About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Wednesday, August 20, 2014 - 9:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

 

I agree completely.  If anything I wrote implies otherwise please point it out, because it means I unintentionally phrased something badly.  A universal, rationally derived, objective standard of value is the very heart of what Rand brought us.



Post 41

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 3:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Posts 34, 35 and 38 consist mostly of errors, confusions, and ad hominem remarks like Steve made earlier, to which I have already responded. So I will be brief.
 
Steve wrote: Just ask, "Was it done for pleasure of doing it?  Then it is selfish.  Was it done only because of a percieved moral duty to sacrifice?  Then it was altruistic."

So when people do very unpleasant things, like pay expensive, unwelcome bills, pay a fine imposed by a court or the police, or tolerate painful therapy, they do so with pleasure -- according to Steve's false alternative! 

Steve wrote: Merlin's approach disconnects altruism from sacrifice

Wrong again. It is also willful evasion and blatant dishonesty. The rightmost area of my Venn diagram is self-sacrificial altruism.

I'm done here. I will not tolerate Steve's disgusting dishonesty, evasion, and ad hominem. If he publicly admits them, and retracts his wrongful allegations, I will reconsider.



Post 42

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 6:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I could be wrong, but I always interpreted Rand's definition of 'altruism' to mean, absolutely, having what others value as the primary motivating value in an action, with the key word being primary.    Implying that there might be secondary or tertiary motivating values that were not related to others.

 

And so, for example, it is entirely possible to regard 'Sister Teresa,' the poster woman for altruism, as actually acting selfishly(in Rand's definition of selfish) if her motivation was primarily based on the pleasure that her actions gave her within the context of her belief system.

 

It is an entirely unrelated discussion as to whether Sister Teresa had the 'right' context for her belief system, but in freedom, that is a discussion that is hers to have and decide for herself, otherwise it comes across as yet another War of The One True Religion.

 

If she adhered to her belief system, and held those beliefs, and in the context of that belief system her actions gave her pleasure, and that pleasure motivated her actions, then, IMO, Rand would regard her actions not as altruism, but as selfish pursuit of pleasure.

 

I thought she was pretty clear on that; that to her, the real evil, was the suggestion that anyone should ever practice actual altruism; the subjugation of ones values and pleasure in pursuit of those values to those of others.

 

A mother sacrificing her life for her child is not acting altruistically; she could only be acting altruistically if she indeed valued her life more than her child's life.   And if that were the case...she would not sacrifice her life for her child.   And so, true 'altruism' isn't even humanly possible, and the horror is, those whose advocate its practice as a virtue, as a kind of impossible rack for mankind to torture itself on.

 

That isn't a claim that it is right or wrong for a mother to sacrifice her life for her child.  That is an acknowledgement, as a peer, that it is totally understandable calculus:   given a choice between dying to save one's child(if it was a choice)and imagining the agony of a life spent knowing you had that chance and didn't take it, I find it totally reasonable that some others would sometimes make one choice vs the other, and -either way-, the decision is based on what is valued most by that individual.   Even the Mother who sacrifices her life is, in that moment, acting in her self-interests consistent with what -she- values, and it is not up to me as Emperor of What Others Should Value to tell her otherwise.    I might choose differently, others might choose differently, but we are not the haughty Emperors of What Others Should Value.    

 

We are certainly free to hold opinions on those values, and base our interactions with others on the values others hold, but in the end, those values are theirs to hold.     An example is, the belief in a Magic Unicorn that will give us all presents some day if we live for others and sacrifice every worldy pleasure to others, live and toil and sweat only for others our entire life.     It might be a whacky belief, but look even at that context; in the end, those holding that belief are primarily motivated by an imagined benefit that they believe(or have been convinced/hornswaggled into believing, in order to hand over their lives to others).  They are still, within the context of their belief system, acting selfishly, in what they believe is in their best interests.

 

As concepts, I tend to agree with Merlin's overlapping Venn diagrams.   There is a thousands of years old principle in civilization, a principle that transcends many religions.  A common principle found in only at most very slightly varying forms:  The Golden Rule.   Treat others as you would wish to be treated.    There is no imbalance in that principle.  It is an entirely peer based symmetric principle, a benefit to both ourselves and to others at the same time without sacrifice of any kind.  I don't regard foregoing the benefit of bashing another over the head as a sacrifice of anything of value, even, the value of the Gold coin in their pockets that would be mine if I were to act so.  That would be a purely reptilian value system -- can I eat it?  can it eat me? -- and Man is more than his reptilian brain stem.

 

That principle belongs in the overlap of Merlin's Venn Diagrams.   It is neutral ground.    

 

It also belongs in the multi-dimensional diagram proposed by Steve.  It is elevated ground.    The evidence of that principle being 'elevated ground', as a principle, is its long lived success and its continued reappearance in disparate religions and philosophies over thousands of years.  It borders on being a universal truth, based simnply on its ubiquitous nature.  It shows up everywhere.

 

And at its foundation, it is symettrically selfish, in Rand's definition of selfish, and yet it is not primarily egoism and neither is it primarily altruism.   It includes a consideration of both selfish gain and at the same time, that same gain to others not oneself.   It is win-win, like fair trade in commerce, which is why it persists and surfaces again and again.

 

regards,

Fred

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/21, 6:09am)



Post 43

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 6:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

My modelling bias: I regard our brains as hierarchies of value seeking neural nets that at the highest level, we as individual are capable of self-programming in the sense of choosing what to value at the highest levels of abstraction.   Our lower level neural nets are then subject to serving our highest level neural nets to seek out a maximization of what we value.   When we achieve those values, the chemical producing machinery of our brain rewards us with a feeling of pleasure and well being.

 

That is a bias independent of any manufactured morality or ethics.   That is a view of the machine inside of Man.   That says nothing about what we should value, only that we do value and at the highrst levels of abstraction, we choose to value.

 

My modeling bias is, that is a functional scheme that has evolved to reach a kind of level of success in goal seeking behavior.   Not uniform and universal, but possible.

 

And possible to screw the pooch.    

 

But not always.

 

The brain, as a complex Pez dispenser of dopamine for successful behavior in realizing value seeking goals.

 

To me, it explains the destruction often accompanied by pathways involving shortcuts to that same feedback (drugs.)  The terminus of that path seems to often be laying on a filthy mattress in the dark and twitching ones' life away with eyes rolled into back of head, foaming at the mouth.  Without self modulation, a dead end, literally.  That's not the tragedy; if that gives another pleasure, than more power to them, flail away.    The human tragedy is, it is a shortcircuit of the goal-pleasure scheme that leads nowhere.   It is a meander into a dead end.  It takes this journey of mankind nowhere but to that filthy mattress in the dark in some hovel.   

 

As well as, because of the volitional nature of the self-programming, the destruction that often accompanies bad choices of what to value.

 

It is a kind of self-limiting machine, this thing that has evolved to seek and try and fail and succeed.  A cold, indifferent calculator of what will succeed, and weeder out of what will fail.

 

Not a perfect machine.  But the best yet that we are privy to.

 

And so, my bias is, because we all ultimately choose what to value, we are all in the end selfish in our pursuit of what we value.   When we are not fundamentally phsyiologically broken, we tend to seek that sense of pleasure and well being from what sense of values we have chosen, accepted, or have had impressed upon us.

 

regards,

Fred

 

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/21, 6:36am)



Post 44

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 9:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I wrote, "Just ask, 'Was it done for pleasure of doing it? Then it is selfish. Was it done only because of a percieved moral duty to sacrifice? Then it was altruistic.'" and Merlin replied,"So when people do very unpleasant things, like pay expensive, unwelcome bills, pay a fine imposed by a court or the police, or tolerate painful therapy, they do so with pleasure -- according to Steve's false alternative!"

 

He is right.  My use of the term "pleasure" was much too narrow.  It wasn't the right way to portray the distinction, and it did create a false alternative.

 

I should have said "self-interest."  But Merlin still missed all of the major points.

 

(I like the little happy face he posted after that reply - kind of joyous spiking of the football :-)
--------------


I wrote, "Merlin's appraoch disconnects altruism from sacrifice." and he replied, "Wrong again. It is also willful evasion and blatant dishonesty. The rightmost area of my Venn diagram is self-sacrificial altruism."  I'll just ignore all the personal attacks, although I'm surprised that someone of his intelligence chooses to exercise so little capacity for the normal back-and-forth of intellectual discussion.

