An Analysis of Egoism and Altruism


merjet

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe?

www.wolfdevoon.com, August 1998

I teach people how to show up and tell the truth, how to live in freedom, take responsibility. Inevitably, telling the truth is more dangerous than singing the company song. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, echoing Ayn Rand, was excoriated by the British press for saying "There is no such thing as society." Her socialist opponents quoted it endlessly and it became an indictment that ended her career a few months later. Never have so many lost so much by the public utterance of an unguarded truth. Let's agree that we'd be better off without floating abstractions like society. Let's also agree that sacrifice is not on your agenda or mine.

However, you might want to read the U.S. Constitution again. There is no right of revolution, no right to disobey, no individual sovereignty. It specifically provides that Federal law shall be the supreme law of the land, enforceable against private citizens. In the first decade of Federal rule, Alexander Hamilton junked the 10th Amendment with an implied powers doctrine that remained in force ever since, shrinking private liberty to a narrow list of so-called "preferred freedoms" that expand and contract according to community standards of decency. I am not making this up: it is U.S. Supreme Court case law. So, the bottom line is a nicely decorated gulag, owned and operated by majority rule, not much different in practice or principle from Britain's social welfare state. A majority found Margaret Thatcher's intellectual candor to be horrid and contemptible. A majority of Americans, past and present, rejected Ayn Rand for similar reasons.

Privately between you and me, de jure sovereignty is not an issue. You're not part of the majority and neither am I. My point was fairly simple, albeit foolish, like Maggie's unguarded truth. We received far more from our parents and forebears than we can possibly repay. Others are doing most of the productive work. Tyrannies like China have their country-of-origin stamped on our household goods and idiotic Christmas decorations, luxuries denied to 90 percent of the world's population. The purchasing power of your dollars is backed by our gas-guzzling Seventh Fleet, not by current output of American goods and services.

Let's face facts. We're living off our parents' and grandparents' savings. The public debt is a pile of IOUs held by foreign investors and government employees. At no time before in the history of our Republic have the American people produced so little and consumed so much, with the exception of WWII. At the height of the war, 1943-44, government expenditure was 52% of GNP. This year, FY1998, it topped 44% of GNP. I don't care who fudges the figures and makes the excuses. This is mass economic suicide in slow motion. Like the 1920s, paper assets are soaking up Alan Greenspan's paper money as fast as he can print it. The irony hurts. "Bad protection drives out good," Greenspan once pleaded in the pages of The Objectivist.

So, I'm in favor of repudiating debts, revolution on a modest scale. It consists of saying that, yes, I owe others a mountain of debt, and I ain't paying. I can't pay. Worse: neither can you. However, the good news is that obligation is a Kantian concept, no different than Abraham's revelation that God spoke to the elect and mankind shall forever pay homage to the glory of His power. Ptooey. I don't care who asserts the obligation or why. An assertion is not an argument. Don't expect anyone to listen to reason, least of all me. I owe, but am not owned. I sometimes wish I could be normal again -- swim with the tide and demand justice, fight for freedom and enjoy my indignation. Been there, done that. All that remains is a vast debt to others and one fundamental principle. I owe but am not and cannot be owned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think those hit by new regulations "stopped in their tracKs." As I recall, they were paid a visit by Mr. Galt, who told them that the enemy was too large for them to fight, that they would be ground under by the state, and that if they valued their lives, they would stop allowing them to be drained away to support a parasitical society.

Again, going on strike and leaving the system is not passive-aggressive. And it is not sanctioning the state. If a marauding band comes into town, shooting and looting and killing, and I don't have sufficient weapons to fight them, I get the hell out. That is not sanctioning their evil. It is valuing my own life..

When a system's sickness has metastasized, it is too late to save it. Heroic efforts are misplaced and futile, and only prop up the system for a while longer, at the cost of the health and happiness of the person making the heroic stand, and forestall even longer the system's returning to health.

This has happened on a smaller scale with boom-bust cycles. Before the Fed started preventing recoveries in 1929, it usually took 9-18 months for the recession to clear out all the mal-investments and employment and productivity to return to normal. The recession right after World War I was the last time the federal government refrained from trying to "stimulate" a recovery and the fairly rapid recovery was allowed to happen.

But propping up those malinvestments with bailouts and money supply tinkering has caused the recoveries to take much longer. And we're in a stalled recovery right now, following the most massive bailouts and monetary tinkerings in history, which may just not get going again.

In my opinion, we are seeing both the smaller (economic) scale and the larger (societal) scale converging, with a final collapse looming just ahead. I will be very happy to see it not take place, but I don't know what will prevent it. Not the quasi-Wyatt's Fire happening in North Dakota. Not the electronics and internet industries. Not pumping up consumer demand with a higher minimum wage. Not with bailouts and zero interest.

Do you have any ideas?

REB

I don't see a "big [political(?)] collapse." However, the world's significant economies are cursed with central banking and subsequent mal-investments. Inflation hasn't gone through the roof because merely financing deficits by creating money is one dollar in and one dollar out as opposed to banks lending money one dollar in many dollars out which would cause that. The lending is relatively paltry especially with the minuscle building of new homes and a constipated real estate, so bank reserves are merely being bloated up. This is why you might get price-deflation then great price-inflation as in the 1970s, which would be conguent with people getting rid of paper instruments to preserve their buying power by buying now, increasing the velocity of money. Great inflation, however, won't be hyper-inflation. When the great inflation happens then one might naturally enough worry about that. No country, though, can go bankrupt if its sovereign debt is in its own currency. It will just churn out more money to pay back the debt as it comes due.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ayn Rand wrote: "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" (VoS, Introduction).

Note that her last sentence says "the beneficiary". It does not say "primary beneficiary", "a beneficiary", "one of the beneficiaries", or another phrase of equivalent meaning. So the text implies one and only one beneficiary -- one's self and nobody else. Note that she says "any breach", which would include a partial breach.

Agree? If not, why? Other than emergencies, would an actor who intentionally benefits anybody else commit a sacrifice, a breach, and an injustice? I hope that any responders will do what Ayn Rand advised doing for statements by other philosophers in "Philosophical Detection". Take the text literally. Don't gloss over it or endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Consider parents and their children, spouses, and people at work who intentionally benefit others (boss, the firm, client, patient, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider parents and their children, spouses, and people at work who intentionally benefit others (boss, the firm, client, patient, etc.).

All are values (or should be) to a greater or lesser degree, surely?.

John Hospers [to Rand, 1960]:

"In philosophy, an ethical egoist is one who says : 'I am the only person who counts. I should pursue MY OWN interests exclusively. If I could save a thousand starving people by lifting my little finger, I should not take the trouble, provided that their welfare does not affect mine'....Thus I conclude that your ethics belongs not under the general category of 'egoism'... but is universalistic--it is concerned with ALL human beings, but is distinguished from 'altruism'....[...]"

Rand replies:

"In WHOSE philosophy? ... Well, I don't accept it, because this sort of classification is what I would describe as *superficial*. My reasons are as follows":

a. {Hedonism and subjective feelings, outlined by AR.}

She continues--

b. "This classification assumes a clash of interests among men as a basic primary, without defining what IS to anyone's interest, and yet--

c. it simultaneously presumes to dictate the specific ~content~ of one's self-interest, by decreeing that if I were to take the trouble to save others by lifting my little finger, I would therefore place myself outside the category of 'egoism' and into the category of 'universalism'.

By what standard?

Observe the illustrations you offer: if by caring about the fate of Western Civilization or by coming to speak at Brooklyn College without fee, I am no longer pursuing my own interests exclusively--what would my own interests consist of?

Living in the Dark Ages? Surrendering the society I live in to irrationality and communism?"

[Letters of AR, p.505]

I hope it's relevant, Merlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand wrote: "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" (VoS, Introduction).

Note that her last sentence says "the beneficiary". It does not say "primary beneficiary", "a beneficiary", "one of the beneficiaries", or another phrase of equivalent meaning. So the text implies one and only one beneficiary -- one's self and nobody else. Note that she says "any breach", which would include a partial breach.

Agree? If not, why? Other than emergencies, would an actor who intentionally benefits anybody else commit a sacrifice, a breach, and an injustice? I hope that any responders will do what Ayn Rand advised doing for statements by other philosophers in "Philosophical Detection". Take the text literally. Don't gloss over it or endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Consider parents and their children, spouses, and people at work who intentionally benefit others (boss, the firm, client, patient, etc.).

The touchstone is not "primary beneficiary" or merely "beneficiary" but whether you consciously give up a greater value for a lesser value by the choice you make or even chose not to rationally consider the matter so you will likely splatter. If not, you are in the moral world of altruism.

--Brant

(I am not interpreting or explaining Rand)

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pointer, Tony (whYNOT).

