A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Mister Agenda]

Thought experiment: Two genetic groups of human ancestors are competing for reproductive success and long-term survival.

Group one is the Defector Punishing group. They expect people to behave altruistically towards other in-group members, and they socially pressure people who don't behave altruistically. If you come home with an antelope and you eat it all yourself while others go hungry everyone throws dirt at you, even the people who also brought home an antelope.

Group two is the Defector Non-Punishing group. Some of them behave altruistically because they've evolved to do so or because they just feel like it, but there is no social pressure to be altruistic or punishment for not being altruistic. If you come home with an antelope and eat it all yourself while others go hungry everyone says "I/they should have been more bootstrappy, I/they don't deserve to eat tonight".

Which group do you think will be more successful in propagating its genes? What does this imply about the possibility of cases where animals evolved to force other animals to help each other?

Good point, it's pretty clear that 'defector punishing' is pretty instinctive, part of our innate, cross-cultural sense of fairness that gives us that 'hey, that's not right!' feeling when someone cuts ahead in line or takes more than their fair share of the pizza without asking if it's okay. O'ism may address this as social pressure being legitimate, it's been many years since I read the literature that closely, so I'm not sure.

 

[Mister Agenda]

But A = A !!! What's incredible to me is that some woman could type this dumb **** and then find people foolish enough to believe it.

The more faithful believers will insist on arguing metaphysics and epistemology, even though nobody gets into Rand's writings for her "contributions" in those fields. They get into "Objectivism" for the politics and the so-called ethics, usually through the emotionally charged rhetoric found in the novels, then retroactively justify their more narcissistic teenage impulses with the guru's more technical writings which, not coincidentally, were also published ass-backwards, starting with ethics and politics and then moving on to epistemology. But whatev.

Selfishness = benevolence
Kant = evil incarnate
Ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom, and war is peace.

Yet I started with her nonfiction and was particularly interested in her epistemology and elevation of reason. Granted, it was my first exposure to words like 'epistemology' and she was probably more accessible to a teenager than Kant would have been. She was my first exposure to ethical reasoning more complex than 'God said so'. I didn't stay an O'ist, possibly my idiosyncratic way of being introduced to it was a factor in that. I don't know of a convenient word for what I am now, I've just been influenced by additional philosophies, I suppose.

 

[RockNroll]

Above all, virtually all Objectivists, similar to right-wing Christians who preach against homosexuality but practice it in secret, don't take their life philosophy seriously enough. And if they don't take it seriously, why should we?

Somewhat reminds me of the amusing fact that all the libertarians I know make less money than me, and have all received far more "government handouts" than me over the course of their lives (I got student loans, which I quickly repaid in full, plus interest, after finishing college, and that's about it).

Yet, when I disagree with their religion, they still spout all the usual platitudes at me, weirdly implying that I'm a freeloading untermensch who just wants a handout, and that I would totally get their points if only I were a rugged individualist bootstrap-puller like them

 

[jimbob]

But the main problem is the conflating "is" with "ought".

In addition, the "is" is also inaccurate (but to me that is only secondary).

It might be fair to say that one of Rand's mistakes was in thinking she had successfully bridged 'is' to 'ought'.

How about:
one of Rand's mistakes was in thinking she had successfully bridged fiction to 'ought'.

 

[jimbob]

We seem to have dealt quite comprehensively with the lack of a compelling philosophical reason for Objectivism, so I'm going back to the questions as to whether it would create a world that I'd like to live in.

How does it deal with freeloaders?

I am in favour of the police as they do help keep the crime rate down. However, personally, the last time that I used their services was when a couple offered to give a talk at the scout group.

I can get the benefit of a low crime rate by relying on everyone else to pay towards a police force. Similarly, I can rely on the armed forces to defend the country even if I don't pay any taxes towards that.

The trouble is that if everyone does this, there will be no police or armed forces.

I suppose one could instigate a mandatory tax for these two institutions, but that is a non-objectivist approach, and also begs the question as to whether other public goods should be paid for in a similar manner, and leads to a pale imitation of the current system.

 

[Cain]

Ayn Rand vigorously opposed anarcho-capitalism but believed taxes should be voluntary. The solution? A state created lottery. Maybe also fees for services. Roy Childs wrote Rand an open-letter urging her to abandon small-statism.

Anyone who takes non-aggression/non-initiation of force* to its logical conclusion must believe in a free market of governments. Defense agencies. One of the most serious attempts to deal with this problem came from the philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued governments were probably natural monopolies. Nozick, however, would later back away from his "hard-core" anarchist-leaning libertarianism.

Though he believes despicable things, the economist and one-time Randian Murray Rothbard offers the purest, most consistent vision of a society that stems from the so-called non-aggression principle. He derided Nozick for attempting to trick deceive readers with a thought experiment -- "the immaculate conception of the state." I always liked Rothbard because he seemed principled. He was kicked out of Rand's collective because he refused to divorce his Christian wife. Pretty cool guy, until you get to the parts of his book where he says parents have the right to sell their children, even abuse their children (though children have the right to run away).

I now regret wasting my early twenties reading those mostly worthless works of political theory when I should have been learning guitar and getting laid.

 

[Sword of Apollo]

Rational self-interest is derived from the metaphysical view of all humans as equal in Objectivism. Note that this is metaphysical, not existential--meaning that we're all CREATED equal, and there's no human INHERENTLY superior to others. The principle of justice (ie, that actions have consequences) is sufficient to justify treating different people differently, based on their actions. So while humans are metaphysically equal, we are not equal in all things. (Bear in mind what Objectivism means by "metaphysical"--we're not talking mysticism here, but the nature of reality.)

Rational self-interest derives from the same roots: since all are metaphysically equal, there's no justification for sacrificing anyone to anyone else. Altruism presupposes metaphysical inequality. Rational self-interest does not.

Rights that cannot be violated also derive from this root, and amount to standards of behaviors that must be maintained in order for a society to say they recognize that all are metaphysically equal (again, justice demands we treat people differently based on their actions--until one acts, however, all are equal). On a deserted island morality is emphasized to a degree few of us can comprehend, but the concept of rights is inapplicable (you cannot, by definition, violate your own rights).

Rights and morality stem from the metaphiscal view of humans as created equal in Objectivism. Rights and self-interest are not derived from one another.

That said, rational self-interest demands we respect one another's rights. After all, if we don't it becomes a free-for-all, and even the victors in such a situation suffer horribly. African warlords may live like kings in their country, but their lives are much worse than a middle-class worker in the USA (and are frequently much shorter).

____ I disagree with this. Rational egoism and rights don't spring from the mere fact of equality, and this is not the Objectivist argument for either of them. After all, male lions are all metaphysically equal to each other in the same way that humans are, yet they aren't capable of rationality and don't abide by each other's "rights."

Rational egoism is the result when the principle of life as the standard of value, is applied to man. A sort of metaphysical equality (among basically healthy individuals) is merely an incidental result of the fact that all human beings need action based on rational thought to flourish, and the fact that all (basically healthy) individuals are capable of such rational action.

Rights derive from the specific nature of man as the species that survives by reason, not from the sheer fact of any sort of equality.

Here's a video I recommend on rights in Objectivism:

 

[marplots]

____ (much snipped)

Rights derive from the specific nature of man as the species that survives by reason, not from the sheer fact of any sort of equality.

Could I make the counter case that the specific nature of man is as the species that survives by altruism by way of refutation?

After all, is there any one of us who didn't suck at the teat of freebies for many years while we developed into whomever we are now?

 

[Sword of Apollo]

Could I make the counter case that the specific nature of man is as the species that survives by altruism by way of refutation?

After all, is there any one of us who didn't suck at the teat of freebies for many years while we developed into whomever we are now?

No. First of all, altruism is self-sacrifice, not helping other people or doing things that benefit them when they are truly valuable to you. Doing something for someone else's benefit, when it is ultimately for one's own benefit is not altruistic. A masseuse massages her client for her client's benefit. Does that mean she's being altruistic? No, because she is also benefiting from what the client pays her.

A man who's a chef by trade cooks dinner for himself and his wife, and she doesn't pay him monetarily for the dinner. Is he being altruistic? No, he benefits spiritually (psychologically) from having a nice dinner with his beloved wife.

The same should go for having children. If the future spiritual payment is not judged enough for the physical and mental effort, the couple should not have children. Having children shouldn't consist of creating people to sacrifice your long-term happiness to.

Now, acting as though you love strangers in the way you would love your best friend would be a sacrifice and would be altruism. Acting as though you love your enemies, as the Biblical Jesus taught, would be worse altruism. Mother Teresa was a genuine altruist. She destroyed her happiness in life for the alleged sake of others.

Human beings don't survive by destroying their own well-being.
Try sacrificing materially for another person when you haven't produced anything by action based on your thought. If you take goods from others, you are depending on their ability to produce based on reasoning. If no one thinks, you all get to starve together.

I recommend this article on the proper meanings of egoism and altruism:
Atlas Shrugged, Altruism and Egoism

 

[Dinwar]

To pre-empt the inevitable counter-point: Rand did not use a random definition of altruism. She used the proper one, and cited our sources. The common definition is wrong. Rand also explained why using the common definition is a serious error--it allows for equivocation between the common definition (which is often, but not always, in line with what Sword of Appolo is talking about) and the real one, allowing collectivists to equate helping others with the absolute self-sacrifice demanded by Communism and Christianity and the like. (yes, Christianity does demand that--read the Rule of St. Benedict to see why.)

 

[marplots]

I'm willing to admit I was using a common meaning for altruism and objectivism may have something else in mind. Which leads me to another question.

If I have sired a child but wish to have no contact and to separate myself from raising it, do I still have a duty to support that child? If so, why?

And can I shift the burden if I offer to pay for an abortion but the mother decides to keep the kid?

How does objectivism frame this situation? I know that the society I live in expects me to care for any child I create with no benefit to me, either immediate gratification or long-term expectations and society will force me to do so.

 

[shuttlt]

Surely if you define altruism as Sword of Apollo does, then you define it out of existence? I don't understand why there is the break in reasoning from motherhood to loving your enemies though. Any act that would normally be described as altruistic can be interpreted as being done to satisfy some personal goal/whim/desire/need if you unpick it enough. Something seems broken with this definition of altruism to me.

 

[marplots]

I posted my questions before I read Sword of Apollo's link, so now I have to take issue with what I found there.

The link does a good job explaining what altruism means, but I don't understand why existence requires a moral justification at all? We certainly do not demand a justification for the existence of other animals. Does this harken back to her premise about humans being noble and so on?

Further, in the examples cited, there is what I think of as a false separation between altruism and egoism, since I may act in my own self interest now so that I can act altruistically (and more effectively so) in the future.

Altruism gets the harshest, most robotic and functional treatment, while egoism is allowed a great deal of nuance. So that if I do not immediately kill myself to allow you more air to breathe, I am not a good altruist, while you may sacrifice as you see fit and still be an egoist (so long as your sacrifice feels good and hence has value to you).

The picture is one of a fleshed out being contrasted with a cartoon cut-out. I call foul on that.

 

[jimbob]

Surely if you define altruism as Sword of Apollo does, then you define it out of existence? I don't understand why there is the break in reasoning from motherhood to loving your enemies though. Any act that would normally be described as altruistic can be interpreted as being done to satisfy some personal goal/whim/desire/need if you unpick it enough. Something seems broken with this definition of altruism to me.

Indeed.

I'd disagree with Sword of Apollo's statement below:

Mother Teresa was a genuine altruist. She destroyed her happiness in life for the alleged sake of others.

Plenty of reasons why she wanted to help others.

 

[shuttlt]

If other threads on the forum are anything to go by she had a very specific and unusual idea in her mind of what it meant to help others, if that is indeed what she thought she was doing. I don't think she is a very good example to use.

 

[marplots]

Plenty of reasons why she wanted to help others.

Heaven as a happy ever after reward and obedience to God kind of ruins any notion of self-sacrifice for no gain. Unless you manage to live forever.

 

[shuttlt]

Indeed.
I'd disagree with Sword of Apollo's statement below:

Mother Teresa was a genuine altruist. She destroyed her happiness in life for the alleged sake of others.

Plenty of reasons why she wanted to help others.

I'm not sure it's so easy to link that all up. If indeed she destroyed her own happiness as a consequence of "helping others" I don't see that that makes it altruistic necessarily. If the claim is that she knew she would be happier following a different path, but freely chose not to... then perhaps.

 

[Dinwar]

Surely if you define altruism as Sword of Apollo does, then you define it out of existence? I don't understand why there is the break in reasoning from motherhood to loving your enemies though. Any act that would normally be described as altruistic can be interpreted as being done to satisfy some personal goal/whim/desire/need if you unpick it enough. Something seems broken with this definition of altruism to me.

Not our problem. Go to the philosophy that defined the term and complain to them. All Objectivists do is use the term honestly.

And if you abandon logic, you can define ANY action as doing something you want to do. I mean, you always have the option of killing yourself, right? So those people in the concentration camps WANTED to suffer! Yes, I know, Godwin'd and all that--but I'm proving a point. There's no difference between THAT argument, ridiculous as it was, and " Any act that would normally be described as altruistic can be interpreted as being done to satisfy some personal goal/whim/desire/need if you unpick it enough."

 

[marplots]

All that's really needed to flick the switch between altruism and egoism is to recognize that I am a person and allowing you, or even requiring you to help me puts you on the higher moral plane, something an altruist would want and the same result the egoist wants as well.

Maybe we should suspect something wrong in a formulation where switching the variables around generates the same answer?

I think there's another fundamental problem in egoism as well. How can I be assured that you are constituted as I am? I have no basis to recognize your rights at all, whereas the altruist needs you to have rights for their worldview to have merit.

In other words, I can be a good objectivist if I am the sole rational, human being amidst the zombie hoards, but I can't be a good altruist, having no one to fall on my sword for.

 

[Dinwar]

All that's really needed to flick the switch between altruism and egoism is to recognize that I am a person and allowing you, or even requiring you to help me puts you on the higher moral plane, something an altruist would want and the same result the egoist wants as well.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Maybe we should suspect something wrong in a formulation where switching the variables around generates the same answer?

Sure. The guy who defined "altruism" did so to make it impossible to practice fully. Kant further illustrated the impossibility of pure altruism. This makes morality, as defined by most of society, impossible to practice. Kant's work-around was to substitute arbitrary duties for moral principles. We can debate why, but that's the what.

How can I be assured that you are constituted as I am?

You've got eyes. Once you recognize someone as a human being, you assume they have the same rights you do. The only potentially problematic situation is if we encounter another sentient species.

If you can't recognize someone else as a human, you are mentally disabled (such recognition is hard-wired into human brains). If you refuse to recognize their rights, you're a fool, but as long as you don't act on those ideas you're not an immoral fool. If you violate their rights, you're a criminal.

In other words, I can be a good objectivist if I am the sole rational, human being amidst the zombie hoards, but I can't be a good altruist, having no one to fall on my sword for.

If altruism is the core of your morality, you necessarily must have others to sacrifice for. Since it's not the core of Objectivist morality, or even very important to the topic, it's entirely possible for an Objectivist to be moral as the only human being in existence--or in a vast and complex society.

Seems like that's a major flaw of altruism: the theory only functions around other people, and in how you deal with other people. It tells you nothing about how to act if you're alone.