A metaphysical argument against objectivism

[john42t]

--yes, but it's a fine line to walk, isn't it?

For instance I "suspect" those who over-emphasize Man's animal roots - of determinism, social Darwinism, or (gasp) 'concretism'.

And I suspect that I'm all of these things, even though I can't be sure as I don't know what you understand under these terms.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I'm not sure John meant exactly what you think he meant. I'm hoping he's talking about so-called "positive" rights and ending the free lunch entitlement "freedom". I'm judging by his words in other posts.

I got the psychology right. That was my real target. This kind of hideous, self-righteous arrogance led to the American Civil War as the elite on both sides rode into battle dragging along the soldiers who didn't deserve their "freedom" any more. This sanitized rational, just, healthy, orderly world sounds like an Italian fascist's wet dream. Today Italy, tomorrow Ethiopia!

--Brant

I coulda done the Hitler thingy--admire my restraint, peons!

[john42t]

I got the psychology right. That was my real target. This kind of hideous, self-righteous arrogance led to the American Civil War as the elite on both sides rode into battle dragging along the soldiers who didn't deserve their "freedom" any more. This sanitized rational, just, healthy, orderly world sounds like an Italian fascist's wet dream. Today Italy, tomorrow Ethiopia!

--Brant

I coulda done the Hitler thingy--admire my restraint, peons!

I'm curious: What is it that you see in Rand? (Or do you post here for an entirely different reason?)

EDIT: I mean, in the context of this quotation. Rand wanted a rational, just, healthy, orderly world and has been called right-wing (and probably fascist, although I don't have a quotation) for that very reason.

[Xray]

If one equates acting on a biological drive/program with consciously choosing values (for this is what ethics is about), imo it blurs the whole issue.

I disagree strongly. The program in all life is designed (by natural selection) to promote life. Consciously chosen values have to have that end as well or else they are evil.

But the promoting of life in nature is only possible to the detriment of other life. Life feeds on other life. In one of his films, Woody Allen called nature "one big restaurant"

This is why I would find it problematic to build a morality exclusively on the principle of promoting life.

It's why I'm very fond of "the animal kingdom". Morality roots in biology, in our nature as survival machines, in the struggle for existence.

It does *not* root in do-gooderism/idealism/deontology. (Which is what I always suspect in others when I sense opposition to biological analogies.)

But the opposite extreme would be social Darwinism, where the survival of the fittest is regarded as the highest value.

All moral extremes are problematic.

Why not opt for more compromise in that field? For example, if one is committed to a cause, being an idealist can be a productive driving force.

[john42t]

But the promoting of life in nature is only possible to the detriment of other life.

There's also cooperation (within a species) and symbiosis (accross species).

Also, human beings eat a lot of other animals. They just don't eat members of their own species, which is a behavior that most other higher animals show as well.

I wouldn't say that men lives less to the "detriment" of other life than other animals. Actually, man is by far the most predatory of them all.

Do you promote vegetarianism?

But the opposite extreme would be social Darwinism, where the survival of the fittest is regarded as the highest value.

*Your* survival (and the survival of those you love, which is related) should be *your* highest value. By no means should you desire the survival of someone else over your own for deeming him fitter. *That* would be the ideology of Social Darwinism (if we're talking about Nazis, if not you need to explain what you mean by that term).

All moral extremes are problematic.

I'm with Rand on the matter of moral absolutism.

[Brant Gaede]

I got the psychology right. That was my real target. This kind of hideous, self-righteous arrogance led to the American Civil War as the elite on both sides rode into battle dragging along the soldiers who didn't deserve their "freedom" any more. This sanitized rational, just, healthy, orderly world sounds like an Italian fascist's wet dream. Today Italy, tomorrow Ethiopia!

--Brant

I coulda done the Hitler thingy--admire my restraint, peons!

I'm curious: What is it that you see in Rand? (Or do you post here for an entirely different reason?)

EDIT: I mean, in the context of this quotation. Rand wanted a rational, just, healthy, orderly world and has been called right-wing (and probably fascist, although I don't have a quotation) for that very reason.

Get thee to a quotation, GO!

Most anybody might say they want these things and most everybody will argue with just about anybody about them.

The main problem is the focus on "world." Utopian thinking tends to be bloody result consequences as power lusters run off with the game ball to play in their own stadium by their own rules--and for your own good (yeah, right).

Rand engaged in some Utopian thinking, but she put out so much generally you can find lots of material to the contrary.

Rand ended up stuck in state consciousness starting understandably enough by supporting Barry Goldwater. She ended up with Richard Nixon and nice guy Gerald Ford only eschewing Ronald Reagen for his views on abortion, accusing him of power-lusting for lagniappe. It was more sour grapes than anything.

--Brant

[anthony]

--yes, but it's a fine line to walk, isn't it? For instance I "suspect" those who over-emphasize Man's animal roots - of determinism, social Darwinism, or (gasp) 'concretism'.

And I suspect that I'm all of these things, even though I can't be sure as I don't know what you understand under these terms.

A look over Wiki, confirms what I thought, and plenty more - it is a good article, with fascinating links.

Sociologically, Social Darwinism is based on formulating social laws similar to Natural Laws.

Principally, it states: "Humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence."

It has been tied to laissez-faire capitalism (!) eugenics, 'scientific racism', imperialism, fascism, and Nazism.

That's enough to indicate that it would be rejected totally by Objectivism.

Its premises are pseudo-biological, deterministic, totalitarian, and collectivist.

The concept of SD is obviously anti-individualist, irrational, un-implementable (except coercively)...therefore, immoral.

(As a side-note, it's a good bet that it could well have played a part in the debasement of capitalism - propagating "dog-eat-dog", "survival of the fittest", "Law of the Jungle"-type fallacies, in the early 20thC)

I don't remember if Rand ever addressed it, but doubtless she'd have called it anti-life and evil.

Rand was never about 'top-down' systems - Utopian, or Universal - as you should know, everything in political Objectivism starts and ends with "the smallest minority, the individual". And with his protection and voluntarism paramount.

(You will let me know if I understand what you understand about Social Darwinism?)

[john42t]

Principally, it states: "Humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence."

This statement in and by itself is simply a correct assessment of how things are.

I, as a life form, struggle for existence. Just like any other life form.

I do so as an individual, I'm not part of a collective, so it's often competitive.

To deny that is absurd, and if there mere acceptance of this fact makes me a social Darwinist, then that's what I am.

I'm very sure Rand would think the same about this.

It has been tied to laissez-faire capitalism (!) eugenics, 'scientific racism', imperialism, fascism, and Nazism.

So has atheism. I'm still an atheist.

(You will let me know if I understand what you understand about Social Darwinism?)

I would have expected wikipedia to say something like that. It merely reflects what people feel about the term. But then you now what they feel about Rand.

I can't really answer your question when the definition isn't exact, and like with most morally loaded terms, it's extremely fuzzy.

Of course Nazis *also* thought they were life forms struggling for existence. And of course some religious people don't.

I still don't think I'm a Nazi because I'm not a collectivist: It's individuals making the decisions for their lives, not the state.

[samr]

john42t,

If one's existence is the highest value, it logically follows that one can commit crimes in order to preserve it.

In the context of "One should sacrifice himself to others", it does make sense to reply "no, one's survival is one's own highest value". But it makes no sense in other contexts.

Samr.

[anthony]

Principally, it states: "Humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence."

This statement in and by itself is simply a correct assessment of how things are. I, as a life form, struggle for existence. Just like any other life form. I do so as an individual, I'm not part of a collective, so it's often competitive. To deny that is absurd, and if there mere acceptance of this fact makes me a social Darwinist, then that's what I am. I'm very sure Rand would think the same about this.

It has been tied to laissez-faire capitalism (!) eugenics, 'scientific racism', imperialism, fascism, and Nazism.

So has atheism. I'm still an atheist.

(You will let me know if I understand what you understand about Social Darwinism?)

I would have expected wikipedia to say something like that. It merely reflects what people feel about the term. But then you now what they feel about Rand. I can't really answer your question when the definition isn't exact, and like with most morally loaded terms, it's extremely fuzzy. Of course Nazis *also* thought they were life forms struggling for existence. And of course some religious people don't. I still don't think I'm a Nazi because I'm not a collectivist: It's individuals making the decisions for their lives, not the state.

No, you don't understand Objectivism if your arguments are derived - as they seem to be - from the Naturalistic Fallacy ( which in turn comes from Social Darwinism).

It states that "what is natural is inherently good, or right; what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong."

Every sort of immorality can be justified by this principle.

You see no contradiction between the O'ist principle of volition,- and such biological determinism?

Between Rand's 'nature of Man, qua Man', which contains all his metaphysical and physical (ie, animal) attributes, - and the nature of the animal kingdom?

Between rational egoism, - and a Utopian 'plan' for the 'good' of Society, i.e. collectivism?

Or between the non-initiation of force principle, - and the force that would be needed to implement Social Darwinism, and sustain it?

If you can accept mixed premises, is your business.

That you promote them as rational, becomes everybody's.

SD began to stink to even its own advocates in the middle of the last century, and it takes Objectivism to identify why it will always stink.

[john42t]

It states that "what is natural is inherently good, or right; what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong."

I don't believe that at all. Viruses are natural and they are very bad.

SD began to stink to even its own advocates in the middle of the last century, and it takes Objectivism to identify why it will always stink.

Why what Nazis (and others) called SD is absurd doesn't require Objectivism, even Darwin himself could have told them. But then people usually don't care what makes sense and what doesn't, they care about what's useful in the range-of-the-moment. The Nazis used Darwinism, made it fit on the surface and derived a flawed moral code to combine it with other already flawed moral codes.

You introduced a lot of new topics here and I don't think it's worthwhile responding to those in detail when you honestly believe that what I said is where collectivism or even Nazism is.

EDIT: Progress in a discussion can only be possible if we're narrowing it down to the premises we disagree on. For example, do you believe you are not a life form who struggles to exist? That's a very low premise one can talk about. Terms such as SD can mean everything and nothing.

[john42t]

If one's existence is the highest value, it logically follows that one can commit crimes in order to preserve it.

In life-boat scenarios it might even be rational.

In rational, civilized societies however, the legal system makes criminal careers unattractive.

If you have a choice, it's rational to chose these societies over the less civilized one.

That is why a strict, principled legal system is so important to rational men.

[syrakusos]

A look over Wiki, confirms what I thought, and plenty more - it is a good article, with fascinating links. ... Sociologically, Social Darwinism is based on formulating social laws similar to Natural Laws. ... (You will let me know if I understand what you understand about Social Darwinism?)

You do not have a correct understanding of social darwinism. You do indeed have the common explanation. However, I refer you to Ayn Rand's essay "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. She took the Encyclopedia Britannica to task. The common understanding of capitalism was wrong. (Having read that as a teenager, I was never intimidated by EB and eventually was granted a literary award by the American Numismatic Association for research that corrected the EB on the origins of coinage.) I mention that just to underscore that as much as I also like Wikipedia, we all know it to be limited.

That said, allow me to point to Wikipedia on The Naturalistic Fallacy.

No, you don't understand Objectivism if your arguments are derived - as they seem to be - from the Naturalistic Fallacy ( which in turn comes from Social Darwinism).

It states that "what is natural is inherently good, or right; what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong."

That is actually the third and a lesser meaning. The naturalistic fallacy is claiming that two adjectives even causally related describe the same attribute. The example from G. E. Moore is that "pleasant" and "ethical" are not the same thing, though the words occur together and not accidentally. So, the naturalistic fallacy is a bit more subtle than claiming that "nature is good" though that meaning became attached to the phrase.

So, too, with "social darwinism," have we inherited a large body of ignorant claims, most often from anti-capitalist, anti-individualist sociologists. I address this in an admittedly lengthy paper (12,000 words; 40 pages) that I wrote about Herbert Spencer for a graduate class in sociological theory. (It is a Google Doc, but start here for the link.) The short story is that Spencer wrote before Darwin, that his theory could better be called "social Lamarkism" and that his theory was mostly about how societies and communities change by differentiation, specialization, and assimiliation.

Capitalism, selfishness, altruism, and "the choice to think" are among the ideas, concepts, and labels for which Objectivism begs investigation beyond the common notions. So, too, I assert, with social darwinism.

[anthony]

Capitalism, selfishness, altruism, and "the choice to think" are among the ideas, concepts, and labels for which Objectivism begs investigation beyond the common notions. So, too, I assert, with social darwinism.

So to 'pure' Social Darwinism. I am not so simplistic as to believe that it has not been degraded and distorted to match what amoral people have wanted it to mean - but inherently what is it? Collectivist, or individualist - rational, irrational - determinist, volitional ?

Is it in fact not an anti-concept, and anti-intellectual?

Whatever I don't know about SD, I think I understand its premises.

[john42t]

So to 'pure' Social Darwinism. I am not so simplistic as to believe that it has not been degraded and distorted to match what amoral people have wanted it to mean - but inherently what is it? Collectivist, or individualist - rational, irrational - determinist, volitional ?

Is it in fact not an anti-concept, and anti-intellectual?

Whatever I don't know about SD, I think I understand its premises.

You just said you don't know what the word is supposed to mean. Now you argue that you understand it's premises?

You're the one who introduced the term to begin with, if I recall correctly.

What a word "really" means can be controversial, but I can't understand why people actively use words and don't even know what they themselves mean by them. It makes communication impossible.

To me, it's a meaningless term by which people can intimidate those interested in evolution.

[anthony]

It states that "what is natural is inherently good, or right; what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong."

I don't believe that at all. Viruses are natural and they are very bad.

SD began to stink to even its own advocates in the middle of the last century, and it takes Objectivism to identify why it will always stink.

Why what Nazis (and others) called SD is absurd doesn't require Objectivism, even Darwin himself could have told them. But then people usually don't care what makes sense and what doesn't, they care about what's useful in the range-of-the-moment. The Nazis used Darwinism, made it fit on the surface and derived a flawed moral code to combine it with other already flawed moral codes. You introduced a lot of new topics here and I don't think it's worthwhile responding to those in detail when you honestly believe that what I said is where collectivism or even Nazism is. EDIT: Progress in a discussion can only be possible if we're narrowing it down to the premises we disagree on. For example, do you believe you are not a life form who struggles to exist? That's a very low premise one can talk about. Terms such as SD can mean everything and nothing.

Ah, but you give me nothing to agree with or disagree with; I don't understand your stance on SD (as an Objectivist, or any rational thinker).

Except for a few things: I quoted "Humans, like animals and plants, COMPETE in a struggle for existence".

This is about as non-Objectivist as it comes. You replied with the affirmation of the quote: "I, as a life form, STRUGGLE for existence. Just like any other life form." Your statement is, firstly, a departure from the first. Second, humans have a >metaphysical< struggle for survival, that is hardly the existential "struggle" that is animals' only lot in life.

That's the gap that remains between a rational philosophy, and Social Darwinism, I believe: unless you can convince me otherwise.

The other point is your repeated reference to Nazism. I have used the word only once, direct from a Wiki quote, and

Nazism is not my concern directly or implictly, in this case. My concern is with any kind of 'social engineering' SD might influence in the 'wrong' hands - or the right ones. You haven't replied to my comment on Rand essentially 'designing a system', from the individual upwards - in contrast to the Utopian (and by necessity, totalitarian) control from the top down, to the masses.

I've done my bit attempting to prove the negative (on the rationality of SD), and would very much like to see some contrary proof for the positive.

Tony

[anthony]

You just said you don't know what the word is supposed to mean. Now you argue that you understand it's premises.

That's inductive, and uncontradictory.

I introduced the term Social Darwinism, which you responded to, positively and agreeably..

If you had shown - then - that you considered it "meaningless", a lot of words could have been saved.

[john42t]

I introduced the term Social Darwinism, which you responded to, positively and agreeably..

I tried to figure what you mean by the term.

What do you mean by it? You, who keep using it as if you had a precise meaning in mind?

[anthony]

I introduced the term Social Darwinism, which you responded to, positively and agreeably..

I tried to figure what you mean by the term. What do you mean by it? You, who keep using it as if you had a precise meaning in mind?

No, John, it's your turn.

I've gone out on a limb, now I'd like to hear your assessment of SD.

Or counter my argument if you want.

It's not irrational, because...

It's not Utopian, because...

It's not determinist, because...

It's quite benign, and individualistic, because...

[john42t]

It's not irrational, because...

It's not Utopian, because...

It's not determinist, because...

It's quite benign, and individualistic, because...

It's undefined.

[Xray]

It states that "what is natural is inherently good, or right; what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong."

I don't believe that at all. Viruses are natural and they are very bad.

That's what meant when pointing out the problematic of resting a moral system on an organism's life as the standard of value. For this would apply to other life forms as well, like e. g. the bedbug. Its thriving is 'bad' for us because it disturbs our well-being, but from the perspective of the bedbug, breeding in human beds is 'good' because it promotes its life and the life of its offspring.

Can any claim of an (absolute) good or bad stand up to scrutiny at all? Isn't the good or bad always contextual?

All moral extremes are problematic.

I'm with Rand on the matter of moral absolutism.

The problem with moral absoutes is that all kinds of closed-system ideologists propagate them as well. Remember Pope Benedict's recent public rejection of "moral relativism"?

[anthony]

Remember Pope Benedict's recent public rejection of "moral relativism"?

Damn, damn, damn. Another Objectivist Pope!

Pope Lennie, and Pope Bennie.

Tony

(Awaiting the next schism.)

[Dglgmut]

But it's not up to people to impose or facilitate any form of Darwinism if it's already in action.

If you believe that's the way things are, then there's no reason to change anything anyway... because you can't... what's "fittest" will prevail.

What if individualism survives? Then is it not a product of Social Darwinism?

[anthony]

But it's not up to people to impose or facilitate any form of Darwinism if it's already in action. If you believe that's the way things are, then there's no reason to change anything anyway... because you can't... what's "fittest" will prevail. What if individualism survives? Then is it not a product of Social Darwinism?

Well, that just shows up the consequentialist argument SD makes - if it works, it must be 'good'. Nature works, so it must be imitated by Man.

But what is "works"? For how long? For whom? What is "good"?

As you know it all started with Darwin's theory, ambiguously called survival of the fittest, a name I think he himself later rejected.

The fallacy is that it is not the fittest *individual* animal/plant that survived - it was a single, specific, species that emerged from uncountable ones that died out - over ages. After uncountable adaptations and mutations.

Nevertheless, the idea caught on with pseudo-scientists and sociologists, and with the upper classes in the West (naturally.)

Essentially, I believe Social Darwinism to be elitist and supremacist - and especially, intrinsicist. It was an irrational ideology that favored the 'strong' over the 'weak' - meaning the rich over the poor, the European over African/Asian, the "pure blood" etc, etc.

Therefore, it renounced individualism, and the mind. Collectivist to the core.

This is the logical outcome of any 'Argument from Nature' applied erroneously to humans:

Might is right; brute force.

"If you believe that's the way things are..." is not an argument, it's a rationalization*. Enough people believing that's the way things are, becomes a movement - leading to (for one) apartheid, and many other immoral injustices.

Tony

[Calvin, to be clear regarding 'rationalization': a majority of the world believe in fantastical ideas. This is 'a' reality which should be simply acknowledged. The question to ask is "does what exists in the minds of people correspond to objective Reality?"

Or, only because ideas are held, does not prove their truth. That's the distinction I wanted to make.]

[Dglgmut]

I meant that to be aimed at those arguing for the facilitation of Social Darwinism. If it is a natural law, then we don't even need to talk about it... we are, after all, a product of nature. Whatever we end up doing is what will be said to "work".