Settling the debate on Altruism

[Daniel Barnes]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[imurray]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

See my response above Leonid's. As an aside: I have spent very little time with Rand, but have found that if your conclusion insinuates that her philosophy dictates that one should act irrationally then it's good to go back and check your conclusions. It would be utterly ridiculous for a philosopher to argue that a woman should buy a hat over feeding a child and that would be a "moral" act. Give the philosophy and those who follow it at least modest amount of credit - if that's what she was advocating or if her flaws were that easy to point out then her philosophy would already be dead.

I don't say this because I don't believe in criticizing Rand, I believe in doing so carefully as not to water down the debate with easily refuted accusations that make the critics look like fools and diminish their credibility.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

"There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”)."

and

"The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices."

From George H. Smith's post in the thread ""Obligation" in the Writings of Rand" (which he pulled from his Objectivism Research CD-ROM):

"The only "obligation" involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected." [i think this means something very similar to the "Golden Rule"]

Edited April 5, 2010 by Panoptic

[merjet]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. (Atlas Shrugged, 946)

Xray's paraphrase and Barnes pounce on the second part of the sentence and ignore the first. The first part says it is not a sacrifice (and hence presumably moral) for a mother to feed her child rather than buy a hat. Since Rand gave two opposing examples, it's fairly clear she wrote about the mothers' values, not her own. Leonid's conclusion is far closer to Rand's entire sentence than Xray's or Barnes' heavily biased interpretation of it.

[Xray]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

The "Ergo: ..." quote is not from me, but from DB. Please reread my # 848 post.

As for DB stating that the conclusion is correct, it certainly is, based on Rand's premise that:

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. "

She adds:

"Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." (Rand)

But the elaborations she added about a defined hierarchy of values become null and void by the mere fact of her claiming that the mother who reluctantly feeds her child (while valuing the hat more) does perform a sacrifice.

Now apply Rand's criteria in this case: "sacrifice" = surrender of a greater value (hat) for the sake of a lesser value.(child)

It was RAND who called "sacrifice" what this mother does, right? Since per her own words , sacrifice implies the surrender of a greater for a lesser value, that's what you get.

All what D. Barnes did was to take Rand by her own words and draw a logical inference from her premise.

Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Values are always subjective. As are "standards" of value. Their subjectivity does not mean that they do not pertain to reality.

Standards of value are subject to permanent change, evidenced for example in the dramatic change of moral values in the course of history.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

The "Ergo: ..." quote is not from me, but from DB. Please reread my # 848 post.

As for DB stating that the conclusion is correct, it certainly is, based on Rand's premise that:

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. "

My mistake. I took Leonid to be quoting you. Regardless, you agree with what DB wrote and you do have a pattern of distorting.

She adds:

But the elaborations she added about defined a defined hierarchy of values become null and void by the mere fact that she claims that the mother who reluctantly feeds her child despite valuing the hat more does perform a sacrifice.

Again, you distort by ignoring the first half of the sentence I quoted from Rand, which has a mother feeding her child not doing so sacrificially.

[imurray]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

The "Ergo: ..." quote is not from me, but from DB. Please reread my # 848 post.

As for DB stating that the conclusion is correct, it certainly is, based on Rand's premise that:

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. "

She adds:

"Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." (Rand)

But the elaborations she added about a defined hierarchy of values become null and void by the mere fact of her claiming that the mother who reluctantly feeds her child (while valuing the hat more) does perform a sacrifice.

Now apply Rand's criteria in this case: "sacrifice" = surrender of a greater value (hat) for the sake of a lesser value.(child)

It was RAND who called "sacrifice" what this mother does, right? Since per her own words , sacrifice implies the surrender of a greater for a lesser value, that's what you get.

All what D. Barnes did was to take Rand by her own words and draw a logical inference from her premise.

Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Values are always subjective. As are "standards" of value. Their subjectivity does not mean that they do not pertain to reality.

Standards of value are subject to permanent change, evidenced for example in the dramatic change of moral values in the course of history.

In Rand's example the mother who values the hat more is making a sacrifice by buying the food, yes. I don't disagree with that. What you're not taking into account is the morality of the value itself. If a mother values a hat more than her child it is an immoral value because it is not a value any rational human would choose, therefore if she bought the hat it would be an immoral act based on the value - not on the act itself. Please read my responses (especially 852).

