Basic question about objectivism

objectivism

srogers
you cannot possibly expect to have a discussion about whether Objectivism is consistent with “screwing people over” if you hold that man’s nature is subjective
mgin
The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a licens
mgin
altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.
mgin
well that's not directly applicable, but there's an indication
srogers
While you may have read a lot of stuff, you clearly disagree with most of it, in various ways that are more fundamental than ethics
mgin
we could look under "honesty" probably
mgin
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/honesty.html
mgin
"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud"
EGreg
OK, first of all thanks for addressing what I said with a substantive response. Let's take that step by step.
EGreg
"The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest." - a man can definitely benefit from stealing supplies at his job, provided he doesn't get caught. To say otherwise is to engage in speculation about his future spiritual health or something.
mgin
i already told you that's not directly applicable to your example
mgin
look under "honesty"
srogers
what he wants you to do is throw out a bunch of text so he can dissect it
srogers
without being encumbed by the meaning
EGreg
"But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest." - This seems to be begging the question, as Ayn Rand herself purports to give a solid foundation FOR moral principles, instead of mystics, but here an
EGreg
appeal is made to some "moral values in human life" that seem to be based on something other than rational self interest.
EGreg
Not at all. What I want is to engage in a rational discussion about a specific example and question
mgin
productiveness is probably another good one: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/productiveness.html
EGreg
It seems that the problem is suddenly punted down the road, because the conclusion is unsavory. It *seems* that taking advantage of a loophole (bad security system) is wrong, because parasites harm others, therefore we have to appeal to some way to get out of it. So you mention "moral values" external to the decision process which contradicts Ayn Rand's claim of objectivism being THE foundation for all moral decisions.
EGreg
Where do these external moral values come from? Mystics? Altruists?
srogers
in what way do objectivism’s moral values seem to be based on some other thing besides self interest?
EGreg
I'll give an example of parasites and defections considered good. All of capitalism is built on them. A seller like T-Mobile can defect from an unspoken agreement with AT&T and others and offer cheaper rates or better terms in their pans.
EGreg
plans.
srogers
“because parasites harm others”  <=  That’s not objectivism’s rationale
EGreg
Every time a seller defects from other sellers and offers a lower price, they are screwing other sellers over.
srogers
where are you getting that as a reason?
mgin
the objectivist ethics holds that what's in one's rational self-interest is being honest and productive.
mgin
"justice" is another good concept: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/justice.html
mgin
have you read the money speech from Atlas Shrugged?
EGreg
You haven't stated anything that would show clearly that the factory worker should NOT steal from the factory. Perhaps he is doing them a favor, showing them that they should have a better security system that identifies the thief and not rely on their workers' altruism.
EGreg
Yes.
srogers
none of those things are going to do him a whit of good
EGreg
On the contrary, stealing a million dollar piece of equipment will get him quite a bit of benefit personally.
EGreg
And I maintain it is actually more moral under objectivism.
srogers
it’s a complete waste of time to discusss eithics when he’s already pointed out that he doesn’t agree with Objectivism’s view of man
mgin
your survival depends on these virtues. living an honest, productive, just life is what maximizes your self-interest and creates all the value in a society. acting against that is directly acting against your own survival.
EGreg
srogers: on the contrary I assume only the assumptions that Ayn Rand stated.
mgin
that's basically why theft is not in your rational self-interest, in a nutshell
srogers
you’ve already blown that
EGreg
hold up, let me read what mgin wrote above
srogers
Clearly, you read some objectivism, you disagree with it, and now you want to argue somebody down
EGreg
"the objectivist ethics holds that what's in one's rational self-interest is being honest and productive." - I do not see this conclusion supported anywhere. It may be ASSERTED. But it just begs the question.
srogers
good luck with that
EGreg
srogers: that sounds like any religious person saying the same thing. You dont want to ACTUALLY discuss any problems
EGreg
You just want to have faith. Which is fine but that won't help anyone understand how you deal with ACTUAL SCENARIOS
srogers
I don’t want to type forever while you take inane pot-shots
EGreg
mgin - basically you are making an additional assumption, that the objectivist ethics holds that what's in one's rational self-interest is being honest and productive.
EGreg
But Ayn Rand specifically says that anyone can derive her objectivism conclusions from just a few simple premises. And this is not one of the premises.
EGreg
There are abundant situations in the world where being honest is against one's self-interest.
srogers
no, she doesn’t say objectivism is all derrived
EGreg
For example, when selling an item, if you are 100% honest you will lose over time to dishonest sellers, and therefore cannot compete.
srogers
that’s a premise you might want to check
EGreg
Many sellers create a false time constraint for a sale, for instance. It is rational to take advantage of buyer psychology, even if it involves some lying.
EGreg
I have, it's called living in the real world.
mgin
that's just false.
EGreg
I checked it. Go to any website selling anything with a "limited time off" sale.
srogers
whether liars exist is not the issue
EGreg
John Sculley worked at Apple and later was CEO of J C Penney. He wanted "every day low prices" without the cat-and-mouse game of fake deals. Well guess what, J C Penney tanked.
TarkusDillo has joined ([email protected])
EGreg
And sculley was fired.
EGreg
No, it is that being 100% honest is actually LESS in the self interest of the person or organization. There have been tons of studies on this. The premise that honesty is the best policy in EVERY INTERACTION is just wrong.
srogers
you don’t have a valid basis for determining what is and isn’t in one’s interest
srogers
What you can extract from others is not the way to determine that
EGreg
I am pretty sure that scientific studies and data are a valid basis.
EGreg
Ivory tower proclamations are not a valid basis on which to build a reality-based philosophy.
srogers
That’s your premise:  that self-interest means getting what you want out of others
EGreg
They need to be tested against reality.
EGreg
Well if you are not going to define self-interest, then how can I agree or disagree with your sentences using that term?
srogers
you don’t even have any idea what you’re testing
EGreg
To me, self-interest clearly means that which BENEFITS ONESELF
EGreg
try to leave ME out of it, and focus on the actual claims I am talking about
srogers
Are you saying you’ve read objectivism and you know the basics, like self-interest?
EGreg
Yes of course!
srogers
Or are you about-facing on that?
EGreg
I wouldn't be asking in here otherwise
srogers
how would you figure out what is in your benefit?
srogers
What constitutes a benefit?  How do you know it?
EGreg
Well first I would know what it is that benefits me personally.
EGreg
As I said, even assuming everyone is always going to be acting rationally, what benefits person A may be different than what benefits person B.
EGreg
For example, it is in a heterosexual woman's interest to find a man, but for a man to find a woman. Different things benefit them.
srogers
How do you know it?
srogers
If you want to do philosphy, you can’t just say “everyone is different”
EGreg
A woman's strategy to find a man may differ than a man's strategy to find a woman, and thus the same thing (e.g. wearing heels, or making a lot of money) may have different utility.
EGreg
Well I am pointing out the obvious. It's relevant because you seem to assume everyone has the same utility.
srogers
No, we’re talking philosophy not economics
EGreg
Different people value different things differently. GIVEN that utility, a rational actor will seek to maximize their utility. That is basic economics.
srogers
How do you know what’s in your interest?
EGreg
I just told you
EGreg
Before I can answer you, you have to admit that what's in MY interest may not be in someone else's interest. The same exact thing.
TarkusDillo
<srogers> How do you know whats in your interest? << the government will inform you
EGreg
Because you seem to be claiming the opposite
TarkusDillo ducks
EGreg
It seems that you don't want to actually acknowledge the real world in any way.
srogers
Do you want to understand something about Objectivism? Or just shout it down?
EGreg
Yes, I want to understand. Please tell me how would I know something is in MY interest?
srogers
you have to understand what it means to be of value in the philosophic sense
srogers
not economics
EGreg
just answer the question, which I think was pretty direct
srogers
more fundamentally
EGreg
It's the same question you asked me.
srogers
Why does the issue even come up?
EGreg
yes, why does it?
EGreg
but first it would be nice if you answered the question I posed back to you
srogers
Because living things have to do things in order to live
mgin
apparently he believes that being irrational, dishonest, unjust, unproductive, is somehow in one's rational self-interest
EGreg
mgin: SOMETIMES it is
EGreg
not all the time.
srogers
That’s the root of the issue of value
EGreg
OK so is having children a value?
mgin
that's a really bizarre claim. especially if you seriously believe that being irrational is rational.
EGreg
Or does it matter if my genetics continue?
srogers
while, economically speaking, one person might need a nail, and another might need a paperclip - that is irrelevant
EGreg
I didn't say being irrational is rational. You just included it on the list.
srogers
in terms of how you decide
EGreg
Being dishonest can be rational!
TarkusDillo
there's a movie about Rand called A Sense Of Life which has numerous interviews
mgin
well that's not the objectivist position.
EGreg
OK so let's say that a million dollars will help me to survive and replicate
EGreg
would you agree that having the million dollars would increase my ability to live
srogers
Are you going to distract from the issue again??!
EGreg
if I am not caught stealing it
TarkusDillo
she explains it all quite well, including the concept of 'person value' which srogers is trying to get across
TarkusDillo
*personal value
EGreg
"Because living things have to do things in order to live" - yous aid this WAS the root issue of value
srogers
What is it that you need to live, fundamentally?
mgin
no, stealing money does not increase your ability to live.
EGreg
so therefore, without any other personal consequences [having a million dollars] is better than [not having it]
EGreg
the maslow's needs
srogers
Not in the economic sense - one person might need drano and another a taco
EGreg
I need a place I can defecate for example
EGreg
I need to eat
EGreg
I need to sleep
srogers
You have to think more abstractly than that
EGreg
I need air, water, etc.
EGreg
OK then clarify what you are asking
EGreg
you said FUNDAMENTALLY
EGreg
I am trying to asnwer your questions
srogers
right - you need all kinds of things at various times
EGreg
thank you, yes I do
EGreg
and having more resources with which to purchase these things HELPS ME
EGreg
therefore, stealing these resources is in my RATIONAL self-interest
EGreg
provided the probability of getting caught is super low
EGreg
and there are no consequences
srogers
but what is it that makes surviving with them possible?
EGreg
what is irrational about taking advantage of loopholes in a badly designed system?
srogers
Do you have roots like a tree?
EGreg
I don't know, that sounds very wonky, can you tell me where you are going with the tree roots questions?
srogers
Can you just roll in them and suck up the life force?
srogers
The pont is that every living thing has to do something specific
srogers
grass can only just stand there and wait
srogers
a lion can chase things down
srogers
humans don’t work like that
EGreg
ok and?
EGreg
are you saying a million dollars WONT help me get things in life?
srogers
we can’t live as passive receptors, and we can’t be predators - we’re different from everything else
srogers
we have the ability to be rational - that’s our means of survival
EGreg
ok but I will wait until you get to the point addressing mine
srogers
you seem big on connecting things to reality - noticing that humans are different from everything else is how you do that
EGreg
yes I agree with you so far
EGreg
but you haven't made a point addressing the million dollars
EGreg
trees have roots therefore stealing a million dollars is wrong?
EGreg
non sequitur
srogers
the point is how you connect the “stuff” to your survival
srogers
you can’t eat the million dollars
srogers
it’s only useful in the sense that you envison things you could do with it
srogers
but what would you do - put it in a box, and take a little out and buy foot with it
srogers
then sit by the box until tomorrow?
srogers
You’d become like a lion - you do nothing but wait for the kill to come by - then you feast on it till it’s gone
srogers
but you can’t say anything about whether Objectivism is consistent with that or not
srogers
until you have some idea of the nature of man
EGreg
obviously what I'd do with it is trade it for things I actually want
EGreg
let's say I am a poor factory worker making $10 an hour
srogers
and what it means to seek your own life
EGreg
And I can acquire the million dollars by stealing and getting away with it
srogers
What self-interest means in a human sense
EGreg
If I know that I can get away with it, it is in my rational self-interest to steal it!
EGreg
Period.
EGreg
Now, you disagree with that conclusion? Fine, show me using a logicl argument, not poetry about trees and roots.
srogers
Oh - I see.  You said period.
EGreg
Exclamation Point!
EGreg
Everything you say to address it sounds like poetry. Lions. Trees. Roots. Sitting by a box.
srogers
and what is “say I am a poor factory worker”?
srogers
You’re still at the original point, from way at the beginning:  your self interest is what you want it to be
srogers
like:  If I were poor, I’d want to not be poor - so that is self interest
srogers
(and then say “period”)
srogers
you can’t do philosophy on those terms
EGreg
um
srogers
you can just barely do marxism like that
EGreg
because I am consistently asking the same question
EGreg
and making the same point
EGreg
you disagree with the conclusion? FINE use LOGIC!
EGreg
stop talking about lions and roots
EGreg
and make a logical statement that shows why stealing the million dollars IS NOT in the factory worker's self interest when he is making $10/hour
srogers
Right - you are making the same point because you disagree in a sense more fundamental than ethics
srogers
the “stealing” issue is just unnecessary complexity
EGreg
No it's because I gave a real world example where objectivism leads to a conclusion you resist.
EGreg
Why SHOULDN'T I take advantage of a poorly designed system??
EGreg
It would be virtuous to teach the designers a lesson so they can fix it.
EGreg
If I can steal it with impunity, and it is of value to my life, then I should.
EGreg
That follows directly.
srogers
it’s more towards the issue whether you’d consider the garden of eden ideal
EGreg
I shoudl do things that are in my self-interest. Do you disagree with it?
EGreg
This is in my self interest. Is this the point you disagree with?
EGreg
The conclusion follows from these premises.
srogers
“and it is of value to my life,”  <=  you skipped over that part
srogers
but to the more fundamental point - is the garden of eden an idea
srogers
ideal
srogers
if you could have all the food you need by giving up your critical faculty, would you do it?
srogers
is that in your interest?
srogers
It’s like the million dollars - but no stealing involved
EGreg
Why would I need to give up my critical faculty? You are adding extra assumptions
srogers
it’s just there - waiting - but to go inside, you have to stop judging and thinking
EGreg
Suppose I could steal the million dollars and everything else would stay the same in my life
EGreg
The next day I would still be critically thinking
srogers
Yes - suppose actions didn’t have consequences
EGreg
srogers: are you being obstinate on purpose? I will be very clear.
EGreg
Suppose a factory worker making $10/hour could steal a million dollars and GET AWAY WITH IT. Suppose they knew this.
srogers
Suppose you do - then what?
srogers
Like I said - do you sit by it and wait?
EGreg
Having a million dollars in a box has more value to their life than not having it, given that they make $10/hour it's obvious it can make a huge difference in the quality of their life.
EGreg
No, obviously you use it to BUY THINGS
EGreg
You dont eat it.
srogers
What kind of things?
srogers
Which things?  What do you need them for?
EGreg
Whatever things you would normally buy when you were trying to improve your life.
EGreg
What kind of things do you consider to have value for your life?
srogers
On what basis are you improving it?
EGreg
Food for instance. The person would be able to always have enough food to survive.
EGreg
Are you going to argue that the ability to buy adequate food is not a value for one's life?
srogers
Not on the basis of having learned a trade, risen in the ranks due to your skill, etc.
EGreg
what are you talking about
EGreg
FOOD is a VALUE
EGreg
Without food you would starve and die
EGreg
I am being super basic to avoid your poetry
EGreg
Guy can't pay his rent and eat normally. He has a family to feed.
EGreg
Guy steals a million dollars. Boom no more issues with food.
srogers
I’m fine with hypothetical arguments - but you have to notice when you’re saying, in effect, “hypothetically assume that what I do doesn’t really have any effect on my life beyond the material”
srogers
Right - but like we said before - what is the food for?
srogers
just to get to tomorrow, to get more food?
JAMESSHRUGGED has left IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
EGreg
Um dude there are lots of workers barely getting by. Like in China working in repetitive factory jobs for low pay, or kids in Africa mining metals.
EGreg
This isn't hypothetical.
EGreg
If they could steal something valuable and get away with it, it is in their rational self interest to do so.
srogers
you keep saying that
EGreg
Because it follows from the premises.
EGreg
The food is to eat it.
srogers
then what?
EGreg
You continue working at the factory, but in ADDITION you have a large savings now.
EGreg
Eating food sustains your life.
EGreg
That is your highest value.
EGreg
Life.
srogers
So you do nothing with it - just keep it for emergency, and continue working and gaining skill?
EGreg
Choosing between a risky, month-to-month existence, or having a million dollars saved, it's rational to have the million
EGreg
well let's say, to satisfy you, that you spend $100 on a nice meal for your family, and then use it for emergencies
EGreg
such as when you get laid off
DilloYoda has joined ([email protected])
EGreg
now you have more insurance FOR YOUR LIFE!!
EGreg
it's irrational to be stuck in a paycheck-to-paycheck existence if you can have a million dollars,all things being equal
srogers
but the whole issue is whether all things are actually equal
srogers
that’s the hypothetical part
EGreg
face it dude, sometimes stealing something is in a person's rational-self-interest, you haven't shown me any argument that would prove it is never the case.
EGreg
all you did was talk about lions and trees
EGreg
without making a logical argument
EGreg
Guy goes to work the next day. He sells the million dollar equipment for a million dollars. Then uses the million as insurance for a rainy day.
TXRoadkill has left IRC (Quit: "It's not the years honey, it's the mileage." ~ Indiana Jones)
srogers
So a logical argument is where you say “Stealing is in my self-interest, because it’s obvious that it is until you show me that it isn’t"
EGreg
No one knows he did it. The manager makes the system more secure. Now the office benefits from a more secure system. They lost a million dollar equipment but they learned their lesson.
EGreg
Well I have shown you that it is.
EGreg
You are the one asserting that it isn't, but fail to come up with a logical argument to demonstrate what you said is true.
srogers
such a favor, they should send him flowers
EGreg
Well he's an objectivist
EGreg
If I believed what Ayn Rand said, I would commend him for taking advantage of a system that let him do it.
EGreg
For example if someone offers a special in the store, and they made a big mistake, then I can take advantgae of it.
EGreg
It was their mistake not mine.
srogers
the specific thing you need to dig into is the difference between the earned and the unearned
EGreg
THAT is living consistently with the principles of rational self-interest.
srogers
and why it matters, if reason is your means of survivial
EGreg
oh, now you are bringing up other topics.
srogers
No, exactly the same topic
EGreg
if you can have an unearned million dollars, or get laid off next week and starve, it would be indefensible to argue that you should nevertheless not steal the million
EGreg
when your life is in danger
EGreg
the word "earned" was never mentioned until now, by you
srogers
I don’t think you’ll agree with that though until you look at some even more fundamental things about human nature
EGreg
now you are bringing other things into the conversation
EGreg
who deserves anything, who earned what
EGreg
if I was able to sell something for $200 instead of $100 by lying about another buyer who wants to buy tomorrow, did I earn the difference of $100?
EGreg
by lying?
srogers
What do you think all that working, and not being a tree was about?
EGreg
Many salespeople do it all the time.
EGreg
In fact, if you don't do it, then you will be a terrible salesperson.
EGreg
You have to lie to get ahead in some situations
EGreg
Lie and cheat and steal IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT
EGreg
That is what follows from the premises.
EGreg
You have failed to show me where the argument goes wrong, USING LOGIC.
srogers
What is the thing that determines whether you can get away with it?
srogers
other people?
EGreg
You have attempted to write some poetic statements. "You are not a tree. Tree roots go deep"
EGreg
Well if it is detected and traced to you
EGreg
then you haven't gotten away with it
EGreg
But otherwise, you have.