A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[anthony]

I meant that to be aimed at those arguing for the facilitation of Social Darwinism. If it is a natural law, then we don't even need to talk about it... we are, after all, a product of nature. Whatever we end up doing is what will be said to "work".

What a relief. There's no more philosophy to discuss. The "natural law" answers everything.

Dump morality and ethics, dump volition and self-interest, dump self-consciousness - we are all just animals, right?

That makes everything OK - we can hunt in packs, pull down the weakest prey, shun a wounded brother, screw our asses off, and never for a second ask Why? The good of the herd is 'why'.

Until you are the frail or weakling, and must be sacrificed by your community.

It's a jungle out there, and we must fight for survival: eat, or be eaten. Yeah?

I repeat, Man faces a metaphysical and individual struggle -- not a species/tribal competition to exist. (No wonder Capitalism struggles to survive in this climate of ignorance!)

If I read "We are, after all, a product of nature" once again, I think I'll puke.

Others have misused and abused Rand's derivation of Man's morality from what he is, (METAPHYSICALLY) recently on OL, turning it into an argument from Man's physical nature - but I don't believe you are deliberately doing this, Calvin.

There isn't a natural law for us, we have to find it.

Oh, and your mind is a product of nature. What do you choose to do with it?

Tony

[john42t]

I repeat, Man faces a metaphysical and individual struggle -- not a species/tribal competition to exist.

I hope you don't want to insinuate that I said anything about a species/tribal competition to exist.

[samr]

Others have misused and abused Rand's derivation of Man's morality from what he is, (METAPHYSICALLY) recently on OL, turning it into an argument from Man's physical nature - but I don't believe you are deliberately doing this, Calvin.

Tony, how do you draw the distinction between metaphysical nature of man, and physical nature of man?

[anthony]

Hey, Calvin, John, samr - nothing personal -

you're all good guys with good heads, but I'm outta this thread for now.

(John, no insinuation was intended..)

Tony

[Dglgmut]

I meant that to be aimed at those arguing for the facilitation of Social Darwinism. If it is a natural law, then we don't even need to talk about it... we are, after all, a product of nature. Whatever we end up doing is what will be said to "work".

What a relief. There's no more philosophy to discuss. The "natural law" answers everything. Dump morality and ethics, dump volition and self-interest, dump self-consciousness - we are all just animals, right? That makes everything OK - we can hunt in packs, pull down the weakest prey, shun a wounded brother, screw our asses off, and never for a second ask Why? The good of the herd is 'why'. Until you are the frail or weakling, and must be sacrificed by your community. It's a jungle out there, and we must fight for survival: eat, or be eaten. Yeah? I repeat, Man faces a metaphysical and individual struggle -- not a species/tribal competition to exist. (No wonder Capitalism struggles to survive in this climate of ignorance!) If I read "We are, after all, a product of nature" once again, I think I'll puke. Others have misused and abused Rand's derivation of Man's morality from what he is, (METAPHYSICALLY) recently on OL, turning it into an argument from Man's physical nature - but I don't believe you are deliberately doing this, Calvin. There isn't a natural law for us, we have to find it. Oh, and your mind is a product of nature. What do you choose to do with it? Tony

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I think we agree about this. I'm saying even if Darwinism is at work, that doesn't change the fact that we choose how we live, and what we think is fair. So if we reject a Darwinian society, then that too is part of the process.

(And the thing about us being natural: I guess I just meant we can't 'surrender' to nature as we are part of it.)

[anthony]

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I think we agree about this. I'm saying even if Darwinism is at work, that doesn't change the fact that we choose how we live, and what we think is fair. So if we reject a Darwinian society, then that too is part of the process. (And the thing about us being natural: I guess I just meant we can't 'surrender' to nature as we are part of it.)

I can live with that.

If I unfairly blasted you earlier, I apologize.

Don't tell anyone, but I get carried away at times!

Heh.

[Andre Green]

If I read "We are, after all, a product of nature" once again, I think I'll puke.

whYNOT, Why do you say something so tempting?

[anthony]

If I read "We are, after all, a product of nature" once again, I think I'll puke.

whYNOT, Why do you say something so tempting?

[Xray]

Do you promote vegetarianism?

I'm a vegetarian, but don't try to persuade others to do the same. My focus is on the living conditions of animals.

I'm against keeping hens in small cages, elephants in circuses, lions in zoos, etc.

The world in 100 years will be very rational, orderly, just and healthy.

But that's not because most people are rational. It's because those few that are rational won't allow the rest their undeserved "freedom" anymore.

As it used to be in the West of the 19th century.

And what do the few rational ones do with that "rest"?

From your statement that the rational few don't allow the rest their "undeserved freedom" anymore, one can infer that those others are to be deprived of said freedom.

So how are the 'rational few' going to put this into practice? And how is this reconcilable with the idea of individualism? Individualism is not elitism.

Tony, how do you draw the distinction between metaphysical nature of man, and physical nature of man?

That would interest me too.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not a vegetarian but I won't eat veal. I can't stand the thought of calves confined in can't-move pens indoors raised for slaughter begging for their freedom and mothers.

--Brant

[john42t]

So how are the 'rational few' going to put this into practice? And how is this reconcilable with the idea of individualism?

Two separate cases apply:

A) First, rational people will stop enabling the irrational. An extremely painted example would be Hank Rearden dropping the support for his family. Milder cases are happening every time all over the world. They do this for selfish reasons.

B) Those of the irrational who chose to engage in violent activities will be treated as criminals. Again for selfish reasons.

Note that I put "freedom" in quotes: I played on the fact that the majority either intends no exact meaning or refers to the freedom of the criminal when using this word.

Individualism is not elitism.

Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

[Xray]

So how are the 'rational few' going to put this into practice? And how is this reconcilable with the idea of individualism?

Two separate cases apply:

A) First, rational people will stop enabling the irrational. An extremely painted example would be Hank Rearden dropping the support for his family. Milder cases are happening every time all over the world. They do this for selfish reasons.

Rearden's motives for marrying Lilian had not been very rational either.

As for people having selfish reasons, since this applies to everyone, it includes Lilian and her family as well.

In AS, Lilian and her family have the role of the 'parasites'; I can imagine you would argue that Lilian and her family are "irrationally" selfish.

But labeling 'parasitism' as irrational is not backed up by biology where parasitism is merely a specific life form (a very successful one) .

Hosts and parasites can coexist and frequently other organisms show up which in turn feed on the parasites.

If we test the ethical premise of the survival of one's organism being the highest value, we'll see that Lilian Rearden & Co. are striving for their survival every bit as much as Hank.

What I'm getting at: imo positing a biological drive - the survival of one's organism - as the highest value can become quite problematic in the field of ethics.

Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too?

[Selene]

What I'm getting at: imo positing a biological drive - the survival of one's organism - as the highest value can become quite problematic in the field of ethics.

Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too?

Angela:

There is a difference between a biologically imprinted entity like a Pilot Fish which is hard wired to be a parasitic organism and the human being which has some hard wiring, but also has the capacity to choose.

You agree with this difference?

And if you agree, you analogy does not hold.

As to your last question, the answer is no because "eaual before the law" means, that it "...is a is a measure of how society treats difference. It does not mean that differences should be ironed out in pursuit of uniformity or homogeneity. Rather it seeks to ensure that differences between people are not unjustly used to favour or to disadvantage some in relation to others and that disadvantage unjustly suffered by some persons as compared with others is rectified. A complex notion, it is nevertheless generally understood to comprise several dimensions.

First, equality requires that if a difference between persons is not relevant for a particular purpose, it should be ignored. Furthermore, if the difference is relevant but only partially so, in so far as it is not relevant, it should be ignored. The dimension of equality ensures that to the extent there is no material difference between persons, they are treated the same.

