Settling the debate on Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you telling me that Rand would have been ok with a code of values that included any shred of even partial altruism as a moral requirement? Are you seriously asking me for a quote to back up that claim?

Bob,

You are doing what many Objectivists do, mixing the cognitive and normative at will and using one to stand for the other to support an argument.

A code of value does not have to be a good code of values.

Code of values = cognitive

Good (or bad) code of values - normative

Do I think Rand would have been OK calling altruism a code of values?

Yup.

Do I think she would have adopted that code?

Her works answer that...

This cognitive/normative switch at will leads to the oversimplification I often complain of. Black and white do exist, but they are not the only colors in the spectrum. It's a cognitive mistake to call everything black or white. While it simplifies measurement, it is not backed up by reality.

Michael

[Selene]

Rich:

Excellent.

I appreciate the duality in his approach. Moreover, it feels right to me and makes rational sense.

"In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what it is to be human--art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness--either are reduced to the chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger then is that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction."

"By the same token, spirituality must be tempered by the insights and discoveries of science. If as spiritual practitioners we ignore the discoveries of science, our practice is also impoverished, as this mind-set can lead to fundamentalism"

These are both directly on point for this thread as well as for much good thinking.

Nice and available at Target - I will be picking it up on Monday when I pick up two suits that will be altered and ready at the tailor.

The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

Dalai Lama

$10.17 List price: $14.95You Save: $4.78 (32%)

Thanks.

Adam

Edited May 3, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

Rich,

That's a really nice post.

"The view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is, to my mind, as much a metaphysical position as the view than an organizing intelligence created and controls reality."

"Nihilism, materialism, and reductionism are above all problems from a philosophical and especially a human perspective, since they can potentially impoverish the way we see ourselves. "

I'm grappling here with the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Science as a metaphysical position... I don't know if I've ever thought about it that way. Science in our culture is often associated to "that which is" rather than a perspective stance. To question the foundations of science itself using the same logic that "scientists" question other metaphysical positions is very unique. I'm further impressed with the Dalai Lama's extrapolation that there are greater concerns than knowing the universe, and that if the way of knowing the universe is detrimental to our survival (determinism leads to nihilism), then knowing the universe in that manner is unhealthy. Science that leads to nihilism is science acting like a stolen concept - operating independent of the foundations that make science important to study in the first place. Science is certainly not an end in itself.

Chris

[tjohnson]

One can view science as an activity, an activity that involves ordering one's experience so that it can be shared with others in the present and future generations. This way we don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel.

Edited May 4, 2009 by general semanticist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Science as a metaphysical position... I don't know if I've ever thought about it that way. Science in our culture is often associated to "that which is" rather than a perspective stance.

Christopher,

Some of the scientists I have read have had some really weird "perspective stances." Especially in quantum physics.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I'm telling you guys, look at "The Universe in a Single Atom/THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY (Dalai Lama).

He addresses this directly and well.

[Xray]

Xray,

I have given some thought to your question of whether altruism exists.

It certainly does exist as an ethical doctrine Compte[sic] came up with.

"God's will" for example exists as an ethical doctrine in various religions too.

Does it make sense for someone who rejects god as an illusion to then debate god's will?

Edited May 7, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Does it make sense for someone who rejects god as an illusion to then debate god's will?

I makes no sense at all.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Does it make sense for someone who rejects god as an illusion to then debate god's will?

I makes no sense at all.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Oh, Bob, that's not always true. Sometimes you makes sense.

Bill P (laughing)

[Selene]

I'm telling you guys, look at "The Universe in a Single Atom/THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY (Dalai Lama).

He addresses this directly and well.

Rich:

Picked up the book today at a Borders near Madison Square Garden, which is a round building with oval rinks, rectangular courts, square rings and three rings, only in New York!

I also picked up a copy of Atlas to send to my budding objectivist group in Missouri, with my personal dedication to them.

The manager and I were having a conversation while they found the Dalai Lama book and she looked at Atlas and the Dalai Lama book and said you are quite intriguing, lol.

We had been discussing the book I was carrying, Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin which is just short of brilliant and I am only four chapters into it.

She said she was going to give Atlas a fair chance as she had never read it. So when I stop back in a month or so I will check in on her.

Looks quite interesting.

Thanks

Adam

[Christopher]

We had been discussing the book I was carrying, Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin which is just short of brilliant and I am only four chapters into it.

You make it sound so enticing. I read the description in Amazon, but I'm a bit hesitant about talk show radio hosts (Limbaugh has destroyed any respect I have for conservative radio programming).

What more can you tell me about this book?

Chris

[Selene]

Chris:

First, he is a first rate Constitutional Attorney. At the age of 19, he ran for the School Board in Pennsylvania and won.

However, to the book, one of his major goals was to concretely define the statist, ie.,:

"For the Statist, cannot abide the existence of Natural law and man's discovery of 'unalienable rights' bestowed on all individuals by 'their Creator.'

In ideology and practice the Statist believes rights are not a condition of man's existence but only exist to the extent the Statist ratifies them.

Furthermore, rights do not belong to all individuals. They are to be rationed by the state - conferred on those whom the Statist believes deserving of them, and denied to those who the Statist believes to be undeserving of them. He acknowledges only that law which he himself sets in place, and which is subject to change or arbitrary application on his say so."

Now that is brilliant in my opinion.

He also properly identifies what de Tocqueville saw as the potential downfall of America in the "soft tyranny".

"Soft tyranny is an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 work entitled Democracy in America.[1] In effect, soft tyranny occurs whenever the social conditions of a particular community hinder any prospect of hope among its members.[2] For Tocqueville, hope is the driving force behind all democratic institutions.[3] As such, whenever this all-encompassing hope is taken away from the people, liberal democracy fails. Examples of this failure can be seen in the Weimar Republic of Germany during the 1930s or in the French Third Republic around 1940. Hope for a better future effectively died in both of the aforementioned situations. As a result, fascist regimes were established to fill the void left by the departure of hope."

You cannot read a page without thinking intensely about an aspect of our Constitution. The Establishment Clause, the IXth and Xth amendments, on and on.

The sourcing is excellent. And only $14.00 at Target lol.

Adam

[Christopher]

It sounds good, and you've added a nice bit of credibility to his work. Thanks for the summary, I'll take a look the next time I'm at Barnes and Noble.

:thumbsup:

[thomtg]

[...]

[...] Sacrifice is an act that presumes a prior knowledge of a hierarchy of values. Suppose, right or wrong, a mother values her baby higher than a bunny rabbit. Then, when while driving in a car with her infant, she veers off the road suddenly in order to avoid colliding a crossing bunny at the cost of crashing the vehicle and killing the baby, she is in effect surrendering a higher value, the baby, in exchange for a lower value, the rabbit. Relative to her particular hierarchy of values, she has made a sacrifice.

[...] Sacrifice, then, is a judgment in the context of some hierarchy of values. Relative to oneself, it is the effect of reneging on one's established hierarchy. [...]

[...] Volitional beings need to acquire rational virtues in order to avoid acting sacrificially. In particular, Rand advises that egoists cultivate the virtue of integrity in order to avoid valuing one way but acting another. (TVOS 28) [...]

Here is a real example of sacrifice on the part of a mother who acted imprudently: "Boy, 9, killed rescuing duck from the road" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

[Selene]

[...]

[...] Sacrifice is an act that presumes a prior knowledge of a hierarchy of values. Suppose, right or wrong, a mother values her baby higher than a bunny rabbit. Then, when while driving in a car with her infant, she veers off the road suddenly in order to avoid colliding a crossing bunny at the cost of crashing the vehicle and killing the baby, she is in effect surrendering a higher value, the baby, in exchange for a lower value, the rabbit. Relative to her particular hierarchy of values, she has made a sacrifice.

[...] Sacrifice, then, is a judgment in the context of some hierarchy of values. Relative to oneself, it is the effect of reneging on one's established hierarchy. [...]

[...] Volitional beings need to acquire rational virtues in order to avoid acting sacrificially. In particular, Rand advises that egoists cultivate the virtue of integrity in order to avoid valuing one way but acting another. (TVOS 28) [...]

Here is a real example of sacrifice on the part of a mother who acted imprudently: "Boy, 9, killed rescuing duck from the road" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

Here is the story from Drudge on that link:

ST. CHARLES COUNTY — Danny Bampton's compassion for animals cost him his life.

Investigators say the 9-year-old St. Charles County boy was riding with his

mother on Highway P near a relative's house Wednesday afternoon when he saw an

injured duck in the road and asked her whether he could save it. After she

pulled the car over, Danny hopped out and put the duck in a roadside culvert on

the south side of the highway.

But when he tried to cross back over the rural, two-lane road to his family's

car, Danny was struck by a westbound Subaru Legacy driven by Alayna R. Hitz,

18, of Wentzville.

He died at the scene about 1 p.m. near Stonebriar Estates Court between St.

Paul and Josephville.

Authorities said Hitz's view of Danny may have been blocked. As Danny was

crossing the road, he was obscured behind an oncoming passing car.

Investigators said the crash was accidental, speed was not a factor and

criminal charges are not likely to be filed.

"There's absolutely nothing suspicious about it," said Sgt. Ryan Burckhardt of

the Missouri Highway Patrol.

Danny was scheduled to start the fourth grade Monday at the St. Joseph School

in Josephville.

The principal, Dwight Elmore, described Danny as a respectful, good-natured kid

who was well-known by all the school's staff and 123 students. "Danny's an

all-around boy," Elmore said. "Always had a smile on his face. Really, just a

wholesome kid."

Danny loved hunting with his family but also had compassion for wildlife, said

his pastor, the Rev. Larry Huber. Danny would routinely pick up frogs, snakes

and birds and show them to people.

"He was just drawn towards animals," Huber said. "All animals."

Elmore said the Bamptons are a tight family who have been heavily involved at

St. Joseph Parish for generations. He said the Bamptons and their extended

relatives make up at least a third of the church's parishioners. "This is going

to put a huge void in a lot of folks' lives," Elmore said.

Danny was the second-youngest of six brothers and sisters.

The Bampton family declined to comment. St. Joseph will hold a Mass at 8 a.m.

today to honor Danny's memory. Funeral arrangements were pending.

Adam

[Christopher]

That is a very sad story.

We obviously have a close mutual understanding of sacrifice, but I'm going to address your self-quote here for a sec:

Sacrifice is an act that presumes a prior knowledge of a hierarchy of values. Suppose, right or wrong, a mother values her baby higher than a bunny rabbit. Then, when while driving in a car with her infant, she veers off the road suddenly in order to avoid colliding a crossing bunny at the cost of crashing the vehicle and killing the baby, she is in effect surrendering a higher value, the baby, in exchange for a lower value, the rabbit. Relative to her particular hierarchy of values, she has made a sacrifice.

Veering off the road in this case is difficult to consider as a value-sacrifice. The act of veering arises spontaneously (like a knee-jerk reaction), so there is no thoughtful weighing of consequences, nor is there necessarily the opportunity to weigh these consequences regardless of the level of awareness brought to the situation. In other words, we might be able to place veering off the road in this case with reactions such as wrinkling one's nose to a bad smell.... it's too automatic to be considered a representative response under the control of volition.

[Selene]

Folks:

Let's not call it sacrifice - let's call it what it objectively is:

stupid

negligent

and in the case of this poor child - negligent manslaughter.

When I taught defensive driving and after going over the physics of head on collisions, I gave my "cute little puppy dog" story which ends in, screw the puppy preserve yourself and your passenger's safety and lives.

Buy the family a new puppy and cry a lot.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

X-ray: "My guess is the total number of those who started smoking because of Rand (or did not think of quitting because Rand advocated smoking) was quite high."

I don't know why that's your guess, or what it is relevant to. However, Rand did not advocate smoking. She simply did not think that the evidence of its harmful effects at the time was sufficient to require stopping if one enjoyed it. Whether one agrees with her or not -- and I do not -- that is quite different than an advocacy of smoking.

Barbara

[Xray]

X-ray: "My guess is the total number of those who started smoking because of Rand (or did not think of quitting because Rand advocated smoking) was quite high."

I don't know why that's your guess, or what it is relevant to. However, Rand did not advocate smoking. She simply did not think that the evidence of its harmful effects at the time was sufficient to require stopping if one enjoyed it. Whether one agrees with her or not -- and I do not -- that is quite different than an advocacy of smoking.

Barbara

Barbara: I think Ayn and (who smoked about 2 packages a day) was aware of statistics linking smoking to certain diseases, but her opinion was that statistics weren't proof. When Dr. Dworetzky told her that her her smoking was terribly bad for her health, she challenged him on that, taking a long deep puff from her cigarette, demanding he give her a rational explanation. After which Dworetzky showed her the X-ray picture where a large area of one lung was affected by cancer.

(Source: your book The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 380).

While one can't infer from statistics that an individual case must necessarily be in alignment with them, statistics are not "irrational", but refer to facts.

After the arduous surgery:

B. Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand, page 382:

"From time to time, she would raise, disturbed, the question of how she could have contracted cancer; she tended to think that cancer, as well as many other illnesses, was the result of what she termed "bad premises" - that is, philosophical-psychological errors and evasions carried to their final dead end in the form of physical destruction. How could she have had a malignancy, when she had no bad premises? She demanded that the nature of her illness be kept secret, she wanted no one to know of it - as if it were shameful.

Joan and Allan asked her to make public her decison to stp smoking. For many years, questions about the dagers fsmoking were raised by NBI students adnat Ayn's own lecturs appearacnes. Each time, she lit a cigartette with defiant flourish, then discussed the unscientific and and irratonal nature of the statistical evidence. "Many people still smoke, Joan and Allan explained, because they respect your assessment of the evidence. Since you no longer smoke, you ought to tell them, you needn't mention the lung cancer if you prefer not to, you can simply say you have reconsidered the evidence. Ayn refused. "It's non one's business" she she sad wearily."

Ayn may not actively have told people they "ought to" smoke, but I believe she as a passionate smoker did serve as role model especially for young and susceptible students who tried to emulate her. Her fictional heroine Dagny Taggart is quite a heavy smoker too.

Imo there was also a tendency on Ayn Rand's part to arbitrarily declare things (like here, statistics), as "unscientific" and "irrational".

Telling her followers about having stopped smoking would imply that she had been wrong in her assessment, and I believe admitting that she had been wrong in her judgement of an issue would have been very difficult for her.

The example of smoking also serves to illustrate once more that values can't be anything but subjective.

While the effects of smoking on the body are objectively known, how (and if at all) one personally values this knowledge is entirely dependent on the individual.

Some may still value smoking over non-smoking and mentally/emotionally push away from them all info about its effects. Others may say "What the heck, life is so short anyway, why should I deny myself this pleasure" etc.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Folks:

Most of us find it difficult to publicly admit that our judgment could have been wrong. Towards that end, I must admit that I was wrong about xray's judgment always being wrong. In this case, she is right, in my judgment.

"...I believe admitting that she had been wrong in her judgment [sic] of an issue would have been very difficult for her."

Well at least Ayn and xray have that in common.

Now if we can focus xray's keen sense of vision which penetrates even lead on that truth question Michael raised...

"Heh. Is the truth a value to you? Or do you hold to subjective truth only?"

Adam

[Xray]

[...]

[...] Sacrifice is an act that presumes a prior knowledge of a hierarchy of values. Suppose, right or wrong, a mother values her baby higher than a bunny rabbit. Then, when while driving in a car with her infant, she veers off the road suddenly in order to avoid colliding a crossing bunny at the cost of crashing the vehicle and killing the baby, she is in effect surrendering a higher value, the baby, in exchange for a lower value, the rabbit. Relative to her particular hierarchy of values, she has made a sacrifice.

[...] Sacrifice, then, is a judgment in the context of some hierarchy of values. Relative to oneself, it is the effect of reneging on one's established hierarchy. [...]

[...] Volitional beings need to acquire rational virtues in order to avoid acting sacrificially. In particular, Rand advises that egoists cultivate the virtue of integrity in order to avoid valuing one way but acting another. (TVOS 28) [...]

Here is a real example of sacrifice on the part of a mother who acted imprudently: "Boy, 9, killed rescuing duck from the road" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

This was no sacrifice at all, but a tragic accident which was the result of a chain of events leading to the loss of the little boy's life.

A sacrifice is aways a trade; the mother here did not trade in her boy's life, but had simply underestimated the possible risk for his life.

She probably thought his life was in no danger at all.

[Brant Gaede]

The general culture encouraged and sanctioned smoking. I smoked in the army but quit 18 mos after I left the service. I knew I was probably allergic to cigarette smoke and I had medical training. I also had had a junior high-school teacher who demonstrated what happens when you blow the smoke through a facial tissue--it left a tar residue. He explained our lungs were even better filters and to imagine years and years of that stuff accumulating. Writers tend to smoke, as do pool players, as the nicotine helps the mind focus on the task at hand to the exclusion of distracting noise or what have you.

