BB&T to get $3.1B of bailout funds

Ed wrote,

An agent-based ethic has to take into account the kind of being that is performing the actions -- in order to figure out whether actions are moral or not. You say it's not, by nature, immoral to kill innocent victims, because we can think of a context (self-defense) where you have the right to kill them. Having the right doesn't make it right, though (it doesn't make it moral). I have the right to burn half of my body beyond repair -- but that doesn't make it right to do so.

I didn't say that one "had the right" to kill innocent human beings, in the sense of an 'individual right' to do so. Obviously, one does not. There can be no individual right to kill other innocent human beings, for that would imply that they are obligated to permit it, which of course they are not. I said that killing innocent human beings was not by nature immoral, meaning that in some life-threatening emergencies, it is morally proper to attempt it, but that doesn't mean that the victim(s) ought therefore to allow it. In such cases, there is a genuine conflict of interest, in which each person should fight for his own survival at the expense of the other(s).

It's not moral simply because you chose it, or simply because you were acting on your own interests -- that's Nietzschean egoism.

Whoa! Who said it was moral simply because you chose it?! But it is moral, if you were acting on your own interests. Acting on your own interests is not Nietzschean egoism; it is egoism. Nietzsche was not a true egoist, because he didn't recognize the concept of individual rights, which are necessary for people to achieve their own interests in a normal social context.

The reason that Nietzschean egoism isn't moral is that it presumes folks don't have a human nature to prescribe and proscribe certain actions -- i.e., it's existentialist. Ian Brady (with Myra Hindley) was an existentialist who raped and killed kids in order to pursue some interests he had. He didn't understand that he was a human being (and what that really means for him). He wants to die now, and for good reason. You could say that he holds his life as his highest value now -- and that the best thing for him to do about that is to end it with whatever virtue he can muster.

First of all, I didn't say that people don't have a human nature to prescribe and proscribe certain actions. Nor did I endorse raping and killing kids. I hope you understood enough of what I was saying to recognize that! As for Brady's wanting to die, it doesn't follow simply from that desire that he should end his life. If he can put his past crimes behind him and achieve a measure of peace with himself, he might still be able to find some value in life. In any case, if a criminal does value his life, then he has nothing to gain by destroying it.

- Bill

Post 41

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 11:01am

I wrote, "The question was: should he allow himself to be killed? My answer was: not if he values his life." Ed replied,

There's the rub. When you speak of value and of life -- you speak generically. For you, value means act to gain or keep; and life means "continued breathing" or, literally, death-prevention. But a human life is more than mere death-prevention. Looking at the situation so generically, you are led to argue that if he values his life he should not allow himself to be killed. But the whole thing is too immediate, too short-sighted. Here is an analogy:

A man walks by a bank and sees that the bank offers lots of interest on deposited money (i.e., savings). He could get real rich if he invested -- but that means that he'd have to take the money out of his pocket and give it to the banker. He decides that he values his money too much to give it away to anyone. He lives life with less money than he could have -- even though he valued money. Why?

The reason that this man didn't get rich like he wanted to, is a similar reason to folks killing others because they value their lives. You have to understand the particulars, whether it be the particulars of the enterprise of banking money or the particulars of living a human kind of life. The man walking by the bank couldn't simply just act to gain or keep the money in his pocket -- that is not the right way to value money.

So, you're saying that for a criminal who values his life, remaining alive is not the right way for him to value it? -- that the right way for him to value it is to kill himself? Ed, please forgive me, but that doesn't make any sense. If he values his life, then the right way for him to value it is, at the very least, to try and preserve it. Would you also say that if a man values his money, then the right way for him to value it is to destroy it? I didn't think so.

- Bill

Post 42

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 1:20pm

Bill,

I said that killing innocent human beings was not by nature immoral, meaning that in some life-threatening emergencies, it is morally proper to attempt it, but that doesn't mean that the victim(s) ought therefore to allow it. In such cases, there is a genuine conflict of interest, in which each person should fight for his own survival at the expense of the other(s).

