Question about Objectivism

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

I was debating with some Objectivist the other day and asked them a question that most Objectivists in the past have simply refused to answer for me: Rand says on the one hand that one's own life should be their ultimate value, but on the other hand that the duty of government should be to provide a police force, military, and court system. How can the members of the police fore and military justify risking their lives?

For the first time since I began asking this question, they actually tried answering it, but they only made me even more confused. They mentioned that John Galt had been willing to suffer torture or even die for his ideals.

My biggest problem with Objectivist philosophy has always been the idea that one's own life is the ultimate value, but now I have Objectivists telling me that sometimes other values trump it. Which is it? How can a the supposed objective, ultimate value becomes something other than an ultimate value?

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:59 pm

Good points.

I was - a long time ago - an Objectivist, and I really never thought about the contradiction. (I actually ws disowned by my objectivist friends when I started to question whether the human eye really evolved to see things how they actually were (their and Rand's view), or to percieve things well enough to survive, regardless of whether it was 'truly' accurate. It went downhill from there.)

My guess at the objectivist answer would be that policemen and other other-serving members of society practice self-interest in that they are getting paid for what they are doing. In the instance of John Galt, Galt was willing to make a personal sacrifice because he was fighting for, in a sense, self-interested ends. He was, after all, fighting for his "class" of people to recieve acknowledgement and just compensation.

I would think that Objectivists would see Galt's actions as fundamentally self-interested in the sense that he was taking a risk to fight for ends that were ultimately self-serving. Were he to win the gamble, not only would his "class" of people recieve just compensation and recognition, but so would he (and he'd become a hero in the process)!

As for police officers and others, the Objectivist might say that they are self interested in the sense that they are doing what they do (a) for a paycheck; (b) because thee job is intrinsically interesting to them; and possibly (c) because it makes them feel a sense of power, heroics, and accomplsihment.

Now, I see the problem with that. (I remember Objectivists telling me that altruistic behavior is self interested becasue performing other-serving actions often makes us feel good. Therefore, we do it to make ourselves feel good. THAT, OF COURSE ONLY BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY A SELF-INTERESTED PERSON WOULD FEEL GOOD ENGAGING IN OTHER-REGARDING BEHAVIOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

The problem is that objectivists are really rule-utilitarians, though they would never admit it.

A rule utilitarian is someone who believes that the interest of the whole is best served by each member following rules designed to benefit the whole. And this is precisely what capitalism is! The rules of capitalism balance indiviaul happiness with rules designed to benefit everyone. (Rules against theft put a limit on how we can pursue our self interest because doing so benefits everyone.)

And Objectivists tacitly realize that in order for capitalism to work, we have to sometimes have and follow rules that violate unfettered self-interest. (If Objectivists really believed that all actions should be self-serving, they would have no problem with theft, and would certanly have no problem with labor unions, as joining a labor union is a great way to get as much as possible for minimum output.)

So, my answer is that being a police officer (or teacher, which I am) is almost necessarily an other-regarding practice. (Teachers and cops who do it for the money or ego are almost always the worst in their field.)

And under a rule-utilitarian outlook, it makes perfect sense that in order for society to function, jobs that are first and foremost other-regarding are necessary for society to function.

But Objectivists could NEVER admit to this, becasue their maxim is the primacy of self interest. So, their explanations are post hoc: cops are self interested becasue they do it for money, ego, or the thrill.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

It makes much more sense, especially in light of the rule utilitarian view, though I've heard it explained differently before. I actually agree that many examples of sacrifice can, in a sense, be self-interested. For example, I'd be willing to die for certain values that I hold. In a Stoic/Socratic sort of way, that would be sacrificing your self (life) for the sake of your self (identity). My problem is that I don't think that Objectivists can defend this sort of view with their philosophy.

In general, I'm okay with the self-interest thing, and it probably does play a big role in ethics. However, Objectivists go further than this. According to Rand, the values that you should pursue are objective and form a hierarchy, and she says plainly that you should never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one. She also says plainly that your own life is at the top of this hierarchy. Maybe a police officer could join the force for the money or the thrill, but the moment his life is actually in danger, his Randian ethical duty is to jet. That is, of course, unless we apply some rule utilitarianism as you suggested.

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

I was - a long time ago - an Objectivist, and I really never thought about the contradiction. (I actually ws disowned by my objectivist friends when I started to question whether the human eye really evolved to see things how they actually were (their and Rand's view), or to percieve things well enough to survive, regardless of whether it was 'truly' accurate. It went downhill from there.)

Yeah, aside from her account of consciousness, I get get behind Rand's metaphysics (because it is completely tautological), but her epistemology is a little naive.

