RoR: Forum

Yes, Merlin, you are right. I was writing for the new individualist, in the same spirit that Rand wrote "for the new intellectual."

:-)

Ed

Post 21

Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 6:30pm

the golden rule is a pragmatic approximation (and an inadequate one at that) of what is an instance of there being no conflicts of interests among rational men. The rule took on an aspect of the divine because of primitive man's predilection to associate complex phenomena having substantial effects (be they for good or for ill) with the influence of the supernatural.

The fact that a great many societies have each independently stumbled on it and adopted it is simply a reflection of the ubiquity of scientific truth: all those who search for truth by experience and reason, to whatever level people are capable of, will in time arrive at the same discoveries made independently by others equally reasonable and diligent. The common discovery of the Golden Rule is an example of this at an intellectually simple but pragmatically far-reaching level.

Post 22

Friday, December 28, 2012 - 5:04am

Okay, Michael, I will agree -- but with a clause -- and that is: Only if we are talking about the Jewish version of the Golden Rule.

Common Version: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Jewish Variant (heavily paraphrased): Do not do unto others that which you, of sound mind and body, would not permit or tolerate to be done unto yourself.

The common version can be utilized for collectivist evil, the Jewish version cannot. For instance, the list of things that you would like to "have done unto you" may include receiving a foot massage. In such a case, a collectivist can argue that there be a common fund for the purpose of employing foot massages to the populace. Worse yet, he may argue that some people need to have a gun pointed to their heads and be forced to give free foot massages.

Alternatively, under the Jewish variant, all that you end up with is a social system leaning toward inalienable, individual rights.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/28, 6:37am)

Post 23

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 - 6:27am

To continue, here are some illuminative rules:

rational (ethical) egoism: aim your action at satisfying your fullest self-interest

irrational (unethical) egoism (aka: subjectivism): aim your action at satisfying your feelings

utilitarianism: aim your action at satisfying what it is that either 1) your feelings or 2) some kind of mongrol, retroactive rationalization tells you is in the "greatest interests" (of the universe) -- which often involves acting and even sacrificing your very life for others, because they are more numerous than you (and the needs of many outweigh the needs of few)

deontology: aim your action at satisfying not just your own interest, others' interests, or even the greatest possible interest -- but at something even "higher" than all of that

A note on altruism: Utilitarianism preaches us to act for others because they are more numerous (it's simple math), but altruism preaches us to act for others because they are more worthy. If there were only 2 people in the world, utilitarianism would tell you to act in your own interest until you are outnumbered (until there are at least 3 people in the world), but altruism would tell you to act for the other guy regardless of the number of "other guys."

This means that altruism is not akin to utilitarianism, but altruism could be personally adopted under the ethic of subjectivism (because anything can be personally adopted and called : "moral" under subjectivism) and also it could be supported by argument under the ethic of deontology. But when anyone attempts to support altruism by appealing to utilitarianism, the argument quickly devolves to subjectivism -- as is illustrated by the "only 2 people alive" thought experiment above.

Analysis would show that the champion for altruism subjectively values self-sacrifice, making it a prime goal even in a universe populated by only 2 people.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/09, 11:52am)

Post 24

Saturday, August 10, 2013 - 11:06am

My refined thinking on this issue leads me to believe that when you want to differentiate ethics, you have to begin with standards. One ethic is truly different from another if it has another standard. That being the case, utilitarianism is not a different ethical theory -- since it lacks a different standard (and just passively adopts an existing standard). The possible standards are:

1) Man's life
2) Others' lives (or merely their incompletely-expressed "welfare")
3) God (or something not discoverable by evidence-based reasoning)
4) The denial of all moral standards

(1) is Objectivist, (2) is altruist, (3) is deontological, (4) is non-cognitive emotivism. A pragmatico-utilitarianist cost-benefit analysis can be used, or added, in order to implement actions which will become judged according to 1 of the 4 Moral Standards.

For instance, an ascetic who holds standard #3 will think about the various ways to order his life and his actions -- which results in starving himself -- in order to ensure that he gains a seat in heaven. He may perform a cost-benefit analysis on exactly just how little food he should eat, on just how few clothes he should own, on just how strident he should be in avoiding any kind of pleasure or comfort in the world -- in order to ensure his place in heaven.

Alternatively, an altruist may attempt to weigh the competing costs of others' welfare by either how much pain they experience (common) or by how much pleasure/comfort they feel (rare). An altruist may even extend it to all animate life, taking the pain experienced by animals into the 'extra-proliferated' equation of costs and benefits of all human action on earth. He may even extend it to all life, animate or inanimate (including plant life). In the extreme, an altruist may extend it to all material existence (e.g., rocks, dirt, etc.) whereby even the dumping of radiation or pollution onto a "dead" celestial body -- such as the moon, for instance -- would be considered immoral. In this extreme case, anything non-human is good, and anything human is bad.

You can even run a cost-benefit analysis of actions taken according to the standard of man's life. Standard #4 is counter-factual, because any standard adopted becomes fleeting or spurious. The moral "standard" for a non-cognitive emotivist (e.g., David Hume) would be your allegiance to your spurious or whimsical feelings of the moment (whether you did everything you felt like doing, and nothing that you didn't feel like doing -- at that precise moment in time). You cannot say anything of substance about such a standard, and you cannot comment about anyone else's standard -- because there is no objectivity in it.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/10, 9:10pm)

Post 25

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 9:47pm

A couple of things have occurred to me as of late:

1) Nietzsche is probably a better archetype for unprincipled, non-cognitive selfishness (UNCS, aka "unprincipled, non-cognitive whim-worship") than is Hume -- even though Hume preceded Nietzsche.
2) Ethical individualists (e.g., Objectivists) might have to team up with practitioners of other ethical codes in order to bring about an Objectivist society, but they only need to make up 25% of the population

Regarding (2), a game theory study outlines 4 strategies for interacting with others. As luck would have it, those 4 strategies integrate seamlessly into my original 4 moral archetypes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... Strategy ............................................................................................................................................................................. Moral Archetype

1) "cooperate until it hurts, and then cooperate even more" (ALLC) ............................................................................................................. Altruism/Deontology
2) "go for the throat" (ALLD) ................................................................................................................................................. unprincipled, non-cognitive selfishness (UNCS)
3) "start by doing whatever you can get away with doing, but fully respond to feedback" (WSLS) ......................................................... UNCS, mitigated by utilitarianism
4) "reward the productive, punish the criminals" (TFT) ...................................................................................................................... principled, cognitive selfishness (PCS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key:
ALLC = always cooperate, even with rapists and murderers
ALLD = always defect, even against those who can objectively benefit you immensely
WSLS = win-stay, lose-shift (if nobody is complaining to you but instead rewarding you, then keep doing what you are doing; if others punish you, then change)
TFT = tit-for-tat, treat others in the manner which they treat you (if they extend courtesy and respect, treat them in kind; if they try to harm you, accept the risk of returning the favor)

In the study it was discovered that if you start with a population of these 4 main kinds of actors, you end up with a whole bunch of WSLS, to the point where they dominate society -- which wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened (as long as there are some TFTs around).

Ed

Post 26

Monday, December 29, 2014 - 9:28am

To my #7, I'd like to link a personal remark of Barbara Branden 2/16/05.

Post 27

Monday, December 29, 2014 - 10:40am

Stephen:

To me, one of the most brilliant and insightful phrases in Barbara's post:

The meaning of my life...

Not, 'the' meaning of life: rather, the meaning of my life.

Life: pluralities.

My life: singular.

"My life" can have such a thing as 'the meaning,' and, as well, at different times, different meanings. In the end, the sum total of those meanings, as well as, any lingering influence in my children and socius, is 'the meaning.'

"Life" can and may(ie, the GDR once granted itself that may) but should not; to enforce 'the meaning of life' is exactly what leads to the spectacle of barbed wire and machine guns surrounding a nation.

Enforcing 'the meaning of life' as a totalitarian singular is exactly the foundation underneath every pile of human corpses that ever rotted under the Sun.

Irrational acceptance/belief in the singular is exactly the fertilizer of freedom eating Totalitarianism.

And yet...that fertilizer is spread all around us in popular debate and culture: "S"ociety, 'the economy'.... 'the meaning of life....'

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/29, 10:47am)

Post 28

Friday, June 5, 2015 - 5:26pm

I have missed Fred Bartlett this year. I thought he must be very busy on some project or another. I did a search for him I am extremely sad to report that I found he passed away on the last day of 2014. I was unable to find the cause of his passing. He is a very great loss, I always enjoyed his insights. My condolences to his family and friends.

Post 29

Friday, June 5, 2015 - 5:38pm

I hadn't heard that Fred had passed away. He was one my favorite people. We had talked about getting together sometime (when we were both on the same coast). He was unfailingly polite and civil - a brilliant thinker - a first-hand thinker, and a man with a great sense of humor. Fred was a such a unique person. This is really sad news. I'll miss him.

Post 30

Saturday, June 6, 2015 - 12:53pm

Mike, thanks for alerting us to this sad news.

Speaking of people missing in action, has anyone any idea of what became of Ed Thompson, the author of this article?

Post 31

Sunday, June 7, 2015 - 10:52am

Luke,

I did a bit of investigating on Ed and I found that his blog had been down sometime between June 1, 2014 and March 6, 2015. He's also been inactive on Youtube. His last video was posted in October of 2013. Blogger doesn't take down blogs unless there has been a severe violation of Blogger terms of service or if the blog user requests that it be taken down. I suspect the latter. As to why Ed would go completly inactive, and take down his blog, I can't imagine. Unless something did happen to him and a family member took down his blog.

Post 32

Saturday, June 13, 2015 - 10:26pm