On Objectivism

[christop]

Hi all,

I am just getting into Objectivist philosophy, so please excuse these questions if they seem sort of academic.

Is putting ourselves first really something that we need to consciously aspire to do? It would seem to me that this is rather innate. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the wealthy to do what benefits society because this benefits them as well through better living conditions for themselves etc. It strikes me that this is similar to the evolution of morality. Why stop a man from trying to kill your brother? Because if your brother dies, there is one less to protect and care for you, and thus your chances of survival decrease. Is this the same sort of self interest?

On the subject of no government aid or intervention of any kind: This would seem fine to me if we all started from zero. However, until very recently (and to some extent, even today) blacks did not have the advantages that were given to the white man. That being the case, is it realistic to try to employ a system such as this today?

I appriciate any and all responses, as I am just learning of Objectivism. Thanks.

Edited May 12, 2010 by christop

[BaalChatzaf]

Hi all,

I am just getting into Objectivist philosophy, so please excuse these questions if they seem sort of academic.

Is putting ourselves first really something that we need to consciously aspire to do? It would seem to me that this is rather innate. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the wealthy to do what benefits society because this benefits them as well through better living conditions for themselves etc. It strikes me that this is similar to the evolution of morality. Why stop a man from trying to kill your brother? Because if your brother dies, there is one less to protect and care for you, and thus your chances of survival decrease. Is this the same sort of self interest?

On the subject of no government aid or intervention of any kind: This would seem fine to me if we all started from zero. However, until very recently (and to some extent, even today) blacks did not have the advantages that were given to the white man. That being the case, is it realistic to try to employ a system such as this today?

I appriciate any and all responses, as I am just learning of Objectivism. Thanks.

There is no such thing as an even playing field. The best we can hope for as that the law does not impede individual activity or improvement. People with money do not owe a damned thing to people who have none, provided that the people with the money did not steal it or get it by fraud.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Hi all,

I am just getting into Objectivist philosophy, so please excuse these questions if they seem sort of academic.

Is putting ourselves first really something that we need to consciously aspire to do? It would seem to me that this is rather innate.

I believe Objectivism's notion of self-interest is not merely to follow innate inclinations. The view is rather that rational self-interest, as a moral ideal, must be first investigated (knowledge of it is not automatic or guaranteed), rigorously pursued (it's not an easy path to take as one's inclinations can and might clash with it), and frequently updated.

It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the wealthy to do what benefits society because this benefits them as well through better living conditions for themselves etc.

This really depends on the situation and what's meant by "benefits society." Also, Objectivist morality as such is not about what the wealthy should do. It's about what any person should do. It aims at a general moral code -- not one based merely on how much wealth one has.

Further, "benefits society" needs to be unpacked. What does this mean? Who is society? Wouldn't wealthy members of a society also be part of that society? And how does one determine what "benefits society"? Surely, members of society might clash over benefits. E.g., the thief benefits at the expense of her or his victim -- yet both are members of society. How would you decide that, say, preventing the thief from stealing benefits society? (I'm not revealing my position here -- just raising the question. I do have definite answers to the question and, I believe, somewhat sound justifications for them, but merely to say "benefits society" without clarification doesn't answer much. It's more likely to end analysis rather than further it.)

It strikes me that this is similar to the evolution of morality. Why stop a man from trying to kill your brother? Because if your brother dies, there is one less to protect and care for you, and thus your chances of survival decrease. Is this the same sort of self interest?

That's the survivalist application of self-interest. Inside the Objectivist movement, there is a debate over survivalism -- whether it's the sufficient grounds for Objectivist morality. That's a big debate and I'm not sure it's been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

On the subject of no government aid or intervention of any kind: This would seem fine to me if we all started from zero. However, until very recently (and to some extent, even today) blacks did not have the advantages that were given to the white man. That being the case, is it realistic to try to employ a system such as this today?

I appriciate any and all responses, as I am just learning of Objectivism. Thanks.

No one ever started from zero. Everyone is extremely lucky to even have what they have. This inequality in itself, however, is not reason to try to make people more equal. For instance, that some are blind, others heathily and normally sighted, and still others have sight but with vision problems make for inequality. So? Should we blind everyone to make everyone equal? Should blind people get a big cash payment from those with sight? After all, the sighted people have a huge advantage over the blind. Shouldn't we equalize that? Should those who are nearsighted, who are farsighted, who are colorblind (fully or partly), and who have some other vision problem get some payment from those with so called perfect vision? Why?

Justice, in both the classical liberal and Objectivist senses, would actually dictate that one those who caused someone else harm be made to make up for that harm. In this case, if someone blinds someone else, then there is cause to make the former make up for this. But merely that someone is born or has good vision doesn't make her or him the cause of someone else's lack of this sense. (Also, there is no collective guilt here. Every last member of a racial, ethnic, language, or whatever group does not cause members of another group to have this or that problem. There would be specific individuals causing harming specific other individuals. If there were, say, restitution to be made, it would be not between all the members of one group and all of the members of another, but between specific individuals to other specific individuals -- and their membership in such groups would be irrelevant to this.)

