You Win or You Die

[Robert Baratheon]

RB: If I read this right, career thieves are rationally selfish people who escape being caught...?

I'm not making a categorical statement about thievery. It may or may not be in one's rational self interest to steal and will depend heavily on the circumstances. It's just as silly to assert that thievery is always irrational as to assert that it is always rational.

My point is much more narrow - since no philosophy or code can be 100% correct and account for all factors, there will inevitably be circumstances in life in which it is advantageous (sometimes for all parties) to break capitalist/objectivist/libertarian tenets. A lack of flexibility for these circumstances may place individuals at a disadvantage or risk exploitation by those who aren't so morally constrained.

In the regulatory world, we address this problem by allowing people to request a variance (which are almost always denied). For one's own moral code, I suppose you could write yourself a variance if the situation required it.

[anthony]

Well OK. Not knowing about Objectivist morality isn't a crime (last I looked)*.

But your last sentence about being at a disadvantage to, or exploited by those who are not morally constrained, is a very good raison d'etre for individual rights.

*(In future though, there will be severe penalties.)

;)

[Robert Baratheon]

Well OK. Not knowing about Objectivist morality isn't a crime (last I looked)*.

But your last sentence about being at a disadvantage to, or exploited by those who are not morally constrained, is a very good raison d'etre for individual rights.

*(In future though, there will be severe penalties.)

;)

I'm specifically asking about situations in which it is in one's rational self interest to violate another's rights - or at least break the rules of the capitalist system in which you live - and about situations in which the moral boundaries of objectivism interfere with your ability to compete with or defend yourself from people who aren't objectivists.

[caroljane]

I was hoping for some responses on the original post

Ah, a true utopian willing to try to hoard OL feral cats!

hoard or herd?

Ouch...It has been corrected! Thanks.

A...

You can hoard a horde of cats, but you can't make them herd.

[Selene]

I was hoping for some responses on the original post

Ah, a true utopian willing to try to hoard OL feral cats!

hoard or herd?

Ouch...It has been corrected! Thanks.

A...

You can hoard a horde of cats, but you can't make them herd.

I heard that was true.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael - Why don't you enlighten me?

RB,

How on earth could I do that? You're in preacher mode.

Your mission is to enlighten me and the others around here so we can avoid our "absurdities."

I won't even try to cut through that fog except to say there are some serious premises that need checking in your position. And I'm saying that for the benefit of the reader since I am pretty sure you have a ways to go before you will be open to checking any premises in your toolbox.

At this point, expect disagreement from me, not discussion.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - Why don't you enlighten me?

RB,

How on earth could I do that? You're in preacher mode.

Your mission is to enlighten me and the others around here so we can avoid our "absurdities."

I won't even try to cut through that fog except to say there are some serious premises that need checking in your position. And I'm saying that for the benefit of the reader since I am pretty sure you have a ways to go before you will be open to checking any premises in your toolbox.

At this point, expect disagreement from me, not discussion.

Michael

Michael,

In my opening post in this thread, I wrote the following:

"How does Objectivism relate to these themes, and what does it have to say about the powerful using organizations for their own ends? What is the prescription for it? Is Objectivism, or Libertarianism, a code of conduct that can be exploited by those who aren’t constrained by its tenets?"

These are all open-ended questions that facilitate discussion. Disagreeing with some of the responses and explaining why I disagree with them doesn't mean I'm in "preacher mode." If you don't want to substantively respond to any of these questions, then that is your choice, but I expected better from you than a snippy Randroid cliche.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish.

That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal.

RB,

This is preaching at its worst.

And it's piss-poor preaching to boot. It's preaching with snark and going for the cheap profundity of trying to be shocking with banality. It's superficial and argumentative for the sole purpose of hot air.

That is not a "snippy Randroid cliche" (which phrase is also preaching).

You can expect no better than this from me for that crap.

Like I said, you're too involved in enlightening us idiots around here to contemplate anything like checking your own premises.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish.

That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal.

What needs to be explained now is the chain of reasoning that makes "rational" rational for either proposition.

--Brant

if I can kidnap, rape and kill and know I can "get away with it" (!!??!!), it's in my "rational self interest" to be a monster?

[Brant Gaede]

The characters you speak of have little or no power under capitalism. Their power is derived through the use of force or fraud. Under capitalism people are free to associate or not with whomever they please.