 

I'll just point out that there is another portion of that same venn diagram of his where altruism sits WITHOUT, i.e. 'disconnected from' self-sacrifice.  If he wants to claim that altruism can exist without sacrifice, then how can get so worked up and angry when I say that his approach disconnects altruism from sacrifice?

 

Here is the one bright side for me in Merlin's last post. He said, "I'm done here. I will not tolerate Steve's disgusting dishonesty, evasion and ad hominem. If he publicly admits them , and retracts his wrongful allegations, I will reconsider." That cracked me up. There is something comical about a person getting in a huff over things that are clearly only in their own mind, and then stomping off, and declaring that they are going to deprive others of their wonderfullness.

 

And, can anyone imagine that I'd suddenly fall to my knees in shame, cry out that I'm a wretched individual full of lies and spite, and beg for forgiveness :-)

 

Seriously, that's funny.  Don't worry Merlin, I'll do my best to carry on the examination of altruism and egoism without you.



Post 45

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

I could be wrong, but I always interpreted Rand's definition of 'altruism' to mean, absolutely, having what others value as the primary motivating value in an action, with the key word being primary. Implying that there might be secondary or tertiary motivating values that were not related to others.

Yes, there can be more than one motive, and one will be the primary motive.
-------------

 

And so, for example, it is entirely possible to regard 'Sister Teresa,' the poster woman for altruism, as actually acting selfishly(in Rand's definition of selfish) if her motivation was primarily based on the pleasure that her actions gave her within the context of her belief system.

 

ummm, not exactly. First, there are objective considerations of the values involved.  For example, a person who starts shooting up heroin could be doing so for the pleasure, but it is not in his rational self-interest.  And when we are discussing pleasure, there a many, many examples of people who are deriving a momentary or short-term pleasure from something that isn't in their self-interest and at times is an expression of pathology.

 

Mother Teresa has chosen to devote her life in a sacrifical manner, and getting pleasure from this or that particular act wouldn't change that. This is the larger context that is important.  It would be theoretically possible to dissect her motives in, say, action A, where she is enjoying the good she is doing for a child that she has become fond of, and therefore part of her motivation is, in that moment, self-interested, but there is the larger context of her embracing sacrifice as an ideology and a way of life. And in action B, if we dissect her motivation and find she is feeling pleased with herself for sacrificing that doesn't obviate the objective examination of her sacrifice. For example, many people who commit suicide feel a relief from their depression when they make that decision - even experience a degree of euphoria, but the act is still one of taking their life. Pleasure itself isn't always a good marker for measuring self-interest. It can just be an accompaniment, or side effect, of a primary motive.
--------------

 

In your discussion of a mother and child look at it with less extreme examples. Suppose the family priest tells the mother that to be moral she must spend the money she was saving for her child's education, on the education of a poor person's child - people she doesn't even know. That would be a sacrifice. And if the mother does so, and she feels some pleasure from "doing the right thing," that doesn't change the sacrificial nature of the act. The pleasure would be better understood as either a healthy response to standing by her beliefs, acting with integrity, or with imposing a kind of repression on the negative side of the sacrifice an amplifying in her mind the benefit to the other child (kind of using a degree of self-made blindness to make the pain less).
----------------

 

To take a position that people hold the values they do (relative to sacrifice or helping others) for selfish reasons, and dismissing the argument at that point is mistaking the core of the issue.

 

We are attempting to define different value systems. And we acknowledge, here at RoR, that there are objective values - that it can make a difference if you choose this one over that one and it makes a difference which system of values we choose.  The heart of what I see as the proper argument is about the standard of value because it will influence so much that is built upon it.

 

We are pleasure seeking animals at many levels and that is a good thing. So even if we choose a less beneficial, or less effective value in some context, that doesn't mean we won't find some aspects that follow to be pleasurable, or positive, or that we wont attempt to focus on those.

 

If one chooses as their standard of value, man's life with each person's life as an end in it self and we do not choose to place the value of others above ourself, we are still free to value kindness, benevolence, civility, and generosity. And we can still value building a social structure that encourage those values.

 

I maintain that this is a logical outcome from rational egoism and that it can never be pursued efficiently under altruism.

 

Fred, I see "win-win" as selfish. Who wouldn't want that?  I see kindness, generosity and benevolence as values any man who is comfortable in his base of rational self-interest would be likely to hold. Rand said in many different ways that there was nothing wrong with helping others, or taking pleasure in seeing them be helped, that it was only immoral to make a duty to help others.

 

I see self-sacrifice as evil because it turns the life-supporting principles against themselves.  And we need a name for a philosophy that attempts to say that sacrifice is good, and a moral duty, a philosophy that says the purpose of your life is the service to others: Altruism.  



Post 46

Thursday, August 21, 2014 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

And so, my bias is, because we all ultimately choose what to value, we are all in the end selfish in our pursuit of what we value.

I think that there is an error lurking in that statement.  We must have values, and we must choose them, but there is an distinction that matters between saying we are selfish because we pursue our values, and saying we have chosen values that are selfish.

 

Some of our values are more like meta-values.  For example, we might focus on choosing to be "moral" - and this would show up in our choice of values.   And that will mean different things to different people.  A child who learning about being a person is likely to adopt the view of the parents that he should be a "good boy" and that is the form in which he filters his accepted values.  He chooses what he thinks are the values a good boy would have. If he is taught to give up his toy to some brat because sharing, even if it is a sacrifice, even if there is no reciprocation then he will be pursuing his value of being a good boy by sacrificing. But in no way does it make sense to say that is an act that arises from holding his own pleasure and enjoyment above that of this other child.

 

To a degree, saying that pursuit of what values we have chosen is selfish has the effect of erasing the difference between objective self-interest and morally demanded sacrifice.



Post 47

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - 4:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I changed my mind. Fred's post drew me back.

Fred wrote: As concepts, I tend to agree with Merlin's overlapping Venn diagrams.

Thank you, Fred.

Fred wrote: I could be wrong, but I always interpreted Rand's definition of 'altruism' to mean, absolutely, having what others value as the primary motivating value in an action, with the key word being primary. Implying that there might be secondary or tertiary motivating values that were not related to others.

I think your first sentence is approximately correct -- she didn't use the term "primary beneficiary" --  but not your second sentence.

Rand wrote (VoS, Introduction): '"Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." 

I think this bars 'secondary or tertiary motivating values not related to others', i.e. values of the actor.

What about secondary or tertiary motivating values with respect to egoism or selfishness? I searched the Objectivist Research CD-ROM for "primary beneficiary." There were zero hits. Similarly searching for "beneficiary" in only VoS, there were 8 hits. The following is especially relevant.

Rand wrote: "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action[.]"

Note the last sentence. It says "the beneficiary". It does not say "primary beneficiary", "a beneficiary" or "one of the beneficiaries." She implied one and only one beneficiary -- one's self. No secondary or tertiary beneficiaries. Also note that any breach implies an injustice, and that egoism (or rational selfishness) and any benefit to anyone else are mutually exclusive, i.e. a dichotomy. Also, it is a dichotomy about actions -- not moral ideals -- with never an overlap between benefit to self and benefit to any other person.

Anyone reading this, think about that for a while. Do what Ayn Rand advised doing for statements by other philosophers in "Philosophical Detection". Take her literally. Don't gloss over it or endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight for what it does say and imply. Then post your analysis here. I hope you will be forthcoming. I plan to post my analysis in several days after others post theirs.

****************************

Steve said: If he wants to claim that altruism can exist without sacrifice, then how can get so worked up and angry when I say that his approach disconnects altruism from sacrifice?

"Disconnect" is a bizarre metaphor for the context. How does Steve expect anybody else to interpret it? Try an analogy with an electrical outlet labeled 'altruism'. Suppose there are two power cord plugs in it, #1 labeled 'no sacrifice' and #2 labeled 'sacrifice'. In terms of the analogy, Steve's defense amounts to #1 being connected is equivalent to #2 being disconnected. Nonsense. Yet Steve is baffled by my reaction. Unless he has a better explanation, both dishonesty and nonsense are much more plausible explanations of his allegation.

 

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/03, 9:07am)



Post 48

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Merlin quoted me:

Steve said: If he [Steve] wants to claim that altruism can exist without sacrifice, then how can get so worked up and angry when I say that his approach disconnects altruism from sacrifice?

And then wrote:


"Disconnect" is a bizarre metaphor for the context. How does Steve expect anybody else to interpret it?  ... Unless he has a better explanation, both dishonesty and nonsense are much more plausible explanations of his allegation.

Merlin wants to understand the concept of altruism as something that can exist even without there being any sacrifice.  That is, he wants to have these two concepts - altruism and sacrifice - rearranged relative to one another from what Comte and Rand understood - so that sacrifice is no longer a required component of altruism.  That isn't an unusual position.  There are many, many people who hold the same position.  But he gets very upset when I point out this separation, this rearranging, this change in relationship, this 'disconnection' - and then attacks my character.

 

He says that my description is bizarre - I don't think so.  He appears to believe that others won't understand it or be able to interpet it in a meaningful way - I don't think so.  And he claims it to be dishonest on my part to take these positions - Really!?

--------------------------------------

 

Merlin gave this quote from Rand:

Rand wrote: "Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action[.]"

Note the word sacrifice which I have put in bold.  To most people (but clearly not to Merlin), Rand is using the word beneficiary in the context of someone making a sacrifice as a moral duty, as opposed to being able to act where he is the beneficiary of his actions because he has the moral right to selfish actions.  Merlin doesn't seem to be able to rise above a concrete understanding of 'actions' - as if a man who drops a dime in a begger's cup out of a sense of obligation, and another man who chooses to drop a dime in that same cup while not feeling the least obligation are the same.  Like an accountant measured the 'actions' - only as seen from the outside and assigned 'beneficiary' status accordingly as said they were both altruistic.

 

Merlin's attempt to squeeze from the word "beneficiary" a change in Rand's understanding of altruism is quite pathetic.  He should simply admit that his position is counter to Rands, and that he insists on keeping his little venn diagrams even though it means changing the nature of altruism as Comte and Rand understood it.  She believed that altruism was about sacrifice (i.e., it was 'connected' to sacrifice).  Clearly, Merlin prefers to remain concrete bound when it comes to actions and beneficiaries.



Post 49

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

 

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

 

                 Ayn Rand

 

Merlin disagrees that this the proper description of altruism.  In his definition, there can be altruism that exists without sacrifice.  Okay, then what should people call the system that Rand has described above?  Unless Merlin is claiming that there is no such thing and that what Rand has described has no more reality to it then a unicorn, then it does exist, and it is different and therefore deserves a different name.  Tell us, Merlin, what do we call that ethical system where one is morally required to make sacrifices?



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Thursday, September 4, 2014 - 1:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In Post 47, Merlin quotes Rand:

 

"Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action[.]"

 

He then says, "Note the last sentence. It says 'the beneficiary'. It does not say 'primary beneficiary', 'a beneficiary' or 'one of the beneficiaries.' She implied one and only one beneficiary -- one's self. No secondary or tertiary beneficiaries. Also note that any breach implies an injustice, and that egoism (or rational selfishness) and any benefit to anyone else are mutually exclusive, i.e. a dichotomy. Also, it is a dichotomy about actions -- not moral ideals -- with never an overlap between benefit to self and benefit to any other person."

 

Nowhere in Rand's statement does she imply any such dichotomy.  Although she says that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action, she does not say that he must be the only beneficiary of his action. When she says that "any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice," the injustice she is referring to is "the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors" -- in other words, the injustice of the actor's not benefiting from his action.  She is not objecting to others benefiting from his action. But she would not call such benefit to others "altruism," for (as I noted in Post 25) she is using the term "altruism" in Comte's sense of the term to mean the placing of others above self.  

 

I used the term "primary beneficiary" only to stress that, according to Rand, the primary purpose or ultimate goal of a person's action must be the actor's own interest, even if in the process of pursuing that goal, others benefit from it as well.  

 

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/04, 1:24am)



Post 51

Thursday, September 4, 2014 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think that Bill's interpretation is excellent, but I'll add my own, with a bit different approach.

-----------

 

Merlin quoted Rand's writing:

Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. ... The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action[.]

Let me start by addressing the phrase "any breach."   In Rand's statement it stands as the relationship between "actor" and "beneficiary" that she draws attention to.  In her statement, it is "any breach" that "necessitates an injustice," that is "the sacrifice of some men to others," that goes from moral to immoral and that could never be justified.

 

What constitutes a breach in this context?   For that we have to look at the context she sets. Two things guide us in understanding that. One is the metaphysical fact of human nature she alludes to in setting the stage saying, "all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions."  Next, note that she uses the terms "injustice" and "moral" which tell us she isn't talking about a financial accounting of who got how many marbles after some transaction.  She is determining who is the morally proper beneficiary of an actor's actions - the actor or others?  And not just in a given instance, but, is, as she so often was, discussing things on the level of universal moral grounds that arise out of man's nature.

 

There is nothing in her statement that indicates that she objected to man deciding for his own selfish reasons to make another person the recipient (i.e., beneficiary) of a given act.  And there are quotes that prove that so.  What we see, shown by the context of her statement, is that she was showing that no one is the morally mandated recipient of the action of others - i.e., there can be no moral requirement that one sacrifice.

 

So, the key point here is that the only proper way to understand her phrase "any breach" is to understand it as a moral demand that the beneficiary be other than the actor. The breach between the actor and the beneficiary is one that is a univeral moral demand for sacrifice.

 

She went to metaphysics, to man's nature, to establish the evil of altruism.  It wouldn't matter what Comte or Merlin or any one wanted to use as a description, or definition, of altruism because in the end, Rand's statement still stands.  No matter what you call it, making a moral claim that man must sacrifice is injust and immoral and impractical.  And there needs to be a name for this evil, and it makes good sense to use the name "altruism" which Comte, who coined it, understood so well as demand for sacrifice as a moral imperitive.  Rand's use of the word "beneficiary" must be understood in these terms and anything else is just taking her out of context.  She is talking about a universal moral law regarding who has the moral justification to receive  and keep (to be the beneficiary of) the fruits of a man's actions - the actor, or others.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, September 5, 2014 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I decided to go back and review Merlin's Venn Diagrams of egoism and altruism

 

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/106i4vAArwImP6tFg9GJkX4Lwoy33ydpgBQHbqAlINcs/edit

 

One problem that I noticed immediately (and Steve may have already addressed this) is that in the diagram of "altruistic action," Merlin has a section entitled "benefit to other only" that is outside the section entitled "sacrifice self."  But if an action is of benefit to others only, then it is not of benefit to oneself, in which case, it is self-sacrificial and should therefore be included in the "sacrifice self" section. 

 

Merlin also has a section in the "egoistic action" diagram entitled "sacrifice others."  While it's true that there may be life-threatening emergencies that involve benefiting oneself by sacrificing others, under normal life-sustaining circumstances, sacrificing others would not be of benefit to oneself.  So under normal circumstances, that part of the diagram would also involve an inconsistency, since it would not be in one's interest to sacrifice others.  However, if the diagram were intended to cover all possible cases of egoistic action including life-threatening emergencies, then that part of the diagram would be correct.

 

Nevertheless, his "altruistic action" diagram does involve an inconsistency, because an action that is of benefit to others only is not of benefit to oneself and is therefore self-sacrificial.

 

All of this assumes, of course, that Merlin's definition of "altruistic action" as 'any action that benefits (or is intended to benefit) others' is the only legitimate definition, and that Rand's definition as that of 'placing others above self' is illegitimate.  But, as I've shown, even if one accepts his definition, his diagram still involves an inconsistency.

 

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/05, 4:36pm)



Post 53

Friday, September 5, 2014 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

 

I'm not sure, but I think the problem Merlin is having comes from abandoning the understanding of altruism and of egoism as moral systems that are based upon sacrifice versus rational self-interest.  Without that understanding, then he is left to try to count 'benefits' to this person versus that person without any a way to even weigh benefits (since they are values and he is has tossed out the standard of value which depending upon the moral system is either man's life, or the benefit of others).  And without that standard of value, how does one make an objective evalution?  

 

Morality and/or psychology drive our choices, which takes us to motive.  It matters whether the person did something out of a motive where they believed they were morally required to make a sacrifice, or they did something because they saw it to be of value to their own life.  

 

Merlin can only defend this scheme with ambiguity or personal attacks.  He can shift his attempts to justify the scheme by pointing at motive on one ocassion, and then pointing at the external accounting of who got the the most marbles, on another occassion.  He can ignore the standard of value, and point at beneficiaries as if you could measure benefits without a standard of value.  He can point at all of the contemporary philosophers who have taken to this appoach towards altruism, and ignore their errors and in some cases their motives.  But there is no logical way around the issue best focused on with the writings of Comte in one hand and Rand in the other.  We need to be able to dichotomize moral situations based upon whether they arise from a man's right to live as an end in himself, or whether others have a right to demand him and his as sacrifices.



Post 54

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 2:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I've only skimmed this discussion in the past as it seemed rather convoluted for such a simple diagram (not to mention the personal attacks going on). However Bill's argument on 'sacrificing others' intrigued me:

While it's true that there may be life-threatening emergencies that involve benefiting oneself by sacrificing others, under normal life-sustaining circumstances, sacrificing others would not be of benefit to oneself.  So under normal circumstances, that part of the diagram would also involve an inconsistency, since it would not be in one's interest to sacrifice others.

My three steps of solving contradictions also postulate that a premise has to be true in all circumstances, not just in some.

Example: Humanity is breeding a swamp of altruism that is not directly threatening me, but depriving me of resources to uphold my life. Not just bread and water itself (e.g. these are only 'given away' to the needy, not 'traded' by producers), but also other egoists I can trade with for bread and water (basically the 20th Century Motor Company scenario in it's late stages). I get the chance to wipe out this altruistic swamp by whatever means imaginable (not Galt stops the motor, but sth that involves direct harm to the swamp).

Am I entitled to do so to protect my individualistic life?

I'm not talking about withholding my efforts, my production - I think we agree on that - neither is anything taken by force from me. As an individual I simply cannot accumulate enough resources to uphold my life, as they are hogged by a swamp of altruism (however that scenario will actually uphold itself remains theoretical).

My logical conclusion would be to stand by my individualistic principles and slowly fade out of life with dwindling resources.

I think that's also the problem objectivists, egoists, individualists, face in daily life: apart from forced taxation and moral pressures we also face the very real problem that an individual is rarely enough to uphold it's life when the masses are occupying the majority of resources required for that life. It will never come down to the basics of bread and water, but the principle behind it remains valid: an egoists still has to 'deal' (in both meanings of the word) with the altruistic swamp on it's terms if he wishes to live a full life.

So I'd agree with Bill's observation, that 'sacrificing others' is not part of egoism - but under any circumstances.



Post 55

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

 

Humanity is just the word for all humans
The masses is just how we refer to a mass of individuals
The collective is just a collection of individuals

 

The key difference between individualism and tribalism/collectivism/altruism is an objective education. In that one delightful sense we are but a few ideas away from where we want to be.  Of course we can't force ideas, so until then....

 

     be happy - it denies those who don't wish you well the satisfaction of seeing you unhappy  :-)



Post 56

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 9:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You are right with your last comment Steve :) and I do live a happier and more relaxed life than I usually present to 'the public', in part because I can discuss such topics in forums like these and not have them dismissed as total nonsense - thanx for that :)

 

however I will not forego the pleasure of pointing out the contradictions I see from my individualistic point of view - even if it does sound like quibbling over details ;)

 

Humanity is just the word for all humans > if each individual human foregos it's individuality
The masses is just how we refer to a mass of individuals > no number is large enough to make masses out of individuals
The collective is just a collection of individuals > I always suspected the Borg are just a collection of individuals - very big on equal opportunity and non-discrimination of all species ;)

 

so until we get the new education programs going we have to make do with the basics: I am, you are, he/she/it is - we are not, you are not, they are not ... darn - plural 'you' doesn't work in English :D wouldn't want to confuse the masses I'm (not) trying to educate ;)



Post 57

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 11:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

 

I was of course just being playful in that post.  But there is a worthwhile point that can be made.  

 

If all (or a very large majority) of people were individualistic (and objective) in their thinking, then words like humanity, the masses, the collective, etc., would lose much of their negative bite.  It is the thoughts and motives that we hold (as individuals since that is the only place an idea can be active), that can make those words refer to things of dangers to us.  

 

This is worth noting because it tells us that it isn't the masses as such that deserve our focus, but the ideas... hence, education.  It is too easy to become anti-masses, when we should be anti-altruism, or anti-emotionalism, or anti-[fill in bad moral or political idea here].



Post 58

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 1:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanx for the playfulness Steve :)

I enjoyed it - seriously ;)

 

I'm all there with you regarding the meaning of words and the principles that define them at any given time but allow me to quibble some more regarding these specific terms:

 

Humanity in any objective term I could accept would simply mean belonging to the human race - which in my opinion should be limited to a shared gene-pool and not extended to a shared culture or morals.

However you are indeed very right to point out that it is the ideas (and ideals) behind the words that define their power, good or bad, to their speakers. Just as 'individual' would simply mean 'single, separate' (OED) and not this convoluted mess I subsume under my intended meaning of 'individual'.

 

Same goes for 'emotion' which per se is not the whiny little things too weak to have their wishes granted at the childish stamping of a foot. Though OED would seem to favor your interpretation: 'Instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge' Origin: 'mid 16th century (denoting a public disturbance): from French émotion, from émouvoir 'excite', based on Latin emovere, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out' + movere 'move'.'

I think your founding-fathers were on the right path when they included 'the pursuit of happiness' in your constitution, even though they followed the old dichotomy that emotion being 'distinguished', even contrary to reason. Ever wondered why they did not include 'the pursuit of reason'?

Emotion can be a powerful motor (again the 'movere') to pursuing happier lives, enjoying our reason that got us there, that created a safe environment for our emotions to give us pleasure. Separating them in a human leads to false choices - diminishing one will diminish the other. The greatest thinker will never be happy if he damns his emotions.

 

All quibbling aside however, I do enjoy our sparring and playfulness (a great way to teach btw.). It helps me vet my own arguments against another mind I can respect and admire. I'm all for your mission to educate, though we'll always quibble about the scope of that mission ;)



Post 59

Saturday, September 6, 2014 - 11:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera wrote,

 

"My three steps of solving contradictions also postulate that a premise has to be true in all circumstances, not just in some."

. . . . . . . .

"So I'd agree with Bill's observation, that 'sacrificing others' is not part of egoism - but under any circumstances."

 

True, a prenise must be true under all circumsances, not just in some.  So under all normal life-sustaining circumstances, it is wrong to initiate force; force is proper only in retaliation.  However, sacrificing others -- initiating force against them -- may be in one's self-interest under life-threatening emergencies.  Ayn Rand agreed with this, but with the following qualification.  

 

She explains her position in a radio interview conducted in the early 1960s at Columbia University. The interview is one of a series billed as "Ayn Rand On Campus," produced and broadcast by radio station WKCR.  In the  interview, titled "Morality, and Why Man Requires It," Rand explains how it is proper, under certain emergency conditions, to initiate force against innocent human beings.  Gerald Goodman from the Columbia School of Engineering asked her the following question:

 

Goodman: "Miss Rand, then you would say that a person who was starving, and the only way he could acquire food was to take the food of a second party, then he would have no right, even though it meant his own life, to take the food."

 

Ayn Rand: "Not in normal circumstances, but that question sometimes is asked about emergency situations. For instance, supposing you are washed ashore after a shipwreck, and there is a locked house which is not yours, but you're starving and you might die the next moment, and there is food in this house, what is your moral behavior? I would say again, this is an emergency situation, and please consult my article 'The Ethics Of Emergencies' in The Virtue Of Selfishness for a fuller discussion of this subject. But to state the issue in brief, I would say that you would have the right to break in and eat the food that you need, and then when you reach the nearest policeman, admit what you have done, and undertake to repay the man when you are able to work. In other words, you may, in an emergency situation, save your life, but not as 'of right.' You would regard it as an emergency, and then, still recognizing the property right of the owner, you would restitute whatever you have taken, and that would be moral on both parts."

 

In other words, you have no duty or moral obligation to sacrifice your life in order to respect someone else's rights.  That truly would be an act of selflessness.  The purpose of morality (and respect for other people's rights) is not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

 

The following is from an interview with Nathaniel Branden: "Ayn Rand was once asked about the following hypothetical: if your wife got sick one night and would die without a certain medication from the pharmacy, and if the pharmacy was closed, would it be permissible to break in and take it? She said yes, so long as the repairs and medication were paid for the next day. Remember context. We need a code of ethics to support our life and well-being. Ethics does not teach us [that] “At this point, a moral person commits suicide.” Context, context, context."

 

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/06, 11:19pm)



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.