Preceding the quote you made from Hospers, Rand also wrote to Hospers: "I trust that you did not include that "egoism" is the sum total of my ethical theory. I suppose you probably know by now that it represents a much more radical departure from any historically accepted approach to morality."

In the same chapter of Letters of Ayn Rand, several times Rand used the term "traditional egoism" to refer to the kind of egoism Hospers described to her. She rejects it and the other two ethical doctrines Hospers mentions. But when she says, "The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" (my bold) in VoS -- acting exclusively for oneself -- it makes common ground with the ethical egoism Hospers describes and she rejects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pleasure, Merlin.

Well, if value can't be separated from virtue which in turn can't be detached from reason, the "beneficiary" has to get all the rewards coming to him in justice, since his reason is effortful and his virtues are self-won. I think this 'imperative' of Rand's which Merlin quotes ("...must always be...") gives one the moral certainty to fully function (at minimum by obviating any guilt or duty on one's part). As well as being a *categorical* imperative aimed at outside agents who'd try to impede it or withhold his rewards.

The "beneficiary" possesses context: does he have an objective moral code founded on the standard of life? does he seek what is rational and earned? does he "preserve the independent sovereignty of his own judgment as his only guide"?

Also his values have a context and a hierarchy.

Whomever this beneficiary enters into any relationship with, personal, social or intellectual or business, that relationship must have egoistic value to him (or he shouldn't have entered it, or continue to hold it). What's good for them (what he does with or for them - up to, or sometimes past, their individual value to him) - is good for him, the ultimate beneficiary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism and Egoism?

R. Hilllel wrote this about 2300 years ago.

If I am not for myself, who is for me?

If I am only for myself what am I?

If not now, then when?

אם אין אני לי, מי לי? וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני? ואם לא עכשיו, אימתי?

He also wrote, what is hateful to you do not do to others. That is all of morality. Now go an practice it.

R. Hilllel was very smart. And we still remember who he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

אם אין אני לי, מי לי? וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני? ואם לא עכשיו, אימתי?

He also wrote, what is hateful to you do not do to others. That is all of morality. Now go an practice it.

Fine as a code of social etiquette or a simple rule against hurting others (which is self-evident) but this, or any variant of the Golden Rule is hardly an objective morality, in fact the standard is subjective. What goes for you might very well not go for another person. Have you ever had someone assert "But I'd have done [such n such] for you!"--and had to reply: Yeah, maybe, but I'm not you and I won't do that.

Rabbi Hillel could for instance have considered it "hateful" to hold onto his money or possessions.

The GR may for some, come down to a moral claim on other people to do the same as them.

(?Bob, aren't those interrogation marks at the wrong ends of the Hebrew sentences?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand wrote: "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" (VoS, Introduction).

Note that her last sentence says "the beneficiary". It does not say "primary beneficiary", "a beneficiary", "one of the beneficiaries", or another phrase of equivalent meaning. So the text implies one and only one beneficiary -- one's self and nobody else. Note that she says "any breach", which would include a partial breach.

Agree? If not, why? Other than emergencies, would an actor who intentionally benefits anybody else commit a sacrifice, a breach, and an injustice? I hope that any responders will do what Ayn Rand advised doing for statements by other philosophers in "Philosophical Detection". Take the text literally. Don't gloss over it or endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Consider parents and their children, spouses, and people at work who intentionally benefit others (boss, the firm, client, patient, etc.).

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

Ellen

If a wealthy person founds an orphanage, or one less wealthy gives a poor man a few dollars - and are both rational egoists as Rand outlined - are they being self-contradictorily 'self-less'?

This shows up brilliantly that it is the premises of altruism that need checking, not of egoism.

The causal flow - from perceiving a value by one's independent-minded judgment, through that good ol' volitional consciousness, to the fulfilled action itself - is what Rand is defending and promoting, I think.

A value the individual perceives, he must connect to its outcome - selfishly: the ultimate "beneficiary" (avoiding over-literal concretism) is indeed he who discovered -or created- the value and took possession of it, i.e. the original perceiver/ thinker/doer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

I wonder about the rest of what I quoted, too. I also wonder what Rand wrote that you rely on for your disagreement.

If a wealthy person founds an orphanage, or one less wealthy gives a poor man a few dollars - and are both rational egoists as Rand outlined - are they being self-contradictorily 'self-less'?

He/she is acting contrary to what the quoted passage literally says. As rational egoists, selfless? No, but less selfish than spending the money on something for only his/her benefit. Acting partly "otherish" fits better than "selfless."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

Ellen,

In my view, she was talking on a fundamental level.

She was talking about a standard, not any specific outcome.

A standard is a unit of measurement in the Objectivist system. An abstract unit.

A result is a concrete.

(I'm saying this for the reader. I know you already know this stuff.)

Here's how this standard works in action. Randian Dude does "selfless" thing. Critic points finger and says, "See? Randian Dude is not the beneficiary of that act. (I.e., Rand was a hypocrite, inconsistent, doofus, whatever)."

However, it is entirely possible that Randian Dude has a vision of the kind of world he wants to live in and his apparently selfless act promoted that vision.

By making one small part of that vision concrete, he is definitely "the beneficiary," not just "a beneficiary." It's his vision that he makes real, not someone else's. That vision is a more fundamental value than the outcome of the specific act to him.

See what I did here? I actually made the same error of switching standard with result. But I did it because it is such a good example. That, actually, is not the way a standard is supposed to be used.

The correct way would be to "measure" the outcomes of the different values against each other and see what "the beneficiary" gained as opposed to "everyone else." To measure in this case means compare and see which is more important. Also, the opposite of "the beneficiary" is not a specific person, but instead, all those who are not "the beneficiary," i.e., everyone else.

Then apply another standard. To paraphrase a traditional saying in Objectivism, when you sacrifice a lower value for a higher one (that is, when you can't have both), this is not a loss, but a gain.

That's how I understand it.

Believe it or not, despite this clarity I think it is an oversimplification--not because of switching standard with result. That process is clear to me. My beef is with the view of fundamental human nature as individual volition versus prewiring. This is a view Rand promotes all the time (but here, she is not consistent--and that is a long discussion).

In my view, the foundation of human nature includes both. One cannot be without the other and still be called human.

Pure individual volition is a ghost. When we have the "ghost in the machine" (to use an Arthur Koestler phrase), the ghost can't do anything without the machine. That machine has its own fundamental characteristics which balances individual volition. In other words, it restricts and informs individual volition and often overrides it. The machine is more than just a container for ghosts. :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selfish or selfless is all subjective as is valuing. Existential judgment is on existential results but the label wouldn't apply. Also, the actor may try for one result and fail. Thus whether it is selfish or selfless one must consider motivation. I think the basic divide is imposed sacrifice against free actions: a gun and/or moral suasion from the outside. I don't see how a free actor can act selflessly without bumping into the contradiction of it's his act--his self.

--Brant

time for the old Branden article, "Isn't Everybody Selfish"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how a free actor can act selflessly without bumping into the contradiction of it's his act--his self.

--Brant

He can't. There's the logical flaw in selflessness.

The difference between the rationally selfish person acting on his value for life, and anybody else doing precisely the same thing for whatever subjective justification?

He MEANS IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take Rand at her word in the Introduction for The Virtue of Selfishness—every word, as in their context right there. Other related text from Rand:

Help another “if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. . . . Man’s fight against suffering” is a value (AS 1059–60).

“The rational man . . . . recognizes the fact that his own life is the source, not only of all his values, but of his capacity to value. Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension, a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself.” (VoS 46–47)

“The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel towards other human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: ‘Other men are of value because they are of the same species as myself.’ In revering living entities, they are revering their own life. This is the psychological base of any emotion of sympathy and any feeling of ‘species solidarity’.” (VoS 47, quoting N. Branden)

If enjoyment of success by others in their learning and creations, and in their enjoyments or mitigations of their suffering, is a benefit to oneself, then just as far as that enjoyment is a psychological benefit, it would seem to be part of one’s rational self-interest. Rand put forth this line of thought in Fountainhead and in Atlas. One’s own contributions to such success of others (by encouragement, instruction, or material gift) could then be seen as self-benefitting, and such a broadened scope of the self-beneficial makes it a little easier for the ethical egoist to argue that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his or her action. The rubs would be in (i) What are the limits of enjoyment in the success of others and in one’s contributions to such success beyond which they are not in one’s (in Man's) rational self-interest? and (ii) What is the proper psychological dynamic between one’s contributions to others’ success for sake of those others and for sake of one’s own enjoyment? i.e., Which is one’s proper focus, When? Should one’s motive of one's own enjoyment ever be left out of one’s view? When it is in one’s view, is one making the contribution for the other’s sake? When it is in the background, is it nevertheless poison to genuinely making the contribution for the sake of the other? I’ve had some interesting input from other posters on these issues in the following two threads.

A Rejection of Egoism (The thread at Solo Passion, not the one at OL.)

Chris/Stephen

. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(?Bob, aren't those interrogation marks at the wrong ends of the Hebrew sentences?)

Such is the flaw in my editor from which I cut and pasted the hebrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

I wonder about the rest of what I quoted, too. I also wonder what Rand wrote that you rely on for your disagreement.

If a wealthy person founds an orphanage, or one less wealthy gives a poor man a few dollars - and are both rational egoists as Rand outlined - are they being self-contradictorily 'self-less'?

He/she is acting contrary to what the quoted passage literally says. As rational egoists, selfless? No, but less selfish than spending the money on something for only his/her benefit. Acting partly "otherish" fits better than "selfless."

Not if you take the point of view that it is the *idea* which is at stake for the egoist. Not a passing fancy, or looking good to his community, or out of 'pay-back'. He's crucially motivated by the concept of rescuing a child's life.

The conventional wisdom is that a doctor is selfless. Or say, a lawyer, or a soldier risking his life. (The concepts of Health - Justice - a Nation's defence). However, the 'investment' each has to make in his life: his time, his thought, his money, his emotions, gruelling study and work (etc.) -- probably often begins with an early value system, maturing into a long conceptual chain. Money may or may not be the primary drive - and the interesting challenges of these careers - but the doctor who perhaps once saw, up close, the ailing health of his-her adored grandparent when a child -- forming their desire to combat disease and suffering - found a value which continues to involve him-her for life, so he cannot possibly be in the profession only for money. (Nor from duty to any single patient).

Nothing but the best-developed ego and clearest rational mind can deal with the stresses of this kind of career, I think. (I can't personally begin to imagine how the continual sorrow and defeats of a career in medicine could be handled).

Only by holding to his initial objective reaching to his self-interested goals would he mentally survive and do well, I guess - but to be called "unselfish"?!!.

Ayn Rand, as example: The ~apparent~ "sacrifice" she made (as seen by some) by the effects of her consuming work, was undoubtedly of little concern to her, compared to her goals, her passion and vision. The more immense the willingly undertaken task, the greater the rational ego required to rise above any potential self sacrifice, is one way I view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a wealthy person founds an orphanage, or one less wealthy gives a poor man a few dollars - and are both rational egoists as Rand outlined - are they being self-contradictorily 'self-less'?

He/she is acting contrary to what the quoted passage literally says. As rational egoists, selfless? No, but less selfish than spending the money on something for only his/her benefit. Acting partly "otherish" fits better than "selfless."

Not if you take the point of view that it is the *idea* which is at stake for the egoist. Not a passing fancy, or looking good to his community, or out of 'pay-back'. He's crucially motivated by the concept of rescuing a child's life.

I think it important to distinguish between and not conflate idea (or motive) and action regarding something being "selfish" or not. However, note that I wrote "He/she is acting" and Rand wrote "the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action" (post #28).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite its having been Rand who made the statement, I don't agree that the Objectivist ethics indeed does hold "that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action."

I think that she screwed up there in describing her own ethics. I've long wondered how that sentence got in there, if she meant to write "a beneficiary" and neither she nor any of her close associates noticed the goof or what.

I wonder about the rest of what I quoted, too. I also wonder what Rand wrote that you rely on for your disagreement.

Actually, I wonder about the rest of what you quoted too.

As to what Rand wrote that I rely on for my disagreement:

Loads that she wrote about the trader principle, according to which both, or all, parties to the trade mutually benefit.

Likewise about the pyramid of ability, according to which she says that the person at the top provides increasingly more benefit to those on lower levels while getting proportionately less back.

She often spoke of great creators and inventors as being benefactors of human kind. She didn't present them as the beneficiaries of their moral action. Quite the contrary - as benefiting everyone else along with themselves.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

While the trader principle is an important part of Rand's ethical theory, it is largely unrecognized in connection with egoism. The word "trade" or "trader" does not appear in the Introduction, where the passage quoted in post #28 appears. The word "trade" or "trader" is mentioned - I counted five times -- in the chapter The Objectivist Ethics. Moreover, when I analyze trades I often see one party with a goal of benefitting somebody else as well as themselves, which clashes with the passage quoted in post #28.

You consider a person at the top of the pyramid of ability, the great creators, and inventors. Are/were their goals to benefit others or is benefitting others mainly only the result? I believe it is more the latter. What was Isaac Newton's goal while he developed his physics and calculus? Was it to benefit others or to understand the physical world -- his own benefit? I believe it was mainly the latter. Why did Hank Rearden produce steel? Was his goal to benefit his customers or to make money? These aren't conflicting goals, but I believe it was mainly the latter as Ayn Rand portrayed him.

"I'm not interested in helping anybody. I want to make money." - Dagny Taggart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

While the trader principle is an important part of Rand's ethical theory, it is largely unrecognized in connection with egoism. The word "trade" or "trader" does not appear in the Introduction, where the passage quoted in post #28 appears. The word "trade" or "trader" is mentioned - I counted five times -- in the chapter The Objectivist Ethics. Moreover, when I analyze trades I often see one party with a goal of benefitting somebody else as well as themselves, which clashes with the passage quoted in post #28.

You consider a person at the top of the pyramid of ability, the great creators, and inventors. Are/were their goals to benefit others or is benefitting others mainly only the result? I believe it is more the latter. What was Isaac Newton's goal while he developed his physics and calculus? Was it to benefit others or to understand the physical world -- his own benefit? I believe it was mainly the latter. Why did Hank Rearden produce steel? Was his goal to benefit his customers or to make money? These aren't conflicting goals, but I believe it was mainly the latter as Ayn Rand portrayed him.

"I'm not interested in helping anybody. I want to make money." - Dagny Taggart

Here Rand wanted to make a point with a narrow laser focus buttressed by context ignoring the truly operative context of providing a product or service to the greatest number of customers contributing to a company's high cash flow such as Apple Computer today with the most market capitalization of any publicly traded company in the world and over a hundred billion bucks in the bank. Rand reduced Taggart Transcontinental to Dagny but Dagny was only the chief operating officer (Vice President in Charge of Operations) or the Charles Schwab of Carnegie Steel without an Andrew Carnegie, just a midget. The trader principle is a moral (not an economic) principle in that trading and its principle has been going on forever happening automatically in the absence of coercion so all Rand is talking about economically is what happens to trading when force is introduced--it's hard or impossible to make money. Unfortunately Dagny's characterization is so narrow for this and other reasons the only reason to be interested in her is the whole novel is hung on her and John Galt is only a beefed up "McGuffin."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

While the trader principle is an important part of Rand's ethical theory, it is largely unrecognized in connection with egoism. The word "trade" or "trader" does not appear in the Introduction, where the passage quoted in post #28 appears. The word "trade" or "trader" is mentioned - I counted five times -- in the chapter The Objectivist Ethics.

I'm not understanding your statement that the trader principle is "largely unrecognized in connection with egoism" in Rand's ethical theory. She thought that trade is the way a rational person deals with other people.

Moreover, when I analyze trades I often see one party with a goal of benefitting somebody else as well as themselves, which clashes with the passage quoted in post #28.

You consider a person at the top of the pyramid of ability, the great creators, and inventors. Are/were their goals to benefit others or is benefitting others mainly only the result? I believe it is more the latter. [....]

I don't see that the goal matters to the literal wording "the beneficiary." If anyone else is a beneficiary of a person's action, then the person isn't "the beneficiary." I agree that often benefit to others isn't a goal in the endeavors of great (or lesser) creators and inventors.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"THE beneficiary" is a baldly matter-of-fact statement by Rand. Simultaneously, it reads as proscriptive--and factual: "is" and "ought", mind-body, undivided. One may struggle against the idea (as in the doctrine of altruism), only to bring harm upon one's consciousness, because values can't be separated from a valuer, nor benefits from beneficiary. It's like a leftover of mystical intrinsicism continued into agnostic secularism - the implicit notion that being valued in the sight of an absolute Deity gives everlasting existence to a person and his values. But one ceases to exist, and one's values end, too - although the objects of one's valuation carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without addressing any

"THE beneficiary" is a baldly matter-of-fact statement by Rand. Simultaneously, it reads as proscriptive--and factual: "is" and "ought", mind-body, undivided. One may struggle against the idea (as in the doctrine of altruism), only to bring harm upon one's consciousness, because values can't be separated from a valuer, nor benefits from beneficiary. It's like a leftover of mystical intrinsicism continued into agnostic secularism - the implicit notion that being valued in the sight of an absolute Deity gives everlasting existence to a person and his values. But one ceases to exist, and one's values end, too - although the objects of one's valuation carry on.

When the valuer dies his valuing stops.

--Brant

[severely edited by Grumpy]

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