The ideal is capitalism, but in reality there will always be people who don't subscribe to the rules. These people don't limit their behavior to what Ayn Rand finds acceptable, and, therefore, if they're only smart enough not to get caught, they have an advantage over those who constrain themselves to Objectivist philosophy. "YOU CAN'T STEAL CUZ CAPITALISM" isn't a persuasive objection when somebody is walking off with your television.

Here is an example: I recently found $20 cash on the counter in a Starbucks. It obviously had fallen out of somebody's pocket in the hustle and bustle of the ordering line. The law says the money still belongs to whoever dropped it, so the capitalist imperative was for me to report it to the police or store owner. That would have taken a lot time and effort, and I knew that realistically a) it was very unlikely to find its proper owner if I did report it, and b) somebody else would likely keep it if I left it there and walked away. In light of this, I decided to keep the money and buy something nice with it. Pragmatism won out over idealism because the ideal didn't conform to what the situation dictated. Similarly, I can go to the store and spend $100 on the latest word-processing software or I can download it for free at my convenience. Gee, that's a difficult one.

I'd have given the money to the clerk so she could give it back to whomever came back asking for it. My Mother as a little girl in the 1920s found a $10 bill floating down the Russian (American?) River in California. That's like 100-150 bucks today. It was keep it or throw it back. Her parents made her put it in a savings account. I found a twenty walking my dog. I knew the lady in the house next to it but she disclaimed knowledge of whence it came. I offered her half which I had a somewhat hard time getting her to accept. Once I gave a clerk two brand new 20s stuck together thinking they were one. He pointed it out and gave the extra bill back to me. We both had a good laugh at that. I think these all represent good, rational, moral choices that don't muck you up psychologically and reflect inter-personal benevolence. Now, when people are under great stress it's hard to keep this benevolence up, granted, but that would be a digression.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I was hoping for some responses on the original post

Ah, a true utopian willing to try to hoard OL feral cats!

hoard or herd?

Ouch...It has been corrected! Thanks.

A...

You can hoard a horde of cats, but you can't make them herd.

I heard that was true.

A cat should be seen not herd.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What needs to be explained now is the chain of reasoning that makes "rational" rational for either proposition.

Brant,

I disagree a bit (and that bit is a qualification). I disagree on a common sense level.

The chain of reasoning only needs to be explained for one of the statements. It is quite obvious to almost all readers for the other.

When a person says honesty is the best policy, I don't know of anyone who means in 100% of all cases without context, honesty must be followed. He's saying that honesty is a good virtuous rule of thumb to live by.

But if a person says dishonesty is the best policy, this needs to be qualified. It's a cultural thing. Obviously there are cases where dishonesty is good. In war time. If you are being assaulted. And so on. But these situations are not contexts for a rule of thumb for everyday living.

When Tony said, "He doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish," here on an Objectivist site, his reference is the way honesty is used in Objectivism. What Ayn Rand means by honesty. I agree not all people on OL are Objectivists and we do not adhere in lockstep to Objectivist jargon to the detriment of the rest of the English language, but it is only common sense to see where Tony is coming from. It's not like he showed up yesterday.

Can you imagine a world where all communication is governed by the cheap profundity of saying the contrary to get attention? Here's an example.

You go to a diner and say, "Please give me a cup of coffee." The water brings it. You ask what on earth the waiter is doing. He says you ordered a cup of coffee. You say that's absurd. That's not what you meant. He says, "Well, when people say they want a cup of coffee, they mean they want me to bring one." And you, looking down your nose at the poor ignorance of the unenlightened unwashed masses, explain patiently that when you say you want a cup of coffee, you are actually being sarcastic because drinking coffee is bad for humans.

Gimmee a break.

Doesn't the restaurant setting count for anything?

I submit that on OL, the context is easily understood by almost anyone when Tony says, "He doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish."

And likewise, I submit that on OL, when RB says, "That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal," he is playing games.

In other words, the chain of reasoning is not the main context for these statements. The fact that they are uttered in an Objectivst-friendly environment with known people is the main context.

I really dislike it when people muddy waters with lame-ass out-of-context conundrums to show themselves. Then try to get off on technicalities and nitpicking. Especially when they frame it by calling the other absurd. Ideas are one thing. Discussing them is the glory of the human mind. Preaching from vanity is quite another.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I was just passing out rope in case anyone insisted on hanging himself. You're saying I'm too late; the job is already done.

--Brant

I used to be vain, then when I understood nobody cared about my lack of hair I didn't any longer care

[Robert Baratheon]

he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish.

That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal.

RB,

This is preaching at its worst.

And it's piss-poor preaching to boot. It's preaching with snark and going for the cheap profundity of trying to be shocking with banality. It's superficial and argumentative for the sole purpose of hot air.

That is not a "snippy Randroid cliche" (which phrase is also preaching).

You can expect no better than this from me for that crap.

Like I said, you're too involved in enlightening us idiots around here to contemplate anything like checking your own premises.

Michael

Is that what this is all about? Holy moley.

Michael - I've gone back and removed from my post the two words ("that's absurd") that seem to be causing you heartburn. You could have resolved this on your own by simply ignoring the characterization and responding to the substance of my posts.

I'm genuinely sorry for any hurt feelings I might have caused through my use of the word "absurd." I thought this was a forum of big boys and girls who could handle such pointed language. You could just as well replace it with "I disagree" and the meaning would be the same.

I suppose if I created yet another thread on how amazingly consistent and empowering objectivist philosophy is, then that would not be counted as "preaching." I arrived here believing this forum was interested in examining limits and applications of its philosophy. My apologies.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB,

Just listen to yourself.

Presumptions of hurt feelings and all kinds of preachy-like gobbledygook.

The words don't bother me. Your condescending attitude does.

Changing the words and keeping the attitude doesn't do jack.

But I don't think you have a clue about what I mean.

Do carry on enlightening us who are in the dark.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

RB,

Just listen to yourself.

Presumptions of hurt feelings and all kinds of preachy-like gobbledygook.

The words don't bother me. Your condescending attitude does.

Changing the words and keeping the attitude doesn't do jack.

But I don't think you have a clue about what I mean.

Do carry on enlightening us who are in the dark.

Michael

No, I introduced a discussion topic because I was interested in hearing people's thoughts on it. You're choosing not to engage on the pretense of "preaching" or "propaganda" or whatever your psychology flavor of the month is.

Sometimes there is no hidden agenda, Michael. Take your own premises and shove them. I'm done here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Preachers hate it when you call them out on preaching.

It hurts their feelings.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to tack on a note here for clarity. It involves the preacher's game. I call it preacher, but it's essentially bullshit to get you to doubt your own mind so you give unearned value to something or someone else.

Let's paraphrase the exchange, taking the covers off and showing what's in between the lines.

DISCUSSION PERSON: Honesty is a virtue.

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: Oh really? How so? Dishonesty is the virtue to strive for. Calling honesty a virtue is absurd.

DISCUSSION PERSON: WTF?

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: It's about context.

DISCUSSION PERSON: Huh?

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: Gotcha!!!!! See how sneaky I am? You didn't think of context, didja, now didja? Heh. You don't think and I do. I'm so clever. I'm superior to you.

Maybe I'm grumpy, but I get so tired of this kind of bullshit sometimes I wonder why I even bother blowing it out of the saddle.

When someone says it's absurd to claim honesty is a virtue and then claims dishonesty is actually the virtue to take its place, this has nothing to do with ideas. And if anyone on a forum where Objectivist ideas are discussed doesn't understand that "rational selfishness" is considered a virtue, I suggest said person do some elementary reading of Ayn Rand's works, like maybe the advertising blurbs for her books since actually reading them might be too hard a task.

I understand discussing ideas as an attempt at clarity, exchanging values, sharing ones opinion, etc. In other words, intellectual pleasure. Even banter in light moments. It's innocent and not aimed at belittling others to promote an agenda or feed a petty vanity.

Words have cognitive meaning on a philosophy forum, not just emotional and manipulative payoffs.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

I fully intended to be done here until reading Michael's "note for the reader," which is such a sloppy and disingenuous representation of this thread that to not refute it with the plain language of what transpired would leave me twitching like a hooked fish and unable to function for the rest of my day. Inaccurate representation of others is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, and the prescription in the online setting is always going to the transcript. If only our outside lives were so simple!

Here's what Michael alleged transpired in his "paraphrasing":

DISCUSSION PERSON: "Honesty is a virtue"
PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "Oh really? How so? Dishonesty is the virtue to strive for. Calling honesty a virtue is absurd."

DISCUSSION PERSON: "WTF?"

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "It's about context."

