questions about the Objectivist ethics

An altruist is one who exists for the sake of others - a slave is a true altruist..... an 'ethical altruist', then, is a mental slave...

Post 21

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 6:40pm

Robert identifies, but does not qualify:

To resist to the death however, would clearly indicate that the person is unselfish since he values the lives of others more than his own.

I value "life" in general, not just my own. I'm well aware that there are folks far more worthy to live than I am. They're far more valuable in so many ways, that the thought of killing one of them to save my own lived out butt would just be totally out of the question in my mind. Sometimes survival situations force one to think of the bigger picture, not the small personal one.

Ed ponders,

"Deceived altruist" or "self-deceived altruist" seems more accurate -- as altruism itself is based on a lie. It's pretty hard to "truly" be something that is not even (metaphysically) real -- but is rather a grand lie.

I don't think it's possible to relativise human life. Some people are just more valuable than others, damnit. Keeping that in mind, would it be honest of me to say to myself just before I murdered the pediatric brain surgeon on the brink of discovering a cure for juvenile diabetes (for his hotdog), and the greatest thing I've ever done, by comparison, is push out three kids and raise them to adulthood successfully, 'my life is worth the cost of his/hers.'"

Just don't seem honest to me. Seems like a bigger lie.

I'd never think to sacrifice another for myself. Wait, I think John Galt said something like that!

Post 22

Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 7:24pm

I don't think it's possible to relativise human life. Some people are just more valuable than others, damnit. Keeping that in mind, would it be honest of me to say to myself just before I murdered the pediatric brain surgeon on the brink of discovering a cure for juvenile diabetes (for his hotdog), and the greatest thing I've ever done, by comparison, is push out three kids and raise them to adulthood successfully, 'my life is worth the cost of his/hers.'"

doesn't sound like ye value yourself all that much - which raises the question, why not?
further - by what standard is another's life 'more valuable' than yours?

Post 23

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 3:12am

doesn't sound like ye value yourself all that much - which raises the question, why not?
further - by what standard is another's life 'more valuable' than yours?

(I knew this would happen, and I have absolutely no time)

Oh, but I do! Is "life" a value in and of it'self? Or does life require a standard? I think it does. I'm trying to stay clear of intrinsic methods in determining an ethical framework of life or death problems like this.

If faced with such a problem, I would be forced to deal with bigger life issues, things that may remain if I'm gone or not. That's just the way I think and value things, I suppose. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, and I seriously doubt I'll ever be faced with issue.

The question remains: Is my life worth the cost of yours, or Ed's or Robert's? Is your life worth the cost of mine? If your life is worth of the cost of mine, if you can even think in those terms, I really don't wanna know ye.

Post 24

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 7:39am

The question remains: Is my life worth the cost of yours, or Ed's or Robert's? Is your life worth the cost of mine? If your life is worth of the cost of mine, if you can even think in those terms, I really don't wanna know ye.

To begin with, I don't think in terms of emergencies - by the nature of the concept, they are exceptions, not the norm... ethics, properly, deal with the norn, a code of values to guide one thru life [not emergencies]- and unless you consider emergencies as your norm, they remain in the background, to be considered only when they really arise [after all, how many times have you been in a lifeboat situation? none? then why so concerned of it?] My life is of value - to me - and as such, knowing this is a sum-plus world, not a zero-sum one, do not see conflict where my gain, my flourishing, is or needs be at the expense of anothers'..... and if my life is of value to another, that is their concern, tho it also enhances my flourishing, just as valuing theirs' enhances my flourishing as well.... but my life is the prime life of value - because without it, the rest is simply not there.....

Post 25

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 2:12pm

Ed,

How an altruist balances the contradictions of self-sacrifice in his mind is an interesting problem and one which I have dwelled on for years. Understanding it comes down to to deducing the psychology that results from mentally integrating these two points:
1) if a person is to live, then he must value life.
2) if a person regards self-sacrifice as morally correct, then he must sacrifice himself for others or others for himself.
Now these two are not logically compatible, and so he can not reconcile them together, and for this reason if he is to retain a belief in altruism he must evade its inconsistency with life. This is the self-deceit required of all altruists and the lie that they must maintain in their minds.  However, just because an altruist must lie to himself to preserve this contradiction does not prevent the simultaneous introduction both of its parts into his mind, since two contradictory premises can be simultaneously held in the mind as long as they exist at different points within it, and so it is a mistake to believe this is a metaphysically impossible state of mind.

The simultaneous combination of these two in a mind creates a psychology which seeks to live by sacrificing, either itself to others or others to itself, and thus establishes a predator/prey relationship which exists between it and all other people. Which side of this relationship a given altruist is on depends primarily his own capacity for submission and domination.  For example, the former may be represented by the Reich soldiers who are willing to give themselves up totally to the Fuhrer, and the latter by the Fuhrer who is will to take everyone for himself. There also exists a continuum between these extremes in which people do both partially in a give and take manner.  Thus, the altruist mentality does not generate a single characteristic psychology, but a range of them, from the lions to the sheep, but any given altruist must exist on this continuum.

When I speak of a "true altruist", this is the mentality to which I am referring.

Bob

(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 6/11, 2:14pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 2:21pm

the greatest thing I've ever done, by comparison, is push out three kids and raise them to adulthood successfully

Teresa, I understand your view. I once held that view. My view now is different (more aligned with the Rev'rend's). But I need to let you know that -- while I have tremendous, practically-unprecedented potential as a human being on planet Earth -- I have yet to do something as great as you did in the quote above. Bringing 3 good humans into the world, and bringing them up well, is a pretty ... no ... astronomically great thing for someone to accomplish.

From where I sit, it looks to me like you ought to pat yourself on the back a whole lot harder than you currently do.

Just Sayin' ...

;-)

Ed

Post 27

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 4:40pm

My life is of value - to me -

Yeah, I know the song, but do you know why? My issue is in defining the value.

And you haven't answered the question: Is your life worth the cost of mine? Are you saying that it is, or are you just saying that Objectivist ethics need not deal with emergencies?

I'm simply trying to understand. The other Robert has made a good case, but I'm disagreeing. There are loads of real life examples of survival that included victims not losing their "humanity."

I agree that life isn't an emergency, but are there two sets of principles, or only one? I think there's one, and only one, regardless.

:) Ed -

Bringing 3 good humans into the world, and bringing them up well, is a pretty ... no ... astronomically great thing for someone to accomplish.

Awe, that's very sweet. It was fun while it lasted, but it's over now.

So does that mean you view your life as worth the cost of mine? Isn't that the issue? Or is Objectivist ethics above such questions? I'm sick of hearing critics throw this around. I want it settled.

Post 28

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 5:03pm

Teresa,

So does that mean you view your life as worth the cost of mine? Isn't that the issue? Or is Objectivist ethics above such questions?

Well, the glib answer is that Objectivist ethics is above such questions. Rand said that whenever you talk about value, that you have to answer at least 2 more questions:

(1) of value for what?
(2) of value to whom?

She railed against 99.9% of all previous ethicists (or moralists, or whatever) for not recognizing the need for moral theorists to answer these 2 extra questions. Instead of taking whatever is commonly-held -- or even whatever is felt-in-the-heart -- as valuable, instead of just taking what's valued for granted, and then asking how to fairly get what's already being valued, she said that there's a better way.

We can figure out not just the best instrumental means toward getting things already commonly valued, we can figure out the "right" things to value in the first place. The reason that we can do this is because we have a nature -- human nature -- and that nature dictates certain needs. Now, needs can't ever be wrong. You can want the wrong things, but you can't need the wrong things. Examining human nature and figuring out what folks really need (as humans) reveals that there are only certain things which "should" or "ought to" be held as highly valuable.

The question of who's life is worth more, or who's life is more valuable, tries to smuggle in value without answering Rand's 2 extra questions. If we re-word it with the questions included, it sounds different and the paradox dissolves. That's why Objectivist ethics can be said to be "above such questions."

Ed

Post 29

Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 8:06am