Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

[Nate H]

All of the other paths in Ayn Rands philosophy I understand fairly well, except for this one. I have found some implicit examples in her books, but I have not come across any explicit examples.

I also find it's easier to follow Nathaniel Braden's or Leonard Peikoff's logic for me personally. I've gone through the FAQ and I read the sticky at the top of this forum.

[sjw]

I would revise your question. It's not that epistemology deductively leads to ethics. It's that man's nature leads one to conclude various things about what would be an appropriate ethics. One's epistemology underlies all of one's conclusions about everything, including epistemology and ethics, and is not the principle focus nor deductive source for asking questions about morally proper behavior. To use a metaphor, a telescope is a tool for looking at distant stars, but distant stars have nothing to do with telescopes. Likewise, reason is the tool for knowing, but in and of itself it does not inject itself into the object of study. Now it so happens that the object of study is man, who indeed has this rational faculty, and by virtue of that, it is of course relevant to the question. But epistemology is what underlies your (the observer's) method. It is in effect your "telescope".

Shayne

[syrakusos]

The epistemology of reason is the rational-empirical method. Formally, that is known as the Scientific Method. You can find it taught as 3, 5, 9 or 14 "steps" but the fundamental process is the same as "common sense." We perceive something, investigate it, understand it, formulate conjectures, test those, and from the new knowledge extrapolate to new truths, both wider and deeper. If this were infallible, we would never discuss anything more than once. If the Scientific Method were the Philosopher's Stone, Galileo would have derived Quantum Mechanics from Aristotle's General Relativity. By that I mean, we know that that science proceeds - as we all do in daily life - by trial and error.

We adjust our lives by trial and error. Science moves forward by the same method. We know that political laws defining science are disasterous, from Galileo to Lysenko to Intelligent Design. When I was born, biology books taught that humans have 48 chromosomes; now we count 46. Science must be free to pursue truth.

Egoism and self-interest are only the daily modes of common sense science. If you mandate by law or custom or culture that a person must follow some other conclusions different from the ones he draws from his own experience and logic, then you prevent the discovery of a better life. As science would be dumbed down to the level of superstition, humans, deprived of self-interest based on reason and experience would be reduced to animals.

If a person is not to follow the logical conclusions derived from the evidence of his senses, what mode remains?

Do you suppose that you can use reason (experience and logic) to establish an ethic of altruism? Or is there some other non-self-interest we have not considered?

[Peter]

Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

End quote

We could BEGIN at the ENDING and say, based on reason, and observation, humans must be free to thrive. It would take a whole, integrated philosophy to prove that!

Or we could take the less complicated path. We can go back to the beginning and say it is because of our observed natures as children. Culture and family life can *mask* who humans are so I suggest we examine a young human who has an identity that will be added to throughout its life, but in another sense will remain the same throughout its life.

Janet L. Hopson in “Psychology Today,” October 1998 wrote:

Quote

It's no secret that babies are born with distinct differences and patterns of activity that suggest individual temperament. Just when and how the behavioral traits originate in the womb is now the subject of intense scrutiny.

In the first formal study of fetal temperament in 1996, DiPietro and her colleagues recorded the heart rate and movements of 31 fetuses six times before birth and compared them to readings taken twice after birth. (They've since extended their study to include 100 more fetuses.) Their findings: fetuses that are very active in the womb tend to be more irritable infants. Those with irregular sleep/wake patterns in the womb sleep more poorly as young infants. And fetuses with high heart rates become unpredictable, inactive babies. "Behavior doesn't begin at birth," declares DiPietro. "It begins before and develops in predictable ways."

End quote

Generally, a baby is very passive and needy, and its behavior is defined by its nature and its near constant interaction with adults. Yet, even at this age, a baby human exhibits self interest.

See my note at the end about “baby reflexes.”

Let us move on to when a human is more in charge of its universe. A *normal* toddler is perfect for observation and supplies logical inferences as to human nature. A toddler in every culture exhibits self-interest and egoism. I help watch our 15 month old granddaughter, Elizabeth a few days a week. To aid in her development I have watched two videos, one quite recently, that depicted toddlers from all over the world. It immediately becomes apparent that toddler boys are different from toddler girls but that all toddlers express a sense of self sovereignty.

