h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm puzzled by your account of capitalism.

Why are property rights absolute, and why do they take precedence over everything else? Why does my rights claim to my third sandwich trump somone else's rights claim not to starve? Saying that "it would be immoral" of me to give the sandwich is an assertion and not an argument.
*Why* is it immoral?

I don't think that it's true to say that everyone is free under capitalism. Think about people born into poverty, without access to good education and healthcare. According to Rand, the state won't help these people, and it's *immoral* for me to help them personally unless I know them.

So what freedom do they have? The freedom for them (and their children) to take low paid jobs or starve. Well, they have a choice between the two, but it seems to me that someone who really values freedom would want rather more for people. If people can't read, or don't have access to good information and advice, how can they make an informed choice about what to do? How will they know what their rights are, and how will they enforce them? How, then, can capitalism of this unrestrained kind - where helping others is immoral - possibly promote freedom?

It might promote the freedom of the rich and powerful, who will have lots and lots of poor, desperate, and ignorant people ready to do their bidding. But no-one else.

The profit motive can be just, but not if it exploits other people.

And in answer to John....

To be frank, I'm a bit disappointed with this response. It's not enough just to say that "it's immoral" for me to give my sandwich money to charity. Given that everyone except the disciples of Rand think that it would be a good act, you need to have a very good argument for this. I can't see what this argument is.

Rand has set up a completely false dichotomoy between being completely selfish on the one hand, and being completely altruistic on the other. I have given an example of a moral code that is in between, which shows that this "one or the other" approach of Rand is wrong.

You misunderstand the meaning of altruism. You cite the OED definition as ""...to be unselfish". This could mean "to always be unselfish" or it could be "to be unselfish on a particular occasion". "To be happy" could mean "always" or "on this occasion". More to the point, dictionaries reflect how a person thinks that the language is used, it does not proscribe how it is used. It's a reflection. Dictionaries are of very little use to philosophers - they are not written with philosophy in mind and do not make fine-grained dinstinctions.
See http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=551887 for a philosophical discussion of egoism and altruism.

As I did say earlier, I'm less concerned with what the word means, and more concerned to show that it is possible to believe that we are required to give some things to charity, without thinking that we are required to give up everything all the time.

But the key question - the one that everything so far boils down to - is ****why**** is it immoral for me to give up my sandwich for others?
All you've done in your response to 4, 5, 6, 7 ,8 is assert that it is
so.

That's fine if all you want to do is to explain Rand as a set of views that may or may not be consistent. But you need rather more if it is to be a work of philosophy.

I'm glad to see someone has responded to my post and I hope I haven't missed all the discussion. LDT asserts that Objectivism would not be commmited to determinism because although actions have causes, people choose the causes that are relevant. This only forstalls my objection however. The question then becomse how is that choice made? If we live in a material world of cause and effect there must be some cause for why I choose the cause I do. Either we must supose that there is a transcendant ego that stands above the material cause/effect relationship or we must admit that all choice, even the those concerning how we decide, are determined by the physical world.

Aside from this materialist arguement I think this explanation of choosing causes (or reasons for action) to be problematic for objectivism. You state that a parent would probably be willing to jeapordise her own life to save her child, but if this parent is an Objectivist I imagine she would not be willing to do so. Since she can choose her own reasons, and she is to be guided by selfishness, she would more likely choose to value her own life over that of the child. At least this is the impression I get from the tenor of Objectivism.

This raises a larger question, on what basis are we to decide what causes should shape our actions. I supose an Objectivist would want to say that reason should determine what causes we allow to have influence. The problem with this answer is that reason needs a value system and an interpretation of the situation in order to reach an answer. For instance: supose that 1) I am thirsty and 2) There is water in the fridge. What does reason conclude at this point? Nothing. It is only after we introduce the value judgement that I should strive for comfort, or survival, or whatever that reason can offer any guidance. Therefore our most fundamental (though not all) value judgements must precede reason. Suppose for example that I am trying to decide whether to make reason the primary cause of my actions and basis of my values. I can not rely on reason for two reasons. One is that it is reason which is in question and it would be circular to use it as the basis of my decision. Two is that before I have made any value judgements reason can offer no guidance (you need a destination before reading a map can help you find your way.)

