A Post-Randian Thinker Has Found His Home (Maybe)

[Brant Gaede]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be.

A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock".

These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be.

A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock".

These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism.

Bob

Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists.

--Brant

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be.

A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock".

These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism.

Bob

Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists.

--Brant

Earlier in this this thread my concerns about instincts (defined as innate knowledge) were adequately addressed. Althouh I am an experienced psychiatrist trained in biology, and, I would like to believe, well-acquainted with human nature, I do not believe that the complexity of evolutionary biology nullify Ayn Rand's formulation of man"s life qua man as the standard of value.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be.

A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock".

These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism.

Bob

Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists.

--Brant

Earlier in this this thread my concerns about instincts (defined as innate knowledge) were adequately addressed. Althouh I am an experienced psychiatrist trained in biology, and, I would like to believe, well-acquainted with human nature, I do not believe that the complexity of evolutionary biology nullify Ayn Rand's formulation of man"s life qua man as the standard of value.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra's trilogy of books on methodological orientation have helped me bridge the gap between the "atomism" of the special sciences including biology and molecular genetics, and the more integrated methodology that Rand used, which rejected atomism (concrete-boundedness) and dualism (the mind-body dichotomy.) Sciabarra attributes her methodology to her Russian education and calls it "dialectical," causing shock and horror in ARI because she had so much rage at Russian thinking, and because the D-word (dialectics) sounds like a wholly owned subsidiary of Hegel and Marx. However, I discovered by reading Sciabarra that I have been thinking "dialectically" for most of my life, with no influence from H & M. IMO man's life as a standard of value (qua man, not qua hippie or hipster) makes sense to me and I have been applying it subconsciously, and now consciously in my treatment planning for patients.

But I still like Picasso, even the stuff with both eyes on the same side of the head.

JDL

I admit it. I like Picasso. Even some of the weird stuff. But, if it makes you feel any better, Beethoven doesn't do much for me. by curiousyellow, on Flickr

Edited November 17, 2010 by Jonathan David Leavitt

[George H. Smith]

Non reciprical, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

What evidence would that be?

I'm not aware that Rand ever exhibited "partial dedication to the generalized service of others." Was she missing the relevant altruism gene?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

But I still like Picasso, even the stuff with both eyes on the same side of the head.

Rand at NBI 1968 was asked if she owned a Picasso what would she do with it? Seemingly the audience expected an answer to be something like, "I'd burn it!" Her actual answer was, "I'd sell it," to some laughter.

--Brant

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

But I still like Picasso, even the stuff with both eyes on the same side of the head.

Rand at NBI 1968 was asked if she owned a Picasso what would she do with it? Seemingly the audience expected an answer to be something like, "I'd burn it!" Her actual answer was, "I'd sell it," to some laughter.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

What is sloppily described as altruistic behavior in biology has nothing to do with it in ethics. Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox. Altruism is the rabbit leaping into the fox's jaws because the fox is hungry.

As volitional beings we are free to disregard nature's plans for us, and use condoms, invent nutrasweet, or commit suicide. That nature provides us with certain dispositions doesn't oblige us to follow them. I do think that most people will be more happy if they do follow what has been programmed into them as evolutionarily successful. But we are not salmon. We have the ability to disregard nature, and no obligation to take her desires into account any more than she cares for our personal happiness.

"Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox."

No it's not. That's not the definition I refer to - at all. Might want to read it again.

Non reciprical, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Bob

I have plenty of criticisms of Rand's view of human nature, and she was, incidentally, woefully ignorant of biology. To wit, look at her theory of "premises." But the problem is not her disregard for biologists' sloppy and incoherent co-opting of a word they didn't understand.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Ted Keer

[bmacwilliam]

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Was she just wrong or did she simply not go far enough? Or a mixture of both? Did she get anything right about human nature by your lights?

--Brant

She was dead wrong in some things and incomplete in others, each (both errors and omissions) with profound consequences. A couple of quick examples: Man's life as the standard of value is wrong/incomplete. Man obviously values his life, but it is not always at the top of the hierarchy, nor should it be according to a scientific reality based view of man. There is a much more complex interplay of gene-centric/rational/individual/altruistic behaviours. To dismiss gene-centric (not the same as genetically programmed) or altruistic behaviour is to deny the reality what man is and how man came to be.

A significant portion of one's character traits are genetic - this is a fact. Tabula rasa is pure "poppycock".

These two simple problems more or less destroy the foundation of the "Philosophy" and if you use her logic but based on reality instead of fantasy, the result is profoundly different than Objectivism.

Bob

Well, my idea of Objectivism is if there is something wrong, fix it--and go on--fix it or add to it. This does raise problems with true believers and the Orthodoxy. Therefore I'm likely to say "Objectively speaking" as opposed to Objectivist speaks. As a true and good philosophy, Objectivism is covered with way too much Randian lard and lardists.

--Brant

Earlier in this this thread my concerns about instincts (defined as innate knowledge) were adequately addressed. Althouh I am an experienced psychiatrist trained in biology, and, I would like to believe, well-acquainted with human nature, I do not believe that the complexity of evolutionary biology nullify Ayn Rand's formulation of man"s life qua man as the standard of value.

Fine, and I am not objecting to this line of reasoning right now (although I do think there's a circular argument in there), BUT the problem I am addressing at the moment is that "qua man" is NOT what Rand says it is. This alone doesn't "nullify" her reasoning but it totally changes all downstream conclusions when the "qua" changes drastically.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Non reciprical, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

What evidence would that be?

I'm not aware that Rand ever exhibited "partial dedication to the generalized service of others." Was she missing the relevant altruism gene?

Ghs

No she certainly did not advocate or exhibit this. THis is the error. Humans are naturally partially altruistic.

Lots of evidence

Kin-based altruism is a fairly old idea (1930s or before). Mathematical models can explain how natural selection can propogate these genes. What's more interesting though is the generalized, non-kin altruism discoveries made more recently.

There are quite a few studies. Here's one... (bolding mine)

Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Dec;14(6):784-90.

Human altruism: economic, neural, and evolutionary perspectives.

Fehr E, Rockenbach B.

Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Bluemlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zuerich, Switzerland. efehr@iew.unizh.ch

Abstract

Human cooperation represents a spectacular outlier in the animal world. Unlike other creatures, humans frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. Experimental evidence and evolutionary models suggest that strong reciprocity, the behavioral propensity for altruistic punishment and altruistic rewarding, is of key importance for human cooperation. Here, we review both evidence documenting altruistic punishment and altruistic cooperation and recent brain imaging studies that combine the powerful tools of behavioral game theory with neuroimaging techniques. These studies show that mutual cooperation and the punishment of defectors activate reward related neural circuits, suggesting that evolution has endowed humans with proximate mechanisms that render altruistic behavior psychologically rewarding.

[bmacwilliam]

A couple more:

From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits.

Lotem A, Fishman MA, Stone L.

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. lotem@post.tau.ac.il

Abstract

Cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals is commonly explained by the potential for future reciprocity or by the risk of being punished by group members. However, unconditional altruism is more difficult to explain. We demonstrate that unconditional altruism can evolve as a costly signal of individual quality (i.e. a handicap) as a consequence of reciprocal altruism. This is because the emergent correlation between altruism and individual quality in reciprocity games can facilitate the use of altruism as a quality indicator in a much wider context, outside the reciprocity game, thus affecting its further evolution through signalling benefits. Our model, based on multitype evolutionary game theory shows that, when the additive signalling benefit of donating help exceeds the cost for only some individuals (of high-quality state) but not for others (of low-quality state), the population possesses an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) profile wherein high-quality individuals cooperate unconditionally while low-quality individuals defect or play tit-for-tat (TfT). Hence, as predicted by Zahavi's handicap model, signalling benefits of altruistic acts can establish a stable generosity by high-quality individuals that no longer depends on the probability of future reciprocation or punishment.

Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8.

Evolution of indirect reciprocity.

Nowak MA, Sigmund K.

Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.

Abstract

Natural selection is conventionally assumed to favour the strong and selfish who maximize their own resources at the expense of others. But many biological systems, and especially human societies, are organized around altruistic, cooperative interactions. How can natural selection promote unselfish behaviour? Various mechanisms have been proposed, and a rich analysis of indirect reciprocity has recently emerged: I help you and somebody else helps me. The evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity leads to reputation building, morality judgement and complex social interactions with ever-increasing cognitive demands

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits.

Lotem A, Fishman MA, Stone L.

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. lotem@post.tau.ac.il

Abstract

Cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals is commonly explained by the potential for future reciprocity or by the risk of being punished by group members. However, unconditional altruism is more difficult to explain. We demonstrate that unconditional altruism can evolve as a costly signal of individual quality (i.e. a handicap) as a consequence of reciprocal altruism. This is because the emergent correlation between altruism and individual quality in reciprocity games can facilitate the use of altruism as a quality indicator in a much wider context, outside the reciprocity game, thus affecting its further evolution through signalling benefits. Our model, based on multitype evolutionary game theory shows that, when the additive signalling benefit of donating help exceeds the cost for only some individuals (of high-quality state) but not for others (of low-quality state), the population possesses an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) profile wherein high-quality individuals cooperate unconditionally while low-quality individuals defect or play tit-for-tat (TfT). Hence, as predicted by Zahavi's handicap model, signalling benefits of altruistic acts can establish a stable generosity by high-quality individuals that no longer depends on the probability of future reciprocation or punishment.

IMO, altruism has three distinct meanings:

Rand:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61

Biologists: (see above)

The General Public:

Definitions of altruism on the Web:

the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Altruism (pronounced: ) is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/altruism

altruistically - in an altruistic manner; "he acted selflessly when he helped the old lady in distress"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

altruistically - Regardful of others; beneficent; unselfish; -- opposed to egoistic or selfish

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/altruistically

Social behaviour and value orientation in which individuals give primary consideration to the interests and welfare of other individuals, members of groups or the community as a whole. ...

bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl

is “the primary regard for or devotion to the interest of patients/clients, thus assuming the fiduciary responsibility of placing the needs of the patient/client ahead of the physical therapist's self interest. [29]

www.wcpt.org/node/29562

Also: altruistic behavior non-beneficial or disadvantageous behavior to an individual that serves to benefit others of a species

pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/glossary

from Alter, other. A quality opposed to Egoism. Actions tending to do good to others, regardless of self.

www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm

A behavior that costs the doer and benefits others. Anthropology 60 Teaching Assistants are the only true altruists known to exist.

web.missouri.edu/~flinnm/courses/mah/glossary.htm

Acting for the sake of other people's interests. There are two forms. Ethical altruism: people should act with other people's interests in mind, and learn this through experience. ...

www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

Altruistic actions are those performed for the sake of others. Altruism is the hypothesis that morality involves acting for the sake of others.

www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

Unselfishness.

zainar.com/glossary.html

is a term that refers to doing good deeds and service work for others out of the goodness of one's own heart.

www.iamuniversity.ch/moodle/mod/glossary/view.php

I am bringing these various meanings to the attention of all readers out of the goodness of my own selfish heart, but as a post-Randian thinker I'll be goddamned if I'm being altruistic.

—JDL

[bmacwilliam]

IMO, altruism has three distinct meanings:

Rand:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61

Biologists: (see above)

The General Public:

[i am bringing these various meanings to the attention of all readers out of the goodness of my own selfish heart, but as a post-Randian thinker I'll be goddamned if I'm being altruistic.

—JDL

The biological definition I refer to is reasonably in line with what Rand is talking about. Rand is not wrong when she imagines the scenario where the only moral good is the service of others. That much I buy. However, she creates a profoundly obvious (and dare I say dishonest) false dichotomy between the binaries of selfishness and altruism.

Is broccoli good for you? Yes or No? The answer is it depends, there is no yes or no. If all you ate was broccolli, you could certainly say no, this is not good. If you eat it as part of a balanced diet, then yes, it's good. Same with altruism. It is cleary good for you and is part of our nature, in a "balanced diet" with self directed behaviour. There is no singular choice between altruism and selfishness. There's a sweet spot somewhere in there balancing the competing forces - certainly different for different people. I find this profoundly obvious.

Anyway, the issue is that Rand couldn't let even the slightest bit of altruism in there and HAD to create this false dichotomy or her system falls and falls hard. Well, for me it fell a long time ago.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

The key I think is to understand a little more clearly some ideas regarding human values. I don't have enough education in Economics to form a strong opinion of the overall value or accuracy of Austrian Economics, but I think they got it right with their ideas around Human Action Theory.

It is simplistic to the point of nonsense to assume that Humans have a static value hierarchy. Human values are sensitive to many things including time based variations(current value/future value) and many other things. For example, this time relation can lead to interesting preference inversions regarding food for instance. A fat person, that understands that their health is precarious, and who highly values the benefits of weight loss still eats the pizza on display at the snack bar when they walk buy. Ask them if they would pay for that pizza now, but can only eat it next week, they will decline. Is weight loss of no importance when they eat the pizza? No, of course not. But there is a preference inversion because the person CHOSE to eat the pizza over the weight loss goal that they admit is important. The nearness in time was a significant factor in this inversion.

There's a lot more to this subject and I find it fascinating, but the basic lesson here is that ALL human values are ordinal and they are fluid. The same "$3" slice of pizza has very different value to the same person depending on many factors (incidentally I think Marxist Economics dies right there) but this applies to the entire human value system. It changes and is never static.

Couple this with the assumption that there IS a middle ground for maximizing moral "correctness" if you will through balance of competing forces, and you have a different picture of the value of altruism.

Bob

Edited November 17, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

The primary purpose of altruism is to morally legitimatize sacrifice to the state or church or any other controlling entity so people can act selfishly by turning in their neighbors for witchcraft or being counter-revolutionary--that sort of thing. This makes altruism a sub-category to selfishness. We can think of selfishness as the primary, hard-wired psychological category with subcategories of selfishness to sacrifice along a continuum. Rand's championing of individualism in life and politics and her attacks on selflessness--sacrifice--altruism merely serve to free the deluded unless they delude themselves into Objectivist cultism.

--Brant

Edited November 17, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ethical principles are chosen and psychological/biological conditions are not, at least not the default conditions.

Altruism as a hard-wired urge (i.e., not chosen) is vastly different than altruism as a chosen ethical premise.

I see switch and bait on this issue all the time with critics of Rand. The error (or ruse, depending on the person) is letting volition pop in and out randomly in identifying the what altruism is and what Rand meant by it.

btw - I disagree with Rand's scope in her pronouncements on human nature, but I highly admire her stunning insights into the parts she got right.

Frankly, I resist entering these discussions these days because people usually have too much Rand on the brain and not enough ideas. (Rand was right, no Rand was wrong, no Rand was right, no Rand was wrong.)

When I see that driving the discussion, even when the discussion gets technical, I tune out.

I find that purpose boring.

I don't want to sound haughty, but I really do find it boring.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

The error (or ruse, depending on the person) is letting volition pop in and out randomly in identifying the what altruism is and what Rand meant by it.

Nonsense. I explained very clearly the specific false dichotomy and outlined precisely where she went wrong, and how I think she intented to deceive. Her idea of the danger/evil of placing altruism above the self statically in one's hierarchy of values is fine - I'm good with that. Her error (ruse) is the claim that exclusive selfishness is the only alternative. This is certainly nonsense, and likely deceptive.

btw - I disagree with Rand's scope in her pronouncements on human nature, but I highly admire her stunning insights into the parts she got right.

Do you think it coincidence that the insights seem "stunning" most often in adolescence when, as a general rule, one is most fiercly self-centered and emotionally and intellectually immature?

Sorry, as a grown-up, the only thing "stunning" is that others who should be grown up by now still believe it. That is truly stunning.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Your comments indicate someone with Rand on the brain instead of ideas.

That's why I don't take you seriously.

I don't know what it feels like to be moved by such hatred, but I do know it when I see it. You're a scapegoater qua scapegoater.

When it is not Rand, it is someone else.

You like to hate.

That's the bottom line I see in almost all of your posts.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Your comments indicate someone with Rand on the brain instead of ideas.

That's why I don't take you seriously.

I don't know what it feels like to be moved by such hatred, but I do know it when I see it. You're a scapegoater qua scapegoater.

When it is not Rand, it is someone else.

You like to hate.

That's the bottom line I see in almost all of your posts.

Michael

Interesting... Interesting that you equate exposing nonsense with hate. I guess its just your way of not facing serious and obvious problems - pretend it's hate - problem solved!

What I do find troubling is that people, yourself included, who espouse a strong dedication to reality and rationality, in actuality, when it comes right down to it, have precious little regard for either.

Rand herself is where the 'hate' originates. You know as well as I do that I could provide hateful Rand quotations all day long.

Calling Dr. Freud....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I do find troubling is that people, yourself included, who espouse a strong dedication to reality and rationality, in actuality, when it comes right down to it, have precious little regard for either.

Bob,

So why are you here?

I'm not going to change because you have a spiteful lopsided view of Rand's work and like to make derogatory remarks about her (or about someone) in every post you write.

From what I've seen, you haven't convinced anyone else of anything using that system of discourse, either.

So why are you here anyway?

I wonder what life without a scapegoat would be for you. Probably sheer boredom.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Non reciprocal, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

What evidence would that be?

I'm not aware that Rand ever exhibited "partial dedication to the generalized service of others." Was she missing the relevant altruism gene?

Ghs

No she certainly did not advocate or exhibit this. THis is the error. Humans are naturally partially altruistic.

You missed the point. If humans are "naturally partially altruistic" -- i.e., if altruism is hardwired into their brains -- then how did Rand escape this natural tendency? The same could be said of many other people. Are all such people abnormal?

Lots of evidence

Not in the abstracts you posted. Cooperation, including "indirect" cooperation, is not the same thing as altruism.

