Choosing death and murder


Mike11

Recommended Posts

This is a thought experiment that was presented to me by the good folks at objectivionline a few weeks back. Let's assume that Johny Q. has chosen Death as is starting point, let's also assume Johny Q will be taking out someone who loves his life before doing so, what will be the ethical status of his choice relative only to him? To the John Galt he kills?

These were the asumptions at the forum -

1. He has no reason to kill Galt, no psychological motive and no percieved value is gained. He killed for the same reason Camus' Stranger killed the arab, because the Sun was bright.

2. Values and virtues depend on one's choice between life and death in Objectivism. Assuming one chooses death the values hierarchy becomes things that result in physical death and the virtues become acquiring these values.

The conclusion reached by me and some others on the OO.net IRC chat was that we ran into some nteresting relativistic aspects of Egoism. The life/death choice can not be judged itself as there is no vantage point to do so, we have a case of 2 contradicting yet valid trajecteries where Johny Q. did nothing wrong (the man is not a lost value if one rejects life as a premise) yet John Galt's death relative to him and those he knows is a tragedy.

Now if you want, feed the "antidogmatist yet domgatic in spite of himself" troll and discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a thought experiment that was presented ...

Reminds me of the time in ninth grade geometry when the guy in front of me said, "Prove that I exist." He had me stumped then, but I found a solution later. This ObjectivismOnline Feed must be where today's ninth graders hang out.

Three words: "Man qua man."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a thought experiment that was presented ...

Reminds me of the time in ninth grade geometry when the guy in front of me said, "Prove that I exist." He had me stumped then, but I found a solution later. This ObjectivismOnline Feed must be where today's ninth graders hang out.

Three words: "Man qua man."

There are over six billion men (humans) and no two of them are alike. What does Man qua Man mean?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a thought experiment that was presented ...

Reminds me of the time in ninth grade geometry when the guy in front of me said, "Prove that I exist." He had me stumped then, but I found a solution later. This ObjectivismOnline Feed must be where today's ninth graders hang out.

Three words: "Man qua man."

The reason why I posted this is it seems to get o the hear of where Objectivit ethics derive from as its shakey ground for me,my undestanding is man must Choose to live or die at which point"Man Qua Man", a being that does what is necessary to survive can exist, though I may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serisously, this interests me, if anyone can shed some light on how Objectivist ethics sees this it would help. I read about this in TVOS a while back but lent that book out.

A good question. To me 'life' as the standard of value has always been a problem. I think what defines us as human is our freedom to choose our standard of value and this choice can change over time. Of course the standard counter argument is that you have to choose life before you can choose anything else. This is false - you can choose your wife's or children's lives, in which case it makes sense for you to remain alive as well.

This simplistic view of life at the top of the hierarchy is also anti-evolution, and it's not too surprising that Rand conveniently sidestepped the evolution 'problem'.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

The only reason this problem arises at all is because a huge hunk of reality has gotten ignored in choosing values by those analyzing this (both on the love Rand and hate Rand side, from what I have read).

Here is the proper way the mind should work in making value judgments: (1) identify an existent, (2) identify relationships between it and other existents (including oneself), (3) make value judgments based on the reality of their natures.

At the "identify" stage, the man who chooses death but wishes to take out another has chosen life to get it done. He has chosen life in order to (1) have a desire to kill another, (2) put that plan into effect. Without life, he can do neither. So he chooses life to some degree regardless of what he says to himself. This shows clearly that the issue is not as simple as it is stated. There is a contradiction in the premise. A man cannot choose death as a starting point and do these things. If he chooses death, he must kill himself immediately. But even that is grossly oversimplifying if we are talking about human beings. Man is not a robot on autopilot (not even one that he chooses) and your killer/suicide's starting point is another place.

Let us go into "identify mode" to look at this:

The fact is that there is no such thing as free will unattached to a physical support. (Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with how to operate free will in relation to a human being's needs and desires.) The support for a human being's free will is his physical body and he did not choose that. The body came with its own nature BEFORE his free will developed. His free will developed on top of that body (or in it) as the body grew from infancy.

Then there is another factor: his environment. He does not choose the environment he is born into and often, as in the case of disasters like floods and fires and so forth, he does not choose parts of his environment as an adult.

Both of these components are the given and must be taken into consideration before making a code to guide free will.

Getting back to the body, as a mammal, a human being is part of a species. There is an automatic deep-level valuing of other human beings that is part of our emotional equipment. This comes from being a member of an animal species and not simply an individual blob stuck on a globe spinning through time and space. Automatic valuing of other members of our species does not negate individual values. It simply is. It is a fact of our physical make-up, just as much as having two legs and two arms.

The problem as you stated it tries to leave all this out and treat man as if he were an individual free will floating about in the universe—with no connection to things that affect him but being able to affect other things. There is a name for this kind of being. It is called a ghost.

Ken Wilber made a very interesting political observation that applies here. He was talking about the difference between liberals and conservatives. He said if you take a ghetto kid who has committed some kind of crime, say killing another with a "to hell with it all" attitude (and this is very close to your person who chooses death), the liberals will point to his social environment, poor nourishment and so forth—essentially the forces outside his free will that shape him and say those are the causes of why he did that. The conservative will point to the lack of a work ethic, poor moral choices, etc.—essentially his free will and elements that are able to be molded by that will. The conservative thinks this is the cause.

Actually the truth is in the middle. Outside elements and free will exist. They both operate in the ghetto murderer.

So here is the dilemma with how people view Objectivist ethics. If you try to fudge the "identify before judging" mental process I outlined above and exist only on a "judge" level, it is easy as pie to shoot holes all through the ethics—or adopt the code wholesale—and rationalize this to your heart's content. You will find all kinds of arguments to support you. All you have to do is take as given that one side (the inside or the outside) is vastly superior to the other. Of course, that is not reality, but since when has that stopped people from judging others or choosing their morals?

If you identify what man is before judging the choices he makes, you have to realize that there are two standards that apply to how his mind makes decisions: (1) healthy versus unhealthy, and (2) good versus evil.

You cannot blank out either of these standards and be correctly in tune with reality. You need to apply both. The key is to learn the correct balance, but that takes open-minded study and introspection, not close-minded rationalizing.

The mind must be open when identifying something and closed once an evaluation of it is made. And the mind must always be ready to open again if something new to identify appears. That is how the best code to guide one's actions is arrived at.

As to your hapless subject who chooses death, according to the first standard, he is psychologically unhealthy (big time). He is like one who does not have the human being's normal two legs or two arms. He can bump and grind along, but he is not a normal healthy human being. At the best, he is a handicapped person. At worst, he is fatally ill.

According to the second standard, he has made an evil choice. He does not get to rewrite the reality of who he is simply because he chooses to die and take others with him first. He is prewired to value himself and others. He does not choose that. It is the given. If he consciously (with his free will) chooses the contrary to this, he is choosing to act NOT as "man qua man," but as a man-hater. He is choosing evil.

This is a perfect example of how a proper and effective morality derives from fact and is not subjective. Consciously valuing something and stipulating a code for it does not precede identification nor operate independent of it. If and when it does, some of the guidelines in that code will result in death and destruction of the good if acted on—even according to some of the core values in that code.

Valuing according to a rational code is built on correct identification of facts.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

The only reason this problem arises at all is because a huge hunk of reality has gotten ignored in choosing values by those analyzing this (both on the love Rand and hate Rand side, from what I have read).

Here is the proper way the mind should work in making value judgments: (1) identify an existent, (2) identify relationships between it and other existents (including oneself), (3) make value judgments based on the reality of their natures.

At the "identify" stage, the man who chooses death but wishes to take out another has chosen life to get it done. He has chosen life in order to (1) have a desire to kill another, (2) put that plan into effect. Without life, he can do neither. So he chooses life to some degree regardless of what he says to himself.

I think this is incorrect. Why stop at life? Why not food? To choose death like this, he must live for a while right? In order to live he must eat. Why then isn't food at the top of heap? Why isn't food the highest value? The standard? What about water? Wait - there's breathing too. I choose air!

"He has chosen life in order to (1) have a desire to kill another"

No. He hasn't chosen life in the Randian sense - qua man. He's just chosen to live a little longer to accomplish his goals. Here you've defined life two ways - biological and qua man. Can't have it both ways. Pick one.

The problem is life is a means to one's end (whatever that may be) in the same way food is an incidental means to sustaining life. You can't define it both ways.

Bob

Edit: I guess one could call this argument the 'fallacy of hidden double definitions'.

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I have found many of your arguments to be already committed to an evaluation before correct identification. Not all, but many.

Michael

Do you think that's an appropriate response to a rather simple description of an error that arises when you clearly define life two different ways?

Not to mention that one person's evaluation is another's identification. It's hardly an evaluation to identify that there's two definitions of life floating around - just facts here.

The man in question DOES NOT choose Randian Life to accomplish his 'evil' task, he only chooses the animal life as a means. Therefore your evaluation is dead. The dilemma stands.

Bob

Edit: For crying out loud, if he indeed chose Randian Life first, then it would not be possible to commit murder in the first place would it? Since murder can in fact happen, the only contradiction in the premise is yours.

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that's an appropriate response to a rather simple description of an error that arises when you clearly define life two different ways?

Bob,

Yes.

All you did was issue an opinion and try to state it as if it were a fact.

If a man thinks in order to plan and act, he lives "qua man." In order to carry out a plan, he must use his reason—even if for a short time and for a diabolical purpose.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is incorrect. Why stop at life? Why not food? To choose death like this, he must live for a while right? In order to live he must eat. Why then isn't food at the top of heap? Why isn't food the highest value? The standard? What about water? Wait - there's breathing too. I choose air!

Bob,

First of all Michael's argument was a brilliant one. Even caught me off guard.

Second of all...ummm...read what you said over again, and think about it. "why stop at life? Why not food?"....because eating food kind of precludes being dead doesn't it?. "...he must live for a while right? In order to live he must eat." Precisely chap!!! In eating he is choosing LIFE. You don't live in order to eat, you don't live in order to drink(unless it's a '97 Brunello), nor do you live in order to breath. You do each of these things in order to live.

And, as Chevy Chase might say, Hallelujah, holy-shit, after almost a week my internet is back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, you make a very good point when you say that the man has chosen life. (But I don't agree with your definition of ethics. You could as well say that the science of farming "deals with how to operate free will in relation to a human being's needs and desires." Try Rand's definition: ""Ethics is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.")

Bob, I can't respond to your objection to Michael's point because I can't get my brain around why you consider it an objection.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

I did not mean that to be a definition of ethics. It was merely a description within a specific context stating what ethics deals with. My context was the fine and often blurred line between what can be chosen and what cannot be in our actions. Rand's definition is predicated on this line already having been clearly drawn—so much so that it is not even present. Volition is simply presumed.

I am confused about the science of farming observation. When I read Rand's definition, it applies to the science of farming just as well as my description does.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is incorrect. Why stop at life? Why not food? To choose death like this, he must live for a while right? In order to live he must eat. Why then isn't food at the top of heap? Why isn't food the highest value? The standard? What about water? Wait - there's breathing too. I choose air!

Second of all...ummm...read what you said over again, and think about it. "why stop at life? Why not food?"....because eating food kind of precludes being dead doesn't it?. "...he must live for a while right? In order to live he must eat." Precisely chap!!! In eating he is choosing LIFE.

Wrong.

Do you have any idea what circular reasoning is? Any idea at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that's an appropriate response to a rather simple description of an error that arises when you clearly define life two different ways?

Bob,

Yes.

All you did was issue an opinion and try to state it as if it were a fact.

If a man thinks in order to plan and act, he lives "qua man." In order to carry out a plan, he must use his reason—even if for a short time and for a diabolical purpose.

Michael

BS.

If he was living 'qua man' as you say (and you require this for your argument) he wouldn't be living 'for a diabolical purpose' would he?

You have defined life two ways -again - and still stubbornly refuse to address the error.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS.

If he was living 'qua man' as you say (and you require this for your argument) he wouldn't be living 'for a diabolical purpose' would he?

You have defined life two ways -again - and still stubbornly refuse to address the error.

Bob,

The moment he uses his rational thought to achieve a goal, he certainly is. You are smart enough to understand this.

I suppose I should get used to this kind of thing—bickering for the sake of bickering. It gets tiresome. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moment he uses his rational thought to achieve a goal, he certainly is. You are smart enough to understand this.

Right. If a mass murderer uses his rational thought to achieve his goal, he's living "qua man". No doubt that's what Rand meant by survival as "man qua man"...

Exactly.

Now, let me take this down to hopefully more clear language in an effort to give the benefit of the doubt.

Definitions:

'life' - biologically continuing to exist - staying alive

'LIFE' - Randian life, man qua man.

If you claim you need life in order to maintain life and anything else is a contradiction, it's an equivocation. You can't just pretend there's one definition and then switch between them at will. You can't just switch between 'LIFE' and 'life' and use one to justify the other - or more correctly you're using 'life' to justify 'LIFE' as the standard of value. Very sneaky, but not gonna work. You need to pick one.

Of course you can't do this because as soon as you do, your reasoning collapses (for different reasons).

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the next question that I have not seen explained properly is the "life as a secondary goal" problem. I have seen argued (here for example) that the mere fact that one must stay alive to pursue one's goal is 'evidence' enough that life occupies the top position in value hierarchy.

Many many times it has happened that someone has to choose between life and succeeding at their goal. They have to stay alive long enough to do what it takes. but when given the choice between goal success or life, many have chosen the goal over life. Does this mean that life was actually more valuable all the way along? Of course not. Given the choice at any time, life would be secondary to the goal. Yet your argument is to the contrary.

According to your logic, life must be first on the list of values for anyone to accomplish their goal. It sounds logical, but it's wrong. In fact, in many cases the goal would INDEED NOT be accomplished UNLESS life takes a secondary role.

So the question is this. If there's a contradiction (or ethical error) in somebody pursuing an 'evil' goal like murdering his neighbour, then how is there not an ethical error for someone who wants to kill a despotic tyrannical leader so that his children can live a better life, even if it involves giving his life to do so?

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