I also think it is an error to supose that reason has some kind of primacy in the human mind. In my example of thirst it is instict not reason that drives us to drink. Instinct does not need to be something as simple as avoiding pain, it can be winning the aproval of our peers or becoming jealous over a past lover. Egotism may (or may not) be rooted in reason but it is even more firmly rooted in instinct namely self presevervation. Also you quote Peikoff as saying "Emotions are automatic consequences of mind's past conclusions." This strikes me as absurd. Emotions develop before reason, both in evolution of life and in the individual. Emotions have a great deal to with how natural selection has shaped our biochemistry and much less to do with the conclusions we make. I would go so far as to say that reason's conclusions are shaped more by emotion that emotion is by reason.

Lastly I am not sure what assurance Rand has that "Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality." I know she rejects skepticims, but on what grounds? It seems she lacks the patience to try to answer skeptical concerns and instead dismisses them. Anyone who has considered Descartes' first meditation would not provide such flimsy assurance as "A is A" to skeptical concerns.

In any case I don't mean to ramble and you are correct that I am not that well versed in Objectivism, you are also correct that I probably won't read Peikoff's book as there are many other theories that look more promissing to me.

In my experience,the people who use the word 'respectable',as in 'not',are usually communists or variants.I have a lot of experience.
But that is far from sufficient evidence,so just in case there are any people here with a hidden agenda,rather than an enquiring mind,consider the following.
Capitalism is the name Ayn Rand gave to a political system that uses purely voluntary transactions as the sole method of interaction in society.
People who claim against knowledge of the truth are usually forced to argue against the very possibility of knowledge.
Even if they were right,there would be no case to be made for any other political system,as justification of the introduction of coercion to social relations(by being 'right')has been rendered impossible by the argument against knowledge.They,more than anyone else,must see that Capitalism is the only compromise they can accept.
This reduces all other arguments to a matter of Ethical choice,even when there is no knowledge(especially,since choice would then be arbitrary and no agreement would be possible).
Any honest upholder of subjectivism must also be a Capitalist,since he or she is only concerned with choice.In Capitalism,choice rules.The only time we lack choice,is when reality imposes itself(physical,not social,under Capitalism)and while subjectivists may feel a certain distaste while dying of starvation(or stealing some other persons food),they lose their credibility,justification and minds the moment they introduce coercion socially.

Hi Sydney, and welcome to H2G2!

There's a lot to unpack in your last post, but I'll have a go.

As regards epistemology and ontology, I've made my views clear in posts 7 and 14 in this conversation. My view is that there is knowledge, but that it's not easy to get at. Randianism (as it's been explained to me) seems to hold that reality is simple and easily accessible, and that some kind of system can be built on it. But there are so many good reasons for thinking that observation is theory dependent (ie what I see is determined in part by what I know) that there is no simple reality that can be grasped. That is not to say that it isn't there - it's a problem of epistemology not ontology. So it's possible to dismiss Rand's arguments on this (such as they are) without being a relativist.

But quite why this (even if true) leads to Randianism I'm really not sure. Any state needs to use coercive methods to maintain law and order - to enforce an ethical code of some kind. Now what that ethical code is seems to me to be up for debate.

And if it's choice and freedom that are valued, I don't see that Randianism delivers it. There's no way that I can see that Randianism can provide for the least well off. Given that capitalism *requires* that there be unemployment and that Randianism rules out a welfare state and regards charity as morally wrong, it seems to me that those at the bottom of the heap are going to starve. And so are their children. And even if they don't starve, they won't get any kind of education.

These people will have no way to defend their rights or enjoy their freedoms. Randianism, it seems to me, pretends to value freedom but would prevent large numbers of people enjoying or having fair use of that freedom. It's like pretending to be in favour of ice hockey and then not allowing half of the people any sticks or pucks.

It's because I defend individual rights and freedoms that I advocate a liberal state with fair equality of opportunity.

In response to Sceptic....

I think I broadly agree. I've made some points earlier in this thread about problems with Randianism and epistemology and ontology. I don't think that anything can be uncomplicatedly inferred from "reality" because of:

1. The theory dependence of observation. What we see is deeply affected by what we know.

and

2. As Sceptic says, the is-ought problem. Hume argued that it's not possible to move from an "is" to an "ought" without some other premise. "x is thirsty" to "x ought to get a drink" has a missing premise, as Sceptic identifies. Objectivism seems to miss this and tries to insert its own moral premises and motivation into the gap without anyone noticing. Premises which, by themselves, do not stand up to detailed examiniation.

In general, I don't think that Rand stands up to detailed philosophical analysis. I've never come across an "objectivist" with much in the way of formal, impartial training in philosophy - though that's not to say that these people don't exist.

The problem is that Rand sees everything in black and white, and this can be seen in some posts in this thread.

Either you think that reality is simple and can be easily accessed by everyone, or there's no such thing as truth and reality.

Either you never give to charity, or you must sacrifice everything for others. There's never any sense of middle ground.

Either you reject the guidance of emotion (especially, presumably, sympathy and feeling for others), or you become a slave to it and abandon all reason.

I don't think any of these dichotomies are genuine. There is room for a variety of arguments in the spaces between the extreme positions, and I think this is clear to anyone who's done much non-Randian philosophy.

Otto

Hey all
I respect Ayn Rands views a lot..........to the extent that a large part of my daily life is driven by some of her basic concepts.
I also believe that there is no middle ground.
For a compromise is nothing but a covert victory of evil.
However, going by her own view and by a more or less indisputable point, I would like to point out that al this debate, all thses discussions fall flat.
The one purpose of lfe is to be happy- truly happy.
It doesnt matter whether you claim to be altrusis or egoists.
If you are happy, and undeniably so............the philosophy you follow is the best and all others are rubbish.
your REAL happiness is the ONLY parameter in judging the worth of your beliefs.

Hi screwedperception, and welcome to H2G2

If pursuit of happiness is the the "one purpose of life", what would you say about the person whose pursuit of happiness required the unhappiness of others?

Hmmmmmmm
Well its like this, as long as I dont tread on your toes, you dont mind. If I do.......you retaliate more likely than not.
If you do, I end up losing time and energy and thats a deviation from my pursuit of happiness, an unnecessary waste of time.
To a great extent, pursuit of your happiness involves not messing around with other people coz then they tend to make YOU unhappy.
On a more realistic note,I am highly concerned about the happiness of those I love. Thats because as long as they are happy, they will help me on my way to happiness.
Others do not really mattre, but to keep away useless conflict, I try to mind my own business and well, true joy cannot be achieved at the cost of others......never.
If it comes at a cost......its not real.

I think this is fine as long as there are enough resources to go around. If there is enough for everyone to get enough to survive, prosper, and pursue their concept of the good, then fine. But the problem is that there isn't enough.

Or at least, there isn't enough if you have a political system which allows a group of people to get their hands on so much of the resources that very little is left for others. It's no good that rich group of people pretending that they haven't sought conflict with others - the reality is that they are responsible for their plight because they have taken more than their fair share of the available resources.

The problem, as I see it, is that political systems without a decent minimum standard of living for the least well off only allow "joy" to the rich at the expense of the poor.

Well, yes the economic implications cannot be denied, but what we are talking about here is the basic human mindset as regards life and its meaning.
To simply put it all as a kind of gap betwen the rich and the poor and as a result of faulty systems is not justified.
These problems are a sum total of the basic, underlying thought process of humans.
It is hese roots that have to be rectified first. Rest follows.

I don't really understand the point that you're making here.

If individual pursuit of happiness is important, that opportunity should be made available in a meaningful sense to everyone, which means a basic social minimum. Which as I understand it is something that Rand's disciples regard as "evil". Presumably you don't?

No i dont
as i said, i am no an objectivist, I have simply taken the best of Rand.
But yes, on a personal level I would never go out of my way to provide those equal opportunities you talk of to the masses.
It doesnt fit in with my sene of what s right.

"If individual pursuit of happiness is important, that opportunity should be made available in a meaningful sense to everyone, which means a basic social minimum."

I'm just jumping into this conversation, but I think that you are misunderstanding Objectivism.

You talk about a basic minimum being important in the pursuit of happiness - it is. Our basic righs guarantee us the *right* to succeed, not the right to enslave others by forcibly taking from them to give to others.

You're right - I probably don't understand "objectivism", because if it means what I think it means, I can't see why anyone rational person could possibly endorse it. It's a theory that pretends to value freedom, but actively prevents people from having fair use of that freedom - condemning people to a lifetime of poverty and misery with no opportunities for improvement.

