My Objections

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

Judith,

I agree with the spirit of this but not the letter. Why does it have to be either-or? Isn't part of our nature as human beings also being members of a species? Why ignore that and cut off an essential component of our own selves when designing ethics?

We are not individual "things" or "blobs" floating around in the universe, completely cut off from all other relationships. We are individual human beings. Why can't we be both individuals and members of a species at the same time?

In fact, we are!

I think it is rational for ethics to reflect our whole nature (man qua man), not just part of it.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

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

Well, that's a good question. Up to this point, my main problem on this subject can be summed up as...

If, and that's a big "IF", objective ethics are possible, by her own logic Rand's ethics are deeply flawed.

As for the question of whether it's possible and under what terms? I don't know.... Still mulling that one over.

Bob

[Judith]

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.

I agree with the spirit of this but not the letter. Why does it have to be either-or? Isn't part of our nature as human beings also being members of a species? Why ignore that and cut off an essential component of our own selves when designing ethics?

We are not individual "things" or "blobs" floating around in the universe, completely cut off from all other relationships. We are individual human beings. Why can't we be both individuals and members of a species at the same time?

In fact, we are!

I think it is rational for ethics to reflect our whole nature (man qua man), not just part of it.

1) I didn't say it's either/or. I said, "It is thus POSSIBLE that an individual's interests and the species' interests COULD be at cross-purposes." (emphasis added) When the interests coincide, no problem arises. When they conflict, guess which side I'm on?

2) Rand said, and I agree, that the fundamental unit of the organism is not the cell, not the organ, not the family, not the city, not the species, not the planet, but the individual. Subunits interact to comprise the individual, and sometimes it makes sense to examine them individually. Individuals interact to form groups, and sometimes it makes sense to look at the groups as entities. Nevertheless, the living organism is the individual.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Individuals interact to form groups, and sometimes it makes sense to look at the groups as entities. Nevertheless, the living organism is the individual.

Judith,

While I don't deny that "the living organism is the individual," I do have a precision problem with "individuals interact to form groups" as a description of species. Individual "things" are not born, then start interacting to form a species. An individual member of a species is born right from the beginning. Being a member of a species is an essential part of an individual's identity.

Also, including a consideration for this reality does not negate or impair any consideration for the individual. I don't see any collision at all between individual survival and species survival. Well, there are a few cases. Overpopulation (if that ever happens) leading exhaustion of the survival-level resources available at that time. A few individuals blowing the planet up and making it hard for the rest of us to survive. Things like that.

Otherwise, I don't see the different interests colliding at all. When they apparently do, you will usually find an individual (or specific individuals) who have took it upon themselves to be the uninvited spokespeople for the species.

Michael

[Judith]

Individuals interact to form groups, and sometimes it makes sense to look at the groups as entities. Nevertheless, the living organism is the individual.

I don't see any collision at all between individual survival and species survival. Well, there are a few cases. Overpopulation (if that ever happens) leading exhaustion of the survival-level resources available at that time. A few individuals blowing the planet up and making it hard for the rest of us to survive. Things like that.

Otherwise, I don't see the different interests colliding at all. When they apparently do, you will usually find an individual (or specific individuals) who have took it upon themselves to be the uninvited spokespeople for the species.

!!!!!!!!

What about the example I provided in my post above? (Assuming that humans live in a time when infant mortality is high.)

What about all the examples Rand provided in her fiction? Remember Kira talking to the bureaucrat about Leo's need for health care and talking about people being measured by the pound? What happens when scarce health care is provided only to those who are the most productive members of society?

I could come up with tons and tons of similar examples where "democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch".

Judith

[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

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,

The only commandment respecting other people I have is don't initiate physical force--violate my rights and the rights of others.

I don't like giving people advice on how best to live their lives for I don't know that much and even good advice is often not taken anyway. I sometimes give advice regarding techniques one might use to deal with personal problems and situations. I do this grudgingly and only because I know what I am talking about (I hope).

Before I read Ayn Rand my understanding and justification for individual rights--I was probably 11 or 12--went like this: What was there about one man that gave moral sanction to use force against another--where and what was the difference? I knew of none. This is a doctrine of essential moral equality, although I had no words for it then. This for me still is the objective basis for an objectivist ethics. There is no rational self-interest or selfishness here. Those, for me, would have to be add-ons. Controversial add-ons. Value codes are chosen; you may choose your own as I choose mine.

Selfishness, altruism, rational self-interest: Ayn Rand didn't know enough about these things, although she knew at lot, and human beings' human being to use what I am afraid is absolutist nonsense respecting such. Take out the absolutism and we have legitimate things to talk about.

Thank you for your comments. They enabled me to greatly clarify my thinking.

--Brant

Edited March 27, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What about the example I provided in my post above? (Assuming that humans live in a time when infant mortality is high.)

What about all the examples Rand provided in her fiction? Remember Kira talking to the bureaucrat about Leo's need for health care and talking about people being measured by the pound? What happens when scarce health care is provided only to those who are the most productive members of society?

I could come up with tons and tons of similar examples where "democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch".

Judith,

What does any of that that have to do with a person devising a balanced view of individuality as a member of a species in devising his ethics?

Here are some examples of what I mean. When I fall in love, I vastly prefer it be with a member of my own species than, say, a sheep.

When I think about what to produce, I think about the needs and interests of members of my species that I wish to fulfill (even when I produce something for animals and other nonhuman entities). Not only do I trade with them, I can identify with what I am doing because I use these things myself. I find devoting my life to providing for the interests of something like whales a bit distant to my own reality as a human being.

I think about reproduction as an important value (whether one does or not is another issue, but the issue is still important to consider as it is part of our species pre-programming).

When I think about values like justice, I am putting this within the context of other members of my species and not, say, dogs or insects.

I could go on. But that's the gist of it.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ I don't think anyone mentioned The Selfish Gene, or, that Rand didn't really 're-define' the problematic (here) terms; she just used 'altruism' the way all pulpit-pounders do (when they dare use it nowadays post AS), and re-interpreted the meaning of self-interest [which IS one of the basic meanings of 'selfishness'...in my dictionary].)

~ Well, that pretty well covers the subject of 'altruism' and 'selfishness' I'd say (not to mention evolution, biological drives and DNA vs ideologies, ethics and choice-making being the proper place to start discussions about human behavior.)

~ Tabula Rasa anyone?

LLAP

J:D

PS: Btw, I'd say that Judith spelled out my perspectives and problems with others very well.

[tjohnson]

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.

This may be true for animals but bears do not have the ability to control their environments, reduce infant mortality, etc. like humans do. I see no reason why individual and species interests cannot coincide. We do not want to copy animals in our nervous responses, we need to develop uniquely human reponses in order to insure the survival of humans AS humans, and not as animals.

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

This may be true for animals but bears do not have the ability to control their environments, reduce infant mortality, etc. like humans do. I see no reason why individual and species interests cannot coincide. We do not want to copy animals in our nervous responses, we need to develop uniquely human reponses in order to insure the survival of humans AS humans, and not as animals.

Humans ARE animals. We happen to have the gift of gab. We eat, we copulate, we excrete. We do everything other mammals do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Humans ARE animals. We happen to have the gift of gab. We eat, we copulate, we excrete. We do everything other mammals do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, but the gift of gab is what separates us from animals. More precisely, the gift of abstracting in higher and higher orders ad infinitum. Surely you must be aware of the 'self-fulfilling prophecy'? If we think about ourselves as animals then there's a good chance we will continue to behave as animals.

[BaalChatzaf]

Humans ARE animals. We happen to have the gift of gab. We eat, we copulate, we excrete. We do everything other mammals do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, but the gift of gab is what separates us from animals. More precisely, the gift of abstracting in higher and higher orders ad infinitum. Surely you must be aware of the 'self-fulfilling prophecy'? If we think about ourselves as animals then there's a good chance we will continue to behave as animals.

Most of what we do in a day is quite mammalian. We cannot be separated from our animal nature. Our verbal skills are put to use in securing mates and food. We do with thinking and talking, what a dog does with smelling and what a cat does with pouncing on prey.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Most of what we do in a day is quite mammalian. We cannot be separated from our animal nature. Our verbal skills are put to use in securing mates and food. We do with thinking and talking, what a dog does with smelling and what a cat does with pouncing on prey.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Gee, I don't think I'm using my verbal skills to secure a mate or food right now.

