Generosity and Self-Interest

[Daniel Barnes]

Judith:

>I don't agree with those positions, and I don't think Rand would either. She may have made isolated statements that sound that way, and you might be able to quote "Randian Scripture" at me to support that position, but taking her entire work as a whole, I don't believe that she herself would approve of it.

Well, I'm not taking "isolated statements" that "sound that way", in the sense of picking them from odd corners of her work and trying to assemble them in a misleading way. I'm using essays that are central to her ethics. I've chosen statements that are clear, simple expressions of her position. Incidentally, you're welcome to provide any statements from Rand's work where she says helping strangers at great risk to oneself is morally admirable if you know of some. This would support your contention that, contrary to what I've quoted, she would approve of it. However, I don't know of any offhand.

>Interpreted literally, life among other people would be impossible if one tried to live up to such a standard of never helping others outside of strict emergencies.

We should be clear that Rand means "strangers" here. But nonetheless, this is exactly what she is advocating:

"It is on the ground of that generalised good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency - and only in an emergency." (emphasis Rand, "The Ethics of Emergencies")

Further, any aid you give in an emergency should only be if it is at a minimal cost to you. If you put your own life at risk, you are immoral. To repeat:

"If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it; only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stranger." ("The Ethics of Emergencies")

>I'm the kind of person who would probably get myself killed trying to rescue other people out of a lack of prudence.

Now, Judith, I happen to think this statement, and your thoughtful para that follows are extremely morally admirable. But not according to Objectivist ethics. Rand would say that this shows you "lack self esteem", which I think is utterly ridiculous! The "training courses" you refer to I suggest refelect Rand's true position, which is the opposite of yours. (Rand, in the "TEOE" essay actually suggests that you are significantly mentally damaged if you even ask the kind of intelligent ethical questions you're asking yourself about behaving in extreme situations!! It's deeply wrong-headed).

I suggest that the Objectivist ethics are, taken as a whole, unworkable, and the sensible course is to do as it seems you are doing: take the pieces that are somewhat vague, but inspirational - like her appreciation for individual life as an end in itself - but don't take Rand's actual teachings (or what you call "scripture") too seriously.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Brant Gaede]

There's a lot of Rand this and Rand that on this thread. I wish there were more quotes.

I've provided the key ones. Go back and read them.

You provided one reference ("The Cult of Moral Grayness") and one quote from VOS.

Actually, that's pretty good.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

I wrote:

>And that's still two more than anyone who says any different.

And guess what? It's two more than even David Kelley provides in his essay above!

He references Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics" but doesn't give one single direct quote, or footnote, or indication of what - if anything - in his essay is drawn from Rand's.

It appears to be little more than window dressing. Check out this sentence from Kelley:

"In the same way, there is a satisfaction in creating value in one's social environment, a satisfaction that remains even when the value cannot be returned in the form of a definite trade."

Riiiiiight. So Rand would have agreed that one could find "satisfaction" in "creating value on one's social environment...even when the value cannot be returned in the form of a definite trade"! (emphasis mine)

Does anyone know of anywhere in Rand's writings we might find this kind of position?

Edited April 20, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Whoops, think I might have deleted a post. Will attempt to restate:

Brant:

>You provided one reference ("The Cult of Moral Grayness") and one quote from VOS. Actually, that's pretty good.

Less is more

That's still two more than anyone who says different. Now, I am the first to admit that Rand often wrote in a confused and contradictory fashion. Like my earlier example, where she first says "one helps strangers in an emergency - and only in an emergency", and then on the very next page says you "may" help someone who's poor and ill - but that "Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies"!? (and even here she says only "may" -as if it were merely permissible, not something morally good) Err...???So it may be that there is somewhere she clearly says it's morally good to help strangers. But then that would only get you to "confused and contradictory".

Edited April 20, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Judith]

Well, I'm not taking "isolated statements" that "sound that way", in the sense of picking them from odd corners of her work and trying to assemble them in a misleading way. I'm using essays that are central to her ethics. I've chosen statements that are clear, simple expressions of her position. Incidentally, you're welcome to provide any statements from Rand's work where she says helping strangers at great risk to oneself is morally admirable if you know of some. This would support your contention that, contrary to what I've quoted, she would approve of it. However, I don't know of any offhand.

. . .

"It is on the ground of that generalised good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency - and only in an emergency." (emphasis Rand, "The Ethics of Emergencies")

Further, any aid you give in an emergency should only be if it is at a minimal cost to you. If you put your own life at risk, you are immoral. To repeat:

"If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it; only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stranger." ("The Ethics of Emergencies")

When interpreting Rand, it's important to remember that to which she's writing in opposition. She's opposing altruism, which holds that the entire purpose of one's life should be selfless service to others, and that one's life has no meaning except and to the extent that one has served others regardless of whether those others deserve service.

In that context, she is speaking in passionate opposition to such a world view. Her passion leads her to make statements such as those you quote. Taken out of that context, the quoted statements lead one to think that she is a stingy, withholding miser advocating that one drive past wounded kittens and ignore starving puppies. I don't think she'd have done either of those things.

On the basis of Barbara's biography, it appears that Rand was quite generous with her time and willing to help people in many ways. In her fiction, Dagny is touchingly generous with Cherryl. Hank is similarly generous with the Wet Nurse. Roark is generous with Mallory. Francisco is generous with Hank. All of these characters demonstrate an open-hearted generosity that doesn't stop and calculate self-interest before reaching out to others. Some of those situations, such as Francisco's assistance of Hank at the mill riot and furnace breakout, entailed great risk.

Judith

[Daniel Barnes]

Judith:

>When interpreting Rand, it's important to remember that to which she's writing in opposition. She's opposing altruism, which holds that the entire purpose of one's life should be selfless service to others, and that one's life has no meaning except and to the extent that one has served others regardless of whether those others deserve service.

Ok. But when interpreting Rand it's also important to remember, um, what she actually said.!!

[Victor Pross]

>[.....] Interpreted literally, life among other people would be impossible if one tried to live up to such a standard of never helping others outside of strict emergencies.

We should be clear that Rand means "strangers" here. But nonetheless, this is exactly what she is advocating:

"It is on the ground of that generalised good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency - and only in an emergency." (emphasis Rand, "The Ethics of Emergencies")

Further, any aid you give in an emergency should only be if it is at a minimal cost to you. If you put your own life at risk, you are immoral. To repeat:

"If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it; only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stranger." ("The Ethics of Emergencies")

>I'm the kind of person who would probably get myself killed trying to rescue other people out of a lack of prudence.

Now, Judith, I happen to think this statement, and your thoughtful para that follows are extremely morally admirable. But not according to Objectivist ethics. Rand would say that this shows you "lack self esteem", which I think is utterly ridiculous!

Judith, I have been reading the exchange between you and Daniel and I have applauded some of the points you have made (I’m on your side;)—however, I have been a little disappointed because you have been trying to defend your values, your convictions, at times, on Daniel’s premises (which are altruistic premises). Arrrgh! You have been trepid--at some points—by being apologetic for your convictions or your openly stated philosophical standpoint. One can almost see you being nearly painted in a corner, feeling a 'guilt' (for want of a better word) coming from you. Daniel has detected this, and is taking advantage by making you feel “small” for those convictions and by pouncing out his particular brand of mocking, however subtly communicated.

I have selected a section from one of his posts, and I will answer this section very briefly (with perhaps elaborations later on): yes, such a person would be immoral and lack self-esteem. (Of course in saying this, a wider context must be drawn, but I don’t shy away from saying it. But Daniel likes to trot out the good old disclaimer “ridiculous” without specifying—exactly why it is).

-Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

Judith, I have been reading the exchange between you and Daniel and I have applauded some of the points you have made (I’m on your side;)—however, I have been a little disappointed because you have been trying to defend your values, your convictions, at times, on Daniel’s premises (which are altruistic premises). Arrrgh! You have been trepid--at some points—by being apologetic for your convictions or your openly stated philosophical standpoint. One can almost see you being nearly painted in a corner, feeling a 'guilt' (for want of a better word) coming from you. Daniel has detected this, and is taking advantage by making you feel “small” for those convictions and by pouncing out his particular brand of mocking, however subtly communicated.

Hmmm. I haven't felt intimidated, or apologetic, or guilty, or small, or painted into a corner. It's quite possible I'm in a corner and don't realize it -- and it's quite possible I'm being mocked and don't realize it -- but as far as I can tell, the conversation is going on in good faith on both sides.

Judith

[Victor Pross]

Judith,

Naturally, I don’t read minds, and it is merely an impression I’m getting. I should have said that. But I do see you arguing your point on his premises (“Rand is not advocating being a nasty bitch that would let little kitties drown”…and yada. It’s all beside the point, totally irrelevant. (Sorry for saying so, but that’s what I see).

All these "lifeboat scenarios" are rather asinine as they do not really refer to discovering and defining a moral code. Like Rand said in that article about emergencies, if we lived in a universe where emergencies were the normal order of the day—that is, something that a man must contend with every day of the week or every second week—we would be unable to survive. An emergency presents an entirely different context to our everyday existence, true, but the basic ethical principles do NOT suddenly shift or get tossed out.

"Only in an emergency should one volunteer to help strangers" Ayn Rand writes. This is considered "ridiculous." Apply a bit of context, this would be good. Dan does not, of course. He's smart. He knows how to argue.

I would say that if one has to choose between their own life and someone else's (who I assume you don't know, and therefore has far less value to you than your own life does and where the risk is just too great) then I think you should choose your own life.

Just like in a situation where someone jumps into a almost-frozen river to save a total stranger and thereby greatly jeopardizes his life, I would say that it is immoral to sacrifice your own life for such a purpose. At the very least it would indicate that you don't value your own life much at all—if you regarded your life as secondary to others. (“Emotional hijacks” and knee-jerk reactions to disasters is yet a different context). And that brings me to this consideration: Of course the CONTEXT changes when you have to choose between someone you love and yourself, but in this scenario...I think that someone who truly values his own life should act in accordance to his values, and that value is drowning!

One would need a great deal more information to make any kind of judgment about how to proceed with any of the altruist’s horrid scenarios—all drawn from a freshman’s introduction to Ethics 101 class and spat out—not as an honest pursuit for the truth, but as conundrums to cast their opponent into doubt. The point about “emergency situations” is that they do not establish a basis for moral principles. They are not situations one encounters on a usual basis and they don't lay the ground work for a system of morality used to guide our daily lives. A useful system of ethics applies to normal situations where survival is possible to all involved---yet those who offer up lifeboat scenarios attempt to prove that they somehow refute the ethics of normal situations. THAT'S what the intention is about.

-Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Daniel,

Quite aside from confusions in Rand's stated ideas about when it is/isn't "moral" to offer help to a stranger, I'm confused about YOUR views: Are you saying that you judge moral worth by the degree of a person's willingness to charge into dangerous circumstances to save some person or other in distress?

If so, there's exactly one incident in my whole life as a result of which I might have earned moral commendation in your eyes, an incident regarding which I afterward thought I'd been foolish. Rather long story, though the incident must have consumed no more than a minute. I was at the 42nd-street subway stop awaiting my D train to Brooklyn, when this silly guy leaned out of the subway car still talking to someone on the platform and for a brief moment the automatic alert on the doors didn't work. The train was pulling out, his head caught between the "closed" doors. I had "images" -- not exactly, since there was no time for the "images" to form, but in terms of action, it was as if the "images" had formed -- of his head being knocked off when the train entered the soon-approaching tunnel. In fact, there was, as with most subway stations, a walkway area for the subway repair folks. The fool (how dumb to stick your head out of subway doors in process of closing) would have lived to tell of the experience. But I ran, screaming "Stop, Stop!" trying to alert the train's driver. Meanwhile, the delayed safety mechanism kicked in; the train screeched to a halt. But meanwhile, had I kept running a few paces more down the platform, I would have slamed into the wall at the end of the platform and possibly been knocked into the path of the train myself. DUMB, I thought afterward. Seems from what you're saying, this would have been a moment in my life -- the sole moment I can think of -- when I'd have aquired merit kudos in your books.

In regard to the swimming out to save a drowning person hypothetical, no way would I do that -- even on the assumption I was visiting a beach, which I rarely, even almost never, do. I don't like the sun on most beaches, and I'm not good at swimming; my childhood-polio-affected (though not crippled) legs militate against my having more than very basic -- I can stay afloat -- skills as a swimmer. I'd be going to near-certain death myself and for sure I wouldn't make the attempt unless it was someone very near and dear. But your posts seem to indicate that I'd be morally discredited in your eyes if I didn't -- supposing I were on a beach and saw a drowning person and there weren't someone else better equipped to help -- make a rescue attempt.