So why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

Toddlers demand that they be free to explore and examine everything in their line of sight. Once they are holding on to something they consider it theirs, until they relinquish it for the next desirable object they see. This developing epistemology of sense, perception, and then conception is a naturally occurring process.

Awareness of others in normal toddlers, is when self-interest and egoism become *rational self interest* and *rational egoism.*

Peter Taylor

Notes:

Here is a list of reflexes, some observed as early as 1965. [source: Child Development, 1997, 4th Ed., Laura E. Berk]

Legend: Reflex--Stimulation--Response--Age of disappearance--Function

Rooting--Stroke cheek near corner of mouth--Head turns toward source of stimulation--3 weeks (becomes voluntary head turning at 3 weeks)--Helps infant find nipple. [Note that in making this observation, voluntary behaviors are distinguished from reflexive.]

Sucking--Place finger in infant's mouth--Infant sucks finger rhythmically--Permanent--Permits feeding.

Swimming--Place infant face down in water--Baby paddles and kicks in swimming motion--4-6 months--Helps infant survive if dropped in a body of water.

Eye blink--Shine bright light at eyes or clap hand near head--Infant quickly closes eyelids--permanent--Protects infant from strong stimulation.

Withdrawal--Prick sole of foot with pin--Foot withdraws, with flexion of knee and hip--Weakens after 10 days--Protects infant from unpleasant tactile stimulation

Babinski (my favorite)--Stroke sole of foot from toe toward heel--Toes fan out and curl as foot twists in--8-12 months--Unknown!

Moro--Hold infant horizontally on back and let head drop slightly, or produce a sudden loud sound against surface supporting infant--Infant makes an "embracing" motion by arching back, extending legs, throwing arms outward, and then bringing them in toward body--6 months--In evolutionary past, may have helped infant cling to mother.

Palmar grasp (something I observed as a young child when interacting with infants)--Place finger in infant's hand and press against palm—Spontaneous grasp of adult's finger--3-4 months--Prepares infant for voluntary grasping.

Stepping--Hold infant under arms and permit bare feet to touch flat surface--Infant lifts one foot after another in stepping response—2 months--Prepares infant for voluntary walking.

[9thdoctor]

Nate: Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

This amounts to asking for the logical derivation of ethics, aka meta-ethics. The essay The Objectivist Ethics in The Virtue of Selfishness covers Rand’s meta-ethics, and it’s been repackaged, expanded on, and critiqued by many other authors.

Based on your brief introductory post on the forum, I don’t see how anyone can gauge what level of explanation will help, perhaps you should try summarizing for us what you believe Rand’s position is; I suspect that in the process you will find your answer.

[Xray]

All of the other paths in Ayn Rands philosophy I understand fairly well, except for this one. I have found some implicit examples in her books, but I have not come across any explicit examples.

The thread title addresses a crucial issue.

"Reason" and "rationality" are terms referring to cognitive (not moral) issues. They belong to epistemology. "Morality" belongs to ethics.

Objectivism's "rational morality" tries to marry epistemology and ethics. The relationship is seen as so strong and close that every "rational" action is regarded as a "moral" action and vice versa.

Rand's 'desert island' example is an illustration of this position.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico...n/morality.html

Imo the judgement of the desert islander's behavior confuses morality with rationality.

They are not examples of immoral behavior, but of irrational behavior.

They are thinking errors (like mistaking sand for clothing), they are misjudgements of reality. While believing that food will drop into one's mouth on a desert island "without cause or effort" indicates extreme irrationality, it is not "immoral".

Another problem: from accepting the premise of the Objectivist morality as being "rational", it follows that any negative criticism of this morality can be regarded as "irrational".

Premise: The Objectivist morality is rational.

Conclusion: Any negative criticism of the Objecitivist morality is therefore irrational.

