Post-Randian Objectivism

[Beelzebuddy]

What an odd statement. I've detailed several methods for complaining about unwanted activities.

THIS is why I dislike discussing Objectivism here. Had Beelzebuddy read my post with the care he's shown in other parts of this forum, he'd see that his statement is clearly a straw-man and has no relation to the philosophy in question. But because it's Objectivism such care is unnecessary in many peoples' eyes.

Sorry for the confusion - by "complain" I should have said "effectively complain." You mention several methods of complaining, yes, but none of them affect my setup. You gonna picket my rotting carcasses? Boycott my sirens? Sell them firewood? Good luck.

This is the problem I have with Objectivist discussions: I've never seen them take the philosophy to its failure conditions. Any economic system should work just fine as long as everyone participating are decent guys. It's when at least one party decides to be a manipulative bastard that things fail. Incidentally, it's also my biggest complaint with Rand's writing. Her characters are all either Ubermenschian Mary Sues, hand-wringing scum that would make Boris Badenov roll his eyes, or sheeple who just do what the villains say. The actual philosophy is moot; Atlas Shrugged would have worked just as well if Galt's Gulch was a model hippie commune hiding away from Enron CEOs and Bernie Madoff types.

It took me five minutes reading your and Piscivore's conversation to come up with my obnoxious land-grab strategy. No sane political system would let me drive off neighbors through this kind of jackassery, but in one where jackassery is explicitly allowed, what's the Objectivist solution? This should be a trivial problem, and it's just scratching the surface. How much more devious a strategy could someone who devoted a whole hour to thinking of it come up with?

 

[Piscivore]

I have posited here that objective morality is derived from an emergent property of the brain, sapience.

Great. What is the evidence for that position? Why are there so very many differing ideas about what is "moral" if it is objective?

This quality grants individuals self-sovereignty,

How? This does not agree with any reading of history, or what we know of psychology and sociology. Left to ourselves, humans arrange themselves into power structures with a dominant individual or elite group. We go out of our way to obey authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofling_hospital_experiment

Why do we do that if we all have this inherent "objective self-sovereignity"?

which results in the natural rights I've described previously. An example of an objectively moral tenant would be that it is categorically immoral to kill someone without his or her express permission .

So warfare and self defense are objectively immoral? Come on, murder has been done to death in these debates. We can find hundreds of justifications for killing someone.

(any modification of the another's body, mind, or property without permission would be immoral)

That is so broad as to be completely ridiculous. I have no moral right to alter another's mind? So I guess my career as a writer or educator is out. I can't even walk down the street because even being seen by another person will "alter their mind".

Let me know when you give up the high-minded philosophical absolutes and have a real-world idea to discuss.

 

[Piscivore]

the majority of property and resources in any country should be privately owned.

I totally agree. The difference we have is the line where the rights of others intersect with the rights of landowners and/or the wealthy. You seem to be taking an extreme lazy-fair ( I could never spell that ) attitude; that's been proven not to work. People can and do use their property to the detriment of others, maliciously and for their own gain.

 

[Merton]

Great. What is the evidence for that position? Why are there so very many differing ideas about what is "moral" if it is objective?

How? This does not agree with any reading of history, or what we know of psychology and sociology. Left to ourselves, humans arrange themselves into power structures with a dominant individual or elite group. We go out of our way to obey authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofling_hospital_experiment

Why do we do that if we all have this inherent "objective self-sovereignity"?

Widespread disagreement does not, however, indicate that there is no objective fact to be known. There are many examples of widespread disagreement regarding facts that are clearly objective. For example, there was once widespread disagreement about whether the universe is expanding or in a “steady state.” That disagreement did not indicate that there is no objective fact concerning the state of the universe. Thus, widespread disagreement regarding moral judgments would not, by itself, indicate that there are no objective moral facts.

Source

So warfare and self defense are objectively immoral? Come on, murder has been done to death in these debates. We can find hundreds of justifications for killing someone.

Aggressive warfare, yes; self-defense, no. When one has infringed upon the rights of another, some of his or her rights are forfeit until rehabilitation. Likewise, if someone is going to violate another's rights, preemptive action is justified.

That is so broad as to be completely ridiculous. I have no moral right to alter another's mind? So I guess my career as a writer or educator is out. I can't even walk down the street because even being seen by another person will "alter their mind".

Ok, poor choice of words on my part; observation obviously cannot be counted as an infringement of rights. Also, you've omitted the part where permission can be granted for these things. You can teach Physics to those who want to learn it, but it is wrong to force it upon the unwilling.

Let me know when you give up the high-minded philosophical absolutes and have a real-world idea to discuss.