Someone once said that wherever you go, there you are. They meant that you take yourself with you -- into all situations, all contexts. Agent-based morality works like that, too. It means that you're not just in a situation or context, but that you are a certain type of creature who is in the situation or context. It's not the context or situation that solely determines the morality of your actions -- it's the product of the context and the specific type of being you are, that determines the morality of an action.

On this view, killing innocent human beings could be immoral in all different contexts -- because of the nature of the acting agent, rather than the nature of the situation. An easy example is someone who, for some reason or other, could not live with themselves after killing innocent human beings. With that kind of a person, it would be wrong to say that it would be "morally proper for them to attempt it", or that they "should fight for their own survival at the expense of the other(s)."

There's a tension here regarding what's universalizable. You've charged me with possible ethical intrinsicism. I'm charging you with the same accusation.

You say that I shouldn't have a moral rule -- like "don't kill innocent folks" -- to fit any and all kinds of contexts (because certain types of contexts exist where self-defense requires murder).

I say that you shouldn't have a moral rule -- like "stay alive at any price" -- to fit any and all kinds of moral agents (because certain types of moral agents exist where happiness precludes murder).

Ed

Post 43

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 1:23pm

Your mistake is wanting a rule - instead of a guide, as it should be...

Post 44

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 1:35pm

Bill,

Whoa! Who said it was moral simply because you chose it?! But it is moral, if you were acting on your own interests. Acting on your own interests is not Nietzschean egoism; it is egoism. Nietzsche was not a true egoist, because he didn't recognize the concept of individual rights, which are necessary for people to achieve their own interests in a normal social context.

You'll have to excuse me for over-stating there -- I didn't mean to imply that you think something's moral merely because someone acted to gain or keep it. And I'm sorry to be unclear regarding Nietzschean egoism, which comes from his existentialist idea of a "will to power."

Nietzsche thought that powerful folks are beyond good and evil; and are able to make morality out of thin air for themselves. All that they would have to do to be moral is to look out for themselves. Their consciously-held interests would be all the underpinning that their morality would require. If an action was on their own view in their own interests -- then that action would be moral (for the simple fact that it was in their conscious interests). It's a Primacy of Consciousness morality.

Here's Rand on "Nietzschean egoists":

This is said as a warning against the kind of �Nietzschean egoists� who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one�s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one�s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

--http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

The upshot is that acting on your own hierarchy of value isn't necessarily moral -- if your hierarchy is irrational or out of sync (out of sync with what human nature requires of a value hierarchy).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/16, 1:37pm)

Post 45

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 1:54pm

Bill,

So, you're saying that for a criminal who values his life, remaining alive is not the right way for him to value it? -- that the right way for him to value it is to kill himself? Ed, please forgive me, but that doesn't make any sense. If he values his life, then the right way for him to value it is, at the very least, to try and preserve it. Would you also say that if a man values his money, then the right way for him to value it is to destroy it? I didn't think so.

Don't be silly. I'm saying that sometimes an answer is counter-intuitive.

For instance, the best way to get to the "Far East" is to actually travel west! That's counter-intuitive. Another one is that the best way to get love is to give it. That's counter-intuitive. Sometimes, the best way to get rich is to not hoard your money (as the banking example proved). That's how losing something -- or acting in direct, albeit superficial, opposition toward getting it -- can be how you, in all actuality, get it. It's a little like there are times when reality is demanding that you play "hard to get" (because reality won't have it any other way than that).

However we choose to describe it, acting to gain or keep things isn't always straightforward. The reason that this is so is because reality doesn't always fit our moral algorithms. We have to fit them to reality, instead. Even Rand had selfish John Galt -- the man who valued his life more than any other man did -- ready to take his own life, ready to kill himself.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/16, 3:02pm)

Post 46

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 10:19am

Ed,

If I remember correctly, Galt was ready to kill himself if they tortured Dagny Taggert, because he couldn't bear the thought of living under those circumstances -- with his lover being tortured in front of him. In other words, he didn't value his life under those conditions.

But that's not the case with the rapist. The welfare of his intended victim doesn't mean the same thing to him as the welfare of Dagny Taggert meant to John Galt. Unlike Galt, the rapist doesn't prefer to die in order to prevent his victim from being harmed. He does value his life above hers. So why, then, should he allow her to kill him?

It isn't that the best way to preserve his life is to sacrifice it. That's not just "counter-intuitive"; it's self-contradictory.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/17, 10:36am)

Post 47

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 11:30am

Bill:

In the movie version of The Fountainhead, what do you think was the meaning of the scene where Gail Wynand commits suicide?

Do you contend that there is no rational point in life where a new found self-awareness of one's past actions coupled with a developing sense of justice and morality should cause anyone to reevaluate their current actions and act in a different manner? You would argue that for an outsider, the recognition of a lifetime of unspeakable acts by another justifies taking that other person's life (i.e., capital punishment) in the name of justice and a rational morality. However, you also argue that the same process cannot rationally occur when one evaluates one's own past actions. You say that a rapist not only will not, but should not come to see their own acts in a similar light and conclude that they should stop - not if it means placing their own life in danger. In this example, we are not even talking about having the rapist actually commit suicide, but simply refrain form killing his intended victim, which might place him in danger of loosing his own life. Even the threat of death is too great a risk to refrain form killing another innocent person under this "ultimate value" philosophy.

I fully understand your viewpoint on this issue. What Ed is arguing here (and what I argued in the past) is that there is, at least for some people, more to consider in the preservation of one's "life" than mere "survival". I realize that you do not agree with this, arguing that no other values are possible if we lose the ultimate value of life itself. The bottom line is that you are correct existentially, but for some of us, our sense of identity cannot actually be unwound down to that level. Even in an emergency situation, if I were to focus solely on personal survival and act in a manner that contravened everything relating to my commitment to truth, beauty, justice and morality and the rights of others, then there is no longer any meaningful "self" to preserve. At that point, I might as well commit suicide like Wynand. But I do not choose suicide. Instead, I would choose to maintain my identity and my commitment to this broader, integrated set of values, and within that context, fight as best as I could for my survival. Hopefully I will be successful and live, but should I die trying, it is "me" who dies and not some hollow shell stripped of my humanity who's actions have been reduced to those of a beast.

Regarding Galt in Atlas Shrugged, what is your interpretation of the scene near the end of the book, where the torture machine breaks and Galt instructs the technician in how to repair it so that he can continue torturing Galt? Based upon how Rand wrote it, it makes a dramatic point about knowledge being the true seat of power, but in reality the technician would have probably not been nonplussed and simply effected the repairs and continued. Why would Rand include a scene like this? If your interpretation of emergency-situation morality is correct - and this scene certainly qualifies as an emergency! - then how do you judge Galt's, and by extension, Rand's actions here?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 48

Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 11:36am

Bill,

We're talking past each other. You keep defaulting to the generic definition of "value" (to act to gain or keep) and to the generic definition of "life" (the prevention of death). Unable to agree on a context-appropriate, definition-of-terms, we're at a stalemate.

Under your generic definitions, you're right to conclude that Galt didn't value his life (in the specific circumstance of seeing Dagny tortured).

I'm at a loss as to your attempted integration of that with the rapist. I didn't mean to imply that we should transpose the specific psycho-spiritual dynamics of Galt into the rapist scenario. My point is that value can mean more than straightforwardly acting to gain or keep things -- such as when an investor gives his money to a banker (instead of keeping it in his pocket) -- and that life can mean more than the mere prevention of death.

If value and life mean special things to man (instead of their generic meanings), then that opens up possibilities for an alternative moral evaluation of a rapist-turned-murderer.

Ed

Post 49

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 9:34pm

Of special interest is whether Rand herself would ever "kill to live":

At the Ford Hall Forum in 1968, Rand was asked about whether it's morally permissible to kill an innocent man in order to save your own life. She said this startling thing:

... Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right--subjectively. Two men could make opposite choices. I don't think that I could kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger; I think I could kill ten if my husband's life was in danger. ...

Apparently, the moral standard in such lifeboat scenarios reverts from the cognitive and objective ethic of "man's life" as the moral standard, to a noncognitive and subjective moral standard. In a way, this vindicates my line of reasoning -- which made it's ultimate appeal (for determining morality) to the kind of moral agent performing the actions, instead of to the kind of moral dilemma in which one is acting.

:-)

The most startling part is that Rand would kill for others, but not herself. I expect some lurkers to come out of the woodwork and comment on this one.

Ed

Post 50

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 10:06pm

Ed:

Out of curiosity, can you tell me which FHF lecture Q&A included this statement by Rand. Was this Q&A published somewhere? Thanks.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 51

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 10:20pm

There's nothing shocking about Rand's comment, Ed. She was smarter than just her explicit philosophy. Now there are many who admire her are not smarter than her explicit philosophy. That should be shocking.

One is not magnanimous because he admires Rand. One properly admires what is right in Rand's philosophy because he is magnanimous.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/18, 10:23pm)

Post 52

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:42am

Jeff,

It's from the book: Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A.

Ed

Post 53

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:45am

Ted,

Riveting.

Ed

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 10:33am

Thanks Ed.

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 6:27am

BB&T took federal rescue money at Treasury's urging

Post 56

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 7:09am

Reply to post 55.

BB&T's Mr. Denham is a spin-master. See the last two paragraphs -- some of BB&T's competitors refused to participate. Of course, maybe Mr. Allison was still against it, but other board members prevailed.

Post 57

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 11:32am

I saw this item today:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being released by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

The media, politicians, and even many businessmen have blamed today's financial meltdown on capitalism. But in this talk, John Allison -- the longest-tenured CEO of a top-25 financial services company -- will argue that this crisis is a legacy of the government's anti-capitalist policies.

Mr. Allison will use his unique inside view of the financial services industry to show how massive government intervention into the U.S. economy -- from the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to a reckless crusade to encourage home-ownership -- laid the groundwork for an unsustainable real estate boom. And he will show how the government's response to the inevitable bust -- a frenzied series of bailouts, nationalizations, and "stimulus" efforts -- is only making things worse.

Finally, Mr. Allison will explain the underlying philosophical reasons for the crisis and discuss the immediate and long-term solutions. He will show that capitalism, far from being the cause of today's crisis, is its only cure.

John Allison is chairman of the board of BB&T Corporation. He began his service with BB&T in 1971, became president in 1987 and was elected chairman and CEO in 1989 (serving as CEO until the end of 2008). During Mr. Allison's tenure, BB&T has grown from $4.5 billion to $137 billion in assets.

It is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain that others cause problems, but when do you step up and act? This lecture will do nothing as it will simply be preaching to the choir. The public media platform that would have been afforded by rejecting the bailout money would have been priceless in reaching the type of audience that needs to hear the message and be inspired to act through the example of actions being taken by others. Instead, this lecture will simply result in a room full of people shaking their heads in agreement that it's all the government's fault.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 58

Friday, January 23, 2009 - 10:36am

Interesting thread. I initially leaned towards Ted's view, after reading Merlin's (post 3) comments. However, the more I read, I had to agree with both Jeff and Steve, whose comments I think go to the heart of the issue. I think Steve's post 15 - What I wrote is correct, but it leaves out an important element - that virtue is THE engine of benevolent change in our world, and that the absence of virtue is the source of malevolent change. It is the most heroic, like Rand herself, who move the world. It may be moral for the CEO to take the funds in exchange for stock, but it would be more moral, heroic, if he called a press conference and explained why he refused to go along with a form of socialism. -is a good and concise summary of the issue.

jt

Post 59

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 7:54am