The ethics of self interest

How does a morality of rational self interest prevent people from violating the rights of others?

The reason I ask is Im struggling to come up with an answer myself - and everything I have read in Objectivist literature so far has really skimmed on this point, or offered weak defenses.
(Edited by Nicholas Munro
on 11/19, 1:32pm)

Post 1

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 2:39pm

A philosophy of rational self-interest by itself cannot prevent me from violating your rights. I have to choose to refrain from doing so. What a philosophy of rational self-interest can do is help me understand what your rights are, and why I should respect your rights.

Post 2

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:50pm

"How does a morality of rational self interest prevent people from violating the rights of others?"

The reason you never found an answer in Objectivist literature is because the question of "prevention" doesn't exist in it. Objectivism doesn't deal with "predictions" of human action, as the concept of prevention would suggest.

Rational Self Interest deals with the "is" and "oughts" of action, which have meaning only to the actor. Chances are that if one's self interest is rational (i.e. in terms of clear values), there's a very good chance he/she will grasp the reciprocal nature of "rights," thus respecting the autonomy of others.

Rand said it like this:

"[Objectivism] holds that the rational interests of men do not clash - that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
Virtue of Selfishness

Hope that helps some.

Post 3

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 6:45pm

How does a morality of rational self interest prevent people from violating the rights of others?

How about this instead: I challenge you to think and post here a situation where its in a person's best interest to violate the rights of another. Good luck.

Post 4

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 8:48pm

Nicholas,

Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? That covers the Objectivist ethics of rational self-interest pretty well and even includes a few essays on rights and government.

It is inexpensive and you should find most what you are looking for there.

Michael

Post 5

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 10:09pm

Good question Nicholas.

One answer is that, if you violate someone's rights, by stealing from them for example, there's a good chance that you'll get caught and get in serious trouble. It's not worth the risk.

Another idea is that if you steal from someone, or feed off people in some other way, then you'll start to feel like a leech, and this will hurt your self-esteem in a way that ultimately makes you less happy.

Another idea is that, by stealing, you have in some sense made yourself dependent on the people you're stealing from. I don't know if I buy that one.

I think you could cook up extreme situations in which it might be in your self-interest to violate the rights of others. For example, if someone who wanted to prove a point paid me a million dollars to go steal some bubble gum from a store, and never pay the store back, I'd probably do it. But usually, I don't think it's a good strategy.

(By the way, I'm not an Objectivist, only someone who's interested in the philosophy...Objectivists might disagree with me.)

(Edited by Daniel O'Connor on 11/19, 10:12pm)

Post 6

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 10:21pm

In opposing the idea that the military draft is justified because rights impose obligations, Rand argued as follows: "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected." ("The Wreckage of the Consensus," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 227, pb.)

Question: Is it in your self-interest to have your own rights recognized and protected? I would say it is, since you are far better off in a society that renounces the initiation of force and fraud than you are in a society that practices it. You have much more to gain from a peaceful, rights-respecting social system than from a violent, predatory one, both in terms of relative safety and security and in terms of greater productivity and a higher standard of living. For evidence, see North Korea, Haiti or your local slum in which the crime rate is out of control. Where would you prefer to live? In places like these or in a place that is relatively peaceful, safe and productive? I'd choose the latter, but that's because I'm such a selfish bastard! ;-)

- Bill

Post 7

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 10:51pm

How does a morality of rational self interest prevent people from violating the rights of others?

The answer is in the question. A morality of rational self-interest requires the freedom to act on it. An advocate of rational self-interest knows & respects this. He knows that that freedom must pertain not just to him but to everybody else. Just as he demands, legitimately, that he be left free to act on the judgment of his mind�that his right to do so not be violated�he knows he cannot demand this with moral impunity if he himself is violating the right of others to do the same. He knows that in violating theirs, he waives his, legitimising any retaliatory force they may use against him. Not in his rational self-interest.

Linz

Post 8

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:55am

First of all, thanks for the responses. By using 'prevent'
I meant in the context that it would be considered immoral to do a particular action, under the ethics of rational self
interest.

To Matthew Graybosch:
I dont mean to physically prevent you from violating rights, I meant that under the ethics of rational self interest - it wouldn't be immoral to violate the rights of another person - in certain circumstances.

To Teresa Summerlee Isanhart:
Thanks for your reply - I think my use of 'prevent' has caused some confusion - I meant it in a different way ( see the top of this message).

Dean Michael Gores wrote:
"How about this instead: I challenge you to think and post here a situation where its in a person's best interest to violate the rights of another. Good luck."

Well I will give it a shot...
Any situation where a person may steal money from another, without the victim, or anyone else being aware of it.

To Michael Stuart Kelly:
I have read it, but thanks for the suggestion.

Daniel O' Connor wrote:
"One answer is that, if you violate someone's rights, by stealing from them for example, there's a good chance that you'll get caught and get in serious trouble. It's not worth the risk."

This is the only reason which seems valid to me, I started trying to answer my question by asking myself why more people dont violate the rights of others, and this is the answer I came up with - but then what if it WAS worth the risk? Haven't we just reduced morality to percentages? If you are a Dictator like Stalin, how does rational self- interest prevent you from violating other peoples rights?

To Bill:
But this it contingent upon your situation - if you are in a position of power, where you can violate other peoples rights and get away with it - it could be in your rational self interest to do so.

To Lindsay Perigo:
My answer is in the previous two posts.

There are a few more examples that I haven't thought through but here is another:
old/terminally ill people - dont they have a free reign??

thanks again,

Nick

Post 9

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 9:09am

Nick,

without the victim, or anyone else being aware of it.

You just created an artificial situation, where you knew a priori that no one would know except you. If this situation actually did exist, than ok, sure, it would be best to steal.

But it doesn't exist. There is always the possibility that the person you are stealing from has some kind of security mechanism installed that you are un-aware of. There is always the chance that you will be caught, and forever labeled as a one-time possibly more thief.

There is a very high chance that the person you are stealing from will notice that the item in question was stolen. Then they will probably spend more resources on security, and be less inviting to people such as yourself. They will have less an incentive to be productive, because you have taken what they earned from them. The end result is that they probably will be less productive, and the small benefit you received from stealing the item is negated.

(Hence my opposition to taxes)
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 11/20, 9:11am)

Post 10

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 10:15am

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your response, especially since you had so many other people to respond to as well.

In reply to Rand's statement that one is "obligated" to "respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected," you wrote, "But this it contingent upon your situation - if you are in a position of power, where you can violate other peoples rights and get away with it - it could be in your rational self interest to do so."

Nick, you're missing the point. :-) Rand's statement assumes a situation in which one can violate other people's rights and get away with it. It goes without saying that if one were not in that situation, then it would not be in one's self-interest to violate the rights of others. So the question is: Do you want your own rights to recognized and respected when others can violate them and get away with it? That's the question, and if the answer is no, then consistency demands that you refrain from violating theirs when you can get away with it. We're all vulnerable at various times to the predatory actions of others. To prey on others is therefore to allow others to prey on us, which is not in our self-interest.

- Bill

Post 11

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:42am

Nicholas,

You just gave an interesting, but limited, example to Dean's challenge:

Any situation where a person may steal money from another, without the victim, or anyone else being aware of it.

I don't remember Rand's work being named "The Virtue of Strictly Monetary Selfishness."

Is monetary gain necessarily selfish? Not always. I am thankful that at certain times of my life I had no access to a large sum of money. I would have made a huge mess of things back then. My real rational self interest at that time was recovering my rationality, not gaining money.

Stealing from a victim who is not aware of it is still stealing - a violation of property rights. Reality does not change because of human awareness. This reminds me of that old epistemological question about whether a tree really falls in the jungle if no one has seen it fall.

On outright theft, Ragnar Danneskj�ld in Atlas Shrugged consciously violated the property rights of others by attacking and stealing from their ships, but he had serious issues about recognizing and defending the property rights of thieves. He made an eloquent point about what happens when you use the standard of force - to the exclusion of all other standards - for validating rights.

(This could get into a lot of nit picking on what rights are. Hardline Objectivists and Libertarians always filter this through NIOF and argue that the government's rights do not exist at all. There's a tendency to make it a normative blanking out the cognitive thing. For the record, these rights do not exist using a rational ethics standard, but they do exist using a legal standard or one based on collectivist, mystical or totalitarian ethics. All rights must be backed by force to be enforced. Otherwise many people simply do not respect them. My take is that Ragnar was not fighting against the existence of rights as such, but against the standards behind them instead.)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/20, 11:48am)

Post 12

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 9:41am

Its not an artificial situation - it actually happened. At the end of the year you get, say 2% interest on your bank account. Quite often, the amount of interest you get will not be a whole number, and so of course the bank will only pay you to the nearest penny/cent.
So some clever people wrote a program to steal all those extra half and quarter cents that the bank never paid its customers.
Hence they were able to steal from the victim without the victim being aware (or even being affected) by it.

A number of years ago this german hacker had a website, with pictures of his luxury yacht, sports car etc - all things he had gained from stealing money from bank accounts.

Or what about stealing a blind person's wallet?

Post 13

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:29pm

"So some clever people wrote a program to steal all those extra half and quarter cents that the bank never paid its customers. "

You mean just like in SUPERMAN III?

Joe
(watching OFFICE SPACE)

Post 14

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:30pm

The bank didn't go after the hacker, since he stole from them?

The blind man would not be able to realize his wallet had been stolen?

Post 15

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 1:46pm

Daniel O' Connor wrote:
"One answer is that, if you violate someone's rights, by stealing from them for example, there's a good chance that you'll get caught and get in serious trouble. It's not worth the risk."

This is the only reason which seems valid to me, I started trying to answer my question by asking myself why more people dont violate the rights of others, and this is the answer I came up with - but then what if it WAS worth the risk? Haven't we just reduced morality to percentages? If you are a Dictator like Stalin, how does rational self- interest prevent you from violating other peoples rights?

For one thing, it's very dangerous to be a dictator like Stalin. They often get assassinated or conquered by foreign liberators.

Another reason I didn't mention to respect the rights of others is just that, if you happen to care about other people, then you'd probably feel bad for hurting them. I think most people care about most other people to a certain extent. I know I do, unless the other person has really done something pretty bad to make me not care anymore. That's one of the main reasons I don't go around violating people's rights--I just don't like to hurt people.

That reason wouldn't apply to some sadistic person who loves to hurt other people, but I don't think most people are like that.

If there's someone out there who wants to commit a crime, thinks he can get away with it, thinks he won't feel bad about it, thinks he won't start to feel like a leech and have lower self-esteem because of it, then I'd say---hey, go for it. Give it a try and see how that works. I will view that person the same way I'd view an animal who tries to attack me--I'll do my best to defend myself, and get on with living my life.

Post 16

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:20pm

By the way, I don't completely buy the argument that, "if you want other people to respect your rights, then you must respect the rights of other people."

It is certainly true that, if you want other people to respect your rights, then you must not let other people catch you violating their rights.

But if they don't catch you, then I don't see how your crime will make other people less likely to respect your rights.

I think it's simpler just to say, "if you violate someone's rights, then there's a chance you'll get caught and get in serious trouble, and it's usually not worth the risk."

Post 17

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 4:50pm

"How does a morality of rational self interest prevent people from violating the rights of others?"

Pride.

Post 18

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 5:56pm

Daniel O'Connor wrote,

"By the way, I don't completely buy the argument that, "if you want other people to respect your rights, then you must respect the rights of other people. It is certainly true that, if you want other people to respect your rights, then you must not let other people catch you violating their rights."

Although it's true that if other people catch you violating their rights, they'll probably retaliate against you, retaliatory force is not the initiation of force. It doesn't constitute a violation of your rights. Nor does it follow that if others catch you violating their rights, they'll be more inclined to violate yours. If someone commits a crime against me, does that mean that I'll be more likely to commit a crime against him? No, of course not!

You continue, "But if they don't catch you, then I don't see how your crime will make other people less likely to respect your rights."

But that's not the argument! Rand isn't saying that if you violate the rights of others, others will be "less likely" to respect your rights. When she says that you should recognize the rights of others if you want your own rights to be recognized, she's saying that you can't demand that others respect your rights, if you're unwilling to respect theirs. The point is that rights are a moral principle and that if it's okay for you to ignore that principle in relation to others, then it's okay for others to ignore it in relation to yourself.

You write, "I think it's simpler just to say, 'if you violate someone's rights, then there's a chance you'll get caught and get in serious trouble, and it's usually not worth the risk.'"

That may be true in certain cases, but it's not the primary reason that you should respect other people's rights, because there are obviously situations in which others can violate your rights with impunity--for example, the government, or anyone else who stands a good chance of getting away with it. Besides, if that's your only reason for not violating someone else's rights, then there's no reason not to violate them in situations where you're reasonably certain that you can avoid detection and/or retaliation. But that means that people would only have rights when it's expedient for others not to violate them. Do you really believe that?! And, why, under your theory, should the government refrain from passing a law that initiates force against its own citizens? Who's going to catch and punish the government in such cases?! No, the primary reason that it's not egoistic to sacrifice others to oneself is that it sanctions the sacrifice of oneself to others.

- Bill

Post 19

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:09pm