My Objections

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will have more to say about the game theory after more reading.

For now, out of the material I have skimmed, this article, Biological Altruism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, seems to be quite good for a clear explanation of the concepts.

Just from skimming, I will say that several issues for inquiry came to mind, the foremost being that the species survival requirements (the whole basis of biological altruism) for an insect are different than the species survival requirements for a conscious conceptual primate.

Also, the innate behavior of biological altruism is different from altruism as an ethical standard for chosen behavior.

Another thing, biological altruism is not defined in the same manner as ethical altruism is, i.e., in terms of comparing values and sacrificing the greater value for the lesser one. Biological altruism is defined merely as an individual helping another member of the species (or the group) with cost involved. Sometimes there is selfish benefit and sometimes there is not, but there is always cost (wherein the values involved apparently are not measured ordinally).

Even after skimming this article, I think it is way too premature to say Rand was flat-out wrong. But I am too tired to continue right now. More later.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I think Barbara and Bob are talking at cross-purposes. Barbara uses the term as defined by Comte and Rand, in which it is described as moral obligation, while Bob uses the term in the descriptive sense, as it is used in biology and evolutionary psychology (see for example here). In that sense Bob is right when he says that it is bred into us, just as aggression is bred into us. That doesn't mean that we in every situation at every moment will behave altruistically or aggressively, but that this type of behavior is part of our genetic heritage and may become apparent in specific situations. Not making a sharp distinction between these two meanings of the word "altruism" can only lead to endless confusion. In their zeal to condemn altruism as a moral obligation (with which I heartily agree) Objectivists make the error to unequivocally condemn altruistic behavior at all. This becomes a problem in situations where even Objectivists realize that they can't condemn a typical altruistic behavior, for example that of the mother who sacrifies her life to save her children etc. To circumvent this problem the Objectivist argues that the behavior of the mother is not really altruistic (in the biological sense it certainly is), while the life of her children is for her a greater value than her own life. But that is an example of introducing unfalsifiability: that way you can always explain altruistic behavior as a selfish action - it is the "everyone is selfish" theory, which is trivially true when every conscious action is selfish by definition (you do it while you want to do it). Such tautological theories are hardly interesting, so I think we'd better stick to the biological definition for altruistic and selfish behavior, and to make it clear when we're talking about altruism as a moral (prescriptive) theory.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Dragonfly

[bmacwilliam]

Another thing, biological altruism is not defined in the same manner as ethical altruism is, i.e., in terms of comparing values and sacrificing the greater value for the lesser one. "

In a biological sense, altruism generally means behaviour that taken outside the concept of a population or society would be anti-Darwinian. In other words a sacrifice - increasing the fitness of others at a cost to the individual.

Also, the innate behavior of biological altruism is different from altruism as an ethical standard for chosen behavior.

Certainly not if you jump across the is/ought gap like Rand did. Man qua man would require altruism as the partial standard according to her logic (which I disagree with anyway). The problem is not that altruism IS man's only nature and she is totally backwards. The problem is that altruism is an important and objective part of our nature and cannot be denied.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

I think Barbara and Bob are talking at cross-purposes. Barbara uses the term as defined by Comte and Rand, in which it is described as moral obligation, while Bob uses the term in the descriptive sense, as it is used in biology and evolutionary psychology (see for example here). In that sense Bob is right when he says that it is bred into us, just as aggression is bred into us. That doesn't mean that we in every situation at every moment will behave altruistically or aggressively, but that this type of behavior is part of our genetic heritage and may become apparent in specific situations. Not making a sharp distinction between these two meanings of the word "altruism" can only lead to endless confusion. In their zeal to condemn altruism as a moral obligation (with which I heartily agree) Objectivists make the error to unequivocally condemn altruistic behavior at all. This becomes a problem in situations where even Objectivists realize that they can't condemn a typical altruistic behavior, for example that of the mother who sacrifies her life to save her children etc. To circumvent this problem the Objectivist argues that the behavior of the mother is not really altruistic (in the biological sense it certainly is), while the life of her children is for her a greater value than her own life. But that is an example of introducing unfalsifiability: that way you can always explain altruistic behavior as a selfish action - it is the "everyone is selfish" theory, which is trivially true when every conscious action is selfish by definition (you do it while you want to do it). Such tautological theories are hardly interesting, so I think we'd better stick to the biological definition for altruistic and selfish behavior, and to make it clear when we're talking about altruism as a moral (prescriptive) theory.

