Ayn Rand ?

[col]

The problem here is not that 'I know it' and 'You know it'. Its showing that Randian ethics knows it. Rand plays around with the word 'objectivism'.

If you look real closely at what the basis of objectivism is - it either reduces to the trivial - 'do what you think is good' - or it reduces to total selfishness - ' do what you like '.

I find Rand like the Emperors new clothes. A con trick devoid of any real content.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan


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.

Yes it's bad.
According to morality that consider OTHERS and their right.
NOT according to Randism, which DOESN'T TAKE OTHERS INTO ACCOUNT.

You can shout 'till you're blue, it won't change the FACT, that randism is based ONLY on self-centered ethics, which AUTOMATICALLY disreguard other's people's rights.
By the way, you conveniently avoid any logical reasoning about this fact, and rather try to make a diversion by saying I should know that murder is bad.

Well, I *do* know. But randism doesn't. And as you're unable to prove that randism is moral and logical (which you can't prove, of course, as it's been proved to be illogical and immoral several times in this thread, but well you and Newfangle just pretend it never happened, nice display of objective thinking here ), you try to make a diversion and pretending that as I should know that murder is bad, so it prove that randism says murder is bad.
Uh ? Logic, anyone ? Cause and effect ? What the fact that I know murder to be bad as anything to do with randism ? Hello ?

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.

Ok, here is the thing : you say randism is moral and logical. I say it's not.
And now, you try to convince me that randism is moral by using MY OWN morals, which are OPPOSED to randism ?

Get some logic, pal. You're not making any sense.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Is theft always bad? Is violence always bad?

There are many exceptions. This is everything but objective.

Of course, "Objectivism" doesn't take that into account.

 

[thestonesfan]

A lot of this was outlined in Newfangle's previous posts, but here are Ayn's own words.

An exerpt from The Virtue of Selfishness:

The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value-and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.
The difference between "standard" and "purpose" in this context is as follows: a "standard" is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. "That which is required for the survival of man qua man is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose-the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being-belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.

Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man-in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep-virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics-the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life-are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.

Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work-pride is the result.

Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man's means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that, which is anti-mind, is anti-life.

The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power and to the constant, active expansion of one's perception, i.e., of one's knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one's own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one's goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought-as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one's fullest capacity permits. It means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one' s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)-that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)-that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects-that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one's own purposes and motives-that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one's knowledge-and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.

The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. Productive work is the road of man's unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. "Productive work" does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

The virtue of Pride is the recognition of the fact "that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining-that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul." (Atlas Shrugged.) The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: "moral ambitiousness." It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection-which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational-by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected-by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one's character-by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one's rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue, or duty.

The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others-and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose.

In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of "life or death," but as an issue of "happiness or suffering." Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is an automatic indicator of his body's welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death-so the emotional mechanism of man's consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him-lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body-the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.
Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program-and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought-or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone' s author ity, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions-if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too-he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).

Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist-or self-torture, like a masochist-or life beyond the grave, like a mystic-or mindless "kicks," like the driver of a hotrod car-his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure - it is merely a moment's relief from their chronic state of terror.

Neither life nor happiness can be acheived by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to surive by any random means, as a parasite, a moocher, or a looter, but not free to succeed at it beyon the range of the moment---so he is free to seek his happiness in any irrational fraud, any whim, any delusion, any mindless escape from reality, but not free to succeed at it beyond the range of the moment nor to escape the consequences.

I quote from Galt's speech: "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction. . . "Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions."

(continued)

 

[thestonesfan]

(part 2)

The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one's own life as one's ultimate value, and one's own happiness as one's highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one's life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant are an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one's life, in any hour, year, or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself-the kind that makes one think: "This is worth living for"-what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting "man's life" as one's primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness-not by taking "happiness" as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take ('whatever makes one happy" as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims-by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know-is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one's stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.

This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism-in any variant
of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. "Happiness" can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that "the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure" is to declare that "the proper value is whatever you happen to value"-which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.

The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims: the "selfish" pursuit of one's own whims (such as the ethics of Nietzsche).-or "selfless" service to the whims of others (such as the ethics of Bentham. Mill, Comte and of all social hedonists, whether they allowed man to include his own whims among the millions of others or advised him to turn himself into a totally selfless "shmoo" that seeks to be eaten by others).
When a "desire," regardless of its nature or cause, is taken as an ethical primary, and the gratification of any and all desires is taken as an ethical goal (such as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number")-men have no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash. If "desire" is the ethical standard, then one man's desire to produce and another man's desire to rob him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be free and another man's desire to enslave him have equal ethical validity; one man's desire to be loved and admired for his virtues and another man's desire for undeserved love and unearned admiration have equal ethical validity. And if the frustration of any desire constitutes a sacrifice, then a man who owns an automobile and is robbed of it, is being sacrificed, but so is the man who wants or "aspires to" an automobile which the owner refuses to give him-and these two "sacrifices" have equal ethical status. If so, then man's only choice is to rob or be robbed, to destroy or be destroyed, to sacrifice others to any desire of his own or to sacrifice himself to any desire of others; then man's only ethical alternative is to be a sadist or a masochist.The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another.

Today, most people hold this premise as an absolute not to be questioned. And when one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest-which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man's self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept "rational" is omitted from the context of "values," "desires," "self-interest" and ethics.

The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness-which means: the values required for man's survival qua man-which means: the values required for human survival-not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the "aspirations," the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.


The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash-that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of Justice.

A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange-an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others.

In spiritual issues-(by "spiritual" I mean: "pertaining to man's consciousness")-the currency or medium of exchange is different, but the principle is the same. Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person's virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.

To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love-because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.

It is only on the basis of rational selfishness-on the basis of justice-that men can be fit to live together in a free, peaceful, prosperous, benevolent, rational society. Can man derive any personal benefit from living in a human society? Yes-if it is a human society. The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own lifespan; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.

But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society. Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being-nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism. No society can be of value to man's life if the price is the surrender of his right to his life.

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man-or group or society or government-has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence-to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.

I will not attempt, in a brief lecture, to discuss the political theory of Objectivism. Those who are interested will find it presented in full detail in Atlas Shrugged. I will say only that every political system is based on and derived from a theory of ethics-and that the Objectivist ethics is the moral base needed by that politico-economic system which today, is being destroyed all over the world, destroyed precisely for lack of a moral, philosophical defense and validation: the original American system, Capitalism. If it perishes, it will perish by default, undiscovered and unidentified: no other subject has ever been hidden by so many distortions, misconceptions and misrepresentations. Today, few people know what capitalism is, how it works and what was its actual history.

When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism-with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. A pure system of capitalism has never yet existed, not even in America; various degrees of government control had been undercutting and distorting it from the start. Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future- if mankind is to have a future. For those who are interested in the history and the psychological causes of the philosophers' treason against capitalism, I will mention that I discuss them in the title essay of my book For the New Intellectual. *

The present discussion has to be confined to the subject of ethics. I have presented the barest essentials of my system, but they are sufficient to indicate in what manner the Objectivist ethics is the morality of life-as against the three major schools of ethical theory, the mystic, the social, and the subjective, which have brought the world to its present state and which represent the morality of death.

These three schools differ only in their method of approach, not in their content. In content, they are merely variants of altruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only viable option.

 

[col]

Originally posted by col
If you look real closely at what the basis of objectivism is - it either reduces to - 'do what you think is good' - or - ' do what you like '.

 

[thestonesfan]

It says "do what is good".

Subjectivism says "do what you think is good". Or rather, "do what someone else thinks might be good, but it really doesn't really matter since you may not even exist. So nothing matters, but you can't really be sure of that, either."

 

[IceBlaZe]

And if I think altruism is good, and hence being an altruist is doing what is good - am I an objectivist?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
And if I think altruism is good, and hence being an altruist is doing what is good - am I an objectivist?

That would be a contradiction. You can't be an altruist and think it is good. If you thought it was good, it wouldn't be self-sacrifice, therefore it wouldn't be altruism.

If you enjoy giving to charity, you should do it. If you don't enjoy it, yet do it anyway, that's self-sacrifice.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
It says "do what is good".

No, it says "do what is good for you".
Which is written in plain, bold, big letters, but well, when you're thinking emotionnally and refusing to see what you don't like, it's a bit harder to accept.

But well, I'm tired to speak to a wall, which selectively choose what he wants to see, and ignore whatever prove his opinions wrong (which include logics and rationnality, that are supposed to be the basis of these opinions, but well ), so I think I'll give up.

But you'd better to refrain speaking about rationnality and logics until you're able to understand, and use them.
Just a friendly advice

And, and as a side note : you should also refrain to comment on the altruism point, as you don't even understand the concept.

 

[IceBlaZe]

That would be a contradiction. You can't be an altruist and think it is good. If you thought it was good, it wouldn't be self-sacrifice, therefore it wouldn't be altruism.

This is a folly if I ever heard one.
Say I derive welfare from helping others. Unless I desired, for its own sake, that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action, but can't be the only aim of it.
Regardless, if I think altruism is good - it doesn't necessarily mean I enjoy performing actions of altruist nature. I think charity is good, yet I hate to say goodbye to my hard earned money. Still, I donate to charity at times - and support a progressive tax system. I don't enjoy the process (I also don't suffer, as my life doesn't circulate around money), yet I think my pleasure is a good enough sacrifice at times for something I believe is greater - the welfare of others.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Akka

No, it says "do what is good for you".
Which is written in plain, bold, big letters, but well, when you're thinking emotionnally and refusing to see what you don't like, it's a bit harder to accept.

Okay, it says that "doing what is good for you is doing what is good."

But well, I'm tired to speak to a wall, which selectively choose what he wants to see, and ignore whatever prove his opinions wrong (which include logics and rationnality, that are supposed to be the basis of these opinions, but well ), so I think I'll give up.

Fine, but you haven't proven my opinions wrong.

But you'd better to refrain speaking about rationnality and logics until you're able to understand, and use them.
Just a friendly advice

And, and as a side note : you should also refrain to comment on the altruism point, as you don't even understand the concept.

I understand the concept perfectly.

 

[bigfatron]

The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another.

Today, most people hold this premise as an absolute not to be questioned. And when one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest-which he must selflessly renounce.........

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash-that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public,
spiritual and material. It is the principle of Justice.

Sorry for the long quote - I've pulled out the bits that interest me here.

First is there a logical fallacy in the jumps betweeen the first and third paragraphs?

Non-objectivists are ascribed the belief that one man's happiness necessitates the injury of another - is this true? I think that one mans' happiness may on occasions be achieved through the injury of another, but not that it is a necessity - objectivism does not appear to deal with this option.

It only considers two absolutes: 'happiness always requires the injury of another', against 'human good ... cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone'. These two absolutes are mutually exclusive but are not a complete set - there exist a world of relative scenarios in between that are ignored.


Secondly (and a connected point) there is a critical a priori statement presented without apparent evidence - that is, that the rational interests of men do not clash. This appears to me to be self-evidently false, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Can a Randian supply any logical proof for the statement?

If this theorem cannot be proven then, it seems to me, the whole edifice falls, as individuals then require a process to deal with situations where rational interests clash, and Randian theories do not allow for this.


Thirdly, there appears to be a deliberate distortion in the political theory. All forms of collectivism are rejected as being unable to support the best interests of individuals. However, if the individuals concerned rationally calculate that a cooperative approach will yield the most beneficial result, will they not take it?

Presmubaly the Randian logic says that such collectivism is voluntary cooperation and therefore not collectivist. But this is simply playing semantic games - like the way altruism is defined in such a narrow way that one can never be truly altruistic, so collectivism is defined in a narrow way that no-one can ever successfully follow a collectivist activity.

Basically, every thing you choose to do is defined as being in your best interests because it makes you happy, therefore you choose to do it - this appear to me to be circular logic

Anyone with a better grasp care to enlighten me and point out the mistakes in my analysis?

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


This is a folly if I ever heard one.
Say I derive welfare from helping others. Unless I desired, for its own sake, that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action, but can't be the only aim of it.
Regardless, if I think altruism is good - it doesn't necessarily mean I enjoy performing actions of altruist nature. I think charity is good, yet I hate to say goodbye to my hard earned money. Still, I donate to charity at times - and support a progressive tax system. I don't enjoy the process (I also don't suffer, as my life doesn't circulate around money), yet I think my pleasure is a good enough sacrifice at times for something I believe is greater - the welfare of others.

Okay, let me get this straight. You forego something you think is good(your hard-earned money) for something you think is greater(the perceived welfare of others). And this is your sacrifice.

Well, I guess that if I can afford only one shirt, but like two, I am "sacrificing" the shirt I like the least in favor of the one I like more.

By your definition, every decision one makes in life involves a sacrifice, whether it involves any suffering or not.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe


This is a folly if I ever heard one.
Say I derive welfare from helping others. Unless I desired, for its own sake, that others do well, I would not derive welfare from helping them. Welfare results from my action, but can't be the only aim of it.
Regardless, if I think altruism is good - it doesn't necessarily mean I enjoy performing actions of altruist nature. I think charity is good, yet I hate to say goodbye to my hard earned money. Still, I donate to charity at times - and support a progressive tax system. I don't enjoy the process (I also don't suffer, as my life doesn't circulate around money), yet I think my pleasure is a good enough sacrifice at times for something I believe is greater - the welfare of others.

If you think charity is a good thing, go do it.

Just don't force others to do so. That's what socialism is(and I know there's plenty of socialist around, not necessarily you).

What if I don't care for the welfare of others? That's not the case, I do care, but the point is I have the right not to care.

I won't get into a philosifical debate, because it's boring as hell. Ethics, in my understanding is as simple as "do what you wat as long as you don't harm others".

 

[Kafka2]

See? This thread is now "exhibit A" for the theory "If Ayn Rand had decided to become a Fishmonger instead, we'd be on Mars by now."

 

[thestonesfan]

In response to bigfatron...

First is there a logical fallacy in the jumps betweeen the first and third paragraphs?

Non-objectivists are ascribed the belief that one man's happiness necessitates the injury of another - is this true? I think that one mans' happiness may on occasions be achieved through the injury of another, but not that it is a necessity - objectivism does not appear to deal with this option.

It only considers two absolutes: 'happiness always requires the injury of another', against 'human good ... cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone'. These two absolutes are mutually exclusive but are not a complete set - there exist a world of relative scenarios in between that are ignored.

You've got a point here - If Rand meant otherwise, she should have worded this better. If she did mean this explicitly, I would have to disagree. A communist could find happiness in a sunny field with no one else around.

Secondly (and a connected point) there is a critical a priori statement presented without apparent evidence - that is, that the rational interests of men do not clash. This appears to me to be self-evidently false, but I'm willing to be convinced.

Can a Randian supply any logical proof for the statement?

Okay, let's say that Bill wants to buy a car for $2000. Fred chooses to sell his car for $3000. There will be an inevitable conflict of interest if Bill wishes to buy Fred's car, if neither is willing to negotiate. But, you can't say that Bill is being rational by expecting to get the car for less than Fred is willing to sell it. If Bill were being rational, he would be willing to pay $3000, and there would be no conflict of interest. Likewise, Fred would be being irrational if he demanded that Bill buy the car, and pay the full $3000. If Fred were being rational, he would let Bill buy another car from someone else, and there would be no conflict of interest. The operative point is that if both men were rational, there would be no conflict of interest in this exchange. The conflict arises when one man demands what the other man deems to be an unequal value from the trade. The exchange is conflicted when an irrational man is involved. But if both men remain rational, either the exchange never happens or happens without conflict.

Yet I admit that there is one situation where this rule is put to the test - in the case where the ownership of the property in question is vague. Suppose two men are walking along and find a gold nugget. It's unclear who saw it first, and it cannot be proven if one did. If both men wish to claim it, there will be an obvious conflict of interest. But is either man being rational? No, because he cannot prove that what he is claiming does not belong to the other. Thus, the rational option is joint ownership. If one man wants to own the whole thing, he needs to fairly compensate the other man for the other half. Or, they can cut it in two. Either way, as long as rationality is maintained, there is no conflict. A rational man will not propose an irrational exchange.

If this theorem cannot be proven then, it seems to me, the whole edifice falls, as individuals then require a process to deal with situations where rational interests clash, and Randian theories do not allow for this.

I will concede that cases could arise where it is not immediately apparent who is the irrational party in a given conflict, and who is right. Thus, it might APPEAR that both sides are rational.
This is why we need a neutral court system, to demonstrate which side in a conflict is being irrational when it is not immediately apparent.

Thirdly, there appears to be a deliberate distortion in the political theory. All forms of collectivism are rejected as being unable to support the best interests of individuals. However, if the individuals concerned rationally calculate that a cooperative approach will yield the most beneficial result, will they not take it?

Presmubaly the Randian logic says that such collectivism is voluntary cooperation and therefore not collectivist. But this is simply playing semantic games - like the way altruism is defined in such a narrow way that one can never be truly altruistic, so collectivism is defined in a narrow way that no-one can ever successfully follow a collectivist activity.

And faith is defined in a way that prevents anyone from logically following a religion. These beliefs are largely contradictions to begin with. I do believe that people can be truly altruistic, but they must have an incredible sense of self-loathing and have a propensity for self-destruction. No rational person works for their own detriment. Helping an old lady across the road does not make me altruistic. If I lose my time, I gain the good feeling I get from helping someone who needs it and appreciates it. It's a trade. Thus, I don't work towards my own detriment. If I hate helping old ladies, but walk one across the street anyway, only to feel even worse afterwards, it's altruism. You might see that as noble, but I don't.

And no, I don't think too many people subscribe to collectivism because of their altruistic tendencies. In my experience, drawn largely from these message boards, collectivists are not terribly interested in GIVING anything away, they are more interested in TAKING things from the hated rich that only exploit people. Which is not surprising, since most are students, who do not contribute anything to the "pot", so to speak, so they have nothing to lose by collectivism.

Basically, every thing you choose to do is defined as being in your best interests because it makes you happy, therefore you choose to do it - this appear to me to be circular logic.

That's the why it should be - but I'm still forced to do things that do not make me happy, such as paying taxes. It's certainly in my best interests to pay them, because I'll get thrown in jail if I don't. But it doesn't make me happy.

In IceBlaze's example, I was trying to point out that his volunteer time with students is not a selfless act because it brings him happiness. But if he were forced to do it, I doubt he would enjoy it so much.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Okay, it says that "doing what is good for you is doing what is good."

Hence, killing, if it bring me profit, is good.
Thanks for proving my point

Fine, but you haven't proven my opinions wrong.

Yes, I did. Several times in fact. And if you wish to ask "where ?", just scroll back to my previous message, with the logical proof "if there is rights for others, then it means there is something greater than your own good, as your own good just encompass yourself, while accepting there is rights for others require a concept of morality that is ABOVE your own benefit".

This is a logical reasoning, which is true, and that randist conveniently "forget".

I understand the concept perfectly.

Obviously not
As you restrict everything as being "self-interest", you're unable to grasp the concept that some people consider some things to be MORE VALUABLE than their self-interest, and hence they do these things IN SPITE of their self-interest, because they consider it's the right thing to do.
You just reduce this idea as doing something "that make you feel better". Which is false.

What if I don't care for the welfare of others? That's not the case, I do care, but the point is I have the right not to care.

On this, I can make you a very simple answer : what the robber does care about YOUR welfare ? He's looking after his own self-interest.
Yes, the robber actively force you to give up your goods, while you, at best don't force anything on poor people needing help, at worst force passively them to stay poor.
On this I would ask again what I asked from the start and still haven't got a logical reason : why should he NOT force you, considering that the only ethical principle of randism is to look after yourself ?

Rand, of course, used some HUGE logical fallacy to get her point :

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash-that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

1) Nothing in "look after your self-interest" involve to "not looking after the unearned". This condition just pop up from nowhere.

2) A thief can perfectly say that he earned what he got : after all, he took the risks, he get the prices.
A murdering robber can succesfully says he risks his life each time he kills someone, so he has earned what he got.
Without an ethical principle that goes beyond a self-centered point of view, you just can't prove them wrong - telling them that they killed/robbed someone, hence violated the rights of someone else, imply that you ask them to consider an ethical point of view that goes beyond their self.

3) Anyway, it's still bullsh*t at the end, as what it say is that "we've got a universal and objective ethics, but the catch is that it works only if people are already ethical and objective themselves, if not it contradicts itself and doesn't work anymore".
Hardly universal...

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Akka


On this, I can make you a very simple answer : what the robber does care about YOUR welfare ? He's looking after his own self-interest.
Yes, the robber actively force you to give up your goods, while you, at best don't force anything on poor people needing help, at worst force passively them to stay poor.
On this I would ask again what I asked from the start and still haven't got a logical reason : why should he NOT force you, considering that the only ethical principle of randism is to look after yourself ?

I'm no randist, I was merely arguing against "compulsory altruism".
My ethics: "Do what you want as long as you don't harm others."

The robber, by using force, is harming me.

I don't harm anyone by refusing to aid the poor. There IS a difference, and I'm pretty sure most understand it. Here's your answer, though I must warn you that it may not be a randist answer, since I'm not an objectivist and never read a sigle Rand's book.

 

[Akka]

Well, Luiz, here comes the debate between positive rights and negative rights.
But that's another story. I'm just showing the logical huge gaps in Rand's theories for now. Let's keep this one for another thread