This shows how fundamental it is to check the premises.

How "rational" is the basis of the Obectivist ethics? That is, to what extent is it based on an objective analysis of human nature?

Is there something which is left out? A lot is said about selfish actions being necessary for man's survival, but many actions which 'serve the group' are as necessary because we need the group for survival too.

From an article about biopsychological research which revealed that so-called "altruistic" behavior can be perceived as pleasurable:

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

http://www.washingto...7052701056.html

Edited April 14, 2011 by Xray

[bmacwilliam]

Nate: Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

I believe that when you read her work, you will see that while the logic of the above is rather solid, her premises are wrong. So how do you get there? Start with bad premises and good logic. This will take you to many fantasy worlds...

Bob

[anthony]

All of the other paths in Ayn Rands philosophy I understand fairly well, except for this one. I have found some implicit examples in her books, but I have not come across any explicit examples.

The thread title addresses a crucial issue.

"Reason" and "rationality" are terms referring to cognitive (not moral) issues. They belong to epistemology. "Morality" belongs to ethics.

Objectivism's "rational morality" tries to marry epistemology and ethics. The relationship is seen as so strong that every "rational" action is regarded as a "moral" action and vice versa.

Rand's 'desert island' example is an illustration of this position.

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." (Rand) http://aynrandlexico...n/morality.html

Imo the judgement on desert islander's behavior confuses morality with rationality.

They are not examples of immoral behaviour but of irrational behavior.

They are thinking errors (like mistaking sand for clothing), they are misjudgements of reality. While believing that food will drop into one's mouth on a desert island "without cause or effort" indicates extreme irrationality, it is not "immoral".

Another problem: from accepting the premise of the Objectivist morality as being "rational", it follows that any negative criticism of this morality can be regarded as "irrational".

Premise: The Objectivist morality is rational.

Conclusion: Any negative criticism of Objecitivist morality is therefore irrational.

This shows how fundamental it is to check the premises.

How "rational" is the basis of the Obectivist ethics? That is, to what extent is it based on an objective analysis of human nature?

Is there something which is left out? A lot is said about selfish actions being necessary for man's survival, but many actions which 'serve the group' are as necessary because we need the group for survival too.

Nate,

"Fix reason firmly in her seat" as Jefferson wrote - but paramount to reason is reality.

That is the point of Rand's 'desert island' excerpt(my grateful thanks to Xray for quoting it - again, and again...).

Reality -> reason -> morality (rational selfishness.)You can only live and flourish by your mind, not through others'- that is the reality of Man.

The X-rayted opinion above is an example of the social-dutiful-ethic prevalent in the world.

It is garbage of course.

Naturally, you must make up your own mind on that.

Tony

(Psst, Garbage.)

[Xray]

The X-rayted opinion above is an example of the social-dutiful-ethic prevalent in the world.

I did not speak about duty. Duty is another issue altogether.

To me, the foundation of ethics lies in empathy.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

The X-rayted opinion above is an example of the social-dutiful-ethic prevalent in the world.

I did not speak about duty. Duty is another issue altogether.

To me, the foundation of ethics lies in empathy.

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action?

You mean we should all go round feeling empathy for ... who? for what? , and feel all virtuous about it?

Or do we do anything with it, for a person or persons?

Your ethics of empathy must lead to duty (to usually some faceless persons). Duty is not "another issue altogether", but simple cause and effect of empathy.

Which leaves you at the mercy of those who want power over your mind and effort; or, it leads to hypocrisy, or, to guilt for not being empathic (and duty - bound) enough, every second.

Before any thing else, it is a dishonest ethical system, since it's impossible to practise consistently.

Lastly, several of us have said time and again on this forum that Objectivism does not preclude compassion and respect - that they are integral to it, within justice, etc.

It seems you keep forgetting that .

Tony

Edited April 14, 2011 by whYNOT

[BaalChatzaf]

Nate: Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

I believe that when you read her work, you will see that while the logic of the above is rather solid, her premises are wrong. So how do you get there? Start with bad premises and good logic. This will take you to many fantasy worlds...

