A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[Selene]

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.

Sir:

If you intend to display your ignorance of Ayn and her intentions, please do not display it so high on the flagpole.

You did not know the woman. She absolutely believed that Atlas Shrugged would change the world. A great many of us who read it and understood the concepts it was based on thought so also.

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.

If by laissez-faire capitalism you mean completely unregulated by the state, then it is certainly not a compromise between collectivism and ultimate individual responsibility, but I do not think that is what you mean by laissez-faire capitalism.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Success depends on luck and on average you lose.

No way. Castro, Stalin and others succeeded not because of luck, but because they were smart, cold, calculating, selfish, rational monsters.

Hence the problem.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Success depends on luck and on average you lose.

No way. Castro, Stalin and others succeeded not because of luck, but because they were smart, cold, calculating, selfish, rational monsters.

Hence the problem.

Bob

And they succeeded in what, BTW? It's "rational" to be a monster? It was "rational" to invade Russia? It was "rational" to sacrifice whole armies, which was a Hitler specialty? It was "rational" to induce the mass starvation of millions? Etc. Oh, sure, it was "rational," "if," "if," "if."

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Success depends on luck and on average you lose.

No way. Castro, Stalin and others succeeded not because of luck, but because they were smart, cold, calculating, selfish, rational monsters.

Hence the problem.

Bob

And they succeeded in what, BTW? It's "rational" to be a monster? It was "rational" to invade Russia? It was "rational" to sacrifice whole armies, which was a Hitler specialty? It was "rational" to induce the mass starvation of millions? Etc. Oh, sure, it was "rational," "if," "if," "if."

--Brant

Hitler wasn't on my list. He ultimately lost.

My point is though that Stalin and Castro were highly self-interested and calculating people who were not ultimately destroyed by their actions. Quite the opposite actually, they prospered by them.

So, I think there needs to be a better argument for non-initiation of force other than it destroys one's life or self-esteem or whatever. That doesn't cut it for me.

You said in another post that 'qua man' is "best is an individual matter". Yes, I see it that way too but Rand didn't. If she would have said this much then I wouldn't be so hostile to her views.

You also (very astutely IMHO) said

"The "proof" is in the politics informing the ethics to some extent"

Yes, I see it to a rather large extent and I don't like it because I think she would never have admitted this in a million years. As well, I don't think this is a "honest" place to start, or at least it's not honest when she explicitly says she starts with other premises.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

I don't accept the idea of prospering through tyranny as if a narrow focus on prospering rightly deposes of the whole of what is going on within and without.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

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.

Sir:

If you intend to display your ignorance of Ayn and her intentions, please do not display it so high on the flagpole.

You did not know the woman. She absolutely believed that Atlas Shrugged would change the world. A great many of us who read it and understood the concepts it was based on thought so also.

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.

If by laissez-faire capitalism you mean completely unregulated by the state, then it is certainly not a compromise between collectivism and ultimate individual responsibility, but I do not think that is what you mean by laissez-faire capitalism.

Adam

What I meant was the only government spending would be towards a police force protecting the lives and property rights of others. That is still not ultimate individual responsibility. A government funded police force is a collective effort. The laws and punishments are also the result of collective actions.

And come on... Ayn believed that her philosophy was going to change how the US government was run, so much and so quickly that she would personally benefit from the changes in her lifetime? As if she couldn't be more selfish any other way?

Again, should we not want as much responsibility for ourselves as possible? Meaning: wanting no aid in any aspect of life. Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand as far as the individual is concerned... right?

[Xray]

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.

Interesting though that Ayn Rand advocated playing the lottery as a form of 'voluntary taxpaying' in a minarchist state.

[john42t]

Interesting though that Ayn Rand advocated playing the lottery as a form of 'voluntary taxpaying' in a minarchist state.

That's funny.

Where did she write this?

[Selene]

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.

Sir:

If you intend to display your ignorance of Ayn and her intentions, please do not display it so high on the flagpole.

You did not know the woman. She absolutely believed that Atlas Shrugged would change the world. A great many of us who read it and understood the concepts it was based on thought so also.

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.

If by laissez-faire capitalism you mean completely unregulated by the state, then it is certainly not a compromise between collectivism and ultimate individual responsibility, but I do not think that is what you mean by laissez-faire capitalism.

Adam

Again, should we not want as much responsibility for ourselves as possible? Meaning: wanting no aid in any aspect of life. Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand as far as the individual is concerned... right?

Calvin:

Sure, but we should be rational in gladly accepting aid upon the proper terms which would include voluntarily given and accepted.

What I meant was the only government spending would be towards a police force protecting the lives and property rights of others. That is still not ultimate individual responsibility. A government funded police force is a collective effort. The laws and punishments are also the result of collective actions.

You left out the key phrase which would make it problematical. An exclusive monopoly on the initiation of force which would rule out competitive protection agencies as a concept in a fully laissez-faire society, at least in its utopian genesis.

And come on... Ayn believed that her philosophy was going to change how the US government was run, so much and so quickly that she would personally benefit from the changes in her lifetime? As if she couldn't be more selfish any other way?

Yes, I believe that upon the completion of Atlas, she fully expected to see the world changed by her philosophy. I think she was nuts to believe it, but I think she most certainly did believe it. Not for long though.

Adam

[Xray]

Interesting though that Ayn Rand advocated playing the lottery as a form of 'voluntary taxpaying' in a minarchist state.

That's funny.

Where did she write this?

In The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 135:

"There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in some European countries, is one such method." (AR)

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.

As for Rand's suggestion to voluntarily finance the government with money from the lottery - doesn't this go against the Objectivist principle that rationality guide our actions? For the chances to win big are so irrationally small that state lotteries have also been called "Steuer für Dumme" ('tax for fools').

On the other hand, it depends on the angle from which you look at it. For seen from the government's perspective, no doubt installing a state lottery is a very rational decision because this will yield substantial monetary profit (This the reason why so many state lotteries exist).

That the source of the monetary gain are the irrational expectations of the lottery customers is another story.

Imo questions like the following have not been covered enough in Objectivism: "Can a decision by a person be called rational if it uses the irrationality of the other party to achieve the goal?"

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting though that Ayn Rand advocated playing the lottery as a form of 'voluntary taxpaying' in a minarchist state.

That's funny.

Where did she write this?

In The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 135:

"There are many possible methods of voluntary government financing. A government lottery, which has been used in some European countries, is one such method." (AR)

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.

As for Rand's suggestion to voluntarily finance the government with money from the lottery - doesn't this go against the Objectivist principle that rationality guide our actions? For the chances to win big are so irrationally small that state lotteries have also been called "Steuer für Dumme" ('tax for fools').

On the other hand, it depends on the angle from which you look at it. For seen from the government's perspective, no doubt installing a state lottery is a very rational decision because this will yield substantial monetary profit (This the reason why so many state lotteries exist).

That the source of the monetary gain are the irrational expectations of the lottery customers is another story.

Imo questions like the following have not been covered enough in Objectivism: "Can a decision by a person be called rational if it uses the irrationality of the other party to achieve the goal?"

It's not irrational if one views playing that lottery as a contribution to the cost of one's government even if one doesn't win. There is another problem, though: the government lottery will have to compete with private lotteries. The government can't outlaw them, philosophically speaking.

--Brant

[Xray]

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?

I wasn't thinking of criminal activity but of actions that, while not illegal, still address moral issues.

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

It is true that the moral system of a society is reflected in its laws, but being law-abiding merely because one does not want to get into trouble is not per se a moral decision. It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

I see 'rational' primarily as a cognitive, not a moral category.

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

I think we can disregard the hypothetical case of no legal system existing when we speak of morality in our modern world.

In all those cases where moral issues are not legal issues (maybe this is what you meant?), applying the Golden Rule does not put an individual at a disadvantage. For example, the GR can make people feel good about themselves due to their being a fair player and empathetic toward others. As as rule, those who play fair are also respected by others.

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.

People are not that different when it comes to their psychological needs. For example, your will hardly find a human being who does not want to be appreciated. (Again, this is something biologically hardwired in us).

[john42t]

I think she was nuts to believe it, but I think she most certainly did believe it. Not for long though.

I think "nuts" is not the right word. She was naive and gave the average human being way too much credit (which is ironic given the kind of criticism she received).

[john42t]

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

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

I think we can disregard the hypothetical case of no legal system existing when we speak of morality in our modern world.

Depends on what you call legal system. There's lots of pretty lawless places in the world. Depending on where you draw the line, it might be a majority of mankind not living under legal systems. Also, most legal systems are unjust - which amounts to the same thing for the sake of this argument.

As as rule, those who play fair are also respected by others.

In so far that's your reward, I don't object to the rule. But then it's phrased in a misleading way.

People are not that different when it comes to their psychological needs. For example, your will hardly find a human being who does not want to be appreciated. (Again, this is something biologically hardwired in us).

But they want to be appreciated for different reasons by different people than you might.

Sexual preference differs vastly and what is attractive to one woman is harassment to the next. You don't know in advance.

I remember having said to a salesclerk that this "schlecker radio" (an pseudo-talk-radio program produced for the chain store) must be annoying when you have to listen to it all day. I was really horrified by the idea of working there. She just answered that it's often very interesting. Of course no way in hell it would ever be interesting to me.

People are different.

[Selene]

I think she was nuts to believe it, but I think she most certainly did believe it. Not for long though.

I think "nuts" is not the right word. She was naive and gave the average human being way too much credit (which is ironic given the kind of criticism she received).

Fair enough.

[john42t]

Imo questions like the following have not been covered enough in Objectivism: "Can a decision by a person be called rational if it uses the irrationality of the other party to achieve the goal?"

The answer is yes, just look at the way rational men treat irrational (non-human) animals.

The reason why Rand didn't cover the question was that she had unrealistic expectations of the degree of rationality in human beings. I bet she thought covering it suggests a level of importance it doesn't deserve.

All she ever said to the question of "how to deal with irrational" people was "find the rational".

It's probably the right answer as advice for a good life, but I don't think it's the whole answer technically speaking.

[john42t]

And come on... Ayn believed that her philosophy was going to change how the US government was run, so much and so quickly that she would personally benefit from the changes in her lifetime? As if she couldn't be more selfish any other way?

I think much more she believed the Zeitgeist to change back to her beloved 19th century and herself to be the one who achieved it. She wanted to be (and ultimately was) a hero.

She didn't want to profit in saved taxes, that would indeed be absurd.

[Dglgmut]

If rights are man made, who should protect our rights? And for what in exchange?

And about this "rational selfishness" being thrown around... What does that even mean? Selfishness is just as emotional as altruism. Why do you want to live? You just feel like it...

I think much more she believed the Zeitgeist to change back to her beloved 19th century and herself to be the one who achieved it. She wanted to be (and ultimately was) a hero.

She didn't want to profit in saved taxes, that would indeed be absurd.

Well, I don't think selfishness carries forward to the afterlife, especially for someone who I'm sure didn't believe in one.

[john42t]

If rights are man made, who should protect our rights? And for what in exchange?

Most of what I have I owe to people who had rights and because they had rights. The rest I owe to myself.

There is nothing to be gained from rightless people, that's why.

And about this "rational selfishness" being thrown around... What does that even mean? Selfishness is just as emotional as altruism. Why do you want to live? You just feel like it...

The difference is in time preference.

Rational selfishness means long-term selfishness. Make yourself happy over the course of a lifetime, not in the range of the moment.

[Selene]

And about this "rational selfishness" being thrown around... What does that even mean? Selfishness is just as emotional as altruism. Why do you want to live? You just feel like it...

You just continue to be tedious with this path of "inquiry."

I am done.

[john42t]

Well, I don't think selfishness carries forward to the afterlife, especially for someone who I'm sure didn't believe in one.

What has the afterlife to do with this? She believed to accomplish this in her lifetime.

[bmacwilliam]

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

[Dglgmut]

Well, I don't think selfishness carries forward to the afterlife, especially for someone who I'm sure didn't believe in one.

What has the afterlife to do with this? She believed to accomplish this in her lifetime.

Why would she want to accomplish something if she would not be around to benefit from it? The accomplishment may bring her happiness, but surely that makes the choice emotional, rather than rational.

But then we get to Hume's point: every choice we make is primarily emotional; rationality is more about how effectively we choose in order to attain what we want.

I guess I just assumed everyone agreed with that, but maybe it doesn't align with Objectivist beliefs?

If you agree with Hume, then anything we do could be looked at as rational. If happiness doesn't follow, though, then we obviously misjudged what we wanted. So it comes down to how well we can interpret our own feelings.

It could have been rational for Rand to spread her philosophy for the same reason it could be rational for a singer to go on a global tour.

Whether or not a choice is rational comes down to whether or not we attain what we really want. Did it make us happy?

So, in order to be rational in our pursuit of happiness, we must try to understand what, exactly, makes us happy.

I'll bring up the Lego blocks again... human beings love to create. We love to perpetuate whatever it is that we call the "self"... That passion is ego.

Anyway, Adam, sorry for the stupid questions. I ask them to scrutinize, not to criticize. I think scrutiny is very rational, though.

[john42t]

Why would she want to accomplish something if she would not be around to benefit from it?

She expected the Zeitgeist to change during her lifetime. How's she not around to benefit?

But then we get to Hume's point: every choice we make is primarily emotional; rationality is more about how effectively we choose in order to attain what we want.

I guess I just assumed everyone agreed with that, but maybe it doesn't align with Objectivist beliefs?

No, the Objectivist jargon is different, but it is essentially the same (the way you phrased it anyway).

If you agree with Hume, then anything we do could be looked at as rational. If happiness doesn't follow, though, then we obviously misjudged what we wanted.

So people who commit suicide misjudge what they wanted?

Drug addicts misjudge what they want?

It could have been rational for Rand to spread her philosophy for the same reason it could be rational for a singer to go on a global tour.

I'm almost certain of it.

So, in order to be rational in our pursuit of happiness, we must try to understand what, exactly, makes us happy.

Yes! Exactly! And *this* is the reason why "rational selfishness" is thrown around by Objectivists so much. Figure what makes you happy, and then get happy for a lifetime.

[Brant Gaede]

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

Maybe that's your money and you're chasing robbers.

Maybe it's the old Soviet Union and it's a government truck and friends and relatives have been sent to the Gulag.

These contextless examples are worthless except for me to point out the lack of context.

--Brant