--Brant

[Selene]

[...]

[...] Sacrifice is an act that presumes a prior knowledge of a hierarchy of values. Suppose, right or wrong, a mother values her baby higher than a bunny rabbit. Then, when while driving in a car with her infant, she veers off the road suddenly in order to avoid colliding a crossing bunny at the cost of crashing the vehicle and killing the baby, she is in effect surrendering a higher value, the baby, in exchange for a lower value, the rabbit. Relative to her particular hierarchy of values, she has made a sacrifice.

[...] Sacrifice, then, is a judgment in the context of some hierarchy of values. Relative to oneself, it is the effect of reneging on one's established hierarchy. [...]

[...] Volitional beings need to acquire rational virtues in order to avoid acting sacrificially. In particular, Rand advises that egoists cultivate the virtue of integrity in order to avoid valuing one way but acting another. (TVOS 28) [...]

Here is a real example of sacrifice on the part of a mother who acted imprudently: "Boy, 9, killed rescuing duck from the road" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch).

This was no sacrifice at all, but a tragic accident which was the result of a chain of events leading to the loss of the little boy's life.

A sacrifice is aways a trade; the mother here did not trade in her boy's life, but had simply underestimated the possible risk for his life.

She probably thought his life was in no danger at all.

And the parent was just a piece of the event.

Had no volitional choice.

Did not sacrifice the higher valued human child for the duckling, which by the way the article, if I remember correctly, did not disclose the fate of the duckling.

The lazy ignorance of the parent in this specific case cannot be justified as it was just an accident. It was not as if a safe just happened to drop out of the sky!

This is a classic example of contributory negligence which was based on the incredibly ignorant valuation of both the duckling's life value and the child's life value.

It was objectively wrong.

So, now say the secret word and the duck will come down and bite your nose only in this iteration of you bet your life, it was a wooden Indian.

Adam

[Xray]

Folks:

Most of us find it difficult to publicly admit that our judgment could have been wrong. Towards that end, I must admit that I was wrong about xray's judgment always being wrong. In this case, she is right, in my judgment.

"...I believe admitting that she had been wrong in her judgment [sic] of an issue would have been very difficult for her."

Well at least Ayn and xray have that in common.

Admitting one was wrong is never easy, Selene. But there are worse things in life than admitting error, and I wouldn't write "correct me if I'm wrong", or "IIRC" in several of my posts if I were the type not to admit if I was in error. Fairness is one of my personal values. I firmly believe one can have tough debates and still stay fair.

And these philosophical debates are always tough, Selene, especially in ethics, where personal values are involved. Because we all have our own set of values, it is often difficult to maintain a "sine ira et studio attitude" required for objective assessment.

Thus it can happen that people suddenly find themselves in a debate "my values versus yours". This happened for example when a while ago, you and I got sidetracked in the discussion, arguing about PETA.

Now if we can focus xray's keen sense of vision which penetrates even lead on that truth question Michael raised...

"Heh. Is the truth a value to you? Or do you hold to subjective truth only?"

Adam

"Subjective" truth - what's that?

Michael was being facetious of course, trying to direct the debate to something like "truth is always objective, and therefore it automatically is an objective value". But imo this is confusing a fact with valuation of the fact.

But I don't want to run off topic here, see you on the other thread.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

And the parent was just a piece of the event.

Had no volitional choice.

Did not sacrifice the higher valued human child for the duckling, which by the way the article, if I remember correctly, did not disclose the fate of the duckling.

The lazy ignorance of the parent in this specific case cannot be justified as it was just an accident. It was not as if a safe just happened to drop out of the sky!

This is a classic example of contributory negligence which was based on the incredibly ignorant valuation of both the duckling's life value and the child's life value.

It was objectively wrong.

So, now say the secret word and the duck will come down and bite your nose only in this iteration of you bet your life, it was a wooden Indian.

Adam

Of course accidents can involve negligence. This does not make them sacrifices. A mother who runs over her playing child while backing out of the garage without checking first was negligent but did not "sacrifice" her child.

The McCanns were terribly negligent when leaving their three small children unattended, but they did not "sacrifice" (= trade in) Madeleine when she vanished.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray