Galt's Oath

[merjet]

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” 

An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."

Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."

1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?

2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?

[MereMortal]

Why would you want to change the oath?  Don't you like it as written?  Is it somehow flawed in its current form?  I like it as is and would prefer to keep it.  

[merjet]

1 hour ago, MereMortal said:

 I like it as is and would prefer to keep it.  

I didn't ask you to abandon it.

[Brant Gaede]

I swear I'll swear what I want to swear when I want to swear it.

--Brant

[PDS]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” 

An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."

Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."

1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?

2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?

I don't think the proposed oath is substantively different.  

When Rand uses the verb "live" for the sake of another man, she is essentially saying "act" for the sake of another man.    The subset of actions Rand had in mind is virtually coequal with the her idea of living. 

Great topic, by the way.   And thank you for not bring up Trump!  

[merjet]

PDS, you said on another thread that you've been doing litigation for many years. Are you a lawyer?

[anthony]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” 

An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."

Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."

1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?

2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?

Synonymous, no?

"In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life. Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action".[The Objectivist Ethics]

"Stillness" isn't of course simply physically immobile. *An act of consciousness* [NB?] addresses the complete picture of *action* (senses, perception, cognition, conceptualization, emotionality, and all). Add in the automated organic functions, all which shows the impossibility of acting/living for another.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, PDS said:

Great topic, by the way.   And thank you for not bring up Trump!  

David,

Not to worry. You brought him up.

   

Michael

[PDS]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Not to worry. You brought him up.

   

Michael

Yeah, that's actually what makes my comment so witty.     

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, merjet said:

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

Merlin,

After studying a bit (admittedly just the surface) of neuroscience, I'm now aware of neurons that trigger a female rage snap if her offspring is threatened. There are many things like that in the brain. For the mother, think Momma Grizzly. When this trigger is pulled and the snap kicks in, the mother will not worry about sacrificing her life for her child. She will charge at anyone and anything regardless of how hopeless.

So, to that extent, this oath doesn't work because it doesn't allow for that brain reality. However, if the oath is restricted to conceptual volition (essentially our human awareness) and taking charge of the very definition of who one is and what one's values are, it makes more sense than anything else. In that meaning, it is perfectly fine for a female to recognize her own love of her offspring--to the extent she does live for them and die for them--if she is a mother and has very healthy relevant trigger neurons in her hypothalamus. (Fathers have this, too, but it's a bit different. The technicality is not important for my point, though.)

There are other areas of the brain that, when articulated in the right way, you get such an expansive view of your own life, you cannot imagine yourself cut off from others. You would literally live for others in that moment, even if only emotionally. And, in my thinking, it's OK to recognize this. There's no need to feel guilty about it if it comes unbidden. We live in waves of awareness, not straight lines.

So I interpret Rand's oath--and it makes me very, very comfortable to do so--to mean something like the following:

“I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never accept on faith or force the definition and meaning of my life made by another person, nor live by it, nor ask another person to accept on faith or force—and live by—my definition and meaning of his or her life.”

It doesn't sound nearly as sexy that way, in fact, it sounds a bit convoluted, but that's the meaning I attribute to Rand's oath in my own mind.

This makes room for people to define their lives as including whoever they wish as an extension of themselves (if they so wish), but doesn't make room for them to demand the same from anyone.

Michael

[merjet]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So I interpret Rand's oath--and it makes me very, very comfortable to do so--to mean something like the following:

“I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never accept on faith or force the definition and meaning of my life made by another person, nor live by it, nor ask another person to accept on faith or force—and live by—my definition and meaning of his or her life.”

Okay. That's your interpretation. However, it is not what the oath says literally.  Nor did you answer my questions.

[MereMortal]

4 hours ago, merjet said:

I didn't ask you to abandon it.

I know.  But I did ask a couple of questions in my reply.  I'll simply ask one in this reply: Is the oath as written flawed or inadequate?  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, merjet said:

Nor did you answer my questions.

Merlin.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression of snubbing them.

Here goes:

1. They are substantively different because living for humans means thought and action. The second only talks about action.

2. I would not take the alternative oath. My previous post answers why, but let me add that I am averse to swearing myself--on a fundamental level--into a brainless situation or swearing to act like a programmed robot. I insist on keeping my free will.

(I would swear to only act a certain way within the confines of a job or something like that. But not as a prescription for my entire life.)

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

2 hours ago, PDS said:

Yeah, that's actually what makes my comment so witty.

I caught it

[KorbenDallas]

11 hours ago, merjet said:

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” 

An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."

Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."

1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?

2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?

1.  Not different, hierarchical.  To live you have to act, so live is more fundamental.  Reference Oist morality, the ultimate standard of value is a man's life--the fact that he is alive.  Then man has to act to survive, what is for his life or against his life.  For other animals this is enough, but man qua man is a rational being so he has to value more than just his life, this is where the values of Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem come in--Reason being the most fundamental and its corresponding virtue Rationality, to think about how to act.

2.  I like Roark's non-concern with others better.  Galt's oath (Roark said something similar) places himself in a social context, so this oath would apply to that, and is useful for that.  I don't like the idea of taking oaths, so I likely wouldn't take either, but on principle I do live by it socially.

Edited July 22, 2016 by KorbenDallas
added context, corrected values.. (need.. moar.. coffee..)

[Jon Letendre]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

Galt's Oath: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” 

An alternative oath: "I swear that I will never act for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to act for my sake."

Note that the essential change is "live" to "act."

1. Are these substantively different, and why or why not?

2. Would you take the alternative oath, and why or why not?

1. Yes, because live is total and act is particular.

2. No, because I act for others often and will continue to do so. And I ask things of others and they give, so I will continue doing that, too.

[merjet]

52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

1. They are substantively different because living for humans means thought and action. The second only talks about action.

2. I would not take the alternative oath. My previous post answers why, but let me add that I am averse to swearing myself--on a fundamental level--into a brainless situation or swearing to act like a programmed robot. I insist on keeping my free will.

(I would swear to only act a certain way within the confines of a job or something like that. But not as a prescription for my entire life.)

Your last comment alludes to a substantial difference in my view. I live only once, and the time frame of Galt's oath is the rest of one's life. On the other hand, I have acted millions of times and will act many more. So the time frame is far more limited.  I would not take the alternative oath either.  That makes three votes for the oaths being different versus two or three dissenters. It seems Jon and I much agree.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, merjet said:

It seems Jon and I much agree.

It seems I am missing something because I agree with Jon, too.

And apparently, you.  

Nothing I said denies what he said.

Michael

[anthony]

Correction.

"Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the ~standard~ of value" -- and ~his own life~ as the ethical ~purpose~ of every individual man".

( The standard of value is the abstraction, man's life, not "a" man's life, qua individual).

[KorbenDallas]

Ambiguity in the word "a"...  does "a" stand for a particular or does "a" stand for any?  Actually as written it was intended to be "a man's [own] life", contextually the sentence before says, "To live you have to act, so live is more fundamental," so I was already dealing with particulars with "you"--but the clarity is important, and it would have been better and most clear without the a..  thanks for catching that

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

1. Yes, because live is total and act is particular.

2. No, because I act for others often and will continue to do so. And I ask things of others and they give, so I will continue doing that, too.

 

Considering all the unversed readers of 'Atlas', "never to ACT for ..." would have read strangely, I guess.

Sure, to "act for", in the ordinary sense: one does things for, helps, co-operates with, cares for, engages with...etc. - others - and so do they for you.

I think in the fully integrated sense of *life-action*, and since men can't exchange their consciousness (or bodies), it's impossible and so immoral to even try to ~think~ for each other, impossible to perfectly know and experience each other's values, concepts and goals, let alone to know what to DO 'for them'.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Ambiguity in the word "a"...  does "a" stand for a particular or does "a" stand for "any"?  Actually as written it was intended to be "a man's [own] life", contextually the sentence before says, "To live you have to act, so live is more fundamental," so I was already dealing with particulars with the word "you".  But the clarity is important, and would have been most clear without the "a"..  thanks for catching that

Korben, great. The apparent ambiguity of the sentence flummoxed me for a long while, and because it is so pivotal to the morality, but ~appears~ to set a subjective standard of value - i.e. any individual's life - an error could easily set one off in a wrong direction, of subjective egoism, or egotism (as I recall it partly did). Whereas the true "standard" or benchmark and gauge, is the high, objective concept, "man's life", applying to us all. (Gripe: just here, she could've used "Man"...) That imagined "a" may be the most critical word to not appear in any book.

[SteveWolfer]

33 minutes ago, anthony said:

~appears~ to set a subjective standard of value - i.e. any individual's life - an error could easily set one off in a wrong direction, of subjective egoism, or egotism (as I recall it partly did). Whereas the true "standard" or benchmark and gauge, is the high, objective concept, "man's life", applying to us all.

Well said!

[Jon Letendre]

27 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

Considering all the unversed readers of 'Atlas', "never to ACT for ..." would have read strangely, I guess.

Sure, to "act for", in the ordinary sense: one does things for, helps, co-operates with, cares for, engages with...etc. - others - and so do they.

I think in the fully integrated sense of *life-action*, and since men can't exchange their consciousness (or bodies), it's impossible and so immoral to even try to ~think~ for each other, impossible to perfectly know and experience each other's values, concepts and goals, let alone to know what to DO 'for them'.

Agreed. I wouldn't think for another, about what they want. Nor imagine I can perfectly know or experience their values, concepts and goals. But I CAN know what to do for them, and do it without risking any of the hazards you mention.

 

Recently I walked into a 7-11 to prepay for some gasoline and there was a man crumpled against the storefront wall. He looked depleted, intensely weary. He said, "Sir, would you buy me a Gatorade?" I executed my habit - "Sorry, no."

 

Inside, I thought about it. A buck fifty. No chance he buys booze. No chance he doesn't really need it. Millions everywhere who don't need a fucking thing and yet scream their demands for free...everything.

 

I went back outside. "What color?" Excitedly, "Any color!" I bought him my favorite color, Fruit Punch red.

 

That can be scaled up, still with no risk of the hazards you mention, so I donate to certain charity organizations.

[KorbenDallas]

48 minutes ago, anthony said:

Korben, great. The apparent ambiguity of the sentence flummoxed me for a long while, and because it is so pivotal to the morality, but ~appears~ to set a subjective standard of value - i.e. any individual's life - an error could easily set one off in a wrong direction, of subjective egoism, or egotism (as I recall it partly did). Whereas the true "standard" or benchmark and gauge, is the high, objective concept, "man's life", applying to us all. (Gripe: just here, she could've used "Man"...) That imagined "a" may be the most critical word to not appear in any book.

Read in a different way, her line could almost read as a credo to altruism, heh, I noticed that too