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

[9thdoctor]

And horsemeat in France. Does that spll over into Austria and Germany?

No. We only have very few horse butcheries here in Germany.

I just did a quick Google search on Austrian horse butcheries and have also found only very few.

I'll bet you guys import it from France: for shame.

I went to a big Hungarian restaurant in Vienna that had horse on the menu. Supposedly sauerbraten used to be commonly made with horse, earning it a nickname among American military: donkey dick.

[Brant Gaede]

And horsemeat in France. Does that spll over into Austria and Germany?

No. We only have very few horse butcheries here in Germany.

I just did a quick Google search on Austrian horse butcheries and have also found only very few.

I'll bet you guys import it from France: for shame.

I went to a big Hungarian restaurant in Vienna that had horse on the menu. Supposedly sauerbraten used to be commonly made with horse, earning it a nickname among American military: donkey dick.

I'll eat "shit on a shingle." I won't eat "donkey dick."

--Brant

they served it in the army--I could eat it or starve--I ate it--I kinda liked it--you can still buy chipped beef and put it on toast

Edited April 24, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[IamBalSimon]

Let me first paraphrase what you wrote to make sure I have it correct. You are saying that a person has it within his/her (hir) power to make the world per hir own images and values. You are further saying that many Objectivists consider the world to be a "benevolent place" and what screws it all up are people.

Bal,

LOL...

I don't think anyone would phrase it that way, but from the discussions I have had over a few years online and from the things I have read, this is precisely the meaning I get from many Objectivists--in overall practice if not so much in explicit theory.

Not all, of course. There are many great warm and kind people who are Objectivists, too.

It seems like some people are deathly afraid of being rejected, so they start off by rejecting everybody. Boom. There. It's over. I quit before you can fire me. Then they start letting some people in between the cracks. But that's always risky.

This is one of the main reasons I believe these more tribal Objectivists congregate into group-think the way they do.

This is a long topic, but one of the things I have learned about it concerns emotional competence. Emotions come in three basic varieties: (1) acute emotions (the ones that come and go quickly), (2) chronic emotions (where you hang out long term emotionally, i.e., your predominant moods), and (3) social emotions (these are both true and false emotions--but they belong to a mask you show to others).

I believe the tribal Objectivists I criticize like to be in a group because they can use social emotions a lot--and everything is well defined on that level. They have to gush over XXX and YYY, they have to sneer at AAA and BBB, and so on. This way they don't have to worry about the holy mess they normally make with their relationships and emotional incompetence.

I believe this keeps them feeling safe and wards off the loneliness.

God, I could go on and on about this. But, please, don't think I am saying this to bash them and feel all superior and everything.

I can't.

I used to be that way, myself.

Michael

Hey Michael -

As I have said a couple of times now - it's just us chickens in here. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things (where one might think in terms of billions of lightyears, and (if some of the physicists' musings are correct) trillions of years, none of this - indeed - none of the entire panoply of life on planet Earth "means" a thing. That kind of takes any pomposity out of my sails. I've said that I am an egg with much to learn? I am not even a spec of dust, where the maximum amount that I can possibly learn is squat on a cosmic scale. (I'd love to be wrong about this, but unfortunately, I'm not. Indeed - I'd like to be wrong about a great many things...)

To your main question... This gets a bit tricky - at least to me.

If we're going to talk about the universe writ large, do we really mean that? From what I know of the universe, it seems globally a very hostile place. Indeed, out of all the billions of lightyears humans have observed, only one small spec of a planet has been found to contain the hospitable conditions that generate life. And on Earth, most of the planet seems inhospitable to "mind" with only certain relatively small (but growing) bits of it being open to minds. And most of this "nooosphere" (to use Teilhard de Chardin's word) seems relatively inhospitable to civility and exploration - again with just a few small bits being open to them. With the advent of political correctness, some of the places that once may have been open to civility and exploration are now nearly as orthodox-rigid and barbaric as those found in a country run by tyrants. One super-nova in our local region (say, within 16 lightyears of Earth) is enough to wipe out all the barbarism and all the civilization that have gone on in the past 3 million years or so.

Michael Polyani made this kind of argument in his book Personal Knowledge, and he recommended that we view a more human perspective - which I tend to agree with. But as soon as we do that, we are anthropomorphizing to some extent and creating a shortcut or an intellectual "let's play pretend" so that we can focus more closely on things that matter to us.

Finally - what does it matter - even at a human level unless we take into account feedback and feedfoward loops?

After all, if the universe "really is" a wonderful place, I will stop at the next red light I come to. I will pay my mortgage. I won't kick the neighbor's cat. I will pay my taxes. If the universe "really is" a hideous evil place, none of that will change.

But if I *do* take into account feedback loops, the workshop of imagination, and the dreams of achievement, my behavior will be more goal oriented than if I don't. If all I am is a "rational animal" very little matters. But if I am an envisioning, creating, alive and kicking "agent of the future" then my life will be very different from what it would be if I see my highest achievement as being alive when the movie Thor (which I am very much looking forward to seeing) comes to theaters in May.

- Bal

[anthony]

I'll eat "shit on a shingle."

--Brant

they served it in the army--I could eat it or starve--I ate it--I kinda liked it--you can still buy chipped beef and put it on toast

Brant,

Funny, that. Six years at boarding school in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), this was on the weekly 'menu' - same name, same dish.

When I thought about it, "shingle" is very American, and I imagine that the G.I.'s introduced it to England, and they brought it to Africa.

How a humble food gets around.

I enjoyed it, and would eat other boys' helpings if they didn't.

Tony

[Xray]

Hey Michael -

As I have said a couple of times now - it's just us chickens in here. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things (where one might think in terms of billions of lightyears, and (if some of the physicists' musings are correct) trillions of years, none of this - indeed - none of the entire panoply of life on planet Earth "means" a thing. That kind of takes any pomposity out of my sails. I've said that I am an egg with much to learn? I am not even a spec of dust, where the maximum amount that I can possibly learn is squat on a cosmic scale. (I'd love to be wrong about this, but unfortunately, I'm not. Indeed - I'd like to be wrong about a great many things...)

Bal,

We are all stardust, as the famous physicist Lawrence Krauss says here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMmzKDonRY

If we're going to talk about the universe writ large, do we really mean that? From what I know of the universe, it seems globally a very hostile place.

The universe as such can neither be benevolent nor malevolent since it is no conscious entity.

But there exist sentient beings in the universe who are capable of showing these attitudes.

So despite the fact that in one's body, there is a continuous raging battle going between "attackers" (viruses, bacteria etc) and "defenders" (killer cells), we humans can choose to e. g. bring benevolence into the world.

What I find interesting in that context is the movement of the human spirit toward more empathy and benevolence. For example, we won't fall back to a stage where people are enslaved.

What I write about in terms of standing on the shoulders of others or with them as I generate (hopefully) greater understandings deals with epistemology. The trader principle does not seem to be involved with epistemology at all, except in such specific instances where I might trade coin for mentoring or coaching.

When it comes to participation - with generating the "best values" (is that a correct usage in Objectivist language?) that I can, then yes - I act "as if" I am an independent agent (I prefer not to use the phrase "rational animal.") because my brain/mind isn't fast enough or powerful enough to deal with all of the relational aspects of the world while I navigate and do the work and play of the day.

When I dance with my wife, I am paying attention to the beat of the music; to the location of other people on the dance floor so as to avoid collisions with them. I am wrapped in the music, and there is no "bandwidth" in the moment for me to be thanking Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller. There is little time or mental energy available in me to thank those who taught me how to dance the Swing. There is no mental bandwidth - during the dance - for me to thank the carpenters and craftsfolk who made a building strong enough to withstand high-wind, deep cold and earthquakes. There is no bandwidth to thank the Founding Fathers, to be appreciative of Beethoven who might very well have influenced Benny Goodman or Glen Miller. I have no bandwidth in that moment to thank the people who produce the food I eat so that I don't have to spend life on a farm tilling soil or hunting prey. I just enjoy the dance and applaud at the end and maybe leave a tip in the jar at the door for a "job well done."

But in THIS MOMENT, in my slower moments, where I have time to consider all that MUST BE INVOLVED for me to enjoy the dance, and the myriad other things that I do and enjoy - well then I do have time to enjoy exploration of the epistemological.

I like your "standing on the shoulders" comparison.

Your 'conscious spiritual awareness' (as one could call it) is very impressive, Bal.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Let me first paraphrase what you wrote to make sure I have it correct. You are saying that a person has it within his/her (hir) power to make the world per hir own images and values. You are further saying that many Objectivists consider the world to be a "benevolent place" and what screws it all up are people.

Bal,

LOL...

I don't think anyone would phrase it that way, but from the discussions I have had over a few years online and from the things I have read, this is precisely the meaning I get from many Objectivists--in overall practice if not so much in explicit theory.

Not all, of course. There are many great warm and kind people who are Objectivists, too.

It seems like some people are deathly afraid of being rejected, so they start off by rejecting everybody. Boom. There. It's over. I quit before you can fire me. Then they start letting some people in between the cracks. But that's always risky.

This is one of the main reasons I believe these more tribal Objectivists congregate into group-think the way they do.

This is a long topic, but one of the things I have learned about it concerns emotional competence. Emotions come in three basic varieties: (1) acute emotions (the ones that come and go quickly), (2) chronic emotions (where you hang out long term emotionally, i.e., your predominant moods), and (3) social emotions (these are both true and false emotions--but they belong to a mask you show to others).

I believe the tribal Objectivists I criticize like to be in a group because they can use social emotions a lot--and everything is well defined on that level. They have to gush over XXX and YYY, they have to sneer at AAA and BBB, and so on. This way they don't have to worry about the holy mess they normally make with their relationships and emotional incompetence.

I believe this keeps them feeling safe and wards off the loneliness.

God, I could go on and on about this. But, please, don't think I am saying this to bash them and feel all superior and everything.

I can't.

I used to be that way, myself.

Michael

Hey Michael -

As I have said a couple of times now - it's just us chickens in here. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things (where one might think in terms of billions of lightyears, and (if some of the physicists' musings are correct) trillions of years, none of this - indeed - none of the entire panoply of life on planet Earth "means" a thing. That kind of takes any pomposity out of my sails. I've said that I am an egg with much to learn? I am not even a spec of dust, where the maximum amount that I can possibly learn is squat on a cosmic scale. (I'd love to be wrong about this, but unfortunately, I'm not. Indeed - I'd like to be wrong about a great many things...)

To your main question... This gets a bit tricky - at least to me.

If we're going to talk about the universe writ large, do we really mean that? From what I know of the universe, it seems globally a very hostile place. Indeed, out of all the billions of lightyears humans have observed, only one small spec of a planet has been found to contain the hospitable conditions that generate life. And on Earth, most of the planet seems inhospitable to "mind" with only certain relatively small (but growing) bits of it being open to minds. And most of this "nooosphere" (to use Teilhard de Chardin's word) seems relatively inhospitable to civility and exploration - again with just a few small bits being open to them. With the advent of political correctness, some of the places that once may have been open to civility and exploration are now nearly as orthodox-rigid and barbaric as those found in a country run by tyrants. One super-nova in our local region (say, within 16 lightyears of Earth) is enough to wipe out all the barbarism and all the civilization that have gone on in the past 3 million years or so.

Michael Polyani made this kind of argument in his book Personal Knowledge, and he recommended that we view a more human perspective - which I tend to agree with. But as soon as we do that, we are anthropomorphizing to some extent and creating a shortcut or an intellectual "let's play pretend" so that we can focus more closely on things that matter to us.

Finally - what does it matter - even at a human level unless we take into account feedback and feedfoward loops?

After all, if the universe "really is" a wonderful place, I will stop at the next red light I come to. I will pay my mortgage. I won't kick the neighbor's cat. I will pay my taxes. If the universe "really is" a hideous evil place, none of that will change.

But if I *do* take into account feedback loops, the workshop of imagination, and the dreams of achievement, my behavior will be more goal oriented than if I don't. If all I am is a "rational animal" very little matters. But if I am an envisioning, creating, alive and kicking "agent of the future" then my life will be very different from what it would be if I see my highest achievement as being alive when the movie Thor (which I am very much looking forward to seeing) comes to theaters in May.

- Bal

Hi Bal,

I can't be certain if we are on different pages of the same book, but I sure enjoy your spirit of enquiry, and 'appreciation' of life.

Other People, is a gap within Objectivist ethics, I think - which is fine with me. There must be room to decide for ourselves, and develop independently.

I do agree with you that Objectivists consider reality as the physical Universe, when it's plain that (especially in modern times), Reality is other people.

MSK makes good points about O'ists gushing over one group, and sneering at another. He hypothesizes validly that many hold a "cognitive/normative" inversion - simply, rushing to judgment before all the facts are considered and received.

I'd add, that this happens because Objectivism supplies a very strong methodology and set of principles - tools, which new (and some old) O'ists over-eagerly apply at the drop of a hat. So people and situations get instant judgment; this is a parody of reality, and often an injustice. That is not Objectivism, to me. It turns people into 'floating abstractions', from where inhumanity is an easy step.

Btw, I think you are selling the Trader Principle a little short (pun intended). The T.P. is not exclusively pertaining to material gain - it involves the very highest of respectful engagement and mutual inspiration between men. The same appreciation of the carpenter and musician you mention before.

One more thing: you must have considered the basic conundrum that the Universe and others, would not exist, as far as you are concerned, if you did not exist in the first place. The 'Primacy of Consciousness' is in every other case anathema to Objectivism, but this is the one time the PoC holds true, I believe.

Who is the "appreciator" of life, and people, if not you? (And me.)

Also, the very statement "I appreciate" is egoistical, essentially. (Or, I love;I value;I respect.)

In all reality, how is it possible not to be at the peak of our own pyramid, as each of us is? - whether it sits comfortably with many, or not.

Other People fit in down that hierarchy as a matter of individual choice and value ... again, by rational egoism.

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

Hey Tony,

Good conversation.

The universe as such can neither be benevolent nor malevolent since it is no conscious entity.

What I meant was inhospitable. I did not mean to imply a conscious entity in the root of all things. (However, this doesn't stop me from playing a game of "as-if" the Universe is conscious. Clearly, aspects of the universe ARE conscious, if we include humans and other critters that we consider "concscious" as facets of the universe. I can make a scifi-ish leap that posits the entire universe as conscious. Doesn't seem to lead to any practical results so far, so it's just an amusement for me.)

What I find interesting in that context is the movement of the human spirit toward more empathy and benevolence. For example, we won't fall back to a stage where people are enslaved.

I sure hope you are right, Tony. As I read and watch the news, I see tendencies toward barbarism rising up anew; reaching minds (if you can call them that) that resonate with violence, degradation, and what is called in game theory The Tragedy of the Commons. I see people practice deceptions, mix it in with political correctness and hypocricy, and wonder how a civilization can flourish under such conditions. This goes mightily against my inner desire to explore with optimism, but I acknowledge this to be a growing theme in my perception of things.

I can't be certain if we are on different pages of the same book, but I sure enjoy your spirit of enquiry, and 'appreciation' of life.

Thank you - likewise. What I like is that you don't try to convince me with appeals to authority. I get the sense that you are not channeling anyone's ghost, and that I am talking directly to you.

Other People, is a gap within Objectivist ethics, I think - which is fine with me.

Please bear with me. I am not yet facile with the Objectivist terminology. Is other people an Objectivist term of art or do you are you intending to say that Objectivist ethics downplays the role of other people relative to one's own personal choices?

There must be room to decide for ourselves, and develop independently.

For competent adults (i.e., people who are ready, willing and able to accept the liabilities of their actions should they go wrong), I fully agree with you.

I do agree with you that Objectivists consider reality as the physical Universe, when it's plain that (especially in modern times), Reality is other people.

Slight correction: I don't know enough about Objectivists to have an opinion about whether they consider reality as the physical universe sans people or wehther they include other people in their models. I was answering Michael to clarify some of the things he'd said by summarizing his comments. He agreed that I'd gotten it right about his meaning.

When I go into this subject, I find that I want to speak only for myself. Other people can take what I write and generalize it to themselves if it fits. But discussions about "ultimate reality" often generate a feeling that is similar to discussions about the number of angels who can fit in a smart car.

When it comes to Reality (capital R), I know that I abstract only what my senses allow me to. I cannot hear below certain frequencies. I cannot see below or above the visible light spectrum. I wear glasses; thus my eyes are flawed and I suppose one could ask whether my eyes see "reality" when I'm wearing glasses or is that a distortion of what my senses would "naturally" produce - a distortion that I somehow find more useful.

My ability to reason depends hugely on what I already know and what I believe, as well as whether I've had a full meal recently, etc. My preferences figure into the reasoning I perform. Here's an example of what I mean.

When I'm driving about in my car, I sometimes come to an intersection where I can go one of two ways. For example, I can get on the freeway and get to my destination in 20 minutes. Or I can take a "scenic route" and get to my destination in about 30 minutes. My personal preferences at the time of decision figure into what I end up doing. Time is not always the important factor. I don't know how you would phrase this in Objectivist jargon. What I do know is that sometimes I prefer the comfort of a leisurely drive with less "traffic pressure," and other times I am eager to get where I'm going, and having a pleasant interlude fades in its importance.

I'd add, that this happens because Objectivism supplies a very strong methodology and set of principles - tools, which new (and some old) O'ists over-eagerly apply at the drop of a hat. So people and situations get instant judgment; this is a parody of reality, and often an injustice.

Tools - what do you refer to when you mention tools?

That is not Objectivism, to me. It turns people into 'floating abstractions', from where inhumanity is an easy step.

I think I understand. This is what I would call the "true believer" phenonomenon. And it happens in all disciplines that I've experienced. I find it very dispiriting when I come across it among people who supposedly have "freedom of thought" and "liberty" as their touchstones.

Btw, I think you are selling the Trader Principle a little short (pun intended). The T.P. is not exclusively pertaining to material gain - it involves the very highest of respectful engagement and mutual inspiration between men. The same appreciation of the carpenter and musician you mention before.

Please tell me if this is a good summary of the trader principle:

http://bit.ly/TDFQv

If it is, then I don't dispute the role of the trader in anything other than epistemology. You almost get to my views on this in your question below.

One more thing: you must have considered the basic conundrum that the Universe and others, would not exist, as far as you are concerned, if you did not exist in the first place. The 'Primacy of Consciousness' is in every other case anathema to Objectivism, but this is the one time the PoC holds true, I believe.

Yes - I have considered this at length. THIS gets you much closer to my view of epistemology. There is nothing to be traded here. I can't trade my perception of the color red for anything you might want to give me. I can't change my reasoning on your say so. I can take what you tell me; what you show me; and what you do to me as input; but it is the factory of my being that abstracts, constructs, synthesizes and ultimately produces (sometimes in a matter of split-seconds; sometimes over the course of years) my understanding of what is going on.

My understanding of things is imbued by and infused with the messages from others (past and present), but the trader principle does not seem to be part of it.

In all reality, how is it possible not to be at the peak of our own pyramid, as each of us is? - whether it sits comfortably with many, or not.

I make a distinction between self-authority (primacy) and intellectual underderstanding of various subjects, e.g., astronomy, law, gardening, bowling, etc. where the contributed "reports from the field" provide vastly greater data than what I can accumlate on my own. Thus I do not substitute my understanding of human physiology with that of my doctor. However, I will not ever let my doctor convince me that something doesn't hurt when it does. What may happen in such a circumstance is that I will accept a statement like this: "I don't see what might be causing your pain, nor do I know of any way to find out." That would be a legitimate (if unpleasant) thing for my doctor to say. He might even be providing a trader's value when he says that the symptom I report does not indicate a pathology. That can (and has) generated relief on some (though not all) occasions.