Now let's go to what was actually said:

RB: "The ideal is capitalism, but in reality there will always be people who don't subscribe to the rules. These people don't limit their behavior to what Ayn Rand finds acceptable, and, therefore, if they're only smart enough not to get caught, they have an advantage over those who constrain themselves to Objectivist philosophy."

whYNot: "[A]n Objectivist doesn't steal because of capitalism -although it's a moral system, capitalism/individual rights is not a morality - he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish. Constraining or liberating, that is the question."

RB: "That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal."

RB: "It may or may not be in one's rational self interest to steal and will depend heavily on the circumstances. It's just as silly to assert that thievery is always irrational as to assert that it is always rational. My point is much more narrow - since no philosophy or code can be 100% correct and account for all factors, there will inevitably be circumstances in life in which it is advantageous (sometimes for all parties) to break capitalist/objectivist/libertarian tenets. A lack of flexibility for these circumstances may place individuals at a disadvantage or risk exploitation by those who aren't so morally constrained."

Now that we have the actual conversation before us instead of embellishments and characterizations, let's clear the record and we can all be on our way.

Inaccuracy #1: Michael asserts whYNOT was extolling honesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard.
Transcript: whYNOT stated that the Objectivist argument against stealing did NOT depend on capitalist morality, and was instead a matter of rationality.

Inaccuracy #2: Michael asserts that I advocated dishonesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard.

Transcript: Nothing like this can be found anywhere in my statements. In fact, I acknowledged numerous times that capitalist morality is the ideal and dishonesty is tantamount to breaking the rules.

Inaccuracy #3: Michael asserts that I bait-and-switched posters by first ignoring important context and then jumping to it as a "gotcha" counterpoint.

Transcript: I led with context and used it as a theme throughout the discussion. I explicitly asked posters how to cope with situations (i.e., contexts) in which inflexibly following a philosophy can place one at a disadvantage to those who aren't constrained.

So who is the one preaching and bullshitting here? If we accept Michael's statement that "words have cognitive meaning on a philosophy forum," then shouldn't we stick with people's actual statements instead of "paraphrasing" them on the basis of hidden agendas and psychobabble?

[anthony]

Well OK. Not knowing about Objectivist morality isn't a crime (last I looked)*.

But your last sentence about being at a disadvantage to, or exploited by those who are not morally constrained, is a very good raison d'etre for individual rights.

*(In future though, there will be severe penalties.)

;)

I'm specifically asking about situations in which it is in one's rational self interest to violate another's rights - or at least break the rules of the capitalist system in which you live - and about situations in which the moral boundaries of objectivism interfere with your ability to compete with or defend yourself from people who aren't objectivists.

RB, Almost never I think - can it be rationally selfish to violate another's rights.

I have got into hot water with some O'ists on this, because of our varying notions of rational egoism vis-à-vis individual rights.

Simply, to me, we have the morality (of rational selfishness), therefore we have the protection of that morality (individual rights). Horse followed by cart.

But one doesn't live by individual rights ~per se~, he lives by that moral code. A moral code, I should add, which "selfishly" perceives his worth in himself as his highest value, beyond compromise.

Only in those concocted scenarios i.e. of a father desperate for medicine for his ailing child late at night, then breaking into a chemist shop, (which he should recompense later, and perhaps does gaol time) does it come up.

What I mean is, it is very seldom, never in most people's lives, that the individual's rational self-interest conflicts with another's individual rights.

(Although there's that Filipino disaster which raises an ethical dilemma - when is a "looter" - in such terrible straits - actually morally selfish? Still, ordinarily very rare.)

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think "rational selfishness" has been used too much in Objectivism. As for selfishness per se, if Rand was going to inject it successfully into the culture by changing its common meaning somehow, she came up short. Tellingly, "rational" doesn't need a meaning transmogrification, but she also fell way short respecting the idea and her philosophy for it was rational for her--then a done deal--but not for thee. My "rational" or the highway. That's the way it is, folks.

--Brant

diamonds from the rough

[Brant Gaede]

To explore the limits of a philosophy one must know the philosophy very well. To explore the limits of philosophy one must know life very well.

--Brant

brilliance strikes again!

[Brant Gaede]

I fully intended to be done here until reading Michael's "note for the reader," which is such a sloppy and disingenuous representation of this thread that to not refute it with the plain language of what transpired would leave me twitching like a hooked fish and unable to function for the rest of my day. Inaccurate representation of others is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, and the prescription in the online setting is always going to the transcript. If only our outside lives were so simple!

Here's what Michael alleged transpired in his "paraphrasing":

DISCUSSION PERSON: "Honesty is a virtue"

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "Oh really? How so? Dishonesty is the virtue to strive for. Calling honesty a virtue is absurd."

