A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Dinwar]

Are you saying there is a pre-conscious rational evaluation happening?

In Objectivist terms, it's called a subconcious internalization. It's also called Type 1 reasoning in the YouTube video "Straw Volcanism". You can find it hard to believe as much as you want, but this sort of process is well-established in humans. If you want to argue against that process, find out who gave the Straw Volcan talk and take it up with her. She's much better versed in this than me.

...how is the feeling generated?

A subconcious evaluation based upon internalized value judgements. It's the same process, fundamentally, that allows you to read a word without thinking about the letters in it: you've done it so often that you just do it without thinking about it. The reasoning isn't post-hoc, it's merely internallized.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Most values are generally shared, within a range. But even with something as fundamental as food we can see differences in individual valuation. I value squirrel quite highly as a foodstuff, while others find it an actual disvalue, for example. Marx is, therefore, demonstrably wrong in his theory of value. And that's just one refutation; there are innumerable others.

I can't argue Marx. Heck, I can't even argue Objectivism, all I'm doing is learning here. For my point though, I think all that is required is the highlighted part. My standard only requires the "generally shared" part, not the specific, "this more than that" part. Ranking is a separate issue.

I understand there is a problem, the same one I would have if I were to try and define insanity based on population statistics. But that's the bed I made, so I'll sleep in it.

Would you agree that morals are about the interactions between humans? I mean, the no man is an island bit? I might have slipped that in without checking.

 

[marplots]

In Objectivist terms, it's called a subconcious internalization. It's also called Type 1 reasoning in the YouTube video "Straw Volcanism". You can find it hard to believe as much as you want, but this sort of process is well-established in humans. If you want to argue against that process, find out who gave the Straw Volcan talk and take it up with her. She's much better versed in this than me.

A subconcious evaluation based upon internalized value judgements. It's the same process, fundamentally, that allows you to read a word without thinking about the letters in it: you've done it so often that you just do it without thinking about it. The reasoning isn't post-hoc, it's merely internallized.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

 

[Akri]

Are you saying there is a pre-conscious rational evaluation happening?

Sort of. Our brains are capable of recognizing things without us being consciously aware of them. For instance, your ears can be picking up sound vibrations without you being consciously aware of them, which is why you can be in a crowded room and yet only be aware of what the person you're with is saying. It's not that you aren't hearing all the other voices, it's that you're not paying conscious attention to them. But if one of those people says your name you're likely to notice, even though you were not consciously paying attention to what those people were saying or deliberately listening for your name.

My view is that the impulse or reaction comes first, is unbidden and hidden, and the reasoning comes post-hoc.

I recommend looking into cognitive-behavioral therapy, which is based on the opposing premise. You'll probably get better explanations that way.

 

[Dinwar]

My standard only requires the "generally shared" part, not the specific, "this more than that" part. Ranking is a separate issue.

Actually, the "this more than that" part is the one where inconsistencies occur. Most people don't value a shirt above their child, but it'd be hard to find two people that hold the same shirt at exactly the same value. Those small-scale variations are what allow trade to occur. In a free trade, at least at the time of the trade, both parties have actually come out ahead. I've traded something for something else that I value more, and so have you.

Would you agree that morals are about the interactions between humans?

No. Interactions actually are what make immorality possible. If you were on a deserted island, you would be required to live 100% morally, under penalty of death for even relatively minor transgressions. Eat your stock seed and you die. Poop near your water source and you die. Don't build a proper shelter and you die. Leave your keys in the car and you can die if the door locks (speaking from experience here--I didn't die, but if my cell phone hadn't held its charge it would have been touch and go). All of these are voluntery actions, and as ethics is the study of how one should act they fall within that realm. Actions which do not are those which are irrelevant (there are some) and those not open to choice (you WILL, eventually, poop--it's the "where" that's voluntery).

In a society one's errors are mitigated by others. You can ignore sanitation because others care for it. You can ignore the concept of stock seed because others shoulder that burden. The burden is still there, it's just diffused. Most don't even notice it. Many do, and there's money to be made there. "Water for People" is a great example (a charity even Objectivists can get behind). But my point is, the only reason you can ignore these issues is because someone else is taking care of them. Society, not the wilderness, permits immorality.

ETIQUET is only required when dealing with others. This gets into optional vs. required values. If you want to live, you are required to eat. Whether you eat with chopsticks or a fork, or with your bare hands, is optional. But that's another issue.

I mean, the no man is an island bit?

I don't agree. I mean, very few ARE islands in this day and age--but society isn't necessary, merely convenient. I grew up around people who could easily have lived off the land if no one were around. Oddly enough, they were more greatful for the existence of society than most people who are abjectetly dependant upon it.

 

[Dinwar]

For instance, your ears can be picking up sound vibrations without you being consciously aware of them, which is why you can be in a crowded room and yet only be aware of what the person you're with is saying.

A few anecdoates to illustrate the power of the subconcious:

I've held multiple conversations that never touched my concious mind. I was doing something, lost in thought, and someone would come up and ask a question. Conciously I never stoped working on the first thing--I don't even remember having these conversations. But considering at least one was recorded, apparently I do! And we're not talking "Where's the bathroom", but some pretty detailed technical questions.

I've also encountered very powerful recollections of different events, for no apparent reason. Then I look at my surroundings, and realize that I had a fleating glimps of something, or caught a brief oder, or heard a few notes without registering them, that triggered the memory.

 

[Jontg]

I don't agree. I mean, very few ARE islands in this day and age--but society isn't necessary, merely convenient. I grew up around people who could easily have lived off the land if no one were around. Oddly enough, they were more grateful for the existence of society than most people who are abjectly dependent upon it.

What do you do for a living? And how about these self-reliant acquaintances of yours, what did they do?

 

[Dinwar]

Aren't these the same thing?

Not really. According to Myriad O'ists start with the premise "Social wellfare is evil" and build their philosophy from there--regardless of the validity of the premise. In at least my case (I can speak for no others, since I'm not inside their heads), I started with the question "What is ethics?" I didn't become an Objectivist because I hated social programs--again, I have a lot of relatives active in volunteer organizations and have put my life on the line to help others on multiple occasions. I became an Objectivist because I concluded that the philospohy was right (well, actually because I learned that someone had already created the philosophy I held and that it had a name--again, far as I'm concerned, Rand agreed with me, not the other way around, on most things). The conclusion that social programs such as Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, et al. are immoral stems from the premises of the philosophy--it was certainly not my starting point.

Also, to be honest I have little respect for someone who disagrees with a philosophy because they don't like the results. There's only one respectable reason to disagree with a philosophy: It is wrong. I don't disagree with Marxism because it leads to mass starvatoin and death; those are consequences of the flaws in the philosophy, and it's for those flaws that I reject it. I have never expected the world to be a nice place. It may be that the correct philosophy is a nasty, vile thing that causes untold suffering--it may even be that the proper philosophy requires your death. I've had to consider that posibility in the past. We must be brave enough to face reality as it is, even if it's uncomfortable, or even deadly. So no, I don't agree with Objectivism because it agrees with me. I agree with it because after a lot of thought and research it seems to hold true. Properly understood, it is logically consistent.

In other words, Argument from Consequences is still a fallacy. The proper criteria are: 1) Internal consistency (non-contradiction), and 2) agreement with the facts of reality.

(And no, I'm not going to defend the notion that O'ism is internally consistent and in agreement with reality. That's defending the philosophy. Far as I'm concerned, we're still at the point where I'm trying to convince people what the philosophy is. Once we're on roughly the same page there, THEN we can move on to analyzing it. You can't analyze what you don't know, however.)

 

[Dinwar]

What do you do for a living? And how about these self-reliant acquaintances of yours, what did they do?

I'm abjectly dependant upon society. I make no arguments otherwise--I've seen how well I'll survive in the wild, and the result was that I'd be dead before I got to water. I learned what I could, but much of it is inapplicable where I'm currently living (you need a LOT more rain than we get for my understanding of agriculture to be useful).

As for the self-reliant folks I know, they were by and large farmers who grew up back when horsepower meant "hitch up the team". They knew they could live off the land because they'd done it.

Remember: I never said that it was a GOOD living. And if you told them they had to live like that they'd flat-out kill you rather than submit. But they could do it.

Now a question for you: If you don't believe it's possible, how do you explain our current existence? Society such as we understand the term is relatively new, after all--it developed post-agriculture. Tribal, nomadic existence may have mitigated some of the problems of survival, but not many.

 

[marplots]

In Objectivist terms, it's called a subconcious internalization. It's also called Type 1 reasoning in the YouTube video "Straw Volcanism". You can find it hard to believe as much as you want, but this sort of process is well-established in humans. If you want to argue against that process, find out who gave the Straw Volcan talk and take it up with her. She's much better versed in this than me.

A subconcious evaluation based upon internalized value judgements. It's the same process, fundamentally, that allows you to read a word without thinking about the letters in it: you've done it so often that you just do it without thinking about it. The reasoning isn't post-hoc, it's merely internallized.

I found it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc

It was very interesting. I shall try to use the term "rational" more carefully. There are two problems off the top of my head.

1) She describes rationality (the type we are interested in) as "the method of achieving your goals, whatever they are" (6:00). But that's precisely what isn't addressed -- where do my goals come from? This is just a restatement of the "values" wording, using goals instead.

2) In order to internalize rationality as an heuristic (the type 1 reasoning) there would have had to be some "first condition" wouldn't there? It's this first instance or unique evaluation that I still stipulate is immune to the habitual mechanism. Using your analogy, it would be the first time I learned to read a word. Having not yet internalized the word, I am left to conscious effort to understand it. However, can I say the same about values and goals for even an infant? Do they struggle to decide whether they value the teat or a hug more? Are they forming values in the same way I must learn phonics to communicate? My premise is that the capacity for moral judgement, just like the capacity for language acquisition, is inborn, but value-setting is based on shared biology.

I won't ask you to defend her position and I find nothing to dispute in it, I just think it doesn't address the question at hand.

 

[Jontg]

Now a question for you: If you don't believe it's possible, how do you explain our current existence? Society such as we understand the term is relatively new, after all--it developed post-agriculture. Tribal, nomadic existence may have mitigated some of the problems of survival, but not many.

I never said it wasn't possible--but I doubt that it's in any way a good thing to live like that. We did for an awful long time, that's very true. We also married twelve-year-olds, exterminated entire populations, and viewed psychoactive chemicals as gateways to higher understanding.
History is kind of my thing, and if I've learned anything from my reading at all, it's that there's one narrative that continues more or less unbroken through the entire story of the human race: bigger and more open groups, more and better stuff, nicer and smarter people. If you travel back through time, you see incrementally more isolated groups of people, whose precarious lifestyles, competitive culture, and sheer ignorance* cultivates in them a progressively narrower and narrower definition of humanity--or at least a narrower range of people who they viewed as part of their group--and progressively greater hostility towards whoever falls outside it.

*This is compounded by a sort of intellectual starvation that also exists in most of these earlier cultures. Shorter lifespans and lower ages of majority seem to have a bad influence on a society well beyond the immediate population and workforce issues--for example, if you're familiar with Roman history, you'll remember that all the really infamous ones were less than twenty-five years old.

 

[Dinwar]

I never said it wasn't possible--but I doubt that it's in any way a good thing to live like that.

We are in agreement here. And those who are capable of living without society are, in my experience, far more agressive in their agreement than I am (I can't speak for you). I've never threatened to shoot someone over this issue.

But that's precisely what isn't addressed -- where do my goals come from? This is just a restatement of the "values" wording, using goals instead.

True enough, and it's an issue I struggled with for a long time. Your goals are, ultimately, derived from the pre-moral choice you make.

However, can I say the same about values and goals for even an infant?

This is a biology question. It depends on your definition of "instinct". I've always been of the opinion that instincts are sets of gross (meaning, not limited to one organ system) actions organisms (almost) invariably perform, even in the absence of a teacher--spiders spin webs, for example. Or, crocs will head towards a baby croc's chirping. For humans, these are limited to sucking and grabbing. Pretty much everything else is learned. That said, there can be some reasonable disagreement here. "Instict" is one of those concepts biology doesn't really handle well.

My premise is that the capacity for moral judgement, just like the capacity for language acquisition, is inborn, but value-setting is based on shared biology.

I disagree. I believe that the number of people who kill themselves via drugs is sufficient proof of the flaw in this argument. Also, while this argument may hold true in the most basic survival situations ("Do I eat or not?"), once options are introduced (ie, once you're old enough that Mom isn't your only food source) it no longer explains value judgements. Once you gain a semblance of autonomy you need to learn to make these judgements--even about those things that used to be automatic.

 

[marplots]

We are in agreement here. (snipped out some between)

This is a biology question. It depends on your definition of "instinct". I've always been of the opinion that instincts are sets of gross (meaning, not limited to one organ system) actions organisms (almost) invariably perform, even in the absence of a teacher--spiders spin webs, for example. Or, crocs will head towards a baby croc's chirping. For humans, these are limited to sucking and grabbing. Pretty much everything else is learned. That said, there can be some reasonable disagreement here. "Instict" is one of those concepts biology doesn't really handle well.

I should have mentioned I'm a materialist so I default to biology/chemistry for causes -- and tend to assume more than I know.

I disagree. I believe that the number of people who kill themselves via drugs is sufficient proof of the flaw in this argument. Also, while this argument may hold true in the most basic survival situations ("Do I eat or not?"), once options are introduced (ie, once you're old enough that Mom isn't your only food source) it no longer explains value judgements. Once you gain a semblance of autonomy you need to learn to make these judgements--even about those things that used to be automatic.

Excellent point and it shows up a weakness in my argument. I'm relying on some shared outcome for the black-box process, but I can't really justify it very well. Even when I and thee agree verbally on value, who's to know if we got there by the same path? I've also got too much of the ham-handed in my system, even the basic drives have exceptions (eat to live, don't eat to protest something).

 

[Dinwar]

I should have mentioned I'm a materialist so I default to biology/chemistry for causes

Instincts don't contradict materialism. They are emergent properties of biological systems, which are in turn emergent properties of chemistry. The issue is (and the point where I tend to get annoyed with physicists is), you can't understand emergent properties based on the systems they emerge from. Nothing in biology violates the laws of physics or chemistry, but if that's all you know you'll never understand how a cell works, much less an organism.

 

[marplots]

Instincts don't contradict materialism. They are emergent properties of biological systems, which are in turn emergent properties of chemistry. The issue is (and the point where I tend to get annoyed with physicists is), you can't understand emergent properties based on the systems they emerge from. Nothing in biology violates the laws of physics or chemistry, but if that's all you know you'll never understand how a cell works, much less an organism.

Exactly, but I have the reductionist bias and tend toward elementalism.

With that in mind, what do you think of General Semantics? I'm about a third of the way through Korzybski's 1933(?) edition of Science and Sanity. Does he ever make a good enough case to use in practice?

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not familiar with the theory or the work, so I can't comment.

I CAN say that Objectivist epistemology is in agreement with taxonomy (not just biological taxonomy, either--the Pluto debate shows what happens when you screw up your epistemology).

 

[AlBell]

...

Not really. I'm asking you to prove that the two are separate. YOU are making the claim. I'm not--I'm saying morality is able to be rationally derived from axiomatic statements (with the understanding that axioms are those statements which an opponent must accept in order to refute them). So I'm essentially arguing that morality is always something humans figure out. There is a standard against which they can be measured, but all human moral codes are products of human minds.

AIUI, ethics is the group, social, basis that an individual's moral choices and behaviors are made within.

 

[Dinwar]

AIUI, ethics is the group, social, basis that an individual's moral choices and behaviors are made within.

Seems like competing theories for the origins of the same concept, rather than two different concepts.

Ayn Rand went with Aristotle's (or at least her understanding thereof--she acknowledged that it's impossible to definitively know what he wrote and what was merely attributed to him) definition of ethics: the study of how one should act. this can encompass both options, and in fact Rand addresses them. What your'e calling ethics is what she calls being second-handed.

 

[Merton]

I'm not sure I can imagine how this would work (Gaetan represents the most consistent view of libertarian socialism I've ever seen). I'd rather not straw-man your position; could you please give a brief explanation as to how you can have libertarian socialism?

I haven't interacted with Gaetan, but have noticed a couple of the topics he has started. From my understanding, he is a communist, which I would argue goes too far with its denunciation of currency. Regardless, the major points of libertarian socialism revolve around one's conception of property (see below).

My initial thought: If non-private entities control the means of production (which, by the way, necessarily must consist of land, resources, machines, etc.--all things that could, without that designation, still be owned) the system would quickly degrade until a small handful of people made the decisions. At that point, to say they don't own it is mere sophistry. Again, I don't believe the USSR was a violation of Socialist principles, but rather a necessary consequence. Nature abhores a vaccuum, and a power vaccuum is no different than a physical one in that regard. The only way to make sure absolutely no one controls the means of production is to make sure there's nothing to control; otherwise, SOMEONE has to make the decisions.

This is why I asked about the justification for property in conjunction with that of capitalism; we libertarian socialists think that one can use something without owning it. I think the common conception of property today is what Marx called "bourgeois property" and what Proudhon and Bookchin called proprietorship as opposed to usufruct: ownership will always belong to the original appropriator until he or she voluntarily parts with it, regardless of whether the (real) property in question is occupied or labored upon. The common criticism here is that this allows the obscene accumulation of wealth by first rewarding proprietors for the labor of others and then allowing them to keep this wealth within their family or social circles through inheritance. This conception of property also assumes that one has the moral authority to "abuse" his or her possessions, up to and including their destruction.

Socialists reject this kind of proprietorship in favor of usufruct: one "owns" natural resources only insofar as they are actively engaged in their use without destroying them. Once the usufructuary no longer uses the resources (due to death, relocation, etc.), they are available to others. Products of labor are considered personal property (as opposed to private property) and belong to the person or people who caused their creation. I should also note that socialism is a broad category of economic systems, so some socialists will reject currency while others accept its efficacy. Hopefully, though, this explanation will suffice for our purposes.

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by your response: you don't like socialism because it necessarily leads to capitalism, whereas if you start with capitalism... profit??? Maybe with the explanation of property above, you can clarify this for me.

Also, I'm still not sure how rational self-interest engenders inviolable rights. Suppose, for example, we have a small society of 100 people, 99 Objectivists and a communist. The communist is constantly complaining about property and money, which everyone else finds annoying at best and costly at worst. Why does the communist have any rights? Why not just kill him and rid society of someone who is wasting everyone's time? Why would any minorities have rights when it's possible to subjugate them?

 

[Akri]

I'm skipping the part about property because I'm not sure I understand the issue well enough to give a decent response.

Also, I'm still not sure how rational self-interest engenders inviolable rights. Suppose, for example, we have a small society of 100 people, 99 Objectivists and a communist. The communist is constantly complaining about property and money, which everyone else finds annoying at best and costly at worst. Why does the communist have any rights? Why not just kill him and rid society of someone who is wasting everyone's time? Why would any minorities have rights when it's possible to subjugate them?

One argument, which comes purely from self-interest, is that there is never a guarantee that the 99 Objectivists will always agree on everything. If one of those Objectivsts decides he likes to practice the bagpipes in his front yard, then there's already a precedent saying the other 98 are allowed to kill him. The bagpipe player has no grounds to object to his own murder if he was willing to accept the murder of the communist. Either rights apply to EVERYONE, or you can't trust that they'll be applied to you.

Another reason is that silencing people who have opposing views is harmful to society. If the opposing view turns out to be right (which is always at least a small possibility, since no human is incapable of having an incorrect view) then silencing the person espousing it means ensuring that you remain wrong. And if the opposing view is incorrect the person arguing for it still may raise legitimate issues with the prevailing view. If want to mitigate the risk that what you believe is wrong you must allow open challenges to ideas. (For an in-depth look at this argument from a historical perspective check out "A History of Freedom of Thought". I believe it's available through the Gutenberg Project. It can be a tad dry, though).