Something similar holds in every field and discipline where my knowledge of the field is rooted in the receipt and grokking of messages from those who I consider more knowledgeable.

- Bal

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

. . . in the recent exchange with Peter Taylor, my focus was not on him (which is why I did not react to his flying off the handle),

I always enjoyed Donald Duck who used to fly off the handle better than any cartoon character and I think the characters in “Roger Rabbit” equaled Donald’s explosiveness. Daisy would speak rationally and calmly to Donald and he would calm down. Thanks Angela Duck. I feel better now.

On the personal level, empathy is fine. It would be a disaster to incorporate this secondary virtue into any form of government. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is best at promoting a country’s material and psychological well-being. Is any of our culture generated via government, if we disregard NPR and some state sponsored propaganda? I love the way “stuff happens” spontaneously in America and the Western World based on self interest. And as any oldster I worry about the debasement and callousness of a younger generation.

My attempt at humor apparently fell flat among the Germans. Sorry. I like to combine joking, jibing, and pursuasion.

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

I always enjoyed Donald Duck who used to fly off the handle better than any cartoon character and I think the characters in “Roger Rabbit” equaled Donald’s explosiveness. Daisy would speak rationally and calmly to Donald and he would calm down. Thanks Angela Duck. I feel better now.

I'm glad to hear you feel better, Peter.

BTW, I enjoyed Donald's tantrums too! As a kid, I couldn't stop looking at the drawings showing him hit the ceiling, lol.

And Daisy was indeed nearly always rational and calm, now that think of it. I think I can relate. ;)

Edited April 29, 2011 by Xray

[Guyau]

Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments,

like a lot of 18th century moral philosophy, would be described today as social psychology rather than "ethics" per se.

Recently, from a social psychologist: Altruism in Humans by C. Daniel Batson (Oxford 2010)

Altruism in Humans takes a hard-science look at the possibility that we humans have the capacity to care for others for their sakes rather than simply for our own. Based on an extensive series of theory-testing laboratory experiments conducted over the past 35 years, this book details a theory of altruistic motivation, offers a comprehensive summary of the research designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis, and considers the theoretical and practical implications of this conclusion.

Although I object to calling by the name altruism—which standardly entails sacrifice of self for others—the caring for others for their sake rather than simply for one's own sake, the phenomenon that is the misnamed subject of this book is important. It is a phenomenon consistent with a form of egoism (scroll down to Epilogue).

Related –

. . .

I should pause over the necessity of intended self-benefit for correct values. Not all of one’s potential selves are worth benefitting. Among those who are, Rand maintains that only potential selves whose every value is intended to benefit themselves hold entirely correct values. “Concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and . . . man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions. / The actor must always be the beneficiary of his action” (VS ix–x; also OE 46–47).

One is a beneficiary in ways other than by one’s resulting positive feelings, because one is a self that is not only feelings. Man’s self is “‘that entity that is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego’” (HR XVIII 737). It is the self—one’s soul—that has thoughts, meaning, will, values, desires, and feeling (GW II 454).

Roark loves the buildings he designs not only because of the positive responses they elicit in him. Dagny loves diesel-electric locomotives and the minds that create them not only because of the positive responses they elicit in her. It is not plausible that when she finds that man at the end of the rails, the one for whom she has longed since her youth, she will love him only because of the positive responses he evokes in her.

There is, however, a thread of subjectivity in Rand’s conception of value and love and normative selfishness that is puckering up the fabric. In my judgment, that thread is unnecessary and should be removed. Speaking metaphorically, the solemnity of looking at the sky does not come only from the uplift of one’s head (HR V 598). In extreme desire for another person, the other does not recede in importance compared to the desire (GW IX 539). A rational desire to help someone in need is animated not only by “your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and struggle” (AS 1060, emphasis added). Rather, it is enough for rational egoism that, by design, no actions be contrary self-benefit (of a self worth benefitting). The requirement that all actions should intend primarily self-benefit should be dropped. In this way, one can love persons simply for the particular ends-in-themselves that they are.

The man who dynamited Cortlandt rises, takes the oath, and stands before the court audience. “Roark stood before each of them as each man stands in the innocence of his own mind. But Roark stood like that before a hostile crowd—and they knew suddenly that no hatred was possible to him. For the flash of an instant, they grasped the manner of his consciousness. Each asked himself: do I need anyone’s approval?—does it matter?—am I tied? And for that instant, each man was free—free enough to feel benevolence for every other man in the room” (HR XVIII 736).

Rand takes benevolence to be people’s natural state when they are not constrained by law or morality to take basic direction from others rather than from themselves and to benefit others rather than themselves. David Kelley has added to Rand’s ethics by reckoning the ways in which benevolence is in one’s self-interest and arguing that the virtue of productivity has a cohort virtue in benevolence towards others (1996). In Kelley’s view, although benevolence is not an obligation by way of respecting the rights of others, it is an obligation to oneself. I think only some occasions of right benevolence are morally required; other occasions are morally permitted, but not required, not an obligation. Be that as it may, my dissent registered to Rand’s account of rational egoism applies to Kelley’s as well. Both of them correctly recognize that genuine benevolent responsiveness is not educed primarily by motives of self-sacrifice. Both are wrong in not recognizing that the genuine, innocent response of benevolence is also not educed primarily by motives of self-benefit.

[IamBalSimon]

Interesting post there, Stephen.

I like to get at this kind of thing by looking into my own life and into the "real facts" that I see/hear about/read in the news and in historical accounts.

Let's begin with a famous custom that seems to transcend cultures and thus appears, on the surface at least, to be biological for humans: the notion of "women and children first." In a day and age where equality gets mixed in with political correctness, I sometimes get a feeling of derision toward the "women" part of that custom. After all, if women are my equal, why exactly, are they getting to go first? But then I think about the women in my life, i.e., those I care about, and my objections sort of melt away. If I'm on the Titanic, you bet that my wife and, thus other women, will be getting a seat on a lifeboat before me. (Over my wife's objections, btw - one of the few times I'd insist on overruling her preferences.)

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? Their "survival" is more assured if they don't; yet there are countless stories where they do; and it's almost a given that they will deny that they did anything heroic, though clearly their actions fit the definition of hero for many people, including me.

Why do I put money aside for my son to go to college instead of spending it on a frivolous entertainment or getting a new car?

The answer to both of these examples (and countless more) is that my self-interest extends beyond my self-preservation and my sensual gratification. It is that my self-interest extends into goals I have for my family and for society at large. I want my family to do well as I love the people in it. I want my society to do well because then I can be in a society that I like. I want societal policies to be scientifically based (if possible) because with good data you have a chance (not a guarantee) that you can make a good diagnosis and come up with decent plans. (That's the whole problem with the global warming/climate change discussion. People like me don't trust the scientists to be free of political (socialist) motivations.)

All of this - and more - is in my self-interest (including so-called altruism) because my self-interest extends far and wide.

- Bal

[Xray]

Interesting post there, Stephen.

I like to get at this kind of thing by looking into my own life and into the "real facts" that I see/hear about/read in the news and in historical accounts.

Let's begin with a famous custom that seems to transcend cultures and thus appears, on the surface at least, to be biological for humans: the notion of "women and children first." In a day and age where equality gets mixed in with political correctness, I sometimes get a feeling of derision toward the "women" part of that custom. After all, if women are my equal, why exactly, are they getting to go first?

I just did the test and asked my husband what he would say if it were me who, on the Titanic, suggested he get into the lifeboat first. He looked a bit puzzled at first, but them answered with a grin: "Well, if you insist. That's the price of gender equality, I suppose ." ;)

Typical tongue-in cheek comment on his part. He then said it's all so theoretical and that no one can really predict how they would react in such situations.

But then I think about the women in my life, i.e., those I care about, and my objections sort of melt away. If I'm on the Titanic, you bet that my wife and, thus other women, will be getting a seat on a lifeboat before me. (Over my wife's objections, btw - one of the few times I'd insist on overruling her preferences.)

I think it is understandable that one would want to save one's loved wife, but would that necessarily imply letting non-related females getting a seat in the lifeboat as well, thus runnig the risk of never seeing one's loved wife again?

It would interest me what really happens in situations when a ship is in the process of drowning.

It looks like there are stages when things still seem somewhat under control, which then turn to stages where only "Save yourself if you can!" applies.

The context of this discussion offers an opportunity to check, via the role of the ship's captain, the Objectivist premises of selfishness being a "virtue" and of the "ultimate value" being "one's life". It is expected as the captain's duty that he stay on the ship.

What is the Objectivist position on this?

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? Their "survival" is more assured if they don't; yet there are countless stories where they do; and it's almost a given that they will deny that they did anything heroic, though clearly their actions fit the definition of hero for many people, including me.

Imo it is empathy which drives them. Its effect being that they, at that moment, identify so much with those who suffer that the impulse to safe them overrides everything else.

Why do I put money aside for my son to go to college instead of spending it on a frivolous entertainment or getting a new car?

The biological program to care for one's offspring is very strong. This does not mean that all humans will automatically act on this program though. For if they did, there would be no such thing as child neglect or abuse. Biological programs are not immune to disturbances.

But in most cases, it will work more or less as you have described it.

The answer to both of these examples (and countless more) is that my self-interest extends beyond my self-preservation and my sensual gratification. It is that my self-interest extends into goals I have for my family and for society at large. I want my family to do well as I love the people in it. I want my society to do well because then I can be in a society that I like. I want societal policies to be scientifically based (if possible) because with good data you have a chance (not a guarantee) that you can make a good diagnosis and come up with decent plans. (That's the whole problem with the global warming/climate change discussion. People like me don't trust the scientists to be free of political (socialist) motivations.)

All of this - and more - is in my self-interest (including so-called altruism) because my self-interest extends far and wide.

Very convincing argumentation, Bal.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, like a lot of 18th century moral philosophy, would be described today as social psychology rather than "ethics" per se.

Recently, from a social psychologist: Altruism in Humans by C. Daniel Batson (Oxford 2010)

Altruism in Humans takes a hard-science look at the possibility that we humans have the capacity to care for others for their sakes rather than simply for our own. Based on an extensive series of theory-testing laboratory experiments conducted over the past 35 years, this book details a theory of altruistic motivation, offers a comprehensive summary of the research designed to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis, and considers the theoretical and practical implications of this conclusion.

Although I object to calling by the name altruism—which standardly entails sacrifice of self for others—the caring for others for their sake rather than simply for one's own sake, the phenomenon that is the misnamed subject of this book is important. It is a phenomenon consistent with a form of egoism (scroll down to Epilogue).

The term altruism indeed poses problems because it is used both prescriptively (in the form of a moral doctrine ('others are to be served first') and purely descriptively (i. g. when biologists observe chimpanzees grooming each other and call these acts "altruistic" too).

Imo this terminological muddle would justify the creation of neologisms to clearly separate two different issues and thus eliminate confusion.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

I just did the test and asked my husband what he would say if it were me who, on the Titanic, suggested he get into the lifeboat first. He looked a bit puzzled at first, but them answered with a grin: "Well, if you insist. That's the price of gender equality, I suppose ." ;)

Typical tongue-in cheek comment on his part. He then said it's all so theoretical and that no one can really predict how they would react in such situations.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree that we don't know how we'll respond in an emergency. However, I have personally been in a few emergency settings, so I have some faith in my self-knowledge here. In all three that I am thinking about, I did not lose "the veneer of civility." And I did operate on the principle of "who's need is greater right now?" If I had the wherewithal to help, I did. So I think I'm on safe ground in believing I'd insist my wife get on the lifeboat, even if there's no room for me.

I think it is understandable that one would want to save one's loved wife, but would that necessarily imply letting non-related females getting a seat in the lifeboat as well, thus runnig the risk of never seeing one's loved wife again?

There is perhaps nothing external that would compel me to make room for a woman I didn't know. And, again, in these days of so-called "women's equality" (enforced by political correctness, and not practiced because of rationality), there is a part of me that wonders why I should bother with it. But I'm a creature of my times. I grew up when women were treated with great respect in my parent's home. I never knew about abusive behavior by adults until I got into high school. I certainly never saw it between people I knew. That's how sheltered I was from "the real world."

But actually, there is a principle here: namely, if I favor my wife to be on the lifeboat but not other women, why should any other man favor my wife to be on the lifeboat. It would be claw and teeth versus claw and teeth. I think humans are potentially better than that. Society works almost unconsciously on the basis of mutually agreed to customs. "Women and children first" states one such custom. I think, all told, it remains a good one because, by securing other women's places on the lifeboat, I increase the odds that my wife is one who is also on the lifeboat.

It goes deeper than this. If I was the only one with a gun, I'd like to think I'd enforce the women and children first rule against idiot, boorish men who have not an ounce of civilization coursing through their blood. Could I actually shoot such a jerk? I don't know. I do know I could threaten.

The context of this discussion offers an opportunity to check, via the role of the ship's captain, the Objectivist premises of selfishness being a "virtue" and of the "ultimate value" being "one's life". It is expected as the captain's duty that he stay on the ship.

