. Therefore I'm not even tempted. Neither have I ever been tempted to keep the countless iPhones that I've found, because I know what keeping them would do to my mind and I know objectively why it's wrong.

With this, however, maybe because it's so easy and -- I admit quite exciting in a Thriller/adventure kind of way -- I'm not 100% turned off to it. My emotions haven't caught up, my mind isn't totally objective.

.

This involves forgery, am I right? At least, it is fraudulent, and certainly deceitful.

I believe you are going about this the right way.

I think it's not quite enough to choose not to do something, it is important to analyse it and its consequences, and to know WHY you shouldn't. Those decisions made early on in life (especially when you haven't a lot of money) are critical to one, I found.

The prime question to ask of oneself - "Is this the lifelong reputation I wish to have with myself?"

[Re-phrasing N. Branden's explanation of self-esteem].

Fast forward and there will be eventual, honest accomplishments you will achieve with all the fully earned financial rewards. But any pride you'd feel would quite surely be tainted by the memory of - just once - cheating and falsifying an outcome. ("Happiness is the state of non-contradictory joy").

All the other elements line up as well: The risk of a criminal record, the tendency (if once you get away with it) to keep repeating immoral/unethical/illegal behavior until it's 'easy' or habitual, the compromising amongst honest individuals of your future business reputation - instead, other dishonest, shady characters will gravitate to your company. Because word gets out, people get to know.

The money you'd get you would spend, quickly, as if it's 'unclean' - but you'd always be (metaphorically) looking over your shoulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. MPP has just provided us with a real world example of the logical gap in Objectivist thinking. Rand's ethics holds that a) it is proper for man to act in his rational self-interest, and b) man has certain property rights which others must not violate.

Objectivists routinely say the two principles are not in conflict. There cannot be a "prudent predator," they say. Why not? Well, because the prudent predator is not acting rationally. Why not? Well, because he might get caught, er, that is, the risks always outweigh the potential rewards when we steal from others.

Yet I've never heard an Objectivist advise a police officer or a firefighter to leave their profession because of the hazards.

When the "it's not really selfish" argument fails, Randians then rely on even flimsier defenses: you could make more money doing something else; you'll suffer psychological guilt for years to come; if everybody were a prudent predator, there would be no more hosts for the parasites, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. MPP has just provided us with a real world example of the logical gap in Objectivist thinking. Rand's ethics holds that a) it is proper for man to act in his rational self-interest, and b) man has certain property rights which others must not violate.

"Rational" self-interest, Francisco. "Rational". To do with reality... to do with one's own nature and that of all men. Which means moral. By its right name, rational egoism.

You and your "prudent predator"!

Individual rights, property rights, are preceded by morality and are solely to protect the moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I want to be an exemplar of moral rectitude or just someone who lives with an if-I-can-get-away-with-it "integrity"? If the latter, then those who do live with real integrity don't belong in my universe for I'm not allowed to admire them by virtue of my not having any other truck with them. It's a logical cascade that sweeps all before it. If you do have an immutable standard of integrity in your own mind then you can burnish it and add to it and refer your own actions and human being human being to it and when you fall short your pain will only encourage you to fix yourself up. The major alternative is to live as a sociopath. Most people end up in between. All I know about myself and the sociopathic state is if it ever were an alternative to me it died before I was three years old. That makes me think there must be some biology in such degeneracy.

--Brant

so, do you want to be a moral degenerate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. MPP has just provided us with a real world example of the logical gap in Objectivist thinking. Rand's ethics holds that a) it is proper for man to act in his rational self-interest, and b) man has certain property rights which others must not violate.

"Rational" self-interest, Francisco. "Rational". To do with reality... to do with one's own nature and that of all men. Which means moral. By its right name, rational egoism.

You and your "prudent predator"!

Individual rights, property rights, are preceded by morality and are solely to protect the moral.

Ah, the rational man deals with reality. Thus rational man could not steal tickets, for to do so would require him to enter the Platonic, non-existent realm of forms, that unreal world where all evil-doers dwell.

Stealing is not part of man's nature. To see that, one needs only to examine an example of True Man. To find a True Man, you must look for a man who does not steal. QED, we have shown than it is not in man's nature to steal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the rational man deals with reality. Thus he could not steal tickets, for to do so would require one to enter some Platonic, non-existent realm of forms.

Stealing is not part of man's nature. To see that, one needs only to examine an example of True Man. To find a True Man, you must look for a man who does not steal. QED, we have shown than it is not in man's nature to steal.

Rather than Plato for your metaphysics, look to Aristotle: "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being

commanded what others do only from fear of the law".

Are you one of those "others"?

