Can morality be objective?


Christopher

Recommended Posts

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

I have read the Wikipedia article re the Hippocratic Oath (it was the first place I went to remind myself of the content of the oath). A quick scan convinced me that the oath is something probably used by some doctors as part of a ritual, not one being taken seriously, and hence my comment. It appears we differ in how we view the applicability of that, as well as on how much of a "minimal action with little or no consequences" it would be to surrender this intellectual property won at (presumably) the price of much time and effort spent studying. If the Hippocratic Oath is understood by doctors as you interpret it (I don't think it is, based on the physicians I know)I do not see it as reasonable. If a doctor has the funds to purchase expensive medicine, is he obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to do so for anyone who needs it for life sustenance? I don't think so. I don't know how you turn the Hippocratic Oath into a guide for action. I suspect the actual intent of the portion you are citing is that if a physician physically encounters someone in need of life-sustaining aid, the physician should provide it.

Would you view yourselves as having an obligation to take almost all of your wealth and spend it to purchase AIDS medicine for young children suffering from the disease in Africa? Is the only reason why would not take this view that you did not take the Hippocratic Oath? Is the oath really the issue here?

Bill P

On the guard:

I understand the circumstances.

I think is was Dr. Johnson who said that Shakespeare would write a pun whenever he could, to the detriment of his plays. I think a parallel observation could be made of Rand and philosophical points: whenever she could illustrate a philosophical point in her novels, she did so, even when it made the action and characterization incredible. This is a case in point.

On the doctor:

The pertinent point here is that the doctor chose to be a doctor. To quote what Adam said earlier today

I believe that you go into certain professions with a special responsibility AND a duty that is implied in that particular craft or art or profession.

Soldiering comes to mind instantly. A research epidemiologist chose their profession for personal and professional reasons. I would have to guess that wanting to help and cure people is an essential element of the profession of doctoring.

Therefore, I believe that the oath and taking an oath is part of the human desire to live with integrity. I would logically as a patient want to know that my doctor did ascribe to that oath, particularly the part about not "harming". Also, the part about referring me to a specialist.

This is not someone being drafted into a position he did not seek. This is a person who spent the first twenty-five years or more of his life preparing for a profession, and voluntarily assuming the obligations of that profession--obligations represented in cultural terms by the Oaths of Hippocrates, of Maimonides, et al. If he didn't want to participate in a profession whose ethics and culture is based on service to others, then he could have found a different one--biochemical/pharmaceutical research, for instance, whose end result is saving lives, but in a different fashion.

Is it slavery to choose to serve others if that is the best way you can express your values?

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3. If you decide to "choose" randomly, tossing dice or whatever at every junction, you would not be acting with your life as your standard. Your choices would not be moral. They would be immoral even if they accidentally benefited you.

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure I would state things quite that way. One way of looking at it is that if a person randomly chooses a standard of value, then it cannot be a standard. A standard must have something to make it unique. If all standards are equal, then death is as good a standard as any, so a person might as well kill himself. It is the choice not to kill oneself that makes the standard of life unique.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

I have read the Wikipedia article re the Hippocratic Oath (it was the first place I went to remind myself of the content of the oath). A quick scan convinced me that the oath is something probably used by some doctors as part of a ritual, not one being taken seriously, and hence my comment. It appears we differ in how we view the applicability of that, as well as on how much of a "minimal action with little or no consequences" it would be to surrender this intellectual property won at (presumably) the price of much time and effort spent studying. If the Hippocratic Oath is understood by doctors as you interpret it (I don't think it is, based on the physicians I know)I do not see it as reasonable. If a doctor has the funds to purchase expensive medicine, is he obligated by the Hippocratic Oath to do so for anyone who needs it for life sustenance? I don't think so. I don't know how you turn the Hippocratic Oath into a guide for action. I suspect the actual intent of the portion you are citing is that if a physician physically encounters someone in need of life-sustaining aid, the physician should provide it.

Would you view yourselves as having an obligation to take almost all of your wealth and spend it to purchase AIDS medicine for young children suffering from the disease in Africa? Is the only reason why would not take this view that you did not take the Hippocratic Oath? Is the oath really the issue here?

Bill P

On the guard:

I understand the circumstances.

I think is was Dr. Johnson who said that Shakespeare would write a pun whenever he could, to the detriment of his plays. I think a parallel observation could be made of Rand and philosophical points: whenever she could illustrate a philosophical point in her novels, she did so, even when it made the action and characterization incredible. This is a case in point.

On the doctor:

The pertinent point here is that the doctor chose to be a doctor. To quote what Adam said earlier today

I believe that you go into certain professions with a special responsibility AND a duty that is implied in that particular craft or art or profession.

Soldiering comes to mind instantly. A research epidemiologist chose their profession for personal and professional reasons. I would have to guess that wanting to help and cure people is an essential element of the profession of doctoring.

Therefore, I believe that the oath and taking an oath is part of the human desire to live with integrity. I would logically as a patient want to know that my doctor did ascribe to that oath, particularly the part about not "harming". Also, the part about referring me to a specialist.

This is not someone being drafted into a position he did not seek. This is a person who spent the first twenty-five years or more of his life preparing for a profession, and voluntarily assuming the obligations of that profession--obligations represented in cultural terms by the Oaths of Hippocrates, of Maimonides, et al. If he didn't want to participate in a profession whose ethics and culture is based on service to others, then he could have found a different one--biochemical/pharmaceutical research, for instance, whose end result is saving lives, but in a different fashion.

Is it slavery to choose to serve others if that is the best way you can express your values?

Jeffrey S.

Let's start with the guard.

YOu indicate that you understand the circumstances. I believe you. We seem to differ in that I regard Dagny's actions as perfectly appropriate under those circumstances:

1) She had reason to believe Galt was being tortured, his life in danger, perhaps dying as she spoke to the guard.

2) She repeatedly warned the guard that he must let her through, or she his life would be forfeit.

3) He chose death, by refusing to let her through.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with her actions. if she could have clobbered him over the head with equal risk to herself, to discovery, etc. that would have been more appropriate, of course. (But let's keep a grip and remember this is a novel, not the 1100 news!!!)

On the case of Hendriksen:

Of course he chose to be a doctor. I do not see where "society" gets the right to decide that certain obligations must accrue to that profession. Would you like to deal with my question I raised on the doctor? What is society decides that doctors should have to work for a salary of USD $25,000 per year, at least 80 hours per week because some fool universal health care plan has been passed and that is the only way to make the budget work? Would you view the existing doctors as being obligated to stay in the profession? Would you maintain that any people entering the profession after the decision about the salary are OBLIGATED to accept the $25,000, and not to campaign for a drastic raise, etc...?

I suspect that we understand each other well now. I'll leave you with the last word after this. (That is, I don't see the need for further response from me. I think things are as clear as they are likely to become in this sort of venue.)

Bill P

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. If you decide to "choose" randomly, tossing dice or whatever at every junction, you would not be acting with your life as your standard. Your choices would not be moral. They would be immoral even if they accidentally benefited you.

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure I would state things quite that way. One way of looking at it is that if a person randomly chooses a standard of value, then it cannot be a standard. A standard must have something to make it unique. If all standards are equal, then death is as good a standard as any, so a person might as well kill himself. It is the choice not to kill oneself that makes the standard of life unique.

Darrell

Darrell:

Precisely. Standards would have something to do with making distinctions like between poison and food for example. By definition, a standard has a referent of which measurements can be made.

Now you should delete that section of your post before the Valkyrie Ms. Xray actually reads what you wrote. It must be your blond typing that confuses the poor little thing.

Scanning the skies over Germany for the nasty little beasts. Remember, if you saw one before a battle, you would die in that battle.

bradamante1.jpg

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I swear ... that I will never live for the sake of another man..." was I think Ayn Rand's most powerful disavowal of altruism.

There are things that Galt does not say in this statement - he doesn't say "I will never give anything, or do anything for an other". One-off actions aren't covered here; rather, it is the living for another's sake, on a continual basis, that matters.

Which is why the debates on charity/selfishness always miss the point, I feel.

Altruism is LIVING for others. (... or trying to, to the best of one's ability, and with little success, as Darrell pointed out.) It means seeking out their approval and sanction one's entire life. It's primary enemy is independence.

I've been studying individual altruists - the self-proclaimed ones, as well as the unconscious ones - as they have aged, and it's a terrible sight. The chickens finally come home to roost.

One sees how angry and bitter they become, when they are not getting the recognition they expect from other people come their way; when the universe does not grant them the wealth and happiness that should be their just reward. This is the cynical type, who were actually in altruism for 'selfish' reasons: give a little, get a lot.

Then, one sees the misery in those who have tried to honestly and consistently live by the dictates of altruism, and have failed to overcome the last remnant of their abused ego - guilt is their only reward, for not giving enough.

Is there anybody more self-hating, people-loathing, and unfeeling, than this person who glorifies pity and unselfishness? In fact, this is the very person who (ironically) can not love, respect, feel compassion and empathy, and can only feel envy, resentment,and coldly,calculating avarice, for the whole human race.

Altruism is so foreign to Man's fundamental identity, that it is a wonder it still survives as a 'virtue' - societally, and politically - it is the ultimate 'strawman' that could be knocked over with one finger.

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

One sees how angry and bitter they become, when they are not getting the recognition they expect from other people come their way; when the universe does not grant them the wealth and happiness that should be their just reward. This is the cynical type, who were actually in altruism for 'selfish' reasons: give a little, get a lot.

Then, one sees the misery in those who have tried to honestly and consistently live by the dictates of altruism, and have failed to overcome the last remnant of their abused ego - guilt is their only reward, for not giving enough.

I perceive that part of the anger and bitterness is the foolish trade that they made for what they truly enjoyed, but were convinced by someone or something that it was not "good" to feel "good" about your "self".

I believe, with no "objective proof", that there is a point in your growing from helpless baby to upright young child that an event occurs and you wonder and question what it is and why it is.

You may come to some independent conclusion, completely on your own, and you will internalize that judgment. There may come a time when you express how you feel or think about it or say something about it to someone.

That outside person will react to what you said. From that point on, how you chose to decide as to believing in yourself or ceding the choice to another is the key determinant to which way you will function for many decisions in life.

It is like a hitch in your tennis swing, golf swing or softball swing. If you learn it "wrong" as you learn it, you will have to do a lot more work to unlearn it down the road. The same goes for thinking. That is one of the reasons why when someone asks me that they are interested in taking up golf, my first advice to them is seek out a trainer or course pro and watch them teach someone else. If you like the what you see, then take lessons with that coach first and then play some golf.

Marry Harsha asked about that quote which Robert and DF found in John's speech. It is a very critical conceptual place to accept. Making your own mistakes will help you long term if they do not kill you short term.

I think you are quite on point with your observation Tony.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Tony -

Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .)

Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again.

Bill P (smiling)

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

The idea that the shooting of the guard by Dagny is just because he was in the way in an action scene where they're rescuing Galt and that this scene has no deeper philosophical meaning is a favorite fairy tale among Objectivists. I shot down that theory already here (scroll down a bit) and here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

The idea that the shooting of the guard by Dagny is just because he was in the way in an action scene where they're rescuing Galt and that this scene has no deeper philosophical meaning is a favorite fairy tale among Objectivists. I shot down that theory already here (scroll down a bit) and here.

I agree the guard scene has intention. Having been in "situations" whereby having a discussion with a person was absolutely absurd. Therefore, it is there for a reason, of that I have no doubt.

Moreover, I agree that I have met "O"bjectivist "ice" types that make me look for my weapon because they appear to be quite dangerous. I saw them at NBI in the audiences in the early early days.

There is a perceived coldness which can easily be employed by critics because there is an element of truth to the premise that a radical individualist philosophy which holds as its apex the inviolate right of the individual to decide a course of action and as Ms. Burns stated it, that "The base of Rand's individualism was a natural rights theory derived from the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, later in the paragraph on page 61, she notes that those individual rights exist, "...requiring no other sanction."

That kind of Olympian view of the plebes can lead to some pretty cold persons.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the guard:

Rand killed off a FICTIONAL CHARACTER - not a real person. Note that the text does not say that Dagny killed him for philosophical reasons or to make a philosophical point. She killed him because he was in her way, barring her ability to get to and rescue Galt, and refused to grant her passage. She told him the price would be his life if he did not let her through. And then he did not let her through.

The idea that the shooting of the guard by Dagny is just because he was in the way in an action scene where they're rescuing Galt and that this scene has no deeper philosophical meaning is a favorite fairy tale among Objectivists. I shot down that theory already here (scroll down a bit) and here.

Not exactly true, in two respects:

1) You did fire at it, but you missed by a mile - - - didn't come near shooting it down. (In fact, what you call the target isn't even there!) You point out at the link that Dagny talked for some time, perhaps two minutes, with the guard. I look at that extended dialogue, and conclude that she was giving him repeated chances. The delay fits well with the idea that she gave him clear chances, endeavoring to show him the choice was making if he continued to bar her entry. The only reason for delay (from Dagny's viewpoint) was to give the guard a chance to choose life. If Dagny just wanted to be brutal and had no concern for the guard's lidw, she could have short the guard before he saw her.

2) It is of course true that Rand makes a philosophical point about the guard. DAGNY DOES NOT. Dagny gives the guard 7 warnings (dialogue in which she makes the threat clear, and he responds by doing nothing. Then she shoots him. Rand (not Dagny) comments:

"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."

Note: This is the narrator's comment, not Dagny's. Dagny has made clear the reason why she shoots - she must get past the guard. Rand comments on this that the guard is suffering the results of not wanting to think or make a decision ("wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness."). Dagny didn't "execute the guard because he didn't want to think." (I have been told that she did in discussions on this subject!) She killed him because he was in the way and wouldn't move out of the way, with Galt's life (as far as Dagny knew) at risk.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Tony -

Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .)

Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again.

Bill P (smiling)

Ah yes. If only... another decade of her incisive mind, perhaps less of Rand the Revolutionary, and more of Rand the Gracious (as we have glimpsed her, portrayed by Barbara Branden, and other biographers)... who can tell?

In a lesser-known quote, she said "I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Garth Ancier interview 1976]

Oh well, we'll just do the work for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Tony -

Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .)

Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again.

Bill P (smiling)

Ah yes. If only... another decade of her incisive mind, perhaps less of Rand the Revolutionary, and more of Rand the Gracious (as we have glimpsed her, portrayed by Barbara Branden, and other biographers)... who can tell?

In a lesser-known quote, she said "I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Garth Ancier interview 1976]

Oh well, we'll just do the work for ourselves.

And, doing the work for ourselves - - that's not that bad of a deal. Rand went so far, explored so much and offered so much insight. It would be lacking in grace to obsess with criticizing her for what she didn't get done. Our job - - as you say, to get it done ourselves!!!

Enough for a lifetime and more.

Bill P (smiling)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Actually, the word "meter" does not refer to the standard; it is the word defined (in a very literal sense) by the physical standard.

2) The point here is that not every goal and value requires one to live; and unless every goal and value requires one to live, your argument doesn't prove what you think it does.

3)Here's my working definition of altruism: finding value or benefit in benefiting others. Or to make a twist on a Randian phrase, taking the lives of other humans as one's standard of value--as opposed to Objectivism's tenet of taking one's own life as one's standard of value.

Since the lives of others is the standard of value, there is no "smuggling in" the life of oneself as the standard of value, so the rest of your argument on this point is irrelevant.

4) Your point about the robot also doesn't make the case you want it to, since it begs the question. Simply put, your argument works only if you assume the conclusion--that value is founded on one's own life and nothing else--beforehand.

Jeffrey S.

1. The word "meter" refers to a unit of length with a particular definition in terms of physical quantities. Other lengths are given in terms of meters, e.g., 81 meters, a kilometer, 3 nanometers, etc. Therefore, the length, one meter, acts as a standard by which other lengths are defined and understood.

2. So far, I have only provided a partial argument --- an argument that long-range goals are equivalent (or very nearly equivalent) to the goal of maintaining one's life. In order to handle short range goals, I need an argument about rationality.

A person is rational if he has a logically consistent value hierarchy. Such a hierarchy is necessary in order to decide, at any moment, what to do or what to think or believe. If nothing is viewed as inherently more valuable than anything else, then there is no means of deciding what action to take. Similarly, if a person's values are not logically consistent, then there is no logically consistent means of deciding what action to take. Note that if a person chooses an arbitrary standard of value, that choice is equivalent to viewing all things as equally valuable.

Now, a person that values death above all other things cannot have a value hierarchy because nothing can be less valuable than death. Something that is less valuable than death will never be achieved because the person will be dead first. Therefore, such a person cannot be rational. Similarly, any person that holds any short range goal as his primary goal will have a truncated value hierarchy and will be of limited rationality. Moreover, if the goal is chosen arbitrarily, then such a choice is equivalent to viewing all things as equally valuable, thereby making rationality impossible.

The only fundamental alternative facing a living person is life and death. Of those alternatives, only the choice of life as a standard of value permits the development of a logically consistent value hierarchy and, therefore, only the choice of life permits rationality. Therefore, the choice of life as the standard of value is the only rational choice.

3. Consider what it would mean to take the lives of others as one's standard of value. There are people dying all the time. Many are dying for preventable reasons, such as hunger. Does your standard require that you do your utmost to help the people that are dying now? Or, are you free to wait until the future to help? If you don't give all you can now, some of the people you want to save (according to your standard) may be dead before you get around to helping them. But, if you try very hard to help all those dying now, you may not survive long enough to help others in the future. So, what do you want?

Go back and examine my argument again. It isn't as easy to dismiss as you think it is.

4. The robot example is illustrative. Most people hold inconsistent views of morality. Although they may say that the reason for being moral has nothing to do with their own lives, when it comes right down to it, it does. For example, people are told by religion to be moral because God commands it. However, they are told that if they don't believe in God and act accordingly, they will go to hell. But, that is a threat to their lives. So, it is presumed, a priori, that their lives are their standard of value. Similarly, people are told that the good of society should be their standard of value because it is good for them. Rand, however, exposes their hypocrisy with the example of an immortal robot that has nothing personal to gain or lose, regardless of its actions.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with the guard.

YOu indicate that you understand the circumstances. I believe you. We seem to differ in that I regard Dagny's actions as perfectly appropriate under those circumstances:

1) She had reason to believe Galt was being tortured, his life in danger, perhaps dying as she spoke to the guard.

2) She repeatedly warned the guard that he must let her through, or she his life would be forfeit.

3) He chose death, by refusing to let her through.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with her actions. if she could have clobbered him over the head with equal risk to herself, to discovery, etc. that would have been more appropriate, of course. (But let's keep a grip and remember this is a novel, not the 1100 news!!!)

On the case of Hendriksen:

Of course he chose to be a doctor. I do not see where "society" gets the right to decide that certain obligations must accrue to that profession. Would you like to deal with my question I raised on the doctor? What is society decides that doctors should have to work for a salary of USD $25,000 per year, at least 80 hours per week because some fool universal health care plan has been passed and that is the only way to make the budget work? Would you view the existing doctors as being obligated to stay in the profession? Would you maintain that any people entering the profession after the decision about the salary are OBLIGATED to accept the $25,000, and not to campaign for a drastic raise, etc...?

I suspect that we understand each other well now. I'll leave you with the last word after this. (That is, I don't see the need for further response from me. I think things are as clear as they are likely to become in this sort of venue.)

Bill P

1) the guard--My problem is not with Dagny's motivations or actions, but with Rand's going out of her way to make a philosophical point. She apparently didn't trust her readers to understand her idea that to choose not to think is to choose not to live; she had to say it in black and white and in a way that was guaranteed to turn off at least some of those readers. It's like a school teacher making sure her students know that Shakespeare used blank verse when he wrote his plays.

2) as to your question regarding the doctor--I must congratulate you on showing above average talent for being a political blogster, since you are so clearly set on changing what I said into something that has nothing to do with what I said. We're not talking about Obamacare or anything else. We're talking about a basic question--does a doctor, who is part of a profession whose main object is saving lives, and whose members are expected culturally, philosophically, etc. to save lives whenever they can reasonably do so--have the right to refuse to share information in the knowledge that some people will die because of his refusal? You see it as the doctor exercising his right to do what he wishes with his knowledge; I see it as violating an obligation that was previously and freely undertaken.

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with the guard.

YOu indicate that you understand the circumstances. I believe you. We seem to differ in that I regard Dagny's actions as perfectly appropriate under those circumstances:

1) She had reason to believe Galt was being tortured, his life in danger, perhaps dying as she spoke to the guard.

2) She repeatedly warned the guard that he must let her through, or she his life would be forfeit.

3) He chose death, by refusing to let her through.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with her actions. if she could have clobbered him over the head with equal risk to herself, to discovery, etc. that would have been more appropriate, of course. (But let's keep a grip and remember this is a novel, not the 1100 news!!!)

On the case of Hendriksen:

Of course he chose to be a doctor. I do not see where "society" gets the right to decide that certain obligations must accrue to that profession. Would you like to deal with my question I raised on the doctor? What is society decides that doctors should have to work for a salary of USD $25,000 per year, at least 80 hours per week because some fool universal health care plan has been passed and that is the only way to make the budget work? Would you view the existing doctors as being obligated to stay in the profession? Would you maintain that any people entering the profession after the decision about the salary are OBLIGATED to accept the $25,000, and not to campaign for a drastic raise, etc...?

I suspect that we understand each other well now. I'll leave you with the last word after this. (That is, I don't see the need for further response from me. I think things are as clear as they are likely to become in this sort of venue.)

Bill P

1) the guard--My problem is not with Dagny's motivations or actions, but with Rand's going out of her way to make a philosophical point. She apparently didn't trust her readers to understand her idea that to choose not to think is to choose not to live; she had to say it in black and white and in a way that was guaranteed to turn off at least some of those readers. It's like a school teacher making sure her students know that Shakespeare used blank verse when he wrote his plays.

2) as to your question regarding the doctor--I must congratulate you on showing above average talent for being a political blogster, since you are so clearly set on changing what I said into something that has nothing to do with what I said. We're not talking about Obamacare or anything else. We're talking about a basic question--does a doctor, who is part of a profession whose main object is saving lives, and whose members are expected culturally, philosophically, etc. to save lives whenever they can reasonably do so--have the right to refuse to share information in the knowledge that some people will die because of his refusal? You see it as the doctor exercising his right to do what he wishes with his knowledge; I see it as violating an obligation that was previously and freely undertaken.

Jeffrey S.

Well you are obviously talking about what is morally right as opposed to legally. To say the doctor has no legal right to withhold knowledge is to say that the state can or should use force against him consequentially--i.e., there outta be a law. I see the doctor in AS withholding knowledge as to the treatment of strokes as reprehensible. I see him being forced to treat a stroke victim as also reprehensible. The first is strictly a moral issue. The second, moral-legal.

I'm well aware that this begs the question of Galt withholding knowledge of his electric motor from the world. I can only say that that contributed to the collapse of the old order and that the doctor's did not.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Tony -

Should be, should be. I wish Rand had spent a bit more time occasionally TALKING ABOUT benevolence. She was on a mission to destroy the credibility of the notion of unchosen obligations. This sometimes led, in my view, to a starkness ("we don't use the word 'give' in the valley" (paraphrase)) which I hope no self-conceived Objectivist emulates. (Ditto for some of the post-coital philosophy talk from Galt, . . .)

Sometimes we have to remember the different between a NOVEL and a prescription for living. Time to reread Branden's "Benefits and Hazards" essay again.

Bill P (smiling)

Ah yes. If only... another decade of her incisive mind, perhaps less of Rand the Revolutionary, and more of Rand the Gracious (as we have glimpsed her, portrayed by Barbara Branden, and other biographers)... who can tell?

In a lesser-known quote, she said "I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Garth Ancier interview 1976]

Oh well, we'll just do the work for ourselves.

And, doing the work for ourselves - - that's not that bad of a deal. Rand went so far, explored so much and offered so much insight. It would be lacking in grace to obsess with criticizing her for what she didn't get done. Our job - - as you say, to get it done ourselves!!!

Enough for a lifetime and more.

Bill P (smiling)

Yes! Absolutely!

I suppose we should be grateful to her critics for pointing what needs clarification, at least if their criticisms are halfway legitimate.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I swear ... that I will never live for the sake of another man..." was I think Ayn Rand's most powerful disavowal of altruism.

There are things that Galt does not say in this statement - he doesn't say "I will never give anything, or do anything for an other". One-off actions aren't covered here; rather, it is the living for another's sake, on a continual basis, that matters.

Which is why the debates on charity/selfishness always miss the point, I feel.

Altruism is LIVING for others. (... or trying to, to the best of one's ability, and with little success, as Darrell pointed out.) It means seeking out their approval and sanction one's entire life. It's primary enemy is independence.

I've been studying individual altruists - the self-proclaimed ones, as well as the unconscious ones - as they have aged, and it's a terrible sight. The chickens finally come home to roost.

One sees how angry and bitter they become, when they are not getting the recognition they expect from other people come their way; when the universe does not grant them the wealth and happiness that should be their just reward. This is the cynical type, who were actually in altruism for 'selfish' reasons: give a little, get a lot.

Then, one sees the misery in those who have tried to honestly and consistently live by the dictates of altruism, and have failed to overcome the last remnant of their abused ego - guilt is their only reward, for not giving enough.

Is there anybody more self-hating, people-loathing, and unfeeling, than this person who glorifies pity and unselfishness? In fact, this is the very person who (ironically) can not love, respect, feel compassion and empathy, and can only feel envy, resentment,and coldly,calculating avarice, for the whole human race.

Altruism is so foreign to Man's fundamental identity, that it is a wonder it still survives as a 'virtue' - societally, and politically - it is the ultimate 'strawman' that could be knocked over with one finger.

The final irony, I believe, is that it is the Objectivist, who has sworn to live for his own sake, who is infinitely more capable of experiencing a deep consideration for others, than any altruist. <_<

Tony

Well said, I agree.

It makes perfect sense that altruists are so toxic. It's a well known dynamic of abusive relationships that the abuser doesn't have a firm grip on where his/her self ends and the target begins. The target is not seen as a separate person. "She thinks he's growing out of her side" is how we describe it at my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't think you've addressed the "why" question. Here is (in brief) my approach (outlined in my reply to Jeffrey):

In a nut shell, I would argue that if your chosen, long-range goal, for which life is a subordinate goal, causes you to act in any manner that is substantially incompatible with the requirements of your life, you will substantially increase your probability of death and, therefore, will substantially reduce your odds of achieving your primary goal. Therefore, it is impossible to choose any goal that is substantially different from the maintenance of your life. That does not mean that you cannot maintain your life by different and various means. Rather, it implies that the maintenance of your life can never be subordinate to any other long-range goal, at least not in any substantial manner.

Darrell

I think I see what you're getting at. Why?.... why oh why? I think we are both answering the "why" question at different levels. I might say that we should act in a life-sustaining manner because that is what we are evolved to do. Why does a rock fall in gravity? Because that is the nature of the universe. Now, on a more personal level, we should act to sustain our life because it leads to a greater magnitude and length of positive experience. Positive experience as such is an irreducible primary in terms of human preference. Extending further, positive experience is also evolution's way of telling us "you're doing good, kid. You're surviving."

The way you address the question is very nice. My first thought would be to say that a conscious goal to survive per se is not equivalent to the multitude of ways we experience and perceive the goals necessary for our survival. I think you recognize this. It is interesting that in a way you are arguing pure logic, whereas I mix in a bit of biology and psychology. You may not be fully answering your own "why" though. For example, you seem to be implicitly assuming that continued living is better than not living. Why? :)

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand lacking empathy is not grounds for moral condemnation. Many super-smart people are unbalanced by their brains. My Father was. William Shockley too. Edward Teller. Most likely my late friend Petr Beckmann. Taking a life is not a triviality. I was once in that business. I know in certain circumstances I could do it again. I can assure all and sundry that the AS incident was a comparative triviality, especially since Dagny was able to get close to the guard without him raising the alarm the next thing she should have done was simply pull the trigger, several times, not have a conversation. The conversation was for literary-philosophical reasons and to benefit the reader. If I remember the end of We The Living correctly, the guard was fleshed out by the author before he shot Kira. Rand would have done better to have done the same with the guard in AS. Then Dagny could have simply walked up to him having a few words of conversation so she could get close enough to shoot him dead before he could raise any alarm. In 1940-41 there was a German raider (Atlantis) on the high seas--the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic--disguised as a cargo ship. It would get close to a British ship and open fire on the radio antenna so a distress call could not be made. Same principle. You kill the guard that could raise the alarm keeping you from perhaps taking the other guards inside prisoner instead of having a several hour gun fight with Galt in the cellar.

Now with the tunnel incident all the good people were cowards. Not one hero stepped forward to stop the nonsense. This giving up might have been Russian, but not American. I'll avoid going on from here about what I really think about the heroes' strike in AS except to say that there wasn't much heroic about it. Some of the heroes did some heroic things, like Frisco rescuing Hank. I can't say Ragnar because what he did was too unreal and impossible, which is why Rand avoided too much detail with him.

--Brant

I think one of the most important points in discussions of morality is brought up here. It cannot be stressed enough. There are many different types of morality, with Rand perhaps as an epitome of one type. Rand had a morality based in cognitive logic. Morality also includes emotion-based intuitions. Mother Teresa might be the epitome of this intuitive type. Branden highlights in one of his LPs that man cannot know his values when he doesn't know his emotions, and I've asserted in a post or two on this thread that emotions can have objective moral basis.

I believe Rand did not have a strong connection with her empathy. This created a blind spot in her ability to fully grasp the entire spectrum of objective human values. As a result, she was unable to integrate empathy-based morality with logical morality, perhaps often mistaking empathy for selflessness. There is truly no necessary conflict with intuition and cognitive morality. A fully objective cognitive morality (Rand's type) must embrace all intuitive objective values pretty much by definition, otherwise the moral code is incomplete.

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Much much better...good girl. I was actually able to get almost seventy percent (70%) through your post before I came to something too egregious to read through.

....

"....but it is incapable of having objective values." Now be a good girl and correct your post since you either are too blind or a deceptive little .....well, you can fill in all those bad words the Catholics put in your ego to cause it to be so incapable of simple reading.

Good boy Selene for alerting me to the error. Sloppy reading goof on my part, sorry. My apologies to DH.

BTW, your above "deceptivity slur" is uncalled for. I have never had any problems in correcting errors. Have you?

So D. Hougen clearly points out that a robot can't have values. Since 'objective' values don't exist, I only call them "values". But for clarity's sake, in case you should accuse me of "misrepresenting" anything, will quote verbatim what DH wrote: a robot is "incapable of having objective values" (DH).

For 'values' require a consciousness having the mental and emotional capacity to attribute value, would you agree, Selene?

Now doesn't this include plants as well?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose we should be grateful to her critics for pointing what needs clarification, at least if their criticisms are halfway legitimate.

Darrell

Agreed. My response to the critics is very different if they show an appropriate tone, instead of playing silly little "gotcha games."

I imagine Michaelangelo finishing the Sistine Chapel and someone walking by as he is taking a last look at the work before he is finished, and telling him "You blew it, Mike! You didn't shave this morning and your beard is scraggly!"

I think criticism should be in proportion. Rand's most serious shortcomings, in my assessment, are in the area of psychology / human relations. I think it would be unrealistic to expect anyone to innovate with equal success in areas of epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, psychology, . . .

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Much much better...good girl. I was actually able to get almost seventy percent (70%) through your post before I came to something too egregious to read through.

....

"....but it is incapable of having objective values." Now be a good girl and correct your post since you either are too blind or a deceptive little .....well, you can fill in all those bad words the Catholics put in your ego to cause it to be so incapable of simple reading.

Good boy Selene for alerting me to the error. Sloppy reading goof on my part, sorry. My apologies to DH.

BTW, your above "deceptivity slur" is uncalled for. I have never had any problems in correcting errors. Have you?

So D. Hougen clearly points out that a robot can't have values. Since 'objective' values don't exist, I only call them "values". But for clarity's sake, in case you should accuse me of "misrepresenting" anything, will quote verbatim what DH wrote: a robot is "incapable of having objective values" (DH).

For 'values' require a consciousness having the mental and emotional capacity to attribute value, would you agree, Selene?

Now doesn't this include plants as well?

Ms. Xray:

Thanks for the acknowledgment. Moreover, a suggestion for you, young lady ...if you are going to attempt to use a technique like mirroring, you should invest in a thesaurus. Your attempt above failed.

Secondly, young lady, since when is satire a slur? If you perceived it as a slur, you could have some serious issues which you might want to address with a professional.

Finally, plants having values does not make sense to me. However, I have no formal proof to base that on, essentially, plants are for admiring, eating, employing as herbal remedies and of course smoking...

pimp.gifbongoBong.gifcool.gif

Adam

just hangin and chillin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that this begs the question of Galt withholding knowledge of his electric motor from the world. I can only say that that contributed to the collapse of the old order and that the doctor's did not.

--Brant

Easily distinguished. Galt, like every other one of the strikers except the doctor, was not in a profession whose primary ethic was the preservation of life. He broke no promise, he did not abandon a self imposed obligation, when he decided to withhold his invention from the rest of the world. Same with Dagny, Rearden and the others. The doctor, arguably, did; in a sense he was morally obligated not to go on strike.

The judge, on the other hand, could be said to be morally obligated to go on strike, because otherwise he would be forced to participate in the enforcement of slavery once his decision in the Mulligan case was overturned if he remained a judge. I don't think any of the other strikers were in a similar position to his.

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we all in agreement that there are certain professions that, by their nature, acquire a higher order of "social responsibility?

If so, there would still have to be a tipping point wherein an oath can be:

voided

non-binding

revocable

For example, an officer's oath would be voidable if, in their individual evaluations they concluded that the order to commit an act. or the act itself. was unconstitutional, in human or immoral.

Adam

we spend New Years Eve at home since it is amateur night anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now