Agree with most of what you said. However, there is a very good argument in favour of altruism as moral prescription, but not exclusively - maybe that's what you meant. There is an excellent biological argument in favour of 'enforced' partial altruism. I'll get to that.

"I think Barbara and Bob are talking at cross-purposes."

Shouldn't be. I have made it abundantly clear I was dealing with Rand's comments on sacrifice and not on complete and total slavery.

"But that is an example of introducing unfalsifiability: that way you can always explain altruistic behavior as a selfish action - it is the "everyone is selfish" theory, which is trivially true when every conscious action is selfish by definition (you do it while you want to do it). "

Glad you made that point before we go there. Thanks.

I will also argue that the altruistic tendenies inherent in man lead to the inescapable conclusion that free markets as Rand defined them do NOT work best for humans.

<speculation>

I believe that since politics was her primary motivator, and she knew that altruism threw a wrench into this half-baked idea of pure self-interest, altruism HAD to be the EVIL of all EVILS. It had to be beyond scrutiny, otherwise her whole platform unwinds.

</speculation>

Bob

Edited March 20, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

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

She certainly did not reject the concept of society. The heroes of "Atlas" went on strike to create a better society. The problem with Rand is mostly 1) in using a word "selfishness" incorrectly giving a phoney "dictionary" definition no one can find anywhere (John Hospers looked through 200 dictionaries going back to the early 1940s if not earlier) and 2) not studying real people enough before prescribing a moral system for them--actually not for them so much as for her ideal man to which others may aspire.

The title to her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" isn't justified therefore, nor the insult of her opening remark, an argument from intimidation, directed at her readers. I admit that a title like "The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest" doesn't have the same bite. It may have been great polemics, but it also tends to divorce generosity and benevolence from her ethics on the gut level. If she wanted to redefine "selfishness" she had an obligation to refer to the dominant and accepted understanding of the word as it was in the dictionary, not cook up a definition and say that that was what you'd find in the dictionary and that that was what she was going with. Because of this a lot of disreputable people have embraced Ayn Rand, people she wouldn't have stood for, such as the New Jersey neo-Nazi I once read about. Because of this a lot of people don't take her or her ethics seriously.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

She certainly did not reject the concept of society. The heroes of "Atlas" went on strike to create a better society. The problem with Rand is mostly 1) in using a word "selfishness" incorrectly giving a phoney "dictionary" definition no one can find anywhere (John Hospers looked through 200 dictionaries going back to the early 1940s if not earlier) and 2) not studying real people enough before prescribing a moral system for them--actually not for them so much as for her ideal man to which others may aspire.

The title to her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" isn't justified therefore, nor the insult of her opening remark, an argument from intimidation, directed at her readers. I admit that a title like "The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest" doesn't have the same bite. It may have been great polemics, but it also tends to divorce generosity and benevolence from her ethics on the gut level. If she wanted to redefine "selfishness" she had an obligation to refer to the dominant and accepted understanding of the word as it was in the dictionary, not cook up a definition and say that that was what you'd find in the dictionary and that that was what she was going with. Because of this a lot of disreputable people have embraced Ayn Rand, people she wouldn't have stood for, such as the New Jersey neo-Nazi I once read about. Because of this a lot of people don't take her or her ethics seriously.

--Brant

I understand what you're saying. I'm going from memory here, but maybe what she said regarding society was with repect to rights. This is what I'm criticising here. This idea of dismissing all societal obligations out of hand. There is strong evidence against this view.

To say that she rejected society as a 'concept' isn't quite right. I tried to clarify that.

Bob

[Victor Pross]

Bob,

Objectivism advocates egoism, the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being, but this does not exclude others. Egoism is simply the corollary of individual human life as the moral standard. Yes, this view opposes the ethical tradition of altruism, the notion that a person's primary moral obligation is to serve some entity other than himself, such as God or society, at the sacrifice of his own welfare. Objectivist egoism unambiguously advocates long-term, rational self-interest and this should not be confused with subjectivist egoism, which through the centuries has advocated short-term, irrational self-interest through hedonism, irresponsibility, "context-dropping", and "whim-worship" or criminal behavior. A society based on Objectivist egoism benefits the rational members who wish to produce and trade freely in all aspects of life--food, clothing, education, knowledge, friendship, love, etc. Such persons would willingly help others of known or potential value (spouses, children, friends, perhaps even strangers) without being obligated to help those of no known value or of disvalue (beggars, enemies, criminals). Bob, I’m just wondering if it’s the latter that you are concerned about. You see, the degree of assistance would be dictated by the provider's calculated self-interest in the situation, and no deliberate self-sacrifice would occur—and I suspect that is what you object to. Am I right? Well, as Barbara Branden once said, "if you want to help them, nobody is stopping you."

Tell me if I’m wrong, thanks. It's all very simple to me.

-Victor

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Objectivism advocates egoism, the principle that each person's primary moral obligation is his own well-being,

Tell me if I’m wrong, thanks. It's all very simple to me.

-Victor

I'm glad it's simple to you, but it's not true. The primary moral obligation is based on Rand's simplistic view of what man is, and the erroneous assumption that an individuals life is his highest value. As I posted from MSK's link:

"Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e. who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism."

That's the truth, or at least closer to it than Rand's. Reason demands that altruism cannot be dismissed. Highest value? No, I won't go that far. I think it's an error to assume that one's highest value has to be

1) Static

2) Singular (influenced by only a single priority- individual life)

Humans are more complex, especially socially. Oh, and Rand does dismiss the concept of society. From Donahue's show she says at one point "Society does not exist. " Doesn't get any more clear than that. Also, she admits she assumes that dissent from her views are 'dishonourable'. Ugh, hard to watch.

To sum up, Rand's line of reasoning should end in man's highest value being an ongoing struggle between competing egoism (his life) and altruism (other's interests). In other words, he must often choose between an obligation to himself and to others. Sometimes the choice is clear, sometimes it's not. Such is the nature of being human.

Bob

Edited March 20, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Rich Engle]

Well, when Bob put his cards on the table, it turned out he was coming from the evolutionary psychology area, which is perfectly fine and, for that matter, cutting edge stuff that a lot of us have been looking at for a good while now. I just don't see how what he brings up is anti-matter to what Rand was talking about. The question is whether or not what is coming out of evolutionary psychology trumps technical philosophy. Surely, it needs to be checked out, and people are doing that. Bob is saying that Rand's focus on the individual, the rational egoism, is flawed because of where evolution has brought us.

Can and should an integration be attempted? I think maybe, but I don't know how far it would get. So we have builtins that might have us take one for the team under certain conditions. What Rand was talking about was sociopolitical, she was talking ideology. What Bob brings to the table gets us into the nature/nurture area.

And from where it appears he's coming from, I can definitely see him going after tabula rasa. I think that will be a much easier argument, I consider it a no-brainer. This one here is looking apples and oranges to me right now.

[bmacwilliam]

See, it's a mistake to assume one's life is the standard of value. You must abandon evolution to accept this. Man evolved. Evolution is driven by GENE replication, not INDIVIDUAL survival. It is too simple, and simply wrong, to assume that maximal individual survival equals maximal gene reproduction. It doesn't work that way. Evidence totally backs me up on this one.