Under "objectivism", there would be no welfare state, and according to previous posters in this thread it would be "immoral" for individuals to give to others. Given that capitalism *requires* unemployment, this means that the poorest would starve.

"Objectivism" isn't even to the advantage of the wealthiest, as such an unequal society would be riddled with crime. A lack of education would damage the economy - as an advanced economy needs educated people. A lack of a decent education for all would reduce competition for jobs, and this would lower the standard of those employed. Widespread poverty would damage the economy - lots of people with no money to spend. A lack of decent access to health would create illness and contagious diseases. An "objectivist" society, in summary, would be riddled with crime, disease, poverty, ignorance, and fear.

"Objectivists" tend to use emotive language like "enslave", but don't explain why having a guaranteed basic standard of living for everyone entails enslaving anyone.

The Objectivist morality seems confused.

On the one hand it posits man's individual life as the ultimate value, since without being alive, one cannot have values.

Rand then makes the assertion that reason is equal to life as the ultimate value, so that man must ultimately try to live as a rational being. This can arguably be supported by the fact that without reason, we have no way of working out how to acheive what we value.

Then it gets messy. Rand makes the unsupported assertion that joy or happiness is also an ultimate value. Just how many 'ultimate' values can one posess? The whole point of Rand attempting to state an ultimate value is so that we can compare any action to the ultimate value in order to objectively say that it is moral or immoral. Having 2 or 3 ultimate values means that they can be pitted against one another, causing subjective resluts. How can we objectively say that one ultimate value is better than another?

Now, if we accept Rand's values, we can risk our life for happiness. So a mother can risk her life for her child, if losing the child would make her extremely unhappy.

Now, how does Rand Objectively work out where the balance lies between risking life and unhappiness? What if a mother risks her life to prevent her baby being adversely affected in a non-fatal manner. Is that moral?

Where is the objective 'line in the sand' where the risk to the ultimate value of life is greater or less than the risk to the ultimate value of hapiness.

It is a fact that hapiness/unhapiness are feelings unique to the individual. Hence they are subjective. One mother might not feel terribly unhappy if she lost her child, if the circumstances were such that she would almost certainly die in the attempt to save her child. She might rationalise that she can go on to have many more children by not risking almost certain death to save this child. Onother mother might feel devastated by the loss of her child regardless of the personal risk involved.

So, is it moral for one mother and immoral for the other? NO! That would be subjective!

Is it moral for both mothers to risk their lives? NO! One mother would be sacrificing her life for her child. That's altruism and thats immoral!

Is it moral for both mothers to do nothing? NO! One mother would be unhappy, which is opposed to her ultimate purpose of being happy!

Hence, Rand's Objective morality is either subjective, immoral or contrary to the ultimate purpose of life. It fails either way.

Also, if I risk my life to save a stranger, that's okay accoring to Rand, since the trauma of watching him die would make me unhappy. But isn't that Altruism sneaked in by stealth?

Also, Objectivism advances some pretty awful ideas. It's okay to lie, steal, murder and rape, so long as it makes me happy and does not risk my life as a rational being (i.e. so long as I can get away with it!). Remember, it's only my life I need concern myself with. To consider other's lives above my own hapiness is altruism, which is evil!

This is just one reason why Objectivism is not treated seriously by any academic institution. (note the capital 'O' in Objectivism, which means signifies Rand's theory as opposed to small 'o' objectivism, which is a general philosophy that is taught and discussed seriously).

Fight the Randroids!

I was your age when I first read Ayn Rand. I'm impressed with your reply. Anyone who mentions Kant needs to be reminded that Kant is a four letter word...

Linda UK

I do believe you missed the point of the "ultimate values" as Rand speaks of them.
There is no reason why you can not have several "Ultimate Values". Perhaps I should word that differently, there is no reason why all of those values can not come together to form that "Ultimate Value".
Life, living as a rational being, joy or happiness. It is the combination of all of an individuals values that form what is important to that person. Thus, they all take a part in forming what matters to that person.
These are all values that Rand talks about as vitally important to existence. She talks about them together, and separately, but I believe the point she was trying to get across is these are some of the most IMPORTANT parts to existence, and some of the values that need to be pursued most.

As far as the arguement that the ultimate values conflict, or become a subjective view, return to the discussion above. It is a decision of all the values that form your decision-making.
For the mother to save her child, even at the guarantee of losing her own life does not violate her values. It needs to be viewed as a complete scene though. Balancing all of your values, primarily Life, Joy, and reason is the main focus of our ability to make decisions. So sacraficing herself to save the child would be worth it to the one mother, because living with her child dead would be of lesser value than dying but knowing her child would live.
Conversely, the Mother that decided she would let her child die rather than sacrafice herself made the decision that saving her child was not more important than her desire to live.

"Objectivism advances some pretty awful ideas. It's okay to lie, steal, murder and rape, so long as it makes me happy and does not risk my life as a rational being (i.e. so long as I can get away with it!). Remember, it's only my life I need concern myself with. To consider other's lives above my own hapiness is altruism, which is evil!"

I don't believe you truly studied any Objectivism, or this whole sentence would never have been written. Objectivism states that it is desirable to fulfill ones own desires or goals, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. No where in any of her writings does Ayn Rand even give the idea that the above acts would be allowed, under any reason. Just because you may want to steal something from someone else does not give you the right to take it from them.

Your last sentence is correct though "To consider other's lives above my own happiness is altruism, which is evil!" This is correct, even taken out of context. The idea that I should base my decisions on what other's want is absurd. My decisions and actions should be dictated by my personal values and goals. What is decided from those values and goals can not inflict on someone else's rights as an individual, but not effected by there wants or desires.

I agree that Randism doesn't say that it's okay to "lie, steal, murder, and rape". But I would still argue that Randism contains some 'pretty awful ideas' as I've explained in post 35 above. Rand's disciples need to think a little more about what would a society organised on Rand's ideas actually look like. And they need to think very carefully about how they can claim to value freedom while endorsing an ideology that will deny fair opportunities (at best) to the poor or leave them to starve (at worst).

I do not know how someone can sit there and say that Randism is an ideology
"that will deny fair opportunities (at best) to the poor or leave them to starve (at worst)."

Objectivism is exactly the opposite. Objectivism SUPPORTS the idea of equal opportunity, by creating a fair system that uses a person's qualifications to decide there position in society. No people would be denied fair opportunities, and the only people who would starve are the people who would not be willing to work for themselves, and believe in the "welfare state", which is stealing from the productive to support themselves.

Quite honestly, I could care less what happens to those individuals.

As posted in Post 35

"Under "objectivism", there would be no welfare state, and according to
previous posters in this thread it would be "immoral" for individuals
to give to others."

Under "objectivism" there is an important clarification that needs to be stated here. It is not "immoral" for individuals to give to others. On the contrary, if you want to give to your fellow man, all the power to you. What is "immoral" is instituting REQUIRED giving, where individuals are forced to give part of their earnings to someone else. No one should be forced to give away any of their own production.

"Given that capitalism *requires* unemployment, this
means that the poorest would starve."
Capitalism does requre umemployment, but not in the terms you state here. The 'required' unemployment in Capitalism is not those people who can not work, or don't want too. The 'required' unemployment is those people who will be between jobs, changing carrers, etc. As well as those who are not able to work, situations of disability, etc.

"A lack of education would damage the economy"

This is a true statement. Wrong context, but true statement. Objectivism supports private schools as opposed to public schools, but that is simply a issue of funding for the schools, as opposed to the educational centers themselves.

The rest of the paragraph follows suit here, where all true statements, but Objectivism would not have these results.

"Objectivists" tend to use emotive language like "enslave", but don't
explain why having a guaranteed basic standard of living for everyone
entails enslaving anyone.

An explanation? Objectivism does use the word "enslave" because when you look at the principle of what is being done, it is enslavement. When you take what someone produced without there consent or choice, and use it for whatever you want, that is enslavement.

In a "objectivist" society, there is a guaranteed standard of living for those who are willing to work, and strive for what they want. In a society where there are no restrictions on private businesses, there is always more demand for what those businesses produce. As such, there is always more demand for those employees to produce what is needed for that demand. This ensures that there is a standard of living for those willing to work.

For those who are not willing to work, that is there choice. However, I am not going to support them. If you want to donate your income to this cause, I respect your generosity. If you try to enforce this choice on others, this is where you lose that respect.