Secondly, equality endorses the recognition of pertinent differences and requires that persons be treated differently to the extent that there is a relevant difference between them. To treat persons the same when they are in fact already unequal is to perpetuate rather than to eliminate inequality. As the US Supreme Court has recognised, 'sometimes the greatest discrimination can lie in treating things that are different as though they were exactly alike' (Jenness Fortsom 403 US 431 (1971; or as our own Supreme Court has put it, 'Article 40 does not require identical treatment of all persons without recognition of differences in relevant circumstances' (O'Brien v Keogh [1972] IR 144 and de Búrca v Attorney General [1976] IR 38 per Walsh J).

Equality, therefore, prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) explained these concepts of direct and indirect discrimination in Case C-279/93 Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Schumacker [1995] ECR 1 - 225 in the following terms:

It is also settled law that discrimination can arise only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations."

Adam

[john42t]

As for people having selfish reasons, since this applies to everyone, it includes Lilian and her family as well.

In AS, Lilian and her family have the role of the 'parasites'; I can imagine you would argue that Lilian and her family are "irrationally" selfish.

But labeling 'parasitism' as irrational is not backed up by biology where parasitism is merely a specific life form (a very successful one) .

Hosts and parasites can coexist and frequently other organisms show up which in turn feed on the parasites.

If we test test the ethical premise of the survival of one's organism being the highest value, we'll see that Lilian Rearden & Co. are striving for their survival every bit as much as Hank.

For some time. Maybe for ages even, but their success depends on ideology.

This is the age of the internet and that's why I believe they've lost. In the long run, they will be on the wrong side - they will be poor, lonely and dysfunctional when all the selfish leave them. They won't have the intellectual leadership any more to prevent this by force. Eventually, this will drive most of them to rationality again. If so, they will accept a lower life standard and less social status, but become productive.

If you believe I'm wrong and the way of the parasite is the way to go, feel free to do so. Become a looter and moocher, go ahead (Mikee will shout at you, but not me). I believe that I'm right and that eventually you'll see that it was a bad choice *for yourself*.

What I'm getting at: imo positing a biological drive - the survival of one's organism - as the highest value can become quite problematic in the field of ethics.

I thought so before I read Rand. Now I see morality as the fitting program for a human being as a life form who's primary tool of survival is his mind - in his *own* interest as an individual, not for the sake of his peers.

To say that you shouldn't loot because it harms others is altruism. You shouldn't loot because it's a short-sighted strategy.

I can't agree with the biological analogy.

Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too?

If I take this to mean the ideology that is concerned with the ideal of everyone being equal before the law, then yes.

The German idealist tradition is full of that.

[Xray]

To say that you shouldn't loot because it harms others is altruism.

It is simply the Golden Rule applied: Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself.

The Golden Rule is among the things that truly work in ethics.

I'm not a vegetarian but I won't eat veal. I can't stand the thought of calves confined in can't-move pens indoors raised for slaughter begging for their freedom and mothers.

That's what I meant when stating that man's ethical consciousnes is constantly evolving. The increasing concern for animal welfare is evidence of that.

A few decades ago, in 1960s/70s - no one I knew personally (including myself) gave much thought about how animals were kept. This lack of ethical concern was typical for most people back then, I think.

Whereas in today's time, a substantial change can be observed here.

[bmacwilliam]

To say that you shouldn't loot because it harms others is altruism. You shouldn't loot because it's a short-sighted strategy.

How is is short-sighted? Stalin? Castro?

It works for many people for their entire lives. Has to be a better reason than 'short-sighted'.

Bob

[john42t]

How is is short-sighted? Stalin? Castro?

It works for many people for their entire lives. Has to be a better reason than 'short-sighted'.

That some people win in the lottery doesn't mean it's a good strategy. Success depends on luck and on average you lose. That's they way with the mystics also.

EDIT: Of course people who play lottery in the hope of winning it actually really are mystics themselves.

[john42t]

It is simply the Golden Rule applied: Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself.

The Golden Rule is among the things that truly work in ethics.

I suppose we're talking about criminal activity? If so, then:

In the presence of a legal system, the rule is unecessary as punishment by the law will be a deterrent also.

In the absence of a legal system the rule puts those who obey it at a disadvantage.

So the rule is at best useless and at worst harmful to the individual that obeys it. In no case the rule is practical for the pursuit of one's own happiness. Which means it doesn't work at all.

And if we're not talking about criminal activity but in fact all sorts of behavior:

What about the many cases in which others want or don't want done to them totally different things than myself? Which, of course, I rarely have proper knowledge about.

[Brant Gaede]

It is simply the Golden Rule applied: Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself.

The Golden Rule is among the things that truly work in ethics.

I suppose we're talking about criminal activity? If so, then:

In the presence of a legal system, the rule is unecessary as punishment by the law will be a deterrent also.

In the absence of a legal system the rule puts those who obey it at a disadvantage.

So the rule is at best useless and at worst harmful to the individual that obeys it. In no case the rule is practical for the pursuit of one's own happiness. Which means it doesn't work at all.

And if we're not talking about criminal activity but in fact all sorts of behavior:

What about the many cases in which others want or don't want done to them totally different things than myself? Which, of course, I rarely have proper knowledge about.

You are simply over-valuing an inter-legal system and under-valuing an intra-human system and ignoring that they work together as a supplementing whole for good, bad or our current mess. How well that rule works is merely a reflection, generally speaking but not in all cases, of the quality of one's society and of one's psychology and is a clarifying reminder, a marker, for positive behavior of a sort.

You start out with an unjustifiable supposition followed by indemonstrable anarchy, which is only a variant of the "tragedy of the commons," so your very logical conclusion is walking around on false premises.

Anyway, if you can't use the rule to your advantage I assume you won't be so dumb as to keep using it. The rule itself is ethics trite but useful for some and for some to think about. I think it must have been created to control obnoxious children. Morality is, after all, about control.

--Brant

[Xray]

Egalitarianism surely is collectivism.

If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too?

As to your last question, the answer is no because "eaual before the law" means, that it "...is a is a measure of how society treats difference. It does not mean that differences should be ironed out in pursuit of uniformity or homogeneity. Rather it seeks to ensure that differences between people are not unjustly used to favour or to disadvantage some in relation to others and that disadvantage unjustly suffered by some persons as compared with others is rectified. A complex notion, it is nevertheless generally understood to comprise several dimensions.

Adam,

I agree with this assessment.

The reason why I asked John the question was to elicit more info regarding his idea of collectivism.

This is what he replied:

If e. g. the all members of society are regarded as equal before the law, would you call that egalitarianism/collectivism too?

If I take this to mean the ideology that is concerned with the ideal of everyone being equal before the law, then yes.

The German idealist tradition is full of that.

John,

Would you agree with Adam's (Selene's) differentiated reply in post # 113?

Angela:

There is a difference between a biologically imprinted entity like a Pilot Fish which is hard wired to be a parasitic organism and the human being which has some hard wiring, but also has the capacity to choose.

You agree with this difference?

And if you agree, you analogy does not hold.

I agree with this difference; but as for the analogy, those who make them would be the philosophers who use the term parasite in an ethical context while believing that the biological phenomenon parasitism is some form of undesirable deviance.

[Selene]

I agree with this difference; but as for the analogy, those who make them would be the philosophers who use the term parasite in an ethical context while believing that the biological phenomenon parasitism is some form of undesirable deviance.

Angela:

I understand your point. A "natural" parasite is certainly not "...some form of undesirable deviance..." I would say that there are some parasites that are undesirable, but some parasites are essentially symbiotic in nature as far as my understanding goes.

Good point.

Adam

[Xray]

If you believe I'm wrong and the way of the parasite is the way to go, feel free to do so. Become a looter and moocher, go ahead (Mikee will shout at you, but not me). I believe that I'm right and that eventually you'll see that it was a bad choice *for yourself*.

A frequent fallacy in argumentation is to misinterpret someone's explanation of an issue as being advocation of the issue.

I wasn't advocating any looting or mooching.

I merely pointed out that the life form parasitism can be biologically quite successful.

The gist of my post being that resorting to biology can have its pitfalls when it comes to ethics.

Some of the pitfalls are rooted in misinformation. For example, if it is postulated that life is a process of "self-generating action", and an ethics is built on that, it is built on a wrong premise.

[Brant Gaede]

If you believe I'm wrong and the way of the parasite is the way to go, feel free to do so. Become a looter and moocher, go ahead (Mikee will shout at you, but not me). I believe that I'm right and that eventually you'll see that it was a bad choice *for yourself*.

A frequent fallacy in argumentation is to misinterpret someone's explanation of an issue as being advocation of the issue.

I wasn't advocating any looting or mooching.

I merely pointed out that the life form parasitism can be biologically quite successful.

The gist of my post being that resorting to biology can have its pitfalls when it comes to ethics.

Some of the pitfalls are rooted in misinformation. For example, if it is postulated that life is a process of "self-generating action", and an ethics is built on that, it is built on a wrong premise.

Whatever. Regardless of any Randian postulation about what her ethics is built on, objectively it is basically individualistic in that the axioms are individualistic and that goes all the way up through the politics. Hence, rational self interest. Rational is using all your brains and knowledge to understand yourself and your needs, which BTW, concern much more than an isolated, non-social, existence but is individualism, not collectivism.

--Brant

[john42t]

A frequent fallacy in argumentation is to misinterpret someone's explanation of an issue as being advocation of the issue.

I wasn't advocating any looting or mooching.

I didn't believe you did advocate it or would do looting and mooching after I suggested it. I was merely using a rethorical device.

I merely pointed out that the life form parasitism can be biologically quite successful.

And I agree with that. Band worms are successful. Not sure what this has to do with human beings though.

For example, if it is postulated that life is a process of "self-generating action", and an ethics is built on that, it is built on a wrong premise.

I agree on this as well. I think biology is way too high-level (kin selection, gene, etc.) for this to have a chance to be possible, as I personally would apply the label "ethics" only to concepts of a much more fundamental nature (happiness, self-interest, collaboration, etc).

So ethics can't be built on biology the way I define the words, but then again there is no agreement on the exact definitions.

What I do is to extend insights of ethics *to* biology and find interesting analogies. For example, I observe that my long term happiness correlates to some extent with the success of my genes.

In no way I derive ethics from that.

EDIT: Just thought about this a bit more. If ethics is derived from that, it would probably imply a duty to procreate (to spread copies of one's genes). I'd even go as far as explictly rejecting this particular result of such an ethics.

[Dglgmut]

Question: Laissez-faire capitalism with property laws is still a compromise between ultimate individual responsibility and collectivism, is it not? Based on Objectivist principles, would it not be a good rule of thumb to say the more responsibility put on the individual the better for everyone?

Should we not want as much responsibility for ourselves as we can possibly have?

Honest question.

Also, Rand said the reason she went out of her way to teach her philosophy was out of selfishness; it was in her interest to improve the world she lived in. That is obviously BS. She knew she wasn't going to change the world in her lifetime... it actually seems ridiculous for her to try to defend her actions that way.

I find it much more believable that she would want to improve the world over time, even after her death, so that people like her could have more opportunities than if she did nothing. We want to improve things for the same reason we want to build things and for the same reason Lego's are a popular children's toy... we just like to add things to the world through creativity that comes from us, not mindless work to achieve a goal we do not agree with.