Ayn Rand ?

[IceBlaZe]

If the people do better by cooperating, is it not in their self-interests to do so?

Only in retrospect.
Taking the Prisoners dilemma as an example, only when they act on behalf of their friend - the situation is for the better.
They won't know it was the best for them. Each of them will still think "If I confessed, I would be out in no-time, without the few months delay". But each of them acted according to the good of his fellow prisoner.

You could say the same would happen in a team-scientists scenario. A self-interest motivated scientist will think: If I work alone, it might take a bit longer to make the discovery/progress - but I will take all the credit/pride/money. That fits exactly for Randism. However, a collective-interest motivated scientist will think: I don't need the credit, nor the fame, nor the pride that it will be my discovery alone. As long as I keep donating to the team - the discovery will be made much quicker, and thus for the collective good of mankind - not for my good alone.

A scientist working alone would never make the discovery in his lifetime, in retrospect. A team scientists working together - would make it, and a lot quicker - than a chain of self-interest motivated scientists, each taking the former discoveries of the dead scientist trying to make it by himself - each dying before they make it.

Team effort is very significant in scientific research.

There is a very known test for elite intelligence units in the Israeli army. People are divided into groups, and positioned in a room with cards. They are told to try and build the highest card-tower possible. If everyone shares his ideas - and a brainstorm is created - it is far more likely the best idea will be chosen, or that the ideas will be mixed to create the most efficient tower-building way. However, if each participant thought his idea is the best - and he must prove so to the army oberservers in order to be applied - it is most likely he will not only fail - but the entire team will in arguments of who should do it, each participant saying "let me". Or worse, even if the participant does take over the team, builds it by himself while the entire team is paralized - the army will never take him. He doesn't cooperate, his excessive individualism paralizes his friends - he will never fit in a team working together towards a common goal.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by thestonesfan


You say that taking the bus is a completely selfless act, yet you justify it by saying that it would benefit the individual in the long run.

No, that's not what I did. I just showed how a selfless deed will better the interest of the individual. Of course, the individual taking the bus will still not know it was better than a car, given that hypothetical situation. He'll see the roads are quite empty - and hence think for himself "If I took the bus, it would be best for me". But that certain individual is not bent around self-interest motivated actions and calculations.

Thinking selfishly does not require you to ignore the fact that other people exist! That would be a very stupid and short-sighted way of looking at things.

No, it does not require you to ignore the existence of others, only to ignore the good of others - act only to promote your own happiness, interests and good. Such a philosophy is destructive, let alone incorrect even to promote those interests the best way.

So the prisoners are aware of the deal? You didn't say that. Obviously, it presents them with quite a unique conundrum. A fact you do not acknowledge is that there is no way they can know what is best for them and what is not, so they can't rightly act in their best interests, can they?

Prisoners are aware what they are being told. If a prisoner is being told "Confess about your partner, and set yourself free" - he is aware of that. Obviously.
What you seem to imply here, though, is ridicolous. Of course they know what is best for them - at that moment, given their scope of knowledge. That is always the case.
You do not expect individualists acting according to Randism to be fortune tellers, do you?
Your own confusion is proof of how much Randism is fundamentally wrong.

The conclusion is that either prisoner can't possibly know what decision would be best for him. That's the nature of the conundrum.

This is great. Thats not the nature of the conundrum, thats the nature of life. What you think is best for you is always within the limits of your knowledge. How can it be any different?
Your confusion is where Randism meets Reality. That conundrum can be easily a true scenario - it doesn't have any fantastical elements. Same goes for the commuter. And the scientist. And the candidate for military service, being "tested" in the card-tower scenario.

Well, when you can't beat the logic, present a scenario that really has nothing to do with anything.

I wonder why you say this scenario has nothing to do with anything. Is it because it proves how wrong it is to follow Objectivism?
That scenario is very popular amongst modern ethical-philosophical discussions.
When you test for the correctness and effectiveness (not the best words, but nonetheless I will continue) of a philosophy, you put it in possible scenarios. Situations, that can, or do, happen in real life. Randism fails in the discussed tests. I hope you realize that.

 

[thestonesfan]

Iceblaze - You defend selflessness by saying that it is ultmately beneficial for the individual. Do you not see how you are defeating your own argument?

If I purposefully do something that benefits me - even 20 years into the future - it is not a selfless act. If the thought of less pollution for future generations pleases me, then to take the bus is not a selfless act. It makes me happy to contribute to a cleaner future. I am acting in my own interests.

Answer me this - when was the last time you willfully did something selfless?

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
That's a ridiculous scenario. If the one who did it confesses, why is he let free while the innocent one is imprisoned??

Because society demands that SOMEBODY go to jail. Police perfer to get the guilty party, but in a pinch, someone who is merely in the wrong place at the wrong time will do.

"Oh, well, since you confessed, I guess you learned your lesson. You can go home. We'll just hold this other guy for not confessing to something he didn't do." Great justice system.

It's OUR justice system. Plea bargains like this happen all the time. This is not a ridiculous scenerio at all. This is exactly the way our justice system works. We reward those who work with the system, and punish those who clam up. Of course, the prisoners can often be better off if nobody works with the system. Fortunately, Objectivism is fairly popular among the criminal element, and one criminal will generally turn on the other.

Or are they both guilty partners in the same crime? If that is the case, why do they let the one who confessed go? It doesn't make any sense. He is still equally guilty. I've never heard of a logical justice system that lets people go simply for confessing.

I can only assume you know nothing about how our justice system works. Hell, I'm willing to hazard that the justice system of virtually every western nation operates on similar lines. And while I'm quite willing to admit that defining our justice system as "logical" might be a bit of stretch, I don't think too many other societies have managed to do a better job.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Akka

Rationnality says that if I'm acutally LIKING violence, if I REVEAL into violence, then violence is good for me. Saying that it's irrationnal for me to reveal into violence while saying I should look after my own interest, and my own interest is violence, is ABSURD, ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONNAL.

Rationality says that it is in man's best interest to pursue life. Man's means of doing so is the mind. The mind recognizes OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES, and tells me that initiating violence is wrong. If man ignores moral values, he is denying his mind, and in doing so, he is denying his means of life. Therefore, it is not in his best interest.

Show me that initiating violence against someone is right, and I'll concede. But my mind tells me that it is wrong. It does not benefit me to renounce my mind.

Do you agree that initiating violence is wrong?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Iceblaze - You defend selflessness by saying that it is ultmately beneficial for the individual. Do you not see how you are defeating your own argument?

No, because I never said any of the individuals are acting to benefit themselves. They are acting out of altruistic calculations. It doesn't matter that ultimately it does benefit themselves - that I only point out to show the failure of Randism. What matters is on what behalf they are acting. On what philosophy and rational they base their actions on. Not self-interest - but common good.

Answer me this - when was the last time you willfully did something selfless?

Constantly, I volounteer in an elementary school even though I would enjoy much more using my last two months of true freedom (I am recruiting to the army March 24th) for at least three years.

You should cease from resorting to ridiculous Psychological Egoism - which is not only very different from Ethical Egoism, but also rebuttled six different times by David Hume.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

Constantly, I volounteer in an elementary school even though I would enjoy much more using my last two months of true freedom (I am recruiting to the army March 24th) for at least three years. .

Why do you volunteer at the elementary school?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by thestonesfan

Rationality says that it is in man's best interest to pursue life. Man's means of doing so is the mind. The mind recognizes OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES, and tells me that initiating violence is wrong. If man ignores moral values, he is denying his mind, and in doing so, he is denying his means of life. Therefore, it is not in his best interest.

Show me that initiating violence against someone is right, and I'll concede. But my mind tells me that it is wrong. It does not benefit me to renounce my mind.

Do you agree that initiating violence is wrong?

1. Rationality says that it is in man's best interest to pursue life. Man's means of doing so is the mind.
Therefore rationality tells man to pursue life with the means of his mind - tautology

2. The mind recognizes OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES
Not derived from the above - axiome

3. [The mind] tells me that initiating violence is wrong
Also not derived from the above - axiome

4. If man ignores moral values, he is denying his mind
What's the connection between moral values and one's mind? - paralogism/sofism

5. and in doing so, he is denying his means of life - tautology (see 1)



But I'm talking to a wall here

 

[IceBlaZe]

Because I know it is important for the kids, the teachers, the school.
In this case I am willing to sacrifice my own happiness and pleasure for what I see as more important causes.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Because I know it is important for the kids, the teachers, the school.
In this case I am willing to sacrifice my own happiness and pleasure for what I see as more important causes.

It doesn't make you happy to help the kids? The thought of you improving the future holds no appeal to you?

Devoting yourself to a cause you believe in is not a selfless sacrifice, because you wish the cause to succeed. If you hate these children and hope they fail, THEN you are sacrificing your self. But clearly, you don't hope for that.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Devoting yourself to a cause you believe in is not a selfless sacrifice, because you wish the cause to succeed.

I wish that cause to succeed even at the expense of my own happiness and pleasure. Sure it makes me happy to know the children enjoy - if it was any other way I would be emotionally empty. But that doesn't make me an egoist - that makes me human. An ethical egoist (Randism) would preffer studying/earning money to be more successful and earn fame. You still try pulling the Psychological Egoism trick here. That means that you acknowledge Ethical Egoism fails.
Now, Psychological Egoism, at its strong sense, can not be proven. So this argument is simply futile. Hume provided some six rebuttles to this line of thought, if you wish to read. But basically it just stands as a closed theory. I can just aswell claim that altruism does exist - in a form of a closed theory - and no one would be able to completely refute the other.

I'm glad that we established Ethical Egoism is a complete failure - resorting to Psychological Egoism proves you agree with me, even if you don't understand it yet.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


I wish that cause to succeed even at the expense of my own happiness and pleasure.

...and you do what you want to do. At last, you are admitting individualist human nature.

 

[IceBlaZe]

...and you do what you want to do. At last, you are admitting individualist human nature.

You lost me.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
So, you are saying that a healthy, moral, rational person can find happiness through violence?

Violence is but a pulsion. It's EXTREMELY common. In reality, it's the basis of survival : to live, you have to fight those who try to eat you. Violence is part of anybody. Predators aren't disliking violence instinctively, because they NEED violence to eat.

So, instinctively, human doesn't dislike violence. What make us refrain our violence is education.
So, at the basis, a healthy person have no particular dislike about violence, unless he's educated to do so.

So, a healthy person CAN like violence.
Not all, but some (plenty ?) do.
Let's suppose we take one of them.

Now, a moral person. Well, we're talking about randism, so we'll take the moral compass of randism.

Let's take our previous violence-liking person.
1) Morality according to Rand : looking after your own self-interest.
2) She does like violence. Using violence, then, will please her.
1) + 2) => using violence is moral, as it please her.

So, yes, according to Randism, it's moral to use violence for your own pleasure.

Logical conclusion : according to Rand's own words, a healthy and moral (morality being Rand's one) person CAN initiate violence.
I would even say that a violence-liking person CAN and SHOULD initiate violence (still according to Rand).

I'm just using Rand's own words.
That they contradict themselve is HER fault, not mine.
That you refuse to see it is YOUR fault, not mine.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Rationality says that it is in man's best interest to pursue life.

Ok. Seems logical to me.

Man's means of doing so is the mind.

Not just the mind, but overall I agree.

The mind recognizes OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES

Many people doesn't.
You can't just say it's so. Prove it.
It will be hard for randism, as self-centered moral values are necessarily subjective, hence self-contradicting.

and tells me that initiating violence is wrong.

Why and how ?
There is absolutely no logical reasonning you've offered for that.
Prove it.

If man ignores moral values, he is denying his mind, and in doing so, he is denying his means of life. Therefore, it is not in his best interest.

You still have to prove that violence is wrong.
Again, by using only Rand's logic, it's impossible, as it's self-contradictory.

Show me that initiating violence against someone is right, and I'll concede. But my mind tells me that it is wrong. It does not benefit me to renounce my mind.

According to Rand, it's right. The violence just need to benefit me.
If I can assault someone and rob him, it's only against my self-interest if I'm caught.
If I can be SURE that I won't be caught, randism consider it's moral for me to do it.

Do you agree that initiating violence is wrong?

Of course I do. But it's because I have a radically OPPOSED morality as Rand, because I have universal morality, contrary to Rand's self-centered morality.

 

[Kafka2]

Randist Objectivism was the fiendish ploy to ensnare those holding a certain mindset into spending the rest of their lives fanatically arguing over minutiae on internet forums, while the rest of the world got on with actually running a society and not really caring about its level of moral purity.

 

[col]

Ultimately Rand isnt saying anything more profound than "do what you want" - and thats not much basis for any system of Ethics.

 

[thestonesfan]

Unless you all concede that there is moral objectivity, or I concede that there isn't, we will argue until the cows come home. So really, this is all pretty pointless.

If you want to read every argument I could make, written better than I could write them, just read Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Akka]

In other words : you can't prove anything.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Akka
In other words : you can't prove anything.

Murdering someone is bad. Stealing something is bad. Raping someone is bad. Using violence to take something that is not yours is bad. I know it, you know it, every sane person knows it. I see them as objective truths about moral values, but you do not.

It would be like trying to convince you that black is not white, or that 2+2=5, when you steadfastly cling to the thought that it is.