Francisco Ferrer

FF, This very request shows your thinking model. Rand doesn't deduce theft from a Platonic principle. But what the hell, I'll give you more than a "passage from her ethics where she establishes irrefutably that man's identity forbids theft." Some have said Rand wrote a long-ass book about a bunch of philosophically-minded genius-super-achievers who went on strike precisely because they were sick and tired of the theft of their stuff and just wanted to live according to man's nature as they rationally identified it. See here. Michael It's because Rand explicitly criticized philosophers for not giving us a "rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values" that we should expect from her something approaching real world evidence for claims about main's nature. But you argue that the "data" consists of a novel in which the heroes all seem to have faces constructed from the same mold of angular planes and the villains are each variations on the theme of drooling ghoul? Really? If only it were true that all the looters and moochers and pull-peddlers in America 1890, 1917, 1933, 1945, 1965, 2008 got their comeuppance immediately, directly and on the chin. However, outside the world of Ayn Rand's wish-fulfillment fiction, trains do crash and bridges do collapse, but, sadly, not every victim is a mystic, an altruist, or a collectivist, getting exactly what he deserved, to use the stock phrase of the comic relief character on this website. Sometimes "the man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1" is actually a hard-working software designer and not "a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence." In other words, that which one takes for oneself, one might or might not arbitrarily apply to all other men? Whew. After all AR's man qua man, metaphysical explanation.. It's at the very least, implicit, FF. This is the nature of man, fundamentally always true - regardless of whether an individual turns out a self-acknowledged egoist, Objectivist, jihadist, or whatever - which is on the table. Is it not as result of your professed determinism, which can consider that a "...man may be a wily, ruthless predator just as easily as a benevolent neighbor?"?? If, as you say, I am determined to say "man may be a wily, ruthless predator just as easily as a benevolent neighbor," then you can easily disprove the statement by showing the complete absence of ruthless predators among our species. According to your theory, my determinism will prevent me from being persuaded by your answer. But then I am not the only reader of posts on this thread, am I? As for the need to justify our actions by universalizing them: would a man wracked by cancer need to encourage all his brothers to commit suicide before he could rightfully take his own life? No, no! Not meaning that YOU were 'determined' to state that - but, that you believe (I surmised) others were 'determined' to be predators or good neighbors and so on. Last we debated this, you had determinist leanings. Returning to mpp's poser, he wouldn't have asked, and we would not be discussing his question - IF - he and I and others here did not have convictions of individual volition. In which case, I'd be advising him to just go with the flow, that he was not instrumental in his actions, character and virtues, that all he is and does was anyway predetermined and beyond his power. (And all that matters is can he get away with it). I hold with the school of thought that everything that happens in the world of non-fiction has a prior cause (or multiple prior causes). I will not guess what MPP's convictions were at the time he posed his question in Post #1, but it is certainly possible for someone who is not an adherent of the free will argument to ask any number of questions, academic and otherwise. You seem to view determinism as the simplistic idea that a man is programmed only once by external forces, and that after that nothing can change his motives/actions. I don't know of any determinist who has taken that position. Of course, people change with changing conditions. New factors, including new knowledge, alter patterns of behavior. This is what child developmental psychology is all about.

In other words, that which one takes for oneself, one might or might not arbitrarily apply to all other men? Whew. After all AR's man qua man, metaphysical explanation.. It's at the very least, implicit, FF. This is the nature of man, fundamentally always true - regardless of whether an individual turns out a self-acknowledged egoist, Objectivist, jihadist, or whatever - which is on the table. Is it not as result of your professed determinism, which can consider that a "...man may be a wily, ruthless predator just as easily as a benevolent neighbor?"?? If, as you say, I am determined to say "man may be a wily, ruthless predator just as easily as a benevolent neighbor," then you can easily disprove the statement by showing the complete absence of ruthless predators among our species. According to your theory, my determinism will prevent me from being persuaded by your answer. But then I am not the only reader of posts on this thread, am I? As for the need to justify our actions by universalizing them: would a man wracked by cancer need to encourage all his brothers to commit suicide before he could rightfully take his own life? Very well, man has an identity. What Rand does not provide is any logical argument that, at his essence, homo sapiens is Man the Producer, not Man the Mystic, or Man the Warlord, or Man the Social Worker. If I am nothing more than a stubborn mule who refuses to see what you claim is plainly there, then perhaps for those with more open minds, you might quote a passage from her ethics where she establishes irrefutably that man's identity forbids theft.

FF, You still don't get it. I'm not saying it. Rand is. (Although I agree with her.) I'm saying that Rand treats these two terms as different things. It's right there in front of you. Her words, not mine. All you need to do is read them. Here... let me help you. When Rand writes: ... she means that there are two things, not one, because she mentioned two things using the connective "and," she put them both in quotes, and she said they are, well... different. This is pretty basic English. I learned this kind of stuff around kindergarten. One term for Rand is an abstraction, an "abstract principle," a universal, and the other is a concrete, or as she said, "a concrete, specific purpose." And further, all this is within the context she was talking about. You know... like she just said. No amount of semantic nitpicking and pretzel-twisting by you is going to make this any different. You don't have to agree with Rand (I know I have disagreements--especially in parts of this essay of hers), but it's a sorry intellectual enterprise to refuse to understand what she said, then try to pass off your misunderstanding as her intent--especially when she is drop-dead clear that she is talking about two different things. You have a brain. You have eyes. You are not a stupid man. Use your equipment to get at least the elementary stuff right. Michael Then we won't twist the pretzel. We'll follow Rand's own words: "An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival." So whence comes the moral obligation to respect the lives and belongings of other organisms? When Rand asserts that "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man," there is no reason to suppose this must mean "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal." Man as man, or man as being man, or man in the character or capacity of man may be a wily, ruthless predator just as easily as a benevolent neighbor. What is special to man is his ability to reason. But reason is not the exclusive province of the good neighbor. The power to think in an orderly, logical way can be found among criminals as well as saints. "But what if everyone were a criminal?" one might ask. "The world would quickly run out of products for the looters to feed upon." Yes, but the same is true for any other occupation. What if everyone were a psychologist or a librarian? Who would pick the grapes at harvest time? Rand says, "The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life." But nothing in her argument gets us from the principle of egoism (a being's life as its "ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment") to a moral prohibition on trespassing against others.

Wrong. Big government is your own self inflicted scourge on the deserving. Your own individual personal experience of government was created out of your own unproductive needy dependence... ...so it's perfect moral justice that you should get what you made rammed down your gullet. So choke on it, Frank, because you created it in your own image. Sucker. Greg With the same absence of logic and evidence, one could assert that every victim of assault, credit fraud and vandalism had it coming. God's Will was done on them.

You say we should regard "man's life" (as in universal man's life) as the standard. You say that we should not treat "man's life" as if it meant "his own life." Yet Rand in her essay does use "standard" in the particular sense of the word: "The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life." [Her emphasis] But let's follow your advice and treat standard as a universal. Doing so brings us no closer to deriving a respect for the lives and property of others from a premise of egoism. For Rand to declare than man must act in a way "which is proper to the life of a rational being" does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that his behavior must duly consider the lives and property of others. Adding the "rational being" qualifier simply allows her at a later point to veto any behavior that she disapproves of. Nothing in the word "rational" rules out aggression in all instances. You write, "That which is proper to individual members of the species has to be proper for all members if morality is to apply to the set." Well said. But there is no statement in Rand's essay that expresses this. Yes, there is the abstraction of "man qua man," but qua means "as; as being; in the character or capacity of." It is an attempt to state the essence of the species. It is not the same as saying what's true for one is true for all.

I follow the Anglo-Saxon tradition of assuming that the goods held by others are properly theirs, unless evidence exists to the contrary. Do they respect their own lives? Why not contract with a polling agency? If there is such a thing as too much self-interest, I doubt you'll find mention of it in the works of Ayn Rand. In this thread I have not submitted an example of "a worthy ethical system." Such is not required to show that Rand's system leaves a loophole open for the prudent predator. Failure to use the term "rational egoism" is equivalent to avoiding the real issue? Then we must regard Rand herself as an avoider. She used the term not once in her major essay on ethics. Moreover, I have already shown in this thread how it is possible to be rational and egoistic and still be a predator.

Rather than serving Man the Abstraction, my friend undertook a career in business to serve himself and was thus able to avoid starvation. Perhaps forest green is the only objective value for Objectivists, but my friend was choosing a rational, objective, scientifically verifiable favorite color for himself. If I were an Objectivist, I would expect that a man's choice of art would deliver a clear, unimpeachable measure of his psycho-epistemology, sense of life, etc., all "laid before an individual gains his conscious convictions," of course. As a non-Objectivist, I have no such expectation. The links showing the admiration two 20th century figures had for Greek statues were provided here.

Yes, along with muggings, rape and murder, big government is God's scourge of the undeserving.

Theft, looting, parasitism would be forbidden by any ethical system that places duty to respect the lives and property of others above pursuit of self-interest. However, that is not the argument set forth in "The Objectivist Ethics."

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy” --Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966

No, you didn't, I just quoted the relevant statement. You've seemingly jumped between 'man' and individual. and 'standard' and purpose. Not to fret, it happens a lot. Property rights - in Objectivism - is the moral system of protection of the moral individual's property, they are NOT a code of morality in themselves. Obviously, you are correct. The "ethical purpose" of every man is to rip off every other man. It's a shame that the boys over at ARI did not bother to edit "irrelevant statements" out of "The Objectivist Ethics" and leave in only the relevant ones. They certainly have not shrunk from performing that helpful service with Rand's other writings. In any case, let us stipulate, as you say--with little asterisk sparklers--that "*his own life* [is] the ethical *purpose* of every individual man." We are still no closer to providing MPP of Post #1 with a reason not to grab the tickets and resell them at 100% profit. Given that MPP's ethical *purpose* as an individual man is *MPP's own life*--and certainly not the life or well being or affluence of the legal owner of the tickets, why should MPP concern himself with anyone's skin but his own? If there is a reason for MPP to turn down this opportunity, it is not derived from the Objectivist premise that an individual man's own life is his ethical purpose.

1. The Libertarian Party, ineffectual as it may be, can properly be described as a political movement. David Nolan, the founder, was an Objectivist as were most of the other key players at the national and state levels. 2. Yes, in almost every way we are less free than in 1957. But I would argue that such is the case in spite of Ayn Rand.

I once asked an Objectivist why his favorite color was purple. He then proceeded to explain that his preference was based on the hue's perfect blend of warm and cool colors, that such a balance represented having the mind and body in perfect harmony, and that any other color choice would constitute a surrender to the irrational. I hope your color is purple, Whynot. The idea that two people could admire the same statue for radically different reasons upsets the whole Randian "art and sense of life" apple cart.

... and yet his radical secular leftist Third Reich art worshipping the state as god was ugly.Why is that? Moral values. Greg Then the subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art (Greek statues, for instance) tells us nothing about the moral values by which they live their life.

How did I get it? I got it from Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics." If "his own life" is the ethical "purpose" of every individual man, then the property rights of another would be of secondary or perhaps no value. Unless one wishes to argue that one's primary value (the self and the life of the self) must be sacrificed for the values of others. And that would take the "self" right out of "self-interest.

I have been discussing Ayn Rand's ethics and her position that "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." Now, if it is a mistake to compartmentalize values, then it is Rand's mistake. She is the one creating separate categories for "good" and "evil," "furthering" and "threatening." I have said nothing about my own values or what compartments they may or may not be stored in. "Fav. vids"? If one were to eliminate compartments from one's system of valuing, it would surely follow that one would have to remove the barrier between "favorite" and "non-favorite" vids.

In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand wrote, "No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values." She then proceeds to set forth her ethics of rational self-interest. Now, if her system is in fact rational and objectively demonstrable, not to say scientific, then it should be able to show how setting a man's own life as the standard of his values is consistent with forgoing opportunities to gain value by taking what someone else has earned. As I have said, there is a gap here that the philosopher and her students have not bridged.

The goal is to see whether there is real world confirmation for the theory that "any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life." If the statement is true, then what is it about Hitler and Rand's moral values (by which they lived their lives) that drove their positive subjective assessment of Greek sculpture?

I'd like to hear about how very different they were. Below is a portion of a work by Hitler's favorite sculptor, Arno Breker:

Hitler disliked abstract art and admired the classical art of ancient Greece and Rome. So did Ayn Rand. Hitler's career led to the deaths of millions. Ayn Rand's career led to the rise of a political movement to set millions free. Yet one can ignore that and still conclude that "any subjective assessment a person makes of a work of art will always be driven by the moral values by which they live their life."

I want to call attention to the point Brant makes above about the duration of dramas. Television has abandoned the 30-minute format for all shows except news, sitcoms, and educational programs. But when all teleplays must last an hour, great ideas for short dramas must either be abandoned or padded with needless subplots and red herrings to fit the standard Procrustean Bed. This was not always the case. Take a look at the 1959-60 network prime time TV schedule. You'll find more half-hour than full-hour drama series: The Rebel, Colt .45, Broken Arrow, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Johnny Staccato, The Loretta Young Show, Richard Diamond, Private Detective, Tales of Wells Fargo, Peter Gunn, Alcoa Theatre/Goodyear Television Playhouse, The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp, The Rifleman, Philip Marlowe, Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond and others. I do not wish to make the case that this was always television at its best. But as in the Twilight Zone, the 30-minute format forced the writers to establish characters, introduce a conflict and complication, and then bring it to a resolution (not always happy, even in 1959) within 24 or so minutes. This made for tight, economical writing and directing. I wonder if the public could be persuaded to take an interest in a revival of short TV dramas.

Very well, if there is but one reality, then the successful predator is not escaping from that reality but acting within it. The prudent predator, as in the case of MPP's example in Post #1, is rationally weighing the odds and taking full advantage of available opportunities to increase his wealth. If he acts wisely, then "fear of the law" would figure no more significantly than lightning strikes, earthquakes or the plague. Once we have established that one's own life and not the lives of others is the "immutable standard" of one's values, then the man who acts both to grow and protect his own assets, even at the expense of his fellow citizens, must be judged a person of moral rectitude and integrity.

"Rational" self-interest, Francisco. "Rational". To do with reality... to do with one's own nature and that of all men. Which means moral. By its right name, rational egoism. You and your "prudent predator"! Individual rights, property rights, are preceded by morality and are solely to protect the moral. Ah, the rational man deals with reality. Thus rational man could not steal tickets, for to do so would require him to enter the Platonic, non-existent realm of forms, that unreal world where all evil-doers dwell. Stealing is not part of man's nature. To see that, one needs only to examine an example of True Man. To find a True Man, you must look for a man who does not steal. QED, we have shown than it is not in man's nature to steal.

Mr. MPP has just provided us with a real world example of the logical gap in Objectivist thinking. Rand's ethics holds that a) it is proper for man to act in his rational self-interest, and b) man has certain property rights which others must not violate. Objectivists routinely say the two principles are not in conflict. There cannot be a "prudent predator," they say. Why not? Well, because the prudent predator is not acting rationally. Why not? Well, because he might get caught, er, that is, the risks always outweigh the potential rewards when we steal from others. Yet I've never heard an Objectivist advise a police officer or a firefighter to leave their profession because of the hazards. When the "it's not really selfish" argument fails, Randians then rely on even flimsier defenses: you could make more money doing something else; you'll suffer psychological guilt for years to come; if everybody were a prudent predator, there would be no more hosts for the parasites, etc.

And the problem is that people who are working in a field that they do not really love will be passed over for people who are highly motivated? That would almost be as evil has hiring people who are more competent than others.