What is the Objectivist position on this?

I assume you are asking in the sense of right and wrong, not in terms of contract. I agree - that is a very interesting question.

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? <snipped>

Imo it is empathy which drives them. Its effect being that they, at that moment, identify so much with those who suffer that the impulse to safe them overrides everything else.

For some reason I thought that Objectivists tended to scowl at the idea of "empathy." Personally, I think empathy is one of THE critical emotions behind civilization. It supports our ability to trust one another without an explicit contract or the force of the gun.

Why do I put money aside for my son to go to college instead of spending it on a frivolous entertainment or getting a new car?

The biological program to care for one's offspring is very strong.

Sure - but are strong biological programs alone a basis for rational behavior? Interesting thought. I think that biology doesn't give a rip about our philosophical discussions. And if our biology calls for empathy, we would do well to understand what THAT message is. There is promising research on the biological underpinnings of empathy in the neurological study of so-called mirror neurons. http://bit.ly/lb726G

- Bal

[anthony]

Free from any "musts", it is quite amazing what is possible between human beings - without systemized and 'enforced compassion' or dutiful 'helping hands', (by Church or State or personal choice) - people would be liberated to help others, when they choose.

Not only will they do so, they will do so completely consciously and happily, without sacrifice - and the recipient, I assure you, will know the difference, and appreciate it.

Rational egoism, practised assiduously over time, has the effect of not only elevating the egoist's value of self, but of pulling up other people in his hierarchy, with all life.

It stands to reason, doesn't it? The more deeply one knows and appreciates one's own values, the more one empathizes with the struggles, and acknowledges the values, of others.

Categorically,imo, this can only be reached by way of individual liberty, and personal egoism.

Preaching compassion as an advocacy, and attempting the "ideal" of brotherly love that way, only brings about contempt, resentment, and guilt for everyone concerned.

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

Free from any "musts", it is quite amazing what is possible between human beings - without systemized and 'enforced compassion' or dutiful 'helping hands', (by Church or State or personal choice) - people would be liberated to help others, when they choose.

Not only will they do so, they will do so completely consciously and happily, without sacrifice - and the recipient, I assure you, will know the difference, and appreciate it.

Rational egoism, practised assiduously over time, has the effect of not only elevating the egoist's value of self, but of pulling up other people in his hierarchy, with all life.

It stands to reason, doesn't it? The more deeply one knows and appreciates one's own values, the more one empathizes with the struggles, and acknowledges the values, of others.

Categorically,imo, this can only be reached by way of individual liberty, and personal egoism.

Preaching compassion as an advocacy, and attempting the "ideal" of brotherly love that way, only brings about contempt, resentment, and guilt for everyone concerned.

Tony

I'm not positive about what the context of your comments are, Tony. So bear with me if I've misunderstood.

From what I have seen people who are ignorant and "free" can act as atrocious barbarians. (I guess the ignorance component isn't required, but it helps). So I'm thinking that can't be the kind of "freedom" you're talking about. So let's take up a couple more examples to break down the abstract.

Example: I go to a movie theater and there are a couple of people who's subculture says that it's just grand to talk loudly in a theater. Their subculture also says that if someone complains - especially someone who is recognizably not part of said subculture, it is perfectly OK to threaten them with bodily harm if they don't mind their own business. And if I go to complain to the theater manager, then after the show, it is perfectly acceptable in this subculture for these people (animals really) to cause me bodily harm up to the point of killing me.

There have been news articles about this, and I have personally experienced it up to the point of agreeing that I should mind my own business and then leaving the theater.

Are you saying that they are free to be barbarians and I'm free to avoid them? Are you saying that they are free to be barbarians and I'm free to bring my gun and turn it into a shootout at the OK Coral? Since I don't yet know you well, I suppose that's possible, but I'm guessing you'll say that I'm seeing it wrong somehow. Please explain where I am erring.

Example: I want to be a doctor. But I don't want to go to medical school. The State says that I'd better not set up shop unless I'm degreed and have a license in the state in which I will be practicing. As an egoist I say that this doesn't suit me and that I am "free." So I can set up shop if I want to. The State says, no I can't, and is ready to enforce this by putting me in jail. Knowing this, I choose to not set up shop after all, and live my life as a very poor and inept forum poster.

So what is your evaluation of this example?

Thanks!

- Bal

Edited May 1, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[anthony]

Bal,

I don't have a clue what you're getting at.

Maybe it's a mistake for me to presume that everyone here has some understanding of, or familiarity with Rand's books -especially her essays. It is all very well that we should discuss ideas undogmatically, but at core my philosophy is Objectivism, and you won't understand me without knowing something about it.

I'd recommend Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue Of Selfishness, and For the New Intellectual, throughout which she explicitly answers your concerns about 'barbarians' and individual rights.

As well as the morality of rational selfishness.

Nathaniel Branden in his many books on self-esteem, is an essential read, too, in my opinion.

The bullying louts you describe, and the doctor, demonstrate an exact opposite to rational egoism - they are in short, about as selfless and irrational as is possible.

Tony

[Selene]

Folks:

Some observations. As to the primacy of "woman and children first," in terms of a species/survival choice, it makes rational sense because at the hard wired level, the female is capable of bearing the offspring and therefore receives what I refer to as "primal primacy" in the lifeboat scenario.

At a certain level that does extend to the non-family female also.

In terms of the "doctor" scenario, in a free society wherein the state has retained the power to "license a profession," the licensed professional would "post that they were a licensed doctor." A person who practiced healing would not be permitted to represent their services in that manner. You as an individual would then have a choice to deal with the "healer" or the licensed professional.

The licensed professional would specify that they were insured as required by the state. Again, your choice.

Adam

[anthony]

Example: I want to be a doctor. But I don't want to go to medical school. The State says that I'd better not set up shop unless I'm degreed and have a license in the state in which I will be practicing. As an egoist I say that this doesn't suit me and that I am "free." So I can set up shop if I want to. The State says, no I can't, and is ready to enforce this by putting me in jail. Knowing this, I choose to not set up shop after all, and live my life as a very poor and inept forum poster.

So what is your evaluation of this example?

Thanks!

- Bal

Adam,

The way I read it, Bal has set up a moral question, not a legal-ethical one. (I think.)

"As an egoist I say that this doesn't suit me...".

In a free society, there would probably be independent Associations of Medical practitioners, with stringent criteria for its licensed members; the public would have the choice to go to a member-doctor, or not.

In the above case, the 'doctor' abrogates for himself the right to practise, without any training, merely because he feels like being a doctor.

This is simple whimsy, and not rational. (Or egoistical.)

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

So it seems clear to me that I am not well enough versed to understand the Objectivist point of view. I've some reading to do at some point.

