bmacwilliam

Agree with most of what you said. However, there is a very good argument in favour of altruism as moral prescription, but not exclusively - maybe that's what you meant. There is an excellent biological argument in favour of 'enforced' partial altruism. I'll get to that. "I think Barbara and Bob are talking at cross-purposes." Shouldn't be. I have made it abundantly clear I was dealing with Rand's comments on sacrifice and not on complete and total slavery. "But that is an example of introducing unfalsifiability: that way you can always explain altruistic behavior as a selfish action - it is the "everyone is selfish" theory, which is trivially true when every conscious action is selfish by definition (you do it while you want to do it). " Glad you made that point before we go there. Thanks. I will also argue that the altruistic tendenies inherent in man lead to the inescapable conclusion that free markets as Rand defined them do NOT work best for humans. <speculation> I believe that since politics was her primary motivator, and she knew that altruism threw a wrench into this half-baked idea of pure self-interest, altruism HAD to be the EVIL of all EVILS. It had to be beyond scrutiny, otherwise her whole platform unwinds. </speculation> Bob

In a biological sense, altruism generally means behaviour that taken outside the concept of a population or society would be anti-Darwinian. In other words a sacrifice - increasing the fitness of others at a cost to the individual. Certainly not if you jump across the is/ought gap like Rand did. Man qua man would require altruism as the partial standard according to her logic (which I disagree with anyway). The problem is not that altruism IS man's only nature and she is totally backwards. The problem is that altruism is an important and objective part of our nature and cannot be denied. Bob

Oh, Just to be clear, I think that self-interest is certainly bred into us as well. Life it seems is a balancing act. Bob

Now, even though I don't want to start another line here, but I think there's a fairly simple explanation of why Rand got this wrong. She rejected the concept of society. While it is true that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, it is wrong to assume that this does not affect individual behaviour in a huge way. Mathematically, population numbers, density, and distribution are all criticallly important factors in human behavioural evolution. The rejection of society as a concept or as an entity in and of itself I believe is a big error. Mathematically at least, it's very important. Perhaps it's not correct to say that she rejected the concept of society, but she did reject the idea of acting for the benefit of 'society'. In terms of the theory though, this is a very real and important idea. Bob

Altruism is most definitely bred into at least the vast majority of us. "If I invent a word and define it, you cannot reasonably say that I shouldn't use it according to my definition." Agreed, but again, I'm discussing the second variation. "It talks about altruism and cooperation as if they were identical" In terms of evolutionary game theory, the concepts are interchangeable. Game theory cooperation is indeed sacrifice. From a description of evolutionary game theory: "Cooperative behavior seems to contradict Darwinian evolution because altruistic individuals increase the fitness of other members of the population at a cost to themselves." Ironically, the RAND corporation is a leader in this area of research. Game theory (or at least modern more accurate variants that do not assume infinite population sizes - ie more reality based) experiments seem to explain a great deal of seemingly anti-Darwinian behaviour. It turns out that altruism is not anti-Darwinian at all, and in fact it seems altruism is indeed favoured in a Darwinian sense. It is bred right into us. Bob

There were two Rand quotes defining altruism. I am only discussing the second variation. This one: "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.... it does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious.. ..it is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't." Bob

I cannot disagree with a definition per se as Barbara points out. I feel that Rand's way of defining altruism in her harsher form was simple slavery and so it's misleading to call it altruism. Now for the form I will discuss: "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.... it does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious.. ..it is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't." Firstly, using Rand's terms, to live life qua man involves inherent altruism and NOT inherent selfishness. Altruism is bred right in to us. Using Rand's logic then, living as a man qua man necessitates altruistic behaviour. Some evidence... 1: J Theor Biol. 2005 Jul 21;235(2):233-40. Epub 2005 Mar 5 "Altruism, the capacity to perform costly acts that confer benefits on others, is at the core of cooperative behavior. Behavioral experiments show that humans have a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish non-cooperators at personal cost (so-called strong reciprocity) which, according to standard evolutionary game theory arguments, cannot arise from selection acting on individuals. This has led to the suggestion of group and cultural selection as the only mechanisms that can explain the evolutionary origin of human altruism. We introduce an agent-based model inspired on the Ultimatum Game, that allows us to go beyond the limitations of standard evolutionary game theory and show that individual selection can indeed give rise to strong reciprocity. Our results are consistent with the existence of neural correlates of fairness and in good agreement with observations on humans and monkeys." Next: Individual life as the standard of value is objectively wrong. Bob

Right! That'll work. And yes, I disagree with this view. Rich, Matus, defining the terms of the discussion is the most productive way to begin a debate or discussion, otherwise it goes nowhere fast. I'll have a go at that version of Rand's view. The other description of altruism is not altruism at all as far as I'm concerned. I have time restraints like most others, but I'll outline my views on this ASAP. First things first, we finally have the topic, so I can start now. Bob

Wow, Lots of responses! So, for the purposes of discussion let's stick to altruism for now. Tabula rasa maybe next... The question is whether or not it is correct that we should ever have a moral (or even legal by extension) obligation to help others at our own expense. From what I can tell, the Objectivist position is No. I am prepared to argue in favour of such an obligation, but I want to be clear on what I'm discussing first. Bob

Gotta read that! Thanks. Bob

Ok, so... The question is, if helping them causes you any risk, inconvenience, time, or money, should you be required (morally) to help? Bob

Dragonfly wrote : "As I said in an earlier post, we don't have the data yet to say which theory is correct, but each theory can explain the emergence of life in a completely natural manner without having to resort to extraordinary, supernatural hypotheses. " I agree with this, but also somewhat agree with Michael's angle - at least somewhat. The puzzling thing about life arises out of the fact that it's NOT supernatural. The fact that it's a natural part of the universe makes it all the more mysterious - or at least fascinating. I think that because we can create simple machines, we see ourselves and life in this light too. Perhaps a little too much though. I for one agree that evolution can explain a great deal - especially in the human behaviour area, but that's off topic. We are much more than our simple notion of machines, because we are spontaneous, self-aware, replicating machines. A reductionist point of view, I think, cannot escape the conclusion that at the very lowest levels of subatomic particles there must exist something: 1) Consciousness-like 2) Self organizing There is something deep and mysterious (not supernatural) about life, and therefore matter and energy. Jam it together in the right combination and look what happens - us. That's why, I think that digging into QM and low-level reality must be extraordinarily strange and counter-intuitive. I can't begin to imagine how to understand consciousness at the low-level, but I think it has to exist. Otherwise it makes no sense to me how it exists when atoms combine. The universe is not just a collection of atoms, it's a self-aware collection. Bob

Yes, I get it. As I see it, there's two ways this can go. 1) I could argue that Rand's view of altruism is deliberately misleading. Often she describes it even harsher than your terms - basically slavery. I can't argue for slavery. I can only argue that what she means by altruism, isn't altruism. 2) The simpler, self-sacrifice bad, self-interest good meaning. So to be clear, I'd rather criticize Rand's position in the #2 form. Bob

Good, let's start here. First we need to agree on what altruism is. Your definition 'forced service/sacrifice' sounds more like slavery. I wouldn't argue in favour of slavery. How about we discuss altruism in this context: "Objectivism holds that self-sacrifice is the evil and that self-interest is good. " or at least the idea that "Objectivism holds that nobody should be bound/required to self-sacrifice." Does either of these work? Bob

As far as I can tell, Rand had no choice but to detest, insult, and 'refute' Hume (I use that word lightly). Hume didn't use mysticism or faith to argue against reason and it's limitations. He used reason to argue against itself. This made him a dangerous guy in Rand's eyes, so she made him 'evil'. In reality though, Hume seems correct, at least moreso than Rand. Bob

Yes, The idea was that I agreed to discuss my problems with O'ism outside of the other thread. My first post was just trying to decide where to start. Bob

Victor, The problem comes NOT when you connect FACTS and VALUES, but when you attempt to DERIVE VALUES from FACTS. Can't be done. There is always a PRECRIPTIVE premise either explicit or implied as opposed to DESCRIPTIVE. Hence the problem. Bob

Here's a partial list I disagree with the following Objectivist ideas and derivatives thereof a) Ethical foundations (is/ought) b) Identity (as used in O'ism) c) Tabula Rasa d) Dismissal of altruism e) Objectivist ideas on the senses Where to start? Thoughts? Bob

Again, it comes down to what I conclude as Rand's primary motivation, and that's politics. Her primary motivator in my opinion was to "prove" that the political system she grew up in was objectively wrong. Admirable perhaps, but her task was nearly impossible I think. In order to "prove" that altruism in the socialist/communist sense was wrong, she had to "prove" that it was never acceptable to live for, or in fact to do anything for, the sake of another without one's own best (selfish) interests in mind. This is why one's life had to be primary. It simply HAD to be morally wrong so that the political system she so venomously despised also had to be objectively wrong. She didn't seem to mind discarding all sorts of real philosophical problems and clear contradictions in order to get to the goal. For all her lip service to reason and reality, she didn't let reality get in the way of her ambition. Bob

"If an "ought" involves the nature of a value, this "ought" is derived from "is." If the "ought" has automatically developed from affects (even if only for the most part), this "ought" is derived from "is." Where volition is involved, however, the "ought" is always conditional to the value pursued. And that value is chosen, thus it is ultimately subjective, i.e, dependent on the person's free will. A rational code of ethics ideally takes all this into account. That is why I say some "oughts" derive from "is" and others don't." The problem I think is that each and every ought, as Ellen has pointed out, is ALWAYS derived from an "IF" and not an "IS". The only thing universal about is-ought is the universality of an implied "ought" in everything. Humans can live as animals, but isn't it better that we use our rational faculties and live "qua" man. Sure, I'd agree with that. But there's no solid, logical foundation in this. It's implied that we "ought" to do more than survive like an animal. I agree, but it cannot be proven just because we "are" or we "can". Rand's is-ought dismissal is remarkably weak. Rand's words again: "In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends and values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value for which any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgements is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relationship between "is" and "ought." - Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics', VOS, italics in original." In a nutshell, all she says is that life is the ultimate value and we must do "something" to live. Therefore all actions can be validated against this objective backdrop. Sure, we must "do" something to live, but the first part of that is wrong. Life is not the ultimate value in an evolutionary sense, gene replication is - objective fact. These are related concepts, but importantly and significantly different. Also, "it's own life" is also wrong. Some species readily sacrifice themselves for the collective (also makes sense genetically). In human terms, we can choose to risk or even sacrifice our lives for another, maybe a spouse or child (in both emergency and non-emergency situations). In evolutionary (genetic) terms, it's consistent. Rand defends this by saying something like this choice is valid because my life is not worth living without person B, instead of admitting she's full of crap. I remember laughing out loud with this justification. Reality refutes this Objectivist position completely. It fascinates me how seemingly intelligent people refuse to admit these types of obvious errors and go through all kinds of rather amazing intellectual backflips to justify these foolish and erroneous positions. According to Rand, life is the "ultimate" value, but it can nevertheless be morally justified to risk it or even sacrifice it sometimes. I call bullshit on that one. A=A , but maybe A=B if X or Y is the case... Bob

Aha, now I see clearer, and I agree up to a point. "If one continues to choose life for oneself, one will encounter definite internal and external constraints on the range of possible attainments open to one. " Fine, but notice the one critical word - "IF". Very important - Rand didn't like that word much. I contend that man is free to choose what he values and we're guided by our rational faculties and our biologies. Usually life is at or near the top of the priority list, but not always, and it is not mandatory. I can choose to value a family member's life over my own, maybe temporarily, maybe permanently - it's up to me. Maybe I choose to serve my King as value #1. Whatever. The point is that there is no objective basis for evaluating one priority list over another. The logic of evolution and humans as gene-replicators (albeit sophisticated ones) makes so much more sense in explaining our behaviour and morality than Rand's does. So much so that I can confidently dismiss Rand's ideas on this as nonsense. "and a single choice: to live." Nope. Way too simple. False dichotomy life or death - there's infinitely many ways to "live". Bob

"In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends and values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value for which any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgements is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the relationship between "is" and "ought." - Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics', VOS, italics in original." That's one of those passages, when I read it the first time, it was concerted effort of will power not to throw the book across the room and into the trash bin. Not only is it a dismissal of a very important and real philosophical problem, the attitude reveals a inappropriate contempt in my opinion. "So much for the relationship between "is" and "ought." Ridiculous, not to mention wrong. It seems she hasn't even tried to understand why the is/ought problem is a tough one. Bob

That's a good question. I'll think about that, but I'm not sure it's central to my point. What I'm trying to say is that many variations on character types and behaviours, some of which we all might object to, are still equally valid within a rational framework. There's no good way to prove one is superior. Even in the case of behaviour that cannot be generalized, like in the prior post. That argument isn't good enough. Many things we'd call "good" cannot be generalized. If it cannot be good to be a parasite, then it cannot be good to be ________ , because society wouldn't work if we were all _________. That argument doesn't hold water. The blank could be just about anything. "How do you know that the virtue of objectivity cannot have an objective basis?" Tough question. Although I tend to think that I can say that I value that virtue, but cannot prove logically that it's objectively virtuous. Doesn't it always come down to the assertion that we "ought" to be objective? Bob

To elaborate... First of all, as Dragonfly mentioned we need to get the physiologic values out of the discussion. Food and water as values don't count. We're talking ethics. I am not saying, nor is Dragonfly I think, that there is a code of ethics that at a gut level seems to be 'proper' or at least more valuable than another. The problem is that it cannot be derived. The very root of the problem is free will. You have the free will to value anything thing you wish. You have the free will to develop you character as you see fit. There is no OBJECTIVE basis for evaluating the variations, only subjective. Even murder other types of force can be logically justified in the same "man qua man" basis that Rand uses to argue against it. Michael wrote : "The very fact that man has volition means he can choose. People choose. Everyday. Everywhere. That is their nature." Exactly, and that is PRECISELY why no objective ethics can ever be derived. Bob

To me, I think it's pretty simple. Man can CHOOSE what he values including his ultimate value, and this can even change with time and according to certain situations etc. Rand's ethic's are not derived as she would have you believe. There is no firm footing in asserting the "ought" in Objectivism or anything else for that matter. As I see it, it's fine to say that IF you value A, then you ought to do B. But there's no teeth in the "You ought to value "A" argument. Bob