RoR: Forum

Okay, you haven't given a good reason why it's against the criminal's RATIONAL self-interest. How is it rational for him to turn himself in or allow himself to be arrested? What could he possibly have to gain by doing so?

- Bill

Post 181

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 10:50am

Bill writes:

> Okay, you haven't given a good reason why it's against the criminal's RATIONAL self-interest. How is it
> rational for him to turn himself in or allow himself to be arrested? What could he possibly have to
> gain by doing so?

Bill:

Forgetting everything else in this discussion, could you please just take a moment to give use your analysis of why Rand has Wynand shoot himself (in the movie) and how that relates to the comment above. Why did Rand have one of her central characters do something that you seem to be saying was clearly not in his self interest? What was she trying to tell us by including this scene? Is there any ethical message here at all?

Regards;
--
Jeff

BTW, I feel badly about the tone this entire discussion has taken, including some of my posts. There is a lot of emotion dredged up when we start talking about life-and-death issues and there is a lot of frustration that builds when you apparently cannot make yourself understood despite great efforts - something I think all of us are feeling here. Teresa is coming into this topic a bit later than some of the rest of us, but I do appreciate her effort to get past the emotion and focus just on the issues.

This topic is very closely related to the old thread with Michael Stewart Kelly regarding finding an abandoned child in the woods. In that discussion, people were arguing vigorously with MSK because he was confusing issues of moral choice with legislation on personal behavior and that discussion ended very poorly. There is a small component of the legal/moral issue in this thread, but I think this discussion is focused to a much greater degree on the fundamental nature of an entire ethical system and in particular, on how to properly apply the concept of ethical egoism or "self-interest" broadly. It is an important topic and clearly something we all feel strongly about.

Anyway, taking my cue from Teresa, I want to apologize to Bill if I have offended you by anything I have said. I honestly have no intention of attacking you personally here. I am only interested in the ideas relating to ethics, and if I have anything further to contribute, I will try my best to keep any personal remarks out of my posts.
--
Jeff

Post 182

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 12:48pm

Jeff asked me the following question:

Forgetting everything else in this discussion, could you please just take a moment to give use your analysis of why Rand has Wynand shoot himself (in the movie) and how that relates to the comment above. Why did Rand have one of her central characters do something that you seem to be saying was clearly not in his self interest? What was she trying to tell us by including this scene? Is there any ethical message here at all?

I don't know. Maybe he can no longer live with himself when he discovers that his whole life is based on a lie. Wynand was not an exemplar of the Objectivist ethics, so I don't think you can draw any firm conclusions about Rand's philosophy from his behavior in the novel. Nor do I think that his committing suicide was in his rational self-interest. He could have made a point to turn his life around, and live according to his highest ideals.

- Bill

Post 183

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 1:41pm

Bill writes:

> He could have made a point to turn his life around, and live according to his highest ideals.

I agree. As I see it, the fact that Rand chose to have him end his life rather than do that speaks to two things. First, it is a prime example of how redemption does not fair well in Rand's writings - but that's another topic for another day. Secondly, I see it as Rand making an ethical statement about how life is not some absolute value that trumps everything else. I believe that she is demonstrating that even the continuation of one's life must be considered and evaluated in the full context of one's other values along with one's existential situation, and she though it was important to show that Wynand, who was created to be a proto-hero, but with a fatal flaw, could not reconcile his moral breach.

I think there is an important lesson here. Peter Keating also comes to recognize his failings by the end of the book, but it would seem incongruous if he were then to find the courage (I suspect you may object to that word here - maybe "strength" would be more appropriate) to kill himself. Wynand, on the other hand, comes to this fate precisely because of his superior intellect and rigid commitment to rationality. I think Rand is trying to show us something important here about the implications of the distinction between "rational self-interest" and what is conventionally referred to as "self-interest'.

With this in mind, I am sure that a rapist would act in service of his own preservation as an expression of his self-interest, just as you describe. What I think people are arguing here is that this is not an example of "rational self-interest". I honestly believe that Rand would say that if anyone who understands and embraces Objectivist ethics were to somehow perpetrate a moral breach, then their commitment to rationality should kick in and they should do whatever was necessary to make amends in the name of rational self-interest or suffer the psychological consequences.

I actually hate to bring up this example here, but after the break between Nathaniel Branden and Rand, she apparently said to him:

If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health, you’ll be impotent for the next 20 years!

Another unfortunate case showing that moral redemption was not a possibility for Rand. But more to the point, I believe that this highlights the same issue as the Wynand example above, showing that she believed that one's values are interconnected and that true, rational happiness was only possible when resting upon a sound moral foundation. And this is why I do not think it is appropriate to suggest that the actions of the rapist or other people in the examples being discussed are examples of Objectivist ethics or rational self-interest. Self-interest, yes. Rational self-interest and a pathway to future happiness, no.

What do you think?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 184

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 2:34pm

Jeff,

I think Rand's statement to Branden, viz. -- "If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health, you’ll be impotent for the next 20 years!" -- is little more than a vindictive statement voiced out of extreme hurt and anger. It is her way of saying that she would like to see him suffer for what he has done. It does not mean that a psychologically healthy person should properly respond that way. And it certainly doesn't mean that it is in Branden's rational self-interest to respond that way.

Let's be clear about what an ethics of egoism says. It says that the moral agent should, to whatever extent possible, mazimize his own happiness. The Objectivist ethics says that the best way to do that is to live in a healthy, pro-life manner. If, by deviating from a healthy lifestyle (either psychologically or physically) one could promote one's happiness better than by following it, then one should do the latter. If psychological health led to impotence, sexual frustration and a miserable life, on what grounds could one consider it a value? It's a value only because it promotes one's happiness, not because it hinders it.

Yes, if a person is truly miserable and has nothing left to live for, then he has nothing to gain by remaining alive. Cancer patients who are racked with pain and will be soon die due to the cancer can rationally commit suicide. I do not, however, think it is in a person's rational self-interest to commit suicide simply because he defaulted on his moral responsibilities and has a negative view of his own character. He can always turn his life around and become a better person. In that case, suicide is not the answer.

Perhaps, the more intelligent a person is and the more integrated his psychology, the more likely he is to suffer psychologically from a betrayal of his values. But the solution is to find a way to overcome his suffering and get on with his life, not to wallow in his own depression to the point that he feels it necessary to end his life. That's crazy! And if that's what you're saying is in a person's rational self-interest, then I couldn't disagree more. It is, in fact, the antithesis of rational self-interest.

- Bill

Post 185

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 4:38pm

Good points, Jeff.

Bill, here's Eric ("The Mac") Mack on the issue ( emphasis mine ):

"So, for Rand, two of the fundamental virtues are rationality and productiveness. The third fundamental virtue is pride, which consists essentially in esteem for one's life as a rational and productive existence.

But what is the status of these virtues within the Randian system? More specifically, are these forms of behavior valued instrumentally as likely means for perpetuating life or are they valued in themselves as constitutive of the ultimate value of life? On the first interpretation, the ultimate value for any person is taken to be his biological survival. No character trait, such as rationality and productivity, is a part of that biological survival. So if such traits are endorsed, this endorsement must be on the basis of their being likely means for securing biological survival. If on occasion the prospects for biological survival would be enhanced by abandoning reason and productivity, then on those occasions these traits should be abandoned. On the second interpretation, the life that is of ultimate value includes rationality and productivity as part of its nature. On this view, one should not abandon rationality and productiveness even on those (unlikely) occasions when such an abandonment would enhance the prospects for biological survival.

... Rand rejects mere brutish, "subhuman," survival as the sole ultimate value. ... Rand talks about subhuman survival versus man's survival qua man. ... "Such ... parasites capable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man." ... condemning them for surviving in ways that do not involve "action proper to man."

Ed

Post 186

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 5:59pm

Ed:

Thanks for introducing this quote from Eric Mack. I had never run across it and it makes a distinction that I had not really considered quite this way before. I think Eric does a fantastic job of explaining the difference between "self-interest" and "rational self-interest" that I was getting at in my previous post and I agree completely with the second interpretation that "the life that is of ultimate value includes rationality and productivity as part of its nature." And I would also include pride.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 187

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 9:12pm

Ed,

Eric Mack misinterprets Objectivism. That is NOT Rand's view. Good grief! Mack is a rationalist, whose writings I've been familiar with for decades. As far as I am aware, no one at either ARI or TAS thinks of him as true Objectivist.

According to Rand, rationality and productiveness are not good as ends in themselves; they are good only as VIRTUES -- as means to the achievement of one's values. Quoting Rand,

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and keep, "virtue" is the action by which one gains and keeps it." (FNI, p. 147) Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue -- and happiness is the goal and reward of life. (Ibid., p. 161)

As regards rationality, one should always be rational, and to whatever extent possible, one should be productive, but these are means to the achievement of one's happiness, which can only be gained through life-sustaining action.

In the post immediately following this one, (# 188), Ed states that life without rationality and productiveness is not worth living. Even if that were true, it would not imply that suicide is the proper course of action for someone whose life has been irrational and unproductive. The proper course of action for such a person is not to choose death but to choose to live a rational and productive life.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/25, 9:30pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/25, 9:59pm)

Post 188

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 9:14pm

Right, Jeff.

Rand might just as well as have said that a "life" without rationality, productiveness, and pride is not "worth" living.

Ed

Post 189

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 10:14pm

That’s an excellent quote. It adds to my understanding of the qualifier “rational” in “rational self-interest.”

And, Ed, That IS what she said.
(Edited by Jon Letendre on 5/25, 10:37pm)

Post 190

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 10:53pm

“In the post immediately following this one, (# 188), Ed states that life without rationality and productiveness is not worth living. Even if that were true, it would not imply that suicide is the proper course of action for someone whose life has been irrational and unproductive. The proper course of action for such a person is not to choose death but to choose to live a rational and productive life.” [Bill]

Rational and productive, yes. Right after killing this woman, her husband who comes home, the police who arrive at the scene, etc. All of them stand between him and his future rational and productive life…how dare they! They don’t have a right! Modus tollens!

Post 191

Sunday, May 25, 2008 - 11:19pm

Bill writes:

> Even if that were true, it would not imply that suicide is the proper course of action for someone
> whose life has been irrational and unproductive. The proper course of action for such a person is
> not to choose death but to choose to live a rational and productive life.

Bill:

In general, under normal circumstances, I agree completely with this. Wynand did commit suicide, but in the other "emergency" examples in this discussion where people like myself suggest that we might opt to die rather than take the course of actions you suggest (typically, killing another innocent person to preserve our own lives), you also describe that as suicide. We do not all see it that way.

If you look at my previous posts, I go to great length to point out why, at least for me, the choice to die might actually be in service of my self-interest in maintaining my dignity and self-respect. It is clear that this is not a persuasive argument for you and you continue to see my choices in these situations as just another form of suicide. I think we will have to disagree on this point. Apparently, you believe that in these situations, you could kill the innocent and then continue on with your pursuit of living a rational, productive life in the service of your happiness. And you could do so because you would be comfortable in the knowledge that you made the correct moral choice in honoring you self-interest.* Given that, I can see why you would argue for the choice that you do. However, I believe that were I to follow that course, I would be wracked with such guilt that happiness would no longer be possible and thus, rationality and productiveness would loose their meaning. It is precisely this sort of act that would turn me into a Wynand, where suicide would then be my only viable alternative. So for me, these scenarios ultimately reduce to two different paths to death. Given that choice, I do not believe that in choosing to remain true to my values, I am acting irrationally. I believe that it is, in fact, the selfish choice - for me.

So, the difference between the two approaches to these situations depends upon the totality of one's values and character, which determine the meaning of the actions to that individual. I'm guessing that this might be what Rand was getting at when she said that you could not objectively specify the proper moral choice in these emergency situations. The proper choice to be made rests upon the personal characteristics of each individual.

Even though we do not agree on what would be the moral course of action, does this explanation make sense to you?

Regards,
--
Jeff

* I hope I am making a fair summarization of you views here. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Post 192

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 7:20am

Bill, here are Rand quotes proving Mack's point:

Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires—so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal’s lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them.

and

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. … The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness … And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics.

and

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner.

and

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? … rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs.

and

… man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. … it is not applicable to … any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

and

… altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

and

The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests … not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level.

and

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

Post 193

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 10:57am

I wrote, “Ed states that life without rationality and productiveness is not worth living. Even if that were true, it would not imply that suicide is the proper course of action for someone whose life has been irrational and unproductive. The proper course of action for such a person is not to choose death but to choose to live a rational and productive life.”

Jon replied, "Rational and productive, yes. Right after killing this woman, her husband who comes home, the police who arrive at the scene, etc. All of them stand between him and his future rational and productive life…how dare they! They don’t have a right! Modus tollens!"

Jon, you've misrepresented my argument. That's not what the modus tollens inference implies. Are you reading my posts? because if you are, then you haven't understood anything I've said. I've said repeatedly that the police are fully justified in arresting the man and putting him behind bars. Yes, doing so prevents him from living a productive life, but he given his murderous actions, he doesn't have a right to live a productive life. The only right he has is to languish in prison like the animal he is!

True, when I said that if it's in his interest to use force against me, then I don't have "a right against his using it," I was saying that if I did have a right against his using it, then he would be obligated not to use it, and since he has no such obligation, it follows that I have no such right. (P-->Q) --> (not-P-->not-Q).

But that doesn't mean that I and others aren't justified in defending ourselves against him -- that we don't have "a right" to do so in THAT sense of the term!

- Bill

Post 194

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:07am

Ed,

Regarding your Post 192, I agree with all of your Rand quotes, but they're beside the point, because you're dropping context. Those quotes apply to normal, non-emergency conditions.

For example, you quote Rand as stating, "Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement."

But, as we have seen, if your life is threatened, robbing or killing an innocent person can be justified.

- Bill

Post 195

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:28am

Jeff,

Regarding your Post 191, again, it seems to me that you're begging the question, when you say that you couldn't live with the guilt if you killed another innocent person, even though you acknowledge that I myself would not feel guilt over such an action, because I would see it as a legitimate choice.

You can't say that for you it's not a legitimate choice on the grounds that it would cause you irredeemable guilt, if the reason it would cause you irredeemable guilt is that you don't see it as a legitimate choice. Do you see the circular reasoning here? You're assuming that it's an immoral choice as a basis for your conclusion that it's an immoral choice.

- Bill

Post 196

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 8:13pm

Ed,

Regarding your Post 192, I agree with all of your Rand quotes, but they're beside the point, because you're dropping context. Those quotes apply to normal, non-emergency conditions.

Okay, let me see if I'm getting this straight ... it begins with your question in post 180:

How is it rational for him to turn himself in or allow himself to be arrested?

And my answer to your question:

... rationality and productiveness ... pride ... are ... valued in themselves as constitutive of the ultimate value of life[.] ... the life that is of ultimate value includes rationality and productivity as part of its nature. On this view, one should not abandon rationality and productiveness [or pride] even ... when such an abandonment would enhance the prospects for biological survival.

Which basically says that having proper pride prevents a truly moral person from committing "expedient" murders. To which you retorted:

That is NOT Rand's view.

So then I provided the quotes that prove that that IS Rand's view on the matter. And then you come back with:

I agree with all of your Rand quotes, but they're beside the point, because you're dropping context. Those quotes apply to normal, non-emergency conditions.

So ... it IS Rand's view? Or it ISN'T (you're unclear on this)? We can work out whether it drops context after working out this first point. Do you see how you switched criticisms midstream -- first (1) it wasn't Rand's view; then (2) it's dropping the context?

Ed

Post 197

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 8:29pm

Also, Rand made clear that the rapist doesn’t apply to the context of her exceptions, here:

“An emergency is an UNCHOSEN, UNEXPECTED event…”

So stop writing, “Rand’s position” and “the Objectivist ethics.”

Post 198

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 10:48pm

I wrote to Ed, "Regarding your Post 192, I agree with all of your Rand quotes, but they're beside the point, because you're dropping context. Those quotes apply to normal, non-emergency conditions."

Ed replied,

Okay, let me see if I'm getting this straight ... it begins with your question in post 180:

How is it rational for him to turn himself in or allow himself to be arrested?
And my answer to your question:

... rationality and productiveness ... pride ... are ... valued in themselves as constitutive of the ultimate value of life[.] ... the life that is of ultimate value includes rationality and productivity as part of its nature. On this view, one should not abandon rationality and productiveness [or pride] even ... when such an abandonment would enhance the prospects for biological survival.
Which basically says that having proper pride prevents a truly moral person from committing "expedient" murders.

Yes, if we're talking about normal, non-life threatening circumstances. But if you have to commit a murder in order to stay alive, then it's a different story.

To which you retorted:

That is NOT Rand's view.
So then I provided the quotes that prove that that IS Rand's view on the matter.

The statements of hers that you quoted pertain to normal, non-life-threatening conditions. They're not relevant to the issue we're discussing here.

And then you come back with:

I agree with all of your Rand quotes, but they're beside the point, because you're dropping context. Those quotes apply to normal, non-emergency conditions.
So ... it IS Rand's view? Or it ISN'T (you're unclear on this)?

Look, it's Rand's view for normal circumstances in which survival by production and trade is possible. The quotes you cited do not pertain to life-threatening circumstances.

- Bill

Post 199

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:00pm