I'm prepared to let this drop and accept that there is much for me to learn about Objectivist tenets and language before I can carry on an discussion in this field. I guess it's sort of like trying to have a discussion with a scientist who's been studying quantum mechanics for 10 years and I want a 10 minute explanation of this and that. At some point s/he's going to say to me, "Sorry - you need training. I don't have time for this sort of discussion. Good day to you." (I actually had that happen to me once, except the scientist was a cancer researcher.)

It appears that there are terms of art being used here that, while homonyms with lay terms, they actually have specialized meanings. Words like "freedom" and "egoism." They sound like good old standard English words, but in this forum, maybe they aren't.

For example, the word freedom would seem to include as part of its meaning, the ability to act in barbaric fashion if that's what one chooses. In the days of wilder times, like those of the wild west, the scratch up from "wild" to "civilized" was turbulent indeed. My understanding is that it was not uncommon for people to settle things with a gun. Sometimes in a duel. Sometimes as a coward, from behind someone's back.

In American society, we have another custom, yes? Your freedom ends where my nose begins; meaning you can swing your arms all you want; just don't connect with my face. This is a metaphor for all kinds of behaviors.

The louts in the theater? My guess is that you and I would both not like their behavior. But perhaps we would describe it differently. I would call them absolutely selfish, though not in the sense of a Galt or Reardon. They are selfish in the way an toddler is selfish. The "It's all about me" mentality. Are you telling me that the Objectivist term for this is "selfless?" Would that be as in having no self? (Which would seem almost Gurdjieffian.)

If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people who have neither the time or the inclination to steep themselves in this philosophy. I say this because of the movie Atlas Shrugged and the political hopes that I believe lie behind the making of that movie.

I believe that the reason it came out now was because of the pain caused by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress. The political headlines of today feel like they could be derived straight out of Atlas. If I am correct in this, then there are many Objectivists who hope - who want for millions of voters (far more than the number of people calling themselves Objectivists, I'd wager) to get a sense of the destructive results that logically must happen if Obama is the last word. A hope that millions of voters would gain a sense of Rand's political interpretations, and vote Obama out in 2012.

If I am correct in this, then there is a desire by at least some Objectivists to reach beyond their own hallowed halls and find a way to communicate with others who, like me, are not well-versed in Objectivism.

I have seen a similar desire in the discussions among people who are steeped in General Semantics.

Which lands us at a question: are Objectivists close enough to the general populace in their language usage to make a Rosetta stone kind of effort, or are they like the scientist who simply doesn't have the bandwidth, the ability, or the time to bring laypeople up to speed? Stated more prosaically, if an Objectivist walks into a coffee house and strikes up a conversation with a non-Objectivist, is there enough commonality of language for a decent philosophical discussion to take place?

- Bal

[anthony]

If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people - Bal

That's a 'biggie' - well remarked, Bal. The connotation of these words has proved a stumbling-block for communication (translation?) from Objectivist to non-O'ist.

Though it's not exactly a foreign language, it becomes essential to accept on good faith that Rand's meaning of altruism, sacrifice, selfishness, and egoism, are the classical definitions - not the mainstream ones; confusing, sure. Objectivists continue to debate this very thing, with substitute words like 'self-fulness' being suggested.

In the end, for various reasons, I think the originals will stand.

Whatever the names, it is the concept that matters, don't you think?

Rosetta stone - nice one!

Tony

Edited May 1, 2011 by whYNOT

[IamBalSimon]

If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people - Bal

That's a 'biggie' - well remarked, Bal. The connotation of these words has proved a stumbling-block for communication (translation?) from Objectivist to non-O'ist.

Though it's not exactly a foreign language, it becomes essential to accept on good faith that Rand's meaning of altruism, sacrifice, selfishness, and egoism, are the classical definitions - not the mainstream ones; confusing, sure. Objectivists continue to debate this very thing, with substitute words like 'self-fulness' being suggested.

In the end, for various reasons, I think the originals will stand.

Whatever the names, it is the concept that matters, don't you think?

Rosetta stone - nice one!

Tony

Cool - so now maybe we can make an effort at Rosetta-ing some of the words. Let's try "altruism."

My colloquial definition - one I've used for years - is that of an action done for the benefit of someone else, whether or not I materially benefit from the action. I have always known that I cannot act such that I don't "emotionally" benefit - even in my most giving of actions. That is, there is a huge benefit I gain by being able to say, "I'm one of the good guys." Or that even if my life is hell (as it has been on occasion) I can "at least help someone else out." This was the kind of benefit I gained when I put my immediate material needs for money aside after 911. I chose the emotions associated with patriotism over the emotions of narrow "but what about me-ism" (what would you call "what about me-ism"?). That I materially benefited as a result was most unexpected; almost like when you throw a "Hail Mary" ball at a basket, don't expect it to go in, but it does and you win the game.

TheFreeDictionary.com provides several definitions of altruism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism):

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.

-------------------------

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others

2. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others. Compare egoism See also utilitarianism

-------------------------

Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair's pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual's genetic material.

-------------------------

a concern or regard for the needs of others, entirely without ulterior motive.

The definition that seems closest to my usage is the last: a concern or regard for others without ulterior motive. Ulterior meaning hidden, even fraudulent; not really for the benefit of someone else.

When I "sacrifice" the short-term pleasure I might get out of using money for some immediate desire in order to help my son with his college career, I DO emotionally benefit from this. I get a long-term, long-lasting emotional satisfaction from knowing my son is climbing the next rung on a ladder of his choice. That makes the use of this money a no-brainer.

I see no contradiction in the last definition of altruism listed above and the way I benefit. Are any of these equivalent to what you would call the classical definition of altruism? Do we have the makings for beginning a Rosetta-translation from Objectivist to Non-O?

- Bal

[Guyau]

So it seems clear to me that I am not well enough versed to understand the Objectivist point of view. I've some reading to do at some point.

I'm prepared to let this drop and accept that there is much for me to learn about Objectivist tenets and language before I can carry on an discussion in this field. I guess it's sort of like trying to have a discussion with a scientist who's been studying quantum mechanics for 10 years and I want a 10 minute explanation of this and that. At some point s/he's going to say to me, "Sorry - you need training. I don't have time for this sort of discussion. Good day to you." (I actually had that happen to me once, except the scientist was a cancer researcher.)

It appears that there are terms of art being used here that, while homonyms with lay terms, they actually have specialized meanings. Words like "freedom" and "egoism." They sound like good old standard English words, but in this forum, maybe they aren't.

