Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Selene]

x-ray:

I sadly understand your inability to be discriminating between "humans/persons" a class and "persons present on this forum" which is a category within the class of persons.

Rand is not scripture to me. Therefore, since I objectively reason as best I can, existence exists is clear to me. The fact that you seem to wish to link it to a precise statement by Rand, who left significant gaps in a formal philosophy of Objectivism, and was flat out incorrect on some of her assumptions, is, frankly,

irrelevant to me.

What is your best understanding, viewed by you in the most positive way, of the phrase "existence exists".

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

My question to you was: Can you refute the fact of 100% self interest?

No one can refute an argument by definition.

Did I ask for a definition? One example of an action motivated by non-self-interest will do. If you can think of any, please post it here. TIA.

Aside from that, of course can refute an argument by definition. This depends on the circumstances.

Refuting by definition often comes into play when people base their arguments on false premises rooted in misinformation.

Or use a term incorrectly.

For example, children often mistakenly accuse each other of "lying" when it is simply a case of being wrong on a fact.

Example: Siy-year old Tim: "Johnny has told a lie, he says dinsosaurs still exist! Liar!"

But Johnny is four years old and believes they still exist.

The definition of a lie is a conscious attempt to deceive by stating something as a truth while knowing it to be untrue.

When this is explained to Tim (in simpler words so he can understand) Tim's argument that Johny is a liar has been "refuted by definition", and he will see that little Johnny was merely wrong on something he believed to be true.

You have simply put everything inside your tent demanding to know what is outside.

No, I have invited everyone to go into Rand's tent and move the stuff outside so that it can be examined in the clear light.

Maybe a discussion with you would be possible if we merely go inside with you and establish sub-categories to self-interest and subjective.

There exist no sub-categories of self-interest and subjective.

But who has time for these semantical games?

Imagining non-existing sub-categories of self-interest and subjecitve - now that would qualify as semantical game-playing indeed. ;)

I doubt you'd play anyway--only defend yourself or put down others with endless questions not meant to elucidate or illuminate but obfuscate and to maintain the superiority of you the teacher--the authority after all. If that's your thing--only thing--fine, but I'm not even monitoring the class.

...

You have not stated one thing at odds with anything that anybody else has been saying that will help me think, identify, act, create, produce, love or anything else better.

The questions are meant to elucidate and illuminate, Brant. Inquiry is the mother of truth.

The mere thought of a person thinking themselves "superior" to others makes me cringe.

I'm an advocate of individualism and therefore myself extremely skeptical of any ideological leaders /gurus, etc, whatever the provenience.

Note that my brain is there to help keep me from bumping into things.

I hope it doesn't keep you from bumping into the truth.

Those things aren't subjective epistemological artifacts.

"Subjective epistemological artifacts" - very creative wording, Brant. Ayn Rand's work offers plenty of material here. For example, the illusion of "objective" values existing.

The waves on your ocean don't even reach the beach of the scientific method and science is all about the tentativeness of knowledge and technology all about what works. What works is what works. A is A.

What is "the scientific method"?

What is "scientific" about Rand's method?

If you have to ask these last two questions you are much too ignorant for the discussion. I do not care to educate you on things common to a proper and should be but usually isn't a standard liberal arts education.

--Brant

[Xray]

If you have to ask these last two questions you are much too ignorant for the discussion. I do not care to educate you on things common to a proper and should be but usually isn't a standard liberal arts education.

--Brant

The first question was asked because I wanted to know what your idea of "scientific method" is, since it might not be congruent with what is usually meant by it, but maybe borrowed from something Rand wrote, giving it "her own meaning", like she did with so many terms.

As for the second question, no it is not at all clear to me what is "scientific" about Rand's method. Her terminology is often muddled - even Rand supporters have realized this.

Then there are the premises she bases her philosophy on. They can easily be disproved imo.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Rand's philosophy is based on the premises of "objective" values existing and the premise that there actually exist human beings not motivated by self-interest. The so-called "altruists", whom, in complete disregard of the definition of the term 'altruist', she also calls "looters" and "moochers").

Often she just calls them "they". "They" are the (often nebulous) enemies, "they" are the obstacles in the way for the Randian "heroic man" to soar up to the heights he feels entitled to reach, in a "benevolent universe".

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's philosophy is based on the premises of "objective" values existing and the premise that there actually exist human beings not motivated by self-interest. The so-called "altruists", whom, in complete disregard of the definition of the term 'altruist', she also calls "looters" and "moochers").

Often she just calls them "they". "They" are the (often nebulous) enemies, "they" are the obstacles in the way for the Randian "heroic man" to soar up to the heights he feels entitled to reach, in a "benevolent universe".

Rand's philosophy is based on reason, the impotence of evil and her idea of the ideal man.

Objective self interest relates to what is good and right for a human being apropos his nature. Acting against one's self interest is acting against that. That is why robbing, looting, raping, etc. are essentially selfless acts no matter how much they are experienced or desired by the doer of such. The initiation of physical force, the violation of another's rights, means one is not a productive human being honoring a society based on reason, productivity and trade and constitutes warfare against the productive and their society. Hence that society has laws, cops and soldiers to deal with and neutralize rights' violators.

As I've said more than once, your approach to objectivity is denial of objectivity is essentially nihilistic. Inevitably you cannot champion anything but carping while behind your skirts evil can be done. You implicitly deny free will and cannot differentiate between human beings who choose and lower animals who cannot chose to act against their natures.

All you can now do and will do is slice and dice what I've written with your questions and basically not deal with anything I've said.

--Brant

Edited June 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... and the premise that there actually exist human beings not motivated by self-interest.

Xray,

You keep saying this over and over and over, and I have stood by and watched you waiting for some kind of conceptual growth in your statements so you will be able to discuss this intelligently, but all you can do is repeat the error, repeat the error and repeat the error. You have been asked to read Rand's works. You have been given short-cuts. You have been given explanations. Yet you repeat the same error over and over.

Your statement of Rand's premise is flat-out wrong.

I have read almost everything Rand has in print and I have seen nowhere where she preached the existence of "human beings not motivated by self-interest." You say she did. She didn't.

This used to be amusing. But it is getting old. Like someone telling a not-very-funny joke over and over and nudging you to laugh.

Rand did preach the existence of human beings motivated by a "death premise," and human beings motivated by "whim," and human beings motivated by "hatred of the good for being the good," and human beings motivated by a slew of psychological issues (some correct and some not). There are a few other motivations in these molds.

But not the existence of a totally selfless human being.

It's time to start getting your shit together when you bash Rand or time to stop. Competent bashing (within limits) is OK. Incessant incompetent bashing is not.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm through pulling teeth here. If Xray wants another discussion she can start another topic, I hope more than five multi-sentence paragraphs long. I will not sanction any more of this approach to philosophy, however. She's attacking all philosophy--the very idea and need of it.

--Brant

[Selene]

Joan Baez

looks like your rust is beginning to cover up even the smallest glint of intelligence x-ray

"...then give me another word for it you who are so good with words and at keeping things vague..."

[Xray]

Your statement of Rand's premise is flat-out wrong.

I have read almost everything Rand has in print and I have seen nowhere where she preached the existence of "human beings not motivated by self-interest." You say she did. She didn't.

Haven't you read e. g. in AS what Dagny Taggart thought of her brother Jim? That self-interest was not his motive? This was Ayn Rand speaking via her character Dagny here, don't you think so?

Rand did preach the existence of human beings motivated by a "death premise," and human beings motivated by "whim," and human beings motivated by "hatred of the good for being the good," and human beings motivated by a slew of psychological issues (some correct and some not). There are a few other motivations in these molds.

But not the existence of a totally selfless human being.

So would you agree that "altruists" are motivated by self-interest too?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Are you stating that any statement from any uber archetypal Rand character in a novel is to be given the equal probative value as a non fictional statement by the authoress herself?

[Dragonfly]

Are you stating that any statement from any uber archetypal Rand character in a novel is to be given the equal probative value as a non fictional statement by the authoress herself?

Perhaps not every statement, but sometimes it's clear that the character is speaking for Rand. Example:

He’s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he’s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there ever been a self? What was his aim in life? Greatness--in other people’s eyes. Fame, admiration, envy--all that which comes from others. Others dictated his convictions, which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn’t want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn’t want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others. There’s your actual selflessness.

Or do you think that Rand thought that people like Keating don't exist in reality?

I’m the most selfless man you’ve ever known.

Why would Rand create such a character if she'd think that such people can't exist? Just to rail against a chimaera? Objectivists don't hesitate to quote Galt, d'Anconia, Dagny etc. when it suits them, so they shouldn't be surprised that these people can also be quoted when it doesn't suit them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Do you understand that there are issues of kind and there are issues of degree? Sometimes a person expresses one by a rhetorical means that, taken out of context, could be incorrectly interpreted as the other.

Thus when an author says a person is not "motivated by self-interest," she could be talking about conceptually understood self-interest and not just the entertaining a whim of the moment or acting on an unrecognized neurosis kind of self-interest. I suppose scratching a neurotic itch could be considered as self-interest on a non-conceptual level, but it is against the self on a conceptual level if it sacrifices greater, more long-term values.

Think degree.

Think kind.

It is wrong to replace one with the other when reality does not provide the proper referent.

You ask whether altruists are motivated by self-interest. I presume you are asking about my view and not projecting what your view is on Rand.

I can't crawl into the head of each person who adopts the altruist philosophy, but the one who believes that self-sacrifice (Rand's version of altruism) is good on a metaphysical level—say, Jesus Christ—could be acting motivated by self-interest. In His case, say, love for God is His greater value.

But there are some cases that are a hell of a lot fuzzier and I can't see self-interest, especially in light of the enormity of the loss from sacrifice. A person who goes into a depression who adopts altruism and sacrifices himself could be acting in an unselfish manner since his depression is only a short-term window into his "self" and his hormonal and chemical imbalance pretty much scramble his brains.

I once knew a lawyer who left a very lucrative TV station position because a church bought it out and there were several lawsuits he was asked to defend that turned his stomach. Sometimes in the throes of religious conversion, people donated the deed to their house to that church. On waking up the next day, they discovered that they did not act in their own best interests and did not have anywhere else to live, so they wanted it back. The church would refuse. These were the court cases my friend refused to defend on behalf of the church.

This is a very good example of not acting in self-interest, but acting in a manner distorted by altruism. It doesn't usually last long, but it happens.

When you think about values and want to bash Rand on values to people who understand her ideas, it would be wise to include time, i.e., short-term values, medium-term values and long-term values. We exist in time, our values do too, so it is foolish to leave time out. That won't get you all the way to understanding, but it will keep you from some primary errors.

Here is a question for you. If a person sacrifices an enormously important long-term value for a short-term payoff, and he knows it at the time and even knows he will regret it later, do you in oversimplified Xray-speak believe his is acting in self-interest? Or against his self-interest?

Don't tell me these people don't exist. I used to be one of them. They are called drug addicts.

Michael

[Selene]

Are you stating that any statement from any uber archetypal Rand character in a novel is to be given the equal probative value as a non fictional statement by the authoress herself?

Perhaps not every statement, but sometimes it's clear that the character is speaking for Rand. Example:

He’s paying the price and wondering for what sin and telling himself that he’s been too selfish. In what act or thought of his has there ever been a self? What was his aim in life? Greatness--in other people’s eyes. Fame, admiration, envy--all that which comes from others. Others dictated his convictions, which he did not hold, but he was satisfied that others believed he held them. Others were his motive power and his prime concern. He didn’t want to be great, but to be thought great. He didn’t want to build, but to be admired as a builder. He borrowed from others in order to make an impression on others. There’s your actual selflessness.

Or do you think that Rand thought that people like Keating don't exist in reality?

I’m the most selfless man you’ve ever known.

Why would Rand create such a character if she'd think that such people can't exist? Just to rail against a chimaera? Objectivists don't hesitate to quote Galt, d'Anconia, Dagny etc. when it suits them, so they shouldn't be surprised that these people can also be quoted when it doesn't suit them.

Excuse me, a simple no would have been sufficient, Dragonfly

[Dragonfly]

Excuse me, a simple no would have been sufficient, Dragonfly

No, it wouldn't have been sufficient, as the point was that in some cases (including Xray's example) Rand does speak through her characters.

[Selene]

Dragonfly:

"Are you stating that any statement from any uber archetypal Rand character in a novel is to be given the equal probative value as a non fictional statement by the authoress herself?"

^^^^^

This was a rhetorical statement.

Therefore, "no" or "no answer" would have worked.

"No, it wouldn't have been sufficient, as the point was that in some cases (including Xray's example) Rand does speak through her characters."

I guess I should label rhetorical tactical inputs as such.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Excuse me, a simple no would have been sufficient, Dragonfly

No, it wouldn't have been sufficient, as the point was that in some cases (including Xray's example) Rand does speak through her characters.

In all cases. In every word.

--Brant

[Xray]

Here is a question for you. If a person sacrifices an enormously important long-term value for a short-term payoff, and he knows it at the time and even knows he will regret it later, do you in oversimplified Xray-speak believe his is acting in self-interest? Or against his self-interest?

Don't tell me these people don't exist. I used to be one of them. They are called drug addicts.

Michael

In self-interest. Self-interest is a neutral term, and not some hindsight judgement like "what person X did was not in his/her best interest and X regretted it later").

Self-interest is what motivates an action, whatever the action is, whatever the outcome may be.

Example: Little Johnny loses his ball, which rolls in front of an approaching car. Johnny wants to retrieve the bll and runs after it. The self-interest motivating the action is "wanting to have the ball back". The consequences of the action are something else. Johnny may be lucky and not get hit by the car, or the opposite happens.

Don't tell me these people don't exist. I used to be one of them. They are called drug addicts.

The drug addict's self-interest is to consume the drug. Everything else is considered a lesser value at the moment the urge wins over.

That the end may result in total self-destruction is a consequence of the action.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Michael]

"Xray,

You keep saying this over and over and over, and I have stood by and watched

you waiting for some kind of conceptual growth in your statements so you

will be able to discuss this intelligently, but all you can do is repeat the

error, repeat the error and repeat the error. You have been asked to read

Rand's works. You have been given short-cuts. You have been given

explanations. Yet you repeat the same error over and over."

What error? Over and over and over you presume to criticize my mode of

thought, but are you able to refute the end product? If it ain't broke, I'm

not going to fix it. I state simply and unequivocally that there is no

such thing as action not motivated by self interest.

"Your statement of Rand's premise is flat-out wrong."

Are you saying she never used the term, selfless, in reference to a real

individual, or book character?

"I have read almost everything Rand has in print and I have seen nowhere

where she preached the existence of "human beings not motivated by

self-interest." You say she did. She didn't."

What on earth do you think her tirade against "altruism" is all about?

If she believed that all action is motivated by self interest, why treat the

illusion of altruism as a viable philosophy as she did in lengthy dissertations?

Down on the deck of reality, when push comes to shove, the single issue is

whether a belief is based on fact or fallacy. Given the fact of 100% self

interest, altruism is revealed as fallacy. End of argument. Had Rand

understood this principle, she would not have endorsed a fallacy by treating

it as a viable philosophy.

Via the back door, she supported the very idea that she ostensibly opposed.

"This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational

self-interest—or of rational selfishness." (Rand)

If self interest is a 100% objectively natural condition, that's its

objective identity. The presumption to divide

self interest into "rational" and "irrational" is denial of entity

identity. It is nothing more that calling her preferred self interest "rational"

while calling the not preferred self interest "irrational". In short, it's

just the interjection of subjective personal preference with the pretense of

objective discovery.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"The consequences of the action are something else. Johnny may be lucky and not get hit by the car, or the opposite happens."

And the consequences of what he learns from either outcome or any range of influences that might mitigate the potential serious impact will have an effect on his perception of what his individual self interests is...Correct?

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly:

"Are you stating that any statement from any uber archetypal Rand character in a novel is to be given the equal probative value as a non fictional statement by the authoress herself?"

^^^^^

This was a rhetorical statement.

Therefore, "no" or "no answer" would have worked.

A rhetorical question is a question without expectation of an answer, "it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something" (Wikipedia). Your question, rhetorical or not, implied that Xray couldn't use a statement by a Rand character as an indication of Rand's viewpoint. That assertion is in its generality false, in some cases (the examples I gave and Xray's example) it is warranted to use such statements that way. If you think you can prevent challenges to your (implied) assertions by framing them as rhetorical questions, you're wrong.

[Michelle]

EDIT: NEVERMIND, I SEE WHAT SHE'S DOING

Edited June 29, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Therefore, "no" or "no answer" would have worked.

A rhetorical question is a question without expectation of an answer, "it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something" (Wikipedia). Your question, rhetorical or not, implied that Xray couldn't use a statement by a Rand character as an indication of Rand's viewpoint. That assertion is in its generality false, in some cases (the examples I gave and Xray's example) it is warranted to use such statements that way. If you think you can prevent challenges to your (implied) assertions by framing them as rhetorical questions, you're wrong.

I could have framed it better.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect and you should inform Wiki:

"EROTEMA (also called erotesis): Asking a rhetorical question to the reader, i.e., "What should honest citizens do?"

Often the question is asked in order to get a definite answer from the reader--usually, "no," as J. A. Cuddon suggests. The erotema often implies an answer, but usually does not provide one explicitly. Examples include Laertes' rant about Ophelia's madness, when he asks, "Do you see this, O God?" (Hamlet 4.5). American politicians still make use of this technique in debate, as evidenced by Senator Edward Kennedy's arguments before the senate concerning the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968:

How can the poor feel they have a stake in a system which says that the rich may have due process but the poor may not? How can the uneducated have faith in a system which says that it will take advantage of them in every possible way? How can people have hope when we tell them that they have no recourse if they run afoul of the state justice system?"

"Often", used for a rhetorical question is pretty much "always". I am actually going to play with a rhetorical question that does not highly suggest only one answer.

I will modify it, but essentially, my point was that it was not automatic that a Rand character reflected a primary assumption of the authoress.

How do you perceive my favorite character, Ragnar. as reflecting the non fiction basis for her philosophy?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Boy did I waste my time.

I couldn't figure out if Xray couldn't know or Xray didn't want to know.

Now it's a little clearer.

It's now leaning heavily toward Xray doesn't want to know.

Xray,

Why don't you come clean and tell us what you are really doing here?

Are you on a mission from a church or something? You already gave your hand away when you almost had an orgasm when you thought Brant had abandoned Objectivism.

So what do you want?

I no longer believe it is simply truth or to examine Objectivism. You obviously want to debunk it regardless of what the cost.

But who is behind you? Does that person or persons appreciate your ineptness in getting the core concepts wrong?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect and you should inform Wiki:

Why am I incorrect?

I will modify it, but essentially, my point was that it was not automatic that a Rand character reflected a primary assumption of the authoress.

I'm not sure how a character in general reflects a primary assumption of the authoress (apart from agreeing with her philosophy in general), but it can be clear that certain statements of that character can reflect such an assumption, as was obviously the case in the original example. Therefore your question was in this case not relevant. Or do you ask the same question to anyone who quotes Galt to illustrate some Objectivist point?

How do you perceive my favorite character, Ragnar. as reflecting the non fiction basis for her philosophy?

I think Ragnar reflects ideas of Rand with regard of which she felt a bit on thin ice (the use of violence). I think she agreed with his way of life, but found it difficult to justify it (the other Gulch members disapprove of his methods, the official reason being that he risks his own life but that doesn't sound very convincing). Of course most statements by Ragnar reflect unambiguously her viewpoint, but she couldn't openly advocate using violence to correct injustices caused by the tax system, so I think he's a bit her guilty fantasy.

[Selene]

Ok.

At least you are consistent.

Adam