DISCUSSION PERSON: "WTF?"

PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "It's about context."

Now let's go to what was actually said:

RB: "The ideal is capitalism, but in reality there will always be people who don't subscribe to the rules. These people don't limit their behavior to what Ayn Rand finds acceptable, and, therefore, if they're only smart enough not to get caught, they have an advantage over those who constrain themselves to Objectivist philosophy."

whYNot: "[A]n Objectivist doesn't steal because of capitalism -although it's a moral system, capitalism/individual rights is not a morality - he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish. Constraining or liberating, that is the question."

RB: "That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal."

RB: "It may or may not be in one's rational self interest to steal and will depend heavily on the circumstances. It's just as silly to assert that thievery is always irrational as to assert that it is always rational. My point is much more narrow - since no philosophy or code can be 100% correct and account for all factors, there will inevitably be circumstances in life in which it is advantageous (sometimes for all parties) to break capitalist/objectivist/libertarian tenets. A lack of flexibility for these circumstances may place individuals at a disadvantage or risk exploitation by those who aren't so morally constrained."

Now that we have the actual conversation before us instead of embellishments and characterizations, let's clear the record and we can all be on our way.

Inaccuracy #1: Michael asserts whYNOT was extolling honesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard.

Transcript: whYNOT stated that the Objectivist argument against stealing did NOT depend on capitalist morality, and was instead a matter of rationality.

Inaccuracy #2: Michael asserts that I advocated dishonesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard.

Transcript: Nothing like this can be found anywhere in my statements. In fact, I acknowledged numerous times that capitalist morality is the ideal and dishonesty is tantamount to breaking the rules.

Inaccuracy #3: Michael asserts that I bait-and-switched posters by first ignoring important context and then jumping to it as a "gotcha" counterpoint.

Transcript: I led with context and used it as a theme throughout the discussion. I explicitly asked posters how to cope with situations (i.e., contexts) in which inflexibly following a philosophy can place one at a disadvantage to those who aren't constrained.

So who is the one preaching and bullshitting here? If we accept Michael's statement that "words have cognitive meaning on a philosophy forum," then shouldn't we stick with people's actual statements instead of "paraphrasing" them on the basis of hidden agendas and psychobabble?

I admit I'm not smart enough to follow this. When I was a young boy I heard my grandfather, an elder in the Seventh Day Adventist church who was in his eighties, give a sermon. I didn't understand a word but he droned on and on and on. I felt so dumb. A year ago I visited his grave in Columbus, Ohio--he died in 1957--and no matter how hard I listened I still couldn't grok a word.

--Brant

nice grave, though

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The main subtext running throughout a preacher's pitch (any preacher) is that he knows and you do not. He is there to enlighten you and the others, not to check his own premises. Not on matters of his faith or his sacred mission of being the light for the darkness.

And he will argue it and drone on and on and on until you are in a catatonic state.

"What do you mean?" asked sincerely, or "I don't understand" said with focus on correct identification are not in his DNA. His destiny is to be heard, he must be heard, nay, he will be heard, and never hear.

Man is a being with two ears and one mouth. The wise say we must use them in the same proportion. The preacher agrees, but he is a creature with half-an-ear and many mouths.

You want to cry, "Physician, heal thyself!"

But he never does. He's too busy healing others, even if they are not sick, which is almost all of the time.

As to the preaching of your grandfather, don't be too hard on him. Seventh Day Adventists know how to eat.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

whYNOT - Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think you understood my rhetoric was intended to encourage spirited debate and not to "preach" to you, which I have no desire to do and don't think would be effective in any case. Getting back to your post, in the same way Nozick's "utility monster" embarrasses utilitarian orthodoxy, I think the reality of tyrants living lavish, hedonistic lifestyles and dying comfortably with many progeny embarrasses Randian orthodoxy. The staunchest Objectivist will declare such tyrants "irrational" or "altruistic," but a plain understanding of evolutionary principles tells us they are neither. A "softer" Objectivism that holds capitalism as a moral ideal but also allows for exceptions can survive these counterexamples and thought experiments.

Brant - I have a working knowledge of Objectivism, but I'm the first to admit many here are more studied on the subject than I am. I posted this thread in the hope that their knowledge could become mine through a back-and-forth of ideas - not to "preach" to or convert anyone. Michael is talking shit, which is what we have left of an otherwise interesting thread after his "contribution."