For example, the word freedom would seem to include as part of its meaning, the ability to act in barbaric fashion if that's what one chooses. In the days of wilder times, like those of the wild west, the scratch up from "wild" to "civilized" was turbulent indeed. My understanding is that it was not uncommon for people to settle things with a gun. Sometimes in a duel. Sometimes as a coward, from behind someone's back.

In American society, we have another custom, yes? Your freedom ends where my nose begins; meaning you can swing your arms all you want; just don't connect with my face. This is a metaphor for all kinds of behaviors.

The louts in the theater? My guess is that you and I would both not like their behavior. But perhaps we would describe it differently. I would call them absolutely selfish, though not in the sense of a Galt or Reardon. They are selfish in the way an toddler is selfish. The "It's all about me" mentality. Are you telling me that the Objectivist term for this is "selfless?" Would that be as in having no self? (Which would seem almost Gurdjieffian.)

If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people who have neither the time or the inclination to steep themselves in this philosophy. I say this because of the movie Atlas Shrugged and the political hopes that I believe lie behind the making of that movie.

I believe that the reason it came out now was because of the pain caused by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress. The political headlines of today feel like they could be derived straight out of Atlas. If I am correct in this, then there are many Objectivists who hope - who want for millions of voters (far more than the number of people calling themselves Objectivists, I'd wager) to get a sense of the destructive results that logically must happen if Obama is the last word. A hope that millions of voters would gain a sense of Rand's political interpretations, and vote Obama out in 2012.

If I am correct in this, then there is a desire by at least some Objectivists to reach beyond their own hallowed halls and find a way to communicate with others who, like me, are not well-versed in Objectivism.

I have seen a similar desire in the discussions among people who are steeped in General Semantics.

Which lands us at a question: are Objectivists close enough to the general populace in their language usage to make a Rosetta stone kind of effort, or are they like the scientist who simply doesn't have the bandwidth, the ability, or the time to bring laypeople up to speed? Stated more prosaically, if an Objectivist walks into a coffee house and strikes up a conversation with a non-Objectivist, is there enough commonality of language for a decent philosophical discussion to take place?

- Bal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bal,

Here is an excerpt from Irfan Khawaja’s paper at the recent meeting* of the Ayn Rand Society:

It is a mistake to think that my egoistic interest consists in free riding on others’ efforts without paying them, i.e., getting the unearned. In fact, my interest consists in trading, which is to say that it consists in enacting the causes that bring out the best in others, of which payment is an irreducible part. So the payment I make to a deserving trade-partner is as much in my interest as the payment I get from her.

On Rand’s view, then, adherence to the trader principle (all of it) is beneficial to the agent, while violations of it are harmful. The point is not that violation may involve short-term gain that is offset by long-term harm. It is that the “gain” involved in violation is simply an illusion, and the desire for it, a pathology.

. . .

The issue of violations brings us more directly to the topic of punishment. . . .

Dr. Khawaja then proceeds to give exacting definitions of punishment and state punishment, definitions drawn by implication and suggestion from Rand’s express philosophy.

If one has learned geology, then as one looks at terrain in one’s travels, one sees more of what is there and more to what is there. This will require elaborate definitions and theory. It is the same with political discussion. Beyond ambiguous, slippery slogans, understanding of law, legal philosophy, ethics, and economics is required to address the issues in a substantive, durable way. That requires exacting definitions more theoretically definite than in casual talk.

Kat recently posted a presentation by Yaron Brook to an audience of political activists.* It concerned the Objectivist view of the proper extent of government. On the face of it, all is in regular terminology. But to reach more specifically which and why certain operations of government should be or not be, key terminology such as rights and justice would have to be disambiguated. They would have to be set out in Rand’s definitions of them, with further explication of the exact concepts meant by the terms in those definitions. (Related: a, b, c)

Expositions of Rand's philosophy by Leonard Peikoff * and by Tara Smith * often begin by stating ordinary meanings of a term, then unity or difference of those meanings with meaning of the same term (term of art) in Rand's philosophy. On selfishness and unselfishness, the important work to study is The Fountainhead. It was there that Rand articulated what it is to be an authentic self and exposed the falseness of common pretenders to that achievment.

I should perhaps mention also, in case you are not aware of it already, that the primary function of Rand’s philosophy and of her fictional works Fountainhead and Atlas is not reformation of the culture or the political system. The primary function is liberation of the mind of the reader for best leading and enjoying his or her own life.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Xray]

Folks:

Some observations. As to the primacy of "woman and children first," in terms of a species/survival choice, it makes rational sense because at the hard wired level, the female is capable of bearing the offspring and therefore receives what I refer to as "primal primacy" in the lifeboat scenario.

At a certain level that does extend to the non-family female also.

This is the biological root of it, yes. While the male is able to sire offspring with many different females at the same time, the female can only bear one child (twins, triplets etc. being the exception) in a nine-month span. Therefore the loss of a female of childbearing age - is strictly from a biological standpoint - considered to be more detrimental regarding the "survial of the species".

There are of course other elements factoring in as well, like females usually being physically weaker than men, etc.

I just did another test and asked my husband out of the blue if he would protect me. He played dumb a little and asked: "What's the matter? You need protection now?"

Then he said: "You know, we men have it difficult nowadays. Suppose I answer "Yes", one could call me a as stuck in the tradtional male role. If I answer "No", one could call me a weakling. Women somehow never seem to be satisfied with our anwers." ;)

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

But actually, there is a principle here: namely, if I favor my wife to be on the lifeboat but not other women, why should any other man favor my wife to be on the lifeboat. It would be claw and teeth versus claw and teeth. I think humans are potentially better than that. Society works almost unconsciously on the basis of mutually agreed to customs. "Women and children first" states one such custom. I think, all told, it remains a good one because, by securing other women's places on the lifeboat, I increase the odds that my wife is one who is also on the lifeboat.

Good points.

Why do people run into burning buildings to rescue people who are trapped? <snipped>

Imo it is empathy which drives them. Its effect being that they, at that moment, identify so much with those who suffer that the impulse to safe them overrides everything else.

For some reason I thought that Objectivists tended to scowl at the idea of "empathy."

The term empathy does not figure in the Objectivist terminology. Objectivists use "benevolence", but the meaning they attribute to this term does not cover all that the term "empathy" covers. Benevolence is seen more as a conscious volitional choice to act kindly, whereas "empathy" covers non-volitional reactions as well.

Empathy is also broader in that it is not limited to those who share our views, and not limited to those we think 'deserve' being valued by us.

As you have pointed out, recent neurological studies on mirror neurons are very promising. For they could provide the scientific basis on which to build an ethical theory.

Personally, I think empathy is one of THE critical emotions behind civilization. It supports our ability to trust one another without an explicit contract or the force of the gun.

ITA.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray