A metaphysical argument against objectivism


samr

Recommended Posts

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

You assume persons with no egos and no values. Even so, a "bag of money" is nothing in the context of a useful life. Even if you had a one in a hundred chance of being caught it's like playing on the freeway: simply stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Fine, the Bank's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You assume persons with no egos and no values. Even so, a "bag of money" is nothing in the context of a useful life. Even if you had a one in a hundred chance of being caught it's like playing on the freeway: simply stupid.

Go ahead. Try to explain why this is irrational. Not immoral.

Why is it stupid? But more importantly, why is it irrational?

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Fine, the Bank's money.

As Ayn Rand once asked Leonard Peikoff: "Can't you think in principles?" Now that you are trying to (feebly) establish a context for your example, you fail to acknowledge explicitly what you do implicitly: the original proposition--yours--is irrational, which is why it cannot be answered rationally on its own merits or terms.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead. Try to explain why this is irrational. Not immoral.

Why is it stupid? But more importantly, why is it irrational?

Bob

You don't understand why a taking a 1% chance of getting killed is stupid? More to the point, you don't understand the difference between what's rational for a mangy dog scrounging for scraps in an alley from what is rational for a human being?

Self-esteem -> self-interest -> ego -> understanding Man's nature -> principles -> reason -> benevolent universe -> thriving -> Self-esteem -> ...

"Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon" -Bruce Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it irrational to take advantage of someone who's principles you disagree with?

Say the bank is, believed so by you, to be in bed with a corrupt government. Is it irrational to take the unattended money if you know for sure there's no way you'll be caught and you know of many moral ways to spend it?

Morality precedes rationality. The question might as well be, "Is doing the right thing always rational?" That depends on whether or not you think morality is a key to happiness. Maybe you have no morality... in which case, why is what other people deem moral important to you?

So people who commit suicide misjudge what they wanted?

Drug addicts misjudge what they want?

Well, we're talking about conscious decisions. We are aware of countless options in every choice we make... The drug addict knows he has the option to put down the pipe or the needle, but he is likely convinced, temporarily, at least, that it's not going to kill him to take one more hit.

Committing suicide is a choice too... a choice between the life they have and the unknown. Is it rational? To end any opportunity to be happy seems irrational... If they've decided they will never be happy again... I mean, every conscious choice we make is rational to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it irrational to take advantage of someone who's principles you disagree with?

Say the bank is, believed so by you, to be in bed with a corrupt government. Is it irrational to take the unattended money if you know for sure there's no way you'll be caught and you know of many moral ways to spend it?

The logic is correct, yes. But I don't believe I could ever be convinced of the premises.

Maybe you have no morality...

I've been an immoralist before I read Rand. Now I view suicide or letting oneself become addicted to a drug as immoral.

What changed in this regard is only that I found a good definition for morality that is conceptually pure.

That, and that I now think most people disagree with the definition for a reason: The degree of vitriol in their disagreement appears to be proportional to their immorality.

Look at who screams at Rand the most. They are the worst.

in which case, why is what other people deem moral important to you?

Hmm, not sure if it is, really. Apart from the practical implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional. Your sense of right and wrong doesn't intensify or diminish, but how present it is depends on your understanding of the situation.

You don't learn something is right or wrong, you learn implications of events that you weren't previously aware of... those implications are inherently right or wrong from your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional. Your sense of right and wrong doesn't intensify or diminish, but how present it is depends on your understanding of the situation.

You don't learn something is right or wrong, you learn implications of events that you weren't previously aware of... those implications are inherently right or wrong from your perspective.

You mean it's not what you do, it's what resulted?

--Brant

there's a coherence problem with your obscurantist jargon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead. Try to explain why this is irrational. Not immoral.

Why is it stupid? But more importantly, why is it irrational?

Bob

You don't understand why a taking a 1% chance of getting killed is stupid? More to the point, you don't understand the difference between what's rational for a mangy dog scrounging for scraps in an alley from what is rational for a human being?

Self-esteem -> self-interest -> ego -> understanding Man's nature -> principles -> reason -> benevolent universe -> thriving -> Self-esteem -> ...

"Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon" -Bruce Lee

"You don't understand why a taking a 1% chance of getting killed is stupid?"

Nope, I don't. Not at all.

You can't base rationality on risk. Many risks are taken willingly, with money and with life and limb all the time and are perfectly rational. It would never be rational for join a army or accept any dangerous job for that matter. Risk doesn't cut it. Sometimes risk is perfectly rational - 1% or much more sometimes.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Fine, the Bank's money.

As Ayn Rand once asked Leonard Peikoff: "Can't you think in principles?" Now that you are trying to (feebly) establish a context for your example, you fail to acknowledge explicitly what you do implicitly: the original proposition--yours--is irrational, which is why it cannot be answered rationally on its own merits or terms.

--Brant

Why is it irrational for me to take something that is not mine if I calculate the risk is low and the reward high? I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

Maybe you should try it out, Bob.

Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught and take money that isn't yours.

In the meantime, I'll work on being a better professional.

In 3 decades we talk again and see how this worked out for us and whose choices were deemed more rational by reality.

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

If you disagree here, you really should consider a criminal career. I will not insult you by telling you not to become a criminal for any reason other than selfishness.

There's lots of people here on OL who disagree with me on that point and believe you should play nice for the sake of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Fine, the Bank's money.

As Ayn Rand once asked Leonard Peikoff: "Can't you think in principles?" Now that you are trying to (feebly) establish a context for your example, you fail to acknowledge explicitly what you do implicitly: the original proposition--yours--is irrational, which is why it cannot be answered rationally on its own merits or terms.

--Brant

Why is it irrational for me to take something that is not mine if I calculate the risk is low and the reward high? I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

bob

Your proposition lacks all context. It's all bones and no flesh. That's why no one has ever managed to rationally argue you down. That's all I'm talking about: your arrogant proposition from the top of your nothing hill. The issue you want to deal with here you don't yet deserve a conversation about. However, I'll indulge you because if you haven't gotten my point yet you never will. It all has to do with who you are. If you are a crook or a sociopath rejoice in your good fortune. If a crook maybe you are one because of a series of irrationalities that made you what you are. You cannot find, however, fundamental rationality there, for it was displaced by fundamental irrationality. Since I can't talk too well about sociopathy I won't, though there may be a significant genetic component. But in that case free will is traduced and so is one's fundamental rationality.

Everything costs something. Taking the money costs something and giving it back costs something. And there are good costs and bad costs. You choose one thing you can't choose a million others. Time and life are too short. This doesn't even address profits and loses: psychological, sociological and all kinds of logicals. Just how valuable is that money to you anyway? Are your children starving or does your wife want a new hat? Are you going to Vegas? Or perhaps your name is Ragnar and you follow armored cars around hoping the doors will fly open and bags of money fall out so you can return it to the real owner-producers? Is that a rational way to spend time? It just happened? Don't disasters just happen? Here's one for you: A truck is in an accident. A bag of money falls out. The truck is on fire. The driver is trapped. You can save the driver's life or take the money. There are no witnesses except that driver and he's going to die right there before your eyes, burned to a cinder. Is it fundamentally rational to take the money and even do a dance of joy waving bundles of 100 dollar bills in the driver's face in all this? You know, don't you, that when the driver finds the money missing, assuming no accident, he just might feel so bad for several different reasons he might kill himself?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional.
How so?

Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel.

Why don't I want to hurt an innocent person? I don't know. I didn't choose to care.

We do our best to interpret our feelings, and do what we think we want... but if you aren't aware of that going on, you have even less control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional.
How so?

Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel.

Why don't I want to hurt an innocent person? I don't know. I didn't choose to care.

We do our best to interpret our feelings, and do what we think we want... but if you aren't aware of that going on, you have even less control.

It's you who are emotional respecting this matter, not morality. Why are you posting on an intellectual forum?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel.

How doctor knows which treatment to chose? He doesn't. He just feels the way he feels.

Sounds insane? It used to be state-of-the-art at some point.

The moral development of most people is still stuck at that stage.

That's why the world's medicine is so much better than its ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 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.

You have had me racking my brain on this one - self-generating action, or more completely "self-directing and self-generating action" is the wrong premise? What is the right one? "Other-generating" action? Self-directing INaction? Predestiny? Biology?

That's the great thing about O'ism, no force. It doesn't force everybody to take complete charge of their lives, to commit to a definite morality. It is your metaphysical choice. If you do not see egoism as the proper state for yourself and all men, well then fine!

If one can't perceive of oneself as self-directing (including in it, self-regulating, self-limiting, self-responsible, and self-rewarding), then one can just go along with any old grab-bag of hand-me-down ethics - like everybody else.

Of course, despite that, one still has to make choices, every second of the day; because one can't help being slightly self-generating, can one? Eg., Is this now the time to be selfish? But how much? Should I be more compassionate? or a bit less? cruel? respectful? honest? virtuous? (and what is 'virtue', anyway?) And so on.

That's the other great thing about O'ist ethics of rational individualism - you only have to choose once. Then it all falls into place, with only varying contexts and hierarchies for each person to take account of, that make his life interesting.

It's enough to make one feel pity for the strain of living that many go through, changing themselves constantly to what they believe is wanted of them by others, or to what they FEEL is right, or what they believe their creator demands of them. When is it ever their own life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional.
How so?
Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel. Why don't I want to hurt an innocent person? I don't know. I didn't choose to care. We do our best to interpret our feelings, and do what we think we want... but if you aren't aware of that going on, you have even less control.
It's you who are emotional respecting this matter, not morality. Why are you posting on an intellectual forum? --Brant

And why is intellectualism good? How can you defend intellectualism without emotion??

How doctor knows which treatment to chose? He doesn't. He just feels the way he feels.

Sounds insane? It used to be state-of-the-art at some point.

The moral development of most people is still stuck at that stage.

That's why the world's medicine is so much better than its ethics.

The doctor doesn't choose what works or what doesn't. He searches for answers, he doesn't decide them...

We search for happiness, we don't decide what makes us happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is emotional.
How so?
Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel. Why don't I want to hurt an innocent person? I don't know. I didn't choose to care. We do our best to interpret our feelings, and do what we think we want... but if you aren't aware of that going on, you have even less control.
It's you who are emotional respecting this matter, not morality. Why are you posting on an intellectual forum? --Brant

And why is intellectualism good? How can you defend intellectualism without emotion??

How doctor knows which treatment to chose? He doesn't. He just feels the way he feels.

Sounds insane? It used to be state-of-the-art at some point.

The moral development of most people is still stuck at that stage.

That's why the world's medicine is so much better than its ethics.

The doctor doesn't choose what works or what doesn't. He searches for answers, he doesn't decide them...

We search for happiness, we don't decide what makes us happy.

You are obviously capable of answering everything not really thinking about anything. I'm not going to keep repeating myself with you. Those interested can merely review our few posts here and figure it out for themselves respecting our conversation.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your proposition lacks all context. It's all bones and no flesh. That's why no one has ever managed to rationally argue you down. That's all I'm talking about: your arrogant proposition from the top of your nothing hill. The issue you want to deal with here you don't yet deserve a conversation about. However, I'll indulge you because if you haven't gotten my point yet you never will. It all has to do with who you are. If you are a crook or a sociopath rejoice in your good fortune. If a crook maybe you are one because of a series of irrationalities that made you what you are. You cannot find, however, fundamental rationality there, for it was displaced by fundamental irrationality. Since I can't talk too well about sociopathy I won't, though there may be a significant genetic component. But in that case free will is traduced and so is one's fundamental rationality.

Everything costs something. Taking the money costs something and giving it back costs something. And there are good costs and bad costs. You choose one thing you can't choose a million others. Time and life are too short. This doesn't even address profits and loses: psychological, sociological and all kinds of logicals. Just how valuable is that money to you anyway? Are your children starving or does your wife want a new hat? Are you going to Vegas? Or perhaps your name is Ragnar and you follow armored cars around hoping the doors will fly open and bags of money fall out so you can return it to the real owner-producers? Is that a rational way to spend time? It just happened? Don't disasters just happen? Here's one for you: A truck is in an accident. A bag of money falls out. The truck is on fire. The driver is trapped. You can save the driver's life or take the money. There are no witnesses except that driver and he's going to die right there before your eyes, burned to a cinder. Is it fundamentally rational to take the money and even do a dance of joy waving bundles of 100 dollar bills in the driver's face in all this? You know, don't you, that when the driver finds the money missing, assuming no accident, he just might feel so bad for several different reasons he might kill himself?

--Brant

"arrogant proposition"

"top of your nothing hill"

"don't yet deserve a conversation"

Your apoplectic emotional responses don't even begin to answer what is a rather simple question addressing a quite common family of decisions people have to make every day. I use an extreme example for clarity, but the general 'family' of decisions includes a huge variety of situations where there is combination of low risk, high reward, but moral 'problems'.

I am not the one claiming the connection between moral and rational. I see a rather obvious disconnect and it's up to the positive 'claimer' to explain why there is irrationality here, not immorality. All you've said is that it "feels like such an immoral thing to do, that it MUST be irrational too!!".

No, morality here is offside/irrelevant because I agree with you. I'm only questioning the rationality. It needs to be proven irrational in a coherent/non-emotional, dare I say 'rational' way.

"everything costs something" Sure, so we do a cost-benefit analysis?

"profit and loss" Will this analysis lead to the irrational?

"risk" is this the key factor?

No, nada, nope.

Maybe it's irrational because it 'feels' so wrong that it has to be? Sorry, not good enough...

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

Maybe you should try it out, Bob.

Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught and take money that isn't yours.

In the meantime, I'll work on being a better professional.

In 3 decades we talk again and see how this worked out for us and whose choices were deemed more rational by reality.

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

If you disagree here, you really should consider a criminal career. I will not insult you by telling you not to become a criminal for any reason other than selfishness.

There's lots of people here on OL who disagree with me on that point and believe you should play nice for the sake of others.

You don't have to be 'absolutely sure' at all, of anything, to make perfectly rational decisions.

The point is not morality, the point is the claim of unbreakable connection between morality and rationality.

"I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved."

I do not believe that you believe this - seriously. We both know that welfare is largely or entirely undeserved. To say people don't gain from it though is a bold-faced denial of reality if I've ever seen it. Ludicrous.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now