Bob

Which of her premises are wrong and how are they wrong?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

To me, the foundation of ethics lies in empathy.

Well, I understand the connection between empathy and ethics; but ethics is not morality.

I started a discussion here on Objectivist Living in the "Ethics" forum. (And I agree that Ayn Rand herself used the words ambiguously.) A similar initial post drew different replies here on Rebirth of Reason. I have a general statement derived from both of those on my website, Washtenaw Justice.

If you wish to discuss the matter, we can do that. This is not the Topic for that.

[Guyau]

Nathan, welcome to OL.

When I was a freshman in college many years ago, I had not read Rand. I had always been an altruist from my Christian family life. For a couple of years, I had been a Christian socialist (abolish private property) because I thought private property allowed people to be selfish, which was wrong. One day in my English class I expressed my support for the virtue of unselfishness, the virtue of putting the concerns of others above one’s own. I went on to pose a question that had begun to nag me. In consistency with my ethics of altruism, should one not also put others’ beliefs above one’s own? I was completely serious, and the class was at first dumbfounded. They began to search out what such a position could possibly mean, and even a secular socialist friend of mine in the class tried to raise some gentle objections to making such a move.

I became an atheist that spring, but continued with the altruistic ethics (and socialism). I read Fountainhead over the summer, and read Atlas in the fall of sophomore year. From the latter:

“Your self is your mind. . . .

“It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: ‘It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others’—end up by saying: ‘It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others’.

“This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. . . . (1030, first ed.)

“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. . . . (1022)

I had already come over to the side of Howard Roark and had dropped altruism (and socialism) and the denigration of selfishness by the time I read the text just quoted. After absorbing all of Rand’s writings, I think your question reasonable to remain. Your question is a very good one. It is broad and rich. I have chased it a long time. I will try to say more soon.

Again, welcome.

[bmacwilliam]

Nate: Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

I believe that when you read her work, you will see that while the logic of the above is rather solid, her premises are wrong. So how do you get there? Start with bad premises and good logic. This will take you to many fantasy worlds...

Bob

Which of her premises are wrong and how are they wrong?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't want to hijack the thread but...

- individual life(as defined by her) as the standard of value

(her view of this is not in agreement with evolution/reality)

- tabula rasa

(a person's character, while certainly not fixed, is significantly more determined by genetics than environment)

to start with.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Xray]

To me, the foundation of ethics lies in empathy.

Well, I understand the connection between empathy and ethics; but ethics is not morality.

I started a discussion here on Objectivist Living in the "Ethics" forum. (And I agree that Ayn Rand herself used the words ambiguously.) A similar initial post drew different replies here on Rebirth of Reason. I have a general statement derived from both of those on my website, Washtenaw Justice.

If you wish to discuss the matter, we can do that. This is not the Topic for that.

"The matter" here is a terminology issue. The reason why "ethics" and "morality" are often used interchangeably in philosophy and everyday language is of linguistic nature.

Excerpt from Ghs's post on the thread you linked to:

The Latin moralis is how Cicero, Seneca, and other Roman philosophers translated the Greek ethikos.

I wrote: "To me, the foundation of ethics lies in empathy."

I'm not fixated on any specific terminology. The only thing that matters in this context is that the term used is of sufficient "differentiating" quality.

So in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding: by "foundation of ethics" I refer to theory and practice of ethics.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

All of the other paths in Ayn Rands philosophy I understand fairly well, except for this one. I have found some implicit examples in her books, but I have not come across any explicit examples.

I also find it's easier to follow Nathaniel Braden's or Leonard Peikoff's logic for me personally. I've gone through the FAQ and I read the sticky at the top of this forum.

I didn't find it in the canon either. However, reasoning is an individual process so it's natural enough to get to rational self interest and individual rights from that base. Off these basic principles, things get complicated for man is a social animal.

--Brant

[Xray]

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action? Or do we do anything with it, for a person or persons?

The fascinating research about mirror neurons points to empathy not necessitating a conscious choice to be put into action.

Imagine you happen to see a person running to catch a plane. Do you wish he/she makes it?

[Brant Gaede]

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action? Or do we do anything with it, for a person or persons?

The fascinating research about mirror neurons points to empathy not necessitating a conscious choice to be put into action.

Imagine you happen to see a person running to catch a plane. Do you wish he/she makes it?

Not if I'm chasing the pickpocketing SOB!

--Brant

yes--usually

[Nate H]

I would revise your question. It's not that epistemology deductively leads to ethics. It's that man's nature leads one to conclude various things about what would be an appropriate ethics. One's epistemology underlies all of one's conclusions about everything, including epistemology and ethics, and is not the principle focus nor deductive source for asking questions about morally proper behavior. To use a metaphor, a telescope is a tool for looking at distant stars, but distant stars have nothing to do with telescopes. Likewise, reason is the tool for knowing, but in and of itself it does not inject itself into the object of study. Now it so happens that the object of study is man, who indeed has this rational faculty, and by virtue of that, it is of course relevant to the question. But epistemology is what underlies your (the observer's) method. It is in effect your "telescope".

Shayne

Fair enough. I've never studied philosophy before.

Edited April 15, 2011 by NateTheGreat

[Nate H]

The epistemology of reason is the rational-empirical method. Formally, that is known as the Scientific Method. You can find it taught as 3, 5, 9 or 14 "steps" but the fundamental process is the same as "common sense." We perceive something, investigate it, understand it, formulate conjectures, test those, and from the new knowledge extrapolate to new truths, both wider and deeper. If this were infallible, we would never discuss anything more than once. If the Scientific Method were the Philosopher's Stone, Galileo would have derived Quantum Mechanics from Aristotle's General Relativity. By that I mean, we know that that science proceeds - as we all do in daily life - by trial and error.

We adjust our lives by trial and error. Science moves forward by the same method. We know that political laws defining science are disasterous, from Galileo to Lysenko to Intelligent Design. When I was born, biology books taught that humans have 48 chromosomes; now we count 46. Science must be free to pursue truth.

If you mandate by law or custom or culture that a person must follow some other conclusions different from the ones he draws from his own experience and logic, then you prevent the discovery of a better life. As science would be dumbed down to the level of superstition, humans, deprived of self-interest based on reason and experience would be reduced to animals.

If a person is not to follow the logical conclusions derived from the evidence of his senses, what mode remains?

So you're essentially saying that man should be free to follow his reason and logic, simply because that's his nature as man. To do otherwise is to reduce him to what an animal is.

And if man is free to make conclusions from his experience and logic, he would recognize that life is the best virtue, and that the furthering of his life is his highest moral purpose, that nature demands that he be selfish? '

Do you suppose that you can use reason (experience and logic) to establish an ethic of altruism? Or is there some other non-self-interest we have not considered?

I expect you to eliminate your competition and then stand another 20 minutes telling me why you're right. I won't accept an ethics of rational self interest simply because I cannot prove altruism by the standards of reason. Egoism and self-interest will be proven and altruism will be disproven before I accept selfishness.

[Nate H]

Nathan, welcome to OL.

When I was a freshman in college many years ago, I had not read Rand. I had always been an altruist from my Christian family life. For a couple of years, I had been a Christian socialist (abolish private property) because I thought private property allowed people to be selfish, which was wrong. One day in my English class I expressed my support for the virtue of unselfishness, the virtue of putting the concerns of others above one’s own. I went on to pose a question that had begun to nag me. In consistency with my ethics of altruism, should one not also put others’ beliefs above one’s own? I was completely serious, and the class was at first dumbfounded. They began to search out what such a position could possibly mean, and even a secular socialist friend of mine in the class tried to raise some gentle objections to making such a move.

I became an atheist that spring, but continued with the altruistic ethics (and socialism). I read Fountainhead over the summer, and read Atlas in the fall of sophomore year. From the latter:

“Your self is your mind. . . .

“It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: ‘It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others’—end up by saying: ‘It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others’.

“This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. . . . (1030, first ed.)

“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. . . . (1022)

I had already come over to the side of Howard Roark and had dropped altruism (and socialism) and the denigration of selfishness by the time I read the text just quoted. After absorbing all of Rand’s writings, I think your question reasonable to remain. Your question is a very good one. It is broad and rich. I have chased it a long time. I will try to say more soon.

Again, welcome.

Thanks for sharing that with me. I noticed that the same people who support altruism in my classes are the socialists. One girl went out and got drunk, then was not allowed to debate at the next tournament. She gathered the team together and explained to them why her actions were so selfish and she was not thinking of us. However, she had sacrificed something she really wanted to do (debate at districts) for something she didn't want to do as much (get drunk). Her doing such was entirely consistent with her ethics, I noticed.

[Reidy]

I see a strain of rationalism in the original question and in some of the followups. An abstract grasp of what reason is should be, to this way of thinking, to be sufficient grounds to deduce Rand's ethical conclusions. (Sounds Kantian.) The so-called problem arises because this is in fact not enough. #3 points to the way out. We, who have a capacity to reason, observe that there are living organisms and that they are alive only conditionally. These are new data, not deducible from the concept of reason alone. How Objectivism draws conclusions from said data is the topic of "The Objectivist Ethics."

[Brant Gaede]

deleted because I changed my mind.

--Brant

Edited April 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Let's talk about empathy then. Of what use is it, if not put into action? Or do we do anything with it, for a person or persons?

The fascinating research about mirror neurons points to empathy not necessitating a conscious choice to be put into action.

Imagine you happen to see a person running to catch a plane. Do you wish he/she makes it?

(No, I hope he'll fall flat on his face, so I can have a huge laugh.) B)

Okay, yes, of course. (As far as mirror-neurons research goes, scientific research is only catching up with and validating what we 'know' already, I think.)

But would I risk losing my own flight to somehow help him? No.

Of what use is my subjective empathy here, for him?

However, would I intervene if a man is savagely beating a dog? Or pushing a woman around? Yes, completely unheroically, I've done so in the past. In these cases, the action has objective value - conscious and focused.

But this is all so much 'exclusivism':

here, the belief that if one is rationally selfish, one *obviously* can have no 'finer feelings' for others.

It's a disparaging stereotype of rational egoism.

Additionally, that Man, the "rational animal", shares with non-rational animals a genetic disposition to community and co-operation, (read:- herding and duty),will come as absolutely no surprise to anybody.

So what?

Tony

Edited April 16, 2011 by whYNOT

[Xray]

"Fix reason firmly in her seat" as Jefferson wrote

Looks like reason has the tendency to run away sometimes, if she has to be fixed firmly in her seat. ;)

- but paramount to reason is reality.

Reality provides the basis for reasonable thinking processes to occur.

Reality -> reason -> morality (rational selfishness.)You can only live and flourish by your mind, not through others'- that is the reality of Man.

We need others from the moment we draw our first breath, Tony. Being reared in a secure atmosphere by loving caregivers who also offer intellectual stimulation provides the fertile soil for a human individual's mind to flourish.

The fascinating research about mirror neurons points to empathy not necessitating a conscious choice to be put into action.

Imagine you happen to see a person running to catch a plane. Do you wish he/she makes it?

--Brant

yes--usually

(No, I hope he'll fall flat on his face, so I can have a huge laugh.) B)

Okay, yes, of course.

As far as mirror-neurons research goes, scientific research is only catching up with and validating what we 'know' already, I think.)

But would I risk losing my own flight to somehow help him? No.

Most people would probably reply with "yes" but if we feel we hav a disadvantage from a person's action, our attitude would change.

Lastly, several of us have said time and again on this forum that Objectivism does not preclude compassion and respect - that they are integral to it, within justice, etc.

It seems you keep forgetting that .

Ihaven' forgotten about it. But to me it looks like Rand ties the feeling of compassion and respect strongly to our "valuing" of persons we know.

But as for empathy, we can also feel it for persons we don't know personally.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Xray