Is this a problem with the O'ist ethics?

[l_chaim29]

I do believe that it is proper for a man to view every individual as properly being an end in himself; given the validity of this stance, and given the implications that this has for issues of what constitutes proper social relations (political or otherwise), I think that the Objectivist stance on ethics might need correcting. Objectivist philosphers state that the good consists in acting to sustain one's life; well, I think that it could properly be corrected by saying instead something along the lines that the good consists in sustaining one's own life while at the same time limiting those actions which sustain it to those which respect the proper use of the lives of others. I would say then that it might be the case that man's life (understood in the plural sense), is for each INDIVIDUAL the proper standard of value. I take all of this to be different from the Objectivist stances for the following reasons:

1). While Objectivist philosophers DO state that one should not sacrifice others to oneself, they also state that the good is that which best services one's own life (and they do not add any qualifying condtions to this statement).

2.) While the Objectivist stance may be that man's life (in the plural) is the proper standard of ethics for the individual (although I'm not certain if they mean it in the plural sense or not), they say that the fundamental issue that confronts the individual is his OWN life or death. I say that it is the sanctity of all human life.

Though the Objectivist positions on issues of personal and social ethics might be consistent in regard to the issues I have treated above, I am not certain that this is the case. It is for this reason, in part, that I have said that the Objectivist views on personal ethics MIGHT need correcting. Please let me know if you have any light you can shed on this subject;)

[Mike11]

It might just be my current (rather exhausted) mental state but I found that post insanely hard to read.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I put him on my Ignore list.

[Mike11]

To Life,

I don't feel comfortable answering you, I have (as many, Many here will attest) a loose grasp of the Objectivist thinking on this. That said, no one else seems to want to answer you so I'll try.

If I understand your position it is something like this:

Objectivism claims that ethics ought to be about ensuring one's own survival and prosperity at the expense of the survival and prosperity of others, should the need arise, despite whatever sugar coating there may be in the doctrine's wording. Arguments like the "Prudent Predator" applied to Objectivism give us no ability to see the lives of others as having a necessary value free from our own selfish exploitation. To protect others from this conflict we need a frame work which affirms the rights and worth of others despite the other's value to us.

Is that what you were saying?

If so I think you misunderstand a vital aspect of the Objectivist Ethic and its idea of the Self. Rand, bastard child of Marxism that she was, defined Man by how he survives, not just if he survives. In fact, from my understanding, the How was more important than the If. Looking at her fiction for example Galt was tortured, his survival threatened, but still he refused to live through the exploitation of others even if it meant his own death. In her non fiction Rand states often the idea of First and Second Handedness. To live First Handedly is to live without exploiting others, it is to live freely in the world you've made. This is Rand's (and Marx's) view of the the Self, it is known and defined by its relationship to its own productive labor. It is this "Self", clean from the sin of exploiting and harming others, Rand said we ought to have, that was her "Virtue of Selfishness". To live Second Handedly... well, just reverse everything I just said. Its parasitic and by necessity dishonest and coercive in dealing with others which it treats as tools to gain values for itself.

Rand can be read in such a way that we can treat others as means, as objects to be injured in our mad quest for prosperity but doing so misses that crucial distinction she drew. In her view we do not necessarily have to treat others as sacred, simply by living on our own achievements and merit this problem of exploitation is avoided.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Mike11

[l_chaim29]

I did a little more thinking about this topic last night and here are some of the new thoughts that I have gathered:

Regarding my post, it seemed to me when I posted it that in issues where it seemed to me that one would have to choose between not taking advantage of people and surrendering a survival value OR taking advantage of others and obtaining thereby a survival value for oneself, that one would have to be choosing between what is RIGHT (in this particular instance, Not taking advantage of others), and what promoted one's own best interests. (I use the term "right" as synonomous with the term "rational" here.)

It occured to me that when I thought of the possibility of having to choose between what is right and what promotes one's own welfare that the only reconciliation I could see between these two options (whereby they would be seen to be two different sides of a false dichotomy) was if it was true that you could not achieve your best interests by taking advantage of others.

In turn, the only ways in which I could imagine that THAT might be possible would be either if a.)taking advantage of others can not be a means of achieving one's own welfare, or b.)you would, by taking advantage of others, be placing yourself in a situation in which you could not fully support the political rights which you needed for your own survival.

Since the latter deals with political philosphy which depends on ethical philosophy for its content, I will not deal with the latter of the two here... The workings out of it should be apparent to me upon the deciding of whether a.) (above) is indeed a possibility.

While I do think it possible that Rand herself may have given adequate argumentation that taking advantage of others CANNOT be a means to achieving one's survival values, (because it would, in such an attempt, be an example of taking/using the unearned or what does not belong to one, and therefore does not constitute a means of achievment), I still have to think on this issue myself a little more before it is very clear to me whether I agree with that argument. Perhaps I will end up thinking in the end that Rand was right all along. That is certainly a possibility. It seems obvious to me already, but I am a clarity-freak.

[bmacwilliam]

There's also a difference between agreeing with Rand's position on a topic, and agreeing that the position is objectively derived.

On your topic, if you're interested do a search on "prudent predator" for some discussion along these lines.

Bob

[l_chaim29]

Thank you very much Bob... That was very much appreciated;)

[Alfonso Jones]

I do believe that it is proper for a man to view every individual as properly being an end in himself; given the validity of this stance, and given the implications that this has for issues of what constitutes proper social relations (political or otherwise), I think that the Objectivist stance on ethics might need correcting. Objectivist philosphers state that the good consists in acting to sustain one's life; well, I think that it could properly be corrected by saying instead something along the lines that the good consists in sustaining one's own life while at the same time limiting those actions which sustain it to those which respect the proper use of the lives of others. I would say then that it might be the case that man's life (understood in the plural sense), is for each INDIVIDUAL the proper standard of value. I take all of this to be different from the Objectivist stances for the following reasons:

1). While Objectivist philosophers DO state that one should not sacrifice others to oneself, they also state that the good is that which best services one's own life (and they do not add any qualifying condtions to this statement).

2.) While the Objectivist stance may be that man's life (in the plural) is the proper standard of ethics for the individual (although I'm not certain if they mean it in the plural sense or not), they say that the fundamental issue that confronts the individual is his OWN life or death. I say that it is the sanctity of all human life.

Though the Objectivist positions on issues of personal and social ethics might be consistent in regard to the issues I have treated above, I am not certain that this is the case. It is for this reason, in part, that I have said that the Objectivist views on personal ethics MIGHT need correcting. Please let me know if you have any light you can shed on this subject;)

Since you want to understand the answers to some questions about Objectivist ethics, and are not familiar with the subject, I suggest reading one article written by Ayn Rand on the subject, titled "The Objectivist Ethics." It is the first essay in the paperback book The Virtue of Selfishness - which you should be able to find available for a very reasonable price.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Brant Gaede]

I did a little more thinking about this topic last night and here are some of the new thoughts that I have gathered:

Regarding my post, it seemed to me when I posted it that in issues where it seemed to me that one would have to choose between not taking advantage of people and surrendering a survival value OR taking advantage of others and obtaining thereby a survival value for oneself, that one would have to be choosing between what is RIGHT (in this particular instance, Not taking advantage of others), and what promoted one's own best interests. (I use the term "right" as synonomous with the term "rational" here.)

It occured to me that when I thought of the possibility of having to choose between what is right and what promotes one's own welfare that the only reconciliation I could see between these two options (whereby they would be seen to be two different sides of a false dichotomy) was if it was true that you could not achieve your best interests by taking advantage of others.

In turn, the only ways in which I could imagine that THAT might be possible would be either if a.)taking advantage of others can not be a means of achieving one's own welfare, or b.)you would, by taking advantage of others, be placing yourself in a situation in which you could not fully support the political rights which you needed for your own survival.

Since the latter deals with political philosphy which depends on ethical philosophy for its content, I will not deal with the latter of the two here... The workings out of it should be apparent to me upon the deciding of whether a.) (above) is indeed a possibility.

While I do think it possible that Rand herself may have given adequate argumentation that taking advantage of others CANNOT be a means to achieving one's survival values, (because it would, in such an attempt, be an example of taking/using the unearned or what does not belong to one, and therefore does not constitute a means of achievment), I still have to think on this issue myself a little more before it is very clear to me whether I agree with that argument. Perhaps I will end up thinking in the end that Rand was right all along. That is certainly a possibility. It seems obvious to me already, but I am a clarity-freak.

Your writings are hardly lucid to me. They seem too abstract. I think they need to be grounded in what real people are actually doing. The problem with "taking advantage of others" is it is time consuming, generates negative feedback and is generally not a productive activity. Then there are the very negative self-esteem consequences. If you are engaged in trade the rational thing to do is get your best deal, understanding the other guy is on the same premise, considering the overall applicable context--i.e., you also want to consider the next possible transaction with whom you are dealing and transactions with others who might hear from him about you and what you did.

--Brant

Edited May 17, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[l_chaim29]

I did not realize when I wrote the above two messages that, for Rand, man does not mean merely someone with a POTENTIAL for reason, but who is actually actively rational. Consequently, I thought that "man's life" as her standard of morality was all about what she called "survival at any price". I apologize. Apparently one can only be a man, according to her definition of "man", if one is rational; since that's the case, it is obvious to me that a man of her ethics would not use others as if they were mere objects to adavance their own purposes. For every man is too be judged, as she would have said, according to whether his actions go against or flow logically FROM the metaphysically given; consequently, Rand's system is indeed a system of justice.

[Brant Gaede]

I did not realize when I wrote the above two messages that, for Rand, man does not mean merely someone with a POTENTIAL for reason, but who is actually actively rational. Consequently, I thought that "man's life" as her standard of morality was all about what she called "survival at any price". I apologize. Apparently one can only be a man, according to her definition of "man", if one is rational; since that's the case, it is obvious to me that a man of her ethics would not use others as if they were mere objects to adavance their own purposes. For every man is too be judged, as she would have said, according to whether his actions go against or flow logically FROM the metaphysically given; consequently, Rand's system is indeed a system of justice.

Well, yes. However, the definition actually excludes no one. Rational includes the potential for irrational in any person. Irrational is a kind of negative concept that only makes sense in juxtaposition to the positive one of rational. There are no other irrational animals, only non-rational ones. So we have the basic concept of rational qua man with two sub-categories, rational and irrational. And man of course is the basic human category with man and woman as sub-categories. The basic concept man is not out there in reality, but the sub-categories are.

--Brant

Edited May 19, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[l_chaim29]

Does the type of problem I'm discussing have anything to do with what Rand said about emergency cases? Is it true-- in other words-- that when one has to choose between being rational and serving one's best interest that there is no best or worst choice...but that nonetheless the choice must be made? I think that the essay "The Ethics of Emergencies" by Rand only dealt with the example of helping OTHERS when they were in an emergency situation though.

[Alfonso Jones]

Does the type of problem I'm discussing have anything to do with what Rand said about emergency cases? Is it true-- in other words-- that when one has to choose between being rational and serving one's best interest that there is no best or worst choice...but that nonetheless the choice must be made? I think that the essay "The Ethics of Emergencies" by Rand only dealt with the example of helping OTHERS when they were in an emergency situation though.

Her discussion was a little more broad, at least in terms of the principle she articulated, though her examples were of the "when to help others....' category. (Quotes from "The Ethics of Emergencies.")

"An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a ship-wreck. In an emergency situation, men's primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.)."

Note that this definition of an emergency certainly doesn't bring into mind anything scoping application down to only situations of "helping others." I do recall Rand discussing when lying would be ethical, and emergency-type situations entered in there also, not all of them requiring invocation of helping others as a possible action.

I like Peikoff's formulation in OPAR:

"The ethical status of a lie is not affected by the identity of its intended beneficiary."

Peikoff says further:

"Lying is absolutely wrong—under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it in the attempt to obtain a value. But, to take a different kind of case, lying to protect one's values from criminals is not wrong. If and when a man's honesty becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. "

Bill P

[syrakusos]

... the good consists in sustaining one's own life while at the same time limiting those actions which sustain it to those which respect the proper use of the lives of others.

Feel free to live your own life by your own standards, Lachiam, but do not complain to us when it does not work out as you intended.

First: what would you do if you were alone on an island?

Then, how does the presence of other people change that?

What (I must ask) could possibly be "the proper use of the of the lives of others"?? Are you herding slaves?

You have something to offer other people. Some of them take you up on your offer because it meets their own needs (as they define it for themselves). Why do you think that you are "controlling" the lives of others??

If you look in your back yard, you might find an ant colony. You could manipulate them, be a god... That might meet some of your needs.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta