bmacwilliam

You don't have to be 'absolutely sure' at all, of anything, to make perfectly rational decisions.

Never claimed this.

You said "Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught"

What I mean is, certaintly of not getting caught is not required. It doesn't matter. Risk can be present and still be rational. Risk is not sufficient for irrationality.

"I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved."

I do not believe that you believe this - seriously. We both know that welfare is largely or entirely undeserved. To say people don't gain from it though is a bold-faced denial of reality if I've ever seen it. Ludicrous.

How many people living on welfare do you know? I know a couple, none of them gain from it in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact it's destroying their lives.

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

For sure, those people who cannot work for disability reasons certainly gain. Others, with differing morality that, according to you or me, probably should be working, would nevertheless claim that they gain. You're so sure you can dismiss this as "imagined" gain, somehow not worthy of 'real' gain?

Well then does this mean necessarily that

1) It is impossible for you to ever gain thusly because you can't see it now?

and

2) This state of affairs applies to all?

Bob

But what is "gain"?

Exactly. Your gain could be very different from mine.

Why is money good? It makes life easier? It allows you to have more fun?

What is fun? Is it a feeling of power? Why are relationships important and what people think of us?

I think the epitome of happiness would be having people do what we want them to do before we even want it.

I think what we want is one thing, but that thing manifests itself in many ways. It's that perpetuation of self...

To contradict your own ethical code is to disrespect your own judgement, and it proves a lack of self-esteem. That's why taking the money would be irrational to someone who morally opposed such a choice.

Well, what about the contractor who morally opposes unions, who nevertheless does their office renovation for good money. He feels a little wrong about it (helping a group he despises), but should he not do it? Maybe... Is it irrational for him to do it? Proves lack of self-esteem? Don't think so. What if his kid needs braces (or food for that matter). Irrational now??

A million examples. If the "immoral is the irrational" is your claim, you must provide an argument for this. You must show how this is always so.

Bob

I think it is irrational because morality is a key to happiness. If you disregard your own morals, you're hurting yourself more than anyone else...

Without hopes of happiness there is no rationality, is there?

Well, good questions.

"I think it is irrational because morality is a key to happiness"

Perhaps, but your morality is not a key to my happiness.

" If you disregard your own morals, you're hurting yourself more than anyone else..."

That's an empirical question if it is to be rational. Small moral transgression with relatively large gain?? Not so simple.

Bob

I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

Maybe you should try it out, Bob.

Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught and take money that isn't yours.

In the meantime, I'll work on being a better professional.

In 3 decades we talk again and see how this worked out for us and whose choices were deemed more rational by reality.

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

If you disagree here, you really should consider a criminal career. I will not insult you by telling you not to become a criminal for any reason other than selfishness.

There's lots of people here on OL who disagree with me on that point and believe you should play nice for the sake of others.

You don't have to be 'absolutely sure' at all, of anything, to make perfectly rational decisions.

The point is not morality, the point is the claim of unbreakable connection between morality and rationality.

"I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved."

I do not believe that you believe this - seriously. We both know that welfare is largely or entirely undeserved. To say people don't gain from it though is a bold-faced denial of reality if I've ever seen it. Ludicrous.

Bob

Your proposition lacks all context. It's all bones and no flesh. That's why no one has ever managed to rationally argue you down. That's all I'm talking about: your arrogant proposition from the top of your nothing hill. The issue you want to deal with here you don't yet deserve a conversation about. However, I'll indulge you because if you haven't gotten my point yet you never will. It all has to do with who you are. If you are a crook or a sociopath rejoice in your good fortune. If a crook maybe you are one because of a series of irrationalities that made you what you are. You cannot find, however, fundamental rationality there, for it was displaced by fundamental irrationality. Since I can't talk too well about sociopathy I won't, though there may be a significant genetic component. But in that case free will is traduced and so is one's fundamental rationality.

Everything costs something. Taking the money costs something and giving it back costs something. And there are good costs and bad costs. You choose one thing you can't choose a million others. Time and life are too short. This doesn't even address profits and loses: psychological, sociological and all kinds of logicals. Just how valuable is that money to you anyway? Are your children starving or does your wife want a new hat? Are you going to Vegas? Or perhaps your name is Ragnar and you follow armored cars around hoping the doors will fly open and bags of money fall out so you can return it to the real owner-producers? Is that a rational way to spend time? It just happened? Don't disasters just happen? Here's one for you: A truck is in an accident. A bag of money falls out. The truck is on fire. The driver is trapped. You can save the driver's life or take the money. There are no witnesses except that driver and he's going to die right there before your eyes, burned to a cinder. Is it fundamentally rational to take the money and even do a dance of joy waving bundles of 100 dollar bills in the driver's face in all this? You know, don't you, that when the driver finds the money missing, assuming no accident, he just might feel so bad for several different reasons he might kill himself?

--Brant

"arrogant proposition"

"top of your nothing hill"

"don't yet deserve a conversation"

Your apoplectic emotional responses don't even begin to answer what is a rather simple question addressing a quite common family of decisions people have to make every day. I use an extreme example for clarity, but the general 'family' of decisions includes a huge variety of situations where there is combination of low risk, high reward, but moral 'problems'.

I am not the one claiming the connection between moral and rational. I see a rather obvious disconnect and it's up to the positive 'claimer' to explain why there is irrationality here, not immorality. All you've said is that it "feels like such an immoral thing to do, that it MUST be irrational too!!".

No, morality here is offside/irrelevant because I agree with you. I'm only questioning the rationality. It needs to be proven irrational in a coherent/non-emotional, dare I say 'rational' way.

"everything costs something" Sure, so we do a cost-benefit analysis?

"profit and loss" Will this analysis lead to the irrational?

"risk" is this the key factor?

No, nada, nope.

Maybe it's irrational because it 'feels' so wrong that it has to be? Sorry, not good enough...

Bob

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

Maybe that's your money and you're chasing robbers.

Maybe it's the old Soviet Union and it's a government truck and friends and relatives have been sent to the Gulag.

These contextless examples are worthless except for me to point out the lack of context.

--Brant

Fine, the Bank's money.

As Ayn Rand once asked Leonard Peikoff: "Can't you think in principles?" Now that you are trying to (feebly) establish a context for your example, you fail to acknowledge explicitly what you do implicitly: the original proposition--yours--is irrational, which is why it cannot be answered rationally on its own merits or terms.

--Brant

Why is it irrational for me to take something that is not mine if I calculate the risk is low and the reward high? I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

bob

Go ahead. Try to explain why this is irrational. Not immoral.

Why is it stupid? But more importantly, why is it irrational?

Bob

You don't understand why a taking a 1% chance of getting killed is stupid? More to the point, you don't understand the difference between what's rational for a mangy dog scrounging for scraps in an alley from what is rational for a human being?

Self-esteem -> self-interest -> ego -> understanding Man's nature -> principles -> reason -> benevolent universe -> thriving -> Self-esteem -> ...

"Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon" -Bruce Lee

"You don't understand why a taking a 1% chance of getting killed is stupid?"

Nope, I don't. Not at all.

You can't base rationality on risk. Many risks are taken willingly, with money and with life and limb all the time and are perfectly rational. It would never be rational for join a army or accept any dangerous job for that matter. Risk doesn't cut it. Sometimes risk is perfectly rational - 1% or much more sometimes.

Bob

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

You assume persons with no egos and no values. Even so, a "bag of money" is nothing in the context of a useful life. Even if you had a one in a hundred chance of being caught it's like playing on the freeway: simply stupid.

Go ahead. Try to explain why this is irrational. Not immoral.

Why is it stupid? But more importantly, why is it irrational?

Bob

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

Maybe that's your money and you're chasing robbers.

Maybe it's the old Soviet Union and it's a government truck and friends and relatives have been sent to the Gulag.

These contextless examples are worthless except for me to point out the lack of context.

--Brant

Fine, the Bank's money.

It may be a rational decision, but imo the rational is not automatically the moral.

(Of course the rational can often be the moral, but not in all cases).

That disagreement of ours is the fundamental one in a lot of questions I believe.

You see a bag of money fall off a truck. You are sure nobody is around to see you take it. You take it.

Moral? - no, that's easy.

Irrational? - never heard an argument that makes sense why this is irrational.

Bob

Success depends on luck and on average you lose.

No way. Castro, Stalin and others succeeded not because of luck, but because they were smart, cold, calculating, selfish, rational monsters.

Hence the problem.

Bob

And they succeeded in what, BTW? It's "rational" to be a monster? It was "rational" to invade Russia? It was "rational" to sacrifice whole armies, which was a Hitler specialty? It was "rational" to induce the mass starvation of millions? Etc. Oh, sure, it was "rational," "if," "if," "if."

--Brant

Hitler wasn't on my list. He ultimately lost.

My point is though that Stalin and Castro were highly self-interested and calculating people who were not ultimately destroyed by their actions. Quite the opposite actually, they prospered by them.

So, I think there needs to be a better argument for non-initiation of force other than it destroys one's life or self-esteem or whatever. That doesn't cut it for me.

You said in another post that 'qua man' is "best is an individual matter". Yes, I see it that way too but Rand didn't. If she would have said this much then I wouldn't be so hostile to her views.

You also (very astutely IMHO) said

"The "proof" is in the politics informing the ethics to some extent"

Yes, I see it to a rather large extent and I don't like it because I think she would never have admitted this in a million years. As well, I don't think this is a "honest" place to start, or at least it's not honest when she explicitly says she starts with other premises.

Bob

Success depends on luck and on average you lose.

No way. Castro, Stalin and others succeeded not because of luck, but because they were smart, cold, calculating, selfish, rational monsters.

Hence the problem.

Bob

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

Man qua cat?

--Brant

Well, the question is what is the proof, or even the standard of proof to determine which 'man qua man' is best?

That's the problem. IMHO, Rand does not offer any convincing argument for her version.

Bob

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

The ethic of self interest is simply the recognition that men should be free. Free men are free to act in their own interest. The moral decision is free men or slaves. This is the keystone, you can't accept the other tenets of objectivism without the ethic of self interest and personal freedom. I personally believe an individual can be as altruistic as they want personally, if that's their personal religion. But I believe in separation of religion and state, you cannot mandate anyone to act against their self interest nor violate their right to property. To take the fruits of someones labor without their consent is immoral.

Although I don't share completely this outlook, my biggest objection to this is simply that Rand's ethics are inconsistent. Is your life (even qua man as problematic as that is) your standard of value - or not? What about when it violates another's property rights?

I understand the objection - that stealing for example doesn't pass the 'qua man' test, but that is a very weak argument.

Bob

To say that you shouldn't loot because it harms others is altruism. You shouldn't loot because it's a short-sighted strategy.

How is is short-sighted? Stalin? Castro?

It works for many people for their entire lives. Has to be a better reason than 'short-sighted'.

Bob

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

If you have read Rand, Man qua Man, is one of the easiest ideas to understand.

Sure is.

However, if you have an additional neuron available to process this 'idea', it is also one of the easiest ideas to use to expose Objectivism's nonsense.

She obviously does not mean 'simple existence' so there's an implied judgment of what is "proper". What is right or proper or ethical cannot be simply defined as that which promotes one's life "qua man". "qua man" has the "proper" idea already in it. This logic is trivially circular.

Or, the alternative that "right" or "proper" then must at least sometimes mean things that are not life promoting. Now we clearly have a big problem with "life as the standard of value" assertion. Obviously, this "proper" fails that test.

Seems rather obvious that Rand's ethics are quite transparently false.

Bob

I think Michael is correct... Oh crap...did I write that???

Sumbitch...

Oh crap is right.

You're right, I see now I've convinced nobody !!

Bob,

I've been saying this kind of stuff way before I ever read anything by you. It's all on record.

This is the crap I don't like from you.

Along with the strawmen arguments.

Funny how you only just now noticed my position. I thought you had been reading my stuff for some time. It's not like there's a lack of my posts to read that deal with this...

Michael

The obvious fact that you are so hostile, yet agree almost entirely with what I'm saying is your problem, not mine. My strawmen are your strawmen, but the reality is that the straw is only in your mind.

The fact that you don't conclude that your (and my) position essentially guts Objectivism of its key tenets is a contradiction you have to deal with. The fact that you agree with me almost completely, but cannot take that final step speaks to an emotional commitment, not a rational one.

But hey, I'll let the reader decide if your posts are emotional or not. Now isn't that charitable of me?

Bob

Missed the point again, Bob.

Orrrrllllllly?

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

Correct, that's the point that you said I missed (again). Contradictions don't help your argument, especially contradictions in the same post.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism. By O'ist definition of the concepts.

Sure, and that's why it's wrong/fallacious. Let's set aside the fallacy just for a second, and look at this another way. Rand... Bob

I notice that a. you pretend not to know what "per se" indicates. b. you have conveniently split apart my two sentences that begin with "this is" (ie, this was not...and, this was an...), as if they are not connected. c. Realising that you weren't going anyway with your "fallacy" attack, you then introduce "wrong/fallacious", and quickly move on to "Let's leave aside the fallacy just for a second..."

No "contradiction" exists in my argument right through this thread: "per se", means that IN THIS CASE, my argument is not purely against altruism, but against the compatibility of it, and romantic love. I've consistently spelled out my rejection of altruism. Here, is no different. You reinforce your dishonest attempt, by quoting two sentences out of context with each other.

Putting up a smoke-screen for your hasty retreat, your only recourse is then a general and meaningless tirade against Objectivist ethics. Blah, blah. So you don't agree? - too bad.

Find your adrenalin fix with someone else. I can handle anything - but not deliberate dishonesty..

Tony

Dishonesty now? That's a sure sign you've got nothing left.

"Realising that you weren't going anyway with your "fallacy" attack, you then introduce "wrong/fallacious", and quickly move on to "Let's leave aside the fallacy just for a second..."

That's called an additional item. Of course you knew that, but call me dishonest. Again, quite nicely Randian.

"tirade against Objectivist ethics."

Uhhh... Yeah... It's nonsense. That's what I've been sayin'. Are you paying attention here??

Bob

Maybe the terms "individual" and "social" are not well defined.

For example, I think , that one's nature is independent or dependent, they are a dichotomy.

I don't think so. Even mathematically.

Pick an attribute to maximize (profit, money/price are easy examples). Even achievement works but is admittedly less precise, but I think the principle applies.

There will be a maximum attained at some combination of individual oriented actions and dependency needs somewhere in the middle ground area.

Price a good too high, no customers, no profit. Too low, no profit either. Somewhere in the middle a max profit point exists.

Bob

I think Michael is correct... Oh crap...did I write that???

Sumbitch...

But anyway, he really is correct, and I agree quite strongly with the following:

"Instead of positing the human nature distinction you are mulling over as either-or (i.e., man is either all individual or all social), I did the common sense thing and decided that people consisted of both."

Yep.

"I use 20% social and 80% individual as the make-up of human nature to help guide my own thinking and living as an individual."

Sounds reasonable.

"Monster companies like Facebook and Twitter are built solely on supplying satisfaction for that social urge."

Nice observation.

"I cannot escape the conclusion that if the field of ethics is to be based on human nature, we have to include the social part."

Like, totally!

You're right, I see now I've convinced nobody !!

"This is a big issue and it does not necessarily negate Objectivism."

D'oh!!!!!!!!

Besides this statement sliding dangerously close to a contradiction on its face, I don't get it. I've tried to get it, but my tiny little mind just can't grasp this last part. There must be some deep meaning in there or something, but it escapes me.

But how do you think Rand herself might address this???

Bob

Missed the point again, Bob.

Orrrrllllllly?

This was not an argument against altruism, per se.

Correct, that's the point that you said I missed (again).

Contradictions don't help your argument, especially contradictions in the same post.

This was an assertion of the self-evident incompatibility of love and altruism.

By O'ist definition of the concepts.

Sure, and that's why it's wrong/fallacious.

Let's set aside the fallacy just for a second, and look at this another way.

Rand uses such an ridiculously extreme definition of altruism (cue Michael to go apoplectic because he won't be able to parse anything beyond this) that is so very very far removed the common use of the term to argue in support her version of 'Rational Selfishness'. Then, in a rather sneaky (ok, not that sneaky, but obviously sneaky enough for many) way, she pulls the bait and switch to argue against any altruism or any transfer of resources whatsoever (back to the mainstream altruism definition now - the 'switch') from producers to the leeches.

This may be smart (I don't think so really), and it is certainly devious and manipulative. Why did you and so many others get sucked into this rather obvious nonsense? I don't really know, but its unfortunate. While I think the fallacy is obvious, the bait and switch even more clear, if that's even possible.

Bob

Bob,

You are pretty good at setting up strawmen and trying to knock them down. (Actually you are not as good at knocking them down as you are at setting them up, but I won't belabor that point.)

Just like the strawman you set up in this last post. You even put an imagined quote in the mouth of your strawman.

That process doesn't persuade anyone by reason. (It can, but a person has to be a lot better at it than you are.) That's what I mean when I say you don't have the ability to persuade by reason.

I wonder if it feels good, though.

I wonder because you do it so often.

At least I think I know why you always end up at the name-calling place. It must be frustrating to be unable to knock down a strawman you, yourself set up, and people start calling it a strawman.

That doesn't justify the name-calling, but at least I understand where it is coming from.

Michael

I guess you're just to lazy to read the posts regarding why the argument is fallacious. I understand.

I'm too lazy to repeat it here.

Have fun playing in your straw trying to get the horse to drink it, or whatever nonsensical point you're trying to make.

God forbid you'd ever even attempt to directly address a point. Don't start now though, that would be disappointing.

Bob

Finally, I did not offer any proof or theorem that you can call "fallacious".

I made a statement of Objectivist principle you are referring to:

According to (O'ist) rational selfishness, where there is love, there is no altruism; where there's altruism,

there can be no love.

(See a "fallacy" here?)

But you won't get that, if you believe a man can be altruistic AND loving to his wife.

"I made a statement of Objectivist principle"

Yes you did, you towed the party line. That's why I made the Randian remark.

And yes this Objectivist principle is indeed clearly, obviously, and quite trivially fallacious. Yes, I see a fallacy here and I've outlined why.

"According to (O'ist) rational selfishness, where there is love, there is no altruism; where there's altruism,

there can be no love."

This is fallacious. In this form, the argument is trivially circular.

God exists.

How do you know?

Because the Bible tells me that.

Why should I believe what the Bible says?

Because the Bible was written by God.

See how the conclusion (God exists) is included in the premise (Bible written by God). Sometimes this can be sneakier. Rand was good at this.

In the other forms, the more detailed Objectivist forms, the "no altruism" idea is contained in the premise(s). Look...it...up... It's called "Begging the question" or "Petitio principii".

You cannot use "Rational selfishness" as an argument against altruism because the argument against altruism is contained in the "Rational selfishness" concept(s).

Bob