[Bryce]

You're jumping the gun. Read Rand's works, first, like Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Bryce]

Duplicate.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Bryce

[Reidy]

I'd say that putting ourselves first is, most of the time, not what we should do consciously and deliberately. We pursue a variety of ends, and I should think that adding this one on top of them would be a gratuitous complication most of the time. Rand believed that such a description ought to be true of what we do but not that it ought to be a conscious principle, maxim or, to use a favorite term of hers, premise. Observe that no one does this in her novels. Perhaps if somebody is an unassertive, altruistic mope and is trying to break this habit he should deliberate this way, but he won't need it after sufficient practice. When you're learning to read you have to stop and sound out the letters, but you put this behind you once you've gained some fluency.

A standard argument against self-interest is that it's self-defeating: if you have to stop and calculate what's in it for you at every turn you won't get on with the business of living. Rand's theory, for the reason above, would be immune to this criticism.

I'd make a couple of points about your second question.

You seem to take for granted that justice or the purpose of government includes guaranteeing a certain society-wide outcome. You'd have to convince me, and until you do any conclusions you spin out from this assumption are moot.

In addition, the claim that past injustices account for current outcomes is quite dubious as a matter of empirical social science. Most Americans are here because their ancestors got a raw deal back in the old country, and a good many still got a raw deal once they arrived. Some have prospered, some haven't. Discrimination, past or present, doesn't predict. Culture does. The wealthiest ethnic groups in the US are of Russian (i.e. Jewish), Chinese or Japanese descent. They were all the victims of prejudice in the US (the Japanese quite famously during WW2), but they had a money-making cultural tradition - study, save, invest and put off consumption. The same goes for contemporary Indian immigrants The Irish and the blacks did not, and they've always lagged. Southern whites were never the victims of racial discrimination, but for 300 years they've made less money than whites elsewhere in the US. The writings of Thomas Sowell are your best source on this. He shows the same pattern all over the world.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Reidy

[Rich Engle]

I think you better have helped yourself first before you set out to help others. The latter is an option that is only available after the former has been accomplished. If you try to go about it the other way around, it seems to cause all kinds of problems.

rde

[dan2100]

I think you better have helped yourself first before you set out to help others. The latter is an option that is only available after the former has been accomplished. If you try to go about it the other way around, it seems to cause all kinds of problems.

rde

I remember someone once relating something like, "You help the poor first by not being one of them." I forget the reference...

[Philip Coates]

Hi Christop,

> Is putting ourselves first really something that we need to consciously aspire to do? It would seem to me that this is rather innate.

"Putting ourselves first" is a bit imprecise or ambiguous langauge - does it mean doing whatever you feel like or does it mean not letting others take what is rightfully yours? Rand's form of egoism is more precise and more demanding than just doing what always comes most easily or naturally. She advocates, for example, being productive and independent and honest. And we all know it is often easier (i) with regard to productiveness: to not make an effort or be lazy than to master a subject in school getting A's or to work long hours at a job to make sure to do it right, (ii) with regard to independence: to resist social pressures to conform to what everyone does or thinks, (iii) with regard to honesty: to try to impress someone or to escape criticism or gain some other value by telling a little lie or hiding who one is or what one thinks in cases where one should be free to reveal them. If you've read Atlas Shrugged, in Galt's speech and in the strong character of the heroes of the novel, you can begin to see that being virtuous in those three ways "works", is desirable, contributes to self-respect. And thus to happiness. And thus to egoism. [if you haven't read "The Virtue of Selfishness", the lead essay, "The Objectivist Ethics" defends this and Rand's whole concept of "rational" egoism in a more abstract or theoretical basis. But I tackle that until after reading "Atlas". ]

> On the subject of no government aid or intervention of any kind: This would seem fine to me if we all started from zero. However, until very recently (and to some extent, even today) blacks did not have the advantages that were given to the white man.

Fortunately, we live now in a basically free ad much more equal society with respect to the status of the races. Obama wouldn't have gotten the good education and the opportunities he's had a few decades ago (or been elected President). The legal barriers of slavery, of segregation, of unequal education, of denial of the right to vote, or lynching and attacking those who are too successful have been almost totally removed. What remains is somewhat unequal public schools in poor regions. But for those who are hard-working, that is a gap that can be closed.

And it's actually "government aid and intervention" which has caused and sustained bad schools. So, as in so many cases, the cure for government-caused inequality and damage is not more government intervention, but less - in this case, remove the public domination of education, sell the schools to the highest bidders and out of competition far better schools will result. Both in poor counties and districts and in wealthy ones.