Ayn Rand ?

[IceBlaZe]

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.

My sacrifice is giving up something of self-interest for something out of interest to the welfare of others. One may say I do feel happy at doing that, or feel good - but what would I feel so if I haven't had a sincere desire for the welfare of others to beginwith?

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.

No, you are equating here with a situation in which both alternatives are clear self-love and self-interest.

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

No, by my definition - a sacrifice for others does not have to include suffering. Of course, every choice in life has alternatives - but that does not mean every choice in life must result in some kind of suffering.

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.

It brings me happiness because I desired it.

But if he were forced to do it, I doubt he would enjoy it so much.

I don't enjoy giving to charity, and I don't always enjoy volunteering.
Anyway, what is your point?

 

[thestonesfan]

Akka - Would you feel guilt if you robbed someone? Would any rational person?

Yes - because stealing is morally wrong. That's a fact. If you choose to call what you feel a lie, and say that stealing is not wrong - we are just brought up that way - you are ignoring reality. If I brought a Chinese man to my town, would he think it right to rob people? No. So you say that he was brought up with similar values as I was. Okay, I'll bring in a Cherokee Indian. Would he think stealing was right? No. Would an Iranian think it was right? No. Would a Samoan? No. A Nigerian? No. A Caveman? No.

Do you see the pattern here? ALL people are have similar values. One of those common values dictates that stealing is not an acceptable act of a rational man. It is morally wrong.

Now, you can continue to say that even though it is wrong, it may still be in my best interest to mug someone. I won't deny that I will almost certainly get some material gain from it, provided I don't get caught. But does that make it in my best interest?

No, it does not. Man's best interest is to be truly happy. True happiness cannot be contradicted by guilt. If I do something I know is wrong, such as steal, I will feel guilt. I have no choice in that matter. Whatever I do, I will feel that it is either good, or evil. How I judge this is determined by my moral values. Doing something I know to be wrong will create conflict within myself. How can a conflicted man be happy? Thus, it will never be in a rational man's best interest to steal. You know this to be true - because you are a rational man, despite the image you strive to convey.

I don't know if you read it before, but of what Ayn Rand wrote that I posted above, this answers your arguments -

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 beyond 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."

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.

 

[thestonesfan]

IceBlaze - we really aren't arguing about anything important. I fully support your right to be what you call altrusitic. I would not support you demanding that others be altruistic - but you are not doing that.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I think what we are most arguing about (in the last several posts) is semantic.
Your philosophy is that we do everything out of self-love, which is a closed philosophy - therefor not a provable one, but an understandable one. Hence we are all selfish one way or another.
But if it is so - it is merely a semantic issue. In that case, instead of asking if one person is egoistic or selfish - we would ask if he is coolly self-love motivated or passionately self-love motivated.
In that case, altruism will settle on the latter, and egoism on the former. But that is merely some kind of deduction, and we all know that "everything is what is is and nothing else" (Butler).

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
I think what we are most arguing about (in the last several posts) is semantic.
Your philosophy is that we do everything out of self-love, which is a closed philosophy - therefor not a provable one, but an understandable one. Hence we are all selfish one way or another.
But if it is so - it is merely a semantic issue. In that case, instead of asking if one person is egoistic or selfish - we would ask if he is coolly self-love motivated or passionately self-love motivated.
In that case, altruism will settle on the latter, and egoism on the former. But that is merely some kind of deduction, and we all know that "everything is what is is and nothing else" (Butler).

"Sacrifice" is a very broad term, so I suppose the argument was bound to turn semantic at some point.

But, we do disagree on a very fundamental point - I see acting in your own self interest as a much more respectable virtue than self sacrifice, and further, I see true self sacrifice as a very rare thing.

 

[Akka]

Oh darn... Stubborn, he ?

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Akka - Would you feel guilt if you robbed someone? Would any rational person?

Yes - because stealing is morally wrong.

No. Plenty extremely rationnal thiefs doesn't feel ANY guilt after robbing someone.
People who feel guilty are people who have MORALS, not people who have RATIONNALITY.

That's a fact. If you choose to call what you feel a lie, and say that stealing is not wrong - we are just brought up that way - you are ignoring reality. If I brought a Chinese man to my town, would he think it right to rob people? No. So you say that he was brought up with similar values as I was. Okay, I'll bring in a Cherokee Indian. Would he think stealing was right? No. Would an Iranian think it was right? No. Would a Samoan? No. A Nigerian? No. A Caveman? No.

Do you see the pattern here? ALL people are have similar values. One of those common values dictates that stealing is not an acceptable act of a rational man. It is morally wrong.

The pattern I see is that, in fact, people consider nearly universally that murder or theft is wrong.

I fail to see where it prove that Rand's morals is logical.

Stop using red herring. We're talking about Rand's morals. People you use as example weren't educated with Rand's morals. You can't use other's morals as a proof that yours is good. That's plain stupid and illogical.

The point that I keep making and you keep pretending not to see is that the principle of Rand's morality ("do what's profit you") DOESN'T bring the principle of "others do have rights" (principle which is NECESSARY to feel guilt, because guilt is to feel that you broke other's rights).

Stop using red herring and answer this point. Which you can't, of course, just as you can't prove that 1+1=3.

Now, you can continue to say that even though it is wrong, it may still be in my best interest to mug someone. I won't deny that I will almost certainly get some material gain from it, provided I don't get caught. But does that make it in my best interest?

No, it does not. Man's best interest is to be truly happy. True happiness cannot be contradicted by guilt. If I do something I know is wrong, such as steal, I will feel guilt. I have no choice in that matter. Whatever I do, I will feel that it is either good, or evil. How I judge this is determined by my moral values. Doing something I know to be wrong will create conflict within myself. How can a conflicted man be happy? Thus, it will never be in a rational man's best interest to steal. You know this to be true - because you are a rational man, despite the image you strive to convey.

In one word : bullsh*t.
That's plain, pure, bullsh*t.
If it wasn't, we would never had any murder, theft or anything like that in the world. And the fact is, we have.

The FACT is, plenty people DON'T CARE about what happen to others. You can put your fingers in your ears and pretend it's wrong, but it's just refusing the reality (well, being randist is refusing reality to start with, still, so it's not a very surprising course of action, after all).

Then you can use the usual lie/deceit of randist, and simply postulate that any person that commit a theft, murder, etc., is irrationnal. Which is completely stupid of course. Rationnality says that, if it's easier to steal and murder and rob than to work for the same amount, then it's better to steal/murder/rob, because we get the same profit for less work.
This is RATIONNAL.

Why most people don't do it ? Because of MORALITY, not RATIONNALITY, because they feel it's not right to do it, or because they just fear to be caught.
Vikings considered that dieing sword in hand, in war, was the key to paradise.
They weren't exactly unhappy to live that way, pillaging, raping, plundering. It was easier for them to do this rather than to get it with trade and so on. Where is the irrationnality in that ?

You consider as if guilt over theft, was a built-in human feature. That's just dumb. Take these "feral children", that never had education. Do you think they would have qualm about stealing ? No, they would not even understand the concept.
You don't just get ethics principle at birth. You develop them, learn them.

If your only ethical principle is "if I profit of it, it's good", then stealing is good.
To consider stealing bad, you need OTHER principles, beyond this one. That's the FACT you refuse to see. Despite it being obvious, proved, and repeated, you just REFUSE it and resort on absurd lies/delusions, like "interests never clash" or "by being rationnal, you don't wish to steal". Wishful thinking.

I don't know if you read it before, but of what Ayn Rand wrote that I posted above, this answers your arguments -

I read it. And again, it's wishful thinking and delusion all long.
It takes a delusion as a fact (that interests will never clash), and then built a whole theory about it.
It's still based on a delusion, and still false and irrationnal. And it pretends to be rationnal

The best part is when it says "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".
Then for all the rest of the text, all the principle will be based on precisely a wish that goes against reality. Funny

Randism is all about taking your delusions for fact. The principles on which it's based are also the conclusion. It's circular logic, and by definition, circular logic is false.


Don't believe me ? Well, then take the second paragraph :

"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." => Rand arbitrarily decide that happiness deriving from destruction (of others or of self) isn't happiness. Why ? Well, because she said it.
If it isn't a delusion, then what is one ? She states as fact something that is not proved.

She talks, in the first paragraph, about how wishing the impossible, wishing something against reality, leads to self-destruction. She never explain why taking pleasure in murder, or why not feeling guilty over theft, is impossible. Well, in fact it's perfectly possible. And it even happens plenty of times in the world.

We already have two logical flaws here. Each one throw the whole argument to the sink.


All the rest is rewording of the same : if you have rationnal values, then you're happy, then it fulfills the "what's good for you is absolutely good".

Well, the little problem is, there is nothing irrationnal in not being guilty for theft, or taking pleasure in rape, or murdering for accomplishment.
It's perhaps unusual, but it's not irrationnal. And it's immoral ONLY if you don't use the randist definition of morality.

Randism DOESN'T WORK. Not on logical grounds at least. It's based on wishful thinking. It's making non-existant logical links. It's doing circular logics.

And all this is obvious when you use the rationnality that Rand pretends she have, and if you don't willingly blind yourself to the reality she pretends to bases her theories upon.

 

[bigfatron]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Akka - Would you feel guilt if you robbed someone? Would any rational person?

Yes - because stealing is morally wrong. That's a fact. If you choose to call what you feel a lie, and say that stealing is not wrong - we are just brought up that way - you are ignoring reality. If I brought a Chinese man to my town, would he think it right to rob people? No. So you say that he was brought up with similar values as I was. Okay, I'll bring in a Cherokee Indian. Would he think stealing was right? No. Would an Iranian think it was right? No. Would a Samoan? No. A Nigerian? No. A Caveman? No.

Do you see the pattern here? ALL people are have similar values. One of those common values dictates that stealing is not an acceptable act of a rational man. It is morally wrong.

I think you are incorrect here - you assume that all societies have the moral framework that you would LIKE them to have, but there is not real historical suport for this - there are plenty of examples in history of societies where theft as we would recognise it was deemed acceptable.

The philosophy seems to introduce some arbitrary distinctions, for instance abhors the use of physical power as a 'natural wrong' but not the use of economic power - yet perhaps a rational person would equally view that as a 'natural wrong'.

It also fails to deal with the concept of transitory ownership - only by assuming that every asset is owned, now and forever, by an individual (person or company) can the philosophy work.

Yet there are loads of examples of transitory or communal ownership - who 'owns' Lake Erie? Who owns the air above it? Who owns the water in a river? well, it depends on when, not just where, you are talking about - the water in a stretch of river today is not the same water in the same stretch of water tomorrow.

Take this example further - if I own a stretch of river I can pollute it, knowing that the consequences of my action are visited on those downriver, and that the clean water I want will be available.

This is typical of transitory ownership, in that the consequences of decisions on the value of the good are not visited on those who 'own' it because ownership is transitory and passes at nil consideration - using the good carries no 'loss' to the user, but instead to the next owner downstream.

Situations like these appear to lead directly to situations where the axiom that rational individuals will never have a conflict of interest falls flat on its face.....

 

[col]

Originally posted by thestonesfan


Would you feel guilt if you robbed someone? Would any rational person?

Yes - because stealing is morally wrong. That's a fact. If you choose to call what you feel a lie, and say that stealing is not wrong - we are just brought up that way - you are ignoring reality. If I brought a Chinese man to my town, would he think it right to rob people? No. So you say that he was brought up with similar values as I was. Okay, I'll bring in a Cherokee Indian. Would he think stealing was right? No. Would an Iranian think it was right? No. Would a Samoan? No. A Nigerian? No. A Caveman? No.

This is nonsense. Children have no qualms at all about stealing. They have to be taught that it is wrong. We pass our values on by teaching the next generation. There are no values that we are born with other than the urge to survive and to breed thanks to millions of years of evolution.

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.

Do you see the circularity here? What is good? What he decides to call good. Where does this 'standard of value' come from. From Rand? Fraid not..

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.

So what is irrational then? The impossible. Er - I dont think so. According to Rand anything that doesnt fit is irrational and so dismissed. If I dont accept Rand then I will be destroyed from within? Dont hold your breath.

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 beyond 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.

Says who? I see no justifcation at all for this. Why cant I be 'irrational' and happy? Rand simply labels anything that she doesnt like as irrational therefore impossible.

Need I go on. Rand is a fraud, a phoney. She has nothing of value to say.

 

[thestonesfan]

Let's condense some of the arguments here.

Me: There is a such thing as moral objectivity. For example, stealing is always wrong, and a rational human knows it.

Everyone else: No, morals are invariably subjective. For example, the morality of stealing depends on the situation, if it could ever be determined in the first place.

Can we agree that our disagreement on this point results in all of the above contention?

 

[col]

We can certainly agree that the existence of objectivity is central to Rand. I cannot agree that 'stealing is always wrong'. I would steal to feed my family if necessary and would expect any other rational person to do the same. I would say you just showed Randism to be wrong.

Me v Everyone else ? Doesnt this suggest something?

 

[Akka]

Being selectively blind to annoying questions like this shows quite about the sincerity and rationnality of such ethics

Ok, if we need to condense, let's condense. But do bother to at least simulate that you're trying to answer to questions.

You keep saying that some things are unethical. I ask you : what makes them unethical in Rand's ethics ?

Answering "they are because they are" is totally stupid. I don't deny the existence of universal ethics. In fact, I support it. But it has nothing to do with my question.

FIRST QUESTION : What, in Rand's ethics, make stealing/raping/murdering/plundering/etc. unethical ?

FIRST QUESTION, SECOND PART : How, starting with "what's good for you is universally good", can you reach the "stealing is unethical", without any logical flaws nor arbitrary statements ?

SECOND QUESTION : How can be universal, a morality that limits itself to a subjective point of view ?

THIRD QUESTION : How can you prove, without resorting on circular logic or arbitrary statements, that someone could not be happy by being unethical ?


If you can't answer these questions (and you can't, trust me), then it proves that Rand's ethics are not self-consistent, and contradict themselves, hence they are FALSE.

 

[thestonesfan]

I'm done. I've said what I've had to say. If I come up with some new argument and the desire to use it, I'll post it. But for the moment, I'm tired of this debate, as I'm sure you are.

 

[Akka]

Well, it's your choice to be blind and irrationnal, I guess.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Well, I must say I enjoyed this discussion.
I never thought arguing about something other than middle east politics can be so relaxing. I certainly got tired of middle east threads.

Thanks!

 

[Ayatollah So]

The best argument I've ever seen on the relation between self-interest and respecting others' rights is Woody Allen's movie Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Interesting thread. Had I not already been convinced that Randism/Objectivism is a) logically incoherent and b) unsuited as ideological basis for a functioning society, I believe it should had done the trick.

This may be of interest:
Mark Rosenfelder on Libertarianism
It's of course mostly on the economic doctrines of Libertarianism, but what he has to say on Libertarians debating techniques should be rather familiar.

Back to philosophy, allow me to quote newfangle from page one:

Metaphysics: Reality is objective. Man's mind and consciousness exist indepedant of reality, thus nothing that man thinks may alter reality itself.

Nothing can possibly exist independent of reality - if it exists, it is part of reality. I can only conclude that some qualifier is lacking. "Physical"? "External"?

Furthermore, how does it follow that thought cannot alter [insert qualifier] reality?

Third, are we to infer that Randism does not consider reason to be a thought process? Randism is supposed to hold that reason is humans' primary survival tool*, and a survival tool unable to affect reality seems like it could hardly be a very effective one.

As a consequence of this, faith, mysticism, and subjectivity are rejected in favour of the law of identity (everything is everything)

That everything is everything is such a screamingly obvious tautology that I can only conclude that something else was intended. What?

, the law of casaulity, and the fundamental axiom (and its corollaries): existence exists.

This only means that something exists. One is rather reminded of Descartes' point that one cannot reasonably doubt one's own existence. To hold the opposite view - nothing exists - leads to self-contradiction.

* This is of course a questionable claim. While reason clearly plays an important role in long-term survival, so does the immune system, and immediate threats are usually handled by instinct and reflexes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Bump!

If any Randist is still around, I'd actually very much like the questions in my above post answered. It's highly unlikely you'll be able to convert me to Randism, but philosophical systems interest me as, well, systems, regardless what I think of their validity.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Hey Last Conformist, long time no hear. Glad to see your posts again.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
That everything is everything is such a screamingly obvious tautology that I can only conclude that something else was intended.

I think it's intended as written. Lots of great philosophers have looked at the basics of logic; Rand just wants to join this club, I figure. Also, Rand seems to hold many of her philosophical claims to be tautologous - more than really are, IMHO - which increases the need to discuss logic.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

Nothing can possibly exist independent of reality - if it exists, it is part of reality. I can only conclude that some qualifier is lacking. "Physical"? "External"?

The mind exists, and conscious is volitional. This means that man may perceive reality, and integrate its concepts, but he may not alter reality purely through consciousness. I apoligize for any ambiguity.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

Furthermore, how does it follow that thought cannot alter [insert qualifier] reality?

Because you can't look at a wall and make it turn into an elephant. This is a metaphysically given.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Third, are we to infer that Randism does not consider reason to be a thought process? Randism is supposed to hold that reason is humans' primary survival tool*, and a survival tool unable to affect reality seems like it could hardly be a very effective one.

Hopefully this part was cleared up above.

But if any uncertainty remains, assume that man doesn't use his mind to survive. What else would he use?

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

That everything is everything is such a screamingly obvious tautology that I can only conclude that something else was intended. What?

I'm not sure what you mean by, "something else intended."

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

This only means that something exists. One is rather reminded of Descartes' point that one cannot reasonably doubt one's own existence. To hold the opposite view - nothing exists - leads to self-contradiction.

No problems here unless I'm misinterpreting you.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist

* This is of course a questionable claim. While reason clearly plays an important role in long-term survival, so does the immune system, and immediate threats are usually handled by instinct and reflexes.

This is why we are defined has a rational animal . If we were to completely ditch our mind, like most socialists, we would be animals. Sure, our immune system and reflexes would allow to survive for perhaps 4 minutes, but without the active process of thinking, there is no hope that any man could survive for long. This is how we evolved. Turtles have shells, tigers have teeth, humans have a well developed cerebral cortex.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by Akka

FIRST QUESTION : What, in Rand's ethics, make stealing/raping/murdering/plundering/etc. unethical ?

Inalienable rights are the core of the ethics. You cannot rape, pillage and plunder without violating the rights of another man. Bark if want to talk about rights some more.

Originally posted by Akka

FIRST QUESTION, SECOND PART : How, starting with "what's good for you is universally good", can you reach the "stealing is unethical", without any logical flaws nor arbitrary statements ?

I'm going to ask for some definitions from you, so I may be best able to answer your question. "What's good for you is good universally." What does "good" mean? I define "good" as something complimenting mans rational survival, thus anything I do good will always benefit everyone else. Stealing is unethical because it does not fit my definition of good, and is also violating the inalienable rights of others.

Originally posted by Akka

SECOND QUESTION : How can be universal, a morality that limits itself to a subjective point of view ?

You keep throwing around this word, "universal." I'm fairly sure this morality applies to man and man alone (or another conscious being that happens to drop us a line). For example, if a gorilla kills me in a jungle, my rights are not being violated no evil has been comitted.

Originally posted by Akka

THIRD QUESTION : How can you prove, without resorting on circular logic or arbitrary statements, that someone could not be happy by being unethical ?

Because every other rational being would dispise the unethical person and probably lynch him. I offer my example as the current state of the world. Though it does have its problems, and there are some especially sneaky criminals, you will note that the vast majority of people that choose to be animals end up getting ass raped by Bubba in a State Pen.