(Brant stated it well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well, if there is but one reality, then the successful predator is not escaping from that reality but acting within it. The prudent predator, as in the case of MPP's example in Post #1, is rationally weighing the odds and taking full advantage of available opportunities to increase his wealth. If he acts wisely, then "fear of the law" would figure no more significantly than lightning strikes, earthquakes or the plague. Once we have established that one's own life and not the lives of others is the "immutable standard" of one's values, then the man who acts both to grow and protect his own assets, even at the expense of his fellow citizens, must be judged a person of moral rectitude and integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with building a hypothetical man and pushing the "GO" button is there is more in man and woman than is dreamt of put into your robot. My evaluation and criticism is from introspection. You share no introspection of your own with us I'm aware of. Greg's own primitive philosophy is built on introspection and observation of people he deals with and has dealt with. That's a great foundation using his rudimentary rationality. Why? It's correct.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand wrote, "No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values." She then proceeds to set forth her ethics of rational self-interest.

Now, if her system is in fact rational and objectively demonstrable, not to say scientific, then it should be able to show how setting a man's own life as the standard of his values is consistent with forgoing opportunities to gain value by taking what someone else has earned.

As I have said, there is a gap here that the philosopher and her students have not bridged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand wrote, "No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values." She then proceeds to set forth her ethics of rational self-interest.

Now, if her system is in fact rational and objectively demonstrable, not to say scientific, then it should be able to show how setting a man's own life as the standard of his values is consistent with forgoing opportunities to gain value by taking what someone else has earned.

As I have said, there is a gap here that the philosopher and her students have not bridged.

You are compartmentalizing values. This has a value, that has a value and there's another one over there. All this valuing though is generalized and integrated in human being so it's no value to me to kidnap and rape and kill a woman because I want to have sex with her for I'm not the kind of guy who would want to--it doesn't work with my other values. Values and valuing are synergistic in and to an organism. For me to do such horrible crime would destroy all my other values and myself. Such is the moral nature and value of money. Was it earned or just given? Was it stolen? An unearned and unjustified inheritance? A big lottery win? I saved up several thousand dollars in a year of Vietnam. Might be like 20,000 today. I really didn't want it and it was soon gone. I thought of it as blood money. For me if someone needs killing I'm up to it, but don't pay me. Thank me, maybe. I'll do that for free.

--Brant (the hero [here's one of my fav. vids])

the damn punk stole my gal--I had dibs (and lots of hair)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been discussing Ayn Rand's ethics and her position that "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil."

Now, if it is a mistake to compartmentalize values, then it is Rand's mistake. She is the one creating separate categories for "good" and "evil," "furthering" and "threatening." I have said nothing about my own values or what compartments they may or may not be stored in.

"Fav. vids"? If one were to eliminate compartments from one's system of valuing, it would surely follow that one would have to remove the barrier between "favorite" and "non-favorite" vids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please help me make clear the full implications of this case, what doing it would do to my consciousness, my mind, my integrity, my self-esteem. I have to learn that I'm not passing anything up, that there is nothing to regret by not doing this. That it's in my rational self-interest to say no.

mpp,

Having been on both sides of the divide, I can tell you that the Sufis are right--you become what you gaze upon.

If you think sleaze is good, that making money with sleaze is correct, and then you do it in a big way, you will not be able to help gazing upon that sleaze day in and day out. Why? Because one part of you will know you operated on sleaze, not merit. You can't not know it: you can't not know that sleaze brought you that wealth. That you cheated it out of other people rather than produced something of value to trade for it.

Don't be surprised later when you look in the mirror and all you can see is sleaze.

If I look into the neuroscience of major decisions and habit formation, I'm sure I will be able to find something to back this up, too.

I believe it is in a person's best--most rational--interest to anchor good things in the unconscious when he has the power to do so. That means avoiding anchoring bad stuff. And that means sleaze is out.

Little compromises on that "constantly gaze upon" level in the unconscious tend to grow into major betrayals later.

And once that happens, you look up from the hell your life has become and wonder how it can be that you detoured so far from where you originally wanted to go.

I get it. I really do because I "worked" in the underworld for awhile after I started getting out of my drug addiction.

Decisions like the one you are facing are not easy. Just realize that temptation is worse than a fight--and far more treacherous.

But then, whoever said being virtuous was supposed to be easy?

As to your ticket-printing friend, my suggestion is to live and let live. Drift away and cook it in cold water. You don't owe anybody anything re this topic, so just get away from it.

There are many great productive things you can achieve in life. That path you are pondering will not take you to them.

Here's another law of the universe. If you occupy the space of your soul with bad stuff, there is no room for the good stuff to come in. Fortunately, nature abhors a vacuum, so once you get rid of the bad stuff, you tend to see the good stuff with a lot more clarity. Choosing what to let in becomes a joy instead of the burden you now feel.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...to show how setting a man's own life as the standard of his values...

But how did you get this idea, FF? The life of man (qua man) is the standard of value. Not you, or I, or any individual.

"The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the *standard* of value--and *his own life* as the ethical *purpose* of every individual man."

Admittedly, this causes some confusion (sometimes for Objectivists too, I've noticed) - that distinction between the abstraction and the specific. It needs clarification and expansion by scholars. I seem to recall Stephen Boydstun wrote on this, if you can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I get it? I got it from Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics."

If "his own life" is the ethical "purpose" of every individual man, then the property rights of another would be of secondary or perhaps no value.

Unless one wishes to argue that one's primary value (the self and the life of the self) must be sacrificed for the values of others.

And that would take the "self" right out of "self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I get it? I got it from Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics."

If "his own life" is the ethical "purpose" of every individual man, then the property rights of another would be of secondary or perhaps no value.

Unless one wishes to argue that one's primary value (the self and the life of the self) must be sacrificed for the values of others.

And that would take the "self" right out of "self-interest.

No, you didn't, I just quoted the relevant statement. You've seemingly jumped between 'man' and individual. and 'standard' and purpose. Not to fret, it happens a lot.

Property rights - in Objectivism - is the moral system of protection of the moral individual's property, they are NOT a code of morality in themselves.

Obviously, you are correct. The "ethical purpose" of every man is to rip off every other man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the tickets for if not an event? Is the end consumer going to gain the same value from possession of the ticket as she would if she had purchased it from the producer? If not, then you have defrauded her. You have not exchanged value for value.

I'm assuming the paper on which the tickets are printed is custom in some way. In your scenario, you don't mention anyone reimbursing the ticket producer for that cost. That is theft, a violation of personal property and a forced association that does not exchange value for value.

Just because you do not interact directly with the end consumer or do not personally take the custom paper does not mean you are not complicit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I get it? I got it from Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics."

If "his own life" is the ethical "purpose" of every individual man, then the property rights of another would be of secondary or perhaps no value.

Unless one wishes to argue that one's primary value (the self and the life of the self) must be sacrificed for the values of others.

And that would take the "self" right out of "self-interest.

No, you didn't, I just quoted the relevant statement. You've seemingly jumped between 'man' and individual. and 'standard' and purpose. Not to fret, it happens a lot.

Property rights - in Objectivism - is the moral system of protection of the moral individual's property, they are NOT a code of morality in themselves.

Obviously, you are correct. The "ethical purpose" of every man is to rip off every other man.

It's a shame that the boys over at ARI did not bother to edit "irrelevant statements" out of "The Objectivist Ethics" and leave in only the relevant ones. They certainly have not shrunk from performing that helpful service with Rand's other writings.

In any case, let us stipulate, as you say--with little asterisk sparklers--that "*his own life* [is] the ethical *purpose* of every individual man." We are still no closer to providing MPP of Post #1 with a reason not to grab the tickets and resell them at 100% profit.

Given that MPP's ethical *purpose* as an individual man is *MPP's own life*--and certainly not the life or well being or affluence of the legal owner of the tickets, why should MPP concern himself with anyone's skin but his own? If there is a reason for MPP to turn down this opportunity, it is not derived from the Objectivist premise that an individual man's own life is his ethical purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth production or creating tradable value is something you should be able to do naked in the woods. If you are or can use an opportunity to accumulate paper chits that can only be realized by the effort of others ,without their full consent, you are a parasite. You could claim you didn't put the system into practice so your parasitism isn't your fault ans someone else may do it in your place, but isn't morality about doing what is "right" even when no one is watching? That's probably where the psychological factors in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but isn't morality about doing what is "right" even when no one is watching?

Tad: That's the kernel of it. There is nobody there to see, and nobody who has to see, a rational morality at work. Your morality is independent of others, it recognizes no desire to take and feels no forced compulsion to give. It's only in a predatory *food chain* of raw existence that people will extoll and exhibit their so-called morality of 'other-ism'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth production or creating tradable value is something you should be able to do naked in the woods. If you are or can use an opportunity to accumulate paper chits that can only be realized by the effort of others ,without their full consent, you are a parasite. You could claim you didn't put the system into practice so your parasitism isn't your fault ans someone else may do it in your place, but isn't morality about doing what is "right" even when no one is watching? That's probably where the psychological factors in.

Theft, looting, parasitism would be forbidden by any ethical system that places duty to respect the lives and property of others above pursuit of self-interest. However, that is not the argument set forth in "The Objectivist Ethics."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theft, looting, parasitism would be forbidden by any ethical system that places duty to respect the lives and property of others above pursuit of self-interest. However, that is not the argument set forth in "The Objectivist Ethics."

Well, how did those others come by their property? And do those others respect their own lives? (more or less than oneself?)

"...above pursuit of self-interest." Hmm. Who decides how much "self-interest' is enough, or too much?

If this is your idea of a worthy ethical system I am surprised. It has a whiff of socialism.

So long as you avoid using the term "rational egoism", you will avoid the real issue FF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now