Ethical standards

Which school? I haven't heard anything in the news, and I deny it.

Post 61

Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 4:48pm

Being new here I have not had time to read everything that seems interesting. This thread was interesting ONLY because of Mr. Boese who, as someone suggested, "just doesn't get it."

He wrote (in post 39, I think,)

"Imagine, just for a moment, that I were to present some numbers that, by any reasonable standard, demonstrated that Canadian health care is definitively better than American in some major respect. Now, ask yourself, given such numbers, would you change your mind, and accept that government-funded health care is a good idea?"

NO!

And the reason Ed Thompson's #3 is very different from #4 (in Post 1) is because #3 can be put into other words. Let me refresh everyone's memory:

3) based on the potential array of "recipients" of any and all supposed "goods" (utilitarian)
4) based on the moral agent (for humans: rational, or ethical, egoism)

#3 can be rephrased as "The most good for the most number of people." That is clearly collectivist, clearly anti-Objectivist. #4 is based on something that has nothing to do with numbers of people or with the amount of "good" that can be done. It is based on the metaphysical abstraction "man qua man" as the standard by which politics operates. #3 uses the mere existence of beings who happen to be homo sapiens. #4 uses the end to determine the objective means. #3 uses the end to justify the means.

Sorry for being so late to the conversation, but it's been a long time since I've seen someone as intransigent in his Subjectivist beliefs, and for that I do believe he qualifies as a "guest"---if my vote on that counts.

Post 62

Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 9:59pm

Daniel Boese wrote (post 53):

Okay, so I've misinterpreted the thrust of your argument. Do you think you could try rephrasing it in another way, so I could have another shot at figuring out what you meant?

Here is an article that explains drug costs and pricing. To illustrate my point 4 in post 47, let's assume the following. The marginal cost -- the cost to manufacture and distribute a drug after obtaining a patent -- for a specified amount of the drug is $100. The cost for the drug from concept through approval by the Food and Drug Administration is $200, thus making a total cost of $300. (The link says marginal cost is typically about 30% of total costs.) The U.S. drug company sells the drug domestically for $330 and to a foreign buyer at $110. So the company makes a unit profit of $30 domestically (using total cost) and $10 in the foreign market (using marginal cost). In effect, the domestic buyers are paying for all of the company's R&D costs and the foreign buyers are paying none of it. In effect, U.S. buyers are "subsidizing" foreign buyers due to the drug company's pricing practices, and Americans financially support saving lives in other countries to the extent the drug saves lives.

Post 63

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 1:36am

A quicky reply, just to #61, with more posting to come later when I have more time:

I wrote:

> "Imagine, just for a moment, that I were to present some
> numbers that, by any reasonable standard, demonstrated
> that Canadian health care is definitively better than
> American in some major respect. Now, ask yourself, given
> such numbers, would you change your mind, and accept that
> government-funded health care is a good idea?"

whereupon Curtis responded:

> NO!

This, right here, seems to be the core of the main argument going on here, both over the whole health care issue, and whether or not I'm an Objectivist at all.

Let me see if I can try to describe my thought processes, so that you can at least understand how I'm thinking, even if you disagree with it.

I've been using the ImportanceOfPhilosophy.com site as my primary online reference for the structure of Objectivist thought. My understanding is that each of the first four described levels rests 'below' the next in line - that is, that the described epistemology depends on the metaphysics, the ethics depends on the epistemology, and the politics depends on the ethics. (Esthetics isn't really relevant, for the moment.)

The core point of the ethics layer is, in bolded text even, "Your life as your moral standard holds all things promoting your life as the good." Most of the rest of the ethics layer goes into more detail on how to achieve that standard; and, as far as I understand it, the entire Politics section is simply a particular sub-field of ethics, and thus each of the items there are simply various ways to fulfill the ethical standard of promoting your life.

If I'm wrong on this so far, then I /really/ don't understand Objectivism, but I have yet to read any disagreements with the above interpretation, so I think that, at least, is on fairly solid ground.

The difference of opinion in this thread seems to start when I take, what seems to me, to be the next logical step; and that is to consider whether the various items in IOP.com's Politics section do, in fact, promote your/my life, if they're the only way to do so, if they're the best way to do so, and if they apply all the time. That is, to not take the given text as a received gospel, written in stone, unchanging and absolute, but to think critically about them.

The difference of opinion in this thread seems to be solidified in that, after considering the points, I have come to the conclusion that they are /not/ necessarily always the best approach to promoting your/my life. That, while good advice in many cases, there are certain exceptions in which other approaches do a better job of promoting your/my life.

That "NO!" quoted above seems to imply that the poster is more concerned about following the Received Wisdom, ignoring evidence to the contrary, than in actually doing whatever is necessary to promote his/my life. That is, /even if/ the evidence were to demonstrate that such-and-such approach was better at saving and promoting lives, the stated ethical goal of Objectivism's political theories, then he would still prefer to practice a falsified theory than admit he might be wrong. This seems to entirely contradict that the described ethical goal is his /real/ ethical goal, or to suggest that he is not willing to be rational about finding ways to achieve that goal. And that is the point where I have to part ways with other self-described Objectivists - if they are not willing to reconsider their beliefs in light of evidence against those beliefs, then the methods they are using to check their beliefs for error and correct them are faulty, and I am entirely comfortable with coming to entirely different conclusions than they do.

I /know/ that I am wrong on a great many matters, and am constantly trying to find out /which ones/, using the best mental tools I've been able to find to do so. I will again point to the link at http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues , and suggest that what I am trying to describe is very much like the point of view described there, from which I excerpt: �That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.�, "Do not flinch from experiences that might destroy your beliefs.", "you cannot make a true map of a city by sitting in your bedroom with your eyes shut and drawing lines upon paper according to impulse", "Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy."

Post 64

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 5:26am

Daniel,

While you say you are only basing your analysis on the "Importance of Philosophy" site, I'd say you are nevertheless starting your analysis with your personal interpretation of things explained in that site - i.e. not what the site says, but how you personally think what it says could be interpreted.

However logical a subsequent argument may sound, that (your) argument will always remain invalid because you started off with a false assumption (your particular loose interpretation).

jt

Post 65

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 9:21am

Accusing someone of having his own personal interpretation is a bit weird for an Objectivist, Jay. Whose personal interpretation of the relevant ideas do you expect Boese to have other than Boese's?

The problem is more fundamental. When Boese asks us if we would accept the incidental death of 99% of the world population so long as what resulted was an Objectivist minarchy, he has shown that he accepts the arbitrary. His thoughts aren't hierarchical and integrated. They're just floating arbitrary assertions. The essence of Objectivism is the epistemological method, not the particular conclusions. This is how he can accept socialized medicine. If his thought were like a properly assembled jigsaw puzzle with just one piece missing he would see when he tried to insert socialized medicine that that piece doesn't fit. But he's not looking at an assembled puzzle laid out nicely on the table, He's got all his pieces jumbled together in the box, with some from other puzzles mixed in, and some from this puzzle on the floor, and he's looking at the socialized medicine piece and saying it looks like it will fit in the box. After all, it's grey on the back and has goofy edges and the pattern looks pretty. That's not a starting place from which you can assemble a coherent picture.

But that's just my own personal interpretation.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/21, 12:28pm)

Post 66

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 9:33am

That "NO!" quoted above seems to imply that the poster is more concerned about following the Received Wisdom...

Sir, it is not about "received wisdom", nor is it about "evidence". Damn the evidence! Even if the stats demonstrated that the Canadian government gives health care that is superior to that received in the U.S., I would still say "NO!"

This is because natural rights, on which which Objectivism may said to be based, recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, not a government that usurps the rights of the sovereignty of the individual for the good of the collective. Government is not our big brother. If a 20 year old male can take care of his 10 year old brother, then good for the 10 year old.

But adult citizens are not 10 year old boys and girls who need such help. I prefer my sovereignty! Every sovereign ought to take the attitude toward government interference as "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!"

What the U.S. Senate and House seem to be doing is saying, "Damn the sovereigns! Those who 'have' must help those who 'have not' for the benefit (not of those who have not, but) of the Greater Good! Damn those 'have nots' for making the Greater Good so damned difficult to achieve!"

Objectivism is never "results-based." It is "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

Post 67

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 10:04am

A /real/ quickie post here:

> Objectivism is never "results-based."

Is this view the consensus of the other members of the forum, as well?

Post 68

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 10:46am

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group�whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called �the common good.�

Ayn Rand: �The Only Path to Tomorrow,� Reader�s Digest, Jan. 1944, 8

Perhaps, instead of using the sister website Importance of Philosophy, you should do your studies from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, where you will get your answers directly from Ms. Rand's own mouth and pen. There are two Indexes: the one with the alphabet you see at the top of the page, and the Conceptual Index. The second one might be your best bet, since it is concepts you seem to work with, even though we all believe you miss the essence of Objectivist concepts.

Post 69

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 11:03am

> Objectivism is never "results-based."

Is this view the consensus of the other members of the forum, as well?

No, speaking for mself. That looks like a deontological ethic. That is addressed in the Ayn Rand Lexicon under "duty." Another topic in the lexicon relevant to this thread is "common good." Use the alphabet at the top of the lexicon to navigate.

Post 70

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 11:17am

Yet again, Objectivism simply rejects the question, it doesn't recognize the dichotomy. But in the sense of rejecting "if you got away with it it was okay" pragmaticism, Curtis is quite correct.

Deus meus, ex toto corde paenitet me omnium meorum peccatorum,
eaque detestor, quia peccando,
non solum poenas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum,
sed praesertim quia offendi te,
summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.
Ideo firmiter propono,
adiuvante gratia tua,
de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum.
Amen.

Post 71

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 11:32am

Daniel,

I think it's fair to say that Objectivism is not pragmatism -- which can be defined as a philosophy which at least attempts to be "results based." The others here (Jay, Ted, Curtis, Merlin) are offering you really good insights. From the online lexicon which they are suggesting to you, here is a great page on "pragmatism":

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html

I would be real curious as to your reaction to it.

Ed

Post 72

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 1:41pm

Ted, I'm not certain whether you meant me or Merlin when you said, "Yet again, Objectivism simply rejects the question, it doesn't recognize the dichotomy." I was not prepared to answer about the "conscensus" for the rest of the group, so I didn't answer it at all. I already stated my position on it.

I'm not sure which dichotomy you think was being unrecognized. And I'm not sure why Merlin links my answer to "duty". It seems that "duty" would be an obligation to do what was "results based", rather than what was objective. After all, we are arguing about whether or not the "results" of Canada's health system justifies the means.

And Merlin, I have been arguing that Mr. Boese is all for the collective good, which is why I did Post 68. Were you talking to me, or to him?

Post 73

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 1:42pm

Ted,

Everyone can have a personal interpretation, but not all interpretations are going to be right. I have witnessed on other (non-ROR) forums that while most intelligent people can obtain a clear and common understanding of something that has been written or said (i.e. their personal interpretations are aligned), some other's personal interpretations can sometimes be wildly skewed and in conflict with the demonstrated facts.

jt

Post 74

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 2:53pm

Ted,

Jay's got a point (though you have good points, too). Folks carelessly misinterpret others often.

Heck, even "I" (a real smart cookie, and resident stalwart here on the fine forum of RoR) have recently been "caught" -- by none other than yourself and Robert Malcom -- grossly misinterpreting the words of another. In that other thread, Lomborg was referring to just a tiny fraction of Antarctica, and I jumped the gun presuming he meant the whole continent.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/21, 2:54pm)

Post 75

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 3:00pm

Not only can people have their own personal interpretations of things, in so far as they do have an interpretation, it must be their own personal interpretation. One can hardly have anyone else's.

How, for instance, can one respond, in an argument with one's wife, to her complaint that, "That's just your opinion!" in any way other than, "No, honey, actually the mailman delivered the opinion of Joe from down the block, and today I have only his"?

Curtis, I was denying the validity of Daniel's question, telling Merlin that he took the ("wrong") side of a false dichotomy, and agreeing with you that Objectivism doesn't accept the pragmatic argument that it is okay to abandon principle so long as one is lucky enough to have everything come out for the best in the end.

At this point if I keep answering this thread I will have only one option:

Post 76

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 4:06pm

Daniel,

> Objectivism is never "results-based."

Is this view the consensus of the other members of the forum, as well?

Some view Objectivist Ethics as (non-Utilitarian) agent-centered consequentialism.

Quickly, Objectivism, at its core, rejects sacrifice of some for the sake of others. This premise applies to government. So it is consistent for Objectivists to reject a government act that violates the rights of some for the sake of others. Even thought the government's rights-violating act would save lives -- the lives of 99% of the citizenry under your hypo -- Objectivists still considers it sacrificial behavior. Under Objectivism, even a little bit of sacrifice is unethical.

Jordan

Post 77

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 5:35pm

Jordan, from your link:

[on virtue ethics]

Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology, in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action, and from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself.

This is a mischaracterization of virtue ethics which stems from the ignorance of how character is something that actually matters in the real world.

For this author, character is deified into something which exists ephemerally and independently from external reality. It is a version of the mind-body dichotomy. While virtue ethics focuses on the character of the agent -- it does so for a good reason (i.e., because of the nature and the consequences of the action itself). In my view, Rand's ethics effectively married virtue ethics with reality -- therefore dispensing with this old (stoic) idea that virtue has nothing to do with consequence.

[on agent-focused vs. agent-neutral]

A fundamental distinction can be drawn between theories that demand that agents act for ends in which they have some personal interest or motivation and theories that demand that agents act for ends perhaps disconnected from their own interests and drives. ...

... These two approaches could be reconciled by acknowledging the tension between an agent's interests as an individual and as a member of various groups, and seeking to somehow optimize among all of these interests. For example, it may be meaningful to speak of an action as being good for someone as an individual but bad for them as a citizen of their town.

This is a specius reconciliation. It looks good on paper, but that's all it's good for. Contrary to the above, it is not meaningful to speak of actions as good for individuals but bad for citizens. The idea that it may be meaningful stems from prior acceptance of some measure of collectivism.

[on ethical egoism]

Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result. Thus, egoism may license actions which are good for the agent, but it is generally seen as detrimental to general welfare.

This quote suffers from a similar misunderstanding as does the quote above. Both quotes pit the individual against "society" in a preconceived, adversarial relation. It is the primitive thinking of both the anarchist and the totalitarian. The real solution is to deny the original acceptance of the false premises of anarchists and totalitarians.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/21, 8:15pm)

Post 78

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 5:44pm

Something that I think needs to be addressed is the value of life, or more specifically what kind of life? Daniel seems to be interpreting Rand's value of life as something that is purely mechanistic life. That is as long as you're saving lives or prolonging them, anything goes. And by anything, violating rights should be a part of this if that's what is necessary to extend or save mechanistic life. The problem is that Rand never argued for just valuing mechanistic life, but rather a happy, flourishing life.

Take Steve's example of having a lottery to kill a human being and harvest his organs to saves the lives of many others. What does this accomplish? Sure it can save or extend mechanistic life, but at what cost? Imagine living in this kind of society. You never know who will be the next victim for this sacrifice. You live in constant fear you or one of your loved ones will be the next picked to be killed and have your organs harvested. According to utilitarianism this is fine, because it saves the greatest amount of mechanistic life. But it completely destroys the possibility of living a happy and flourishing life. Sure this example is an extreme form of utilitarianism, but to any degree utilitarianism only accomplishes in destroying happiness. With anything else, taxes, a military draft, any kind of subjective law, you live in constant fear of being the next victim. Tax the rich? Sure, until you all of a sudden are considered "rich" because of some arbitrary political whim that lowers the bar for what's considered "rich". Socialized medicine? Sure, until you are passed over for surgery to solve your debilitating back pain to cure someone else of a disease that is considered a more urgent matter. But urgent to whom? You're no longer free, you no longer have the right to pursue happiness, and fear dominates your life. You never when you're the next to be sacrificed, you are always in some kind of minority at some point in your life that can be sacrificed to the majority in the name of some short term range of the moment reason.

There is a reason why the Declaration of Independence calls for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They are not just a bunch of arbitrarily picked ideas that sound nice together. The ideas are intertwined. You can't have happiness without the freedom to pursue it. Utilitarianism makes this impossible.

Post 79

Monday, December 21, 2009 - 5:59pm