You're getting hung up on the word "sacrifice" here. A sacrifice is always immoral. The act is a sacrifice and therefore immoral because the mother is acting out of "duty" and not "obligation" to her child if she feeds the child instead of buying the hat. That's half of it - the other half, which you're ignoring, is that if she did buy the hat instead of feeding the child it would no longer be immoral because it was a "sacrifice", it would be immoral because the value was immoral, i.e., subhuman, a whim, not rational, etc.

So no, it in no way follows that the woman would be acting morally if she bought the hat. What it does mean, however, is that the mother who feeds her child when she'd rather buy the hat is acting "immorally" because she holds an immoral value. It would seem that, in Rand's view, if you perform an act it is important to do it for the right or rational reasons because the opposite would be to do it out of "duty" or irrationality. So just because the baby gets fed by this mother it does not mean she acted morally despite the final result being the baby is fed. She is still immoral because she doesn't value the child more than the hat (that is, her values are not rational) regardless of whether or not she feeds the baby.

Also, yes, morals change. I agree, but that doesn't mean that they cannot still be rational and grounded in reality.

Ian

Edited April 5, 2010 by Panoptic

[Xray]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

The "Ergo: ..." quote is not from me, but from DB. Please reread my # 848 post.

As for DB stating that the conclusion is correct, it certainly is, based on Rand's premise that:

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. "

She adds:

"Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." (Rand)

But the elaborations she added about a defined hierarchy of values become null and void by the mere fact of her claiming that the mother who reluctantly feeds her child (while valuing the hat more) does perform a sacrifice.

Now apply Rand's criteria in this case: "sacrifice" = surrender of a greater value (hat) for the sake of a lesser value.(child)

It was RAND who called "sacrifice" what this mother does, right? Since per her own words , sacrifice implies the surrender of a greater for a lesser value, that's what you get.

All what D. Barnes did was to take Rand by her own words and draw a logical inference from her premise.

Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Values are always subjective. As are "standards" of value. Their subjectivity does not mean that they do not pertain to reality.

Standards of value are subject to permanent change, evidenced for example in the dramatic change of moral values in the course of history.

In Rand's example the mother who values the hat more is making a sacrifice by buying the food, yes. I don't disagree with that. What you're not taking into account is the morality of the value itself. If a mother values a hat more than her child it is an immoral value because it is not a value any rational human would choose, therefore if she bought the hat it would be an immoral act based on the value - not on the act itself. Please read my responses (especially 852).

But considering Rand firm stance on "friendhsip, family and friends not being primary in a man's life", a mother valuing a hat over her child woud not make an immoral choice at all.

"If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite." (Rand )

If we expand a little on the hat and imagine the mother being a fashion designer who buys a hat because she wants to study it as a model for her own "productive work", disregarding her child's needs would be be perfectly in sync with the values approved by Rand in the above quote.

Panoptic, do you see how little empathy and understanding Rand has for those values most humans hold highly?

Who is Rand to arbitrarily decide that "Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life". ?

[bmacwilliam]

You're getting hung up on the word "sacrifice" here. A sacrifice is always immoral. The act is a sacrifice and therefore immoral because the mother is acting out of "duty" and not "obligation" to her child if she feeds the child instead of buying the hat. That's half of it - the other half, which you're ignoring, is that if she did buy the hat instead of feeding the child it would no longer be immoral because it was a "sacrifice", it would be immoral because the value was immoral, i.e., subhuman, a whim, not rational, etc.

So no, it in no way follows that the woman would be acting morally if she bought the hat. What it does mean, however, is that the mother who feeds her child when she'd rather buy the hat is acting "immorally" because she holds an immoral value. It would seem that, in Rand's view, if you perform an act it is important to do it for the right or rational reasons because the opposite would be to do it out of "duty" or irrationality. So just because the baby gets fed by this mother it does not mean she acted morally despite the final result being the baby is fed. She is still immoral because she doesn't value the child more than the hat (that is, her values are not rational) regardless of whether or not she feeds the baby.

Ian

Can't have it both ways though.

The mother that values the hat more cannot be acting immorally in both cases (buying the hat, feeding the child).

Either the act of buying the hat is immoral (substituting our 'rational' values) or feeding the child is immoral (her values). They can't both be immoral.

If feeding the child is the moral choice, then sacrfice is not always immoral.

If feeding the child is immoral, then that's even worse. I think Rand painted herself nicely into a corner here.

Bob

Edited April 5, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[imurray]

You're getting hung up on the word "sacrifice" here. A sacrifice is always immoral. The act is a sacrifice and therefore immoral because the mother is acting out of "duty" and not "obligation" to her child if she feeds the child instead of buying the hat. That's half of it - the other half, which you're ignoring, is that if she did buy the hat instead of feeding the child it would no longer be immoral because it was a "sacrifice", it would be immoral because the value was immoral, i.e., subhuman, a whim, not rational, etc.

So no, it in no way follows that the woman would be acting morally if she bought the hat. What it does mean, however, is that the mother who feeds her child when she'd rather buy the hat is acting "immorally" because she holds an immoral value. It would seem that, in Rand's view, if you perform an act it is important to do it for the right or rational reasons because the opposite would be to do it out of "duty" or irrationality. So just because the baby gets fed by this mother it does not mean she acted morally despite the final result being the baby is fed. She is still immoral because she doesn't value the child more than the hat (that is, her values are not rational) regardless of whether or not she feeds the baby.

Ian

Can't have it both ways though.

The mother that values the hat more cannot be acting immorally in both cases (buying the hat, feeding the child).

Either the act of buying the hat is immoral (substituting our 'rational' values) or feeding the child is immoral (her values). They can't both be immoral.

If feeding the child is the moral choice, then sacrfice is not always immoral.

If feeding the child is immoral, then that's even worse. I think Rand painted herself nicely into a corner here.

Bob

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

[imurray]

Xray "Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!"

Wrong conclusion. It's immoral to have inverted hierarchy of values. Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Really?

The conclusion appears to be correct, based on what Rand wrote. If it isn't, demonstrate this, don't just assert randomly.

Xray has a habit of paraphrasing and distorting by omission.

The "Ergo: ..." quote is not from me, but from DB. Please reread my # 848 post.

As for DB stating that the conclusion is correct, it certainly is, based on Rand's premise that:

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. "

She adds:

"Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." (Rand)

But the elaborations she added about a defined hierarchy of values become null and void by the mere fact of her claiming that the mother who reluctantly feeds her child (while valuing the hat more) does perform a sacrifice.

Now apply Rand's criteria in this case: "sacrifice" = surrender of a greater value (hat) for the sake of a lesser value.(child)

It was RAND who called "sacrifice" what this mother does, right? Since per her own words , sacrifice implies the surrender of a greater for a lesser value, that's what you get.

All what D. Barnes did was to take Rand by her own words and draw a logical inference from her premise.

Values aren’t subjective, they pertain to reality and child is more valuable than hat.

Values are always subjective. As are "standards" of value. Their subjectivity does not mean that they do not pertain to reality.

Standards of value are subject to permanent change, evidenced for example in the dramatic change of moral values in the course of history.

In Rand's example the mother who values the hat more is making a sacrifice by buying the food, yes. I don't disagree with that. What you're not taking into account is the morality of the value itself. If a mother values a hat more than her child it is an immoral value because it is not a value any rational human would choose, therefore if she bought the hat it would be an immoral act based on the value - not on the act itself. Please read my responses (especially 852).

But considering Rand firm stance on "friendhsip, family and friends not being primary in a man's life", a mother valuing a hat over her child woud not make an immoral choice at all.

"If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite." (Rand )

If we expand a little on the hat and imagine the mother being a fashion designer who buys a hat because she wants to study it as a model for her own "productive work", disregarding her child's needs would be be perfectly in sync with the values approved by Rand in the above quote.

Panoptic, do you see how little empathy and understanding Rand has for those values most humans hold highly?

Who is Rand to arbitrarily decide that "Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life". ?

It would still be an immoral value even if she was a fashion designer. Look at what I posted above.

[Dragonfly]

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

In other words, she is a proponent of the idea of a thought crime. A person would in her view be immoral, no matter what he does, if he has the "wrong" ideas. I find that a despicable idea. It's the same as those fundamentalist christians who insist that merely desiring your neighbor's wife is a sin, even if you don't act on your desires. What a horrible philosophy!

[imurray]

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

In other words, she is a proponent of the idea of a thought crime. A person would in her view be immoral, no matter what he does, if he has the "wrong" ideas. I find that a despicable idea. It's the same as those fundamentalist christians who insist that merely desiring your neighbor's wife is a sin, even if you don't act on your desires. What a horrible philosophy!

That's your opinion, which is fine. I'm not an Ayndroid or Randroid or whatever. However, you have to realize why rational motive is important in her philosophy - it goes beyond the rather simple conclusions you've drawn here. Acting rationally is moral; obligation to act according to a hierarchy of rational values is moral - that's what it comes down to. Your comparison to Christianity is interesting, however, she advocates rational choice and individualism which are incommensurate with Christianity. Her philosophy has no tolerance for anything but rational thought. No doubt this is a weakness because we do not live in a world of hyper-rational humans who consistently subordinate emotion, wants, and whims to rationality. It's more than a simple "thought crime" it's a wrench in the system.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Panoptic

[jeffrey smith]

You're getting hung up on the word "sacrifice" here. A sacrifice is always immoral. The act is a sacrifice and therefore immoral because the mother is acting out of "duty" and not "obligation" to her child if she feeds the child instead of buying the hat. That's half of it - the other half, which you're ignoring, is that if she did buy the hat instead of feeding the child it would no longer be immoral because it was a "sacrifice", it would be immoral because the value was immoral, i.e., subhuman, a whim, not rational, etc.

So no, it in no way follows that the woman would be acting morally if she bought the hat. What it does mean, however, is that the mother who feeds her child when she'd rather buy the hat is acting "immorally" because she holds an immoral value. It would seem that, in Rand's view, if you perform an act it is important to do it for the right or rational reasons because the opposite would be to do it out of "duty" or irrationality. So just because the baby gets fed by this mother it does not mean she acted morally despite the final result being the baby is fed. She is still immoral because she doesn't value the child more than the hat (that is, her values are not rational) regardless of whether or not she feeds the baby.

Ian

Can't have it both ways though.

The mother that values the hat more cannot be acting immorally in both cases (buying the hat, feeding the child).

Either the act of buying the hat is immoral (substituting our 'rational' values) or feeding the child is immoral (her values). They can't both be immoral.

If feeding the child is the moral choice, then sacrfice is not always immoral.

If feeding the child is immoral, then that's even worse. I think Rand painted herself nicely into a corner here.

Bob

There is no corner, and no thought crime, either.

Let's leave out the term "sacrifice".

The immorality lies in the mother pretending or being coerced to prefer the child over the hat if she really values the hat more than the child.

It's an obnoxious decision if she truly valued the hat more than the child, but it would be more obnoxious if she faked reality by acting as if she did not value the hat more than the child.

Jeffrey S.

[imurray]

You're getting hung up on the word "sacrifice" here. A sacrifice is always immoral. The act is a sacrifice and therefore immoral because the mother is acting out of "duty" and not "obligation" to her child if she feeds the child instead of buying the hat. That's half of it - the other half, which you're ignoring, is that if she did buy the hat instead of feeding the child it would no longer be immoral because it was a "sacrifice", it would be immoral because the value was immoral, i.e., subhuman, a whim, not rational, etc.

So no, it in no way follows that the woman would be acting morally if she bought the hat. What it does mean, however, is that the mother who feeds her child when she'd rather buy the hat is acting "immorally" because she holds an immoral value. It would seem that, in Rand's view, if you perform an act it is important to do it for the right or rational reasons because the opposite would be to do it out of "duty" or irrationality. So just because the baby gets fed by this mother it does not mean she acted morally despite the final result being the baby is fed. She is still immoral because she doesn't value the child more than the hat (that is, her values are not rational) regardless of whether or not she feeds the baby.

Ian

Can't have it both ways though.

The mother that values the hat more cannot be acting immorally in both cases (buying the hat, feeding the child).

Either the act of buying the hat is immoral (substituting our 'rational' values) or feeding the child is immoral (her values). They can't both be immoral.

If feeding the child is the moral choice, then sacrfice is not always immoral.

If feeding the child is immoral, then that's even worse. I think Rand painted herself nicely into a corner here.

Bob

There is no corner, and no thought crime, either.

Let's leave out the term "sacrifice".

The immorality lies in the mother pretending or being coerced to prefer the child over the hat if she really values the hat more than the child.

It's an obnoxious decision if she truly valued the hat more than the child, but it would be more obnoxious if she faked reality by acting as if she did not value the hat more than the child.

Jeffrey S.

This interpretation weakens Rand's philosophy imo. You're essentially saying that it would be less obnoxious if she just bought the hat - it wouldn't be because the value is not rational and acting irrationally violates the Cardinal virtue in Rand's philosophy. If you interpretation is correct then it simpy becomes a semantic argument and Xray, Dragonfly, Bob, and Daniel are generally correct. It is more complex than this. It's reasonably easy to understand if you read my previous posts that quote Rand.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Panoptic

[anthony]

I believe that it's time to switch terms here, or we''ll be going round and round til next Easter.

Here's a man; he has lived most of his life consistently upholding standards of honesty and justice.

A situation arises where he is offered money to give false testimony against an innocent man.

Does he A. do the deed and take the money?

B. refuse.

If he is rationally moral, he values both - money and principle, but not equally. With A. he is demonstrating that his hierarchy of values puts money higher ie, he is being consistent in his immorality. But then he can never again see himself as a man of truth, and his standards are shown to be trash.

With B., he is refusing to *sacrifice* his higher value to a lower one. (And has reinforced his integrity to himself.)

(A simple scenario that should be agreeable to everyone - and alll that's happened is I've substituted money for the hat, and truth and justice for the baby.)

Btw Panoptic, it impresses me how quickly you are grasping the fundamentals of O'ism - it took me much longer than a few weeks!

Tony

[Dragonfly]

I believe that it's time to switch terms here, or we''ll be going round and round til next Easter.

Here's a man; he has lived most of his life consistently upholding standards of honesty and justice.

A situation arises where he is offered money to give false testimony against an innocent man.

Does he A. do the deed and take the money?

B. refuse.

If he is rationally moral, he values both - money and principle, but not equally. With A. he is demonstrating that his hierarchy of values puts money higher ie, he is being consistent in his immorality. But then he can never again see himself as a man of truth, and his standards are shown to be trash.

With B., he is refusing to *sacrifice* his higher value to a lower one. (And has reinforced his integrity to himself.)

(A simple scenario that should be agreeable to everyone - and alll that's happened is I've substituted money for the hat, and truth and justice for the baby.)

You're evading the real problem, namely the case that the man values money more than the truth and yet refuses the money, the case that also is mentioned by Rand. If he, in spite of his valuing, nevertheless refuses to give false testimony ("out of duty"), according to Rand he's making a sacrifice, which is immoral; on the other hand, if he does accept the money, he's immoral because he's following his valuing, which is "wrong". Heads I win, tails you lose. So according to this theory he is immoral if he has the "wrong" values, no matter what he does, which is the perfect example of a thought crime. You cannot force yourself to change your values, you can only force yourself not to act on them (at least in Rand's system).

[anthony]

Dragonfly,

To the best of my understanding a man can be immoral for holding irrational values, and must also be immoral for not acting on them, or acting against them.

With the greater weight on the *action*, according to the David Kelley position.

My reading of all this : the person who chooses money - or hat - over truth, justice, baby, etc.,is not in the position to be making a sacrifice at all. Because his values are obviously wrong, or just arbitrary and whimsical.

So maybe what I'm getting at, is that it is only the rationally moral person who COULD ever make a sacrifice - ie act against his value system. But this might be Objectively incorrect.

"You cannot force yourself to change your values, you can only force yourself not to act on them (at least in Rand's system.)" (DF)

I don't know how you arrived at this - it's central to Rand's work that one is self- responsible and has volition to choose one's values; of course one *ought* to choose her Cardinal values, and *ought* to act on them.

No thought crime that I can see.

Tony

[Dragonfly]

I don't know how you arrived at this - it's central to Rand's work that one is self- responsible and has volition to choose one's values; of course one *ought* to choose her Cardinal values, and *ought* to act on them.

But what does it mean that you "choose" her Cardinal values? The only meaningful interpretation is that you decide to *act* on them, but you cannot force yourself to desire them. As Schopenhauer already remarked: "Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will".

[imurray]

I don't know how you arrived at this - it's central to Rand's work that one is self- responsible and has volition to choose one's values; of course one *ought* to choose her Cardinal values, and *ought* to act on them.

But what does it mean that you "choose" her Cardinal values? The only meaningful interpretation is that you decide to *act* on them, but you cannot force yourself to desire them. As Schopenhauer already remarked: "Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will".

I think what she's thinking is that a rational person would not have to choose her values - they are a product of rational thought.

Always keep in mind that Rand is assuming that her philosophy is for a "rational" human being. That's important when looking at her

example, e.g., the mother and the hat. It's crazy, in my opinion, to assume that she would think it's moral to buy the hat - it

seems clear that this would not be an act a rational human being would take. A rational human being would value the child more - and

the same goes for all rational choices. Basically if you are acting rationally according to your rational values then the action will

be moral. There is room for discussing how one would know if a value is rational in a more nuanced and complex example than the mother and

the hat, but I urge you to give that example what a rhetorician would call a "generous" reading and assume that Rand was smart enough

not to make a fatal flaw in her own example and be considerate of the intelligence of those here. In other words, nobody is saying (Rand

included) that the woman should buy the god-forsaken hat!!!

Also, I was mistaken when I spoke about Aristotle - I reread some of his ethical theory and what I said was incorrect I forget that his teleology wasn't consequentialist. His ethics are

very close to Rand's.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Panoptic

[tjohnson]

I think what she's thinking is that a rational person would not have to choose her values - they are a product of rational thought.

If you substitute 'rational' with 'sane' you have Korzybski. So the problem reduces to what do we mean by 'rational'?

[bmacwilliam]

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

The upshot is then, that if you have an "immoral" value heirarchy you cannot ever act morally. So, every sacrifice is immoral and every non-sacrifice is immoral. That doesn't make sense.

Look at it this way.

Judged externally:

buy hat = immoral

feed child = moral

Mother's POV:

buy hat = moral

feed child = immoral

Bob

[anthony]

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

The upshot is then, that if you have an "immoral" value heirarchy you cannot ever act morally. So, every sacrifice is immoral and every non-sacrifice is immoral. That doesn't make sense.

Look at it this way.

Judged externally:

buy hat = immoral

feed child = moral

Mother's POV:

buy hat = moral

feed child = immoral

Bob

But if one goes that extra step? That a person who is capable of such an irrational value-hierarchy to buy hat over baby food, accept money over truth, is not capable of making a sacrifice, ever, at all?

So it would be impossible for him to a make a sacrifice, moral, or immoral. The concept doesn't exist for him.

However, it does exist, it is possible, for a person of higher standards and principles, to make a sacrifice (by the Randian, and correct definition)- and by him alone.

Logically I suppose it must follow, the greater his value-system, the more immoral any deviation, or sacrifice.

(Sort of: 'the bigger he is, the harder he falls'.)

Does this make sense?

Tony

[imurray]

Nope, separate issues. It's complicated, maybe too complicated, but it can indeed be both ways. The second mother is acting immorally if she buys the hat or feeds the baby because in the first case she'd follow an immoral value and in the second she's be sacrificing and acting out of duty. This distinction separates her from Aristotle who only really cared about the end or result of an act - Rand also cares about why people act.

The upshot is then, that if you have an "immoral" value heirarchy you cannot ever act morally. So, every sacrifice is immoral and every non-sacrifice is immoral. That doesn't make sense.

Look at it this way.

Judged externally:

buy hat = immoral

feed child = moral

Mother's POV:

buy hat = moral

feed child = immoral

Bob

The mother probably wouldn't be thinking in those terms, but okay. However, this is not how the system works. Here's what it looks like:

Judged according to Rand's philosophy (talking of the second mother who'd rather buy the hat):

buy hat = immoral because it's not a rational value, i.e., her obligation is to a value that is not rational.

feed child = immoral because it's done out of duty, i.e., not done out of obligation to a rational value (which she ought to have).

The mother basically has two levels of obligation: one is to act rationally according to her values (micro-level) and the other is to hold rational values (macro-level), that is, to be rational (which to Rand is synonymous to "being human"). She's acting morally if she's true to both obligations. So it's easy to see why she herself would be acting immorally no matter what she did. Do you really think a moral or ethical person would feed a child just because they had to and not because they wanted to? What a pitiful state to be in to not value and enjoy your own child.

The mother's point of view is WRONG because she's not thinking rationally so it really doesn't matter. It just looks good to put "moral" next to buying the hat because it makes Rand's philosophy look shocking, but it's a parlor trick because it wouldn't be congruent with Rand's ethics - it's the ethics of a crazy mom made to look like it's representing Rand and therefore it's worthless as an argument.

The external point of view takes us into Mill's Utilitarianism.

Judged according to a Utilitarian consequentialist:

buy hat = immoral because the child starves, i.e., the consequences of her actions are immoral

feed child = moral because the child is fed, i.e., the consequences of her actions are moral.

Consequentialist do not care about intent, therefore, even if somebody intended to do harm and ended up doing good their action would be "moral" based on the consequences alone.

Rand, Aristotle and others felt like the intent was also important because they believe that a rational being must act with proper intent in order to be "happy". It's not merely a thought-crime because they perceive that it is important to the "happiness" or "self-esteem" or whatever you want to call of the person performing the act - it is in keeping with being a rational human or using ones "wisdom" as Aristotle might have said. Put simply, the woman who would buy the hat is not really going to be happy buying the hat because her happiness is not real - it's based on her irrational decision, i.e., she's one sick puppy.

In other words, they want people to know what the right thing is and to do it because it merits being done. The byproduct of such a system is personal happiness or self-esteem and a better world. I'd criticize this based on my opinion that it's ridiculously idealistic! To me there's just as much chance of there being a truly Utopian Socialist or Communist State.

As for value hierarchies - people have different hierarchies for different situations. A person may act immorally in one situation and morally in another based on that particular hierarchy. Making one irrational or immoral decision does not mean that one is either always moral or always immoral.

You have to use her system, you're missing something in your analysis. This is not the weak link that we should be focusing our criticism on.

I personally like my philosophy to be grounded in the idea of pluralism.

I was wrong about Aristotle there, and I posted that earlier - I forgot that his teleology wasn't consequentialist. My mistake.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Panoptic

[Daniel Barnes]

OK, guys, the commentary around this has become muddled, when the situation is clearcut. So let's break it down. Here's Rand:

"The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice'...If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Now let's put what she's saying into a logical form:

P1: A 'sacrifice' is (defined by Rand) the exchange of a greater value for a lesser value.

P2: Sacrifices are immoral.

P3: A mother sacrifices buying the hat for feeding the child.

C: The mother is immoral to do so.

There is no point trying to deny it: this is the clear logical implication of this passage as Rand wrote it. It's nothing to do with any supposed "interpretation" of it.

AFAICS there are two main possibilities, as I wrote in my original post, if anyone cares to look:

1) Rand meant it - and she does go on about how much she "means it" when she says outrageous things.

2) Rand didn't meant it - she has got herself all befuddled, the passage is a blunder.

I opt for 2). Rand is confused.

This is also consistent with my primary premise in dealing with Rand: that she often writes in vague, inconsistent, and confused fashion, just like other philosophers.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[merjet]

Now let's put what she's saying into a logical form:

P1: A 'sacrifice' is (defined by Rand) the exchange of a greater value for a lesser value.

P2: Sacrifices are immoral.

P3: A mother sacrifices buying the hat for feeding the child.

C: The mother is immoral to do so.

There is no point trying to deny it: this is the clear logical implication of this passage as Rand wrote it. It's nothing to do with any supposed "interpretation" of it.

Your P3 omits a very key phrase -- feeding the child only from a sense of duty. Your alleged analysis also ignores the first part of Rand's sentence -- the mother who feeds her child rather than buying a hat (but not purely from a sense of duty).

I don't believe Rand picked a great example to illustrate her meaning of sacrifice. Neither is your primary example of "sacrifice" giving up a piece in a game of chess.