My Objections

[PalePower]

I believe that that static, non-pliant way of thinking can actually cause you to do things that, upon reflection (hindsight=20/20 and all) you can really, really regret. More than once I remember busting out a few by-the-book O-style moves that really made me feel like a piece of it, after the smoke cleared. I was "right." Right.

Mm, I can relate with you there - the few times I've had the chance to in my short history as an Objectivist.

The thing to keep in mind when reading about Objectivist ethics is that these are conclusions on life based on the writer's experience. Certainly they can explain them and reason them out and provide all the logical necessities behind the "proper" behavior, and this will all make sense, but I do not think that the reader should accept them immediately, simply on the faith of their just "sounding" logical. Of course, implement them, apply them, try them on for size - but do not ACCEPT them as solid, hardcore fact until your OWN experience validates them. Objectivist ideals, however beautiful and lucid, are not an excuse to stop thinking and learning. ALL of that has to be done on one's own.

I haven't been much exposed to all sorts of Objectivists, but I'm sure there are many (I was one of them, Rich, I sense you were one too at some point) that feel guilt for ever questioning the principles of Objectivism - for ever daring to act against them. It is a beautiful philosophy, yes, but it's not the end-all of everything you can learn in life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elizabeth,

Your reasoning (in Post 20) is what I used to think, but it is actually more complicated. There are automatic drives in the brain. Here is a quote from another post where I gave an explanation by Goleman.

In mapping the functions of the thalamus and amygdala in sudden emotional reactions, some impulses have been found to bypass the visual cortex through a "back door." You can find a description of this in Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. Below is a quote (p. 19) from an illustration showing a person seeing a snake and arrows tracing the signal pathways in the brain. He uses the example of how the fight/flight response kicks in, where the "heart rate and blood pressure increase" and "large muscles prepare for quick action" (text quoted from the same illustration).

A visual signal first goes from the retina to the thalamus, where it is translated into the language of the brain. Most of the message then goes to the visual cortex, where it is analyzed and assessed for meaning and appropriate response; if that response is emotional, a signal goes to the amygdala to activate the emotional centers. But a smaller portion of the original signal goes straight from the thalamus to the amygdala in a quicker transmission, allowing a faster (though less precise) response. Thus the amygdala can trigger an emotional response before the cortical centers have fully understood what is happening.

This is the same process that happens with those who jump in at grave risk to themselves to save a stranger.

I do agree that your reasoning is part of what goes into empathy. A long-standing piece of advice to both hunters and soldiers alike is to not look the target in the eye. The idea is to not trigger empathy at the killing time and spoil the shot. (If that sounds cold-blooded, that is because it is.)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I 2nd Victor in saying Liz has some major kung fu. Gives me hope.

Sure I used to be like that. And in a way (excepting the acres of villages and rice paddies I burned in my path) I have no regrets. It helped me learn how to drill down to the essence of things. The process was more important than the destination.

Bob is questioning core things about Objectivism. And there are things. That doesn't keep me away from it. At this point I believe it delivered as promised, in the form of allowing for discourses such as I see here. For me it was always about finding the other ones, if you know what I mean. The rest you sort out later--that's the fun part.

I integrated Objectivism into my philosophical whole. It was not a perfect integration, but I consider it a succesful one. I think the real conflict comes from people who say it would be ridiculous/illogical/irrational to say that such an integration can be done. That is the Ortho-view, and they are welcome to it because, like I, they share (theoretically) the principle that that view cannot be forced onto another.

I am not sure (I have maybe missed this) Bob, of your specific purpose for debate in the first place. To understand? Debunk? Integrate? Serious question, seems it would be useful to know.

[bmacwilliam]

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

[Judith]

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, let me point out that the common law tradition, extending back hundreds of years, has never, ever required someone to help another person, even if it would be at absolutely no risk whatsoever to one's self, unless one has put the other person in danger in the first place. There's wisdom in that position; where would the line be drawn in requiring assistance?

Judith

[PalePower]

Victor & Rich,

KUNG-FU?! AWESOME. But, hey, what can I say? I was brought up on the good stuff. B)

I integrated Objectivism into my philosophical whole. It was not a perfect integration, but I consider it a succesful one. I think the real conflict comes from people who say it would be ridiculous/illogical/irrational to say that such an integration can be done. That is the Ortho-view, and they are welcome to it because, like I, they share (theoretically) the principle that that view cannot be forced onto another.

I think people like that might forget that there was, yes, a life before The Fountainhead. There was ALREADY a substance and a basis to your person before you picked up Rand - it's what allowed you to give your "yes" to her work in the first place. You don't just suddenly become a "real" human being after being injected with her wisdom. Speaking generally, not so much from experience, people shouldn't neglect those old, strange, forgotten pre-Rand selves - those aspects of your character that make you specifically YOU, not just "an Objectivist."

I mean, come on, how boring would that be?

So, in your words, Rich, Objectivism HAS to be an integration, since there was obviously something there in people before they encountered it - a something that should be treasured just as much. =)

Michael, about the brain-stuff, that's REALLY FASCINATING!!!! Wonder how that impulse gets there - evolution through survival value of self-sacrifice? (Jeez how confusing is that last statement?) And, I wasn't disagreeing with the instinctive thrust of helping others, just saying that on a more conscious level, it also has pinpoint-able substance.

Goodness, so many posts today! You people distract me from piano.

[Matus1976]

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

Bob, you havent actually stated any position or arguments in this thread, you are seemingly just baiting the objectivists here into defending their conceptions of rational self interest, why dont you try defending altruism (and necessarily define it as well)

[Rich Engle]

Bob- I'm allowing for the fact that you got a lot of responses and are pondering them, but I do believe my question regarding your purpose was clear. Do you plan on answering it anytime soon?

And..

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

Another unanswered question; I assume you wish to engage, perhaps not. My reply to this was

"obligated by whom?" (or what, if you are following a more metaphysical or spiritual path, who knows at this point since you haven't decloaked).

With all respect, I kind of feel like you're conducting an experiment here, not engaging in dialogue. You started the thread, I think it's reasonable that you try to keep up (that means fielding inquiries, does it not?)

Edited March 15, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

So, in your words, Rich, Objectivism HAS to be an integration, since there was obviously something there in people before they encountered it - a something that should be treasured just as much. =)

Michael, about the brain-stuff, that's REALLY FASCINATING!!!! Wonder how that impulse gets there - evolution through survival value of self-sacrifice? (Jeez how confusing is that last statement?) And, I wasn't disagreeing with the instinctive thrust of helping others, just saying that on a more conscious level, it also has pinpoint-able substance.

Goodness, so many posts today! You people distract me from piano.

Hmmm. I had to pull back on my first response, which was along the line of: "No, it doesn't have to be, you can practice it as it is written. So was it written so is it done sort of thing. That's basically a definition of orthodoxy, any kind. Fundamentalism. You can definitely do that.

Going deeper, though, I thought "anything you bring into your mix involves integration. Hell, life itself is one big integration." So I guess my answer is yes. My problem is that I don't think rank-and-file Objectivists talk about integration in a wholistic, up-to-date manner. Whenever I start talking about stuff like Koestler's work (holons, for example), Ken Wilber's extensions of that, it's a big blank-out. They seem to talk about integration within the confines of the existing structure, or something. ~I~ go into blankout whenever I look at that work, call me a dumbass.

And yes, Goleman's work is simply outstanding. Tell me I'm wrong after you read "Emotional Intelligence," or his other work.

As far as keeping you away from the piano, well, it's not going anywhere-- she'll wait for you. They're very heavy, you know...

[Danneskjold]

Just thought I'd duck in here real fast. I saw we're going to talk about Tabula Rasa next and I'm running into some time constraints lately, so here's my argument. You grow a dog up around a human family after taking it immediatly from its family it still acts basically like a dog would. It still sniffs butts, growls at other dogs, and has all the basic dog instincts. There have been documented instances where a human child grew up without any parental influence and was raised, basically, by a dog or dogs. In such cases the human child mimics the dog's behavior. If this isn't evidence towards Tabula Rasa in at least a human nature/instinct situation then I don't know what is. People are more maleable and do not have the set in stone instincts that dogs have.

I'll try to get back on more often, homework load has been heavy as of late.

[Rich Engle]

Jeff, you're talking about pack or herd structure.

It's usually there, one way or another. How we handle that as evolved humans is a different issue. The first step, of course, is to recognize it's there inside us. Who's the Alpha? Dad? Mom? You?

Tabula Rasa I've put this out before, but I will again. There's an organization, www.quartavia.org .

These people follow the work of George Gurdjieff, which is a whole thing unto itself. Basically, this is what is called "The Middle Way," which sits between philosophy and religion. Interesting stuff, it's in the area of integration. Anyhow, there is an article called "Mr. Gurdjieff and the Neurosciences" that I think still stands up pretty good when exploring Tabula Rasa:

http://www.quartavia.org/inglese/neuroscenze1.htm

rde

Sending out search teams and dog packs to locate Mr. Bob Mac

[Barbara Branden]

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

Perhaps you don't intend it, but if you are serious about your list, I find it difficult to imagine what it is about Objectivism that you do agree with. There isn't much left.

About altruism: If, as you say, you disagree with the Objectivist rejection of altruism, surely we should begin the discussion by stating how Rand defined altruism. (Some of the definitions in this thread are wide of the mark, and so constitute setting up a straw man.) In "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," she wrote:

'The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."

And she wrote

"'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."

Is this what you disagree with? If so, would you explain your reasons.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

It is an excellent idea to go with Rand's own meaning of altruism if someone is rejecting her philosophy out of hand.

I catch myself meandering sometimes because I have often found that people outside of Objectivism with whom I have discussed often balk a bit when they come across Rand's own definition. They think that a trick definition is being put on the word so that the same word can be applied to inappropriate cases to justify a piggish kind of egoism. For instance, they think rejecting the principle of altruism (in the self-sacrifice sense) as an ethical foundation will justify a claim that helping helpless people is bad, or will be used to justify thoughtless and cruel behavior. So I try to meet this a bit first and then present Rand's own words. In several cases this tactic has made her words more meaningful to the person and they have been less likely to mischaracterized the idea.

(I only do this when a person comes already heavily loaded down with other baggage. I am not trying to explain Rand better than Rand, but instead, fit her words into a context where other ideas were already present and predominant. I reject the ortho-Objectivist view that dealing with such a person on his own terms at first is sanctioning evil. I try to reach him.)

A good many Objectivists don't help, either, because the callous inhuman meanings are precisely what they do profess (if not worse).

Also, there is a special problem with the word altruism among well-read people who are unfamiliar with Objectivism. Dragonfly once pointed out to me that professional psychologists and scientists have been using the word altruism for a different but related meaning long before Rand started using it.

In the present context, in terms of clarity, reading Rand's words (and not being the one who had to look up the quote) was like a breath of fresh air. A person can now agree or disagree with her formulation clearly, and then decide whether this has been misused to hide other meanings (or even whether it cuts to the core of some apparently benign uses).

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I never had a problem with AR's view of altruism. In fact, it may well be the most important thing I got from the work.

I think MSK's explanation of altruism dovetails with Rand's. It's sort of the "here's how it is socially executed" version.

Any Bob Mac sightings? He must be on hiatus. My poor questions are lonely and languishing!

[bmacwilliam]

And she wrote

"'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."

Is this what you disagree with? If so, would you explain your reasons.

Barbara

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

[Rich Engle]

Well, as far as practical applications go, I don't see any flaws in her statements. And I truly believe that altruism as she defines it is a type of morality that can inevitably be traced back to someone or some group using it as a means of control. And that can be traced back to some kind of irrational philosophy. Or just flat out evil.

Whenever someone is selling you the old shameless self-sacrifice, you can count on the fact that it's a shakedown.

True stewardship is always rooted in self-interest, as far as I'm concerned.

[Barbara Branden]

Bob Mac: "The other description of altruism is not altruism at all as far as I'm concerned."

I assume that by "the other descriptiion of altruism" you mean the definition by Rand that I quoted, as follows:

'The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."

This may not be altruism as far as you are concerned, but it is the Ob jectivist view, and that's what you said you disagree with. Further, it is also the view of the philosopher, Aususte Comte, who coined the term:

"He coined the word 'altruism' to refer to what he believed to be a moral obligation of individuals to serve others and place their interests above one's own. He opposed the idea of individual rights, maintaining that they were not consistent with this supposed ethical obligation (Catechisme Positiviste)."

So if you disagree with Objectivism about altruism, I'm afraid you are stuck with the above definitions of it.

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

I'm still not clear whether Bob

A: disagrees just with the definition (and at this point, I wasn't as sure as BB as which one he meant),

and/or

B: Whatever the definition of altruism (I'm waiting to hear a shocker definition past Comte's), whether he is saying that said altruism is a morally good thing.

Already getting confused.

EDIT: Ok, Bob, I just recalled that you said you disagreed with Rand's "dismissal of altruism." I have an idea...regardless of whether you agree with her definition or not, do you disagree with her rejection of altruism as she describes it? It would be an easy way to get a toehold.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Rich Engle

[bmacwilliam]

I'm still not clear whether Bob

A: disagrees just with the definition (and at this point, I wasn't as sure as BB as which one he meant),

and/or

B: Whatever the definition of altruism (I'm waiting to hear a shocker definition past Comte's), whether he is saying that said altruism is a morally good thing.

Already getting confused.

EDIT: Ok, Bob, I just recalled that you said you disagreed with Rand's "dismissal of altruism." I have an idea...regardless of whether you agree with her definition or not, do you disagree with her rejection of altruism as she describes it? It would be an easy way to get a toehold.

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

Edited March 19, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Barbara Branden]

Bob, I'm afraid we're not getting very far. You say that Rand's definition of altruism is misleading. But it's what August Comte, who coined the term, intended it to mean. So how can that meaning possibly be misleading? If I invent a word and define it, you cannot reasonably say that I shouldn't use it according to my definition.

Further, you say that "altruism is bred right into us." That is a remarkable assertion. I can tell you that it ain't bred right into me. Is it in you? Do you commonly sacrifice that which you value for that which you don't?

And the quote you posted only confuses the issue. It talks about altruism and cooperation as if they were identical, which they are not. Of course we regularly cooperate with others -- meaning, we make voluntary agreements with others from whch both they and we benefit. But that has nothing to do with self-sacrifice; we do not and should not regularly sacrifice our values without receiving any value in return.

Right now, you and I are cooperating. We are working to resolve a philosophical disagrement because we both think it will be to our mutual advantage to do so. But if either of us were to conclude that only the other could profit -- that you, for instance, could only continue our discussion by losing your job because you had no time to go to work, but you did so in order that I might continue to profit, that would be altruism. And I doubt if you'd find, under those circumstances, that altruism was bred right into you.

Barbara

[Judith]

It really looks to me like Bob's objection is to the use of the words "altruism" and "sacrifice" to mean what Rand defined them to mean, not to opposing the concepts themselves as Rand defined them. Bob conceded that altruism as Rand defined it is slavery.

Judith

Edited March 19, 2007 by Judith

[bmacwilliam]

It really looks to me like Bob's objection is to the use of the words "altruism" and "sacrifice" to mean what Rand defined them to mean, not to opposing the concepts themselves as Rand defined them. Bob conceded that altruism as Rand defined it is slavery.

Judith

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

[bmacwilliam]

Bob, I'm afraid we're not getting very far. You say that Rand's definition of altruism is misleading. But it's what August Comte, who coined the term, intended it to mean. So how can that meaning possibly be misleading? If I invent a word and define it, you cannot reasonably say that I shouldn't use it according to my definition.

Further, you say that "altruism is bred right into us." That is a remarkable assertion. I can tell you that it ain't bred right into me. Is it in you? Do you commonly sacrifice that which you value for that which you don't?

Barbara

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

Edited March 20, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

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

Edited March 20, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

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