My Objections

[Victor Pross]

Without evolution there would be no people in the world, either. I just don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. It doesn't imply anything about what our own purposes are, or should be.

Laure,

You are right. Bob Mac is targeting Rand’s normative ethical system—not by countering it with a contrary ethical system—but with “nature and her laws” and this is done in the attempt to forestall debate and silent any opposition. You see, you can’t argue with Mother Nature. The cards are stacked in his favor when he can trump any hand you could play when he has the advantage to say “But you’re arguments are against nature!” The next step is to move from this “evolutionary altruism” and bring it into politics. Instead of coming out from cover and debating the issue of ethics on an ideological basis, he is hiding behind pseudo sciences—which are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

-Victor

Edited March 22, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

Without evolution there would be no people in the world, either.

That was exactly my point.

I just don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. It doesn't imply anything about what our own purposes are, or should be.

Then Objectivism should not claim to base its theory on biological facts, as from an evolutionary point of view the purpose of life is not survival of the individual but survival of the genes. Biologically seen the purpose of sex is procreation (and at a deeper level reinforcing evolution itself). To ensure the realization of that purpose mother Nature has made it an agreeable experience. Now no one is claiming here that we should follow here evolution's purpose, we may act against our nature, but then we shouldn't claim that we are following our nature.

[Victor Pross]

Without evolution there would be no people in the world, either.

That was exactly my point.

I just don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. It doesn't imply anything about what our own purposes are, or should be.

Then Objectivism should not claim to base its theory on biological facts, as from an evolutionary point of view the purpose of life is not survival of the individual but survival of the genes. Biologically seen the purpose of sex is procreation (and at a deeper level reinforcing evolution itself). To ensure the realization of that purpose mother Nature has made it an agreeable experience. Now no one is claiming here that we should follow here evolution's purpose, we may act against our nature, but then we shouldn't claim that we are following our nature.

Dragonfly,

The objectivist argument regarding man’s “nature” is his rational faculty, (and volition) and Bob is arguing from something much more “instinctual" where choice has little play.

-Victor

[Laure]

Then Objectivism should not claim to base its theory on biological facts, as from an evolutionary point of view the purpose of life is not survival of the individual but survival of the genes. Biologically seen the purpose of sex is procreation (and at a deeper level reinforcing evolution itself). To ensure the realization of that purpose mother Nature has made it an agreeable experience. Now no one is claiming here that we should follow here evolution's purpose, we may act against our nature, but then we shouldn't claim that we are following our nature.

But, there IS no purpose of life from an evolutionary point of view. Only people have purposes.

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly: Biologically seen the purpose of sex is procreation (and at a deeper level reinforcing evolution itself).

I have always found other reasons for it. B)

[Dragonfly]

But, there IS no purpose of life from an evolutionary point of view. Only people have purposes.

I'll formulate it more accurately: the purpose of those features (like sex for example) that are the result of evolution. See further my post 98 for an explanation of the term purpose in this context.

[Judith]

Well, I can try, Judith, but only because you ask

Thank you.

It's not that hard of a problem, on the surface. It gets dicier later. Bob points out that that there are things built into the human (he's talking evolutionary game theory, a yet more abstract view) that allow for throwing yourself under the bus for another, things like that. Survival driven is what he is saying-- we are what we are because. If I get it right, he is saying that Rand's work doesn't account for that. And, given her period, she wasn't privy to what we know now (for instance, that there is an actual "component" inside the brain, identified, that creates a state of empathy, which apparently, from what I recall, is visually-driven). In any event, research has gone on past Rand's death, it is innate, it is biological. This challenges intellectual principles posed by Rand, and others. We have to account for nature, as proven by science. I will go to Ken Wilber on this, and point out: science shows what "is," but by the virtue of how it works, it cannot show what it "means."

If one were to attempt an integration between Rand's work and the evolutionary work (oh, heck, let's call it "evidence") it would require a good deal of work. And, it would require some "admitting," I think, on both supposed "sides" of the fence.

I think that when the Objectivist-based people take this on, you will see them talking linear. I think when you see the bio-folks taking it on, they will be talking nature.

Like I said, I'm the wrong guy to do the academic work on this. My opinion?

It doesn't suprise me that there are innate mechanisms in the human that support survival, which includes throwing yourself under the bus for another. I always go to a simple idea I call "love." But see, I experienced spiritual conversion, which kind of puts me in a certain place in these discussions. My impetus went from "think" to "feel." It doesn't make me irrational, it just makes me have something flowing through me that I never did before. That's why I attract bullets.

I would attempt an integration. That's where I'm at with it.

I'm wondering what the relevance of the evolutionary biology is to the philosophy. As I pointed out above, and as others have pointed out since, one is descriptive and one is normative. As Fran pointed out, there's a lot in evolutionary biology about sex differences in sexual behavior. Does that have any relevance to philosophy? If so, I don't see it. One describes the equipment we have, the other is about choices. The facts have to be taken into account, but we aren't slaves to them in the sense that we must live in polygamous tribes with only the youngest, strongest males being able to have sex, with all of the women having offspring every year, with all of the testosterone-charged males fighting regularly (instead of watching football, like regular civilized men), with every mother throwing her body between her baby and a charging predator, etc. Does Bob propose that a philosophy, to be rational, must propose such a society in order to be consonant with "the facts of reality as known from evolutionary biology"? I don't understand.

Judith

P.S. Rand herself proposed what I believe to be an adequate explanation of empathy, sympathy, and the urge to help others. (1) We recognize that others are like us, and so we identify with them. (Why do we care about cuddly little puppies but not feel a thing about the roundworms we kill when we worm the puppies? We identify with one and not with the other.) (2) We also like to see life succeed in general. It makes us feel good -- like success in life is possible. (3) We also get a sense of efficacy out of seeing a good result come about as a result of our efforts. (4) It satisfies our own values to see justice succeed in the world. I find that more than satisfactory to explain why I often spend time I can't really spare to help out other people.

[Dragonfly]

I'm wondering what the relevance of the evolutionary biology is to the philosophy. As I pointed out above, and as others have pointed out since, one is descriptive and one is normative. As Fran pointed out, there's a lot in evolutionary biology about sex differences in sexual behavior. Does that have any relevance to philosophy? If so, I don't see it.

That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account.

Rand herself proposed what I believe to be an adequate explanation of empathy, sympathy, and the urge to help others. (1) We recognize that others are like us, and so we identify with them. (Why do we care about cuddly little puppies but not feel a thing about the roundworms we kill when we worm the puppies? We identify with one and not with the other.)

But why would we identify with others who are like us and not with others who are dissimilar? From an evolutionary point of view this makes sense - but the other side of the coin is that racism and xenophobia is also widespread among humans. It is no accident that men generally are attracted to women who are not walking skeletons and neither are women with a lot of wrinkles very popular on the sex market, it's a hard-wired response to signals of low or even absent fertility. Small animals with big eyes are popular with women as they trigger the biological, protective response to a baby with its relatively big eyes. Rats and mouses with their tiny eyes are much less popular in that regard, even when they're cuddly enough.

[Judith]

I'm wondering what the relevance of the evolutionary biology is to the philosophy. As I pointed out above, and as others have pointed out since, one is descriptive and one is normative. As Fran pointed out, there's a lot in evolutionary biology about sex differences in sexual behavior. Does that have any relevance to philosophy? If so, I don't see it.

That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account.

Rand was looking at the characteristics of human nature relevant to philosophy, namely the characteristics of consciousness. The physiology of the liver wouldn't be particularly pertinent.

Rand herself proposed what I believe to be an adequate explanation of empathy, sympathy, and the urge to help others. (1) We recognize that others are like us, and so we identify with them. (Why do we care about cuddly little puppies but not feel a thing about the roundworms we kill when we worm the puppies? We identify with one and not with the other.)

But why would we identify with others who are like us and not with others who are dissimilar? From an evolutionary point of view this makes sense - but the other side of the coin is that racism and xenophobia is also widespread among humans. It is no accident that men generally are attracted to women who are not walking skeletons and neither are women with a lot of wrinkles very popular on the sex market, it's a hard-wired response to signals of low or even absent fertility. Small animals with big eyes are popular with women as they trigger the biological, protective response to a baby with its relatively big eyes. Rats and mouses with their tiny eyes are much less popular in that regard, even when they're cuddly enough.

True enough. On the other hand, circumstances can overcome that hard-wired inclination. How many of us have watched an ant struggle with a crumb many times its size and rooted for it to succeed? We identified with the ant -- not for any evolutionary reasons, but because we identified with its struggle. We like seeing success in the world. Ants certainly aren't cuddly. So another of the factors came into play in that instance.

Judith

[studiodekadent]

For Rand herself, the nature of concepts and universals came before she formulated her ethics? If not, how did she understand her own ethics?

--Brant

Brant,

I was referring to how many people argued against Rand's ethics without looking at their epistemological foundations (i.e. how the rejection of intrinsic value is an epistemological argument etc).

[bmacwilliam]

Rand was looking at the characteristics of human nature relevant to philosophy, namely the characteristics of consciousness. The physiology of the liver wouldn't be particularly pertinent.

No way. She was picking and choosing certain aspects of human nature and behaviour and clearly ignoring others. Physiology had nothing to do with it.

That's the starting point of my tabula rasa objections. There is a long list of highly heritable character and personality traits. There is no Objectivist defense against this other than unfalsifiability again. But maybe I'll do a little politics first.

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Very very well put. With that, the very foundations of Rand's ethics have been demonstrated to be insufficient at best - at BEST, and therefore her ethical system is dead as a doornail.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With that, the very foundations of Rand's ethics have been demonstrated to be insufficient at best - at BEST, and therefore her ethical system is dead as a doornail.

Bob,

Dead? Nope. Very much alive. But incomplete.

Michael

[Laure]

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Dragonfly has not explained why he thinks we have to take all aspects of human nature, not just essential ones, into account in coming up with an ethical system.

[Brant Gaede]

Rand was looking at the characteristics of human nature relevant to philosophy, namely the characteristics of consciousness. The physiology of the liver wouldn't be particularly pertinent.

No way. She was picking and choosing certain aspects of human nature and behaviour and clearly ignoring others. Physiology had nothing to do with it.

That's the starting point of my tabula rasa objections. There is a long list of highly heritable character and personality traits. There is no Objectivist defense against this other than unfalsifiability again. But maybe I'll do a little politics first.

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Very very well put. With that, the very foundations of Rand's ethics have been demonstrated to be insufficient at best - at BEST, and therefore her ethical system is dead as a doornail.

Bob

Leaving what ethical system?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Leaving what ethical system?

--Brant

How about your own? You need someone else's authority to direct your life by?

I'm picking on your question, Brant, because I think it neatly encapsulates an assumption being displayed by several people on the current ethics threads: that if there are any flaws in Rand's arguments for ethics, you're left in a position such as was bemoaned by one of the Brothers in the Brothers Karamazov, that if God (substitute here, Rand's ethics) was dead, there was no ethical guidance. The only possibilities are Rand or nothing? Is that how you see it? You can't live your life according to your own standards of value without her framework being unassailable? Personally, I have never felt any need for her to be right about anything whatsoever in order to live my own life.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Leaving what ethical system?

--Brant

How about your own? You need someone else's authority to direct your life by?

I'm picking on your question, Brant, because I think it neatly encapsulates an assumption being displayed by several people on the current ethics threads: that if there are any flaws in Rand's arguments for ethics, you're left in a position such as was bemoaned by one of the Brothers in the Brothers Karamazov, that if God (substitute here, Rand's ethics) was dead, there was no ethical guidance. The only possibilities are Rand or nothing? Is that how you see it? You can't live your life according to your own standards of value without her framework being unassailable? Personally, I have never felt any need for her to be right about anything whatsoever in order to live my own life.

___

That's the speech of the Grand Inquisitor. Sorry, Ellen, but that's only good, at best, for any one person, not a person living in a society of persons. Take your position into politics and I'll end up with the right to violate your rights "in order to live my own life." Moral anarchy leads to political anarchy. You'll also end up with no real philosophy for you can extend this down into epistemology, even metaphysics. You are arguing for your form of subjectivism, whatever that is. This would mean, if you are correct, the impossibility of an objectivist philosophy except Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (and only for her). I think what is really going on here is that you are mixing up values with ethics.

--Brant

Edited March 25, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Leaving what ethical system?

--Brant

How about your own? You need someone else's authority to direct your life by?

I'm picking on your question, Brant, because I think it neatly encapsulates an assumption being displayed by several people on the current ethics threads: that if there are any flaws in Rand's arguments for ethics, you're left in a position such as was bemoaned by one of the Brothers in the Brothers Karamazov, that if God (substitute here, Rand's ethics) was dead, there was no ethical guidance. The only possibilities are Rand or nothing? Is that how you see it? You can't live your life according to your own standards of value without her framework being unassailable? Personally, I have never felt any need for her to be right about anything whatsoever in order to live my own life.

___

That's the speech of the Grand Inquisitor. Sorry, Ellen, but that's only good, at best, for any one person, not a person living in a society of persons. Take your position into politics and I'll end up with the right to violate your rights "in order to live my own life." Moral anarchy leads to political anarchy. You'll also end up with no real philosophy for you can extend this down into epistemology, even metaphysics. You are arguing for your form of subjectivism, whatever that is. This would mean, if you are correct, the impossibility of an objectivist philosophy except Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (and only for her). I think what is really going on here is that you are mixing up values with ethics.

--Brant

I thought we went over the rights issue on one of the other threads, Brant. Answer me a comparable question: Just who is going to tell you what's true and what isn't in physics? Gee, how will any science ever get done without some ONE setting rules?

Your next-to-last sentence involves something you often do, talking of "an objectivist" philosophy but not meaning, like I think everyone else here does, "Objectivism," and thus being confusing as to what you're saying. But your last sentence actually intrigues me with a possibility that you might not be talking (implicitly) about a set of commandments. Do you mean by "ethics" a theory pertaining to why humans need value codes and to what sort of consequences what sort of value codes will produce? Rather like, in the medical area, a theory of what health is and how to get it? If that's what you're talking about when you talk of "ethics," then the subject you're addressing is that generally called "metaethics," which isn't the subject the others here are debating about in their debate as to whether Rand's arguments are or aren't sound.

Ellen

___

Edited March 25, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, I'm going to have to do some more reading on the relevant threads before getting back to you in a few days, but as for physics, no one can tell me what is or isn't true in physics; I have no way of evaluating what the physicist is saying unless it's obvious nonsense. I never told my friend Petr Beckmann he was right or wrong about Einstein or that I thought he was right or wrong about him. I couldn't even make, then or now, a credible, detailed statement about what his position was, although Tom Bethell seemed to have managed in "The American Spectator" magazine. That time is supposedly different for different theoretical people has no relevance to how I live my life.

--Brant

[Judith]

Rand was looking at the characteristics of human nature relevant to philosophy, namely the characteristics of consciousness. The physiology of the liver wouldn't be particularly pertinent.

No way. She was picking and choosing certain aspects of human nature and behaviour and clearly ignoring others. Physiology had nothing to do with it.

That's the starting point of my tabula rasa objections. There is a long list of highly heritable character and personality traits. There is no Objectivist defense against this other than unfalsifiability again. But maybe I'll do a little politics first.

I agree with you and disagree with her on the tabula rasa point. We are born with certain character and personality traits.

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Very very well put. With that, the very foundations of Rand's ethics have been demonstrated to be insufficient at best - at BEST, and therefore her ethical system is dead as a doornail.

Evolutionary biology is one model of looking at the world. I don't concede that it's the only, or the best, model for looking at human consciousness. For one thing, it looks at us as passive creatures of evolution, with no choices about our behavior.

We may have evolved with certain behavioral tendencies. Those tendencies may in fact promote the future of the species. Personally, I don't give a damn about the future of the species. I care about individual human beings. A theory of ethics must first decide whom it is to benefit. If ethics are to benefit the species, then they would naturally run along the lines of evolutionary biology. Most of us, however, choose ethics that benefit individuals. Therefore, ethics often vary from the traits evolution may have hard-wired into us.

Judith

[bmacwilliam]

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Dragonfly has not explained why he thinks we have to take all aspects of human nature, not just essential ones, into account in coming up with an ethical system.

No, you chose not to read and understand. The answer is obvious and has been explained.

Life is an important aspect, essential perhaps, but it's not even at the top of the list if we are talking about man qua man in terms of reality and not fantasy.

But even so, who decides what is "essential" or how essential it is. Is there not degrees? Is there not aspects of human nature that are essential in some situations and inessential at other times?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Evolutionary biology is one model of looking at the world. I don't concede that it's the only, or the best, model for looking at human consciousness. For one thing, it looks at us as passive creatures of evolution, with no choices about our behavior.

So you have some other model or theory that explains so many things so very well?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly wrote:

"That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account."

Dragonfly has not explained why he thinks we have to take all aspects of human nature, not just essential ones, into account in coming up with an ethical system.

No, you chose not to read and understand. The answer is obvious and has been explained.

Life is an important aspect, essential perhaps, but it's not even at the top of the list if we are talking about man qua man in terms of reality and not fantasy.

But even so, who decides what is "essential" or how essential it is. Is there not degrees? Is there not aspects of human nature that are essential in some situations and inessential at other times?

Bob, are you trying to find an objective ethics? Or a subjective ethics with an objective base? Or a mixture of a subjective and objective ethics on an objective base? Or not at all?

--Brant

[Judith]

Evolutionary biology is one model of looking at the world. I don't concede that it's the only, or the best, model for looking at human consciousness. For one thing, it looks at us as passive creatures of evolution, with no choices about our behavior.

So you have some other model or theory that explains so many things so very well?

In terms of science -- whatever fits the facts. There are entire branches of psychology, which is the science of human consciousness, that explain a number of facts. There are also many studies on the physiology of the human brain that explain a number of other facts.

In terms of philosophy -- Objectivism fits reality better than anything else I've seen out there.

Judith

Edited March 26, 2007 by Judith

[Judith]

I'd like to set forth my thoughts a little more clearly regarding this entire line of thought.

If I may be forgiven the linguistic shortcut of speaking teleologically and using language that suggests that Nature has purposes: Nature doesn't give a damn about individuals. Nature is profligate. She spreads life far and wide, and hopes that a few survive. She spreads many eggs, and spreads many more sperm, in the hope that fertilization will occur. She causes many young to be born/hatched/whatever in the hope that a few will survive. She has been called "red in tooth and claw"; she causes many herbivores to be born/hatched/whatever so that there will be enough for the carnivores to eat. She causes many plants to grow so that there will be enough for the herbivores and omnivores to eat. When a famine or freeze occurs -- too bad. Sometimes species go extinct. Nature doesn't care. She doesn't weep over the baby chicks pecked to death by their older, stronger siblings, and she doesn't weep over the extinct dinosaurs. More species will come along.

There is a nexus between Nature's vague attempts to get species to survive long-term, and individual interests: Nature imbues each individual with a fierce will to live. If the individual didn't want to live, the species wouldn't survive long.

It is thus possible that an individual's interests and the species' interests could be at cross-purposes. For the good of the species, it might be best for a female to bear offspring every year until she dies. For the individual female, however, doing so might put her at greatly increased risk of death. That's just one example.

Accordingly, as an individual with my own best interests and those of other individuals at heart, it does not make sense for me to design a philosophy based on the best interest of the species. That would be collectivism. It might better the species down the road, but would do nothing for my own individual happiness or that of people I care about.

Make sense?

Judith

[Laure]

Makes perfect sense, Judith.