Quote:

Now, I see the problem with that. (I remember Objectivists telling me that altruistic behavior is self interested becasue performing other-serving actions often makes us feel good. Therefore, we do it to make ourselves feel good. THAT, OF COURSE ONLY BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY A SELF-INTERESTED PERSON WOULD FEEL GOOD ENGAGING IN OTHER-REGARDING BEHAVIOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

Yeah, I've heard that expressed before as "psychological egoism," the idea that everything you do is for your own self-interest. Talk about unfalsifiable. When I argue with people on this one, they try to put the burden of proof on me. How ironic.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:14 pm

Socratic Coaster wrote:

I actually agree that many examples of sacrifice can, in a sense, be self-interested. For example, I'd be willing to die for certain values that I hold. In a Stoic/Socratic sort of way, that would be sacrificing your self (life) for the sake of your self (identity).

I am not sure how that makes sense. One can not be self-regarding if one is willing to die for something that is, in a strict sense, not yourself. You are regarding something that is not yourself, and will carry on after you. Thus, you are other-regarding at that point.

Not saying that this is in any way a bad thing, but I really thing that the 'selfish gene' was not a wholly accurate metaphor. Humans are self-regarding much of the time, but there are certain actions of ours that make little sense when explained in that framework. (Charity makes no sense, for examlpe, if one tries to explain it by self-interest.)

And when I ask most teachers why they teach, their answer is not that the pay is good, that they get summers off, or that they the fact that others will owe them thanks someday. Rather, they tell me that they get a tingle in their hearts when a kid learns something, smiles, or realizes some potential that they never thought they had. (I know that feeling firsthand).

So, I am not sure if professions like teaching or being a police officer can be explained by primarily selfish motives. (Doubtless, there is SOME self-serving aspect, but it seems like the cop and teacher's first motivation is to serve others.)

Quote:

In general, I'm okay with the self-interest thing, and it probably does play a big role in ethics.

As am I. I am a political libertarian that is very taken with Adam Smith's whole canon of philosophic works. I am also a big fan of William james, who incessantly points out the obvious: that the only vantage point we have is our own, and, as such, we can't help but be self-regarding most of the time.

Quote:

According to Rand, the values that you should pursue are objective and form a hierarchy, and she says plainly that you should never sacrifice a higher value for a lower one. She also says plainly that your own life is at the top of this hierarchy. Maybe a police officer could join the force for the money or the thrill, but the moment his life is actually in danger, his Randian ethical duty is to jet.

True! Why the cop takes the paycheck is no mystery by Rand's scheme. Why the cop does not run from the shooter, but walks into harm's way with a strong possibility that she might die, is.

But I argue further. Under Rand's view, there is no sensical reason why one should not cheat at their jobs, join a labor-union (almost the same thing), engage in insider trading (which is often quite fool proof), or lie on your resume.

All of these things above are helpful tools to gain things for yourself, carry a minimal chance of getting caught, and often hurt no one.

So, why would Rand tell us that one should not engage in inider trading? Because it is dishonest? But isn't valuing honesty for its own sake an other-regarding virtue?

Maybe it is because it will hurt others?

But isn't that an other-regarding virtue? (Besides, even if it did hurt someone, that person already agreed to the risks of the stock market. They could just as easily be hurt by natural fluctuations in the market.

Long and short: they have NO ANSWER other than appealing to some other-regarding virtue that generally ends up being rule-utilitarian ("Insider trading is wrong, because the stock market could not function if it were legal," which is the best answer and, it turns out, a rule-utilitarian one.)

Quote:

I get get behind Rand's metaphysics (because it is completely tautological), but her epistemology is a little naive.

But even her metaphysics are more speculative than anything. Her metaphysics even rely on a shaky premise: that external reality exists.

Yes, yes, I know that it is quite commonsensical to hold this, but contra Rand, there is another and better alternative to this that is more accurate and non-contradictory. And suprise, suprise, the pragmatists thought it up:

"We cannot be sure that reality exists apart from our minds and senses, because we cannot get outisde of our minds and senses to check. But we do know that it has proven a a safe and efficacious ASSUMPTION that reality exists apart from us. Every time we act as if it does, it seems to work out for us. Therefore, even though we cannot be 100% certain that A=A (as Rand says we can be), there is no better assumption to make."

I personally like this as a foundation better. It gets us to the same place, does not promise a certainty that we cannot have, and is NOT tautological. (It constantly relies on input from our senses, and is not circular because it awlays sees itself as somewhat provisional.)

