The Objectivist Ethics

[Brant Gaede]

Now YOUR turn: How do you decide what you want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I try to make my decisions based on what is rationally in my self-interest, opposed to an itch or my emotional fancies.

Basing your decisions on itches, fancies, emotions, or desires without understanding how they effect your self-interest in the long run and in the short run is very animalistic.

What about rape Bob? If you see a beautiful woman and are aroused do you scratch your itch and treat her how you would want her to treat you?

--Dustan

And suppose I consider satisfying my itches or fancies to BE my interest? Why would that be wrong. What is inherently wrong with pursuing pleasure? If I am going to be alive, why not have some fun doing it? Aside from puritan crotchets and other sourpuss reactions, just what is wrong with hedonism? I am referring here to the pursuit of pleasure, done without infringing anyone's rights. We do live with other people for whom our pleasure may be their pain, so we must constrain our pleasures to avoid such conflicts.

As to rape, that is a wrong committed against another person. I would not want to be raped, so I would not rape anyone. In addition to lacking grace and being uncouth, it is also an infringement of rights and furthermore it is actionable. People are arrested and imprisoned for rape. If it is sexual contact one wishes, one need not obtain it by force. It can be had by consent. Rape is not only unnecessary, it is just plain stupid.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the pursuit of pleasure is the primary, then one's underlying philosophy and values are invisible and out of control. One might end up doing very bad things because of that.

--Brant

Edited September 25, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Aggrad02]

And suppose I consider satisfying my itches or fancies to BE my interest? Why would that be wrong. What is inherently wrong with pursuing pleasure? If I am going to be alive, why not have some fun doing it? Aside from puritan crotchets and other sourpuss reactions, just what is wrong with hedonism? I am referring here to the pursuit of pleasure, done without infringing anyone's rights. We do live with other people for whom our pleasure may be their pain, so we must constrain our pleasures to avoid such conflicts.

As to rape, that is a wrong committed against another person. I would not want to be raped, so I would not rape anyone. In addition to lacking grace and being uncouth, it is also an infringement of rights and furthermore it is actionable. People are arrested and imprisoned for rape. If it is sexual contact one wishes, one need not obtain it by force. It can be had by consent. Rape is not only unnecessary, it is just plain stupid.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the pursuit of pleasure is the primary, then one's underlying philosophy and values are invisible and out of control. One might end up doing very bad things because of that.

--Brant

I agree with Brant, Bob. If pleasure is your primary goal then that is dangerous. If you attempt to understand why something is pleasurable and then to decided rationally that that pleasure stems from an activity that is in your self interest, then that is different. If that is what you meant then I am sorry that I took you out of context. Our emotions and feelings stem from an unconscious cognitive process. We should try to understand them to know what the underlying motive fueling them is. If we can determine what the motive is, then we can rationally decide what actions to take, if we can't then it is better to ignore those emotions, or at least put them aside until more information can be considered.

--Dustan

Edited September 25, 2007 by Aggrad02

[BaalChatzaf]

If the pursuit of pleasure is the primary, then one's underlying philosophy and values are invisible and out of control. One might end up doing very bad things because of that.

--Brant

Not if one is careful to respect the rights of other folks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 25, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

It is a very Darwinian process. Long before I read anything that Ayn Rand published I rejected altruism as being potentially deadly and wrong headed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The problem is again with Rand's inappropriate (that's an opinion) definitions. I say 'inappropriate' because they're often so extreme as to be useless.

Altruism for example, I would argue is more generally defined essentially as sacrificing something of value for something of lesser value. This is the general definition that biologists work with or the equivalent definition of doing something that helps (increases survival of) another individual at a survival cost (or risk) to oneself. An altruistic behaviour would be something like sharing food - a seemingly anti-Darwinian act. Rand however, in my opinion perverts the situation by extending the definition of altruism to the all out 'moral ideal' of ALWAYS putting others' interest ahead of your own.

Of course she intentionally (in my opinion) excludes the middle ground and dismisses the possibility that maybe if some of our acts are altruistic then group dynamics (human civilization) flourishes. Recent thoughts on this matter, that I have outlined elsewhere, support the notion that altruistic behaviour is built right into us (and many other animals) and is an important piece of who we are. Forcing those who would otherwise cheat into contributing a portion of their efforts to the common good is hardly the slavery she would say it is and it's clearly not in accordance with reality to dismiss the more reasonable definitions of altruism as evil. Man qua man indeed includes altruism - it's a big part of what we are.

Bob

[tjohnson]

The problem is again with Rand's inappropriate (that's an opinion) definitions. I say 'inappropriate' because they're often so extreme as to be useless.

Altruism for example, I would argue is more generally defined essentially as sacrificing something of value for something of lesser value. This is the general definition that biologists work with or the equivalent definition of doing something that helps (increases survival of) another individual at a survival cost (or risk) to oneself. An altruistic behaviour would be something like sharing food - a seemingly anti-Darwinian act. Rand however, in my opinion perverts the situation by extending the definition of altruism to the all out 'moral ideal' of ALWAYS putting others' interest ahead of your own.

