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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I know this has got to be a pretty old question to some of you "seasoned-Objectivists", but I really wanted to see what some of you might say if I asked you why it is that Objectivism doesn't endorse preying on others when it seems neccessary in order to best secure one's life.  I feel strongly that a good life can only be achieved by living independently, but have never been able to prove to myself that this is the case.  I would suppose that some of you have probably thought enough about this issue to be able to give me a reason as to why one should eschew the policy of preying on others, even if it seems like it could benefit your interest.
     Incidentally, the only "answer" I have been able to come up with on this issue runs as follows:  When I have acted independently, I have felt a sense of personal accomplishment, but when I have acted second-handedly, I have not felt such a feeling of accomplishment.  Also, when I think about it, I am convinced that I could only ever feel a feeling of accomplishment because of having acted independently.  Since I, for the most part, trust that what I feel and don't feel emotionally is a result of my subconscious accurately reflecting reality, I feel that it is probable that there actually is no accomplishment possible through second-handed action.  Otherwise I would expect to be able to feel as though I had accomplished something after having acted-secondhandedly.  But I have already said that this is not the case. (I apologize if my writing-style has made this argument hard to grasp by reading the above;  I tried to make it more clear, but that was the best I was capable of.)
     Still, however, I am not certain that I am right in saying that independence is the only way to a good life;  I feel that it is probable for the reason I gave, but being certain would be something else.

(Edited by Christopher Parker on 1/11, 5:02pm)


Post 1

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not sure what your second-handed actions are. Can you give examples?

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I know this has got to be a pretty old question to some of you "seasoned-Objectivists", but I really wanted to see what some of you might say if I asked you why it is that Objectivism doesn't endorse preying on others when it seems neccessary in order to best secure one's life.
Short answer:  Because Objectivism doesn't hold this as a necessary behaviour. It isn't a necessary behaviour in any rational discipline. When you say "necessary," what do you mean?

I feel strongly that a good life can only be achieved by living independently, but have never been able to prove to myself that this is the case. 
Goodness, don't tell me you're preying on people to survive, Christopher! :)  Seriously, what is there to prove?  Independently doesn't mean "alone."  It means "autonomously."

I would suppose that some of you have probably thought enough about this issue to be able to give me a reason as to why one should eschew the policy of preying on others, even if it seems like it could benefit your interest.
How does becoming a pariah benefit anyone in the long run? Human nature is reflective. Humans are keenly sensitive to suffering, even to the suffering of other species. Human beings never could have evolved as far as we have if human to human predation were natural to the species. It isn't natural. It has outraged humans from the first written record, and probably way before that.

    Still, however, I am not certain that I am right in saying that independence is the only way to a good life;  I feel that it is probable for the reason I gave, but being certain would be something else.
It depends on how you define a "good life," which depends on how you define "good," AND "life."


 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok, your stated premise is that Objectivism doesn't endorse preying on others when it seems neccessary in order to best secure one's life. My understanding of the philosophy is that this is a false premise. The works I've read indicate that Objectivism doesn't endorse preying on others based on the understanding that predation is NOT the best way to secure one's life. A life of predation is fundamentally insecure. Parasitism can only exist as long as prey is available and producing. Such a life's only security lies OUTSIDE. The producer can survive quite well without the parasite, the opposite is not true. Who is more secure?

Objectivism doesn't hold what Christopher Parker's good to be the objective standard of "good". It holds that MAN'S life is the standard of value, meaning what MAN must do to survive, namely think. This abstract standard is then applied to specific situations. Namely different men's lives. If this standard is accepted by me, I can't justify caving your skull in for your shoes. If I hold the conviction that MY rights as an individual are inherent, based on that abstract principle, it follows that I have to acknowledge the validity of that other iterations of the same principle. In other words, if the standard that I use to determine the value of my own life also applies to you, I can't violate your rights without invalidating my own. The only possible proper interaction between people in that situation is nonviolence.

I'm sure if I've made missteps here they will be swiftly pointed out.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

As a vampire I make it a strict policy never to discuss or admit the fact that I prey on others. Indeed, I swiftly kill anyone who finds out.

Post 5

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If it isn't really yours, you don't own it. You don't own what you buy with it. You don't have the right to object if someone preys on you. Nothing you have is indisputably your own, etc.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, let's see... If I want to design a system to live in there are really only three choices:
  • Some people get to be predators and the rest are prey. All I need is some kind of rule that determines who get to be predators. All tyrannies are of this sort.
  • Or, I can just have no rules - anarchy - some people will be trying to work out voluntary agreements, but they will also be prey to any passing predator. Very bloody system - no stability.
  • Or I can have a system where initiation of violence (predator behavior) is prohibited - no one is prey. Everything else is acceptable.
Unless I'm a person that desires to be a predator, you can imagine which system I think will best suit me (i.e., be in my rational self-interest, be the one moral system).

If I'm attempting to justify some predator system, I have to claim that there is such a thing as the right to violate a right (a contradiction that wipes out the very concept), or that rights are not universal (same thing), or that there are no such things as rights which means I have no moral justification.

Post 7

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I don't think it really addresses the question as intended, and I don't watch the show, but I understand Dexter form Showtime addresses how a "predator" can try to live a rational life - that is, in accord with his nature and with the society he lives in.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christopher,

This is sometimes referred to as the prudent predator problem if you want to snoop on google for extended discussion. In the meantime, here're some brief responses:

1. You might get caught.

2. You'll live in fear of reprisals.

3. It runs contrary to the good habit (i.e., virtue) of getting their on your own, which you would do well not to sabotage.

4. You diminish yourself when you diminish your kind.

5. Predation short-changes empathy -- what I'd say is one of the most important tools for achieving a good life.

6. If one violates the principles that one believes are right (e.g., non-aggression) -- regardless of whether they are valid -- then one will probably suffer psychologically.

7. "One should not seek the taste of blood, for fear of delighting in it."

8. Hell, maybe prudent predation could be rational, as Nobel Laureate Gary Becker suggests with his economics research in criminology. So it's up to the government to create an unfavorable cost-benefit return for crimes so as to make them not worth it for would-be criminals.

Jordan


(Edited by Jordan on 1/12, 4:44pm)


Post 9

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 3:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exactly.

Post 10

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan,
I wanted to ask you if Rand meant "Man's Life" in the collective, or plural sense.  It seems to me that you might be relying on that interpretation (though I'm not certain of it).  I was recently reading in "The Virtue of Selfishness" a paragraph in which Rand was differentiating between the standard of the Objectivist ethics and the purpose of ethics, according to Objectivism.  In that paragraph, I thought, she could be taken to mean either of the following:
1.)"Man's Life" is an abstract standard which applies to each individual in the form of his own life. (i.e. the proper moral standard is "Man's Life" in the sense that for each individual man, the proper moral standard is his own life.)
or,
2.)each individual has to use the standard of man's life (in the plural sense) in order to accomplish the purpose of achieving a rational life.
It probably seem pretty clear to you which of these she meant, but I have never been able to convince myself of which of the above she meant.  Anyway, I would appreciate any light you may be able to shed on this issue for me.
Thanks.


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christopher, I read that passage quite a few times before responding to your original post. I took it to mean the following, and I may be wrong so get a second opinion, but this works for my thinking.
I didn't take Rand's meaning to be collective, but abstract. I use that standard to find the purpose to my personal situation, my life. Now if the same objective standard I use for my own value applies to you, I cannot obstruct you without disregarding the standard that provides MY OWN value.
An example, If I use X objective standard to determine that gold is valuable. I can't arbitrarily assert that the gold YOU carry has no value without undermining the value of the gold that I carry. Its the same with the value we are discussing. Our lives.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"I didn't take Rand's meaning to be collective, but abstract"

This guy is no dummy.

Post 13

Monday, January 12, 2009 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The real reason to be moral, even when substantial material gains might be in the offing for a rip-off artist, is that you rely upon other people to be an psycho-epistemological mirror.  This is what is called "honor."  If you have to live a lie, then how are you going be a real lover - or is love not important?

Post 14

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 3:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was going to add something, but changed my mind. Big sanction to post #11. 

Post 15

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have to disagree as to what is "The real reason to be moral..." I don't disagree that your reason is a real one, just that it is the most basic one. I propose that the real reason to be moral is so that you aren't self-defeating.

p.s. I don't get the distinction between the "collective" and "abstract" meaning of "man's life."


Post 16

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 6:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
p.s. I don't get the distinction between the "collective" and "abstract" meaning of "man's life."

Oh, good. I thought it was just me. :)

I'm not sure I understand it, either. I thought maybe it meant All Humans that Now Exist is "collective," and All Humans that will Ever Exist is "abstract," but I that's a guess.



Post 17

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mindy,

 

Have you been following the news lately?  As in, big-time swindlers right and left at the highest levels?

 

The fact is that materially speaking there is a real market niche for crooks.  And some of them do quite well, in purely material terms.  Then there are the sociopaths and psychopaths, such as Bundy, who was the most popular guy in every crowd he hung with.  I personally have had the misfortune to know several sociopaths over the years.  Ellsworth Toohey could have taken lessons from some of them.  But are they really successful as human beings?

 

The issue that I believe is crucial to understanding morality and why people chose to be moral was outlined toward the end of Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem."  He called it the "muttnik principle," as he identified it as he was rough-housing with his dog by that name.  Other people are mirrors to our deepest sense of who we are, and keeping that mirror clean is crucial to being able to thereby perceive who we fundamentally are.

 

As Branden pointed out, although we can easily survive by minimal effort, most of us in fact make huge efforts beyond that minimum.  We build or buy houses and buildings, although there are places - such as Southern California - where one could live virtually for free in reasonable comfort (and some do), we master bodies of knowledge and strive to extend them, even as plumbers make more money, we struggle to preserve political systems, and on and on. 

 

One could argue that this is merely evolutionary selection, and there is that factor to it, for sure, but there is clearly the need for us to see in the real world outside ourselves a reaffirmation of what and who we are.  A professional architect of competence and integrity experiences a deep satisfaction when his innovative design is actually built.

 

Similarly, the value of real lovers or friends, who know us for real, is more the experience of self-awareness, via an uncensored interaction, than any simple convenience.  One can see this exemplified in the experience of an orgasm.  If it is self-induced via masturbation, it is clear that, like a microphone placed too near the speakers in a PA system, it is a process of positive feedback, in which our mental imagery is matched instant by instant to the physical touching we control. 

 

The same is true when we do it with another person in the loop.  However, if we have to conceal who we are to that person, or there are significant conflicts of values between us, then at some point we will experience a disconnect with them and basically shift from making love to masturbating with assistance.  The quality of orgasm typically suffers as well.

 

One cannot have continuous sex (unfortunately), but the real emotional interactions with a loved one are the background leitmotif of which sex and orgasm are the crescendo, and diluting ones most pleasurable and meaningful interactions by having to live a lie is hardly selfish.

 

You might also check out Wilhelm Reich and the neo-Reichean psychologists as to how our natural needs are perverted and used to control us.  For example, simply being gay was illegal in much of the U.S. for a long time.  I recall that homosexual sex carried the death penalty in Georgia - or so I was told as a kid there.  If being Gay, or Jewish, or protestant, or capitalist (e.g., China under the Red Guards) have to be concealed in order to simply survive, then one is forced into the position of living a lie, which undercuts this crucial capacity for self-awareness and pleasure in ones person and that of others.

 

Then the gangs, such as organized religion or the state, use that fact to bribe, seduce and coerce us into giving up our natural heritage, our capacity for real love.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hmmm, Ok, I'll take a crack at this. Collective implies plurality, a numerical group. An abstract is seperate from any specific instance, it is not numerical.

So a collective standard of value assigns value on the basis of membership or identification with a group. Each man would be an addition to the value of the group. Under a collective standard, One man is not as valued as two men are. This is why under such a standard it is acceptable for 51% of the group to dictate terms to 49%.

An abstract standard of value is applicable to any number of instances, whether one or any greater number. Each man is a separate iteration of the value, and is of equal value to all other iterations. This applies equally to a man on a desert island and a man surrounded by men.



Post 19

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 3:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'll sanction that explanation, Ryan.  Nice.

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


User ID Password or create a free account.