|
|
#21
10-23-2005, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
Chez, it is no surprise to me that deepdowntruth understands Ayn Rand objectivism far better than I do. If I was smart I'd leave this debate to those better educated in objectivism. DDT may be a better person to ask on the specifics of objectivist ethics.
[ QUOTE ] I assume you mean that the other way round but its an unfair definition of alturism that makes it irrational. It could just be putting the survival of someone else before your own survival which, if you're rational, must mean you value their survival more than your own. [/ QUOTE ] DDT covered this quite well. [ QUOTE ] However, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as survival, it could just be giving up something of direct benefit to yourself because you value even more the well-being of someone else. Giving money to a charity could be alturistic. [/ QUOTE ] Giving money to a charity is a choice, AR doesn't believe it has ethical implications. To say that giving money to charity is ethical, is to say that one must give money to charity, in so much as the purpose of ethics is determine correct actions. To exchnage something of lesser value(extra money) for something of greater value(emergency assistance, righting injustices, pleasure in helping fellow man) is ethical. But to say that giveing money to charity is ehical, implies a duty. [ QUOTE ] You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I am missing that important distinction. From AR The virtrue of selfishness "Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests." "There are two moral questions which altruism lumps to*gether into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substi*tutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance. Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." But I only agree in part with what AR states. AR leaves out the sociological reasons for "altruism" or if she does indeed discuss them I haven't read them yet. To give to someone creates a debt. This debt is something that people repay in there own way. It is a mutually beneficial proposition. The intial gift usually means less to the giver, than the repayment that the giver will recieve. As well as the repayment means less to the reciever than the gift does. People who are "altruistic" wish to help others, but at the same time do so only to stipulate the terms of repayment. For instance, bills gates' donation to malaria research has a stipulation that his efforts will reduce overpopulation, amongst other possible repayment senarios. When I donated money to help Katrina victims is was so that lawlessness would not ensue. For I wish not to be reminded of just how close we are to choas. The repayment is always part of any alturistic act. Which is why I reject the ethics of altruism. I care about others, in so much as what they can repay to me. If someone was drowning I would save him, provided that he or someone else would save me too. But if after I saved him he would kill me or do me harm, well I'd let him drown. To take a value or wealth creating idea (giving to people), and turnig it into a value or wealth limiting idea(giving to people who would do you harm, or destroy your values), is a problem I see with the ethics of altruism. When we understand the reasons for our moral feelings, do we see how altruism arose. It is my opinion that altrusim sets out to detroy the mutual benefit arangement that was sparked from the interaction of man with man. The other side of the spectrum is a far worse detriment to this debt based arrangement. Where as people give something of little value and then take something of much greater value. Sales people, con artists are well versed in this unwriten agreement. 
|
|
#22
10-23-2005, 12:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
[ QUOTE ]
To exchnage something of lesser value(extra money) for something of greater value(emergency assistance, righting injustices, pleasure in helping fellow man) is ethical. But to say that giveing money to charity is ehical, implies a duty. [/ QUOTE ] Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice). [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps I am missing that important distinction. From AR The virtrue of selfishness "Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests." [/ QUOTE ] Everything we do is in our own interest and to that extent is selfish. All actions are because I value myself, however some actions are of value to me because I value others. So we can seperate ethical actions into two classes. Class 1: Actions that I value because I value myself only Class 2: Actions that I value because I value myself and are of value to me (at least in part) because I value other people. That is a distinction that I want to label with selfish and selfless qualities. Both are selfish but class 2 actions have a selfless component. You can use different words if you like and even say the distinction is uninteresting to you, but they are distingishable. It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions. I think its important not to get too stuck on dictionary definitions when doing philosophy. The idea is to capture what we mean by certain concepts and I think the concept of selfish/selfless is captured by the above definition (if you called someone who only does class 1 actions as selfish then people would recognise the label as fitting, even if they didn't agree why). Again, I'm not going to argue the definition of alturism, there are quite a few. I think the concept of alturism is captured by how you decide on conflicting values. Sometimes you have to chose between two actions, one of which is in class 1 and the other in class 2, the stronger your tendency to choose the class 2 action the more alturistic you are [thats not a complete definition but gives the idea]. [ QUOTE ] Which is why I reject the ethics of altruism. I care about others, in so much as what they can repay to me. If someone was drowning I would save him, provided that he or someone else would save me too. [/ QUOTE ] but that's a statement about your values. Its not saying that others don't have alturistic values. If I could save someone from drowning (at a small but real risk to myself) then I would. That's it I would fullstop. Its a pure class 2 action in my book, I save the person from drowing purely because I value my own value of valuing others. [ QUOTE ] When we understand the reasons for our moral feelings, do we see how altruism arose. It is my opinion that altrusim sets out to detroy the mutual benefit arangement that was sparked from the interaction of man with man. [/ QUOTE ] I accept evolution as the casue all my values and I agree with you as to how it came about that I value others. You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified. If my saving someone from drowning purely because I value others is destroying something then I don't value the thing that is being destroyed - why should I (perhaps more important, would Rand and why?) chez
|
|
#23
10-23-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
[ QUOTE ]
Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had. (PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.) [/ QUOTE ] I used to be an Objectivist, and I can attest to the fact that its most ardent adherents are often even more dogmatic than many of the most devoutly religious people I've ever met.
|
|
#24
10-23-2005, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
[ QUOTE ]
Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice). [/ QUOTE ] Why is that wierd? [ QUOTE ] Class 1: Actions that I value because I value myself only Class 2: Actions that I value because I value myself and are of value to me (at least in part) because I value other people. [/ QUOTE ] We where having this conversation before and I understand the distinction. But i just feel that there are no ethical class 2 actions that aren't allready included in ethical class 1. [ QUOTE ] It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions. [/ QUOTE ] I want to say something to this. When you reply to me requote this. [ QUOTE ] but that's a statement about your values. Its not saying that others don't have alturistic values. If I could save someone from drowning (at a small but real risk to myself) then I would. That's it I would fullstop. Its a pure class 2 action in my book, I save the person from drowing purely because I value my own value of valuing others. [/ QUOTE ] This is what AR would says in "The virtue of selfishness" The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: “Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?” Consider the implications of that approach. If a man ac*cepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following conse*quences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): 1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacri*fice it. 2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help. 3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives. 4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hope*lessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situa*tions which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever. By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the con*cept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. and Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice. But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival. The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice. Consider the soul of the altruistic moralist who would be prepared to tell that husband the opposite. (And then ask yourself whether altruism is motivated by benevolence.) and To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu*able to him as his own She does stop there like you do. I do not. She states that what one should grant to a stranger is "respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it." Fair enough, I just name the sociological reasons why one should do it. I believe both she and you ignore them.
|
|
#25
10-23-2005, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is that wierd? [/ QUOTE ] Only that you said the former wasn't ethical and the latter was, when I think they are the same thing. I think its still a confusion about duty ethics which none of you, me or Rand believe is right. I think the same is true for the chunk of Rand you quoted on Altruism. She is talking about a duty based alturism. As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine. She talks about valuing someone else and their well-being (survival) being important to your happines. Hence some of our goals (things that make us happy) are about the well-being of other people. [ QUOTE ] She does stop there like you do. I do not. She states that what one should grant to a stranger is "respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it." Fair enough, I just name the sociological reasons why one should do it. I believe both she and you ignore them. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you. Having recognised that the reason we value other people is because there's a benefit to society (and hence ourselves) in mutual cooperation then it makes sense to behave as if we valued people when in fact we don't. This would be a case of a class 1 action but may look like a class 2 action. [ QUOTE ] Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to say something to this. When you reply to me requote this. [/ QUOTE ] As requested. chez
|
|
#28
10-24-2005, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice. [/ QUOTE ] Based off of the limited information you pointed me to (please provide more websites, if you can), it doesn't seem that she "stays away from sacrifice", but states that sacrifice of your life is not good: From the website you linked to: [ QUOTE ] Man's mind requires selfishness, and so does his life in every aspect: a living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects—for itself, for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss; achievement, not renunciation; self-preservation, not self-sacrifice. Moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself. [/ QUOTE ] So, that would be one objection I have to Objecvitist Morality, which is really one aspect of a broader objection: whereas Objectivist Morality says that man's highest moral goal would be to survive, I would say that his highest moral goal would be to increase happiness. And, if happiness is most increased by his self-sacrifice, then that is the right moral action.
|
|
#30
10-24-2005, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
Chez I'm not sure if the differences in ethics between you and AR are of a real importance. Much less so that I truely understand them. [ QUOTE ]
Hence some of our goals (things that make us happy) are about the well-being of other people. [/ QUOTE ] I think when you try to saperate them, when you try to say that our goals are about the well-being of other people, does the difference become clear. I have yet to see you do this, but I think that you may wish to. I think that if you wish to make the statement that our values are about the well-being of others without qualifying them in your own personal heirachy of values is what AR is against. [ QUOTE ] As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine. [/ QUOTE ] Right. [ QUOTE ] As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine. [/ QUOTE ] I am more so inclined to state that the differences between yours, mine, and AR's ethic regarding altruism are minimal and may only be semantical. [ QUOTE ] It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions. [/ QUOTE ] There is merit to what you say, but It may need to be qualified in terms of the values and life experiences one has in order to have some many class 2 actions be correct. It's not the class 2 actions are ethical in and of themselves. It's the heirachy of values that you use to arrive at the class 2 type actions that gives the class 2 actions it's morality. If you agree with these statements than I'm sure that we aren't argueing about anything other than presentation style.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