18th century moral philosophers gave a more plausible explanation of "other-regarding" sentiments (a more accurate term than "altruism") than have modern geneticists. They pointed to what they called "sympathy" -- or what today would be described as "empathy" -- by which they basically meant our ability to identify with the emotions of other people, and even, sometimes, with animals. To observe a person in pain can cause us to feel emotional pain in ourselves, and this generates a desire to help the other person in some cases. . But these philosopher/psychologists were careful to discriminate between different situations. For example, we distinguish, based on our intellectual evaluations, between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, and we accordingly sympathize with the former but not the latter. The notion that there is some indiscriminate altruism gene, one that operates independently of our reason, would have struck them as absurd. It strikes me the same way.

As I said, this general topic was discussed extensively by 18th century philosophers, especially the "British Moralists." One of the best books of this kind is Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Non reciprocal, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

What evidence would that be?

I'm not aware that Rand ever exhibited "partial dedication to the generalized service of others." Was she missing the relevant altruism gene?

Ghs

No she certainly did not advocate or exhibit this. THis is the error. Humans are naturally partially altruistic.

You missed the point. If humans are "naturally partially altruistic" -- i.e., if altruism is hardwired into their brains -- then how did Rand escape this natural tendency? The same could be said of many other people. Are all such people abnormal?

Lots of evidence

Not in the abstracts you posted. Cooperation, including "indirect" cooperation, is not the same thing as altruism.

18th century moral philosophers gave a more plausible explanation of "other-regarding" sentiments (a more accurate term than "altruism") than have modern geneticists. They pointed to what they called "sympathy" -- or what today would be described as "empathy" -- by which they basically meant our ability to identify with the emotions of other people, and even, sometimes, with animals. To observe a person in pain can cause us to feel emotional pain in ourselves, and this generates a desire to help the other person in some cases. . But these philosopher/psychologists were careful to discriminate between different situations. For example, we distinguish, based on our intellectual evaluations, between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, and we accordingly sympathize with the former but not the latter. The notion that there is some indiscriminate altruism gene, one that operates independently of our reason, would have struck them as absurd. It strikes me the same way.

As I said, this general topic was discussed extensively by 18th century philosophers, especially the "British Moralists." One of the best books of this kind is Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Ghs

With respect George, your term "cooperation" isn't fair and it is not what I'm talking about. I thought that was clear.

From the abstract:

"signalling benefits of altruistic acts can establish a stable generosity by high-quality individuals that no longer depends on the probability of future reciprocation or punishment."

is NOT simple cooperation. This is a behaviour that COSTS the initiator and BENEFITS the recipient with NO EXPECTATION of reciprocation.

The only significant difference between this and Randian altruism is that Rand emphasizes the "evil" of having this type of behaviour as the statically highest moral ideal. And that, in and of itself, is tough to disagree with.

The problem as I see it is again, the false dichotomy that the self, or man's own life qua man, is the only alternative. It is not the only alternative, and neither is the value hierarchy static. Both have implications.

You asked: " if altruism is hardwired into their brains -- then how did Rand escape this natural tendency? "

We can escape practically any tendency we can identify, even starve ourselves to death, but that's not the point. The point is if we are to live a "proper" moral life - whatever that is - with Objective ethics, the partially altruistic nature of man MUST be incorporated - because that's reality. You don't have to agree obviously, but do you at least understand what I'm saying?

You wrote :

"The notion that there is some indiscriminate altruism gene, one that operates independently of our reason, would have struck them as absurd. It strikes me the same way."

Interesting... and I mean that. For someone with a little bit of a background in the biological sciences, it seems completely absurd that it wouldn't be there. I suspected as much before I was aware of direct evidence.

The reasoning is simple: Genes affect behaviour, behaviour affects survival, stable behaviour patterns evolve right alongside physical traits and generally have a genetic root.

Bob

Edited November 19, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

There is no doubt that man has a hard-wired tendency to murder his fellow man, yet using reason he can create moral theories to set limits on that destructive tendency. Could he not make use of a moral theory to set limits on the most destrucive forms of altruism, even if that altruism were a hard-wired tendency?

[Brant Gaede]

There is no doubt that man has a hard-wired tendency to murder his fellow man, yet using reason he can create moral theories to set limits on that destructive tendency. Could he not make use of a moral theory to set limits on the most destrucive forms of altruism, even if that altruism were a hard-wired tendency?

"Murder" is mostly a legal concept. "Kill" is the better word here. "His fellow man" appears to be a fellow outside his tribal group for I'm not aware of those inside with such a tendency towards fellow insiders. You can take a group of very young prepubescent boys and turn them into killers who will kill anyone you point at without compunction and little remorse, as has happened in Africa. They become less malleable as they get older, but the teenage or just-out-of-teenage years soldiers make the best killers overall. Your "hard-wired" seems to run in reverse to "no-wired" opening up your idea to serious question.

--Brant