STRONGEST Anti-Objectivist Arguments

[bmacwilliam]

John,

If you're saying that you have no justification for being angry, but are indeed angry then it is you that is clearly stating that you made a mistake no?

Here's another way to look at it.

a) Your relative shows up at your door on a cold winter's night and you feed him and give him a warm place to sleep. You have "committed" altruism but done the right thing.

b) Your relative shows up and instead you give him your life savings and/or your own house. You have "committed" altruism, but have done the wrong thing.

Bob

[john42t]

Here's another way to look at it.

a) Your relative shows up at your door on a cold winter's night and you feed him and give him a warm place to sleep. You have "committed" altruism but done the right thing.

b) Your relative shows up and instead you give him your life savings and/or your own house. You have "committed" altruism, but have done the wrong thing.

Thank's for clearing that up.

I really don't think there's any disagreement here then.

I've been stupid in your words and altruist in mine. I'm now selfish in my words and not stupid in yours.

The disagreement appears to be purely linguistic.

[anthony]

Like some O'ists, he's going to make the facts fit the principle, come hell or high water.

Now this is amusing... I've shown you clear contradictory facts but you "pretend" that it's me who is pounding the square peg of facts in to the round hole of principle. Not going to fly. The factual question below still stands: "What is it? Let the child die (and that's morally OK), or admit that the 'proper' code and the 'evil' code conclude the same thing?" C'mon fact boy, put up or shut up. Bob

That's already been answered. Refuse to face it if you like.

The street guy gets $5 either way; the conclusion is the same.

If you are a consequentialist without moralty, then both acts are equal, right?

But no, the morality of each donor is worlds apart.

(Did you miss that, or evade it?)

Then as Mikee put it: "The point is in the hypocrisy. Do the "what if no one is watching" test, and see if the behavior changes."

(No answer to that?)

Lastly, the result - the homeless guy, or the wife, gains where the act is egoistic (in the giver's personal value), and loses when it is altruistic (of sacrificial value).

Finally, I did not offer any proof or theorem that you can call "fallacious".

I made a statement of Objectivist principle you are referring to:

According to (O'ist) rational selfishness, where there is love, there is no altruism; where there's altruism,

there can be no love.

(See a "fallacy" here?)

But you won't get that, if you believe a man can be altruistic AND loving to his wife.

[bmacwilliam]

Finally, I did not offer any proof or theorem that you can call "fallacious".

I made a statement of Objectivist principle you are referring to:

According to (O'ist) rational selfishness, where there is love, there is no altruism; where there's altruism,

there can be no love.

(See a "fallacy" here?)

But you won't get that, if you believe a man can be altruistic AND loving to his wife.

"I made a statement of Objectivist principle"

Yes you did, you towed the party line. That's why I made the Randian remark.

And yes this Objectivist principle is indeed clearly, obviously, and quite trivially fallacious. Yes, I see a fallacy here and I've outlined why.

"According to (O'ist) rational selfishness, where there is love, there is no altruism; where there's altruism,

there can be no love."

This is fallacious. In this form, the argument is trivially circular.

God exists.

How do you know?

Because the Bible tells me that.

Why should I believe what the Bible says?

Because the Bible was written by God.

See how the conclusion (God exists) is included in the premise (Bible written by God). Sometimes this can be sneakier. Rand was good at this.

In the other forms, the more detailed Objectivist forms, the "no altruism" idea is contained in the premise(s). Look...it...up... It's called "Begging the question" or "Petitio principii".

You cannot use "Rational selfishness" as an argument against altruism because the argument against altruism is contained in the "Rational selfishness" concept(s).

Bob

[anthony]

[

"Rational selfishness" as an argument against altruism because the argument against altruism is contained in the "Rational selfishness" concept(s). Bob

Missed the point again, Bob.

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism.

By O'ist definition of the concepts.

[bmacwilliam]

Missed the point again, Bob.

Orrrrllllllly?

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

Correct, that's the point that you said I missed (again).

Contradictions don't help your argument, especially contradictions in the same post.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism.

By O'ist definition of the concepts.

Sure, and that's why it's wrong/fallacious.

Let's set aside the fallacy just for a second, and look at this another way.

Rand uses such an ridiculously extreme definition of altruism (cue Michael to go apoplectic because he won't be able to parse anything beyond this) that is so very very far removed the common use of the term to argue in support her version of 'Rational Selfishness'. Then, in a rather sneaky (ok, not that sneaky, but obviously sneaky enough for many) way, she pulls the bait and switch to argue against any altruism or any transfer of resources whatsoever (back to the mainstream altruism definition now - the 'switch') from producers to the leeches.

This may be smart (I don't think so really), and it is certainly devious and manipulative. Why did you and so many others get sucked into this rather obvious nonsense? I don't really know, but its unfortunate. While I think the fallacy is obvious, the bait and switch even more clear, if that's even possible.

Bob

[anthony]

Missed the point again, Bob.

Orrrrllllllly?

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

Correct, that's the point that you said I missed (again). Contradictions don't help your argument, especially contradictions in the same post.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism. By O'ist definition of the concepts.

Sure, and that's why it's wrong/fallacious. Let's set aside the fallacy just for a second, and look at this another way. Rand... Bob

I notice that a. you pretend not to know what "per se" indicates. b. you have conveniently split apart my two sentences that begin with "this is" (ie, this was not...and, this was an...), as if they are not connected. c. Realising that you weren't going anyway with your "fallacy" attack, you then introduce "wrong/fallacious", and quickly move on to "Let's leave aside the fallacy just for a second..."

No "contradiction" exists in my argument right through this thread: "per se", means that IN THIS CASE, my argument is not purely against altruism, but against the compatibility of it, and romantic love. I've consistently spelled out my rejection of altruism. Here, is no different. You reinforce your dishonest attempt, by quoting two sentences out of context with each other.

Putting up a smoke-screen for your hasty retreat, your only recourse is then a general and meaningless tirade against Objectivist ethics. Blah, blah. So you don't agree? - too bad.

Find your adrenalin fix with someone else. I can handle anything - but not deliberate dishonesty..

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Missed the point again, Bob.

Orrrrllllllly?

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

Correct, that's the point that you said I missed (again). Contradictions don't help your argument, especially contradictions in the same post.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism. By O'ist definition of the concepts.

Sure, and that's why it's wrong/fallacious. Let's set aside the fallacy just for a second, and look at this another way. Rand... Bob

I notice that a. you pretend not to know what "per se" indicates. b. you have conveniently split apart my two sentences that begin with "this is" (ie, this was not...and, this was an...), as if they are not connected. c. Realising that you weren't going anyway with your "fallacy" attack, you then introduce "wrong/fallacious", and quickly move on to "Let's leave aside the fallacy just for a second..."

No "contradiction" exists in my argument right through this thread: "per se", means that IN THIS CASE, my argument is not purely against altruism, but against the compatibility of it, and romantic love. I've consistently spelled out my rejection of altruism. Here, is no different. You reinforce your dishonest attempt, by quoting two sentences out of context with each other.

Putting up a smoke-screen for your hasty retreat, your only recourse is then a general and meaningless tirade against Objectivist ethics. Blah, blah. So you don't agree? - too bad.

Find your adrenalin fix with someone else. I can handle anything - but not deliberate dishonesty..

Tony

Dishonesty now? That's a sure sign you've got nothing left.

"Realising that you weren't going anyway with your "fallacy" attack, you then introduce "wrong/fallacious", and quickly move on to "Let's leave aside the fallacy just for a second..."

That's called an additional item. Of course you knew that, but call me dishonest. Again, quite nicely Randian.

"tirade against Objectivist ethics."

Uhhh... Yeah... It's nonsense. That's what I've been sayin'. Are you paying attention here??

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

The basic and derivative principles of the Objectivist Ethics--by moi.

The basic ethical principle of Objectivism is rational self-interest. It is directly derived from from the individualism implicit in a thinking mind where rationality autonomously resides. This is the epistemological tie-in with the ethics (and this is continued into the politics, but that is a digression from this discussion). The rational comes from the epistemology, the self-interest from the biological imperative of survival.

In the context of this principle is the generation of survival surplus which makes possible a social existence. Human beings are deeply social animals and they naturally clump into groups to facilitate reproduction and continued existence. This is the so-called "altruistic" side of the human coin, but it's actually an integrated whole. "Altruism" is used pejoratively by Objectivists because it is used pejoratively by collectivists who want to inhabit the moral high ground while enslaving if not murdering the ruled. Sacrifice for the state, for the religion, for your neighbor, etc. Naturally speaking, however, sacrifice in human being has to do with preserving one's group's existence and therefore one's own. This is assuming a state of general human political freedom.

Classical Objectivism does this kind of explication all wrong with gross moral imperatives not recognizing what people really are and need in the totality of anybody's existence qua humanity as it exists and is experienced by most of this species.

--Brant

[samr]

__deleted.

[Dglgmut]

The basic and derivative principles of the Objectivist Ethics--by moi.

The basic ethical principle of Objectivism is rational self-interest. It is directly derived from from the individualism implicit in a thinking mind where rationality autonomously resides. This is the epistemological tie-in with the ethics (and this is continued into the politics, but that is a digression from this discussion). The rational comes from the epistemology, the self-interest from the biological imperative of survival.

In the context of this principle is the generation of survival surplus which makes possible a social existence. Human beings are deeply social animals and they naturally clump into groups to facilitate reproduction and continued existence. This is the so-called "altruistic" side of the human coin, but it's actually an integrated whole. "Altruism" is used pejoratively by Objectivists because it is used pejoratively by collectivists who want to inhabit the moral high ground while enslaving if not murdering the ruled. Sacrifice for the state, for the religion, for your neighbor, etc. Naturally speaking, however, sacrifice in human being has to do with preserving one's group's existence and therefore one's own. This is assuming a state of general human political freedom.

Classical Objectivism does this kind of explication all wrong with gross moral imperatives not recognizing what people really are and need in the totality of anybody's existence qua humanity as it exists and is experienced by most of this species.

--Brant

See, I get that.

No convenient theories, no bullshit, to the point. The only thing that isn't clear is why self-preservation is so rational. I believe it is linked to the "happiness fit for man," as Rand put it.

One's own happiness should be the purpose of one's rationality. That shouldn't be argued. What should be argued is what happiness actually is.

Self-destruction, or self-neglect, definitely won't bring happiness (self-identification is a factor in this). I think this is what people need to acknowledge.

The underlying message, I think, is that people don't know what they really want. It takes a lot of introspection, or a little help, to understand something as simple as happiness being related to biology (which is linked to...? The creation of the Universe? Yep.)

However, to a spiritual person this whole argument is moot. Their version of self-preservation is preserving an imagined self.

[Brant Gaede]

Just to say--I can't say more now--happiness happens and is and you know it when you have it. You cannot think your way into happiness; you think your way into the causes of happiness. Then you act--see that pretty lass? I better not be as ass or that lass won't want my ass or if she does I won't want her ass or I should be ashamed for the lust of it all. Gee, those kids cost money!

--Brant

[anthony]

The basic and derivative principles of the Objectivist Ethics--by moi. The basic ethical principle of Objectivism is rational self-interest.

[...]

Classical Objectivism does this kind of explication all wrong with gross moral imperatives not recognizing what people really are and need in the totality of anybody's existence qua humanity as it exists and is experienced by most of this species. --Brant

Brant,

I know what you mean, I think, by your "Classical Objectivism [is]...all wrong with gross moral imperatives". I can empathize(!) with it, though I can't agree.

To state my position, I am definitely a Kelley-ite, which I don't see as contradictory to Classical O'ism. (I'm excluding ARI from this).

One might see the distinction using AR's "concept- measurement and omission."

In my mind, Classical O'ism provided the 'Big Concept' - while, David Kelley supplied the "concept measurements".

(The virtue of benevolence as expansion, i.e. measurement)

I look at it this way: basic principles, if true to reality, are extremist. They should suffer not the least compromise - or else their inherent truth becomes diluted. It is a question of emphasis, and at times, over-emphasis. From that, and after that, one observes and introduces the small deviations and anomalies, and factors these in, too.

For instance, we know the nature of Man is such-and-such. Predominantly, and inarguably. So a principle is designed to fit the reality.

And then we find there are other important but hierarchically lesser identities of Man, and enlarge upon the initial principle to accept them without contradiction.

Ultimately, it's where you start from, too.

Each of us needs an unequivocal starting position - "Find a place to make your stand..." as The Eagles'lyric goes. That need is about as basic to humans as anything else.

For example, take the ethical spectrum (of egoism -> collectivism). If one begins with individualism, one can easily apply measurement, ie. 'exceptions to the rule', using one's judgement in accordance with varying contexts.

However, starting from the other end - of course, in direct conflict with reality, as to Man's nature - collectivism will immediately undermine and destroy egoism. Epistemologically, and certainly, politically.

A "nowhere man" who tries to start in the middle of the spectrum will not last much longer either, I believe.

So my position is, find the fundaments, radicalize, and always apply measurement.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is an aside note on David Kelley. I recorded his college textbook on logic -The Art of Reasoning- (3rd edition) on of several college level texts I have record. His is the only college level text book with a chapter on Frank Sommer's Term Logic that I have seen.

All the other college level logic texts I have record cover categorical syllogistic with due thoroughness but without Sommer's emendation. Then they go on to handle modern symbolic logic, induction and scientific hypothetical reasoning. Aristotelian logic is left in its classic inadequate form. So Kelley is channeling Aristotle into modern times.

Term Logic is an emendation and extending of pre-Fregen syllogistic to enable the correct reasoning with general relational propositions. This is an attempt (and a successful one) to recast logic in Aristotelian terms (literally and figuratively) and still have it flexible enough to deal with relations.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

I don't see how Brant's post contradicts yours, Tony.

What I took from it was that classical Objectivism doesn't quite accommodate the psychology of humans as social creatures, not that there is room for compromise in Objectivist principles; that self interest can sometimes cross over into a sense of duty from an individualistic approach.

For example: sacrificing yourself to save your child. Choosing death is always against our rational self-interest (which should necessarily be linked to happiness), unless the alternative is evidently a life of unhappiness - the unhappiness in this scenario would come from allowing a part of yourself to die.

I really feel the argument here is about the nature of happiness (and rational self-identification). Not speaking for Objectivism, but from my personal understanding of human psychology.

The idea of altruism is a slippery slope; as soon as commendation is attached to altruistic behavior, it becomes dangerous.

We don't need to commend altruistic behavior: If a child falls down onto the subway tracks, and a stranger jumps in and forces the child down as to let the subway pass over them, the act should not be noble; it should be a calculated risk in one's own self interest.

To help a stranger is a gamble, because you can't know whether you identify, or share values with a stranger. This is where risk must be considered... what you stand to lose by helping the stranger is a major factor. Social acclamation should not enter into the equation. Naturally our social standing is egoicly important, as humans have evolved interdependently of each other, but in a civilized society there should be no need to seek the approval of others.

To go on living knowing that you could have probably, safely saved a life, that you may have shared values with, has an emotional effect. There's a lot of ifs and maybes in there, but they certainly aren't meaningless.

[Brant Gaede]

Strongest anti-Objectivist arguments A, B and C.

Thoise are good and correct, thank you. Now Objectivism is better than ever.

--Brant

[anthony]

I don't see how Brant's post contradicts yours, Tony. What I took from it was that classical Objectivism doesn't quite accommodate the psychology of humans as social creatures, not that there is room for compromise in Objectivist principles; that self interest can sometimes cross over into a sense of duty from an individualistic approach. For example: sacrificing yourself to save your child. Choosing death is always against our rational self-interest (which should necessarily be linked to happiness), unless the alternative is evidently a life of unhappiness - the unhappiness in this scenario would come from allowing a part of yourself to die. I really feel the argument here is about the nature of happiness (and rational self-identification). Not speaking for Objectivism, but from my personal understanding of human psychology.

In Brant's next post on happiness, I fully agree with him: "You think your way into the causes of happiness."

What comes first? I put it that the precondition of "an unequivocal starting position" is our most pressing need.

It precedes the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is dependent on it - with the qualification that we may never actually arrive there. For me, it's final proof that we are cognitive beings, primarily. So, yes, "we think our way into the causes of happiness."

The psychological equivalent may be Maszlow's famous Hierarchy of Needs, the top of which is "the need for self-actualization".

An expert opinion on this tie-in between the two disciplines would be fascinating.

Dennis H.?

For the rest, I don't agree with compromise.

In a nutshell, I was saying one should start with the extreme position, and then 'think on your feet' for all exceptions that arrive. The principle has to fit the facts.

The sacrifice scenario you bring up, is not a sacrifice at all in Objectivism.

Tony

[Dglgmut]

Well, if you look deeply into any "altruistic" deed, I think you will find that the sacrifices involved generally stem from self perpetuation. The altruism that should be condemned is the irrational altruism that aims to unnecessarily boost ones social ratification, when it is no longer important to human survival. I think it's as simple as overlooking the uselessness of the reward.

What do you think of the scenario I added as an edit?

[anthony]

The idea of altruism is a slippery slope; as soon as commendation is attached to altruistic behavior, it becomes dangerous. We don't need to commend altruistic behavior: If a child falls down onto the subway tracks, and a stranger jumps in and forces the child down as to let the subway pass over them, the act should not be noble; it should be a calculated risk in one's own self interest. To help a stranger is a gamble, because you can't know whether you identify, or share values with a stranger. This is where risk must be considered... what you stand to lose by helping the stranger is a major factor. Social acclamation should not enter into the equation. Naturally our social standing is egoicly important, as humans have evolved interdependently of each other, but in a civilized society there should be no need to seek the approval of others. To go on living knowing that you could have probably, safely saved a life, that you may have shared values with, has an emotional effect. There's a lot of ifs and maybes in there, but they certainly aren't meaningless.

Oh, OK, I see it. (Isn't this edit function a pleasure?)

So far as it goes I agree, though it seems you're concentrating on the tip of the iceberg.

The approval factor in altruism is significant. I reckon it pertains to Rand's 'second-handness'.

One has to back up here, and bear in mind that it's Value that determines all this.

Being seen to do 'the right thing'?

Life, as a whole? ("Life, qua life".)

One's own life?

The life of one's child?

The life of some other person?

Find out our priorities in these, and our moral code is established - simply put.

I do agree strongly that taking a calculated risk for a stranger's life could be the proper course of action - not only for the value of their life, but that one has to face up to oneself forever afterwards.

But these scenarios are too rare to worry about.

[anthony]

Strongest anti-Objectivist arguments A, B and C. Thoise are good and correct, thank you. Now Objectivism is better than ever. --Brant

"Anti-Objectivist" ??

"A, B and C"? (Um, Anthony, Ba'al and Calvin?)

This is a bit too cryptic for me. Please give us the code.

[Dglgmut]

Well, taking a risk for a stranger is one thing, but what about putting in a little extra effort for a stranger? Is this irrational? Is the rationality in this situation too complex to even try to answer definitively?

If you couldn't have children, what would be the rationality behind doing even simple things like recycling?

I think rational altruism should be considered moral, and constructive towards self-esteem. Guilt is antonymous with self-esteem, or pride, and avoiding guilt should be justified by that alone.

[Selene]

Calvin:

Out of curiosity, how old are you? What do you do for a living? Or, are you a student?

I may have asked this before, if I did, could you restate the answers. If not, could you provide the answers.

This is not an attempt to put you down in any way. Just would help my "image" of you.

Thanks.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Strongest anti-Objectivist arguments A, B and C. Thoise are good and correct, thank you. Now Objectivism is better than ever. --Brant

"Anti-Objectivist" ??

"A, B and C"? (Um, Anthony, Ba'al and Calvin?)

This is a bit too cryptic for me. Please give us the code.

If Objectivism is incorrect correct it. It will still be Objectivism.

--Brant

you can't get away from it with rationality, but Objectivism does get away from itself--and always has--so bring it up short, which is what it has always asked us to do--ride that Objectivist horse!

[Dglgmut]

Adam, I'm in my early twenties and am involved in the performing "arts". I didn't go to University and I have no interest in becoming an intellectual by anyone else's standards. I'm trying to learn about my self and my brain (though I've realized there is no use in separating the two), not how to argue, or how to fit in with intellectuals, just some practical information to help me do what will make me most happy, and how to affect other people in a positive way without compromising my own beliefs. The reason I'm on these forums is to bang out some ideas.

I think I'm over my confusion about rational selfishness. My issue was the applicability of logic to self motivated decisions. As in: How do you know what really benefits you? (or what will make you most happy--my definition of personal gain)

As far as I've been exposed to Objectivism, it seems the question should be, "What benefits human beings?" A general answer to that question will help you find the particular answer in your own situation. And I think that's good enough for me right now.

The dualist approach was really holding me back. I think rational self-identification may be the most important step to forming a proper morality (again, religious people exemplify the truth in this speculation).

[Selene]

Adam, I'm in my early twenties and am involved in the performing "arts". I didn't go to University and I have no interest in becoming an intellectual by anyone else's standards. I'm trying to learn about my self and my brain (though I've realized there is no use in separating the two), not how to argue, or how to fit in with intellectuals, just some practical information to help me do what will make me most happy, and how to affect other people in a positive way without compromising my own beliefs. The reason I'm on these forums is to bang out some ideas.

I think I'm over my confusion about rational selfishness. My issue was the applicability of logic to self motivated decisions. As in: How do you know what really benefits you? (or what will make you most happy--my definition of personal gain)

As far as I've been exposed to Objectivism, it seems the question should be, "What benefits human beings?" A general answer to that question will help you find the particular answer in your own situation. And I think that's good enough for me right now.

The dualist approach was really holding me back. I think rational self-identification may be the most important step to forming a proper morality (again, religious people exemplify the truth in this speculation).

Excellent!

Thank you so much. My guess was that you were young which is a major plus to your searching for answers.

We, myself included, can be a lot harsher on a person than we need to be at times.

I do not believe in coddling a person who is asking questions and I hope I have not been too harsh with you.

Actually, I am glad you are coming to some resoultion to the dissonance, or uncertainty you were experiencing, as reflected by your questions.

You used the phrase "...don't go to university...," which would lead me to believe that you are not native to the United States. Where are you from?

I am not, currently, a proponent of what masquerades as an education at the "university," so that is not a criteria for me to understand the search that a person is on to discover their place in life.

Once again, thanks for being honest, it helps me understand your approach.

What area of the "performing arts" are you involved with?

Adam