Life is a high priority sure, but from an evolutionary perspective (which I'll call reality) this is simply not always the case - it's more complex than that, much more. Only in Rand's world (fantasy) is life at the top and always at the top.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Well, when Bob put his cards on the table, it turned out he was coming from the evolutionary psychology area, which is perfectly fine and, for that matter, cutting edge stuff that a lot of us have been looking at for a good while now. I just don't see how what he brings up is anti-matter to what Rand was talking about. The question is whether or not what is coming out of evolutionary psychology trumps technical philosophy. Surely, it needs to be checked out, and people are doing that. Bob is saying that Rand's focus on the individual, the rational egoism, is flawed because of where evolution has brought us.

Can and should an integration be attempted? I think maybe, but I don't know how far it would get. So we have builtins that might have us take one for the team under certain conditions. What Rand was talking about was sociopolitical, she was talking ideology. What Bob brings to the table gets us into the nature/nurture area.

And from where it appears he's coming from, I can definitely see him going after tabula rasa. I think that will be a much easier argument, I consider it a no-brainer. This one here is looking apples and oranges to me right now.

"Bob is saying that Rand's focus on the individual, the rational egoism, is flawed because of where evolution has brought us. "

Yes, but another way of saying "where evolution has brought us" is simply "what we are". Rand is wrong because of what we are. Or, Rand is wrong because reality contradicts her ideas.

"And from where it appears he's coming from, I can definitely see him going after tabula rasa. I think that will be a much easier argument, I consider it a no-brainer."

Oh yeah.

"This one here is looking apples and oranges to me right now."

I agree if apples=reality and oranges=Rand's fantasy.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

See, it's a mistake to assume one's life is the standard of value. You must abandon evolution to accept this. Man evolved. Evolution is driven by GENE replication, not INDIVIDUAL survival. It is too simple, and simply wrong, to assume that maximal individual survival equals maximal gene reproduction. It doesn't work that way. Evidence totally backs me up on this one.

Life is a high priority sure, but from an evolutionary perspective (which I'll call reality) this is simply not always the case - it's more complex than that, much more. Only in Rand's world (fantasy) is life at the top and always at the top.

Bob

If you want to make your life the standard of value that's your choice. If you just want to go with what you think you are hardwired for, okay, but then you are rendering free will free of the valuing. In the last case you need that kind of valuing, in the first case you think you can have a better, happier maybe more productive life. I think both points of view or ideas are valid as reflected in, say, one person, myself.

Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand is the Objectivist catechism. Objectivism the philosophy for reality is what you make of it not by examining Objectivism, save perhaps the epistemology and for comparative reference, but reality.

--Brant

Edited March 20, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

I'm not so sure, Bob. Yes, we are engineered for survival, and that includes having (you know this, I'd imagine) components for things like empathy, say. And that is good. And when it is ignored, people get hurt for no reason.

I think that if Rand is taken overboard, misinterpreted in this area, it's no good. That's been my beef for years. So in that way, I agree.

For me, though, the idea of putting the individual first is more symbolic. It's a "charity begins at home" kind of mindset for me. Knowing that you can't do a lot of good for anyone else if you aren't keeping your own welfare at the forefront. Yes, the way she talked of this was a violent backlash, it was extreme because the kind of ethical altruism we were talking about had run wildly out of control. It was definitely extreme, how she came out with it. I mean look at Atlas Shrugged! Here's the prime movers, what happens if the free ride is over with?

But I'm pretty sure I even differ with her view of where evil comes from. I think it comes from hateful thoughts. There's an argument that hateful thinking is simply a flavor of irrational thinking, but I'm not so sure.

[Judith]

See, it's a mistake to assume one's life is the standard of value. You must abandon evolution to accept this. Man evolved. Evolution is driven by GENE replication, not INDIVIDUAL survival. It is too simple, and simply wrong, to assume that maximal individual survival equals maximal gene reproduction. It doesn't work that way. Evidence totally backs me up on this one.

Life is a high priority sure, but from an evolutionary perspective (which I'll call reality) this is simply not always the case - it's more complex than that, much more. Only in Rand's world (fantasy) is life at the top and always at the top.

