Doubting Objectivist attitudes

I'm new to this whole area, so I hope you'll be as hard on me as you possibly can.

I appreciate certain Objectivist ideas, and accept many, but I haven't decided whether I want to be called Objectivist or not. Let me get right to my points of criticism.

A) I do not accept Rand as the final answer. I do not think she would want anyone to do so, but I sometimes see Rand being used much like some sort of scripture, as if it cannot be false.

B) Selfishness and sacrifice. I know Rand was aware of the problem in definitions, but let me rant for a moment. Sacrifice is defined in almost every dictionary as giving something up for something you value more. Rand defined it as exactly the opposite.

HOW do you give something you value up for something you do not? You cannot. You can only give something you believe is true and just up for something you think evil. “If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave...” And herein lies the flaw. If we define sacrifice the way Rand does, it is impossible. It is impossible for a human with normal thought processes to give up something he values for something he does not. For example, if I betray someone I love in the face of a death threat, loyalty to that person is clearly less important to me than the security of my own life. If, on the other hand, I protect that person and accept the possiblity of personal harm, I value that person more than my safety, and thus, according to Rand, it is not a sacrifice. Give me an example of an Objectivist sacrifice that would be evil.

Selfishness: I do understand that Rand was aware of the criticisms to her redefinition of terms. When asked why she persisted in changing the meaning of the word selfish, she responded, "For the very reason you fear." That's great, ethics by vague intimidation is better than ethics by emotions? I understand what she meant by selfish, and when thus defined I agree that it is wrong. My question is why not use another word. I have seen people use Oism as a justification for whimsical pleasure-seeking, with disregard for others, because they had a reason for being selfish. They, of course, did not understand that the common meaning of selfishness (that disregard for others in whim-seeking) was not the one Rand justified.

C) God and religion: Objectivists do not take an objectivist stand to religion. If I tell an Objectivist that I believe in God, and that my belief is rational, they will usually not even give me the chance to explain. They just assume I will make the same arguments the last guy did. Am I a cultish fool to you, only because others in the past have made fools of themselves trying to argue for God and religion?

Would not a truly objective person tell me that all religions they were aware of were logically inconsistent? We do not believe in "Original Sin," or in a God that is too great or mystical to be understood, or that two people can both be correct with conflicting beliefs, no matter how sincere. We do not believe that faith is the antithesis of reason. The faith spoken of by many other sects makes me sick as well.

No, faith is a corrupted word, so let me explain it as it should be. It is not the denial of reality, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Did I just quote the Bible? Oh heaven forbid! Speaking of the bible, I recognize that through translation and alteration it is a different book than when it was written. I do not think it was absolutely perfect when it was written, even though it was inspired.

We believe that a man must use his reason to the best of his ability. Why does God not just appear and tell us he exists? (I find it amusing that this Empiricist question arrises from non-Empiricists) Because he wants us to use our heads. We are to search, read, reason, and interpret. After that, faith is to ask God if our conclusion is correct. That's right, God does something. If there were time, I would explain how he tells us, but I think my audience is not interested.

The point is, it is a mistake to assume that because many have been wrong, all are wrong. In ancient Greece, Socrates was rejected in part because other philosophers before him had made up so many absurd and contradictory theories. Since they could not agree, sophists concluded that they were all wrong. How do you like that in modern times? Objectivism is false, because many other philosophies can be proved false?

Try to see if I am wrong on all points, instead of only the one that upsets you the most. Again, it would be rash to think that I am all wrong, because you think that my belief in God is silly. I only hope for my comments to be received with an open mind, whether you agree with me or not.

Post 1

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:40pm

I certainly don't speak for everybody here, but I'll give you my two cents, as a Neo-Objectivist:

I do not accept Rand as the final answer. I do not think she would want anyone to do so, but I sometimes see Rand being used much like some sort of scripture, as if it cannot be false.

I think, toward the end, she would have a problem with anyone who disagreed with her. She broke with the Brandens and John Hospers and many long time friends. Peikoff had to simply not have his own mind in order to get along with her. Now, he and the ARI guard their doctrine like any fundamentalist who regards as impious anyone who disagrees with them. There is no growth or development there.

Selfishness and sacrifice. I know Rand was aware of the problem in definitions, but let me rant for a moment. Sacrifice is defined in almost every dictionary as giving something up for something you value more. Rand defined it as exactly the opposite.

I know you have a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness. It is where you got the quote about choosing selfishness because people fear it. In that book, she has an essay which explains psychological egoism, “Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” by Nathaniel Branden, and she has an essay she wrote about when sacrifice can be seen as a selfish act, “The Ethics of Emergencies.” When Galt talks about committing suicide to save Dagney, t is not necessarily a sacrifice.

C) God and religion: Objectivists do not take an objectivist stand to religion. If I tell an Objectivist that I believe in God, and that my belief is rational, they will usually not even give me the chance to explain. They just assume I will make the same arguments the last guy did. Am I a cultish fool to you, only because others in the past have made fools of themselves trying to argue for God and religion?

You can explain yourself, but most serious atheists who have been atheists for awhile and have researched this subject and debated it for years and years have already heard the best arguments and found their faults. Do you really think you have better arguments than past philosophers and PhD’s who have been published? If so, you need to publish.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 2

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:05pm

If sacrifice is always for a greater value, why is it never shown that way?

For example, if I am a poor, working man and have no job - I am on my way to work to interview for the best position I have seen in some time. My family is barely being fed and my wife has to work in a deli to get what little we do have. I see a person on the street who asks for help - it is an old, feeble woman trying to find her glasses and crying. If I stop and help her, she will probably get my new suit dirty (I might smell for the interview) and I will be late too. So, I stop and help anyway - and I lose the job to someone else because I was late and they smelled the alcohol and figured I was late because I was drinking - before I could explain I was sent away. Here we have someone who sacrificed a great deal and most altruists would say of course the person did a great thing!

Same situation, but I am a student and walking around town with nothing to do one day, see and help the woman. I have a project due in social studies so I interview her, and write up a paper and get an "A" for my work, too! Now, ask anyone, who is more virtuous?

Final situation - This man is on the way to the same interview, but he ignores the woman because he knows he has to be on time. He has a job, but this is a better opportunity for advancement. He plans to better himself, move out of an apartment in his own house, have a good time and eventually he will settle down but for now he wants to build a solid career for himself. He gets the job.

Is he being selfish and evil, according to altruism he is? You see how sacrifice is used to measure the worth of what one does? It is used as a cost to measure the virtue of character, rather than the end result being its measure.

Post 3

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:56pm

Hi Joseph!

A quick couple of points:

A. Rand is not he final answer. Reality is. Rand's is the ultimate reality-based philosophy which means a commitment to the truth, whatever it is, even if it seems to contradict Rand's beliefs.

B. The term "self-sacrifice" is used in very confusing ways. It is often used to make individuals feel guilty for pursuing their own legitimate self-interest. For example, an individual might be brow-beaten or guilt-tripped into working in a soup kitchen helping the homeless when he'd really rather take his kids to the movies. In this case he really values his kids more but because his emotions and moral understanding are confused, he does something that doesn't further his values. If he understands that he doesn't owe anyone an explanation for his choices, if in his own mind he understands what would give him the most joy, and if he conditions his emotions to be in tune with his convictions, he'll say "Look, I have nothing against the homeless and wish them well but I'm heading for the movie theater."

Your question actually touches on a more profound question: Can an individual act in a knowingly self-destructive way? I think yes. There is an aspect of the will that is the manifestation of such actions.

C. On religion, Kurt is right that many of us have heard all the arguments and nothing much new on religion. (I could actually make a better case for religion than most religious people, but I can also point out the flaws in that case.)

But I am very interested in the nature of beliefs and thus do talk to people about religion. (I received a Ph.D. from Catholic University; I found the Thomists pretty easy to get along with even though I was an atheist.)

I'm actually reading some fascinating books on the nature of belief. A key assumption to these books seems to contradict part of Rand's thinking. She treated the mind as tabula rasa. But most research into evolution and the brain suggests different. If that is reality, so be it. We had a number of talks at our Objectivist Center Summer Seminar on the human mind. I think they gave a richer and more subtle understanding of human behavior and did not through us into some determinist pit of horrors.

But back to religion, I'll probably write something at some point about my readings and if you come across some new arguments, let us know.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 3:47pm

Seconding Ed H's point B: Nathaniel Branden takes up the question you raise in "Isn't Everyone Selfish?", a chapter in The Virtue of Selfishness. I agree that the likeliest source of examples of what Rand calls sacrifice is in lack of assertiveness.

She had, in the jargon, an interesting (i.e. non-trivial, non-tautological) conception of value and of self-interest. It's what is objectively right for us, and that need not be identical to what we want. Life would be a lot easier if it were. Giving up what we want for what we don't want is, indeed, psychologically impossible and a contradiction in terms, but giving up what's more valuable for what's less so is not. I don't have the quotes at hand, but, as I recall, her definition is something like "giving up a greater value for a lesser value or a non-value." (Someone out there can correct me on this.) Note the impersonal language here. It's not "what we value," which is easy to confuse with "what we want," but "a value."

Peter

Post 5

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:57pm

Ok let me get into this again, and try to make it more clear. Sorry if I am wordy, but I am actually seeking for understanding, and I appeciate your help.

Nicholas, I tend to agree with you about the first point. I know that not all Oists think that way, but I find it disturbing nonetheless.

I don't quite follow you about sacrifice. I know that she would not regard Galt's going for Dagny as a sacrifice... that was one of my points. Either you didn't get my argument, or I don't get your point. I should rephrase though, Rand was aware of MY problem with her definition switching. I wouldn't say whether it really is.

As for God, I wasn't really trying to prove that I'm right. That was not my point or interest at all. I suppose my purpose would have been more clear without that summary of belief. I ask only why this blanket statement is made. I will be completely fine if you say "no religion is true, and the concept of God is false," as long as you include this concept: "as far as I know/can reason"

Your reply fell exactly on the attitude that bothers me. "I've heard it all, I know it, I know your argument, so don't even try." Furthermore, do you accept someone as an authority because he is published or has a degree? I say shame on you if so. That is the equivalant of accepting what the Pope says because "he must know." Accepting the concept of "authoritarian thinking" is damaging and paralyzing, wouldn't you say?

--
Now, as for sacrifice. Let's cut out the uncertainty or the consequences that you introduced, for simplicity. Unless you think it a vital part of your argument? Say that if you help her up, you know you will not get the job. If you value helping that woman more than you do your job, you help her up. If you value your job more than helping her up, you don't. Either way, it isn't a sacrifice for that person.

"Is he being selfish and evil, according to altruism he is?"
What?

If you think I was arguing in favor of altruism, perhaps I should clarify that I am not. I am arguing against Rand's definition of sacrifice, which is closely related to selfishness. I am saying that it is impossible, unless you believe everyone has the same values? What I am asking for is a sacrifice that an Objectivist would consider evil.

I know Rand's argument is seperate from Egoism (If everyone is always selfish, why encourage someone to be selfish?) but if I value helping an old person, at my own risk, like Galt valued helping Dagny, then all you can say is that my values are wrong or my ethics are immoral, but you can not call it a sacrifice, like Rand did - giving up something you value for something you do not. Hope that clarifies my meaning.

Post 6

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 5:35pm

I'm sorry, my posts are at least 2 messages behind because they're still being looked at by a moderator. Who knows what the crazy new guy might post, right?

I think that does clear up the question of sacrifice a little, thanks Peter. I can see how it is a valid argument when you say it like that. I still do not intend to use "selfishness" or "sacrifice" in this way, because that isn't usually what people understand from the words, but I do understand the Objectivist point of view more clearly.

I've been interested in that subject Ed - whether one can act in a deliberately self-destructive way. I've written a little on it, but it was based on Socrates, "To know the good is to do the good" style, and I mainly dealt with semantics. Maybe you could elaborate, or make a new post?

We'll get to God and religion some day, no doubt. It seems that my reservations about being called Objectivist are not so much philosophical or conceptual, but stem from the attitutudes, stereotyping, and terminology used therein. I know, the stereotyping bit is a little ironic, but hey...

Post 7

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 6:44pm

Joseph, if you would like to present your arguments for theism, I'll start another thread on the definitions of atheism, weak and strong, and theism, weak and strong. Perhaps we can find where you fit in and determne if the burden of proof is on you or me. Then, we can stick to arguments of reason, not authority.

Look for the post on Peikoff and Agnosticism.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 8

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:53am

Joseph - not my best post, but I am just thinking of situations one might have and how to think about them on the fly, and the various ways people may use morality to make that decision. I think what I was trying to say was that the "greater value" gets inculcated by advocates of altruism into people such that they get a warped sense of what that greater value is - they measure their virtue by the level of sacrifice they make as opposed to the value of what they are providing, either to themselves or even to the recipient! The problem is that altruism is a self-contradictory philosoph - and the definition of "greater value" is told to people as being outside of themselves and their own self-interest. Often it is described as the "greater good" in a very nebulous fashion. So Rand's definition was a device to bring forth the contradictions out of the messy goop that most people find their thoughts in. The reason it is messy is because it is contradictory, and since contradictions don't exist, the meaning keeps switching back and forth as you think about it. You think, yeah I would sacrifice for my kids (a greater value to me), then you see a TV show and some reporter shows suffering of someone else's kids, and you are taught that they have the same value as your kids do, shouldn't we all be the same, so now maybe you sacrifice taking your kids to a park for an afternoon of fun in order to send money to these other kids, all the while telling yourself look, I wasn't selfish, and maybe even telling your kids the same lesson - when in reality you did sacrifice a greater good for a lesser, especially after you see stories about how so much of the relief money was wasted...

Post 9

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:05am

I think there is self-deception in any people who try to deny themselves to abde by a religious ethic. It makes them feel gulty about feeling good, which is selfish. Read about Ann Bradstreet in one of my posts below. Anyway, if I am in a hospital bed, I don't want people to visit me out of duty or a sense of sacrifice. I want them to visit me because they selfishly want to, because they find some value in my company. An administrator once justified the existence of a prison class I once taught as "doing a Christian duty." My students and I felt insulted. He would rather support the regular classes, but he was doing this to be a good Christian. Terrible!

bis bald,

Nick

Post 10

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 8:16am

Sacrifice is defined in almost every dictionary as giving something up for something you value more.

Merriam Webster does not agree:

Main Entry: ¹sac·ri·fice
Pronunciation: 'sa-kr&-"fIs, also -f&s or -"fIz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer + facere to make -- more at DO
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2 : something offered in sacrifice
3 a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>
4 : LOSS <goods sold at a sacrifice>
5 : SACRIFICE HIT

Notice: "The killing of a victim..."; "destruction or surrender of something..."; "loss". Which dictionary were you referring to?

Post 11

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 9:34pm

I'm going to think more about what the two of you have said about selfishness.

As for the definition, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I don't really care how you are using the word, so long as you don't flip-flop or try to be sneaky about it. I'm not going to say Rand is using English wrong, because the dictionary says so. I will, however, invalidate your arguement.

I was once walking down the street with an annoying person I didn't know at my side. He was drunk, telling me he loved me, and I was ignoring him. He kept walking with me in silence, then I turned around and he was gone. Lost.
I once gave up my belief in morality as I knew it, and I lost a friend that I'd enjoyed speaking to over it. (I still believe that my change was good and right.)

Loss doesn't refer to whether it is of more or less value, does it?
To justify further:
SACRIFICE:

Encarta online: a giving up of something valuable or important for somebody or something else considered to be of more value or importance
Oxford compact: an act of giving up something one values for the sake of something that is of greater importance
Wordsmyth: the surrender of something valuable or beloved as an act of devotion or in exchange for some perceived higher good
Dictionary.com: Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.
Cambridge: to give up (something) for something else considered more important

Etc. Or shall I continue? Wikepedia has both meanings listed, good job Wiki.
Granted, you could find one that has the opposite, I did. We become very petty when we believe that having a more accepted definition is important, do we not? It is best to drop the dictionary and try to understand concepts and meanings in philosophy.

Post 12

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 9:45pm

Sacrifice means being without what you want. In most societies, it's been said that one should give to a greater good.

Yet, what is that greater good? Society? God? Another person?

What I see is that sacrifice is simply giving to placate like sacrificing your time to do something you do not want to do. Or sacrificing your money for something you do not want. Or sacrificing your life to that which matters the least to you.

Sacrifice is not always good, it is that context which gives it a disastrous meaning. That context is that most people think it is to give to something outside of them, not to give something to themselves.

Even theologians will say that sacrifice is meant to be a loss of something material for something immaterial. Yet, if you think a principle is worth dying for it, then isn't it better to live for it instead?

That's why Rand said it was a virtue to be selfish, because one cannot gain if one is dead or harmed, or impeded needlessly. One must grow, expand, and become better for the exchange to be worthy, otherwise it is not worth anything, not even your spite.

That's why I support selfishness, but more importantly value driven selfishness.

Btw, the OED is the dictionary I will consider, or the American Heritage Dictionary, for a definition. I don't think there's a free OED online though. :(

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/19, 9:50pm)

Post 13

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:42am

It is best to drop the dictionary and try to understand concepts and meanings in philosophy.

Well, the only reason that I even posted the definition is because, you said:

Sacrifice is defined in almost every dictionary as giving something up for something you value more.

If it's best to drop the dictionary, then why do you care how it's defined in "almost every dictionary"?

We become very petty when we believe that having a more accepted definition is important, do we not?

As long as all parties understand which context is being used, then no problems should arise.

Loss doesn't refer to whether it is of more or less value, does it?

But if you're getting something in return, it's not a loss, it's a trade.

Post 14

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 7:15pm

Greater good.. What if you give up a belief in God for Objectivism, or the other way around? We could speculate what the dictionary writers were thinking when they said greater good, but I don't think it very productive.
I will respect your definition, and I respect your argument Bridget, believing it to be valid. Just realize the words "sacrifice and selfish" are used in speaking more than one way.

I shouldn't have mentioned the other dictionaries, and I didn't mean to introduce it as a proof that Rand was wrong. If you read the rest of what I said, you already know that.

Hey, you're right about the trade thing when it gets down to it. We don't always say it that way, but it would be funny if we did.
"We traded two million men in the war."

Post 15

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 11:34pm

Well, Gee, Joseph S., I thought you wanted to talk about God and religion. You were complaining that others cut you off and prejudge you, that they don't have the right attitude or something. I opened three posts down below where you could engage me if you wanted to. You ignore them. Why? What kind of attitude are you showing?

Nick

Post 16

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:46am

Bridget,

===================
Yet, if you think a principle is worth dying for it, then isn't it better to live for it instead?
===================

Golden.

Ed

Post 17

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 12:47am

Jonathan,

====================
If it's best to drop the dictionary, then why do you care how it's defined in "almost every dictionary"?

====================

Poignant.

Ed

Post 18

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 9:08am

Joseph:

Greater good.. What if you give up a belief in God for Objectivism

How does one exchange one's deepest beliefs like a pair of socks? I know people change their religions from one to the other for the sake of their marriage but do you think that they have really changed their belief or are just going through the motions of the rituals?

Sam

Post 19

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 9:38am