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 unread


Post 0

Monday, March 16, 2009 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Imagine three plans for a moral agent to achieve a goal. Each plan will cost the moral agent the same effort and will yield the same return, except: Plan A will neither help nor hurt anyone else; Plan B will yield a side effect -- it will make, say, 10 strangers better off; and Plan C will yield a side effect also -- it will make say, 20 strangers better off.

Perhaps some Objectivists will say it's okay to shrug away from the 10 or 20 strangers, that it makes no moral difference whether the moral agent chooses any of those plans over the others. But I suspect most Objectivists will say it's morally preferable, perhaps in the name of good will or benevolence, to go with Plan B or C and make some number of strangers better off.

I suspect that Objectivists will also not remain morally neutral when choosing between Plan B and C. I suspect most will go with the *utilitarian* solution and opt for Plan C (make 20 strangers better off). I would take this as Objectivists adopting utilitarianism as a secondary philosophy. On the one hand this seems counter-intuitive because Objectivism obviously rejects utilitarianism, but on the other hand, maybe it's kosher because it entertains utilitarianism merely as an auxiliary philosophy, something peripheral to the big kahuna.

Jordan

Post 1

Monday, March 16, 2009 - 6:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan:

Your example has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Objectivists, being benevolent, would choose option C. It requires no sacrifice on their part. Surely this was obvious to you before you posted this.

Sam


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan and Sam,

I agree that it has nothing to do with utilitarianism. I would not ascribe the Objectivist motives to benevolence either. Objectivist philosophy is about promoting life. That which best promotes the quality of life would always be the most natural, logical choice. Individuals thrive best in situations when there is voluntary cooperation among individuals. Plan C is simply the most optimum choice, by providing and (therefore) encouraging cooperation between individuals.

jt

Post 3

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

Choosing B or C over A suggests benevolence. Choosing C over B says suggests a "more is better" benevolence along the lines of utilitarianism.

Jordan

Post 4

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My understanding is that Objectivism has never been "anti-benevolence". Benevolence seems to imply that I place some value on others, or in helping others. Note that benevolence appears to be a personal value judgement, not a moral imperative that requires sacrifice. If I find even the slightest value in others, and helping them involves no loss of any other value, as is stated in your scenario. Then gaining as much of that value as possible by helping as many as possible isn't utilitarionism. Its just an understanding of basic math and one's own values.
My reading on utilitarianism leads me to believe that it involves the SACRIFICE of some value for the attainment of some sort of "greater" value.

(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 3/17, 11:06am)


Post 5

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ryan,

I take your point about utilitarianism mandating some sacrifice. But perhaps that mandate is something relegated to utilitarianism as a primary philosophy.

To be sure, some people will opt to flip a coin between Plan B and C because they advocate "fair chance" over "more is better." They don't believe it's far that the 20 strangers in plan C should benefit just because there're more of them. This is a more egalitarian approach.

By picking C, and by going with the "basic math," you are saying something about your moral priorities. It might not be utilitarianism, per se, but it sure looks like there's overlap.

Jordan

Post 6

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No overlap.

Sam


Post 7

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sure, I'm saying that if I find value in something, I prefer 20x the value over 10x. Not conflict there. I don't think it would be possible to "overlap" objectivism and utilitarianism. Objectivism utilizes abstract principles to arrive at a person's value, while utilitarianism appears to me to use collective principles. I would say that your example has value in provoking thought about benevolence in objectivism, which is often overlooked, but it doesn't seem to even involve utilitarianism at all.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.