[BaalChatzaf]

Most of what we do in a day is quite mammalian. We cannot be separated from our animal nature. Our verbal skills are put to use in securing mates and food. We do with thinking and talking, what a dog does with smelling and what a cat does with pouncing on prey.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Gee, I don't think I'm using my verbal skills to secure a mate or food right now.

Quite so. You are purring. We are primarily mammals. Nothing but an evolutionary change will alter that. Animals we are and animals we will always be. Just because we are -smart animals- doesn't change the basic facts of our existence.

Man is the Smartest Baddest Ape in The Monkey House. We differ from Chimps in less than four percent of our genes. Our emotions are generated and controlled by a portion of the brain which does not differ markedly from the brain of reptiles. The cerebral cortex does not change what is beneath, it only inhibits it. Once you accept our beastly nature you can have a more relaxed attitude toward it. Don't fight reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Quite so. You are purring. We are primarily mammals. Nothing but an evolutionary change will alter that. Animals we are and animals we will always be. Just because we are -smart animals- doesn't change the basic facts of our existence.

Man is the Smartest Baddest Ape in The Monkey House. We differ from Chimps in less than four percent of our genes. Our emotions are generated and controlled by a portion of the brain which does not differ markedly from the brain of reptiles. The cerebral cortex does not change what is beneath, it only inhibits it. Once you accept our beastly nature you can have a more relaxed attitude toward it. Don't fight reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

'Purring', that's a cute metaphor I could say 'don't fight reality' to you as well. The reality is that if we think of ourselves as animals we will continue to behave as animals. Check out 'The Metaphors We Live By' by Lakoff. It's fine and dandy when we fight with swords, like Conan the Barbarian, but when we fight with nuclear weapons etc. it's not nice to be animalistic. You are quite right when you say the cortex can inhibit responses and we would be very smart to take advantage of this and become more human.

[Judith]

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.

This may be true for animals but bears do not have the ability to control their environments, reduce infant mortality, etc. like humans do. I see no reason why individual and species interests cannot coincide. We do not want to copy animals in our nervous responses, we need to develop uniquely human reponses in order to insure the survival of humans AS humans, and not as animals.

Solving problems without violating individual rights is, of course, the ideal. We have a long way to go, though, before we have a society in which individual rights are held sacred. I just finished a book that postulated that Original Sin is a genetic tendency toward evil, originating when metazoans evolved, and defined evil as forcibly imposing one's ideas on others. Fascinating concept.

Judith

[John Dailey]

Judith:

~ To accentuate a point you made, "We have a long way to go...before we have a society in which individual rights [my emphasis: JD]..." are even recognized as something worth a minimum respect, as they once were when our country was founded. Sure, you'll hear the 'talk'; but, when was the last time you saw them doing the 'walk'?

~ We had a great beginning; our ancestral legislators blew it all. We're now in a deep pit with decision-makers who know only how to dig holes. --- Call me a pessimist for our descendents' future.

LLAP

J:D

Edited June 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[tjohnson]

One point, individual rights will not matter squat if we destroy the planet.

[BaalChatzaf]

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

Judith

Objectivism is totally at odds with quantum physics which is the best physical theory every devised by humans. Objectivism is mired in an Aristotelean swamp. If you look into it Aristotle got just about everything wrong about matter and motion.

Objectivism is also totally at odds with modern mathematics which is the cutting edge tool of physics.

There is a good reason for this: Rand was ignorant of science and mathematics. L.P. has no competence in these areas either.

Science and technology are the areas of intellectual accomplishment that matter. Anything at odds with them (other than better science and technology) is seriously flawed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

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

Judith

Objectivism is totally at odds with quantum physics which is the best physical theory every devised by humans. Objectivism is mired in an Aristotelean swamp. If you look into it Aristotle got just about everything wrong about matter and motion.

Objectivism is also totally at odds with modern mathematics which is the cutting edge tool of physics.

There is a good reason for this: Rand was ignorant of science and mathematics. L.P. has no competence in these areas either.

Science and technology are the areas of intellectual accomplishment that matter. Anything at odds with them (other than better science and technology) is seriously flawed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al reminds me of the mythical god worshipped at the time of Abraham. Any relation?

Your post smacks of ad hominem. You do not mention any of the actual tenets of Objectivism and fail to show the alleged flaw. For example Objectivism holds that Existence exists as an axiomatic concept. Are you suggesting that because of advances in science and mathematics that this concept is untrue? A derivitive Objectivist concept is that each human being possesses a Right to his or her own Life. Are you suggesting that is not true either?

You suggest a "seriously flawed" "anything at odds with...science and technology." What is the flaw?

Objectivism logically derives a concept of individual rights of each human being after birth. Are you suggesting that there is something amiss with Aristotelian logic altogether? Just because generations of Aristotle worshippers failed to count the number of teeth in a horse's mouth and instead believed Aristotle's mistaken count does not invalidate Aristotelian Logic to my way of thinking.

Methinks you are guilty of the "stolen concept" and should, if you will pardon the expression, "Check your premises!" And while you are at it, please advise just what it is you are trying to accomplish with your attacks on Objectivism?

galt, true believer, natch!

Edited June 9, 2007 by galtgulch

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ You clearly have a 'thing' about Aristotle and his (as most of his times) non-experimental 'science' observations. I'd say that Hawking is carrying this same tradition onward, but, this is really all irrelevent to O'ism being faulty in its metaphysics. Aristotle is not revered in O'ism for any science-observations (and why you harp on this I don't understand) but for his analysis of Logic and his application of it to a coherent system OF metaphysics.

~ Now, you say that O'ism is (implicitly inherently) at odds with Q-'Physics.' Ok; here's a place to discuss. Lay out the diffs please, (and don't confuse an O'ist with "O'ism", as I think you've been doing) and clarify whether you're talking about QuantumMechanics, as experimented and observed, vs 'QuantumTheory' (of which there's more than one) argued interpretations about the observations.

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Methinks you are guilty of the "stolen concept" and should, if you will pardon the expression, "Check your premises!" And while you are at it, please advise just what it is you are trying to accomplish with your attacks on Objectivism?

galt, true believer, natch!

Rand had good arguments in favor of capitalism (that suits me fine). She was ignorant of science and mathematics. It would also have behooved her heir L.P. to keep silent on the matter of physics of which he was equally ignorant.

Objectivism is founded on Aristotelean metaphysics which has lead to error pertaining to matter and motion. Physics could not make any progress until it was purged of it Aristotelean dross. Ergo Objectivism has nothing pertinent to say about science. Not a thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

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

Judith

Objectivism is totally at odds with quantum physics which is the best physical theory every devised by humans. Objectivism is mired in an Aristotelean swamp. If you look into it Aristotle got just about everything wrong about matter and motion.

Objectivism is also totally at odds with modern mathematics which is the cutting edge tool of physics.

There is a good reason for this: Rand was ignorant of science and mathematics. L.P. has no competence in these areas either.

Science and technology are the areas of intellectual accomplishment that matter. Anything at odds with them (other than better science and technology) is seriously flawed.

Funny you should say that. The book I mentioned above is "The Physics of Christianity" by Frank Tipler. He holds that quantum physics logically leads to Christianity. But "it's not your father's Christianity"; I recommend the book simply because he takes the reader for one hell of a wild speculative ride. His first book, "The Physics of Immortality", was easier to understand and also a trip.

But regarding your objections to Objectivism, Objectivism summed up in a sentence is commitment to objective reality. I fail to see how a philosophy that promotes exploring the scientific world and going wherever the evidence takes one can be inconsistent with physics and mathematics.

Judith

[tjohnson]

Objectivism summed up in a sentence is commitment to objective reality.

Judith

In light of quantum mechanics there is no such thing as 'objective reality' . When the observer can have an effect on the observed the notion of 'pure objectivity' loses it's meaning.

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivism summed up in a sentence is commitment to objective reality.

Judith

In light of quantum mechanics there is no such thing as 'objective reality' . When the observer can have an effect on the observed the notion of 'pure objectivity' loses it's meaning.

Not so. The eigen-values and eigen-vectors of an observable are well defined and obey specific laws. While the outcomes of an observer-observed interaction are probabilistic , the set set of values of the outcome are quite well defined.

Are you saying that coins don't exist just because coin toss outcomes are governed by probabilities?

Bob Kolker