|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 | Debate about Rand's morality of egoism Posted by Merlin Jetton on 3/06, 12:42pm | |
| The debaters are Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute and Michael Huemer of University of Colorado - Boulder. The debate is about 63 minutes, followed by about 35 minutes Q&A. The following are my notes. Ghate: Most people view morality as a set of commands from something greater than one's self, and the commands must be obeyed. The commander is God or society. Ayn Rand rejected this. Morality is about values to seek to live. Good and bad comes from observations about life. The good is life promoting; the bad undermines it. Other living things have automatic values. But values are not automatic for humans and must be discovered and learned. Rand rejected hedonism. Huemer: Showed The Virtue of Selfishness and his own book Ethical Intuitionism. His "common sense" view is that one can pursue one's self-interest but with constraints. Says Rand's view does not recognize the constraints arising from others' interests. Says there is a positive obligation to recognize the interests of others, especially if the cost to one's self is minimal. There is an obligation to not kill or harm others for minimal gain. There are sometimes conflicts between one's own interest and that of others. Believes his common sense approach is something that has evolved over centuries and across cultures. In contrast Rand's theory is recent. Ghate: Thinks Huemer's common sense, intuition approach is wrong. Much thought about morality that has arisen over history has its source in religion. Most people believe in altruism, intuitively. Something being intuitive doesn't make it correct. You can look above (to God or society), within (to intuition), or outward. Rand's way is outward. The unusual problems Huemer presented is not normal life. For most people altruism means placing others above one's self and egoism means placing one's self above others. But Rand does not advocate the latter in terms of being a predator. The essential relationship should be one of trade, with mutual self-interest and without sacrifice. Huemer: Thinks that common sense approach does not spring from religion, but from within. Doesn't think common sense view is infallible, but it's more likely to be true than Rand's egoism. The belief that slavery is good does not pass the common sense test. Ethical intuition -- you think about a case and just think that some act is correct without an elaborate process of reason. Without intuition, you can't have any starting premises, Rand's premises included. Scientists rely on sensory evidence. You can't do that with morality and must rely on intuition. His unusual examples are legitimate tests of a theory. Normal situations easily imply cooperation. Rand thought the unusual problem situations don't really exist. Hypothetical cases do not make his theory unsound. From Q&A: Ghate: If another person gains in a situation, that doesn't make it altruism. Good will toward others is a natural feeling. Charity is not necessarily self-sacrifice. Huemer: A lot of things most people think one should do for other-regarding reasons, Rand thinks one should do selfishly. Ghate: Motivation of self-interest doesn't imply the act is objectively self-interested. What's important is to figure out what is in one's self interest. That ends my notes, and the following are my comments. 1. Ghate said most people view altruism and egoism as being mutually exclusive alternatives. But he did not challenge this as a false (incomplete) dichotomy, the way I did here. Maybe that's because his goal was only to convey Rand's theory and arguments. 2. Is Ghate's remark about good will in the Q&A an "ethical intuition"? :-) | ||
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