What you've said is a description of the process of evolution. I don't really see it's relevance to the prescriptive area of philosophy, since we're beings of volitional consciousness and not slaves to our biology. We can choose to value something other than the continuance of the species.

Rand did indeed say that there's no such thing as "society". I agree with her -- there are only other people -- me, you, your next door neighbor, Mike, Kat, Rich -- when we use words like "society", it depersonalizes other people into some giant, amorphous mass that, as Rand said in "We the Living", one measures by the pound. I don't find it a useful concept.

It also tends to enable evasion of responsibility. When one says, "society does this", or "society won't allow that", one needs to dig deeper and say, "WHO does this", or "WHO won't allow that?" There are always individuals or small groups of individuals who are centers of mass for societal movements, and when one identifies them, one finds historical and cultural movements much more readily understandable.

Same goes for "The Government". Which government? There are many layers. Who within the government? Government is many people; who's the individual(s) doing it? Etc. Seeing "The Government" as a faceless monolith leads to feelings of helplessness and powerlessness, as does seeing "Society" in that way. We're all just people.

Judith

Edited March 21, 2007 by Judith

[Victor Pross]

Altruism: Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness.

The ethics of altruism—even by this seemingly more benign definition--is an ethics based on devoting oneself to the interests of others. The above definition does not speak of sacrifice and it seems rather gingerly--it’s not at all like that nasty extreme that kant would have us ascribe to. But nevertheless I maintain that such an ethic (even as defined above) leads one to take extreme situations -- e.g., people drowning or caught in burning buildings -- as the innermost ones for ethics. (Yes, I am recalling Rand’s “The ethics of Emergencies”).

Is altruism really an ethical ideal to follow? Rand thinks (and I agree with her) that anyone who accepts the ethics of altruism will have no self-esteem, will see humanity as a tribe of condemned beggars, will see existence as primarily fraught with disaster on every corner--and will actually become indifferent to ethics due to a preoccupation with extreme situations rather than what we might call "real life." And, I hasten to conclude this: I do not see any definition of altruism as meaning “benevolence” or “kindness.” That’s merely Bob Mac’s package-deal fantasy to give more teeth to his argument. Altruism is not about kindness. It's about anti-self. That's the core of it.

Let’s take a look at the above definition of altruism again: Altruism: Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness.

What’s wrong with picture? What is impractical and fantasy-like about this ethical approach? It’s this: If one's whole life were at the mercy of the needs of strangers---one would never be able to get on with one's own life--their own pursuit for happiness. As Rand would stress: One would never be able to live one's life. As for others, Rand tells us that “the value that a follower of her view grants to others is "an extension, a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself." We can see that Rand does not emphasize others, but neither does she discount them. Others are important, but it is up to the individual to judge how certain others are important to him in relation to his life.

There will always be people in some kind of need or other. Every human being has needs. You can't swallow a chunk of food that is not needed elsewhere. It might be argued, If I value the lives of strangers higher than my own life, this might well display a very unhealthy lack of self-esteem. And if I panic when I need to save my drowning child, (this is not altruism) I lack the courage and integrity to live in accord with my own values. Finally, if I didn't recognize the value of myself, I might not really be able to grasp the value of other people. After all, I am at the center of being able to grasp the concept of “value.” I can’t do that through some “other.” I can’t breathe through someone else’s lungs. I can’t think through someone else’s brain. And I can’t value someone else—unless I value myself. To think otherwise...is a fantasy to which Bob Mac would ascribe.

-Victor

Edited March 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Bob: "Individual life as the standard of value is objectively wrong."

Really?

Bob, I created a hypothetical situation (addressed to Liz) on this thread that warrants repeating here, except for now, I would like to answer my own question. The hypothetical situation is this:

*Suppose the love of your life—your dream man—was caught in a burning building and he had a broken leg, so being able to flee is not so easy. Would you rush in to rescue him? Now hold on, I can imagine you would. But once you rescue him successfully and are now safely out of the building, you hear the cry of an infant child still caught in the edifice. But your dream man, you suspect, may still require your assistance as he is coughing up smoke, and resuscitation may be required of you. Do you leave him—on the speculation that he may need you—or do you now save the child? Keep the context in mind: this fantastic man that you love dearly may die (or may not) but the death of the infant is certain if you don’t do something. The man means everything to you. The child is not yours.*

If I were to answer this question, I would answer thusly: I would stick by the side of the one I love—the love of my life. (Who happens to be a real person and not a hypothetical construct. Her name is Angie). If it were a simple case of the infant who was trapped, sure, I would attempt to rescue the child. But that is not how I set up my imaginary situation. In this case, I choose the love of my life. I chose to rescue her, but not because of any blasted goddamn altruism. Do you consider me a cad? Am I immoral?

Barbara pointed out that the philosopher, Aususte Comte, is the who coined the term “altruism.” 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. But I failed to place my life as secondary when I rescued my beloved. I acted selfishly. Let me ask you this: let’s say that it wasn’t an infant in the burning building, but an adult—an enemy of mine. A man I despised. Would you have me rescue him over the love of my life? Would you? Would that give my actions that moral import that altruism, as you see it, brings? (Would I be in violation of human nature as you have characterizing as being “altruistic”?)

-Victor

Edited March 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Biology and philosophy? Where are we here?

Bob,

You speak of “evolutionary game theory” and use this to go to battle with an ethical system where choice (volition) is involved, but if game theory accurately describes an aspect of human nature as being “altruistic”—which you describe as being “co-operative” from a biological perspective.

Really, it would seem we are merely having a semantic squabble. Human beings freely co-operate all the time—which is what a free society is about—and people should be left free to pursue their self-interest as they see fit and should be left free to live in accordance with their nature—whatever that “nature” is, be it as you see it or by some other theory. (Human nature is what it is).

Bob, Ayn Rand’s charges against “altruism” were targeted against its philosophical meaning and against its political manifestations. Rand did not have anything against human nature. Yet you rail against her ethical system using the arguements of biology (correct or incorrect). Now, we really do get to the heart of it: Do you believe in a free society as Objectivists would call for…or would you call for a social-political manifestation of this (for want of a better description) “biological altruism"? Tell us, how do you envision that society? That would be most interesting. Would that society be different from an Objectivist society or similar? (I'm speaking politics here).

Victor

Edited March 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Bob is bringing something to the table here, and in a very direct fashion. If you have spent some time looking around at things in O-world, you will have seen that there has been discussion about things outside of normal Objectivist thought; things that were developed past Rand's period. There has been, in recent years, a tremendous amount of work done in the area of what I call "evolutionary psychology." Now, I used to work with what I had, which had a lot to do with basic groundwork, things like herd mechanics, B.F. Skinner, others. At the same time, there has been work in philosophy that runs outside of Rand, notably things like Koessler (holons, etc.). In the end, I am convinced there is an opportunity here... I've seen this for a long time. It is an opportunity for integration. There are plenty of people I know online around here that could attempt such an integration, if they wish to, and I think it is work worth doing, were someone to choose to undertake it. This is healthy discussion, and my hope is that folks see it in that light.

[Judith]

Bob is bringing something to the table here, and in a very direct fashion. If you have spent some time looking around at things in O-world, you will have seen that there has been discussion about things outside of normal Objectivist thought; things that were developed past Rand's period. There has been, in recent years, a tremendous amount of work done in the area of what I call "evolutionary psychology." Now, I used to work with what I had, which had a lot to do with basic groundwork, things like herd mechanics, B.F. Skinner, others. At the same time, there has been work in philosophy that runs outside of Rand, notably things like Koessler (holons, etc.). In the end, I am convinced there is an opportunity here... I've seen this for a long time. It is an opportunity for integration. There are plenty of people I know online around here that could attempt such an integration, if they wish to, and I think it is work worth doing, were someone to choose to undertake it. This is healthy discussion, and my hope is that folks see it in that light.

Yeah, but we don't see the connection, Rich. Can you spell it out for us in a bit more detail? That's what we need YOU for!

Judith

[Rich Engle]

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

This is someting that I have my hooks on, intuitively, but I do believe that I'm outside of my grasp in terms of using technical philosophy to address properly (on that side of it). It's an integration.

On the surface, it may seem simple, but it is not. From what I see, Bob is bringing evolutionary material to the table, and in terms of human history, the things in this area are recent. I barely have scratched the surface, I don't read this stuff heavily, I'm busy.

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.

[bmacwilliam]

If you want to make your life the standard of value that's your choice. If you just want to go with what you think you are hardwired for, okay, but then you are rendering free will free of the valuing. In the last case you need that kind of valuing, in the first case you think you can have a better, happier maybe more productive life. I think both points of view or ideas are valid as reflected in, say, one person, myself.

--Brant

Actually yes, I agree. That's an equally valid way of looking at the issue. We have a choice on what we wish to value. My point in a nutshell, and I believe I have shown, is that if we don't have a choice (objective ethics) of what to base our values on, rather we have one chosen for us by Rand (individual life), then this choice is indeed a wrong one according to her own reasoning.

<speculation>

Rand needed objective ethics based on selfishness or her politics don't work. She couldn't have that.

</speculation>

"I think both points of view or ideas are valid as reflected in, say, one person, myself."

I can buy that. Values are not static.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Now, we really do get to the heart of it: Do you believe in a free society as Objectivists would call for…or would you call for a social-political manifestation of this (for want of a better description) “biological altruism"? Tell us, how do you envision that society? That would be most interesting. Would that society be different from an Objectivist society or similar? (I'm speaking politics here).

Victor

Excellent question! LF Capitalism is not ideal (although we must define what ideal would be) in just about any sense. Rand got many of these related ideas wrong as well. I do believe in freedom, but very different from Rand's. My vision is considerably different.

I didn't intend to go there (yet) but I could I guess.

Bob

Edited March 21, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Brant said:

"Objectivism the philosophy for reality is what you make of it not by examining Objectivism, save perhaps the epistemology and for comparative reference, but reality."

Very well put and wise! I like it!

Bob

[Rich Engle]

I'm thinking you're starting to see what's doing here, Bob. OL allows for those of us who acknowledge the influence of Rand, but don't take it lock/stock. It's an integrationsit type of view, vs. the orthodox/fundamentalist approach. So you hopefully have seen the diversity.

I find fundamentalism to be unhealthy, and particularly foul in the case of integration. There's been a lot of talk about closed and open system approaches to Rand's work. Over here you see, primarily, an open-system approach. It doesn't mean jettisoning everything. I get that a lot being a Unitarian Universalist person-- "oh you are the guys that believe in everything so you believe in nothing." Hell, I just got that handed to me yesterday.

When I'm around O-world, I look at it as a dynamic, living/breathing thing. If I get shit for that, I really don't care.

What are your influences when you talk evolutionary theory? And, how do you view the work of people like Carl Jung, and Joseph Campbell. Just a thought...

Edited March 21, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

<speculation>

Rand needed objective ethics based on selfishness or her politics don't work. She couldn't have that.

</speculation>

Bob

These are separate issues although the root is common. The politics don't work, regardless. And if the government somehow was perfect in protecting rights and not violating them, the situation would prove to be unstable and corruptible for citizens are always being corrupted out of ignorance, stupidity, greed and the fact that government is no more perfectible than a human being is.

Just as there is always tension within any one person between unrealized moral (good) and immoral (bad) behavior, there will always be less than perfect government. If our freedoms are not at risk we cannot be encouraged in the real world to exercise our fighting for freedom muscles, therefore they'll atrophy.

A human being can rightly aspire to be a better person and strive and fight for that and so also to fight for better government. The idea is not a perfect government but realization that the direction of government should be toward greater and greater freedom, which demands that people understand just what freedom is and what is needed to fight for it assuming they'd value it.

--Brant