Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[ImaginalDisc]

?


Yeah, that's my understanding. I'm not sure how your opening proposition follows from this. Social anthropologists use logic to study and understand behavior. Ethics is a branch of philosophy. I'm at a loss as to how ethics suddenly is outside of logic. My philosophy teacher never told me that. I never read that from Singer or Kant. On the contrary, ethics appears to be quite suitable to logic and reason. It's not absolute. It's often not empirical but behavior can be observed. Inference can be drawn from those observations. Brains can be scanned.

I'm not talking about anthropology, sociology, or philosophy. I'm talking about biology. Altruism is a behavior common to all social animals. It's of genetic origin, not philosophical.

With all due respect, I think you clearly miss Rand's point. Of course you are free to do with your resources as you please. Rand is making an argument as to why altruism is problematic regardless of the reasons. Your examples bear this out. Perhaps we might choose one philosophy over another. We are capable of reason and some might argue that we have free will. If this is true then perhaps there is utility in choosing objectivist over altruism. Perhaps altruism is problematic as is demonstrated by the examples.

See above. Altruism isn't a philosophy. It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not talking about anthropology, sociology, or philosophy. I'm talking about biology. Biology is a behavior common to all social animals. It's of genetic origin, not philosophical.

See above. Altruism isn't a philosophy. It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do.

"Genetic not philosophical"? I don't even know what that means. I guess Cambridge had better change their curriculum Behavior and Philosophy. Damn, wont they be shocked. Isn't ethics also known as The Philosophy of Behavior?

Bees? You think that human behavior is the equivalent of bees? Really? That's all that there is? Social science, Social Anthropology all can be replaced with Ethology?

What do you mean "biology is a behavior"?

So, if I understand you correctly, we are slaves to whatever our biology compels us to do? Men are brutes to rape and kill if their biological instincts tell them to?

I'm really at a loss. This last year I have read Dawkin's Selfish Gene, Dennet's Freedom Evolves and Pinker's How The Mind Works (to mention recent works) and not once did I ever get the impression that behavior is entirely impervious to reason. Dennett, BTW, is a philosopher who dabbles in both human behavior and altruism quite a bit. I'm sure he will be quite disappointed to hear that it has all been a waste of his time. That human behavior is as fixed as that of bees.

Here's the real clincher, if it doesn't make sense, why does Dawkins et al spend so much time and effort studying behavior and altruism? Answer that one.

You seriously need to help me out because what you are telling me is counter to everythig that I have ever read on the subject. And I've read a lot.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Here's the real clincher, if it doesn't make sense, why does Dawkins et al spend so much time and effort studying behavior and altruism? Answer that one.

You seriously need to help me out because what you are telling me is counter to everythig that I have ever read on the subject. And I've read a lot.

Because it makes biological sense, not logical sense to rational actors.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2000/00000015/00000002/00235700

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/evolution-and-a.html

I do find it funny that even though evolutionary biology has long been criticized as an attack on selflessness and morality, it now seems as though it may be the only means of explaining those behaviors.

 

[RandFan]

Because it makes biological sense, not logical sense to rational actors.

ID, it can only make logical sense. It can't make any other sense. The universe only behaves in a logical sense. Biology and logic are NOT mutually exclusive.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/biph/2000/00000015/00000002/00235700

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/evolution-and-a.html

All perfectly compatible with my views and proof that altruism can be logically studied and understood.

I do find it funny that even though evolutionary biology has long been criticized as an attack on selflessness and morality, it now seems as though it may be the only means of explaining those behaviors.

Yes, and our understanding can help us shape and mold those behaviors. Which is why the moral zeitgeist no longer includes slavery and misogyny.

You never answered my questions. Here one or two with some additions.

1. Can humans overcome their biological behavior?
2. Why was slavery at one time acceptable but now considered immoral?
3. Why did humans act in a far more violent and brutish fashion than they do know?
4. Is there such a thing as a moral zeitgeist?
5. Isn't possible that we can employ reason and overcome our biological impulses?
6. Is it possible that you could answer my questions and stop being obtuse?

 

[Schneibster]

It has all the marks of what in science would be pseudo-science. If there is such a thing as pseudo-philosophy, this is it.

Naaaaiiiled it.

 

[Kerberos]

I hate it even more when get all agreeable and reasonable. You did this in another thread awhile ago and it bothered me. Argh.

Yes, Radfan is terrible like that. I think we should start a petition to have him banned from the Politics forum.

 

[mhaze]

RandFan,

Altruism is not logical, it doesn't have to be. Altruism is a behavior social animals have evolved. It's as much as part of being human as having hands and a frontal lobe. Altruism is a natural behavior in which the fitness of the group is increased with some cost to the individual. Most of us are altruistic to at least some degree, doing something for others that costs us something. The reward is a sense of satisfaction. It's a very effective evolutionary trick our genes have played on us, and we, with our fairly advanced minds, have hijacked the vessel of altruism our genes were using and have begun to apply it to people with little to no relation to us.

If I consciously choose to perform an altruistic act of my own will, deriving satisfaction from it, who is Rand to object? My resources are mine to do with as I please. We're strongly inclined, partly for evolutionary reasons, to help our loved ones, our friends, and our communities before we help perfect strangers, but I can neither see anything wrong with that, nor can I see Rand's alleged compulsion in "the ethics of altruism" that appears to require us to apply some sort of Utilitarian rubric to our altruistic actions.

It's a rather flimsy argument to assert that Rand set up a strawman in the hypothetical quote I provided; as I have already noted, there are a dozen others, just in that chapter. I do not think the strawman argument has enough substance for me to go pull a couple more. You see the point she was trying to make, right?

Certainly I understand your comments about social behavior in animals, and this in turn implies that it is possible that we might be in agreement, but misunderstanding each other's use of phrases slightly.

As a means of clarification:

Rand would have been seriously opposed to "required volunteer activities" such as are promulgated both in our elementary and high schools, and in our colleges today. These are a simple example of the "hijacking of altruism" that she discussed.

Note one thing here. There is a difference between altruistic behavior as an individual choice and so called altruism imposed from a top down mode as a societal constraint. Animals do not know about rules imposed on them by the public school system last I heard....

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I
Rand would have been seriously opposed to "required volunteer activities" such as are promulgated both in our elementary and high schools, and in our colleges today. These are a simple example of the "hijacking of altruism" that she discussed.

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

 

[mhaze]

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

Rats.

I was hoping that by illustrating the true depth of Rand's sentiments, that would evoke total horror and create die hard enemies, who quaked at the thought of their precious social altruistic experiments indoctrinating our young being challenged, as opposed to people who had a vague and uncomfortable resistance to her hatred of altruism. And then and only then, could a battle rage between the truly enlightened and the degraded and corrupted cult of secondhanders.

Darn!

 

[RandFan]

It's a behavior of human animals just as much as making hives a behavior of bees. Whether or not it makes sense is irrelevant. It's what we're evolved to do.

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

My head is reeling, ok let's see what we got.

• Altruism is biological.
• Like bees making hives it's just what we do.
• Altruism doesn't necassarily make sense.
• Altruism is based on free choice and can't be something that one can be compulsed to do.

I realize that you won't answer my questions but I've got to ask them anyway because your posts raise so many questions.

If altruism is based on free choice then can't we use reason to help us make our choices?

 

[RandFan]

Opposing "required volunteer activities" is well and good, I do, too. However, that's because you cannot require altruism. Altruism is based on free choice, not compulsion.

Oh BTW, through peer pressure and social stigma we can compel people to act in altruistic ways.

We can look at various societies and see that some behave in more altruistic ways than others.

Jainist and Buddhist societies tend to act more altruistically.
In Jainist and Buddhist societies adherence to altruistic goals is paramount.
Muslim societies tend not to act more altruistically.
In Muslim societies adherence to law is paramount (see honor killings)

 

[mhaze]

Oh BTW, through peer pressure and social stigma we can compel people to act in altruistic ways.

We can look at various societies and see that some behave in more altruistic ways than others.

Jainist and Buddhist societies tend to act more altruistically.
In Jainist and Buddhist societies adherence to altruistic goals is paramount.
Muslim societies tend not to act more altruistically.
In Muslim societies adherence to law is paramount (see honor killings)

But in all fairness, Rand was a unique product of Russia--> America 20th century composite. Thus a individualist and capitalist.

Alternatively we could look at rice cultures, where in old times individual will had to be pretty much stomped out and behavior rigidly controlled - to get the crops produced, everbody had to perform their part, otherwise everybody died. Nile/Egypt, old China, Mayans. Rand would not have fit in those places very well...

 

[RandFan]

But in all fairness, Rand was a unique product of Russia--> America 20th century composite. Thus a individualist and capitalist.

Alternatively we could look at rice cultures, where in old times individual will had to be pretty much stomped out and behavior rigidly controlled - to get the crops produced, everbody had to perform their part, otherwise everybody died. Nile/Egypt, old China, Mayans. Rand would not have fit in those places very well...

Holly cow, I'm not on ignore.

Yes, I would very much agree with you about Rand being an individualist as a result of her background.

I would also agree that had Rand gone to another country other than the US her life and perhaps even her outlook on life would have been different.

What I'm not sure of is how this applies to my argument that altruism isn't simply a biological behavior that humans have no control over. That we can in fact mold and shape human behavior through reason. That altruism can and does create dilemmas. Should rich liberals live in mansions, fly in jets and stay in the finest hotels? What is the purpose of having so much money while so many people suffer? Social scientists tell us that wealth has a limited ability to inculcate happiness and well being. If this is true then why don't wealthy liberals give more of their money to the poor? Should they? Let's assume that they should, how much of their wealth should they give? Would doing so actually improve society? Is there a logical argument in favor of individuals seeking first to care for themselves and their loved ones?

Further, if we have the free will to be altruistic do we not also have the free will to forgo altruism? If we, through observation and logic find that altruism is not always the best choice, given multiple choices, can we choose an alternate? Can we not devise a philosophy that would give humans the tools that would best help them make decisions about charity, self interest and the balancing of the two?

Are these questions that can even be answered? Does altruism, being a biological behavior, preclude the asking of such questions? At least one inquiring mind would like to know.

Yes, these are pesky questions that no one wants to answer. Sorry folks. It's just my way.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

My head is reeling, ok let's see what we got.

• Altruism is biological.
• Like bees making hives it's just what we do.
• Altruism doesn't necassarily make sense.
• Altruism is based on free choice and can't be something that one can be compulsed to do.

I realize that you won't answer my questions but I've got to ask them anyway because your posts raise so many questions.

If altruism is based on free choice then can't we use reason to help us make our choices?

Sorry, I'm not trying to avoid you're questions, I'm just really not feeling well this weekend. I'll go back and go through your questions on Monday.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, I'm not trying to avoid you're questions, I'm just really not feeling well this weekend. I'll go back and go through your questions on Monday.

Thanks, I apologize for being impatient.

 

[mhaze]

Holly cow, I'm not on ignore.

Yes, I would very much agree with you about Rand being an individualist as a result of her background.

I would also agree that had Rand gone to another country other than the US her life and perhaps even her outlook on life would have been different.

What I'm not sure of is how this applies to my argument that altruism isn't simply a biological behavior that humans have no control over. That we can in fact mold and shape human behavior through reason. That altruism can and does create dilemmas. Should rich liberals live in mansions, fly in jets and stay in the finest hotels? What is the purpose of having so much money while so many people suffer? Social scientists tell us that wealth has a limited ability to inculcate happiness and well being. If this is true then why don't wealthy liberals give more of their money to the poor? Should they? Let's assume that they should, how much of their wealth should they give? Would doing so actually improve society? Is there a logical argument in favor of individuals seeking first to care for themselves and their loved ones?

Further, if we have the free will to be altruistic do we not also have the free will to forgo altruism? If we, through observation and logic find that altruism is not always the best choice, given multiple choices, can we choose an alternate? Can we not devise a philosophy that would give humans the tools that would best help them make decisions about charity, self interest and the balancing of the two?

Are these questions that can even be answered? Does altruism, being a biological behavior, preclude the asking of such questions? At least one inquiring mind would like to know.

Yes, these are pesky questions that no one wants to answer. Sorry folks. It's just my way.

Actually, easy to answer. For various reasons, we've got lots of stuff in the gene pool. You might call it a rich repository of behavioral imperatives.

We've got psychopaths, sociopaths. The makings of eminent politicians right there. Rapists and serial killers. Without which, our literature and movies would be lacking essential plot material. And those inclinations toward altruism, subverted by the previously mentioned categories of humans...

 

[RandFan]

Actually, easy to answer.

Cool, I look forward to the answers.

For various reasons, we've got lots of stuff in the gene pool. You might call it a rich repository of behavioral imperatives.

We've got psychopaths, sociopaths. The makings of eminent politicians right there. Rapists and serial killers. Without which, our literature and movies would be lacking essential plot material. And those inclinations toward altruism, subverted by the previously mentioned categories of humans...

Yes, all very interesting. Now, about those answers...

 

[Cain]

Never mind! A quick google leads me to Wikipedia and I quote below. You will note the differences explicitly stated between her political views and her personal views. Bold is mine.

Thank you for highlighting this most arbitrary difference in a desperate effort to put a favorable spin on Rand's odious views.

It would appear that contrary to your assertions, she was a supporter of individual rights...

By all means please substantiate this claim, if you can. I merely noted -- correctly -- that she found homosexuality disgusting, a consequence of "psychological corruptions." I wish I had remembered the line involving false "premises," which is the sort of thing no sane person could ever fabricate. In any case, I discussed her views and habits in the context of her "scholarship."

From _The Virtue of Selfishness_, as quoted by mhaze:

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him.... In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

As I've said in previous threads on this topic, Rand's confusion/straw man is a basic one. Altruism vs. egoism is not about pursuing the highest values in one's hierarchy of values, but a question involving *what* to value, a point often lost on her followers. Rand is using loaded terms.

---

With regard to the rationality of egoism vs. altruism, it always amuses me why people take the former for granted. I'm guessing most have probably never given it more than five minutes of serious thought. What's so rational about benefiting oneself? Why does it "make sense" in the context of morality and rationality -- not biology -- to perform actions that benefit oneself over others? More often than not, it's completely arbitrary. This is what I find so troubling -- and fascinating -- about so-called "Objectivism" -- the fact that egoism is a subjectivist doctrine. Even more hilarious is how many "Objectivists" will say "Man is an end in himself" -- which is not at all consistent with the spirit of egoism. Many "Objectivists" are surprised to learn that line either originated with, or was popularized by, Kant (and it actually makes sense in the context of his duty ethics). Randroids will demand, in language similar to the demands seen above, that I produce the relevant Kant quotes, which has never been too difficult.

Egoism is a morally arbitrary doctrine. At least with a morality incorporating altruism you have people who strive to assume a rationally neutral point of view.

 

[mhaze]

Cool, I look forward to the answers.

Yes, all very interesting. Now, about those answers...

Okay, since you insist.

Rand was very strict in her method. It was the individual, and the society. Very, very rarely did she discuss issues of say - family units. Had she done so, that would have superficially thrown a wrench in the works, but not really. You are close to asking questions about the nature of relationships in a family, proper or improper, and this is a Rand stayed clear of. Rather she looked at the relationship of the individual to the larger culture.

I believe that Rand would have said (and of course paraphrasing never really works) that numerous attitudes and behaviors proper within a family or intimate relationships are improperly and by way of manipulators applied to the society at large, and at that point they contribute to dysfunction, corruption and inefficiency.

 

[mhaze]

Thank you for highlighting this most arbitrary difference in a desperate effort to put a favorable spin on Rand's odious views.

By all means please substantiate this claim, if you can. I merely noted -- correctly -- that she found homosexuality disgusting, a consequence of "psychological corruptions." I wish I had remembered the line involving false "premises," which is the sort of thing no sane person could ever fabricate. In any case, I discussed her views and habits in the context of her "scholarship."

Well, I will just repeat the quote again. You want references?

"I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government.

Now you mentioned two or so cases where she was asked about her personal opinions on the subject. In interviews. She answered she didn't like it, etc. My point - substantiated - is that she was an early supporter of gay rights, and very serious about it.

Your point is what, exactly??? That she was not?

Yes or no please.

With regard to the rationality of egoism vs. altruism, it always amuses me why people take the former for granted. I'm guessing most have probably never given it more than five minutes of serious thought. What's so rational about benefiting oneself? Why does it "make sense" in the context of morality and rationality -- not biology -- to perform actions that benefit oneself over others? More often than not, it's completely arbitrary. This is what I find so troubling -- and fascinating -- about so-called "Objectivism" -- the fact that egoism is a subjectivist doctrine. Even more hilarious is how many "Objectivists" will say "Man is an end in himself" -- which is not at all consistent with the spirit of egoism. Many "Objectivists" are surprised to learn that line either originated with, or was popularized by, Kant (and it actually makes sense in the context of his duty ethics). Randroids will demand, in language similar to the demands seen above, that I produce the relevant Kant quotes, which has never been too difficult.

Egoism is a morally arbitrary doctrine. At least with a morality incorporating altruism you have people who strive to assume a rationally neutral point of view.

My apologies, but I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at in these two paragraphs.