A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[bmacwilliam]

I think it is irrational because morality is a key to happiness. If you disregard your own morals, you're hurting yourself more than anyone else...

Without hopes of happiness there is no rationality, is there?

Well, good questions.

"I think it is irrational because morality is a key to happiness"

Perhaps, but your morality is not a key to my happiness.

" If you disregard your own morals, you're hurting yourself more than anyone else..."

That's an empirical question if it is to be rational. Small moral transgression with relatively large gain?? Not so simple.

Bob

[Dglgmut]

But what is "gain"?

Why is money good? It makes life easier? It allows you to have more fun?

What is fun? Is it a feeling of power? Why are relationships important and what people think of us?

I think the epitome of happiness would be having people do what we want them to do before we even want it.

I think what we want is one thing, but that thing manifests itself in many ways. It's that perpetuation of self...

To contradict your own ethical code is to disrespect your own judgement, and it proves a lack of self-esteem. That's why taking the money would be irrational to someone who morally opposed such a choice.

[john42t]

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

Never claimed this.

"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.

How many people living on welfare do you know? I know a couple, none of them gain from it in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact it's destroying their lives.

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

[bmacwilliam]

But what is "gain"?

Exactly. Your gain could be very different from mine.

Why is money good? It makes life easier? It allows you to have more fun?

What is fun? Is it a feeling of power? Why are relationships important and what people think of us?

I think the epitome of happiness would be having people do what we want them to do before we even want it.

I think what we want is one thing, but that thing manifests itself in many ways. It's that perpetuation of self...

To contradict your own ethical code is to disrespect your own judgement, and it proves a lack of self-esteem. That's why taking the money would be irrational to someone who morally opposed such a choice.

Well, what about the contractor who morally opposes unions, who nevertheless does their office renovation for good money. He feels a little wrong about it (helping a group he despises), but should he not do it? Maybe... Is it irrational for him to do it? Proves lack of self-esteem? Don't think so. What if his kid needs braces (or food for that matter). Irrational now??

A million examples. If the "immoral is the irrational" is your claim, you must provide an argument for this. You must show how this is always so.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

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

Never claimed this.

You said "Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught"

What I mean is, certaintly of not getting caught is not required. It doesn't matter. Risk can be present and still be rational. Risk is not sufficient for irrationality.

"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.

How many people living on welfare do you know? I know a couple, none of them gain from it in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact it's destroying their lives.

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

For sure, those people who cannot work for disability reasons certainly gain. Others, with differing morality that, according to you or me, probably should be working, would nevertheless claim that they gain. You're so sure you can dismiss this as "imagined" gain, somehow not worthy of 'real' gain?

Well then does this mean necessarily that

1) It is impossible for you to ever gain thusly because you can't see it now?

and

2) This state of affairs applies to all?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

dupe.

[anthony]

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

Precisely, you wouldn't, because you understand rational morality.

I think half the problem in this sort of debate is not distinguishing clearly between

the rational and the pragmatically logical.

Often, the first is invoked when it is range-of-the-moment logic that is implied.

A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions

of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)

So, you get these degenerating practical discussions of what is most

'in one's self-interest':- to work for a bank, or rob one.

All question of consistent and total loyalty to one's virtues, values and reason is

subsequently brushed aside. But this is rationality.

[bmacwilliam]

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

Precisely, you wouldn't, because you understand rational morality.

I think half the problem in this sort of debate is not distinguishing clearly between

the rational and the pragmatically logical.

So...

Pragmatically Logical != Rational

Because:

Rational = Logic + Morality

Right?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

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

Like I told the other guy: enough's been said between the two of us; the reader can review our posts and come to his own conclusions.

--Brant

trying to win an argument after the arguments doesn't work any longer for me--if it ever did (yeah it use to ever did, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away).

[bmacwilliam]

Like I told the other guy: enough's been said between the two of us; the reader can review our posts and come to his own conclusions.

--Brant

So...

Pragmatically Logical != Rational

Because:

Rational = Logic + Morality

Right?

Simple question. Yes, no?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

[Xray]

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

Surely you won't deny that rights are man-made?

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

The second part of your sentence makes the first part illogical: since Ayn Rand did not believe believe in an afterlife, from this premise it follows that her idea of selfishness is about life on earth only.

[Brant Gaede]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

You can apologize immediately while it still means something.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Well, what about the contractor who morally opposes unions, who nevertheless does their office renovation for good money. He feels a little wrong about it (helping a group he despises), but should he not do it? Maybe... Is it irrational for him to do it? Proves lack of self-esteem? Don't think so. What if his kid needs braces (or food for that matter). Irrational now??

This is the "Would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family?" question.

What is the greater good or the lesser wrong? It's up to the individual in the situation.

What's the point of talking about right and wrong if we have no intention of imposing our views on others?

I'm just saying, we oughtta not underestimate the selfishness of morality. I'm not saying that there are no other selfish actions... just that morality is up there.

Why is selfishness rational? I don't know, but it seems to be generally accepted as the basis of rationality.

If someone is a bad person, is it their own fault? How can the choice of becoming a bad person come from a good person? There are people that are just bad for the rest of us... It's not their fault, but the fact remains, and we have no choice but to deal with it in one way or another.

The second part of your sentence makes the first part illogical: since Ayn Rand did not believe believe in an afterlife, from this premise it follows that her idea of selfishness is about life on earth only.

Yes, I understand that. John (I think it was John) made it sound like Rand was striving for the achievement in itself, rather than the result. Adam explained it in a way that made sense, but I wasn't sure if John had the same belief. Overall, I still don't see Rand's mission as rationally selfish. Changing the world as a selfish act? What the hell did Rand care if other people were making mistakes if she had the option to isolate herself from them?

[Xray]

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.

I was not thinking of animals lacking the capacity for rationality we humans have; I was thinking of fellow human beings who do have the capacity for rational action but still act irrationally.

Example: a savvy salesperson cleverly persuading a customer to buy stuff he doesn't need at all.

From the salesperson's perspective, what he is doing is rational. But he uses the customer's irrationality to achieve his goal 'selling'. With a rational customer, the sale would not have taken place.

Imo the rationality issue must be subjected to thorough testing, since the Objectivist philosophy so closely connects the rational with the moral and irrational with the immoral.

[john42t]

I was not thinking of animals lacking the capacit for rationality we humans have; I was thinking of fellow human beings who do have the capacity for rational action but still act irrationally.

It's very difficult to judge the capacity for rational action/thought in people, including intimate friends or even oneself, but especially strangers.

Example: a savvy salesperson cleverly persuading a customer to buy stuff he doesn't need at all.

From the salesperson's perspective, what he is doing is rational. But he uses the customer's irrationality to achieve his goal 'selling'. With a rational customer, the sale would not have taken place.

Imo the rationality issue must be subjected to thorough testing, since the Objectivist philosophy so closely connects the rational with the moral and irrational with the immoral.

It's indeed a difficult question, but I don't equate fooling others with immorality. There are many cases where it is moral to trick people (the obvious being outwitting criminals).

On a global scale, people appear extremely irrational: They group themselves in identifiable ideologies that often coincide with geographical regions and periods of time (the Zeitgeist). That can only be explained with a high degree of irrationality.

Take "greenwashing" for example: A company does some PR stunts to appear "nice" to the climate activists. Those companies behave moral in that regard if and only if they are hypocritical. Not to do it altogether might still be more moral, depending on further circumstances.

[Selene]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

Bob:

You cannot be this shallow, but if you are, you should not be surprised by how folks treat you from this point forward.

Adam

[john42t]

Precisely, you wouldn't, because you understand rational morality.

I think half the problem in this sort of debate is not distinguishing clearly between

the rational and the pragmatically logical.

Often, the first is invoked when it is range-of-the-moment logic that is implied.

A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions

of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)

That sounds very right to me, word for word.

But then I often think that my opinion here still differs quite a bit from most O'ists here on OL.

For example, Mikee jumped in my face for saying it's moral to take welfare unless you become dependent.

To me, immorality means harming *yourself*, not *others*. Taking welfare isn't necessarily immoral in my book, as long as you remain independent and draw your self-worth out of your profession. In practice there's little reason to do it, but it's important to point it out as there are many who condemn taking welfare as it puts a strain on society (and they identify with society, so that's a bad thing). I think it's the dependecy bit that makes the difference because that's when you stop being free and will be forced to take your self-worth out of thin air. "I'm a human being! I have rights!" :-)

And there's been plenty of such examples in my time of posting here.

I sense that a lot of O'ists still take "immoral" to mean something like "being good to society" or "play by the rules" which I don't take it to mean at all.

Part of the reason why I'm putting things harshly and controversial is to analyse to what extent people people are really in line with what I believe.

[Dglgmut]

Immorality means harming yourself, not others?

According to my own morality, it is wrong to hurt someone... Of course the severity of immorality is always relative.

[Mikee]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

My impressions of you have traversed arrogant narcissist, amoral sociopath, and now to stupid. You post merely to see your own words. Like a body builder looking at himself in the mirror. He thinks he sees awesome physical specimen where others see a self obsessed fool impressed with appearance, ignoring functionality. Your questions have been more than adequately answered many times. You refuse to see the difference between a dog looking for his next meal and a human who can visualize his entire life as a work of art. Enjoy your pathetic life.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm waiting--no, not for an apology--for a door to be opened. You go through that door--you opened--and inside or outside, makes no difference, is something very special and very rare and it's yours.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Can someone verify if selfishness is the basis of rationality?

For me, morality is about happiness. There is reasoning behind everyone's code of ethics, whether they have put much thought into it or not. The reasoning may be poor because of their ignorance, but some form of reasoning is there.

As I understand myself, and I've said a couple times before, I identify with any other conscious thing. If I hurt an animal, I know it would make me unhappy because I imagine life from that animals point of view. I relate the event to unusual cruelty to myself. (Depending on the intelligence of the animal, and the reason for hurting it...)

Why would cruelty towards myself make me unhappy? I don't think we need an answer; it just does. To exist as something that is unwanted and powerless is the worst existence there is... Cruelty is a demonstration of just how unwanted you are, and being powerless means not being able to avoid/counter the cruelty. (I guess being wanted is also about power, though)

So, does rationality not start with selfishness? Does anything come before the self, from one's own point of view?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But I'm not a simpleton, Bob.

--Brant

You're a chicken shit, Brant.

Bob:

You cannot be this shallow...

Adam,

But Bob is this shallow.

Every discussion of his always goes back to his kindergarten name-calling and taunting.

That is the true point of his discussion--his payoff, not anything dealing with using his brain.

It's like the law of causality. Once people get roped into discussing ideas seriously with him, it's only a matter of time before he does this crap.

And it never fails.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I'm waiting--no, not for an apology--for a door to be opened. You go through that door--you opened--and inside or outside, makes no difference, is something very special and very rare and it's yours.

--Brant

You do not have the courage to answer the question, do you?

Bob