A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[marplots]

Please define "collectivism" and "individualism" so that I can know exactly what you're arguing with this post.

Collectivism, the belief that better overall outcomes will flow from a group effort. A sense of acting toward the larger good and of sacrificing my own goals when they conflict with the group's.

Individualism, the belief that a better overall outcome for me comes from a separation from group goals and prioritizing my own. It also ties into ideas about self-sufficiency as a good and self direction as worth more than accepting outside norms.

That's off the cuff, so please shape those descriptions as you will to tighten them up. Otherwise, I'll have to actually look these things up and I'm too lazy to do it.

 

[Akri]

Collectivism, the belief that better overall outcomes will flow from a group effort. A sense of acting toward the larger good and of sacrificing my own goals when they conflict with the group's.

Individualism, the belief that a better overall outcome for me comes from a separation from group goals and prioritizing my own. It also ties into ideas about self-sufficiency as a good and self direction as worth more than accepting outside norms.

That's off the cuff, so please shape those descriptions as you will to tighten them up. Otherwise, I'll have to actually look these things up and I'm too lazy to do it.

Thanks.

So given the above, it seems that your earlier post is arguing that individualism is bad because it ignores the benefits that the individual has gotten (or could get) from being part of a group. Correct?

Objectivism doesn't hold to the idea of individualism that you're using. Yes, a person should be primarily concerned with their own interests, but if working with a group helps further those interests then the individual should do so.

 

[Earthborn]

The Tragedy of the Commons is easily solvable: simply make sure property is owned by someone. When there's no "commons", there's no tragedy.

There are always commons; not everything is divisible into properties. And if the government does try to divide things into properties (for example by Cap-and-Trade) people start complaining that doing so constitutes a government regulation. And they're right, because it is. People also start complaining that it is a particularly complex form of government regulation, and that a pollution tax, limit or ban would have been much less burdensome.

You don't. Environmental laws should be taken off the books because they are gross violations of the rights of individuals,

If environmental laws are taken off the books, "real, demonstrable, objective harm occurs due to someone's negligence or malicious actions" is no longer a crime. If I pollute your property, what law can you refer to to show that I did anything wrong, if no such law exists?

Property rights in O'ism are absolute.

Another fail for O'ism. Nothing is absolute; certainly not some government regulation called "property rights".

We're not talking a few thousand dollars in fines; the courts may disband the corporation, or have the appropriate members of the company thrown in jail (it constitutes property destruction, same as if you firebombed the house).

You'd still need government regulations regulating what sort of things constitute "property destruction".

so you can't claim that this is a flaw in O'ism without claiming it's a flaw in every other system,

"Objectivism is just as flawed as any other system" is not a very good argument in favour of Objectivism.

 

[marplots]

Thanks.

So given the above, it seems that your earlier post is arguing that individualism is bad because it ignores the benefits that the individual has gotten (or could get) from being part of a group. Correct?

Objectivism doesn't hold to the idea of individualism that you're using. Yes, a person should be primarily concerned with their own interests, but if working with a group helps further those interests then the individual should do so.

Cool. So how do we handle what I think is the actual situation where it is beneficial to both participate in a group (and self-sacrifice) while sometimes operating as an individual? And to complexify it, we often do not know the results of either mode of operation, relying instead on general principles and a kind of default that says, "obey the group norms and standards unless you can see clearly that defection will be better."

It's this latter part that I think moves things into the realm of ethics. The setting the default mechanism based on principles. Like the labels of conservative and liberal, we are now into a hybrid gray area where someone "leans toward individualism" or "leans collective" instead of all or nothing.

Unless, and this is what I see in some of these conversations, arguing ethics necessarily throws out the pragmatic?

 

[Dinwar]

So her philosophy wasn't popularized by her fiction?

Popularized? Maybe. But then again, it could be said to have been popularized by Bioshock, and socialism could be said to have been popularized by Animal Farm. None of those address the actual meat of the philosophy, and if all you know about socialism is Animal Farm, yet you start ranting that socialism is evil, you're going to come off sounding extremely ignorant.

If environmental laws are taken off the books, "real, demonstrable, objective harm occurs due to someone's negligence or malicious actions" is no longer a crime.

It's obvious that you're ignoring my posts, and intentionally misreading them. If you had read them with the intent to see what I'm saying, rather than looking for a reason to dismiss them, you'd see that you're wrong. The violation of property rights that is necessarily a component of any valid environmental legislation would be of much greater importance than it is now, and would cover any actual harm done via haz waste releases.

 

[Dinwar]

So how do we handle what I think is the actual situation where it is beneficial to both participate in a group (and self-sacrifice) while sometimes operating as an individual?

Rational self-interest. When it's in your best interest to act in conjunction with others, you do so. It's not wrong, for example, for my father to be a volunteer fire fighter--he sees a legitimate need, and works with others to meet that need. It's not a self-sacrifice, either, because it's a value he has chosen. Even if no one else benefited from it, the study of fire and how to mitigate its impacts is a value to him. The companionship he derives from it is a real value to him. The fact that he's literally saved innumerable lives is a side issue, as far as O'ism is concerned.

Similarly, it's not wrong for my cousin to be a cop. He sees a legitimate need, and he obtains value from the activity. The fact that he helps the entire community is a side issue, an irrelevancy.

It's this latter part that I think moves things into the realm of ethics. The setting the default mechanism based on principles.

Diana Hsieh discusses this in her discussion of eitquet and manners. In brief, when there's an objective justification for some otherwise arbitrary rule, you should follow it. For example, driving on the right hand side of the road is an arbitrary choice; we could have driven on the left just as easily. But since doing so now would cause death and destruction, it's objectively wrong to do so. Or, when you get to a door the women go first. It's arbitrary and a throwback to an older and improper way of thinking, but it also serves the purpose of facilitating social interactions. A buddy of mine in college demonstrated this: we'd open the doors for eachother, alternating who opened what. When we got to the top of the stairs in the dorm, we were dead even--so we had to devise a way to pick who opened the door. A bit absurd (we acknowledged that at the time), but it's an example to illustrate the inherent absurdity of an arbitrary rejection of all social norms.

More generally, the issue you're failing to see is the difference between necessary and optional values. Necessary values are those that are required for life. You MUST eat, or you die. Optional values are those that aren't. You must eat, but WHAT you eat is open to a wide variety of choices. I like potroast. You may prefer ham. I like a good glass of Jameson, while my wife prefers taquila. Etiquet is the realm of optional values in a culture. Every culture needs to answer certain questions, such as how to handle trade, which side of the road to drive on, the mechanisms of the government, etc., but what those answers are is up to the culture. It's not collectivistic, it's merely an acknowledgement that we need certain common principles in order to function, and it's in your best interest to abide by them.

(Yes, that's the brief version!)

 

[Akri]

^ What he said.

 

[Stamuel]

So far it seems the discussion has centered on those areas where Objectivism coincides with libertarian political philosophy. Libertarianism is not dismissed in philosophy. But it also is largely independent of Rand, who was neither its first nor its most articulate proponent. If we are trying to figure out why her work is not taken seriously by academics, that is part of the reason: the views that might be defensible, depending on how decision theory applied to real world circumstances plays out, are not original to her. Further, if we really want to assess whether extreme libertarian systems work, we need to study things like psychology of decision making and economic behavior, group dynamics, sociology, game theory and decision theory. I admit I have not read much Rand, but I am pretty sure she did not make any contributions to these fields. If this is right, any original contribution would most likely come from her moral arguments in favor of libertarianism.

Her view apparently was that the morally right thing to do is that which is in your self-interest. Plato (and/or Socrates) espouses this claim in Gorgias, but for him morality was the independent variable, and it was in your interest to be moral because morality makes your soul better or something like that. If I have Rand correct, she thinks self-interest is the independent variable and that something's being in your best interest makes it moral. This is hard to accept. If her claim was that the concept of morality is incoherent, or that there are no moral facts, so pursue your interests, it would make more sense. But to say that there are objective moral facts and it is objectively true that you are morally required to pursue your self interest, that is bizarre.

How does she argue for the view, if this is her view? I am still prepared to accept that she is unfairly dismissed, since I have not delved into the specifics of her arguments. But she better have some great arguments for this claim.

And how do we get from egoism to libertarianism anyway? I hope some Rand proponents can fill this in. Otherwise I'd have to find her philosophical books. Unappealing prospect.

 

[MontagK505]

Why didn't John Galt take Wesley Mouche's job?

He knew the "job" was an impossible contradiction and he knew he would fail at it as badly as Wesley Mouche.

 

[marplots]

Rational self-interest. When it's in your best interest to act in conjunction with others, you do so. It's not wrong, for example, for my father to be a volunteer fire fighter--he sees a legitimate need, and works with others to meet that need. It's not a self-sacrifice, either, because it's a value he has chosen. Even if no one else benefited from it, the study of fire and how to mitigate its impacts is a value to him. The companionship he derives from it is a real value to him. The fact that he's literally saved innumerable lives is a side issue, as far as O'ism is concerned.

Similarly, it's not wrong for my cousin to be a cop. He sees a legitimate need, and he obtains value from the activity. The fact that he helps the entire community is a side issue, an irrelevancy.

Thank you for a clear explanation. I clipped just this first part to address what I see as a fundamental problem. You might be able to clear it up.

When we are talking about "rational self interest" I thought I knew what that meant in measurable terms. But now, it seems as if you are saying that internally generated values can set the meter for the self-interest payoff. Which makes me think that underlying the rational bit is an irrational value setting exercise.

Even when (in the part I clipped) you distinguish between needs and wants, I am left wondering why, if self-generated values are the standard, an appeal to life itself isn't merely to a common value and one which I very well may not think much of? Are you claiming there are rationally generated universals hidden somewhere in there that I can base the rational part of my rational self interest on?

The meta exercise here for me is whether or not objectivism can be communicated to another (me) since it is, well, an appeal to an objective standard -- or do I have that wrong?

 

[Mister Agenda]

She didn't use "her own peculiar definitions of words". She was fairly diligent in pointing to where she got the definitions from, and in using the original definitions. She also justified her use of those original definitions, repeatedly. The fact that most people use the words very sloppily does not reflect negatively on her, any more than misuse of medical terms makes doctors who use them properly bad doctors.

Besides, name a single philosopher who hasn't done this to some extent. Philosophy is a dicipline with its own jargon. You may as well tell paleontologists they aren't rigorous because to them "character" is synonymous with "trait", not "part of a play".

Since I didn't claim she was misunderstood by people who read her carefully, I don't think my comment has been refuted. Like Spong, she is easy to quote out-of-context and without clarifying that her word usage in certain cases is uncommon, a word I cheerfully substitute for 'peculiar'.

Saying 'Ayn Rand was against altruism' is technically true because of the meaning she used, but she wasn't against charity, per se.

 

[Dinwar]

But it also is largely independent of Rand, who was neither its first nor its most articulate proponent.

This is another sign that someone isnt' familiar with Rand. She had a lot of things to say about Libertarianism, and I don't recall seeing a single positive thing on that list. The closest she came was "Please cite me where you use my ideas, then go off on whatever irrational flights of fancy you choose" (paraphrased).

O'ism has some similarities with Libertarianism, but an examination of both concepts reveals a rather gaping divide.

If I have Rand correct, she thinks self-interest is the independent variable and that something's being in your best interest makes it moral. This is hard to accept.

Morality is the study of how one should act. In order to answer the implied question, one must also ask "Why should we have a standard at all?" Your answer to THAT question sets up the answers to the first (implied) question. If your answer is "To live", that necessitates certain answers to how one should act--objective answers that can be tested. In O'ism, this is called a pre-moral choice.

And how do we get from egoism to libertarianism anyway? I hope some Rand proponents can fill this in.

You wont' find any. Only Libertarian proponents. Objectivists argue that the gulf is insurmountable, that Libertarians have stolen certain ideas and abused them horribly.

Otherwise I'd have to find her philosophical books. Unappealing prospect.

You'll get no sympathy from me. I slogged through Marx, theology, various socialistic philosophers, and am working my way through Kant. You can read a few short books by Rand. Knowing what your oponent said is a minimum standard for entry into a philosophical discussion (that's why I read those books). The fact that we're willing to help you out is merely us being nice--if you want to debate philosophy, it's your obligation to know what that philosophy is. It's not our job to teach you what the philosophy says, and a debate about the philosophy is not the proper venue for learning it.

If you want the short cut, read Galt's speach (it's in "For the New Intellectual" if you dont' want to read Atlas Shrugged). That at least gives an overview of the philosophy, if viewed through the filter of the events of the novel. The principles are applicable; the concrete application may or may not be, depending on what the specifics are.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Say companies A and B make the same product. Company A disposes of their toxic waste products responsibly, Company B dumps them in the nearest stream. Laissez-faire capitalism will favour Company B, as they will almost certainly be able to charge less than Company A and still make a profit. Are not those who buy the cheaper product saying "I got mine, screw you" to those who live by the stream?

This is the problem with any system which relies solely on individual self interest. The common good will always suffer, because short term individual benefits will always take precedence over long term collective harm.

Hm. The moral philosophy of Objectivism is rights-based, and carries the simple principle that your right to swing your fists around ends where other people's noses begin. A company has no right to harm other people with its pollution without compensating them, and laissez-faire capitalism makes no provision against civil suits for negligence or malpractice. The people who live by the stream can sue the offending company, and be awarded compensation by a jury of their peers.

 

[MontagK505]

Umm... I'm not sure what definitions you are using here, but collectivism is usually diametrically opposed to capitalism: the collective ownership of the means of production cannot exist at the same time as private ownership of the same.

As to the OP, I know some philosophy professors have taught her epistemology, but I don't think I've heard her ethics covered. When it comes to Ethics, I think there are much better philosophers out there (granted, I'm more of a Kantian) and this might explain why her beliefs don't receive much attention outside of her fiction novels. Also, as was mentioned before, the fact that her philosophy is expounded in fiction novels is extremely off-putting to academics.

By voluntary collectivism I meant there's nothing wrong with people acting collectively for a common goal. They may even temporary put aside their rights for a common goal. What I believe most Objectivists appose is the idea that the "good of others" gives people the right to screw you over.

I see objectivism as Ayn Rands attempt to give "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a philosophical founding. I think Objectivism needs more work.

Rand saw the Bolshevik revolution from the inside and witnessed the vile nastiness and complete destruction of the middle class, repeatably being justified by "The Common Good". This has to have a scarring effect on a person. This is why I find some of her detractors attempts to cast her as the epitome of evil as sourly amusing.
Yes, she had many faults, Objectivism has faults.
Howard Roark was unrealistic, so was Luke Skywalker. No need for them to get their panties in a knot over it.

 

[Mister Agenda]

What does Objectivism say about how to manage commons?

Respectfully,
Myriad

It says to sell them (or the rights to use them), and once they are in private hands, the owners will have an incentive to protect them. In such a scheme, someone could, say, buy the rights to fish a particular area of water in perpetuity, and thus would have an incentive not to overfish 'their' water. Of course, policing the boundaries of that water could be tricky.

 

[Earthborn]

If you had read them with the intent to see what I'm saying, rather than looking for a reason to dismiss them, you'd see that you're wrong.

I think the debate would be helped if you didn't come up with silly accusations and instead explain where I misunderstood you.

The violation of property rights that is necessarily a component of any valid environmental legislation would be of much greater importance than it is now, and would cover any actual harm done via haz waste releases.

If that's what you want, then you don't environmental laws "to be taken off the books". You want them to be much stricter. Environmental laws generally don't cover the actual harm done, because laws that might don't get passed; they're blocked by anti-regulation free-marketeers.

 

[MontagK505]

Isn't that a justification for collectivism?

Yes except Objectiviests don't' claim they have the right to rape others in the name of it.

 

[shuttlt]

Hm. The moral philosophy of Objectivism is rights-based, and carries the simple principle that your right to swing your fists around ends where other people's noses begin. A company has no right to harm other people with its pollution without compensating them, and laissez-faire capitalism makes no provision against civil suits for negligence or malpractice. The people who live by the stream can sue the offending company, and awarded compensation by a jury of their peers.

I'm getting confused. Situations keep being brought up where people do bad things and it is in their interests to pay for what they have done because of externally imposed consequences. Surely one of the places ethics comes in is when the possibility of doing bad things and getting away with it is available. If it's in my companies interest to pollute and I'm confident I can get away with it, perhaps because I don't think anybody will find out, or because I'm sufficiently well connected, what is the objectivist position on that? Is it good or bad ethically to harm other people if you can get away with it?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thank you for a clear explanation. I clipped just this first part to address what I see as a fundamental problem. You might be able to clear it up.

When we are talking about "rational self interest" I thought I knew what that meant in measurable terms. But now, it seems as if you are saying that internally generated values can set the meter for the self-interest payoff. Which makes me think that underlying the rational bit is an irrational value setting exercise.

Even when (in the part I clipped) you distinguish between needs and wants, I am left wondering why, if self-generated values are the standard, an appeal to life itself isn't merely to a common value and one which I very well may not think much of? Are you claiming there are rationally generated universals hidden somewhere in there that I can base the rational part of my rational self interest on?

The meta exercise here for me is whether or not objectivism can be communicated to another (me) since it is, well, an appeal to an objective standard -- or do I have that wrong?

That's a really good question, and I think the meat of Objectivism when it comes to ethics is that is says you don't have the right to prevent someone from doing something that doesn't harm someone else. An Objectivist probably wouldn't like to admit that their values and what gives them satisfaction can't be grounded in Objectivist philosophical issues, but ethically, under Objectivism, it doesn't matter why you vaue something, it matters whether you are compelled to act as if you value it when you don't.

 

[marplots]

Yes except Objectiviests don't' claim they have the right to rape others in the name of it.

Do collectivists claim this right?

How would you determine from the outside, whether someone was acting as a collectivist rather than an objectivist? Let's say you watch as a group of men arrest another and incarcerate him/her. Couldn't both systems lead to this same denial of another's right to freedom under the the rule of law using the power of arms?