Of course she intentionally (in my opinion) excludes the middle ground and dismisses the possibility that maybe if some of our acts are altruistic then group dynamics (human civilization) flourishes. Recent thoughts on this matter, that I have outlined elsewhere, support the notion that altruistic behaviour is built right into us (and many other animals) and is an important piece of who we are. Forcing those who would otherwise cheat into contributing a portion of their efforts to the common good is hardly the slavery she would say it is and it's clearly not in accordance with reality to dismiss the more reasonable definitions of altruism as evil. Man qua man indeed includes altruism - it's a big part of what we are.

Bob

Very well put, IMO.

[Daniel Barnes]

Ba'al:

Altruism for example, I would argue is more generally defined essentially as sacrificing something of value for something of lesser value.

Not that I would argue over it, but as an interesting sidelight this is actually Rand's own definition.

It's the opposite of the typical definition, and is very non-standard. See 3. here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice

Think of a sacrifice in chess for example.

It's a very odd usage, and seems to be a case of re-engineering terms to suit particular arguments.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually it depends on where you are.

For example, if you lived in one of the Communist regimes when Rand was alive, the philosophy of the state was literal self-sacrifice for the good of others as a primary ethic. That was universal in those regimes. Rand's definition fit them to a tee.

Rand merely pulled the covers off and said, "That is evil." History has vindicated her.

People get confused about Rand and think this means never doing good for others without self-benefit. That's their view, not Rand's.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Actually it depends on where you are.

For example, if you lived in one of the Communist regimes when Rand was alive, the philosophy of the state was literal self-sacrifice for the good of others as a primary ethic. That was universal in those regimes. Rand's definition fit them to a tee.

Rand merely pulled the covers off and said, "That is evil." History has vindicated her.

People get confused about Rand and think this means never doing good for others without self-benefit. That's their view, not Rand's.

Michael

But she was very clear about not having a moral obligation to serve others or the common good. I disagree and think that we indeed do have this obligation but only partially. I am aware that she did not imply or state that all charity was evil, but it had to be voluntary. I disagree. I do not believe that taxation is fundamentally theft.

[Brant Gaede]

Actually it depends on where you are.

For example, if you lived in one of the Communist regimes when Rand was alive, the philosophy of the state was literal self-sacrifice for the good of others as a primary ethic. That was universal in those regimes. Rand's definition fit them to a tee.

Rand merely pulled the covers off and said, "That is evil." History has vindicated her.

People get confused about Rand and think this means never doing good for others without self-benefit. That's their view, not Rand's.

Michael

But she was very clear about not having a moral obligation to serve others or the common good. I disagree and think that we indeed do have this obligation but only partially. I am aware that she did not imply or state that all charity was evil, but it had to be voluntary. I disagree. I do not believe that taxation is fundamentally theft.

Is it theft, though?

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Actually it depends on where you are.

For example, if you lived in one of the Communist regimes when Rand was alive, the philosophy of the state was literal self-sacrifice for the good of others as a primary ethic. That was universal in those regimes. Rand's definition fit them to a tee.

Rand merely pulled the covers off and said, "That is evil." History has vindicated her.

People get confused about Rand and think this means never doing good for others without self-benefit. That's their view, not Rand's.

Michael

But she was very clear about not having a moral obligation to serve others or the common good. I disagree and think that we indeed do have this obligation but only partially. I am aware that she did not imply or state that all charity was evil, but it had to be voluntary. I disagree. I do not believe that taxation is fundamentally theft.

Is it theft, though?

--Brant

No, I say it's not.

[Aggrad02]

No, I say it's not.

How is involuntary taxation not theft?

--Dustan

[tjohnson]

How is involuntary taxation not theft?

--Dustan

How is killing during war not murder? Because it is sanctioned by the government.

[Brant Gaede]

How is involuntary taxation not theft?

--Dustan

How is killing during war not murder? Because it is sanctioned by the government.

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

Thanks Brant,

No one has a claim on my production, regardless of the name they use.

--Dustan

[bmacwilliam]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

Thanks Brant,

No one has a claim on my production, regardless of the name they use.

--Dustan

That is why you're wrong. Indeed the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your production. Should you receive a service for no fee?

[tjohnson]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

There CAN be, yes. But mostly it's called serving your country, like your soldiers are doing in Iraq right now.

[Brant Gaede]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

There CAN be, yes. But mostly it's called serving your country, like your soldiers are doing in Iraq right now.

I have no soldiers, certainly none in Iraq. If I had I would never have sent them there.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

Thanks Brant,

No one has a claim on my production, regardless of the name they use.

--Dustan

That is why you're wrong. Indeed the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your production. Should you receive a service for no fee?

First off, Who is the State?

If you can answer me that, then we can move to the second question that can only be answered after the first one:

What service is this "State" providing me?

BTW:

Just like the state has no claim on my production, it also does not have the right force feed me crap I don't want.

If I need any service from anyone (State, Individual, Corporation) I will gladly pay for it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But she was very clear about not having a moral obligation to serve others or the common good.

Bob,

I don't mind disagreement with Rand, but I do insist on getting the ideas right. The idea of "moral obligation" is foreign to Rand's ethics as a whole, not just with others. She considered ethics as a code to guide an individual's choices of action in obtaining values—operating instructions for the faculty of volition, so to speak.

Her concept of ethics comes from within the individual human being (his nature), not from an external agent. The only way an obligation can be enforced is by withholding a benefit and threating punishment, like Heaven and Hell if the standard is God's word, or confiscation of property and incarceration or mutilation/death if the standard is the government. Both God and government are external agents for enforcing obligations.

Who is there to enforce anything if the source is only reality? Reality, especially the law of identity, is Rand's standard of ethics, and all else for that matter. Thus there are no "obligations" in terms of volition. There are only results from choices wedded to actions. Choose and do this, that happens. Choose and do that, something else happens. You decide what results (like survival) are of value to you.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

But she was very clear about not having a moral obligation to serve others or the common good.

Bob,

I don't mind disagreement with Rand, but I do insist on getting the ideas right. The idea of "moral obligation" is foreign to Rand's ethics as a whole, not just with others. She considered ethics as a code to guide an individual's choices of action in obtaining values—operating instructions for the faculty of volition, so to speak.

Her concept of ethics comes from within the individual human being (his nature), not from an external agent. The only way an obligation can be enforced is by withholding a benefit and threating punishment, like Heaven and Hell if the standard is God's word, or confiscation of property and incarceration or mutilation/death if the standard is the government. Both God and government are external agents for enforcing obligations.

Who is there to enforce anything if the source is only reality? Reality, especially the law of identity, is Rand's standard of ethics, and all else for that matter. Thus there are no "obligations" in terms of volition. There are only results from choices wedded to actions. Choose and do this, that happens. Choose and do that, something else happens. You decide what results (like survival) are of value to you.

Michael

I think you might be splitting hairs here. She was quite clear that there was no obligation to contribute anything to anyone else.

She said

"Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars."

She also said (speaking about whether to give the beggar a dime) :

" The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence."

I really don't think it's innaccurate to say that this could be descibed as you need not feel (if you're rational) that any needs of others should be above your own, and you need not feel an obligation, moral or otherwise, to give up your property. I think you're right that a 'moral obligation' was indeed foreign to her ethics, and that's in fact what I said/meant - that the moral obligation (or moral purpose as she said) was or should be absent if you're rational.

Also she made it abundantly clear that there was only two possible moral frameworks - that of the self (selfishness) and that of others (altruism) and we had a black and white, good and evil situation. Of course this completely ignores the fact that humans have competing interests and that sometimes the self comes first and sometimes not - because of what we are. Where did it become mandatory that one's value hierarchy is immutable. THis doesn't reflect reality.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

There can be murder outside law or murder sanctioned by law--the Holocaust. The "Eichmann Defense" doesn't work.

--Brant

Thanks Brant,

No one has a claim on my production, regardless of the name they use.

--Dustan

That is why you're wrong. Indeed the state has a legitimate claim on a portion of your production. Should you receive a service for no fee?

First off, Who is the State?

If you can answer me that, then we can move to the second question that can only be answered after the first one:

What service is this "State" providing me?

BTW:

Just like the state has no claim on my production, it also does not have the right force feed me crap I don't want.

If I need any service from anyone (State, Individual, Corporation) I will gladly pay for it.

Who is the state?

For starters, let's just say the organization that is protecting you from the nutcases in the middle-east that would not hesitate to slit your throat if they could get their hands on you.

What service is this "State" providing me?

See above.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where did it become mandatory that one's value hierarchy is immutable.

Bob,

If you are insinuating that this is Rand's view, that is incorrect. There is no "mandatory" in what to choose. You can choose anything. Only reality is immutable. The consequences provided by reality for choices/acts can be called "mandatory," I suppose. But the difference is that there is no real choice with reality. Do this and that results (whether beneficial, indifferent or damaging). Period. No discussion.

There is such a choice with an outside agent and the name of that game is obedience to a ruler. You can even see what you can get away with.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Where did it become mandatory that one's value hierarchy is immutable.

Bob,

If you are insinuating that this is Rand's view, that is incorrect. There is no "mandatory" in what to choose. You can choose anything. Only reality is immutable. The consequences provided by reality for choices/acts can be called "mandatory," I suppose. But the difference is that there is no real choice with reality. Do this and that results (whether beneficial, indifferent or damaging). Period. No discussion.

There is such a choice with an outside agent and the name of that game is obedience to a ruler. You can even see what you can get away with.

Michael

She very clearly described one's own life as THE standard of value, the ultimate value. Her reasoning for this was quite wrong in my opinion, but we're drifting off topic.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

We are not drifting too far.

All normative statements implicitly include "if/then."

A person's life is his basic standard of value. If he wants to continue living, then he will do certain things. If he doesn't, then he will do others. If he doesn't continue living, he can't do anything else.

It is easy to confuse Rand with Peikoff's "premoral choice to live" or whatever he called it, but they are not the same.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

A person's life is his basic standard of value.

No, it is not.