There's really no need for this kind of remark. I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.

 

[Piscivore]

Thus, widespread disagreement regarding moral judgments would not, by itself, indicate that there are no objective moral facts.

No, it doesn't, but in absence of evidence that's the parsimonous explanation. What evidence do you have that objective morality exists? Where does it come from? Why does strong evidence exist that contradicts one of the predictions of your hypothesis ("objective self-sovreignity")?

Ok, poor choice of words on my part; observation obviously cannot be counted as an infringement of rights.

Yes, and we can go around and around for days, chipping away at this absolute with exception after exception until it is a pile of rubble instead of the pure shape you've proposed. Protip: Philosophical absolutes very rarely have anything to do with reality.

Short answer; no one has a moral right to have things all their own way. The cruel, uncaring universe will do anything and everything to you regardless of your wishes, and other people are part of that universe. Whinging about how it isn't "moral" will not change that fact one bit.

Also, you've omitted the part where permission can be granted for these things.

So I guess we let the children run free until they are "ready to learn"?

You can teach Physics to those who want to learn it, but it is wrong to force it upon the unwilling.

What consititutes "forcing it on the unwilling"? Do I have to keep silent about evolution in public lest I offend some Creationist that might overhear? What is the moral penalty for changing a mind?

There's really no need for this kind of remark. I thought we were having a pleasant conversation.

It is frustrating to talk to philosophy students. Philosophy conditions one to think that "thought experiments" are in any way meaningful, tries to imbue the crass and meaningless facts about the universe with undue significance, and holds emotional desires and "oughts" to be tests for truth.

That's all your "objective morals" amount to; what you wish were true. There is not a shred of empirical evidence to support the notion of "self-sovereignity" or some sacrosanct "right" not to be physically, mentally, or emotionally altered by anything, anyone, or any event that crosses your path. Contrariwise, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the majority of people will immediately aquiesce to whatever authority (valid or not) that presents itself.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So I guess we let the children run free until they are "ready to learn"?

There actually are theories of education which state exactly this. I don't buy much of it, but they've got some nice ideas. It's not a totally absurd notion.

 

[Piscivore]

There actually are theories of education which state exactly this. I don't buy much of it, but they've got some nice ideas.

Heh, a lot of people have "nice ideas".

 

[Dinwar]

It took me five minutes reading your and Piscivore's conversation to come up with my obnoxious land-grab strategy.

Imagine the response you'd get in a discussion of any other topic if you came out and said "I've thought about this for five minutes, and therefore have disproven this idea that numerous profesionals have devoted their lives to with a simple idea that can be expressed in a YouTube video!" (And I'm not talking Rand here--I know of several academic philosophers who've worked on O'ist ethics.)

Again, you're applying different standards to discussions of O'ism than you apply elsewhere. Either the standards you're applying here--which are the equivalent of those used by that guy arguing that the Sun is really two black holes spinning around each other--are valid, or the tactics you're applying here aren't and there may be nuances you're unaware of.

You seem to be taking an extreme lazy-fair ( I could never spell that ) attitude; that's been proven not to work.

Not in this thread thus far. I've seen a half-baked theory tossed out as if it was proof (ie, Beelzebuddy's idea), your argument that since my actions reduce your return on investment they're somehow immoral, and people mistaking capitalism for croony capitalism and pull-peddling (as Rand called it). Your arguments are the best ones offered so far, and they still don't address the issues that I've raised (basically, if it's somehow a violation of your rights to reduce your property's value to you why is it not a violation of your rights to reduce a stock price?).

Besides, as I've said, I'm not an anarchist. I believe that government is necessary (well, inevitable is a better way to put it). Most of the problems people have been raising would be dealt with by a government focused on inpartially preserving the rights of its citizens.

Certainly, capitalism doesn't "work" if you define "working" as "giving everyone everything they want". But reality is the issue there, not any economic theory--some choices simply have opportunity costs.

The best argument against capitalism thus far presented here is your argument that the majority of humans act like children. And even that is flawed. The way you get someone to stop acting like a child isn't to coddle them and remove the consequences of their petulant tantrums--it's the opposite, you make them FACE those consequences. Again, I'm not a utopian. Some people won't be able to handle it. Sucks to be them. But it's not unreasonable to expect adults to act like adults, or to refuse to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

 

[Piscivore]

Not in this thread thus far.

No, not in this thread. In History. The whole early Industrial Revolution on into WWI, practically. Lack of regulation in the banking industry caused our current woes.

ETA: Hell, Communism itself was a reaction to the excesses of laissez-faire capatalism in the 19th Century.

your argument that since my actions reduce your return on investment they're somehow immoral,

I didn't say immoral. I don't think morality has any place in it. That's one of Rand's biggest mistakes in my mind, this interjecting "morality" into social dynamics.

and people mistaking capitalism for croony capitalism and pull-peddling (as Rand called it).

It's "crony", just as an aside. "Croony capitalism" sounds like doing Frank Sinatra's taxes.

Your arguments are the best ones offered so far, and they still don't address the issues that I've raised (basically, if it's somehow a violation of your rights to reduce your property's value to you why is it not a violation of your rights to reduce a stock price?).

Well, I've avoided that because I'm addressing sociological aspects, not purely economic ones. That's another of Rand's mistakes. Not everything is an "investment" looking for a "payoff".

And actually, it can be a violation of rights to lower a stock price depending on how, when, and why it is done. The SEC has a whole bookshelf full of regs about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_raid

Besides, as I've said, I'm not an anarchist. I believe that government is necessary (well, inevitable is a better way to put it [Good way!]). Most of the problems people have been raising would be dealt with by a government focused on inpartially preserving the rights of its citizens.

Certainly, capitalism doesn't "work" if you define "working" as "giving everyone everything they want". But reality is the issue there, not any economic theory--some choices simply have opportunity costs.

Agreed. I don't think I argued for getting anybody what they want. It's about equal access and equal opportunity.

The best argument against capitalism thus far presented here is your argument that the majority of humans act like children. And even that is flawed. The way you get someone to stop acting like a child isn't to coddle them and remove the consequences of their petulant tantrums...

Like destroying one's copper mines or setting oil fields on fire because one does not get one's way?

--it's the opposite, you make them FACE those consequences.

And that's what regulation is intended to do. Unfortunately, there is no "karma". The universe will let a cheater or a bully get away with it for a long time before "natural" consequences catch up- if they ever do; see my comments to Merton about how we have a cumpulsion to obey any authority. So, we've often got to create some consequences ourselves. And we cannot let that be done by the aggreived parties themselves, because they are both obviously biased. That's where a strong government comes in. If it is too weak, it is ignored; if it is too strong, its mechanisms get usurped.

I'm nowhere near against capitalism. I think it is as close to equitable market system as it gets- when it is properly regulated.

Again, I'm not a utopian. Some people won't be able to handle it. Sucks to be them. But it's not unreasonable to expect adults to act like adults,

It's reasonable, but not realistic. "Reason" is only as good as the premises you start with.

... or to refuse to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

As I said, natural consequences are too easily avoided. The public and the market have memories too short to make it self-regulating. Bad behaviour can be glossed over with a facile apology and a charming smile or a slick ad campaign. Look at the diamond industry. Look at BP.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Imagine the response you'd get in a discussion of any other topic if you came out and said "I've thought about this for five minutes, and therefore have disproven this idea that numerous profesionals have devoted their lives to with a simple idea that can be expressed in a YouTube video!" (And I'm not talking Rand here--I know of several academic philosophers who've worked on O'ist ethics.)

Again, you're applying different standards to discussions of O'ism than you apply elsewhere. Either the standards you're applying here--which are the equivalent of those used by that guy arguing that the Sun is really two black holes spinning around each other--are valid, or the tactics you're applying here aren't and there may be nuances you're unaware of.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I explicitly said I was ignorant of much of Objectivist philosophy, knowing only what Rand wrote (and not really liking that), not that I've already absorbed it all and can preach ex cathedra.

I tend to approach new ideas like an engineer: where is it applicable, what does it bring, when does it fail? All the ivory tower BS involving theory can wait until the practical effects are demonstrated. I'd much rather have a useful system with a messy hodge podge of approaches than one single, elegant idea that's completely impractical upon implementation. I suppose thats why I'm a biologist rather than mathematician. So all this rational self-interest stuff is all well and good, but I'll start to care about it only when I'm satisfied a robust system will come of it.

I presented a simple attack, an exploit of the rules governing property use. As you said, there's some schmott guys working on this, and the idea itself is decades old. There's got to be a good answer. Knowing what that is will tell me more about the ethical system than any amount of contemplating lofty ideals. But this is twice now you've attacked my motives and understanding rather than provide a potential answer. Do you just not have one? If so, I have a suggestion - that property value is real value, the loss of which is lawsuit worthy - but don't you think lacking an intuitive solution to a clear problem might impact the practical value of Objectivism?

 

[Craig24]

So you don't believe in rights. No surprise--your criticisms of capitalism and concept of property pretty much demonstrated that already.

From what I gather, he's not the only one here who doesn't believe in rights. Check out this thread and see what I mean:
What is a "Right"???

 

[Piscivore]

From what I gather, he's not the only one here who doesn't believe in rights. Check out this thread and see what I mean:
What is a "Right"???

Thread should have ended at the second post.

A right is nothing but a privilege which is guaranteed to you by the society you are a part of.

Full stop.

 

[Dinwar]

Thread should have ended at the second post.

So if society voted on it, you'd find it acceptable for them to gang-rape you, then murder you? I apologize for the crudeness, but that's what "rights are granted by society" boils down to: society can arbitrarily deny ANYTHING to ANYONE. And this isn't hypothetical, really. Society had decided slaves didn't have rights--thus, their brutal treatment was, by your definition, correct.

Beelzebuddy: Your "simple attack" amounts to you proposing a situation, then adding ad-hoc "explanations" for why the solutions offered won't work. The fact that you revised your statements to read "...effective solutions" is proof of that.

But okay, let's say that your hypothetical sociopath existed, and they were piling slaughtered pic carcasses with the intent to drive away everyone and are 100% unwilling to listen to reason or economic pressures (in other words, let's engage in a flight of fancy that's impossible--but never mind). I've been thinking of this situation all wrong. I've been thinking of it in terms of an ethical question--does this person have the right? But that's not the central issue here. What you've presented is two people in a dispute, with one side claiming that the actions of another have resulted in intentional harm. That makes this a LEGAL question, not an ethical one. Once I realized that,t he solution became obvious: you'd sue the guy. As I said before, judges in an O'ist society would serve, in part, as arbiters in the case of disputes. They'd also be responsible (along with juries, maybe--that's one controversy in O'ism right now, whether juries are necessary and juries should function, be populated, etc) for determining who has violated who's rights and to what degree, and what compensation each party is entitled to. The court's decision would be backed up by the police. Earlier I'd said that government arguments always boil down, eventually, to the use of force, and this may (it's up to the jduge to decide) be a case where that's justified.

I'm just speculating here, but given that you've already decided that this guy is, for no reason, not open to discussion it can be concluded that he's doing what he's doing to intentionally cause harm--which means he's probably going to lose the court case. If it were my decision, I'd say that he has to dispose of his carcases/fecies in some other manner, and I'd deligate an inspector to periodically and randomly inspect the site for a period of, oh, call it five years if no one's been injured (if someone has gotten sick/been killed, things would go worse for the guy). This contrasts with an accidental issue (for example, I have a bad sense of smell, so may actually and honestly not notice that the place is stinking so bad it's driving people away), in which 1) a civil conversation would be effective, and 2) it would be an issue of arbitration, not an actual infraction, so I'd go for something along the lines of "You now know there's a problem. Get rid of it, and if I hear any more complaints we'll start inspections".

 

[Piscivore]

So if society voted on it, you'd find it acceptable for them to gang-rape you, then murder you?

No. That's why "equal protection", "equal access" and "equal opportunity" are so important to me.

But the simple historical fact is that what you describe is extremely prevelant throughout history, and occurs and has occured in every society no matter the ideology, philosophy, or political system that dominated the society.

I apologize for the crudeness, but that's what "rights are granted by society" boils down to: society can arbitrarily deny ANYTHING to ANYONE. And this isn't hypothetical, really. Society had decided slaves didn't have rights--thus, their brutal treatment was, by your definition, correct.

Yes, in that society it is "correct", by the values of that society. Fortunately, ideologies are not objective, and can change.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

(in other words, let's engage in a flight of fancy that's impossible--but never mind).

You keep trying to dismiss this situation like it's a ridiculous edge case that could never happen. That's not how exploits are fixed, it's how they're created.

But okay, let's say that your hypothetical sociopath existed, and they were piling slaughtered pic carcasses with the intent to drive away everyone and are 100% unwilling to listen to reason or economic pressures

Who says he needs to be a sociopath? He's not doing this for spite, but for profit. This is an investment - the price of pig offal is low enough that it'll pay for itself a hundred times over with even a 10% reduction in property values before acquisition. Economically speaking, it's the same as a landowner deciding to build a noisy and smelly factory of some kind in the same location.

Furthermore, who says he needs to be a he? It may well be Happy Bacon Oinker Disposal (a subsidiary of Big Realtors, Inc) pulling this stunt. If you'd care for some real-life examples of faceless corporations deciding to trample basic human rights in pursuit of profit that would make this little trick seem mild in comparison, I'd be happy to provide. And I'm fair certain large corporations > private citiens in civil court in Objectivismopia as well, though if you've worked out a way to keep money from buying power, I'd love to hear it.

intentional harm.

Ah, see, now we're getting somewhere. Where is the harm in my proposal, exactly? Is it not my property, to do with as I wish? Am I not master of my own estate? None of this would cause physical harm to neighbors, so are someone's rights violated here? Is it the disagreeable smells? The annoying sounds? Or is the harm the reduction in value of their property itself? Now that you agree there is harm, let's figure out exactly what it is and how (or if) Objectivism addresses it.

 

[RelativeSpace]

ALTRUISM is about helping other beings.

Yes, and altruism is the root of most internally consistent ethics- I didn't explicitly refer to altruism though.

ETHICS is the philosophical study of how one should behave.

No. Ethics is the philosophical study of moral behavior. "Should" is meaningless without context.

We should behave in one way if our goal is the cause as much discord and suffering in the world as possible.

We should behave in a very different way if our goal is to alleviate suffering and help others.

Should is meaningless without context- and the context in ethics is morality, which is necessarily founded upon some kind of altruistic-like behavior (not strictly altruism, but some form of either helping or abstention from harm), or at least some combination of such an altruistic-like behavior and self interest (purely selfish morality, as Rand articulated, is an oxymoron that merely reflects the default of behavior that exists in absence of morality and makes morality meaningless).

You can agree or disagree with all sorts of ethical theories, but that doesn't mean that only your preferred ethical theory gets to be included in the field.

There are many interesting ethical frameworks that deal with, variably, personally avoiding harm, seeking to maximize happiness of all, seeking to minimize suffering, etc.

There are plenty of iterations and theories to deal with. Strictly selfish "ethics", though, fail at their inception.

Likewise, there are plenty of theories on evolution and abiogenesis- many rational, practical, and logical explanations. And then there are the non-theories of creative design that fail to really answer the question at all.

Selfish ethics are the ID of moral philosophy.

I don't want to have an argument (I don't like to argue about evolution either), so let's just say we disagree and leave it at that

Wouldn't the maximizing of personal liberty for all rational beings, which I believe this philosophy accomplishes, be considered helpful to others? Would this not be altruist?

Objectivists believe that it should be every man's right to nail a living cat to a wall if it amuses him, and that it would be wrong for anybody to interfere with that sadistic pleasure or prevent him from doing it. That's not an exaggeration.

"Rational beings" as Rand considered them (and humans are rarely very rational so I disagree with that qualification, but that's another topic) are not the only living things that experience pain and suffering.

It's not helpful to anybody to give psychopaths free reign to carry out their perversions- it's not even helpful to the psychopaths (who really need medical care, not the right to do whatever they want).

So, no.

There is perhaps an argument to be made for abolishing the criminality of truly "victimless crimes", which are arguably based on unfounded social phobias. But, that's a political conversation, and I don't much like politics...

 

[Piscivore]

Strictly selfish "ethics", though, fail at their inception.

That's not so. Nearly all functional ethical systems are predicated on some degree (usually large) of quid pro quo, and humans do things for other people always because there is some measure of benefit in it for themselves; even if that benefit may or may not include individual survival.

 

[Craig24]

No. That's why "equal protection", "equal access" and "equal opportunity" are so important to me.

This is too ambiguous to have any real meaning. equal protection of what, from what? Equal access to what? Equal opportunity to do.... what??

The final question: How will this be done?

 

[Piscivore]

This is too ambiguous to have any real meaning.

The meaning was implied by the context of my previous conversation with Dinwar, and as it was simply part of a conversation with him and meant only to express my own values regarding government and not a universal principle, I thought it was sufficient.

equal protection of what,

Every member of a society, regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, sexual, political, or religious orientation, income and/or wealth, or any of the other nonsensical things we choose to divide ourselves over.

from what?

Exploitation, exclusion, persecution, or violence based on the above.

Equal access to what?

Political power and participation in society. Education. Economic opportunity. Justice.

Equal opportunity to do.... what??

Be heard. Advance socially, economically, intellectually. Redress grievances through the courts. Participate in the benefits of the civilization they are a part of.

The final question: How will this be done?

How will what be done? The "this" you quoted is simply a statement of what I think is important for government to provide and protect. "This" is "done" by the government providing and protecting it.

 

[RelativeSpace]

That's not so. Nearly all functional ethical systems are predicated on some degree (usually large) of quid pro quo, and humans do things for other people always because there is some measure of benefit in it for themselves; even if that benefit may or may not include individual survival.

That's more social contract than ethics. Of course, the argument could be made that ethics are just not functional because people are too selfish to put them into practice.

There is the matter, though, that people want to be seen (and to see themselves) as good people- even if there is no other personal benefit from it- so people will do good on principle alone in order to conform to their self images.