James Randi and Objectivism

[MichaelM]

I have a question for the Objectivists. What do you do with sociopaths? There have always been people who put their own welfare above that of others. How do they fare in an Objectivist "utopia"?

This is two questions.

1) What should be done by sociopaths? The same thing that should be done about everyone else, namely if they apply that malady to force and violate the rights of others, the government will be responsible for stopping them and/or preventing them from such acts. So long as they do not harm others by force, nothing would be done.

2) Objectivists advocate rational selfishness, meaning that they must rationally assess the relative value of alternatives in respect to the long term contribution to or detraction from their life and never forsake a higher value for the sake of a lower value.

Thus if another person one values for whatever reason is in great need and one can afford to help them, to do so would be a selfish act for giving up the extra funds available to one in order to aid a person one values. But if that person was in need and you need all you money to keep your family housed and fed, it would be an irrational sacrifice to instead give that money to someone else just because they needed it.

Note also that Objectivism condemns the notion of "Utopia."

 

[dafydd]

Let us not forget that utopia means 'no place'.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

2) Objectivists advocate rational selfishness, meaning that they must rationally assess the relative value of alternatives in respect to the long term contribution to or detraction from their life and never forsake a higher value for the sake of a lower value.

Thus if another person one values for whatever reason is in great need and one can afford to help them, to do so would be a selfish act for giving up the extra funds available to one in order to aid a person one values. But if that person was in need and you need all you money to keep your family housed and fed, it would be an irrational sacrifice to instead give that money to someone else just because they needed it.

Great idea and let's set up an organization that can rationally adjudicate, using objective criteria, what is and is not a "rational sacrifice" (because otherwise greedy people will take advantage of this philosophy). We can give this organization a name. I suggest Government.

Note also that Objectivism condemns the notion of "Utopia."

Why does is do that?

 

[joesixpack]

Michael? You're still here? I thought you were ignoring this thread now.

 

[tsig]

Michael? You're still here? I thought you were ignoring this thread now.

I think he's given up responding and started preaching. That the usual reaction of True Believers when they find that nobody is buying their doctrine.

 

[MichaelM]

Let us not forget that utopia means 'no place'.

Yes, outopia means 'no place' and th homophone eutopia means 'good place.' The sense in which Objectivism condemns it is the conflation/double entendre referring to an ideal society that is unrealizable, because it does not and cannot ever exist. In one of the videos of Rand's talk show stints in the '60's, a show guest sings 'to dream the impossible dream.' When asked what she thought of the song, she said that the music expressed her sense of life beautifully, but the lyrics were diametrically opposed to her philosophy.

It is in that sense that Capitalism, Rand, etc are attacked as being Utopian. It is the false assumption of those who, like so many in this thread, have no idea what either are about. They assume that we are claiming that such a society would cause perfection of everything, an ignorant claim if there ever was one.

The best system men could possibly devise could never guarantee perfection, because an essential component of man's nature is volition—the universal capacity to choose at will to be right or wrong. So the Objectivist position is that, given the fact some will choose to be irrational, the best system is one that minimizes the ability of men to inflict their irrationality on others by force.

 

[hgc]

Right. Why would anyone ever accuse Rand of being a Utopian? It helps if you just whistle on past Galt's Gulch, eh?

 

[Bluto]

A couple of rhetorical questions (feel free to respond if so moved, though):

Being familiar with the religious sort of cults, I understand how those sort of believers explain their fearless leader's uncanny insight into all things Godly and wonderful. Their leader was simply chosen by God (usually due to said leader's remarkable humility and/or dedication) to bring His true message to a needy world. But how do non-theist cults explain their leader's superhuman capabilities?

And while I'm at it, how do you differentiate between the actions of "prime mover" Howard Roark and say, your garden variety, petulant five-year-old?

 

[ehcks]

Yes, seriously. There are more than too many greedy selfish people in the world. But they are not in the majority. If they were things would be worse than they are.

I learned this lesson personally traveling in third world countries. Most people are decent. Maybe if you don't know that you should get out more.

Everything that everyone does is in their own self-interest, even when that self-interest is in a personal feeling of pleasure, such as when you do something helpful for someone else.

No one intentionally does something they believe has absolutely no positive value to themselves. People may attempt to justify and rationalize their behavior for ages to find or even make up a reason it's beneficial, but once they know it's not they stop doing it.

Luckily, most people do find pleasure in helping other people. Some don't. We need something to prevent those few from destroying society for everyone else.

 

[Twiler]

MichaelM seems to have ignored all my questions. Or perhaps he's incapable of seeing them?

 

[Travis]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how we can distinguish sociopaths from objectivists.

They both are incapable of emotionally bonding with others.
They both see society not as something the belong to but something they can exploit.
They both would gladly see throngs of people killed if it benefited them personally.



The very fact objectivism exists is yet another black mark for humanity. I feel like throwing up every time I realize something this horrible exists.

 

[marplots]

A couple of rhetorical questions (feel free to respond if so moved, though):

Being familiar with the religious sort of cults, I understand how those sort of believers explain their fearless leader's uncanny insight into all things Godly and wonderful. Their leader was simply chosen by God (usually due to said leader's remarkable humility and/or dedication) to bring His true message to a needy world. But how do non-theist cults explain their leader's superhuman capabilities?

Simple. We worship genius. It is the atheist version of divine inspiration, without the divine.

 

[Travis]

Well you know, if that divine inspiration leaves you not caring whether people live or die and only about your own personal "freedoms" I'll take the alternative.

I would much rather follow an idiot who wants to help everyone than a genius who cares for no one.

 

[marplots]

Well you know, if that divine inspiration leaves you not caring whether people live or die and only about your own personal "freedoms" I'll take the alternative.

I would much rather follow an idiot who wants to help everyone than a genius who cares for no one.

Oh, me either. I generally like my geniuses to stick with whatever topic they are expert in. However, there is certainly a parallel I've seen on the forums and one I practice myself.

When Sagan says something pithy that isn't specifically about astronomy, I tend to think it wise because I admire the man. E.g.: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Sagan

That's philosophy, not astronomy, but it still sounds good to my ear. I'm biased because I admire the man for other reasons. Same for Feynman quotes and Einey quotes. Not quite cult status, but certainly a crack in my otherwise hardened cynical armor.

I could be wrong though. Maybe the quotes I see ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") aren't homage and just well known because the authors are well known.

I admit it isn't as culty as it could be either.

 

[Darat]

Oh, me either. I generally like my geniuses to stick with whatever topic they are expert in. However, there is certainly a parallel I've seen on the forums and one I practice myself.

When Sagan says something pithy that isn't specifically about astronomy, I tend to think it wise because I admire the man. E.g.: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Sagan

That's philosophy, not astronomy, but it still sounds good to my ear. I'm biased because I admire the man for other reasons. Same for Feynman quotes and Einey quotes. Not quite cult status, but certainly a crack in my otherwise hardened cynical armor.

I could be wrong though. Maybe the quotes I see ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") aren't homage and just well known because the authors are well known.

I admit it isn't as culty as it could be either.

Or does he just encompass something you already believe in? For example his oft quoted "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is quoted not because it was Sagan that said but that it encapsulates a specific view that you hold in a pithy and elegant manner. It wouldn't matter (to me at least) who had said it.

The difference I think between "Sagan worshippers" and "Rand worshippers" is that if you think Sagan was wrong it's a matter of "Oh well no one is right all the time", in the case of Rand it is more "Rand can't be wrong so how do we reconcile/explain this". It's the difference between apologetics and scholarship, one starts with "the truth" the other tries to find "the truth".

What we've seen in this thread from Rand followers shows no indications that they are trying to find the truth or develop an accurate model of the world so it is akin to apologetics. All we see is assertion after assertion based on assertions that Rand came out with, that is why we get the likes of "it is man's nature to X" with no evidence to show that there is any truth or accuracy in their premise.

One would have thought that "modern" objectivists if they were interested in the accuracy of their ideology would be studying behaviourism and other social sciences from economics to anthropology to see if their basic premises were in fact accurate. You'd also expect that there would be revisions in the basic premises their ideology purports to be founded on, otherwise we'd have to conclude that Rand was the greatest genus that ever that lived and is the first person to have come up with the absolute, unchangeable truth (as was her appointed successor). I've been searching over the weekend for evidence that is what they are doing but can't find anything that isn't apologetics rather than scholarship.

 

[marplots]

Or does he just encompass something you already believe in? For example his oft quoted "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is quoted not because it was Sagan that said but that it encapsulates a specific view that you hold in a pithy and elegant manner. It wouldn't matter (to me at least) who had said it.

I'd like to believe that is so, and it does make sense. But I distrust my own bias towards things scientists have said, over things politicians have said (for example). Here's how I catch myself doing it -- I hear the pithy phrase and in the one case (from someone I admire) I stop at the sense of it. For the others, I immediately try flipping it around and examining it for holes or missed stitches.

The difference I think between "Sagan worshippers" and "Rand worshippers" is that if you think Sagan was wrong it's a matter of "Oh well no one is right all the time", in the case of Rand it is more "Rand can't be wrong so how do we reconcile/explain this". It's a the difference between apologetics and scholarship, one starts with "the truth" the other tries to find "the truth".

I shouldn't have said worshipers, that's too strong. However, here's a Sagan quote I "forgave" (as an example): “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” I make that palatable by altering the common meaning of spirituality.

What we've seen in this thread from Rand followers shows no indications that they are trying to find the truth or develop an accurate model of the world so it is akin to apologetics. All we see is assertion after assertion based on assertions that Rand came out with, that is why we get the likes of "it is man's nature to X" with no evidence to show that there is any truth or accuracy in their premise.

One would have thought that "modern" objectivists if they were interested in the accuracy of their ideology would be studying behaviourism and other social sciences from economics to anthropology to see if their basic premises were in fact accurate. You'd also expect that there would be revisions in the basic premises their ideology purports to be founded on, otherwise we'd have to conclude that Rand was the greatest genus that ever that lived and is the first person to have come up with the absolute, unchangeable truth (as was her appointed successor). I've been searching over the weekend for evidence that is what they are doing but can't find anything that isn't apologetics rather than scholarship.

Yes, I got that sense as well. I've also felt the pull of a philosopher or two with a strong point of view. The trick for me was to read other philosophers with the same hunger. It always turns out that I most agree with the one I most recently read.

What I think is going on is that they develop a taste for the first deep thinker they run across and delve ever deeper into that twig on that branch, instead of trying a different place altogether. I think that also explains the way religion is transmitted across generations -- few really go on to be broad-spectrum theologians, they just take what their culture offers and that suffices. It is, after all, a lot of work to gain any expertise, I certainly don't claim much. The method is parsimonious and efficient. Learn enough to get the talking points and then quit.

The danger then becomes thinking that everyone else has done the same -- adopted one point of view and is only rehashing talking points. If you look at the responses, that's what appears to be happening.

Oh, by the way, my inter-library loan came through. Should have my grubby little mitts on Beggars in Spain later today.

 

[arthwollipot]

This is two questions.

No, it's just one.

1) What should be done by sociopaths? The same thing that should be done about everyone else, namely if they apply that malady to force and violate the rights of others, the government will be responsible for stopping them and/or preventing them from such acts. So long as they do not harm others by force, nothing would be done.

So the government will use force to stop them from putting their own welfare above that of others. And if they use force to try to resist the government using force? Don't we get a Waco situation here?

2) Objectivists advocate rational selfishness, meaning that they must rationally assess the relative value of alternatives in respect to the long term contribution to or detraction from their life and never forsake a higher value for the sake of a lower value.

Thus if another person one values for whatever reason is in great need and one can afford to help them, to do so would be a selfish act for giving up the extra funds available to one in order to aid a person one values. But if that person was in need and you need all you money to keep your family housed and fed, it would be an irrational sacrifice to instead give that money to someone else just because they needed it.

Okay, but this in no way addresses the issue of sociopaths. You just tacked it on. Hence, one question only, which you (partially) answered in your part 1.

Note also that Objectivism condemns the notion of "Utopia."

Okay, my apologies. That would be my ignorance.

 

[Cayvmann]

The entire history of capitalism is a record of the little guy getting more benefit from the most creative and productive while contributing less. And no matter how monumental the sums of money the producers earn, it can never equal the happiness that devolves from creating the values that move mankind forward. Doubt it at your own peril.

Mankind, the individual, or mankind, the collective?

Define moving mankind forward, if you mean the broader definition of mankind.

 

[Hellbound]

Dinwar:

Just a note, I specified the small town limitation in the original scenario...it wasn't an addition. But I do admit the example was contrived, and not intended to be directly realistic. However, I am going somewhere with it...please bear with me and don't take it too personal

From my example, everyone who has responded has basically come up with "roads would be communal property", or some derviation thereof. Fair enough, I can agree with that. That's essentially what we have today...the city government builds and maintans roads, using taxes collected fromt eh residents and/or tolls and traffic fines, whatever.

Now, let's expand the scenario a bit. Town A has it's community roads, that extend out to the next two towns (B on the east, and C on the west).

So suppose Town A decides to block the roads between B and C? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that town C has opened a new store that sells more cheaply than the stores in Town A (they're a larger town, so get advantages of scale). This is driving Town A's business to lower profits. So Town A gets together and places a large toll on traffic headed from Town A out the road that leads to Town C...enough to counteract any savings that would be had by people going to Town C.

Or, even worse, because it is their property, they simply don't allow anyone who isn't a resident of Town A to leave on the road to Town C.

Yes, Town B or Town C could build a road around, but roads are expensive. Adn they site were they are for a reason...they're geenrally built on the path that people need to travel, along the best route (inexpensive to build and relatively direct). So any secondary road is not as good as the original.

In this scneario, the person who is most productive (Town C's store) is penalized for that very fact by it's competitors. This type of practice is still common today, when there aren't laws covering it...not specifically with roads but with other aspects of manufacturing and sales. Many of the obvious ways to exploit it (such as blocking off roads) are illegal or unworkable under current law.

The onyl way around this thype of event that I can see is, again, communal roads, but now not just one town but extended to neighboring towns. And then again, the same type of thing can happen so you extend the communal property idea between regions, etc.

Basically, you'd end up with a national communal road system...much like the government does today with public roads.

So, the only difference I can see between this idea, and having government-run public roads, is that in the government model there are procedures and policies in place for the people to have a say (at some level) in the roads, and remove those running it if enough people think fail to live up to expectations or handle it appropriately.

In the O-ism scenario, this would be run by whoever happened to be in the contract handling roads, and there would not necessarily be any means of redress involved for grievences. Roads could be closed, allowed to fail, built cheaply, or tolled as a means to control various localities, or favorably influence allied businesses while harming others.

Basically, in a best case scenario I don't see how it would be any different from public roads, except you wouldn't call it's leaders "government".

Adn the same would hold true for almost any necessary public works: water, sewage, power, and similar.

For that matter, look at health care in the U.S. Would a completely free market actually improve this? Or would it simply make better medicine available to those who, by work, luck, or chance of birth, were able to afford it at the cost of letting the poor die?

This is the point I was heading towards: In a best case scenario, O-ism looks a lot like government with a different name. In a worst case scenario, those who have are rewarded more than those who don't, even if they start with the same drive and ability...and those who have can takes steps to make sure those who don't never can.

 

[MichaelM]

Mankind, the individual, or mankind, the collective?

Define moving mankind forward, if you mean the broader definition of mankind.

Mankind the collective noun, i.e. the availability to all mankind of better means by which to survive and flourish—in the individual cases, if and when one takes advantage of those increased resources to apply his reason and effort to them in production and voluntary exchanges.

Like wealth in general, such resources are not a zero sum game. The actions of men applying reason to their efforts results in ever increasing quantity and quality of resources available to all for the pursuit of life.

Interrupting that process of production driven by the free choices of men always has a negative effect in the long run on the creation of resources, because the complexity of the web of interactions among free men is beyond the capacity of any one person or group to dictate. Thus all dictatorships, whether total as Pol Pot's or elementary like Bush/Obama lead to a decrease in the standard of living for the masses and mind boggling wealth for the few who collude with the dictators or figure out how to take advantage of the disruptions in the economy they cause.