Settling the debate on Altruism

[George H. Smith]

The point is Goeorge, you know - the point you've refused to address - is that her qua man/individual life as the standard of value crap does not hold up to gene-centric evolutionary theory. This simply implies that man, in order to survive (gene-centrically), should have developed a combination of selfish (self preservation and survival etc.) behaviours combined with altruistic behaviours to support his own genes in others, and that predicatably the strength of these behaviours should be in general relation to kin distance.

I had no idea this was your point, perhaps because reading your posts is not high on my "Things to Do Today" list.

In any case, there is no conflict between Rand's ethical theory and evolutionary theory. Nothing in evolutionary theory entails biological determinism. That's a different issue. (Maybe you didn't mean to defend biological determinism, but I had to take a wild guess what your point was, and that was it.)

Evolution say "qua" is very different than Rand's nonsense. Rand had to make the "break" between humans and animals as a difference of "kind" and not "degree" if I remember her words correctly.

I don't know if Rand ever said this, but even if she did, you would need to explain what she meant by "difference in kind." A map is not the territory. (I recall hearing that somewhere.)

There are different types of "qua" statements, btw.

Humans are simply animals that occupy a cognitive niche.

Maybe this is why Rand accepted the standard definition of man as a rational (cognitive niche) animal.

Rand would have us as evolved beyond evolution - about as contradictory as you can get.

I honestly don't have a clue WTF you are talking about. Where does Rand say anything even remotely like this?

I cannot state more clearly that "my" evidence is evolution. See if you can try to stay within reality for just one second.

Actually, you could state that a lot more clearly. "Evolution" is a word. Is your evidence a word?

Staying in reality for even one second can be very painful when reading your posts.

What's it gonna be?

1. Evolution doesn't count for us?

2. Evolution is a crappy theory?

Evolution is a fine theory. So is Rand's theory of ethics.

But do try to understand the topic at hand here will you??

Golly, Bob, I'll do my best. Meanwhile, maybe you could learn to write coherently. That would help a bunch.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question. Morality helps us survive. I don't see how this is anything but completely obvious. So obvious in fact, George won't address it.

You want me to address the completely obvious? Okay.

HELLLOOO, Completely Obvious!

(My apologies to the late, great Art Carney.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If a born-again Christian posted frequently on OL, claiming that Objectivists are sinners who can attain happiness only through accepting Jesus as their savior, and that it is in this spirit that she writes her posts, would you regard her as condescending? I certainly would.

Substitute General Semanticist for Christian, Objectivists for sinners, Korzybski for Jesus, and sanity for happiness. There are no substantial differences.

Ghs

I think general semantics and objectivism have far more in common than with any form of religion. For example, both are very much involved with applying "rationality" to our everyday lives, as opposed to religion. So I don't think that is a valid analogy.

I wasn't drawing an analogy between general semantics and religion per se. I was suggesting that you are playing the same condescending role on OL as the Christian lady in my example.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

George is both funny AND smart...

I guess my inability to see my own condescension is also keeping me from seeing this.

Oh wait, you prefer this , don't you?

[tjohnson]

I wasn't drawing an analogy between general semantics and religion per se. I was suggesting that you are playing the same condescending role on OL as the Christian lady in my example.

Ghs

So basically you're saying I'm not welcome on OL.

[bmacwilliam]

You're right, I should be more precise.

But... "First, "someone" (a person) cannot be a "contradiction in terms," because there is only one term here, not two. "

There are TWO, count them, terms. Serious Philosopher, Rand Supporter... One...two....

But again, I should be more precise. The intersection of these two sets is null.

Bob

I must have missed something. What do you mean by serious philosopher? And what do you mean by Rand supporter?

In my mind, people can take both Rand and philosophy seriously -- in fact, take Rand as a serious philosopher or her views as philosophically serious. But I'd like to see what you mean here to see just how you and I are disagreeing.

The ideas, concepts and topics Rand addressed are serious philosophically. Rand is simply not considered by academia as a serious philosopher. This might not mean anything, in other words, this means nothing on it's own, but it remains a fact.

I have drawn my own conclusions regarding my distaste for Rand, but here's a post from another forum from a more mainstream academic type.. But these are not my arguments.

"People don't consider Rand a serious philosopher given what she writes is rhetoric and not philosophy. My grandma can ask philosophical questions, but whether my grandmother can do serious philosophical work is separate issue.

Not only has Rand said many erroneous things about other philosophers, she never had a solid grasp on the basic issues any undergraduate should be able to tackle. For instance, with the issue of universals, one can defend either a one-tiered ontology or a two-tiered ontology. There is no intermediate position; either universals exist or they don't. Rand also called herself a "rationalist" but contradicted three properties ascribed to Reason --the formation of a priori concepts, the intuiting of necessary and universal connections between properties, and the power of drawing inferences from premisses. One certainly can deny a priori knowledge in logic, mathematics, and in ethics, but subsequently calling oneself a follower of "Reason" is demented.

The spectacle degenerates further when we get to Rand's economic and political philosophy. Rand believed capitalism is a direct result of the behavior "rational" individuals, as if market forces function only in the presence of rationalistic ubermen. In reality, capitalism is superior to command economies because it addreses human ignorance by systemically coordinating dispersed, limited knowledge. The profit system, as writers like von Mises have noted, makes men prosper that satisfy the wants of their customers in the best possible and cheapest way. Misunderstanding the nature and logic of capitalist enterprise, Howard Roark would be a bum in this world. People succeed economically by producing the customer's B, not by sticking with your A. Consumer sovereignty is the very raison d'etre of capitalism.

Lastly, Rand never dealt with the problems with Egoism. Both deontological and teleological variants have severe problems. Philosophers don't merely state positions, they defend them. If one is a fan of virtue ethics, self-indulgence, vanity, irascibility, and so forth, are excesses for Rand's supposedly esteemed Aristotle. Rand's ethical ideal ends up being South Park's Eric Cartman, which certainly is not mine. "

[George H. Smith]

Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question.

How can a theory, including a good theory like evolution, create anything?

Hoping to understand the completely obvious,

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

The point is Goeorge, you know - the point you've refused to address - is that her qua man/individual life as the standard of value crap does not hold up to gene-centric evolutionary theory. This simply implies that man, in order to survive (gene-centrically), should have developed a combination of selfish (self preservation and survival etc.) behaviours combined with altruistic behaviours to support his own genes in others, and that predicatably the strength of these behaviours should be in general relation to kin distance.

I had no idea this was your point, perhaps because reading your posts is not high on my "Things to Do Today" list.

In any case, there is no conflict between Rand's ethical theory and evolutionary theory. Nothing in evolutionary theory entails biological determinism. That's a different issue. (Maybe you didn't mean to defend biological determinism, but I had to take a wild guess what your point was, and that was it.)

Well at least we're getting somewhere.

"In any case, there is no conflict between Rand's ethical theory and evolutionary theory. "

Yes there is. Start with premises that are just slightly more sophisticated and in better congruence with Evolution's picture of what man's standard of value might be. Go ahead and jump the is/ought gap if you want to, but start with a gene-centric premise and not Rand's. Man's standard of value is a mixture of his own life and the lives those he loves, especially family (take the gene perspective).

Hell, I don't even believe this, but it sure the hell is better than Rand's because her idea is indeed in conflict with evolution.

What we're left with:

1. Her ethics are dead in the water if you can't make the leap (different argument though)

2. Her ethics are dead in the water if do make the leap (and don't start with a retarded premise)

Biological determinism has nothing to do with anything - strawman. It is just as foolish as saying we're not affected at all by biology.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question.

How can a theory, including a good theory like evolution, create anything?

Hoping to understand the completely obvious,

Ghs

The Theory of Gravitation is a great theory too, but Gravitation doesn't make the apple fall and hit my head right? So it's important to distinguish between our explanation of reality and reality itself in this case? This adds to the discussion??

Bob

[George H. Smith]

I wasn't drawing an analogy between general semantics and religion per se. I was suggesting that you are playing the same condescending role on OL as the Christian lady in my example.

Ghs

So basically you're saying I'm not welcome on OL.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

My "for X substitute Y" gimmick obviously wasn't clear, so I apologize for the confusion, and let's forget it.

The relevant point was what I perceived as your condescending manner. That has annoyed me from nearly the first post you addressed to me, when you said something to the effect that Korzybski regarded philosophy as bunk, while clearly indicating your agreement with him. I therefore suggest that you pay closer attention to how you word such comments. Words and statements have connotations as well as denotations.

There are many ways to insult people without doing so explicitly. My thin is about as thick as it gets in matters like this -- you need to grow a thick skin if you are a high-school dropout who has pursued what is essentially an academic career -- so don't attribute my reaction to over-sensitivity.

I am very familiar with how the game of Oneupmanship is played. I've played it with the best, including David Friedman (in three public debates), a Nobel prize-winning economist, and university professors galore (including a number of public debates about Rand's ethics). And though I haven't always won, I've never done worse than a draw.

(For the record, this is not some kind of argument from authority, nor am I trying to impress. I am simply calling attention to the fact that I am not some kind of hyper-sensitive soul who routinely overreacts. I do overreact on occasion, but not very often.)

Btw, I would appreciate it if you would answer my earlier question: What have you read by Rand?

Ghs

[jeffrey smith]

The point is Goeorge, you know - the point you've refused to address - is that her qua man/individual life as the standard of value crap does not hold up to gene-centric evolutionary theory. This simply implies that man, in order to survive (gene-centrically), should have developed a combination of selfish (self preservation and survival etc.) behaviours combined with altruistic behaviours to support his own genes in others, and that predicatably the strength of these behaviours should be in general relation to kin distance.

I had no idea this was your point, perhaps because reading your posts is not high on my "Things to Do Today" list.

In any case, there is no conflict between Rand's ethical theory and evolutionary theory. Nothing in evolutionary theory entails biological determinism. That's a different issue. (Maybe you didn't mean to defend biological determinism, but I had to take a wild guess what your point was, and that was it.)

Well at least we're getting somewhere.

"In any case, there is no conflict between Rand's ethical theory and evolutionary theory. "

Yes there is. Start with premises that are just slightly more sophisticated and in better congruence with Evolution's picture of what man's standard of value might be. Go ahead and jump the is/ought gap if you want to, but start with a gene-centric premise and not Rand's. Man's standard of value is a mixture of his own life and the lives those he loves, especially family (take the gene perspective).

Hell, I don't even believe this, but it sure the hell is better than Rand's because her idea is indeed in conflict with evolution.

What we're left with:

1. Her ethics are dead in the water if you can't make the leap (different argument though)

2. Her ethics are dead in the water if do make the leap (and don't start with a retarded premise)

Biological determinism has nothing to do with anything - strawman. It is just as foolish as saying we're not affected at all by biology.

Bob

Evolution is pertinent to ethics only if you accept biological determinism, and posit that our biological inheritance includes psychological conditioning that forces us into certain types of action, in which case it it not possible to have an ethical theory, only a psychological theory.

Ethics is premised on the idea that the human mind is (or should be) free to choose among alternatives despite any prior conditioning; and that whatever conditioning our biological inheritance includes is not the determining or defining factor in how we make our choices--in other words, that evolution is irrelevant to ethics. This is so basic a point that it applies not only to Objectivist ethics but to all theories of ethics.

Evolution did not give us morality: the human mind did.

Jeffrey S.

Edited March 29, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[George H. Smith]

I have drawn my own conclusions regarding my distaste for Rand, but here's a post from another forum from a more mainstream academic type.. But these are not my arguments.....

Then why did you post them?

Anyone who knows how to Google can find dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles that support his or her claims. To resort to this tactic is Mickey Mouse, and much in the article you posted is just flat wrong.

It's not hard to guess how you found this article. You Googled "Rand" and "serious philosopher," and then picked whatever looked serviceable. How long did that take you? -- a minute or two?

If you would like to invite the author of that article to join OL, I would be happy to discuss his errors with him.

Meanwhile, if you have an argument to make, then make it. Or if you want to defend a statement by another person, then post it and defend it.

Ghs

[Xray]

The point is Goeorge, you know - the point you've refused to address - is that her qua man/individual life as the standard of value crap does not hold up to gene-centric evolutionary theory. This simply implies that man, in order to survive (gene-centrically), should have developed a combination of selfish (self preservation and survival etc.) behaviours combined with altruistic behaviours to support his own genes in others, and that predicatably the strength of these behaviours should be in general relation to kin distance.

Imo the whole "man qua man" thing has an almost religious touch to it, with "man" as superior creature having special tasks to perform in a "benevolent universe".

No surprise that Rand referred to John Galt as of "man as a god".

Rand may have rejected the idea of a transcendent god, but this does not mean she abandonded the god principle. Imo she merely changed god's name to "Man".

"Life is end in itself" Rand says, and therefore one "ought to" choose it as a "standard of value".

"Life" is no more an end in itself than a waterfall, a dog, a galaxy, or one's digestion is "an end in itself".

Also, there exists no "ought to from is" in nature. To say that a hungry tiger "ought to" to hunt for survival is nonsense. The tiger must hunt. To say that we "ought to" breathe for survival is nonsense. We must breathe.

"Existence exists" - what please is the epistemological "bombshell" quality contained in there?

Is it directed against those weird 'subjectivists' like in Rand's novels who comment about the mother who holds her dead son in her arms, "how does she know he ever existed?"

Imo those "subjectivsts" are strawmen Rand set up to thrash in order to present her "objectivist" heroes in shining glory.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Well at least we're getting somewhere.

If you say so.

Start with premises that are just slightly more sophisticated and in better congruence with Evolution's picture of what man's standard of value might be. Go ahead and jump the is/ought gap if you want to, but start with a gene-centric premise and not Rand's. Man's standard of value is a mixture of his own life and the lives those he loves, especially family (take the gene perspective).

You don't seem to understand what "standard of value" means.

In any case, as I noted previously, by "man qua man" Rand means human beings considered in terms of their most fundamental characteristics -- not humans considered as male or female, or as butcher, or baker, or candle-maker, but in terms of their common attributes.

The "man qua man" approach does not , by itself, specify what the relevant characteristics are; it merely says that we need to take these fundamental characteristics, whatever they are, into account when developing an ethical theory.

So why does this common philosophical approach contradict a "gene-centric" approach?

Look, I'll be straight with you. I'm getting tired of your glittering generalities about evolution, and I don't want to waste any more of my time writing responses. But if you give serious consideration to the above and do something more than repeat your bromides about genes and evolution, then I will respond in a serious manner.

[Dragonfly]

Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question.

How can a theory, including a good theory like evolution, create anything?

Bob wrote "Evolution created our bodies", not "The theory of evolution created our bodies". Evolution is a process.

[George H. Smith]

Rand is simply not considered by academia as a serious philosopher. This might not mean anything, in other words, this means nothing on it's own, but it remains a fact.

How do you know this is a "fact"? Have you taken a poll?

"Academia" is not monolithic. Some academic philosophers take Rand seriously and some do not. And some (perhaps most) have never expressed an opinion on this matter.

Moreover, if you talk to academic philosophers who don't take Rand seriously (I have talked to many over the years), you will find that some of them have bugs up their butts about Rand (1) because she was the quintessential outsider, (2) because she was an outspoken advocate for capitalism (philosophy departments are typically laden with left-wingers, including Marxists); (3) because millions of people read her books and have been influenced by her; (4) because she made a shitload of money.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question.

How can a theory, including a good theory like evolution, create anything?

Bob wrote "Evolution created our bodies", not "The theory of evolution created our bodies". Evolution is a process.

Evolution is also a theory. But even viewed qua process, evolution did not "create" our bodies.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

Evolution is also a theory.

Yes, also. But it is also obvious that Bob did mean the process, and not the theory.

But even viewed qua process, evolution did not "create" our bodies.

Yes, it did. To create isn't necessarily a human or an "intelligent" process.

Collins English Dictionary:

create:

1 (tr) to cause to come into existence.

2 (tr) to invest with a new honour, office or title

3 (tr) to be the cause of: these circumstances created the revolution

4 (tr) to act (a role) in the first production of a play.

The Free Dictionary:

1. To cause to exist; bring into being.

2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.

3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.

4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

[George H. Smith]

"Life is end in itself" Rand says, and therefore one "ought to" choose it as a "standard of value".

No, this is not what Rand says. It's not even close.

Also, there exists no "ought to from is" in nature. To say that a hungry tiger "ought to" to hunt for survival is nonsense. The tiger must hunt. To say that we "ought to" breathe for survival is nonsense. We must breathe.

Rand would agree. So your point is...?

"Existence exists" - what please is the epistemological "bombshell" quality contained in there?

Whoever said anything about a bombshell quality? Rand didn't even consider that tautological proposition to be an epistemological primary. So, again, your point about Rand is...?

Is there no end to this shadowboxing by Rand's critics? What's next? Objections to Rand's "arguments" for the existence of unicorns, gremlins, and ghosts?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Evolution is also a theory.

Yes, also. But it is also obvious that Bob did mean the process, and not the theory.

But even viewed qua process, evolution did not "create" our bodies.

Yes, it did. To create isn't necessarily a human or an "intelligent" process.

I wasn't referring to an intelligent or conscious process. That wasn't my point.

Evolution did not create our bodies. I don't know about you, but my body was created when one of my father's sperms fertilized one of my mother's eggs. That process is not called "evolution."

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

Evolution did not create our bodies. I don't know about you, but my body was created when one of my father's sperms fertilized one of my mother's eggs. That process is not called "evolution."

That is the proximate cause. The distal cause is evolution.

[bmacwilliam]

Well at least we're getting somewhere.

If you say so.

Start with premises that are just slightly more sophisticated and in better congruence with Evolution's picture of what man's standard of value might be. Go ahead and jump the is/ought gap if you want to, but start with a gene-centric premise and not Rand's. Man's standard of value is a mixture of his own life and the lives those he loves, especially family (take the gene perspective).

You don't seem to understand what "standard of value" means.

In any case, as I noted previously, by "man qua man" Rand means human beings considered in terms of their most fundamental characteristics -- not humans considered as male or female, or as butcher, or baker, or candle-maker, but in terms of their common attributes.

The "man qua man" approach does not , by itself, specify what the relevant characteristics are; it merely says that we need to take these fundamental characteristics, whatever they are, into account when developing an ethical theory.

So why does this common philosophical approach contradict a "gene-centric" approach?

Look, I'll be straight with you. I'm getting tired of your glittering generalities about evolution, and I don't want to waste any more of my time writing responses. But if you give serious consideration to the above and do something more than repeat your bromides about genes and evolution, then I will respond in a serious manner.

"So why does this common philosophical approach contradict a "gene-centric" approach?"

Rand's proclamation of an individual life as the standard of value is in clear contradiction to evolution. It couldn't be any simpler and any more damning than that. Explain why individual life is the "better" choice.

"The "man qua man" approach does not , by itself, specify what the relevant characteristics are; it merely says that we need to take these fundamental characteristics, whatever they are, into account when developing an ethical theory."

Yeah, right. Rand leaves this open to the reader? Are you drunk?

Bob

[George H. Smith]

The "man qua man" approach does not , by itself, specify what the relevant characteristics are; it merely says that we need to take these fundamental characteristics, whatever they are, into account when developing an ethical theory.

Yeah, right. Rand leaves this open to the reader? Are you drunk?

Right now, I wish I were.

In a passage I've quoted before, Rand wrote:

"Man's survival qua man" means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice."

Of course, this confirms what I said above. The terms, methods, conditions, and goals are not specified. Rand, of course, argues for her own terms, methods, conditions, and goals, but that is what ethical theory is all about. In doing this, she is simply doing moral philosophy, but you seem to think that she doesn't leave it "open" to the reader to evaluate the soundness of her arguments. That is of course absurd. Over and over again, Rand stresses the importance of intellectual independence.

If you have ever read Rand, you certainly didn't read her with any care, yet you pontificate about how she wasn't a serious philosopher, as if you would know a serious philosopher if one bit you on the ass. I've not seen one thing yet that you've said about Rand's theory of ethics that is accurate, or even close.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Evolution did not create our bodies. I don't know about you, but my body was created when one of my father's sperms fertilized one of my mother's eggs. That process is not called "evolution."

That is the proximate cause. The distal cause is evolution.

You could say the same thing about the Big Bang and many other necessary and/or sufficient causes from the distant past, such as climate, natural disasters, etc.

Strictly considered, evolution is not a cause of anything. In its most general sense, the word signifies "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." In biological evolution, the changes are usually in the "genetic composition of a population during successive generations." (American Heritage)

Thus evolution, metaphysically considered, refers to the process of gradual change itself, not to the causes of that process. We cannot say that a given series of changes was "caused" by evolution, since that would mean, in effect, that a series of changes was "caused" by a series of changes.

Epistemologically considered, theories of evolution are methods of explaining gradual changes in the biological sciences, social sciences, etc. A given theory of evolution tells us the kind of causes that we should look for. They do not specify what the particular causes are in a given case; that is a matter for empirical investigation.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Now this, George, begs the question of what is "gradual." Relative to what? Some species evolve quickly relative to others. Sharks haven't really changed very much for the last 200 million years, but humans sure have over three million.

--Brant

let's call evolution a consequence of adaptation

Edited March 30, 2010 by Brant Gaede