Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Michelle]

I reject the terminology of 'objective value.' No value exists in nature. Valuation is a property of subjectivity. An objective morality still places subjective value on the goal of 'survival.' But, as I said before, certain values (independence, rationality, honesty, etc.) will objectively aid human survival, and others will not.

Those values may aid human survival for some persons, but not for all. Parasitism and dishonesty can also aid human survival, and people who rely on such behavior can be quite as rational as the independent, honest persons and they may be no less successful in their endeavors. That we may not like such behavior does not imply that it cannot be efficient and that such people cannot flourish, that would be merely wishful thinking.

No. Rational self-interest is not opportunistic whim-worship (I've never liked the phrase, but best to use Rand's terminology when discussing her ideas). Parasitism is ultimately self-destructive and inefficient. A parasite will not survive without the blood of others. Put him on an island to fend for himself, and unless he adopts the virtues (honesty, rationality, etc.) which lead to survival, he will not last. Parasitism never aids in survival directly, because it never creates value. It perverts the good of others. Objectively, in terms of man's survival and in terms of his capacity for happiness on Earth, honesty and independence are superior to dishonesty and dependence. The Objectivist virtues are rational and objectively superior to the parasite's "virtues."

And don't recall Kant's thought experiment about lying to a murderer. All action takes place in context. Objectivist ethics are objective, not absolutist. Honesty is oriented toward reality, but this does not mean you have to be honest with those who are not oriented toward reality. Respecting reality does not mean respecting the non-adherence of others, especially when it will be detrimental to your rational self-interest.

[Brant Gaede]

If I subjectively value something and wish to acquire it I have to do certain things. These things will have objective value to my subjective valuing.

If I wish to hike in the Grand Canyon, I will need first to get into shape. The things I do to get in shape will be objective values.

The fact that objective values are buried inside of subjective valuing does not make them any less objective. But to use them requires identification.

I can't train for the Grand Canyon by taking up skydiving or music lessons. I cannot train to climb Mt. Everest by studying the Marianas Trench.

I can't make myself happy by marrying the girl I don't love. Knowing I love a girl means wooing her. To woo her I've got to buy her flowers and candy, play the ukulele, hire Cyrano to recite poetry under her window, generally make a fool of myself and agree that she doesn't have to sign a pre-nupt. Making a fool of myself would have an objective value to me. (I'm not so sure about this last paragraph. Maybe I should just hire a hooker.)

--Brant

[Xray]

The real epistemological bombshell is that Rand, by verbatim calling a "selfless man" (an altruist), an "egotist", she admits that altruists are driven by self-interest too (she calls it egotism, but this is of secondary importance here), thereby conceding (without realizing it) that there is no such thing as genuine altruism.

I am not here to debate altruism in this thread, which is why it was specifically spun out from the others. Here I am mainly interested in discussing the difference between being self-interested and being egoistic. (I will be happy to discuss altruism in another thread if it is to my self-interest.)

But altruism does belong here too. Read what Ivy Starnes told Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shruged about selflessness. She equates the word with altruism, no question.

[Xray]Going by this definition, every thief, and robber and murderer would be unselfish too. But I suppose not even their defense lawyer would refer to them as unselfish, even if the lawyer were a Randist.

The problem with Rand is that she created her own linguistic universe, often using terms in complete contradiction to the accepted common language code.

Of course, if a word does have two meanings that are complete inversions of each other, then the two meanings cannot both be true. That is, at least one must be false.

Correct. See my # 36 post to Brant where I elaborated on Rand not even being aware that by calng the altruist Keating a ruhtless egoist, she unmasked her own premise as fallacy.

Thus the problem that you have identified is surmountable. When a word has multiple meanings, or when a word is discovered to have a new meaning (true or false), the author is responsible and must be careful to establish which meaning he is using. Likewise, the reader is equally responsible and must be discriminating to discern from the context of the writing which meaning was intended. Whether that meaning is true or false is a subsequent matter. The preliminaries must be this if the problem is to be avoided.

By equating "selfless man/altruist " with "egotist", Rand arbitrarily attributed a meaning to a term 100 contradicting every dictionary definition of the word "selfless" and "altruistic". It is as if someone would decide to call white "black".

[Xray][What about Roark blowing up the building, potentially endangering other people's lives? Isn't that an act of ruthless egotism too? How can he, from a breach of contract, feel entilted to such an act of destruction? What does this say about the psychological make-up of this "hero" whom Rand created "as man should be"? And how does this act of violence gel with the Randian dogma of non-initiation of violence?

Great questions! Really great and penetrating. But I cannot answer your questions in the current context because I have not gotten permission from you to use the term "egoism" (or "egotism," or "egoist," or "egotist," or "egoistic," or "egotistic") in the precise meaning I have delineated. I am not asking that you grant me that "egoism" as I or Rand have defined it, is true. I am asking whether I may be permitted to use "egoism" in the new meaning unequivocally. That is, in order for me to continue the discussion, I need permission from you that you will interpret me as never using the word "egois___" in the conventionally accepted meaning of the word--that it will always mean what I have defined in the root post and Post #12--that while human action is totally motivated by self-interest, there are distinctions within "self-interest"--that there are "rational self-interest," "irrational self-interest," and volitionless "nonrational self-interest"--that "selfishness" is defined as "rational self-interest."

Will you permit me to have this privilege? With privilege, there is also responsibility. If I have your permission, I promise not to equivocate to mislead you in discussing these great questions, and I also promise that if I need to refer to another meaning of the term, that I will regiment its context. Until you grant me this permission, I am unable to continue.

You need not ask my permission to use those terms, Thom, but jmpo, using them in the discussion poses certain problems.

For these discussion boards have a good deal more viewers than active posters, and those viewers may not be that familiar yet with "Rand's use and meaning" of terms. Now imagine these viewers happen to browse through this thread and read a post exchange abundant with terms like "selfish egoist" vs. "selfless egotist" "egoism" vs. "egotism", "rational self-interest", "irrational self-interest" "volitionless nonrational self-interest", "ruthless, selfless altruist" - it would land them in a terminological jungle giving them the impression of wandering in a mangrove swamp of entangled roots and vines with the canopy so dense that no sunlight can enter.

So my suggestion would be: why not drop the whole terminological ballast by the wayside for the time being and go ahead without it? We don't need it because we have agreed on one fundamental point: Peter Keating was moved by self-interest. His self-interest just happend to be different from Roark's.

So why don't we just examine and scrutinize both Roark and Keating in their interaction with their surroundings?

Edited May 26, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

No. Rational self-interest is not opportunistic whim-worship (I've never liked the phrase, but best to use Rand's terminology when discussing her ideas). Parasitism is ultimately self-destructive and inefficient. A parasite will not survive without the blood of others.

So what? He will survive, and that is the only thing that counts in the survival argument.

Put him on an island to fend for himself, and unless he adopts the virtues (honesty, rationality, etc.) which lead to survival, he will not last.

And how likely is it that a parasite will find himself in an uninhabited island? You can always think of situations in which a particular strategy won't work, including situations in which the parasite and dishonest person will survive and the honest person not.

Parasitism never aids in survival directly, because it never creates value. It perverts the good of others. Objectively, in terms of man's survival and in terms of his capacity for happiness on Earth, honesty and independence are superior to dishonesty and dependence.

That's just a subjective opinion. Why shouldn't a parasite or a dishonest person be able to be happy? That it wouldn't work for us does not imply that it cannot work for anyone.

The Objectivist virtues are rational and objectively superior to the parasite's "virtues."

That is also a subjective opinion. To a parasite or a dishonest person his 'virtues' are equally rational. 'Rational' is not a synonym for 'desirable', it only means that you use efficient means to attain your goal and that's also true for goals that we may despise. And there is enough evidence that there are many people who are systematically dishonest and parasitic and who flourish and live to old age.

[Michelle]

Le sigh.

Two things

1) 'Subjective opinion' is redundant. Moreover, it conveys no meaning. Of course it is my opinion. That doesn't make it rational or irrational, right or wrong in itself. So what's the point of stating 'it's just your subjective opinion?'

2) Parasites, by and large, aren't Toohey-esque monsters, but are people who desire happiness, and do not know how to pursue it correctly. And they're largely unhappy people. The only way a parasite will regard their 'virtues' as rational is by not fully understanding the nature of what they are saying. When they do, they either stop accepting parasitic 'virtues' or they abdicate the responsibility of consciousness. And, moreover, even if they did regard them as 'rational,' this would mean nothing. Just because one holds an opinion does not make that opinion right or good.

[Xray]

If I subjectively value something and wish to acquire it I have to do certain things. These things will have objective value to my subjective valuing.

If I wish to hike in the Grand Canyon, I will need first to get into shape. The things I do to get in shape will be objective values.

The fact that objective values are buried inside of subjective valuing does not make them any less objective. But to use them requires identification.

I can't train for the Grand Canyon by taking up skydiving or music lessons. I cannot train to climb Mt. Everest by studying the Marianas Trench.

What you are talking about is the means to achieve a subjectively valued goal. The value those means have depend entirely on what you subjectively want to achieve. They are no objective values per se.

For example, a bucket of water emptied on a fire is of value to you when your the goal is to stop the fire, but of no value when you want to cook a meal over the fire.

I can't make myself happy by marrying the girl I don't love. Knowing I love a girl means wooing her. To woo her I've got to buy her flowers and candy, play the ukulele, hire Cyrano to recite poetry under her window, generally make a fool of myself and agree that she doesn't have to sign a pre-nupt. Making a fool of myself would have an objective value to me. (I'm not so sure about this last paragraph. Maybe I should just hire a hooker.)

--Brant

You sound so disillusioned, Brant.

But whatever - again, your subjective choice determines the value an action has for you.

There exist neither the objective value "fire" as in the above example, nor the objective value "reciting poetry". Imagine yourself sitting on a train and suddenly, without warning, reciting Hamlet's "To Be Or Not To Be" to the complete stranger sitting opposite you. He would hardly consider your choice an "objective value".

Edited May 26, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

No. Rational self-interest is not opportunistic whim-worship (I've never liked the phrase, but best to use Rand's terminology when discussing her ideas). Parasitism is ultimately self-destructive and inefficient. A parasite will not survive without the blood of others.

So what? He will survive, and that is the only thing that counts in the survival argument.

Put him on an island to fend for himself, and unless he adopts the virtues (honesty, rationality, etc.) which lead to survival, he will not last.

And how likely is it that a parasite will find himself in an uninhabited island? You can always think of situations in which a particular strategy won't work, including situations in which the parasite and dishonest person will survive and the honest person not.

Parasitism never aids in survival directly, because it never creates value. It perverts the good of others. Objectively, in terms of man's survival and in terms of his capacity for happiness on Earth, honesty and independence are superior to dishonesty and dependence.

That's just a subjective opinion. Why shouldn't a parasite or a dishonest person be able to be happy? That it wouldn't work for us does not imply that it cannot work for anyone.

The Objectivist virtues are rational and objectively superior to the parasite's "virtues."

That is also a subjective opinion. To a parasite or a dishonest person his 'virtues' are equally rational. 'Rational' is not a synonym for 'desirable', it only means that you use efficient means to attain your goal and that's also true for goals that we may despise. And there is enough evidence that there are many people who are systematically dishonest and parasitic and who flourish and live to old age.

Right on target, Dragonfly!

While Michelle stated in a prior post that valuing judgments are always subjective, she now flip-flops in the exact opposite direction by claiming that the Objectivist virtues are "objectively superior" to the "parasite virtues". Again, a subjective value judgment is presented as "objective".

Edited May 26, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Le sigh.

Two things

1) 'Subjective opinion' is redundant. Moreover, it conveys no meaning. Of course it is my opinion. That doesn't make it rational or irrational, right or wrong in itself. So what's the point of stating 'it's just your subjective opinion?'

Redundancy can be a valid rhetorical device to emphasize a point. By using the word 'objectively' you present your statements not as a mere opinion, but as statements of fact as if they have been proved. That is not true, however.

2) Parasites, by and large, aren't Toohey-esque monsters, but are people who desire happiness, and do not know how to pursue it correctly. And they're largely unhappy people.

How do you know? What is your evidence?

[Brant Gaede]

If I subjectively value something and wish to acquire it I have to do certain things. These things will have objective value to my subjective valuing.

If I wish to hike in the Grand Canyon, I will need first to get into shape. The things I do to get in shape will be objective values.

The fact that objective values are buried inside of subjective valuing does not make them any less objective. But to use them requires identification.

I can't train for the Grand Canyon by taking up skydiving or music lessons. I cannot train to climb Mt. Everest by studying the Marianas Trench.

What you are talking about is the means to achieve a subjectively valued goal. The value those means have depend entirely on what you subjectively want to achieve. They are no objective values per se.

For example, a bucket of water emptied on a fire is of value to you when your the goal is to stop the fire, but of no value when you want to cook a meal over the fire.

I can't make myself happy by marrying the girl I don't love. Knowing I love a girl means wooing her. To woo her I've got to buy her flowers and candy, play the ukulele, hire Cyrano to recite poetry under her window, generally make a fool of myself and agree that she doesn't have to sign a pre-nupt. Making a fool of myself would have an objective value to me. (I'm not so sure about this last paragraph. Maybe I should just hire a hooker.)

--Brant

You sound so disillusioned, Brant.

But whatever - again, your subjective choice determines the value an action has for you.

There exist neither the objective value "fire" as in the above example, nor the objective value "reciting poetry". Imagine yourself sitting on a train and suddenly, without warning, reciting Hamlet's "To Be Or Not To Be" to the complete stranger sitting opposite you. He would hardly consider your choice an "objective value".

So you are saying subjective values are an objective fact?

--Brant

[Michelle]

OK. I'm done. Have fun.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Michelle R

[thomtg]

Can you give me an example of "rational selfishness" that does not contain a subjective value judgement?

A judgment that is not a subjective value judgment is a contradiction. All judgments are necessarily subjective. But do not confuse subjectivity with relativism. Even though I am not convinced of several aspects of Rand's ethical objectivism. For instance, the statement that survival is the ultimate telos of all life is blatantly false - survival is only a means to an end, which is reproduction - thus, survival is only the telos of all life in the sense that it leads to the survival of the species ... this need not have the otherwise devastating effect on Objectivist ethics that it would seem to imply when you consider that, unlike any other known lifeform, the human is a creature capable of self-created telos. Survival still factors heavily into the equation, but even though strong instincts draw us toward reproduction, it is not a necessity for a person to a live a full life. Survival, however, is.

Michelle,

Your comment has led me to re-evaluate my own formulation of what it means to act self-interestedly. You have stated elsewhere that you take responsibility for yourself to discover and correct mistakes in your worldview and in your set of values in order to go through life. I interpret it then that you value your mind and respect its fragility, its potential for making errors. And to value one's mind in this sense translates to wanting to discover one's errors of knowledge and acting to correct them. If this is correct, I agree completely.

With that as a presupposition taken in the spirit of benevolence, I am bringing to your attention two potential errors in your Post #27 above that "[T]he statement that 'survival is the ultimate telos of all life' is blatantly false--that survival is only a means to an end, which is reproduction." Although I disagree with your assessment of the statement, which is the first error, I am more interested in alerting you to the second, more serious error of viewing values as intrinsic. Reproduction is valuable, for sure, but is it the ultimate end?

There is a fine line between taking values as subjective (relativism) and taking values as intrinsic. The Objectivist ethics stands on that fine line, balancing as if on a tensioned highwire, taking values to be objective.

In your dismissal of the theory that values are subjective, I am afraid that you are counterbalancing too much toward the other side, potentially falling toward treating values as totally apart from individual valuation. It is the error that could lead to disastrous results on the personal level, as it had led countless times at the social level. See, for example, Xray's identifying from history the intrinsic valuation of "racial superiority" and of "virginity". (Of course, her mischaracterizing them as "objective" is a case of the opposite counterbalancing error.)

Is reproduction an end in itself, a value in itself? If, as you state (in Post #47), that no value exists by itself and that valuing is a subjective, individual act; then I believe that your view about reproduction is a misintegration--an error.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff has two podcasts that I am aware of that address the present issue. Podcast 17 at 13:16 answers "Is reproduction a value in its own right?" Podcast 27 at 01:19 answers "Is part of Ayn Rand's validation of the Objectivist ethics in conflict with modern biology--in conflict with the consensus of biologists who claim that the ultimate goal is the reproduction of the organism?"

For my own take of the distinction between values being objective versus nonobjective (subjective and intrinsic), see this blog entry here. For a critique of intrinsic valuing in a recent event, see here.

And now, to my own error, thanks to you. It is not actually an error; to be more precise, it it more of a refinement to the formulation on the basis of more knowledge. I have stated earlier (in the root post and Post #12) that while human action is totally motivated by self-interest, there are distinctions within the notion of "self-interest"--that there are "rational self-interest," "irrational self-interest," and volitionless "nonrational self-interest"--and that "selfishness" is defined as "rational self-interest."

What about a human action from an error of knowledge? Where does that fit? Here now is my reformulation of self-interested human actions that takes this fact into consideration.

1. Every animal action is motivated 100 percent by self-interest.
2. The "self" is an animal's consciousness, the faculty that distinguishes animals from plants.
3. An animal action is a conscious action (as opposed to a reflex) for the self-interest of the animal.
4. "Human action" is a species of "animal action"--as bird actions and fish actions are also animal actions.
5. Human action is volitional.
6. Because of volition, only human action, as opposed to bird action and fish action, must be guided by ethics.
7. Human action is conscious action but requires in addition the volitional consent of the human self--the mind.
8. The "self" of a human is that portion of consciousness that must be activated volitionally by choice.
9. "Reason" is the faculty of consciousness that a human must choose volitionally to activate.
10. A man acting under coercion is not acting humanly and is merely acting animalistically; and 3 applies.
11. A man acting without freedom acts toward his 				volitionless nonrational self-interest.
12. A man acting with freedom is acting toward his				volitional			  self-interest.
13. A man acting with freedom through reason is acting toward his   volitional rational   self-interest.
14. A man acting with freedom bypassing reason is acting toward his volitional irrational self-interest.
15. Ethics pertains to human actions motivated completely by volitional self-interest.
16. "Egoism" is the moral code that a man's existence is his to live and enjoy, and rationality is his highest virtue.
17. "Egoist" is one who values his mind and respects its judgments. (See root post for other definitions.)
18. "Selfishness," before the discovery of egoism, is a concern for one's volitional self-interest.
19. "Selflessness," before the discovery of egoism, is a concern for others' volitional self-interest. (Contradiction)
20. "Selfishness," in the new conception of egoism, is a concern for one's volitional rational self-interest.
21. "Selflessness," in the new conception of egoism, is a concern for one's volitional irrational self-interest.
22. A rational man (by 13) acts selfishly (pro self).
23. An irrational man (by 14) act selflessly or unselfishly (against the self).
24. A coerced man (by 11) acts nonselfishly (without the self (by 8)).
25. Refining 22 (the Michelle Amendment): Through errors of judgment, a rational man's action may turn out to be selfless.
26. Refining 17: "Egoist" is one who values his mind, respects its judgments, and respects its fragility.
27. "Second-hander" (by 14) is one who does not value his mind and disrespects its nature by abusing its development, denigrating its evidence, evading its judgments, bypassing it for his emotions, and deferring it to the minds of others.

P.S. You have also stated elsewhere that you don't take much credence in evolutionary psychology (which I agree with you) and for that reason you believe we are not born tabula rasa but with inherited instincts--which I disagree, but which is another error for another time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thom,

You hit one issue I was going to raise with Michelle. We have to be careful with the meaning of our concepts. If we use the meaning of "subjective" that is used in order to make the statement, "all judgments are necessarily subjective," then we come to the point where "objective" does not exist ever since all thinking is "necessarily subjective."

All thinking is done by individual minds. "Mental activity performed by an individual mind" is the meaning of subjective to the best I have been able to discern when used for the statement that all judgments (or values) are subjective.

This is why I find it crucial to establish the meaning of a word like subjective when using it. Some really weird insinuations can occur otherwise. Unfortunately, all too often this word is used with multiple meanings within the same discussion and people end up talking past each other.

I suggest you use the same care in looking at the meaning of instinct. Rand meant this (for the most part) as automatic conceptual knowledge or behavior based on such.

I use it to mean behavior (and even knowledge) that develops automatically over time irrespective of experience or volition, or at least until experience and/or volition impedes it. As the leaf grows from the acorn, so certain behaviors (like being left-handed or right-handed or ambidextrous) develop automatically from the newborn (actually the fertilized egg), unless experience or volition interfere with the instinctual path. In this meaning, volition and experience get added to and can alter the path, but it already exists and develops on its own. Volition and experience are not the causal agents of it existing.

I believe this is the sense of instinct as used in most things I have read.

Michael

[Michelle]

Thom,

You obviously took much care in composing your post. I'll listen to those podcasts you've linked to before giving a reply.

Thom,

You hit one issue I was going to raise with Michelle. We have to be careful with the meaning of our concepts. If we use the meaning of "subjective" that is used in order to make the statement, "all judgments are necessarily subjective," then we come to the point where "objective" does not exist ever since all thinking is "necessarily subjective."

All thinking is done by individual minds. "Mental activity performed by an individual mind" is the meaning of subjective to the best I have been able to discern when used for the statement that all judgments (or values) are subjective.

This is why I find it crucial to establish the meaning of a word like subjective when using it. Some really weird insinuations can occur otherwise. Unfortunately, all too often this word is used with multiple meanings within the same discussion and people end up talking past each other.

I suggest you use the same care in looking at the meaning of instinct. Rand meant this (for the most part) as automatic conceptual knowledge or behavior based on such.

I use it to mean behavior (and even knowledge) that develops automatically over time irrespective of experience or volition, or at least until experience and/or volition impedes it. As the leaf grows from the acorn, so certain behaviors (like being left-handed or right-handed or ambidextrous) develop automatically from the newborn (actually the fertilized egg), unless experience or volition interfere with the instinctual path. In this meaning, volition and experience get added to and can alter the path, but it already exists and develops on its own. Volition and experience are not the causal agents of it existing.

I believe this is the sense of instinct as used in most things I have read.

Michael

Good point.

Subjective = Of, or relating to the activity of thinking mind, the "I," the self.

Objective = That which relates to the world of 'objects.' Nature outside of the "self." All volitional creatures are both subjects and objects.

Instinct = Innate pattern of response (reactional behavior) that is responsive to certain environmental stimuli

[thomtg]

Xray. I don't get any value out of our discussions, but for a man with one leg your idea of "self interest" hops around pretty good.

--Brant

[...]

Want an example? Ask and ya shall receive:

Rand verbatim calls Peter Keating "a perfect example of a selfless man".

Now let's look at Rand's definition of "selfessness" [altruism]

Atlas Shrugged, p. 323: Ivy Starnes to Dagny.

"That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness [i. e. "altruism"] . It required men to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." (end quote)

Now with Keating being identified as "selfless" [i e. an "altruist"] , it logically follows that (again, according to Rand) he is motivated not by personal gain, but by love for his brothers." Right?

Seriously, Brant, do you really believe Keating was motivated by love of his "brother" (= fellow human being) Howard Roark and not by personal gain, when he asked him to do his work for him?

He was motivated by personal gain, wasn't he, Brant? It sticks out a mile.

[...]

Xray,

You have found a great definition of "selflesness" from Atlas Shrugged, as defined by the character Ivy Starnes. However, Ivy Starnes did not speak for Ayn Rand in the novel. Only through the characters John Galt and other heroes did Rand speak to her readers directly.

Ivy Starnes, by contrast, represented the commonly accepted philosophy of the time period. And her definition of "selflessness," as Rand reported to us in the story, accurately reflected the commonly accepted meaning of the term, "to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." As you have surmised, this is utterly impossible--a contradiction in the very essence of not only human action but any animal action. (See my latest reformulation of the classification of "self-interest" in Post #61.) But Ayn Rand did not endorse this definition; she merely told the readers about it through the voice of the Starnes heiress.

Though you have found a contradiction, the contradiction was not in Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics. In fact it was she who first identified the very contradiction you are now attributing to her system. It was she who identified the contradiction inherent in any ethical system that disregards the facts of reality, including the reality of human nature, such as self-interest, volition, reason.

If anything is accurate in your assessment, I would say you have identified a big flaw in a great number of moral codes, but the flaw is definitely 100-percent not in egoism. (See the definitions here.)

You are of course within your right to be irate at seasoned Objectivists (and non-Objectivists) who are sloppy in their thinking. However, I continue to recommend the principle of charity when reading the writings of Ayn Rand, whose thinking is anything but sloppy.

---

[...]

[...]

[...]

What about Roark blowing up the building, potentially endangering other people's lives? Isn't that an act of ruthless egotism too? How can he, from a breach of contract, feel entilted to such an act of destruction? What does this say about the psychological make-up of this "hero" whom Rand created "as man should be"? And how does this act of violence gel with the Randian dogma of non-initiation of violence?

[...]

Great questions! Really great and penetrating. But I cannot answer your questions in the current context because I have not gotten permission from you to use the term "egoism" (or "egotism," or "egoist," or "egotist," or "egoistic," or "egotistic") in the precise meaning I have delineated. I am not asking that you grant me that "egoism" as I or Rand have defined it, is true. I am asking whether I may be permitted to use "egoism" in the new meaning unequivocally. That is, in order for me to continue the discussion, I need permission from you that you will interpret me as never using the word "egois___" in the conventionally accepted meaning of the word--that it will always mean what I have defined in the root post and Post #12--that while human action is totally motivated by self-interest, there are distinctions within "self-interest"--that there are "rational self-interest," "irrational self-interest," and volitionless "nonrational self-interest"--that "selfishness" is defined as "rational self-interest."

[...]Until you grant me this permission, I am unable to continue.

You need not ask my permission to use those terms, Thom, but jmpo, using them in the discussion poses certain problems.

[...]

So my suggestion would be: why not drop the whole terminological ballast by the wayside for the time being and go ahead without it? We don't need it because we have agreed on one fundamental point: Peter Keating was moved by self-interest. His self-interest just happend to be different from Roark's.

[...]

But I do need your assent in order to continue. They are your questions, not other viewers', not passerbys', not the chance onlookers'. Precisely because using them in the discussion poses certain problems, which I elaborated earlier (in Post #26), I need your assent that you can and will interpret the words exactly as I have painstakingly defined them. This is a simple matter of justice. And that is why I need your permission to continue.

[Xray]

So you are saying subjective values are an objective fact?

The word "objective" in that case is redundant, since facts are always objective.

Yes, it is a fact that values can't be anything but subjective.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray,

You have found a great definition of "selflesness" from Atlas Shrugged, as defined by the character Ivy Starnes. However, Ivy Starnes did not speak for Ayn Rand in the novel. Only through the characters John Galt and other heroes did Rand speak to her readers directly.

Ivy Starnes, by contrast, represented the commonly accepted philosophy of the time period. And her definition of "selflessness," as Rand reported to us in the story, accurately reflected the commonly accepted meaning of the term, "to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." As you have surmised, this is utterly impossible--a contradiction in the very essence of not only human action but any animal action. (See my latest reformulation of the classification of "self-interest" in Post #61.) But Ayn Rand did not endorse this definition; she merely told the readers about it through the voice of the Starnes heiress.

But Ivy Starnes spoke for the "philosophical opponents" of Rand. She stood for the group whom Rand placed at the opposite side of the trench, so to speak.

On one side, there are there her heros/heroines Roark, Galt, Dominique, Dagny, etc who represent Rand's thinking, and on the other are the Keatings, Ivy Starnes' and Jim Taggarts, etc. as the "adversaries".

What I want to prove here in the discussion is that, while the doctrine of altruism does exist, the actions nof every character in the book (EVERY character!) evidences that they are every bit as as motivated by self-interest, that is, by believing what is best for themselves, as their opponents.

That is, the wish for personal profit directs their actions, but personal profit does not necessarily imply material profit.

Though you have found a contradiction, the contradiction was not in Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics. In fact it was she who first identified the very contradiction you are now attributing to her system. It was she who identified the contradiction inherent in any ethical system that disregards the facts of reality, including the reality of human nature, such as self-interest, volition, reason.

The doctrine of altruism had long since been called into question by other philosophers before Rand.

But as opposed to those philosophers, Rand still seems to believe the altruists are not motivated by self-interest. Why she needs to keep up this illusion is quite clear: to promote her philosophy, the altruists are built up as strawmen to be thrashed.

You have clearly identified Keating as being motivated by 100 per cent self-interest.

Let's take a look at Jim Taggart, another of the major so called "altruists" in Rand's fiction.

After Jim has told Dagny of the new restrictions imposed by the anti dog eat dog rule these are her thoughts:

Quote (AS, hardback. ed., , page 300):

"Dimly, she felt the chill of the thought that self-interest was not Jim's motive." (end quote)

Well, Dagny was wrong. For self-interest WAS of course Jim Taggart's motive. Now what was his self-interest? He wanted to crush or at least curtail the power of his sister and Hank Rearden, whom he both loathed because he had always been jealous of them. THAT was the self-interest which got Jim to associate himself with the anti dog-eat-dog group (whose self-interest was to get a good share of the cake). No altruistic concern for any public welfare and "putting your brother first" can be seen anywhere here, only plain old "selfishess". I'm sure you will agree.

As opposed to Dagny, the young shopgirl Jim got acquainted with soon saw his self-interest shine through after discussing with him for a while:

Quote (AS, hardback ed., page 265)

"She didn't know know why her voive dropped to whisper: 'You'd rather the bridge had collapsed?'" (end quote)

Of course J. Taggart does not admit it, but his defensive answer says it all ("I haven' said that!" he snapped - end quote -).

No need to say it explicitly - he meant it of course. Yes, Jim Taggart would rather the bridge made of Rearden metal had collapsed, with his sister and Rearden in the train. For the bridge was the joint venture of those two, whom he hated.

So Taggart subjectively valued the destruction of his sister and Rearden higher than the promising immense financial profit for TT as a result of the bridge staying solid. That is all there is to it.

In short, Taggart was no altruist. They don't exist, which is why not even Rand was able to present one in a novel, despite her belief that she did.

Rand's own artifically constructed opposition between the "altruists" and the "selfish" group collapses right in front of the reader's eyes.

For her altruists are as moved by self-interest than the others.

Now one can of course offer one's opinion as to the various self-interests presented in the book. But then one enters the realm of subjectively valuing the choices they make. Roark feeling "entitled" to blow up the building for example. One could argue that this was the act of a psychopath.

I would say you have identified a big flaw in a great number of moral codes, but the flaw is definitely 100-percent not in egoism. (See the definitions here.)

So if there is agreement regarding egoism/self interest moving every character in the book, what is there left other than subjective validation by us readers of the choices they made?

You are of course within your right to be irate at seasoned Objectivists (and non-Objectivists) who are sloppy in their thinking. However, I continue to recommend the principle of charity when reading the writings of Ayn Rand, whose thinking is anything but sloppy.

My fire is not ire, Thom, but it is the search for the truth which offers me the mental fuel to be persistent in my quest. This involves challenging discussion partners to prove their points. I expect them to do the same with my posts. The great thing about those discussions is that the truth will often emerge. Truth has no owner, and suddenly it can happen it stand there in bold relief, unveiled.

Brant for example has seen it (see his # 59 post).

As for the "principle of charity"you linked to - jmpo, but it is no tool of cognition suitable for discovering a truth. Any philosophy has to be subjected to epistemological litmus tests. If those tests are not done, how is one to find out whether the philosophy stands up to scrutiny?

[Xray]:

So my suggestion would be: why not drop the whole terminological ballast by the wayside for the time being and go ahead without it? We don't need it because we have agreed on one fundamental point: Peter Keating was moved by self-interest. His self-interest just happend to be different from Roark's.

But I do need your assent in order to continue. They are your questions, not other viewers', not passerbys', not the chance onlookers'. Precisely because using them in the discussion poses certain problems, which I elaborated earlier (in Post #26), I need your assent that you can and will interpret the words exactly as I have painstakingly defined them. This is a simple matter of justice. And that is why I need your permission to continue.

Yours is a very polite request, Thom, but I don't have any right to grant you any permission, and even if I had, it would go against my subjective ethical code to impose anything on you here.

So if we set out on this journey to discover the truth (and my gut feeling tells me you do want to find it!), let's pack our "epistemological rucksack" with what each sees fit.

I prefer traveling with as little baggage as possible. So my load will be lighter than yours who want pack all that terminological baggage in.

But there is always the option to discard stuff as excess baggage in the course of the journey.

I myself won't pack much, only essentials. Logic and common sense are all which is needed imo, and I'll pack Occam's razor in of course. And a mental map of course. No journey without a map.

Mutual respect for the other person is also necessary if we want to go far together. Attacks on an argument are never attacks on the person on my part. But still it can happen that in the course of a debate, that one hurts the other's feelings without being aware of it. Should this happen, please alert me to it - I'll do the same.

Ready to go? Have good shoes? We'll need them because I don't intend to stop halfway, but will proceed until we have arrived at the truth.

Other posters who want to join us in this epistemological journey are of course very welcome.

So I'm ready for departure, Thom!

Where do we go first? Would paying the Randian hero Howard Roark a visit be okay with you?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

What we have here is Peter Keating's "self interest" in being a louse.

Jim Taggart's "self interest" in his fulminating psychology.

And the "self interest" of the United States in acting for its own destruction in domestic and foreign policies.

Why? Because that's what they do. If they do it, it's "self interest."

But if that's our starting point for human action we need a derivative way station for moral and immoral, right and wrong and why an action is one and another is the other. We've got to get free will and volitional consciousness back in there somehow. All philosophy, implicitly or explicitly, assumes free will even when using it as a stolen concept, as is happening here. Xray refuses to engage anyone about anything beyond the context of her remarkably consistent rhetoric. She has no practical philosophical existence outside this little house of hers. To sum her up: objective self interest is subjective self interest and vice versa. She effectively has to keep saying this because without the objective her subjective makes no sense--that is, she would be left with self interest per se as an objective fact. It's the same thing about existence/non-existence: nothing does not exist. It only exists in juxtaposition to something. You can't take away something and replace it with nothing. Non-existence like subjective self interest is a fundamentally parasitical concept. It is possible to act against one's own self interest because self interest is basically metaphysical and subjective self interest epistemological.

This is all about semantics being used to attack Objectivism, not about the correctness of the philosophy as such.

--Brant

Edited May 27, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

In your dismissal of the theory that values are subjective, I am afraid that you are counterbalancing too much toward the other side, potentially falling toward treating values as totally apart from individual valuation. It is the error that could lead to disastrous results on the personal level, as it had led countless times at the social level. See, for example, Xray's identifying from history the intrinsic valuation of "racial superiority" and of "virginity". (Of course, her mischaracterizing them as "objective" is a case of the opposite counterbalancing error.)

You must have misunderstood something. I never characterized "racial superority" or "virginity"as "objective values"!

I pointed out (BIG difference!) that there are groups of people who erroneously believe them to be objective values, and that a lot of misery and tragedies are the result of such erroneous beliefs.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

What we have here is Peter Keating's "self interest" in being a louse.

Jim Taggart's "self interest" in his fulminating psychology.

And the "self interest" of the United States in acting for its own destruction in domestic and foreign policies.

Why? Because that's what they do. If they do it, it's "self interest."

Self interest as a motive means acting on what one believes to serve one's purpose - the result of the action is something entirely different.

Keating's goal was not "being a louse" - it was success and fame. In order to achieve this, he applied means as he subjectively saw fit to suit his purpose.

Nor is the self interest of a US government its "own destruction". Don't confuse the motivation with the possible result.

As for Jim Taggart - did you seriously believe for one minute that "altruism" was his motive? All his altruism talk was mere blowing smoke to masquerade the feeling of inferiority he had compared to his sister and Rearden. He was jealous of them, plain and simple. His self interest was to make himself feel better by putting them down.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

What we have here is Peter Keating's "self interest" in being a louse.

Jim Taggart's "self interest" in his fulminating psychology.

And the "self interest" of the United States in acting for its own destruction in domestic and foreign policies.

Why? Because that's what they do. If they do it, it's "self interest."

Self interest as a motive means acting on what one believes to serve one's purpose - the result of the action is something entirely different.

Keating's goal was not "being a louse" - it was success and fame. In order to achieve this, he applied means as he subjectively saw fit to suit his purpose.

Nor is the self interest of a US government its "own destruction". Don't confuse the motivation with the possible result.

As for Jim Taggart - did you seriously believe for one minute that "altruism" was his motive? All his altruism talk was mere blowing smoke to masquerade the feeling of inferiority he had compared to his sister and Rearden. He was jealous of them, plain and simple. His self interest was to make himself feel better by putting them down.

You are simply saying self interest is only motivation, time and time again. I get you and I don't agree with you.

--Brant

[edit:] Put it this way: There is perceived self interest and self interest. One's in your head and the other is out there. In science there is what we think is true and what is true. There is knowledge and there is the undiscovered reality. There is perceived value and the undiscovered value. The latter is valued in the quest, the former in the conquest. In all this the brain goes back and forth (with various aids if need be) with reality, trying to ascertain its secrets.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Brant:

As for "moral" and "immoral", "morally right" and "morally wrong" - a short look through history will make it instantly clear

that there simply exist no objective criteria for what is "morally right/wrong ", "ethical/unethical" etc. It is ALWAYS subjective, despite attempts by people (i. e. ideologists, polticians, religious leaders, philosophers and many others) to sell their subjective valaues as "objective".

The tragedies which have occurred as a result of such fallacious belief are often beyond description.

We've got to get free will and volitional consciousness back in there somehow. All philosophy, implicitly or explicitly, assumes free will even when using it as a stolen concept, as is happening here.

Okay, what do you do when John Doe's free will and volitional consciousness happens to get conflict with yours?

Xray refuses to engage anyone about anything beyond the context of her remarkably consistent rhetoric.

I consider the word consistent as compliment in this context, since I like to have my epistemological ducks in a row.

As for rhetoric, it is a tool for me to bring a point across, and no end in itself.

She has no practical philosophical existence outside this little house of hers.

What is a "practical philosophical existence"? Please elaborate

To sum her up: objective self interest is subjective self interest and vice versa.

To sum Brant up: he has not understood at all what I said.

A term can't mean one thing and its opposite. This is like saying black is white and vice versa.

She effectively has to keep saying this because without the objective her subjective makes no sense--that is, she would be left with self interest per se as an objective fact.

But Brant - self-interest IS an objective fact. That has been THE crucial issue the discussion here.

It's the same thing about existence/non-existence: nothing does not exist. It only exists in juxtaposition to something. You can't take away something and replace it with nothing. Non-existence like subjective self interest is a fundamentally parasitical concept. It is possible to act against one's own self interest because self interest is basically metaphysical and subjective self interest epistemological.

You sound confused, Brant, rummaging in a terminological drawer which is a mess. What's the matter?

This is all about semantics being used to attack Objectivism, not about the correctness of the philosophy as such.

Semantics is about meaning. Do you want to avoid getting into semantic analysis because it might expose fallacies in Rand's thinking?

Edited May 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

A condescending nag at that.

"When reading you post, I thought: "By jove, Brant has got it!! I was really excited about this.

I almost wanted to congratulate you because it took a long hard labor for you to finally (figuratively, so to speak) give birth to that epistemological truth baby! smile.gif

Cherish this valuable truth, Brant, let it thrive and you will make a huge leap forward to freeing yourself from any ideologcal constraints, whatever the provenience."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Xray is here to preach, not discuss anything, much less learn. Look here:

It would be a pity if you backpedaled on your grasping of a fundamtental truth when you asked a few posts back:

So you are saying subjective values are an objective fact?

When reading you post, I thought: "By jove, Brant has got it!! I was really excited about this.

I almost wanted to congratulate you because it took a long hard labor for you to finally (figuratively, so to speak) give birth to that epistemological truth baby!

Cherish this valuable truth, Brant, let it thrive and you will make a huge leap forward to freeing yourself from any ideologcal constraints, whatever the provenience.

Cherish the valuable truth and follow Xray's preaching, by Jove! Then you will grow spiritually and eventually become human.

Get out of the Rand cult and get into the Xray cult.

Heh.

Do carry on...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, she said I was contradicting myself when I pointed out that the contradiction(s) was (were) hers, not that I was endorsing it (them).

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I have no issue with your thinking or intent. I am starting to suspect the other.

I just looked up Xray's IP and there are 6 pages of different IP numbers used for her 200+ posts. This happens with dynamic IP's like AOL (usually not to that extent), but it also happens with proxy users who wish to remain anonymous.

Michael