| | Responding my Post #18, Bob wrote, There are actions that are inherently risky, but the risks are manageable -- e.g., many sports, like skydiving or skiing. We all need the enjoyment of experiencing our own efficacy and physical well-being, but physical pursuits invariably run the risk of getting us hurt or worse. Since we need physical activity and enjoyment, reason tells us: Yes, engage in active physical pursuits, but just don't be stupid about it. Train, and take reasonable precautions.
Likewise, there are high-risk careers -- mining, fire-fighting, police work, soldiering, lumberjacking -- but they involve obtaining or defending values important to human life; and again, through proper preparation, risks can be managed. For many people, those risks are well worth facing in pursuit of the objectively valuable rewards. Good point. There are other "pleasures," however, that are worse than "risky": they're downright harmful, such as smoking and cocaine use; whatever feeling of emotional pleasure they give is demonstrably at the expense of one's health. (I say that as an ex-smoker.) In light of today's knowledge, there's no way one can reasonably or objectively contend that such behavior is consonant with rational self-interest. This is another good point. (See, I don't have to figure these things out for myself, when I've got Bob here to do it for me! And he's even willing to work for free. Imagine that!)
I do have a question regarding smoking, however. Take lung cancer, the bane of all smokers and the main reason people are told not to do it. What is often overlooked is the fact that whereas most people who get lung cancer are smokers, most people who smoke don't get lung cancer (or emphysema or pneumonia). So, the risk of getting these diseases for a smoker is comparatively small (depending, of course, on how much one smokes). Perhaps, this is the reason that David Kelley still smokes (and I understand that he smokes very little). Could we say that even here, the person has to weigh the risks against the benefits, and make a subjective decision? And if so, is there still a limit -- say, a pack a day, two packs a day, whatever -- beyond which the risks can be said, objectively, to outweigh the benefits? I should think there would have to be, otherwise we're conceding the subjectivist premise that whatever you decide is good, because you've decided it. Now, there is no Objectivist "rulebook," where each alternative in life is entered, followed by a "yes" or "no." Moral choice can't be exercised [or] work on automatic pilot. The science of ethics can tell us why we should follow reason. But pursuing happiness within the bounds of reason is as much an art as a science, and it requires of us a conscientious willingness to commit ourselves to wherever reason takes us. Economists often make the point that whatever one chooses is a value because one chooses it; it must be a value, otherwise one wouldn't have chosen it, to begin with. This is true insofar as what is meant by "value" is whatever one prefers. But to say that one prefers whatever he chooses is not to say that whatever he chooses is of benefit to him. People can make irrational and self-defeating choices -- choices they ought not to make. What is the standard of moral judgment here? It is the moral agent's happiness and well-being, which is not something that can be determined by whim. Whether or not one is happy is an objective fact with real causes. The trick is discovering what those causes are and living one's life accordingly. I think the salient point that Objectivism makes is that happiness is a consequence of life-serving actions, actions that are conducive to the health and well-being of the moral agent. A person who doesn't care about his own health and well-being and lives his life according to the whim of the moment (e.g., the drug addict, the criminal or the lazy bum) may achieve the temporary satisfaction of his desires, but at the expense of his own long-term happiness.
- Bill
|
|