My basic question is whether you are judging moral merit by degree of concern for, helpfulness toward other human beings. Although I agree that the whole issue of generous impulses, even basic good-will, toward others isn't well adressed in Rand's ethics, I agree with her in not basing my standards of moral worth primarily (only derivatively) on a person's behavior toward others; instead on a person's actions in regard to a person's own understanding of truth and degree of desire to know the truth.

Ellen

PS: I see that there have been a couple posts added since last I read the entries on this thread. I'm querying Daniel, not Judith or Victor, about something which puzzles me in Daniel's views.

___

[CNA]

MSK wrote:

There was an enormous amount of e-mail activity going on, I was under a huge amount of criticism, some of it political, and I had been called a whole slew of nasty names in that environment and was being falsely set up as an altruist.....

Partial excerpt from MSK's Post No. 19 regarding the debate he had on this issue which is here and observing what is so obvious to me in the above quote as well as other excerpts in that post as well as links offered.

*sighing in revulsion* Completely childish. Victor and Mike, observe the obvious and the same regurgitated crap from orthos and certain others on a great many sites. same old shit, same old unoriginality, gets so old :yawn: and utterly ridiculous with no purpose, no productivity, nothing of use but only for one goal and that is for the sake of destruction and social metaphysics which flies in the face of the philosophy as well as many rationalizations being thrown around given the content of what was being discussed as well as contradictions. Give me a fucking break. Turn off. Maybe I should renig on my request, Mike. Oy. But of course, let it settle if possible. :getlost:

Edited April 21, 2007 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

I wanted to take a meter reading to see how much of a bastard I am.

Here we go: I have never worked at a soup kitchen assisting the poor or homeless nor have I funded starving children around the world and “gave and gave till it hurts.” I have never worked (or volunteered) at a women’s shelter or gave away 100 bucks to somebody who meant little to me, (but who really, really needed it) and that would have left me with no or little food for a week. I have never handed out twenty dollar bills to homeless people, doing whatever I can to combat the situation. I have never…well, you get the point. What did I leave out? It doesn't matter.

You see, I’m not interested in all of this stuff. That’s right, I don’t care that much. Sure, I am able to feel empathy for people. Lots! Very much so when a friend or lover is hurting in some way. But strangers? Hell, I once bought a bum off the street lunch; felt sorry for this particular guy. But it’s not a feeling I’ve experienced for all the bums in the world. I even gave blood once and received some cookies and orange juice. But charity (even as a regular exception-making activity) does not interest me! I don’t care enough to devote my time and energy when so much of that the time and energy is being invested elsewhere. I don’t care enough to devote even a day to any of these activities I have listed. You know what? I see homelessness all over the place in Toronto—all sorts of sundry suffering and in varying degrees--but I am not handing out those twenty dollar bills. (Or whatever else). You want to help the poor? Don’t become one of them! Or—otherwise—knock yourself out! Help them! Do it! But leave me alone. Don't pass any more laws taxing my ass or put a gun to my head for the sake of the "common good." No, I am not espousing a certain ideology here, I am not following a Randian injunction--I’m making my goddamn actual state of mind and feelings known. That's all this is about now.

You see, I don’t want to do all those things. And maybe somebody could construct an argument telling me why I should do some of these things, but beyond submitting an argument or insult—what are you going to do beyond it? Let's get to the point: I’m only interested in pursuing my life, my values, my interests, my career...and all the other pursuits in my life---and all for my own gain and pleasure! And I want a life with Angie—again, for entirely selfish reasons. She has become, in fact, a singularly important person in my life. Battered women? Lonely women? Women with breast cancer? I may be able to help them in some fashion, in some way. But my dance card is filled. Sorry, I have my hands full. I'm busy. I don't care that much to get out of my way to such an extent. Do you? Are you interested? You are? Then go ahead. But am I an evil bastard?

-Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[BaalChatzaf]

I even gave blood once and received some cookies and orange juice. But charity (even as a regular exception-making activity) does not interest me! I don’t care enough to devote my time and energy when so much of that the time and energy is being invested elsewhere. I don’t care enough to devote even a day to

Lets examine this. I assume that you would wish for, hope for or even expect that there will be blood in the pipeline for you if (heaven forfend) you are in need of a transfusion. What conditions, do you think, would have to hold to give you a reasonable assurance that blood will be their when -you- need it. I would point out that if everyone took your stand, there would be hardly a drop in the pipeline, so someone must be willing to donate. Perhaps it were better if blood were bought, to give an incentive to provide a pint. In either case someone must be willing to have a need put in his arm vein to put the blood in the pipeline, whether or not it is a donation or a sale.

I donate blood regularly. Not because I am a "good guy", but to encourage others to do the same. It is a kind of Karma principle. How am I to expect the blood to be there for -me- if I do not do something to make sure there is blood in the pipeline. It is conceivable that I might even receive my very own blood in case of an accident or illness. If it were possible to give blood every 25 days (that is as long as it will keep in storage) I would, and I would earmark the pint for me or my family and pay a storage fee. But rules say no more often than every seven weeks (56 days). All I can do then, is set an example and hope others will be similarly motivated. That way there is a good chance of being able to get a transfusion. It is either that or keeping a clone handy to be used as a blood reservoir.

I work on a generalized Trader Principle. If I expect a certain good when I need it, I must be prepared to pay for it somehow. It will be either cash, services or trade. I trade pint for pint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Daniel Barnes]

Ellen:

>My basic question is whether you are judging moral merit by degree of concern for, helpfulness toward other human beings.

In my view, concern for other human beings, even if they are strangers, is morally admirable. I ground this in the human experience of empathy – the understanding that people, while different from me, are also very much like myself. (Freud once called the differences between men and women as “the narcissism of minor difference.” There are plenty of such narcissisms around.) This leads to the notion of reciprocity – that if I am like you, I should treat you like I would like to be treated. Of course, we hardly need Ayn Rand to have the generalized notion of reciprocity, or the expectation of some form of payback, in ethics. It has been round since Christ’s “do unto others”, and earlier. It’s in many cultures.

Now, I also view concern for the truth as morally admirable. There is no necessary clash here - though there can obviously be clashes in some situations. (and as you and I agree, following Hume, there is no way of purely logically resolving such clashes. We must decide).

In such a situation as you describe, where you put your own life potentially at risk for a stranger, of course I think your action is morally admirable. It is often said by war heroes and others that what seems courageous in retrospect is more than a little foolish too. But Rand is quite wrong to say that by doing what you did you can only be treating your life as if it had no value; that you necessarily lack self esteem! Quite the opposite. I think it’s because you realize your life is so valuable that you realize another’s life is equally valuable to them. Hence why people take often great risks on behalf others (there is undoubtedly an evolutionary component in this too). In this fundamentally empathic recognition – which might stem as far back as when humans first started to bury their dead - I suspect lies the motivation for many such courageous acts.

I doubt my views are either original or important. They are in practice quite commonplace and are certainly open to criticism. Unlike Rand, I do not suggest I am the only important philosopher in ethics etc in the past 2,000 years. I don’t claim to have solved any longstanding moral problems. I do not claim to have discovered a new “science” of ethics that uproots the moral basis for such normal human empathies. I do not write books telling people what to do and how to act on the basis of this alleged “science.” And I don’t go round saying people are somehow mentally damaged for posing such basic ethical questions! Given the radical nature of her claims, I think they need correspondingly intense scrutiny.

While I would never condemn someone who couldn’t swim for not rescuing a drowning swimmer, I would certainly never condemn as"immoral" someone who could swim for taking a risk and making such a rescue! Yet this is precisely what Rand teaches. It is an absurd position, and such clear absurdities indicate deeper problems with her system. I conjecture that empathy is the key component missing from it.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor says I wrote:

>"Only in an emergency should one volunteer to help strangers" Ayn Rand writes. This is considered "ridiculous." Apply a bit of context, this would be good. Dan does not, of course. He's smart. He knows how to argue.

I actually wrote:

>Now, Judith, I happen to think this statement, and your thoughtful para that follows are extremely morally admirable. But not according to Objectivist ethics. Rand would say that this shows you "lack self esteem", which I think is utterly ridiculous!

Victor, you either need to learn to present an opponent's argument honestly, or you need to learn to read. One or the other.

[Victor Pross]

Victor says I wrote:

>"Only in an emergency should one volunteer to help strangers" Ayn Rand writes. This is considered "ridiculous." Apply a bit of context, this would be good. Dan does not, of course. He's smart. He knows how to argue.

I actually wrote:

>Now, Judith, I happen to think this statement, and your thoughtful para that follows are extremely morally admirable. But not according to Objectivist ethics. Rand would say that this shows you "lack self esteem", which I think is utterly ridiculous!

Victor, you either need to learn to present an opponent's argument honestly, or you need to learn to read. One or the other.

Daniel,

After I give the matter some more thought regarding your edifying remarks regarding the merit in helping others--saving their life--I would appreciate further elaborations on why one ought to before responding. It can't be because 'life is the standard.' :turned:

-Victor

[Victor Pross]

Lets examine this. I assume that you would wish for, hope for or even expect that there will be blood in the pipeline for you if (heaven forfend) you are in need of a transfusion. What conditions, do you think, would have to hold to give you a reasonable assurance that blood will be their when -you- need it. I would point out that if everyone took your stand, there would be hardly a drop in the pipeline, so someone must be willing to donate. Perhaps it were better if blood were bought, to give an incentive to provide a pint. In either case someone must be willing to have a need put in his arm vein to put the blood in the pipeline, whether or not it is a donation or a sale.

I donate blood regularly. Not because I am a "good guy", but to encourage others to do the same. It is a kind of Karma principle. How am I to expect the blood to be there for -me- if I do not do something to make sure there is blood in the pipeline. It is conceivable that I might even receive my very own blood in case of an accident or illness. If it were possible to give blood every 25 days (that is as long as it will keep in storage) I would, and I would earmark the pint for me or my family and pay a storage fee. But rules say no more often than every seven weeks (56 days). All I can do then, is set an example and hope others will be similarly motivated. That way there is a good chance of being able to get a transfusion. It is either that or keeping a clone handy to be used as a blood reservoir.

I work on a generalized Trader Principle. If I expect a certain good when I need it, I must be prepared to pay for it somehow. It will be either cash, services or trade. I trade pint for pint.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you suggesting that I ought to be more generous and charitable or is your post simply a PR move for the Red Cross?

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It can't be because 'life is the standard.'

Victor,

Sure it can. Life as "man qua man," as Rand wrote, is a proper and even official Objectivist standard. That's exactly the standard Daniel is using. The difference is that Daniel includes the whole human being in his view of human nature (which includes empathy), not just the rational faculty. If you wish to argue that point, that is a correct issue. Trying to attribute some kind of death premise to him is simply false (from everything I have read so far). Please be precise and non-judgmental (objective) when gathering information. You can always judge after you know. Judging before you know leads to all kinds of errors.

For the record, I personally believe the issue cuts even deeper than empathy. I also do not think selfishness and empathy are opposites in an either-or conflict (as I learned the hard way in life). I now have an acute fondness for the term "balance."

Michael

[Victor Pross]

It can't be because 'life is the standard.'

Victor,

Sure it can. Life as "man qua man," as Rand wrote, is a proper and even official Objectivist standard. That's exactly the standard Daniel is using. The difference is that Daniel includes the whole human being in his view of human nature (which includes empathy), not just the rational faculty. If you wish to argue that point, that is a correct issue. Trying to attribute some kind of death premise to him is simply false (from everything I have read so far). Please be precise and non-judgmental (objective) when gathering information. You can always judge after you know. Judging before you know leads to all kinds of errors.

For the record, I personally believe the issue cuts even deeper than empathy. I also do not think selfishness and empathy are opposites in an either-or conflict (as I learned the hard way in life). I now have an acute fondness for the term "balance."

Michael

Michael,

I am going to do more thinking regarding the matter before posting—hard thinking--but just for the record: no I don’t attribute a ‘death premise’ to Daniel, but rather: an ‘altruist premise’ (although some would say that’s the same thing) springing from a sincere conviction that “ethics” is merely an synonym for “altruism.” I recall on one of the ethics thread, I asked Daniel what the standard of ethics is, or why do we have this field as a branch in philosophy—or something like that—and his answer was, in effect, to “obviously help others” without recalling the exact answer. It seems this approach is fairly rooted in his convictions. And I think he regards altruism as an ethical mandate for any civilization, seeing it as a benevolent force. These are some speculations on my part.

Victor

Edited April 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I really like this new tone. You are correct to seek.

But also take into account that if there is an altruistic premise in Daniel's writings (in the Objectivist sense), there also has to be condemnation of self-interest. I do not remember reading Daniel condemning self-interest. I might have missed something.

Where I part ways with Daniel is on our respective evaluations of Rand. I cannot completely condemn his evaluation, though, because it is rooted in her actual words. What I do is apply my scope filter and I see profound insights popping out all over the place. He applies the scope filter from the other end and sees predominantly unfounded assertions. Unfortunately, both (profound insights and unfounded statements) are present in her writing in abundance.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Daniel,

You get at issues in your post #64 which are of much interest to me and which I'll come back to later. Just at the moment, my head is too fuzzy from a marathon last night -- incredible lecture at my Jung group; I was up pacing/thinking till 8:00 am.

A comment now about this:

In such a situation as you describe [where I went running down the subway platform, in a panic for a silly guy who'd gotten his head caught in the closed doors of a subway car when the train was starting to move], where you put your own life potentially at risk for a stranger, of course I think your action is morally admirable.

I don't think of it as admirable; I wasn't even correctly assessing the situation in my panic response, since he wouldn't in fact have had his head bashed when the train entered the tunnel at the end of the platform; there was more than enough room, he'd have been ok, though shaken up. What I think of it as is an "instinctive" response that almost by-passed "cerebral" processing. Michael has written about such responses on other threads and given a name to them, responses which directly trigger the limbic system with rapid action following. I don't think of it as nonadmirable either. I just don't think of it as meritorious to have done something like that which realistically was foolish.

It is often said by war heroes and others that what seems courageous in retrospect is more than a little foolish too. But Rand is quite wrong to say that by doing what you did you can only be treating your life as if it had no value; that you necessarily lack self esteem! Quite the opposite. I think it’s because you realize your life is so valuable that you realize another’s life is equally valuable to them. Hence why people take often great risks on behalf others (there is undoubtedly an evolutionary component in this too). In this fundamentally empathic recognition – which might stem as far back as when humans first started to bury their dead - I suspect lies the motivation for many such courageous acts.

For sure I wouldn't agree that in doing what I did, I was treating my own life as if it had no value and that I was showing any lack of self-esteem. Frankly, I don't believe that Rand would have thought so either, despite what she wrote in the passages you've quoted. Saying X can't necessarily be taken to indicate that one would in fact feel X in a real-life circumstance, ;-) However, I don't think that what I did was because of the kind of cogitation you indicate: my life is valuable to me, therefore another's life is valuable to that other; therefore... The whole thing was quicker than thought.

I believe there is a strong evolutionary component in such reactions -- an arational, though not irrational component. I also believe the speed of reaction will be different for different persons. I have a quick reaction speed -- "fast reflexes" -- when I'm wideawake, as I was at the time. I also think that there were prior habits of personal characteristics involved, coming from a history of benevolent feelings toward others. I do consider myself high on the empathy and good-will dimensions, and, yes, I think there are prior volitional factors involved in my having these characteristics. But would I rank these characteristics as "prime virtue" ones? They aren't characteristics on which I pride myself, even though they are ones I approve of. I'll put it that way for now.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you suggesting that I ought to be more generous and charitable or is your post simply a PR move for the Red Cross?

-Victor

Neither. I am asking what conditions would need to hold to have a reasonable assurance that the blood you might need is in the pipeline. The ideal situation is enabling the sale of blood. Supply and demand would regulate the selling/donating opportunities. The next best thing is banking your own. The problem with that is you can only put a pint in the pipeline every 56 days and the blood lasts only 25 days. The next best thing is to find two friends with the same blood type as you and each of you make a donation with banking phased at 20 day intervals. That guarantees one pint of the right type when needed. But if two or three of you need the blood at the same time there may be trouble.

Given that blood is generally not sold, but donated what action would you take to encourage the donation of blood and maximizing the chances of having the blood you need should an emergency arise. So what strategy would you propose to maximize your chances of making available the blood your or your family members might need.

Clearly the policy of never donating, if practiced by everyone will guarantee that the blood you need will NOT be in the pipeline. If you -expect- blood to be in the pipeline for you, then you assume there will be a sufficient number of people donating. If you assume there will be donors isn't it only reasonable that you be a donor too?

Keep in mind that being a donor is not an act of self sacrifice. It is part of a strategy to make sure the blood YOU or a family member needs is in the pipe line. It is a rationally selfish policy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Victor Pross]

Are you suggesting that I ought to be more generous and charitable or is your post simply a PR move for the Red Cross?

-Victor

Neither. I am asking what conditions would need to hold to have a reasonable assurance that the blood you might need is in the pipeline. The ideal situation is enabling the sale of blood. Supply and demand would regulate the selling/donating opportunities. The next best thing is banking your own. The problem with that is you can only put a pint in the pipeline every 56 days and the blood lasts only 25 days. The next best thing is to find two friends with the same blood type as you and each of you make a donation with banking phased at 20 day intervals. That guarantees one pint of the right type when needed. But if two or three of you need the blood at the same time there may be trouble.

Given that blood is generally not sold, but donated what action would you take to encourage the donation of blood and maximizing the chances of having the blood you need should an emergency arise. So what strategy would you propose to maximize your chances of making available the blood your or your family members might need.

Clearly the policy of never donating, if practiced by everyone will guarantee that the blood you need will NOT be in the pipeline. If you -expect- blood to be in the pipeline for you, then you assume there will be a sufficient number of people donating. If you assume there will be donors isn't it only reasonable that you be a donor too?

Keep in mind that being a donor is not an act of self sacrifice. It is part of a strategy to make sure the blood YOU or a family member needs is in the pipe line. It is a rationally selfish policy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

I don’t really understand why you are belaboring this one point, the giving of blood?? It is rather superfluous. If you followed the bouncing ball of my points and where I stand---I'm all for self-interest, free-markets based on voluntarism, and the helping of loved ones!

-Victor

[Judith]

In my view, concern for other human beings, even if they are strangers, is morally admirable. I ground this in the human experience of empathy – the understanding that people, while different from me, are also very much like myself. (Freud once called the differences between men and women as “the narcissism of minor difference.” There are plenty of such narcissisms around.) This leads to the notion of reciprocity – that if I am like you, I should treat you like I would like to be treated. Of course, we hardly need Ayn Rand to have the generalized notion of reciprocity, or the expectation of some form of payback, in ethics. It has been round since Christ’s “do unto others”, and earlier. It’s in many cultures.

I wish I had the time and ability to dig up the bit in Rand's work where she says that others are like us and that it is natural and desirable to want to see others do well. Everything you say above is completely consistent with that particular work, and with the body of her work as a whole.

While I would never condemn someone who couldn’t swim for not rescuing a drowning swimmer, I would certainly never condemn as"immoral" someone who could swim for taking a risk and making such a rescue! Yet this is precisely what Rand teaches. It is an absurd position, and such clear absurdities indicate deeper problems with her system. I conjecture that empathy is the key component missing from it.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that Rand would have condemned professional or amateur lifeguards.

Daniel, you're attacking a specific essay or two. They're written, as I've said before, in a specific context. As you said, it's important to look at what Rand actually said. But the essay isn't THE BIBLE. This is getting ridiculous. We're arguing interpretation and exegesis, and the woman was a fallible mortal who wrote in a context and didn't express her final intent for all time perfectly in those particular essays. The body of her work and the study of her life bears that out.

Judith

Edited April 22, 2007 by Judith

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you suggesting that I ought to be more generous and charitable or is your post simply a PR move for the Red Cross?

-Victor

Neither. I am asking what conditions would need to hold to have a reasonable assurance that the blood you might need is in the pipeline. The ideal situation is enabling the sale of blood. Supply and demand would regulate the selling/donating opportunities. The next best thing is banking your own. The problem with that is you can only put a pint in the pipeline every 56 days and the blood lasts only 25 days. The next best thing is to find two friends with the same blood type as you and each of you make a donation with banking phased at 20 day intervals. That guarantees one pint of the right type when needed. But if two or three of you need the blood at the same time there may be trouble.

Given that blood is generally not sold, but donated what action would you take to encourage the donation of blood and maximizing the chances of having the blood you need should an emergency arise. So what strategy would you propose to maximize your chances of making available the blood your or your family members might need.

Clearly the policy of never donating, if practiced by everyone will guarantee that the blood you need will NOT be in the pipeline. If you -expect- blood to be in the pipeline for you, then you assume there will be a sufficient number of people donating. If you assume there will be donors isn't it only reasonable that you be a donor too?

Keep in mind that being a donor is not an act of self sacrifice. It is part of a strategy to make sure the blood YOU or a family member needs is in the pipe line. It is a rationally selfish policy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

I don’t really understand why you are belaboring this one point, the giving of blood?? It is rather superfluous. If you followed the bouncing ball of my points and where I stand---I'm all for self-interest, free-markets based on voluntarism, and the helping of loved ones!

-Victor

Because giving blood (or donating an organ) happens to be a place where rational self interest and generosity intersect. It is your turn to follow the bouncing ball.

R. Hillel said it well:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?

Perke Avot I:15

Ba'al Chatzaf