RoR: Forum

I listened to most of it. I haven't listened to the Q&A yet. Huemer's arguments regarding common sense and the weight of how long common views have been held seem baseless and arbitrary.

Post 1

Friday, March 6, 2009 - 3:00pm

Ooh, Jordan, you better watch what you say about Michael Huemer. :-)
http://dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/audio-of-debate-on-ayn-rands-ethics.shtml

Post 2

Friday, March 6, 2009 - 3:15pm

;) Poor Diana

However, I agree with her that Michael is a very nice fellow. I met him at a TOC seminar.

Post 3

Friday, March 6, 2009 - 3:58pm

I was in the audience, too, one of many who didn't get a chance to ask a question. To Huemer:

You say that ideas that have stood the tests of time and of widespread, cross-cultural acceptance command our respect. Intuitionism has been around for about a hundred years (I think), not terribly old by historical standards and not much older than Rand's theories. Almost all the people who buy into it are English-speaking academics and their students. Far more people around the world buy into Rand's ideas. If you add up adherent-years wouldn't you have to admit that Objectivism is more respectable than Intuitionism?

Post 4

Friday, March 6, 2009 - 11:54pm

Hear. hear, Peter! Hang him by his own petard! You get a sanction for that!

I also thought Huemer was nailed by the young lady who asked how one could legitimately challenge a view that is popular if its very popularity justifies its acceptance. This consensus view of truth also begs the question, because the question is, on what grounds did the view gain popularity in the first place? You can't say, on the grounds of its popularity, because that's circular, which points out the need to justify it on other, more fundamental grounds.

Huemer's view that you should accept an idea merely because it "seems right" is also question begging. The question is, why does it seem right? I.e., on what grounds? To say that it seems right because it seems right would imply that any idea that seems right is therefore acceptable, including ideas that are mutually exclusive -- a view that is self-refuting. An idea is correct only if it corresponds to reality -- only if it is based on the facts of reality.

For Huemer, truth is a matter of collective subjectivism -- of what most people believe -- not of any actual correspondence to the facts themselves. This comes from his failure to understand the hierarchical nature of concepts, which involves the principle of reductionism -- a principle which states that any theory, including a theory of morality, must be reduced to its proper foundations in reality -- which is a principle that Rand emphasized in her essay, "The Objectivist Ethics," when she asked, "What are values and why does man need them?" Huemer presumes to criticize Rand's ethics, while ignoring this principle entirely. He wants to start in midstream by looking only at the views that people have already accepted, instead of at their reasons for accepting them and seeing whether those reasons are justified.

Also, consider his argument that IF murdering an innocent person actually did advance one's interests, it would prove that egoism is untenable. Why would it prove that egoism is untenable? Because most people would find the murder unacceptable. But that's not a good reason, any more than the reason that most people believe in God proves that atheism is untenable. It is incredible that a professor of philosophy could be this philosophically naive!

For the sake of argument, let's accept his thought experiment in which murdering an innocent person actually does advance your own interests, however remote the possibility. IF that were the case, then, yes, you should murder the person. Why? Because doing so would further your own happiness, which is your highest moral purpose.

Again, what Huemer ignores is the principle of foundationalism. According to Objectivism, self-interest is the foundation of moral choice, because it is the moral agent's ultimate value and therefore his highest moral purpose. Huemer seems oblivious to the concept of a highest moral purpose and to the fact that moral choices must be based on it. Since he is willing to look only at people's ideas ABOUT reality rather than the reality itself, he is prevented from ever seeing this.

I also thought that Onkar Ghate did a masterful job of debating Huemer. Engaging in this sort of debate is by no means an easy task. One has to decide which points are worth addressing and the most effective way of addressing them, one has to do so on the spot with very little time to organize one's thoughts, and one has to do so patiently and calmly in a way that doesn't antagonize the audience. I thought Ghate accomplished all of that. I especially liked his introduction and his examples in which he contrasted Rand's theory with the conventional view of morality as coming from outside the individual -- either from God, the state or other people -- a contrast which should resonate with students who are independent thinkers. ARI has some smart and effective advocates. Hopefully, Professor Ghate will have interested at least some of those in attendance to further investigate Rand's ideas.

- Bill

Post 5

Saturday, March 7, 2009 - 12:11pm

Also, I was surprised that Onkar Ghate didn't mention Kant as one of the causes of the widespread belief in altruism. He kept stressing religion as the cause, but conspicuously left out any mention of Kant. Perhaps, he was trying to avoid sidetracking the discussion into a debate about Kant's philosophy, since he was debating a professor of philosophy and addressing philosophy students.

But for an ARI Objectivist to avoid pinning at least part of the blame on Kant is something I wouldn't have expected. For Rand, Kant was an arch-villain, as much for his ethics as for his metaphysics.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/07, 12:12pm)

Post 6

Saturday, March 7, 2009 - 1:02pm

Another problem for Huemer that nobody mentioned is that at one point he freely admitted that common sense or intuition isn't infallible and he freely accepted some (but not all) of the stock counter-examples Ghate mentioned; at another point he said that any false consequence or any counter-example, however small, is enough to refute a theory. This looks like an inconsistency. Huemer may have an answer, but it didn't come up that evening. I think part of the problem is that he can't decide whether common-sense intuition is a definition of ethical truth or just a high-probability indicator. The lady's question that you mention in #4 is a case in point. He may have an answer to that, too.

Post 7

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 5:36am

Like Bill in post 4, I liked Ghate's introduction. And I agree with Bill's points about foundations.

Still, in my view something is lost by not challenging the false dichotomy between good for one's self (egoism) and good for others (altruism). I give Ghate a pass on that due to time constraint and/or his goal was to speak for Ayn Rand and she did not directly challenge the dichotomy, either.

Using Venn diagrams the false dichotomy depicts egoism and altruism as two separate, or non-intersecting, circles. My challenge depicts egoism and altruism as two intersecting, or overlapping circles. An act in the overlapping section is good both for one's self and for one or more others. I think the overlapping section is fairly big. For example, an act by a husband or wife singly is often for the benefit of both. An act in the egoism circle, but not in the altruism circle, is "pure egoism", what most people think of as egoism. An act in the altruism circle, but not in the egoism circle, is "pure altruism", what most people think of as altruism.

When someone holds, like Ghate did, that trade is mutually beneficial or that charity is not necessarily self-sacrifice, that implicitly uses the overlapping circles. The idea of harmony of intersts also implicitly uses the overlapping circles. As I recall Ayn Rand was asked at least once if something she did for her husband was altruistic. Her reply was that it was not, and she did it for her own selfish reasons. I submit that her words implicitly accepted the separate circles, but that her act and motivation implicitly used the overlapping circles.

More effective in my view would be to directly challenge the dichotomy by explicitly using overlapping circles. It both strengthens the egoism side and weakens the altruism side.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/08, 5:55am)

Post 8

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 12:14pm

Merlin,

I'm not sure I understand your point, because egoism and altruism are mutually exclusive doctrines, if we understand "altruism" the way that Objectivism uses the term. According to Objectivism, which takes its cue from August Comte, "altruism" doesn't simply mean benevolence or doing things for others; it means doing things for others self-sacrificially. Kant, of course, held a view that was similar to Comte's, which is one reason Rand was so strongly opposed to his philosophy.

Remember, egoism is the doctrine that the PRIMARY beneficiary of an action ought to be the self -- that the ULTIMATE goal or purpose of one's action is self-interest. Egoism doesn't say that one should never act in ways that benefit others.

You could draw a Venn diagram of two intersecting circles if you simply labeled the circles respectively as "actions benefiting self" and "actions benefiting others." Then, of course, a large portion of the two circles would overlap.

For example, if I am tired and lay down to take a nap, that action benefits me but does not serve the interests of others. On the other hand, if I do business with you, my action benefits me as well as you. However, if in order to sustain my life in an emergency, I must steal your property, the act of stealing your property would serve my interest only at the expense of your interest.

As we all know, such conflicts of interest are extremely rare, so under normal circumstances, it is fair to say that there are no conflicts of interest. Even if I should fire you, because I can no longer use your services, I have not acted against your (long-range) interest. Is it in your interest for me to continuing employing you? Not if doing so impairs my productivity, because it is in everyone's interest to live in a productive economy. If my services can be more productively employed elsewhere, then it is in my self-interest to work elsewhere.

So, except for the most dire, life-threatening emergencies, there are no conflicts of interest, but there are nevertheless many cases in which specific actions could benefit the actor without benefiting others. However, actions that do benefit both oneself and others, like trading goods and services, are not examples in which altruism and egoism overlap, because helping others is not altruistic unless it is simultaneously self-sacrificial.

- Bill

[This post was substantially revised.]
(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/08, 12:41pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/08, 12:51pm)

Post 9

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 1:00pm

About Those Intuitionists

Michael Huemer

George Bealer

Robert Audi

Post 10

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 1:24pm

Bill Dwyer wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your point, because egoism and altruism are mutually exclusive doctrines, if we understand "altruism" the way that Objectivism uses the term.

Ah, so you are prey to the false dichotomy, too. :-) Note that my use of "altruism" was its meaning for most people, not Rand's idiosyncratic meaning. That was also Ghate's meaning in the debate, at least generally.

Remember, egoism is the doctrine that the PRIMARY beneficiary of an action ought to be the self -- that the ULTIMATE goal or purpose of one's action is self-interest. Egoism doesn't say that one should never act in ways that benefit others.

That's a more refined meaning and arguably not very common. But similar to "altruism," I used "egoism" as most people mean it.

You could draw a Venn diagram of two intersecting circles if you simply labeled the circles respectively as "actions benefiting self" and "actions benefiting others." Then, of course, a large portion of the two circles would overlap.

I don't understand why you said this. That's what I did.

As we all know, such conflicts of interest are extremely rare, so under normal circumstances, it is fair to say that there are no conflicts of interest.

If "no conflicts of interest" translates to a "general harmony of interest", that's fine. However, the common meaning of "conflict of interest" is quite different and such conflicts are not "extremely rare." See here. Indeed, Rand's use of "conflict of interest" was another idiosyncratic one. Read her essay The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests (in VoS). The one concrete example she gave was two people competing for the same job. That is not an example of what "conflict of interest" means in the Wikipedia article.

However, actions that do benefit both oneself and others, like trading goods and services, are not examples in which altruism and egoism overlap, because helping others is not altruistic unless it is simultaneously self-sacrificial.

You used Rand's idiosyncratic meaning and again were prey to the false dichotomy. :-)

Trading goods and services benefits one's self and the trading partner's. One side may not be motivated to help the other, but the act still does. My Venn diagrams were specifically geared to acts. The diagrams could be used as tools to consider motivation, but that's another subject.

Edited for spelling.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/08, 2:15pm)

Post 11

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 4:28pm

Merlin,

RoR is an Objectivist forum, so I would expect contributors who are sympathetic to Rand's philosophy to use Objectivist terminology. You say that Ghate used "altruism" in the more conventional sense of the term, not in Rand's "idiosyncratic" sense. Ghate is an ARI Objectivist. I can assure you that he was using the term in Rand's sense.

Also, the terms "altruism" and "egoism" in the Objectivist lexicon are not philosophically idiosyncratic. The Dictionary of Philosophy uses them that way as well. It defines "altruism" as follows: "(1) For Comte Altruism meant the discipline and eradication of self-centered desire, and a life devoted to the good of others; more particularly, selfless love and devotion to society."

The Dictionary of Philosophy also defines "Egoism" as follows: "The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare. This principle is sometimes advanced as a separate intuition, sometimes on the ground that an individual's own welfare is the only thing that is ultimately valuable (for him)." (Emphasis added) Huemer, in his criticism of the doctrine, was using the term in this sense too. Note also that the debate was hosted by the Philosophy Department. So, the philosophy students in attendance should have been sensitive to the philosophical meanings of these terms.

Since Rand was a philosopher, she was careful to use the terms "altruism" and "egoism" in their philosophically relevant sense. As further evidence that the term "altruism" is used this way in philosophy, note that Philosopher Thomas Nagel has written a book entitled The Possibility of Altruism in which he attempts to justify "altruism" understood as a doctrine that recognizes other peoples interests as ends in themselves.

Objectivism is a technical philosophy written in the philosophical tradition. Those who study and promote it need to be aware of this.

- Bill

Post 12

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 6:06pm

This was boring. Ghate was stumbling around in his speech. Huemer was droning on with his. Going to Mass is more thrilling.

I'll say this though, and it's not good for Ghate, if I were not familiar with Objectivism and the virtue of selfishness I would be more inclined to believe Huemer. Sure his theory is flawed - what the hell kind of theory uses culture, polling and tradition as sources of evidence? Oh, religion, communism, fascism, and altruism in general - but he did present his case with authority.

I was disappointed. Ghate, I'm sure, could have run circles around this other dope. That would have been fun.

(Edit: I still don't know how to transfer doc's properly.)
(Edited by Steve on 3/08, 9:06pm)

Post 13

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 2:10am

MJ: Note that my use of "altruism" was its meaning for most people, not Rand's idiosyncratic meaning. That was also Ghate's meaning in the debate, at least generally.

You can find Comte's System of Positive Polity on Google Books and read it for yourself. I understand completely your point -- and it is true that words do change their meanings over time as we change our use of them. "Silly" (soully) meant "holy." Still, I just recently had to get involved with Comte (via Spencer) and there is no doubt that Rand was correct in her assessment. What do "most" people (measured how?) mean by "socialism" ... or "capitalism" ... or "bailout"? What is selfishness? What is egoism?

I recommend sticking close to the original sense of "altruism."

Comte intended a priesthood of positivism to rule over humanity. Like Kant, he proposed a completely absolute and deonotological morality, to be followed regardless of any benefit to the individual.

Each makes others his chief object and as a natural result gains the support of others in his own need. But he may not gain it; and if he gain it, it is not the motive for altruisml nor can it be its adequate reward. We are liable to set too much store by such reciprocity of services, owing to habits contracted under the egoistic synthesis; and any over value of it would endanger the unity of our sympathetic by stimulating our personal instincts. -- System of Positive Polity (London 1877; Burt Franklin, New York, 1968), page 44.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/09, 2:21am)

Post 14

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 3:49am

Bill Dwyer wrote:

RoR is an Objectivist forum, so I would expect contributors who are sympathetic to Rand's philosophy to use Objectivist terminology.

I wasn't aware you are the RoR censor. :-) Are you going to tell me next that I cannot use "conflict of interest" as it's used in the Wikipedia article, because Rand didn't use it that way?

You have not recognized this restriction when using "free will." :-)

Ghate is an ARI Objectivist. I can assure you that he was using the term in Rand's sense.

I don't accept your assurance. He did not cite the Dictionary of Philosophy, Comte, or Thomas Nagel, nor even mention them. He was talking about most people's idea of altruism and egoism. He said most people's moral ideas stem from religion, which predates Comte. He even said most people believe altruism means placing others above one's self -- which differs from Comte's meaning -- and egoism means placing one's self above others.

The Dictionary of Philosophy also defines "Egoism" as follows: "The view that each individual should seek as an end only his own welfare.

Remember, egoism is the doctrine that the PRIMARY beneficiary of an action ought to be the self -- that the ULTIMATE goal or purpose of one's action is self-interest. Egoism doesn't say that one should never act in ways that benefit others. (post 8)

Which is it, Bill? How can somebody comply with a censor who changes his meanings every few minutes? :-)

Since Rand was a philosopher, she was careful to use the terms "altruism" and "egoism" in their philosophically relevant sense.

She was equally a novelist and wrote her novels to sell to the general public. They were not aimed at an audience of philosophers. Even when she wrote nonfiction, her target audience was her fans and anybody else that might have an interest, not an audience primarily of philosophers. Also, Comte's meaning of "altruism" is not the only philosophically relevant sense.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/09, 4:05am)

Post 15

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 4:43am

MJ: Also, Comte's meaning of "altruism" is not the only philosophically relevant sense.

Agreed, just as there are varieties of socialism in addition to, and even nominally opposed to, Marxism -- and varieties of Marxism, as well. The fact remains that Comte invented the word altruism only 150 years ago. His intentional meaning was clear enough.

Post 16

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 5:14am

I am aware of Comte's particular meaning of altruism. I am not claiming that Ghate does not know about Comte's meaning, nor that he never uses it. I am saying that the meaning he conveyed during the debate was not Comte's.

Interestingly, Wikipedia has two entries on altruism. The first defines it this way:

Altruism (from Latin: alter: the other) is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.

The second defines it this way:

Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.

Comte's meaning is more severe than either.

Post 17

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 5:26am

ALTRUISM

Ayn Rand / David Kelley / Robert Campbell

Catholic Encylopedia

Herbert Spencer

The Altruistic Species by Andrew Flescher and Daniel Worthen

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 3/09, 7:26am)

Post 18

Monday, March 9, 2009 - 6:50pm

In post #4, Merlin said, "My challenge depicts egoism and altruism as two intersecting, or overlapping circles. An act in the overlapping section is good both for one's self and for one or more others. I think the overlapping section is fairly big."

There is a possible confusion in the first part of that statement. Altruism, by any definition, is a theory. That is the genus. Those venn diagrams have actions. Specific actions have specific properties which include motive. There are going to be some acts that appear identical to an observer but have properties: e.g., motives, the context of the specific actor's life which is on some sort of trajectory, the teleological properties, and the actor's moral code.

All of this is to say that acts aren't comprable in this way. They are apples and oranges even when they all look like apples.

Add to that the problem of accurately measuring the 'benefit' of an act without first having a standard that applies to all actions. 'Benefit' is an ethical theory dependent variable. So, some actions can't be sorted into those that benefit self or those that benefit others without using an ethical theory to examine them. For example, the Dali Lama, Ayn Rand, and the Pope would disagree as to who benefits from some actions.

I agree with Bill's point that altruism and rational egoism are mutually exclusive - it is because they are theories describing the principle of valuation, not a collection of disconnected acts.

But having said all of that, there is a valid point to be made from what Merlin has said, and it is a valuable lesson. There are actions performed out of self-interest that incidentally benefit others, and there are natural laws that speaks to that fact. The more I value a friend, the more it is in my interest to act to benefit my friend. Friendship is an area on the continuum of the possible relationships and the degree to which our mutual benefit overlaps. In business a complete stranger can find themselves being benefited by my selfish acts. And here is the heart of this... This continuum, in reality, exists over time, and within a context - a political, economic and technological context.

We are the builders of our culture, we live within the culture and we use it as an important tool in life. Our culture determines how much capacity to act we have in many areas. If I live in a culture that is rich in material wealth, stable with long-standing political freedom, and possessed of advanced technology, then I will tend to be benefit others when acting in my self-interest far more often than if my culture is poor, oppressed and primitive. Think about that when people use life-boat examples in ethical questions. They are stripping away the context that was created by people acting within a given ethical theory's context - they are stripping away all of the history of that culture. They are saying, "Well, pretend that all of the possible benefits of rational self-interest practiced over time are gone - no laws, no trade, no benevolence, no technolgy that would let you escape life-boat situations, no material wealth that would have been applied to prevent such situations, now tell me how to resolve this lifeboat situation?" We acquire enduring benefits over the passage of time from observing the right ethical theory, not just as individuals, but as a society - these benefits are additive. They are cultural, political, economic, and technological.

These benefits confer options. The richer we are as individual and as a culture the more options we get to choose from. The more options we have, the more our choices will tend to show greater benefits per act - for ourselves, and for others. And more people will 'feel' like a friend than if we are in a primitive society where we are closer to a raw survival level.

Merlin is right that a great many actions overlap - that is, the richer a culture, the easier it is be benefit others while pursuing rational self-interest. But it isn't an overlap of altruism and rational egoism, it a benefit of the savings over time brought by freedom, human ingenuity... savings of capital and increased technology. Altruists have always had to act in their self-interest to some degree just to stay alive, and the richer the culture, the easier that is.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - 5:04am