Newbie Joined: Jan 30, 2008 Posts: 11

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

I am not sure how that makes sense. One can not be self-regarding if one is willing to die for something that is, in a strict sense, not yourself.

That is why I was mentioning the Stoic/Socratic sense. The ancient Greek concept of "self" was a little different than the concept that gets thrown around today. The way it was explained to me in Ethics class was this: suppose there is a man who has devoted his whole life to being part of a religion which does not allow him to lie. He self-identifies not only as a living human being, but also as a member of this religion. Now suppose someone puts a gun to his head and threatens to kill him if he does not convert. Which choice better preserves his sense of self? Most modern people would immediately answer that lying is the only option for self-preservation. The Stoics and Socratics would disagree and say that, if he lies, he has sacrificed himself to the same or even greater extent than if he had taken the bullet. Hence one of the many interpretations of why Socrates took the hemlock.

Quote:

You are regarding something that is not yourself, and will carry on after you. Thus, you are other-regarding at that point.

I guess I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. An act can be both self and other-regarding. I excercise for my health both so that I can live longer and so that I can be with my family longer. The way I see it, an act made in accordance with your values is necessarily one that regards both yourself and something outside yourself.

Quote:

(Charity makes no sense, for examlpe, if one tries to explain it by self-interest.)

In a way, I agree. However, I care about not only doing good things but being a good person and I can and do engage in charity in order to accomplish both. I don't see how it can be self-interest in the Randian sense, but in an Aristotlean sense of virtue ethics it can. Wanting to be a good person is another one of those things that is a desire that regards both myself and others. Of course, that only works if there are virtuous/non-virtuous people instead of only virtuous/non-virtuous acts.

Quote:

And when I ask most teachers why they teach, their answer is not that the pay is good, that they get summers off, or that they the fact that others will owe them thanks someday. Rather, they tell me that they get a tingle in their hearts when a kid learns something, smiles, or realizes some potential that they never thought they had. (I know that feeling firsthand).

From what I've heard from you, you are no-doubt excellent in your profession. I'm glad your reasons are noble, and I hope you take pride in both your actions and your motives.

Quote:

True! Why the cop takes the paycheck is no mystery by Rand's scheme. Why the cop does not run from the shooter, but walks into harm's way with a strong possibility that she might die, is.

That looks like the heart of the problem I'm posing.

Quote:

Long and short: they have NO ANSWER other than appealing to some other-regarding virtue that generally ends up being rule-utilitarian ("Insider trading is wrong, because the stock market could not function if it were legal," which is the best answer and, it turns out, a rule-utilitarian one.)

You may have hit the nail on the head with the rule-utilitarian thing.

Quote:

But even her metaphysics are more speculative than anything. Her metaphysics even rely on a shaky premise: that external reality exists.

I was mostly thinking of her tautological "existence exists" and "a thing is what it is." The external reality speculations come with the third point involving conciousness, which I find problems with as well.

If I'm reading you right on pragmaticism, does it looks something this?
Objectivism: Perception and reason are all we need to understand reality.
Pragmantism: Perception and reason are all we have to understand reality.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:12 pm

Socratic Coaster wrote:

That is why I was mentioning the Stoic/Socratic sense. The ancient Greek concept of "self" was a little different than the concept that gets thrown around today. The way it was explained to me in Ethics class was this: suppose there is a man who has devoted his whole life to being part of a religion which does not allow him to lie. He self-identifies not only as a living human being, but also as a member of this religion. Now suppose someone puts a gun to his head and threatens to kill him if he does not convert. Which choice better preserves his sense of self? Most modern people would immediately answer that lying is the only option for self-preservation. The Stoics and Socratics would disagree and say that, if he lies, he has sacrificed himself to the same or even greater extent than if he had taken the bullet. Hence one of the many interpretations of why Socrates took the hemlock.

Interesting. I think I read about that in a Charles Taylor book once on different concepts of the self.

So ours is simply a difference in definition. Probably just personal bias, but I cannot feel comfortable with any idea suggesting that the self extends to things like principles. That puts us in the akward situation of saying a soldier who loves the ideals of the US is self-serving by choosing to die in defense of those principles. I cannot see that act as anything other than other-regarding.

But I can see how one could argue differently.

Quote:

An act can be both self and other-regarding. I excercise for my health both so that I can live longer and so that I can be with my family longer. The way I see it, an act made in accordance with your values is necessarily one that regards both yourself and something outside yourself.

We agree here. I do not see self- and other-regard as mutually exclusive either. But I would suggest that in the case of someone dying to defend principles in which they believe that that person is wholly regarding others.

(The reason I say that is because as they realize that they will die and no longer be around to enjoy those principles, they are literally fighting so that others might enjoy those principles.

So, in your religious scenario, I would argue to your professor that the person is not giving their life up for themselves, but for something 'bigger than they are' - for what they see as principles which will outlast them. And I cannot see that as anything other than other-regarding.)

Quote:

I was mostly thinking of her tautological "existence exists" and "a thing is what it is." The external reality speculations come with the third point involving conciousness, which I find problems with as well.

A=A. Existence exists.

Hee hee.

Actually, I don't like 'existence exists," because it seems to much like those definitional tautologies like, "bricklayers lay brick," - true simply by definition (if it is an 'existant,' then by definition, what it does is to 'exist.')

I prefer my own, more Eastern, axiom (that is not tautological): There are things.

Hee hee.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:00 pm

I think you make some excellent points. I consider Rand to be more a historically localized reaction to totalitarian-communism than anything else.

I am not please with "there are things" though. Maybe there is no better way to put it...?

"It is raining"
What is raining? The sentence seems to really say "I see rain."

If so, "there are things" = "i see things"

So I think the only reason this is not tautological is because we're not at the bottom step and that if you carry it farther you will run into a tautology.

Tautology is the inevitable foundation. The alternative is no foundation. These are the only 2 choices: the vicious circle or the infinite regress. Not very appetizing.

Between the two, I don't think we have much choice but to prefer the tautology over foundationlessness because the tautology acts as a starting or ending point, a definitional base, the given, upon which all else rests.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:17 pm

Quote:

I am not please with "there are things" though. Maybe there is no better way to put it...?

"It is raining"
What is raining? The sentence seems to really say "I see rain."

If so, "there are things" = "i see things"

Hee hee. Good analysis!

The reason I change it is because "existence exists" never seemed to me to say anything. Never mind saying anything interesting. I don't think it actually SAYS ANYTHING.

The reason I say this is becasue it is thoroughly unclear what is meant by "existence" except for "that which exists." But if that is the only real way to answer the question "what do we mean by existence?" then we have a DEFINITIONAL tautology of the type which says, "Bricklayers lay brick." it is true ONLY because the definition of "existence" must be "that which exists."

It might be better, then, to say "things exist," because that actually says something and is not simply true because of its definition.

But, it can also be questioned - not true of a real axiom. How do we know that things exist? Because we see them with our senses, which begs the question of how we know that what we see actually exists.

So, I like your proposition: maybe we can begin with "I see/sense things." Can that be denied or questioned?

Quote:

Tautology is the inevitable foundation. The alternative is no foundation. These are the only 2 choices: the vicious circle or the infinite regress. Not very appetizing.

Between the two, I don't think we have much choice but to prefer the tautology over foundationlessness because the tautology acts as a starting or ending point, a definitional base, the given, upon which all else rests

Why can't we let our beliefs be foundationless? I know it sounds quite unphilosophical, but let me put it like this:

Let us say that you are convinced - as I am - that the sky is blue. But search and search, there is no unshakeable, unquestionable foundation for this belief.

you could ground it in your senses, but we can question whether they are accurate. We can ground it in the idea that existence exists, but how do we know that but for our senses, which may not be accurate?

So, supposing we cannot find an unshakeable foundation for this belief, are we actually going to profess doubt or abandon the belief?

I, for one, will not. Why? Because I am a person who lives in the world of things and actions, not philosophy. It is enough for me to suppose that the sky is blue, suppose that my senses are accurate, and suppose that others see the sky also as blue.

I don't have to have a foundation to validate these beliefs. What I have to do is test them, and so far all of those beliefs have passed with flying colors. The moment they do not is the moment that I will question them.

I think it may have been William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein who came to the idea at the same times that beliefs are not formed in ladders, but in webs. Most people - actually, I think, all of us - hold beliefs that are not tied to unassailable axioms, and we do just fine. We hold beliefs that are inter-related to eachother, and may even rely on eachother (my belief that you see the sky as blue also is supported by my belief that eyes tend to work and see in the same way, and this is supported by the belief that science has not been lying to me on this score, which is supported by the belief that people are generally honest.)

But this belief need not have an ultimate foundation at the very bottom in order for me to hold it and feel secure in holding it. All it needs is a way for me to affirm or refute it, and that is through experience, not axioms.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:10 pm

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Why can't we let our beliefs be foundationless? I know it sounds quite unphilosophical, but let me put it like this:

Let us say that you are convinced - as I am - that the sky is blue. But search and search, there is no unshakeable, unquestionable foundation for this belief.

you could ground it in your senses, but we can question whether they are accurate. We can ground it in the idea that existence exists, but how do we know that but for our senses, which may not be accurate?

So, supposing we cannot find an unshakeable foundation for this belief, are we actually going to profess doubt or abandon the belief?

I, for one, will not. Why? Because I am a person who lives in the world of things and actions, not philosophy. It is enough for me to suppose that the sky is blue, suppose that my senses are accurate, and suppose that others see the sky also as blue.

I don't have to have a foundation to validate these beliefs. What I have to do is test them, and so far all of those beliefs have passed with flying colors. The moment they do not is the moment that I will question them.

I think it may have been William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein who came to the idea at the same times that beliefs are not formed in ladders, but in webs. Most people - actually, I think, all of us - hold beliefs that are not tied to unassailable axioms, and we do just fine. We hold beliefs that are inter-related to eachother, and may even rely on each other (my belief that you see the sky as blue also is supported by my belief that eyes tend to work and see in the same way, and this is supported by the belief that science has not been lying to me on this score, which is supported by the belief that people are generally honest.)

But this belief need not have an ultimate foundation at the very bottom in order for me to hold it and feel secure in holding it. All it needs is a way for me to affirm or refute it, and that is through experience, not axioms.

I'm not going to argue that it can't be that way. I am arguing for a preference for foundation.

I see things. They're eveywhere.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:09 pm

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

(Teachers and cops ( doctors anyone ) who do it for the money or ego are almost always the worst in their field.)

This is one of my main objections to a capitalistic model. I would prefer a system where all humans engaged in “what they do” based upon desire and passion for that activity rather then the monetary compensation gained by doing the activity/occupation.

What percentage of people do you think work in the professions they do based solely upon economic gain? Here’s my guess…

Economic gain = 90 percent
Desire to perform activity = 10 percent

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

SocraticCoaster wrote:

I was debating with some Objectivist the other day and asked them a question that most Objectivists in the past have simply refused to answer for me: Rand says on the one hand that one's own life should be their ultimate value, but on the other hand that the duty of government should be to provide a police force, military, and court system. How can the members of the police fore and military justify risking their lives?

For the first time since I began asking this question, they actually tried answering it, but they only made me even more confused. They mentioned that John Galt had been willing to suffer torture or even die for his ideals.

My biggest problem with Objectivist philosophy has always been the idea that one's own life is the ultimate value, but now I have Objectivists telling me that sometimes other values trump it. Which is it? How can a the supposed objective, ultimate value becomes something other than an ultimate value?

I'm not an objectivist myself but have read a bit of Rand. Rand would argue that your life would become unbearable if something was to be lost to you. This allows rand to justify an action where a person would jump in front of a bullet to save somebody the person using their body as a shield loves. The action is fundamentally selfish because living life without that person would make you life meaningless. This could be applied to other things like values or ideals, also constructs like institutions or nation states.

Rand would say your life precedes the value of these other things.

Selfishness remains intact as the impetus to action because you are acting to avoid some unpleasant feeling. The loss of a loved one or destruction of valued construct or symbol.

While i don't necessarily agree with Rand's metaphysics and her epistemology I think there is something bio-pragmatic about Rand's discourse on this issue and am inclined to agree that action, at least, is driven by a fundamental selfishness, regardless of if the organism is aware or unaware.

I've always disagreed with Rand on her views of the necessitate of the state vs anarchy though. She's often said that in disputes between defense agencies, the agencies would automatically war, yet disputes between states would not necessarily result in war.

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Now, I see the problem with that. (I remember Objectivists telling me that altruistic behavior is self interested becasue performing other-serving actions often makes us feel good. Therefore, we do it to make ourselves feel good. THAT, OF COURSE ONLY BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY A SELF-INTERESTED PERSON WOULD FEEL GOOD ENGAGING IN OTHER-REGARDING BEHAVIOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!)

A selfish gene theorist could answer this better then Rand by saying living in a society benefits the individual because of a tribal division of labor, or the many eyes hypothesis. In addition you have proximity to mates. An individual who behaved in an overtly selfish manner and that survived in a tribe would obtain benefits while producing nothing of value in return. That individual would be parasitic and likely assaulted or exiled. This is observed in primate behavior with regards to those that hoard food.

Pro-social behaviors would emerge to ensure punishment or exile, which does not benefit the selfish individual, would not occur. Charity would be perfectly compatible with a selfish behavior because it would, in essence, be a purchase of reduced future hostility which would maximize the fitness of the selfish individual. Feelings of joy from helping others would also be compatible with this.

Just Arrived Joined: Apr 27, 2010 Posts: 1

I know that objectivism is the philosophy created by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile