Thursday, April 30, 2009

Objectivism & Politics, Part 7

Politics and the non-rational 3: the is-ought gap revisited. In the last Objectivism and Politics post, I noted two problems with the view the logical conduct is always better than non-logical conduct:

  1. It is not clear, and cannot be assumed a priori, that non-logical conduct in all instances is “bad.”
  2. A society based solely on logical conduct and “reason” is not possible.

In this post, I will examine the second of these two problems.

In his massive treatise The Mind and Society, we find Pareto making the following observation:

Be it said in all deference to our estimable humanitarians and positivists, a society exclusively determined by “reason” does not and cannot exist, and that not because “prejudices” in human beings prevent them from following the dictates of “reason,” but because the data of the problem that presumably is to be solved by logico-experimental reasonings are entirely unknown…. Social reformers fail to notice, or at least they disregard, the fact that individuals entertain different opinions with regard to utility, and that they do so because they get the data they require from their own sentiments. They say, and they believe, that they are solving an objective problem: “What is the best form for a society?” Actually they are solving a subjective problem: “What form of society best fits my sentiments?” The reformer, of course, [as well as the Objectivist] is certain that his sentiments have to be shared by all honest men and that they are not merely excellent in themselves [or, as an Objectivist might put it, excellent in the light of reason] but are also also in the highest degree beneficial to society [or to the self-interest of “rational” individuals]. Unfortunately that belief in no way alters the realities. [§2143, §2145]

When Pareto denies that the “dictates of reason” cannot be followed because the “data of the problem … are entirely unknown,” he is restating, in his own words, Hume’s denial that moral values can be founded exclusively on “reason.”

Not only did Rand fail to bridge Hume’s infamous is-ought gap, she does not appear to have even understood it. Consider what she writes of it in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics”:

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality [which philosophers make such a claim?], let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought.’ [VOS, 17]

Rand failed to solve the is-ought problem in this paragraph: indeed, she succeeded only in misrepresenting it. Neither Hume nor Pareto deny that value judgments refer to "facts of reality." What they deny is that those judgments can be determined (or “validated”) by “reason” (or, in Pareto’s case, by the "logico-experimental" method). The reason for this is quite simple: no value judgment can be derived without reference to actual needs, sentiments, and desires of human beings, all of which Rand and her followers deplore as mere “whims.” To value something is to care about in the emotive sense of the word; and if you didn’t care about it or were incapable of caring about it, you wouldn’t value it in the first place.

Rand tries to evade this so-called “subjectivist” conclusion by suggesting that, because only living beings can have values, life must be the “standard” of value. Rand never actually attempted to “prove” her argument (i.e., demonstrate it logically), but even if she had, the is-ought gap would have remained ungapped. Life can’t possibly be the standard of all values because most values clearly have no bearing on the question of life and death. This is a point I fleshed out in an earlier post, where I explained why life as the standard of value (or the “ultimate” value) fails to answer Hume’s objections: it covers too little ground and leads to troublesome moral paradoxes. This explains why Rand, as soon she thinks she has established her “reason-based” morality, quietly gets rid of her survivalist morality and replaces it with an entirely different one: “The standard of value in Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good and evil—is ... that which is required for man's survival qua man." As I wrote in the earlier post:

this little man-qua-man qualification changes everything. It's not just any kind of survival, but a very a special type, that we are to pursue. What precisely it is, though, remains somewhat nebulous. Rand clarifies "survival qua man" with the phrase "that which is proper to the life of a rational being." But since this is supposed to be part of an argument explaining how rational values are justified and generated, this will not do. Observe closely, for we are here confronting as good an example of circular reasoning as one is likely to find. When we ask Rand and her orthodox followers, How are rational values discovered? they answer By determining what is proper (i.e., moral) to a rational being!

In other words, Rand’s attempt to bridge the is-ought gap collapses under the weight of its own ineptitude. Like every other philosopher of “reason,” she unwittingly equivocated her way to finding some vague solution to the problem so that she could pretend to be following “reason” instead of her own sentiments and desires.

Now since Rand claims to have founded her politics on her ethics, her failure to demonstrate how an ought can be logically derived from an is will have obvious consequences for her politics. Most critically, it will allow us to dismiss Rand’s claim that her political values are founded on “reason.” Rand’s normative political theory is merely the statement of her own personal preferences. Therefore it is pointless to discuss whether Rand’s theory of rights is “correct” or “true” or based on "reason" or "man's nature." If we are to stick to the realm of facts and practicalities, we should instead focus on whether Rand’s political theories are empirically viable: that is, whether they can be implemented as realities, rather than just dreamed about as pleasant ideals.

70 comments:

Jay said...

we should instead focus on whether Rand’s political theories are empirically viable: that is, whether they can be implemented as realitiesPure laissez-faire will never happen. However, we can certainly get much closer to that ideal than we are currently. Perhaps the Obama presidency will breed some shrewd politician(s) who can revive support for markets and freedom.

That's the only way I really see it happening. The Objectivist plan for achieving laissez-faire is to work toward a "cultural renaissance" which, great as that may be, shows no signs of occurring anytime soon.

Xtra Laj said...

Pure laissez-faire will never happen. However, we can certainly get much closer to that ideal than we are currently. Perhaps the Obama presidency will breed some shrewd politician(s) who can revive support for markets and freedom.If the adherents of any political vision are not willing to work actively to implement it, it's not going to happen. The bigger problem facing the adherents of laissez-faire, free markets etc. is that they have to appeal to many different mindsets in today's culturally heterogenous America. What I find naive about the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism is that they like to think that their system is "fair" without doing the hard work of analyzing who the winners and losers in the systems they advocate would be and how they would need to placate or deceive those losers.

HerbSewell said...

Losers would be the people who don't produce anything that society finds valuable. The sway of parasites do not need convincing and in a proper society, they would never have the power to force others to work for their interests.

HerbSewell said...

1. No where does Ayn Rand say that society can be solely based on reason.

2. You are making a criticism aimed at Ayn Rand's politics by attacking the notion that society can be based solely on reason, which is a misunderstanding of her political position.

3. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

4. Therefore, you are making a straw man argument.

Hopefully, you'll be able to understand that.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Losers would be the people who don't produce anything that society finds valuable. The sway of parasites do not need convincing and in a proper society, they would never have the power to force others to work for their interests. - Herb on 5/01/2009 02:23:00 PM
___________________________________





What do you suppose to be done to those parasites?






___________________________________

1. No where does Ayn Rand say that society can be solely based on reason. - Herb
___________________________________




So what does Ayn Rand say that society should be based on in addition to reason?

Daniel Barnes said...

Exactly, Red.

PS Whatever happened to Richard Lawrence?

Anon69 said...

HerbSewell said:
"1. No where does Ayn Rand say that society can be solely based on reason."


I disagree - this is the clear implication of her philosophy; whether she said so in so many words is immaterial. Let us examine why. To say that 'society' can be based solely on reason simply means that men are capable of perfection in regards to the fundamental choice 'to think or not to think'. And indeed they are, for in Objectivism, this choice is open to man continuously, and he is capable of choosing to think without breach. Not only is this possible, but it is the ideal in Objectivism. That a society of such men is possible follows from the fact that such is possible to man. It is no straw man argument.

HerbSewell said...

No... Not at all. She says that society should be founded in which reason can flourish without impetus, (force). She clearly realizes that for every single person to be completely rational is metaphysically impossible. Just because men CAN choose to be rational does not mean they will, which is precisely what happens when the act of ethical and epistemological evasion happens on a macro level. Even if it was an ideal, (which would be contradictory morally because you would have an ethical aspect conflicting with a metaphysical law), it would still be just an ideal, not a default, not a necessity, and not a real possibility, which is precisely what this post claims is the Objectivist position. Because this is debating a position the Objectivists do not purport, it is a straw man argument.

Anon69 said...

I contend that your position is self-contradictory.

HerbSewell said...

... Just because men CAN choose to be rational ...



... not a real possibility...


So, is man's choice to be rational a "real" possibility, or not?

HerbSewell said...

In the second point, I was talking about the ideal of all society being based on reason. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...

I'm only going to keep answering your questions until I realize you clearly aren't interested in the answers.

"What do you suppose to be done to those parasites?"

The parasites I'm referring to only get their power through political pull and majority support. Perhaps they'll die out, seeing as they have to produce or literally as no one will see use for them.

"So what does Ayn Rand say that society should be based on in addition to reason?"

Individual rights, which is just the politico-economic version of egoism, which is just the ethical version of reason.

Anon69 said...

HerbSewell said... "In the second point, I was talking about the ideal of all society being based on reason."

I know, but my point is that that follows from Rand's promise that man enjoys a REAL volitional choice of whether or not to exercise reason. I think that your doubts are justified in the extreme that this will actually happen, but Rand nevertheless held out the REAL possibility that a society like Galt's Gulch, based totally on reason, was indeed possible. To call Objectivism "an impossible ideal" might be correct, but it was certainly not Rand's position to EVER hold out an ideal that couldn't be reached IF man chose to reach it.

Also, please note that although the distinction between metaphysical and epistemological possibility exists in philosophy, that this distinction is foreign to Objectivism. In Objectivism, epistemological possibility MEANS metaphysical possibility and vice versa. It would entirely nonsensical, in Objectivist terms, to speak of "possibility" unrooted in observation. In Objectivism, every possibility is "real".

Consider also that Objectivism only holds that government is necessary because *perfectly rational* men can still disagree based on imperfect knowledge. It is not the classical argument that men are imperfect, hence government is necessary, but an argument that even if men were perfectly rational, government would *still* be needed. I again return to the idea that Rand never promised an ideal that she thought was impossible or couldn't be reached.

Anon69 said...

Correction to my poorly phrased sentence above: "Rand nevertheless held out the REAL possibility of a society like Galt's Gulch, based totally on reason".

P.S. I'll take this occasion to suggest the creation of a proper ARCHN messageboard in addition to blog comments. The ability to edit within a reasonable timeframe, and to properly indicate comments, among other features would be a great benefit.

Daniel Barnes said...

Greg:
>this little man-qua-man qualification changes everything. It's not just any kind of survival, but a very a special type, that we are to pursue. What precisely it is, though, remains somewhat nebulous.

Greg rightly points out the circularity of Rand's reasoning, which can be a little hard to see because of the vagary of the various terms she uses. But it turns out we can clarify "man qua man"'s meaning, or at least what Rand meant by it. Simply put it to an Objectivist that "survival as man qua man" means being an Objectivist.I can hardly see how they could deny it! But in doing so they commit themselves to an argument that goes something like "Objectivist ethics are good, because being an Objectivist is the ultimate value". And then the poverty of her argument is there for all to see.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anon69:
>P.S. I'll take this occasion to suggest the creation of a proper ARCHN messageboard in addition to blog comments.

Yes, good point Anon69, I have been pondering an ARCHNblog upgrade for a while now. There are a number of things I'd like to do, but it's more a matter of time, which I don't have much of right now. The site was intended to be pretty occasional and low volume, but certainly has gained a lot more interest than we originally envisaged. So many thanks to our fans, and our critics, for that. Anyway, a good suggestion, and also thanks for your interesting commentary to date.

Anon69 said...

HerbSewell said: "Individual rights, which is just the politico-economic version of egoism, which is just the ethical version of reason."

Right. So society is based on rights, which are based on egoism, which is based ... on reason. No reason, no rights. The question is whether a society based on (rights, egoism, and) reason feasible. Greg says no, Rand said yes. Seems clear enough to me.

gregnyquist said...

HerbSewell: " You are making a criticism aimed at Ayn Rand's politics by attacking the notion that society can be based solely on reason, which is a misunderstanding of her political position."

"[Rand] clearly realizes that for every single person to be completely rational is metaphysically impossible."

There's a bit of misunderstanding here which can easily be cleared up. The phrase "society based on reason" does not mean a society in which every individual is completely rational. It means the major institutions of society (its government, its ethics, etc.) are founded on reason. In Objectivist phraseology, it means that reason is culturally dominant. The majority of intellectuals follow "reason," and this is what makes a "rational" government possible.

I would also note that the is-ought gap not only proves that a society based on reason is impossible: it proves that an ethics based exclusively on reason is also impossible. This is really the main focus of the post. I could care less whether Rand believed that society based or founded on reason is possible or not (I suspect she did, but it is of little matter if she did not). She clearly believed that a politics based exclusively on reason was possible. After all, she believed that laissez-faire was founded on reason—right? And she also believed that laissez-faire was a possible system. So HerbSewell's complaints about straw men and such are irrelevant to the point at issue.

gregnyquist said...

Anon69: "Right. So society is based on rights, which are based on egoism, which is based ... on reason. No reason, no rights. The question is whether a society based on (rights, egoism, and) reason [is] feasible. Greg says no, Rand said yes. Seems clear enough to me."

This is a pretty good summary of my position. I'm merely trying to build, post by post, a much more thorough case. In particularly, I have to try to present a compelling, fact-base theory explaining why people choose one particular political view rather than another, which is why we have to get into the whole issue of non-logical conduct. The evidence strongly suggests that most political beliefs are based on: (1) sentiments of individuals; and (2) short-term economic interests; and (3) status needs. "Reason" plays little, if any part in the business, and indeed, can't have a complete role precisely because of Hume's is-ought gap.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

"What do you suppose to be done to those parasites?" - Red Grant
===================================

The parasites I'm referring to only get their power through political pull and majority support. - Herb
___________________________________






If they are parasites, then why do you think majority support these parasites to get their power through political pull?






___________________________________

"So what does Ayn Rand say that society should be based on in addition to reason?" - Red Grant
===================================

Individual rights, which is just the politico-economic version of egoism, which is just the ethical version of reason. - Herb
___________________________________





...and who would decide individual rights for each individual in the society as envisioned by Ayn Rand?

This is a question that I have asked both Objectivists and Libertarians and stymied them both.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

"So what does Ayn Rand say that society should be based on in addition to reason?" - Red Grant
===================================

"Individual rights, which is just the politico-economic version of egoism, which is just the ethical version of reason." - HerbSewell
===================================

Right. So society is based on rights, which are based on egoism, which is based ... on reason. - anon69 on 5/01/2009 05:37:00 PM
___________________________________



Now, anon69, are you confusing "what you think should be" with "what is"?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

PS Whatever happened to Richard Lawrence? - Daniel
___________________________________




I think you embarrassed him. I've been following the debate and even though Rich did get through some nasty jabs on you (mainly due to some carelessness on your part), you did get through some poweful hooks and upper cuts on him.

I think it was pretty much TKO by you.

HerbSewell said...

Again, the key word is "solely." Just because a society is lassez-faire, it does not mean it is solely based on reason.

HerbSewell said...

"If they are parasites, then why do you think majority support these parasites to get their power through political pull?"

They're idiots?

"...and who would decide individual rights for each individual in the society as envisioned by Ayn Rand?"

"This is a question that I have asked both Objectivists and Libertarians and stymied them both."

The writers of the constitution which the society would use to baser their government on.

HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...

Again, any implication that Rand implied a political doctrine that was impossible by default is completely arbitrary. You aren't backing up your information on Rand's environment of society with quotes, to which you are resting solely on empty abstractions and straw mans of her political beliefs.

HerbSewell said...

"I know, but my point is that that follows from Rand's promise that man enjoys a REAL volitional choice of whether or not to exercise reason. I think that your doubts are justified in the extreme that this will actually happen, but Rand nevertheless held out the REAL possibility that a society like Galt's Gulch, based totally on reason, was indeed possible. To call Objectivism "an impossible ideal" might be correct, but it was certainly not Rand's position to EVER hold out an ideal that couldn't be reached IF man chose to reach it."

No, that simply is not the case. Gult's Galch was a romanticized and poetic view of the ideal society by her. It wasn't a realistic and concrete goal by any stretch of reasonableness. Give me a single quote of hers where she called for a society that is simply impossible.

HerbSewell said...

It also really doesn't make sense to say "We can't have pure freedom." If the opposite from freedom is tyranny, (whether governmental or otherwise), there is no single issue where tyranny is better than freedom.

HerbSewell said...

...it proves that an ethics based exclusively on reason is also impossible.No, no it doesn't. Honestly, I presented my argument in formal logic, (to which you somehow misinterpreted). Why don't you do the same? I don't expect you to, but why don't you do it.

Of course ethics can be based exclusively on reason. Without reason, it simply a guessing game of what actions man should take without actually thinking about what actions he should take.

Anon69 said...

Herb,

You are just simply mistaken about this. Galt's Gulch consisted of romanticized characters, it is true; but Rand ended her magnus opum with the following quote: "I trust no one will tell me that men such as I write about dont exist. That this book has been written and published is my proof that they do."

And of course, there is the famous exhortation that "the world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.."


But the bottom line is that because Rand held that reason was open to man's choice, it simply makes no sense to conclude that a society based ultimately in reason was, in her view, impossible. All of the evidence points to the contrary. You are standing on very thin ice when you claim that Rand didn't believe that her ideal was possible.

Anon69 said...

Sorry that should have said "magnum opus" not "magnus opum". Really need the edit button here ..

HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...

1. Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates perceptions.

2. Ethics is the branch of Philosophy which deals with how man should act.

3. Man can only base his knowledge on his perceptions and his abstractions from them.

4. An ethics that is not based on knowledge is arbitrary.

5. Anything arbitrary is useless as it has no concrete distinction between truth and falsity.

6. A false ethics will tell man to do actions he should not do under a proper ethics.

7. Doing actions one appropriately should not do is undesirable.

8. To acquire the knowledge needed for ethics, one needs integrate his perceptions.

9. Any complete ethics is preferable to one that is false or arbitrary.

10. An ethics can be made based on knowledge is possible.

11. Philosophy is asystem of beliefs regarding the fundamental nature of existence, man, and man's relationship.

12. Philosophy is based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Therefore, an ethics based solely on reason is possible.

I actually proved several things there, but you stated that an ethics based solely on reason is not possible, which is the conclusion I came to.

HerbSewell said...

"But the bottom line is that because Rand held that reason was open to man's choice, it simply makes no sense to conclude that a society based ultimately in reason was, in her view, impossible."

Really, it makes perfect sense to me. Reason is open to man's choice. Some people don't chose it. Done.

HerbSewell said...

Logically, nothing you said necessitates the fact the Rand believes society can be based solely on reason. The quote simply means that she was able to show that people can hold her philosophy. It doesn't mean she thinks everyone will.

HerbSewell said...

"You are standing on very thin ice when you claim that Rand didn't believe that her ideal was possible."

Can you please define her ideal, in her words?

HerbSewell said...

Also, that's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm claiming that she didn't hold that ideal that you claim she did, though you don't seem to be very specific as to what she did claim.

Anon69 said...

Herb,

I suppose we could go the route of dueling quotations, but as we are here dealing with basics, an essentially thumbnail description should suffice. I would say that Rand claimed that a society based on reality, reason, egoism, and individual rights (i.e. laissez faire capitalism) was ideal. I would also say that Rand believed that her ideal was possible. Your principle objection seems to be the idea that this requires every man to be rational (which Greg dispensed with above) or that "solely based on reason" excludes individual rights as something fundamentally distinct (which you dispensed with using your handy equation that "individual rights, which is just the politico-economic version of egoism, which is just the ethical version of reason" or as I summarized it "society is based on rights, which are based on egoism, which is based ... on reason." So if we're all on the same page that "solely based on reason" is an adequate thumbnail of Rand's view given these multiple attempts at clarification, we should agree that she thought her ideal was possible. Unlikely perhaps, and taking decades to reach certainly, but a real, possible ideal.

Michael Prescott said...

"If they are parasites, then why do you think majority support these parasites to get their power through political pull?"

"They're idiots?"

LOL. That's a good line. Probably somewhat true, too. :-)

But I think the main reason why some special interests can feed so piggishly at the government trough is that they are well-organized, while the taxpayers are mostly an unorganized, ill-defined group.

A lobbying bloc that wants a million dollars for a pet project is going to be very focused and determined in its efforts, while potential opponents of such largess may not even be aware of this particular request. And even if they are aware of it, a million bucks is such a small drop in the bucket compared to overall government spending that it's not worth their time to organize against it. So these "little" earmarks - a million here, a billion there - keep slipping through, and the system really isn't set up to stop them.

"Sorry, that should have said 'magnum opus' not 'magnus opum'."

How about "magnum opium"? ;-)

Regarding the practicality of Rand's ideals, I think she clearly believed that a society with a sharply limited government and a pure laissez-faire economy was possible, but I don't think she would have claimed that her stylized depiction of Galt's Gulch was realistic. I'm sure she would have said that Galt's Gulch presents the essence of such a society in a simplified, dramatic form. It's the equivalent of a stylized portrait that leaves out unflattering or distracting details.

HerbSewell said...

God, what the hell. How about this: There may be an impossibility associated with how much society can be based on reason. As soon as it becomes impossible, that's where Ayn Rand stops caring because her standards aren't that high and are more realistic, (I throw up slightly in my mouth by phrasing like this). All she really wants is capitalism. Individualism, science, and romanticism will follow. The capitalism Ayn Rand wants is possible, (to any lack of economic understanding and logistics on her part, I refer to the Austrians).

gregnyquist said...

...it proves that an ethics based exclusively on reason is also impossible.HerbSewell: "'No, no it doesn't."

We've covered this in previous posts. Consider what I wrote here. The relevant passage is as follows:

Consider the following syllogisms.

One ought not to eat human beings.
Socrates is a human being.
One ought not to eat Socrates.

Eating human beings is not in a person’s self-interest.
Socrates is a human being.
Therefore, one ought not to eat Socrates.

Hume’s argument against arguing from is to ought only applies to the second syllogism; the first syllogism is entirely valid. In other words, it is logically valid to argue from one ought premise to an ought conclusion; what is invalid is to argue from is premises to an ought conclusion.

As Patrick O’Neil has argued, Rand’s ethics can be summed up in the following syllogism:

The adoption of value system x is necessary for the survival of any human being.
You are a human being.
Therefore, you should adopt value system x.

This is an invalid syllogism. Rand’s ethical argument, therefore, at its very foundation, is logically invalid. Her ethics, for this reason, can hardly be regarded as rational.

Red Grant said...

"If they are parasites, then why do you think majority support these parasites to get their power through political pull?" - Red Grant
===================================

They're idiots? - Herb
___________________________________




If so, then does this mean then you believe most people are incapable of reasoning (as defined by Ayn Rand, whatever it happens to be defined as such)?




___________________________________

"...and who would decide individual rights for each individual in the society as envisioned by Ayn Rand?"

"This is a question that I have asked both Objectivists and Libertarians and stymied them both." - Red Grant
===================================

The writers of the constitution which the society would use to baser their government on. - Herb on 5/02/2009 03:13:00 PM
___________________________________




...and who is/are going to be writing the constitution which the society would use to base their government on?







___________________________________

So these "little" earmarks - a million here, a billion there - keep slipping through, and the system really isn't set up to stop them. - Michael Prescott
___________________________________




Indeed, so how do you think the system should be set up to minimize such problems?




___________________________________

I would say that Rand claimed that a society based on reality, reason, egoism, and individual rights (i.e. laissez faire capitalism) was ideal. - anon69
___________________________________







So who would decide individual rights in Ayn Rand's ideal society?

Michael Prescott said...

"The adoption of value system x is necessary for the survival of any human being.
"You are a human being.
"Therefore, you should adopt value system x."

I think Rand would have said, "Therefore, if you wish to survive, you should adopt value system x."

As I recall from my Objectivist days, the decision to live or not to live is not dictated by Objectivist ethics. The claim is that, if you choose to live, then you are obligated to act according to "reason." (I think this claim is weak, because most people survive while behaving "irrationally" by Objectivist standards, but that's a different issue.)

gregnyquist said...

Michael: "I think Rand would have said, 'Therefore, if you wish to survive, you should adopt value system x.'
As I recall from my Objectivist days, the decision to live or not to live is not dictated by Objectivist ethics."

A most interesting observation! The use of the conditional is a way out of is-ought gap. Unfortunately (as Patrick O'Neil notes), it is not consistent with an "objective" morality. If life is the ultimate value, as Rand argues in "The Objectivist Ethics," how, then, can it be a conditional and an "objective" value.

Now Rand does in fact seem to embrace the conditional version of the argument in her 1974 essay "Causality Versus Duty." Whether she embraced it before that I don't know. I can't find any trace of it in 1961 "The Objectivist Ethics," where the life-as-the-ultimate/objective-value position is most pronounced; and it seems to contradict her insistence on pronouncing moral judgment on people (how can you morally judge someone who does not choose life, if the decision to live or die is not dictated by your ethics?).

All this shows once again how treacherous it is to criticize Rand. Her inconsistencies render her positions slippery. They keep mutating, appearing in different guises, now in one form, now in another, regardless of whatever contradictions result in the processes of metamorphisis.

Daniel Barnes said...

Michael: "I think Rand would have said, 'Therefore, if you wish to survive, you should adopt value system x.'
As I recall from my Objectivist days, the decision to live or not to live is not dictated by Objectivist ethics."

Mike, great catch, that's devastating...

Anon69 said...

I find it strange that an essay as replete with broad statements concerning human nature as The Objectivist Ethics could fail to at least suggest the conditions that would lead man to choose life over death. It would have been so simple to say something like: "it is the nature of man to tend to choose life - if he can conceive of a means to fulfill his needs" or "- if he can avoid insufferable pain" and so forth. We get "man must value his life by choice" but nil as to what will or won't facilitate that choice. This is astounding, and a bit bizarre. I could choose to live rationally on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and will follow the Objectivist ethics on those days but follow Christian ethics on other days without embracing any contradiction from an Objectivist vantage point, as long as my policy is couched in my primary ethical choice.

By the way, the following passage is deeply troubling: "When a “desire,” regardless of its nature or cause, is taken as an ethical primary, and the gratification of any and all desires is taken as an ethical goal (such as “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”)-men have no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash."

Insofar as the primary choice to live goes, it must be rooted in desire. It cannot be rational in origin. It is therefore an ethical primary, and must be taken as an ethical goal, and (according to Rand) will leave men "no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash."

Michael Prescott said...

Insofar as the primary choice to live goes, it must be rooted in desire. It cannot be rational in origin. It is therefore an ethical primary, and must be taken as an ethical goal, and (according to Rand) will leave men "no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash."

Ouch! That's a great point.

Mike, great catch...

Thanks, but I owe it mainly to Jerome W. Robbins, who makes much of this issue in his book Without a Prayer.

how can you morally judge someone who does not choose life, if the decision to live or die is not dictated by your ethics?

Yes, Robbins points out the incoherence of Rand's position in this respect. She is forever attacking people for being "anti-life," yet to be strictly true to her system, she should say merely that their (alleged) choice not to live is not the option she prefers for herself.

Note also that she makes John Galt say he will commit suicide in the event that Dagny dies under torture, because there will be no values for him to pursue after that. (The passage is quoted here.) So the idea that suicide is an acceptable choice, even for the "ideal man," is part of Rand's thinking from at least 1957. (I'm not saying she was wrong about this, only that it is inconsistent with much of her rhetoric.)

HerbSewell said...

To Graig:

That shows you misunderstand Rand's ethics. It stems from the fact that life is the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.

1. Life is the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.

2. Any action is either for or against one's life, (per the law of the excluded middle.)

3. An animal acting against his nature is acting contra to its own life.

4. The fact that an animal 'is' implies what it 'ought' to do to stay as 'is'

Essentially:

Every 'ought' implies a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.

Without such process there would be no 'is' by which one could do which one would 'ought' to do.

Life is a a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.

To act against such process is to act against the ability to act against the ability to do that which one 'ought' to do.

Therefore, it is metaphysically contradictory to have a standard of value other than life as any other would contradict the means by which one acts.

HerbSewell said...

"Insofar as the primary choice to live goes, it must be rooted in desire. It cannot be rational in origin. It is therefore an ethical primary, and must be taken as an ethical goal, and (according to Rand) will leave men "no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash."

Well, there's no rational reason to take death as a default over life. It's also arbitrary to submit the standard of value of life to a lack of action, (which would be the choice between life or death.) Your second point is completely rediculous and are using that as a straw man against Rand's ethics. Because it is never rational as a default to assume other men as your enemies, to best achieve your desire of life, you would best achieve it by working with them as they are willing to trade their services and products. The desire to live is based on the choice that every organism is given to act consistently or not. Acting towards one's death is inconsistent because it is destroying the ability to act in the first place. Acting towards life is consistent because it is not contradicting the faculty to not act.

What I absolutely hate about this blog is that it seems completely bent on proving the negative that is Ayn Rand. Regardless of whether they are right or not, why not instead or trying to prove someone wrong, they actually make a correct philosophy?

HerbSewell said...

"So the idea that suicide is an acceptable choice, even for the "ideal man," is part of Rand's thinking from at least 1957. (I'm not saying she was wrong about this, only that it is inconsistent with much of her rhetoric.)"

No, it's not. John Gult's highest value is Dagny and he refuses to see her die. Therefore, he's willing to end his life for her survival. It's not so much that he's willing to die for her, as much as he's willing to live for her and cannot sit idly by as she is killed or tortured or whatever, so he must act to prevent that by killing himself. He would be acting against his values if he chose to live instead of not let Dagny die because she is more important to his life than him living it is.

HerbSewell said...

Michael: "I think Rand would have said, 'Therefore, if you wish to survive, you should adopt value system x.'
As I recall from my Objectivist days, the decision to live or not to live is not dictated by Objectivist ethics."

Mike, great catch, that's devastating...
If choosing to live or not is a metaphysical issue, why should it be dictated in the Objectivist ethics?

HerbSewell said...

There really is no reason to live, because looking for one is implies that the fact that you are does not give you enough incentive to act towards preserving that 'are'. The desire to live can only be metaphysically preserved and not ethically chosen.

If the editors of this site are so convinced that acting to preserve one's life is inconsistent, would they please provide a better standard of value?

HerbSewell said...

"If so, then does this mean then you believe most people are incapable of reasoning (as defined by Ayn Rand, whatever it happens to be defined as such)?"

No.

"...and who is/are going to be writing the constitution which the society would use to base their government on?"

Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others.

"Indeed, so how do you think the system should be set up to minimize such problems?"

It would be disallowed in the constitution because a government that protects individual rights could tax people on their prerogative to appropriate on their whims.

HerbSewell said...

This is an invalid syllogism. Rand’s ethical argument, therefore, at its very foundation, is logically invalid. Her ethics, for this reason, can hardly be regarded as rational.Considering she's never used that syllogism and that is a horrible definition of her ethics, (considering it's not even true), I'm not surprised that you use it and still believe that you've somehow disproved her ethics.

HerbSewell said...

If life is the ultimate value, as Rand argues in "The Objectivist Ethics," how, then, can it be a conditional and an "objective" value.Because life is an end in itself and can be achieved through goal-oriented action, and the objective value of life and only be achieved under certain conditions.

1. Life as a human being can be achieved.

2. Life as a human being can be defined and is independent of situations.

3. Life as a human being can only be achieved under certain conditions.

Therefore, life is both a conditional and objective value.

HerbSewell said...

All this shows once again how treacherous it is to criticize Rand. Her inconsistencies render her positions slippery. They keep mutating, appearing in different guises, now in one form, now in another, regardless of whatever contradictions result in the processes of metamorphisis.Especially when you purposefully try to find inconsistencies in her arguments.

gregnyquist said...

Anon69: "By the way, the following passage is deeply troubling: 'When a “desire,” regardless of its nature or cause, is taken as an ethical primary, and the gratification of any and all desires is taken as an ethical goal (such as 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number')-men have no choice but to hate, fear and fight one another, because their desires and their interests will necessarily clash."

I've noticed that passage as well. It represents one of Rand's favorite modes of arguing: she exaggerates the difficulties of the positions she disagrees with while ignoring the difficulties of her own positions. All the major ethical positions have difficulties. Theories that rely on desires, sentiments, "feelings," and other emotive content for critical data in making ethical judgments cannot necessarily resolve all conflicts arising from either contrary desires or when several individuals desire the same thing (the same woman, the same position in society, the same property, etc.). But it is not clear how an "objective" theory of ethics can solve such problems. Ignoring the fact that people are motivated by their desires and sentiments and then claiming, based fallacious arguments, that they ought to behave in ways contrary to what they really want is not a way to resolve conflicts between individuals. Conflicting desires will exist in spite of the efforts of ethicists to argue them out of existence.

Rand would have saved her and followers a great deal of trouble if she had simply accepted the fact that sentiments and desires are an important part of ethical calculations and merely insisted that individuals should pursue their satisfaction in an intelligent, wise, and yes, even "rational" manner. This would have led her to eudamonism, which is what Objectivist ethics should have been all along.

HerbSewell said...

A rational individual realizes that every man is an end in himself and it is never in his self-interest to violate another man's rights, (as society will punish him along with the fact that he has no moral claim to his rights), a long with the fact that a society where men act only on whims will lead to sacrificial hedonism.

Conflicting desires will exist in spite of the efforts of ethicists to argue them out of existence.That's precisely why Rand described herself as a rational egoist, whereby rational men realize that no matter what they wish or what they want, the reality is that other men have rights that can not be encroached upon and must be respected or no moral defense against force can be formulated.

HerbSewell said...

1. Rational men recognize that every man is an end in himself.

2. A society where every man is an end in himself would result in a society where no man would have to fear the force of another man.

3. To know and respect what rights men are entitled to, one has to be rational.

4. Rational men would not act on whims that would go against their self-interest.

5. A society where men do not respect each other's rights is adverse to the individual because every man is his enemy and he must defend himself against them.

6. Encroaching on other men's rights is acting on whims because logically, it is never in one's self-interest to do so.

Therefore, rational men would not act on whims that would lead to encroaching on other people's rights, which would mean there would be no conflict on interests because every man is fully aware of the fact that what every man has is his because of his right to have it.

gregnyquist said...

HerbSewell: "Considering she's never used that syllogism and that is a horrible definition of her ethics, (considering it's not even true), I'm not surprised that you use it and still believe that you've somehow disproved her ethics."

This is an unfair criticism on several levels. First of all, it's not a "definition" of her ethics. Nor is it even an attempt to disprove her ethics. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what Rand's logical argument is, for the simple reason that she never provided one! The point of this syllogism is merely to show how any attempt to prove, logically, that life is the ultimate value must be fallacious, because it's invalid to argue from an is to an ought. The only way to get around this is to accept a conditional argument.

Yet even with the conditional argument, Rand runs into trouble. Even if an individual chooses life, it is not clear (and Rand never provided any logical proof) that this leads to life as the ultimate value. Because almost everyone chooses to go on living, not for life itself, but for the values that can be attained through living. In other words, for nearly all people, life is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...

The point of this syllogism is merely to show how any attempt to prove, logically, that life is the ultimate value must be fallacious, because it's invalid to argue from an is to an ought. The only way to get around this is to accept a conditional argument.Once one accepts the metaphysical premise that one should do something, the ultimate value of life can be clearly seen. An organism that has no motivate to do anything, no desire, no impetus to act can not be logically convinced that their life is the standard of value because there is no reason they should chose life over death. To live as a man, (or a creature of volition), one has to have a standard of evaluation and a standard of value to preserve such an 'is.' To do so, such a creature must value and evaluate potential actions that would allow such an 'is.' Such an 'is' would necessitate that one is constantly preserving the furthering such an 'is', therefore the 'ought' comes into play. That's assuming, of course, there is a metaphysical impetus to act, (as well as volition). If there isn't, ethics doesn't apply to that creature because actions aren't a part of its survival, (or if they are, it will most likely die.) If there is, that creature will need some guidance to what it should act for. For humans, (who do have volition), that standard is life, or the means by which it is acting by and gives it the impetus to act.

gregnyquist said...

HerbSewell: "1. Life as a human being can be achieved.
2. Life as a human being can be defined and is independent of situations.
3. Life as a human being can only be achieved under certain conditions.
Therefore, life is both a conditional and objective value."

I had earlier written "If life is the ultimate value, as Rand argues in 'The Objectivist Ethics,' how, then, can it be a conditional and an 'objective' value." Now if the point of Herb's train of reasoning is to refute my claim, then he has made an egregious error. He does not appear to understand what I mean by saying that life cannot be both an ultimate value and a "conditional: value. By "conditional" value, I mean that it's based on a conditional premise, which is any compound statement formed by combining two sentences using the words "if ... then." In other words, the argument: "Therefore, if you wish to live, you should adopt Rand's system of ethics" is a conditional argument: it's conditional on the person choosing to live. If the view that life is the ultimate value rests on a conditional argument, then life is a conditional value. If life were an objective value, it would apply to everyone, regardless of whether they chose life or not. So Rand cannot have it both ways: she cannot argue, on the basis of a conditional premise, that her values are objective.

The fact that life can only be achieved "under certain conditions" has nothing to do with the point at issue. The conditions for life are one thing; a conditional statement in logic is something else altogether.

HerbSewell said...

First of all, it's not a "definition" of her ethics. Nor is it even an attempt to disprove her ethics....Rand’s ethics can be summed up in the following syllogism:

The adoption of value system x is necessary for the survival of any human being.
You are a human being.
Therefore, you should adopt value system x.
Let's see the definition of summed up:

sum up: 1. To present the substance of (material) in a condensed form; summarize:

definition of definition:

A statement conveying fundamental character.

If you condense something into a sizable form, yet remove certain aspects of it whereby it, as a theory, is an invalid syllogism, you have not summarized it. You have redefined it and, in this case, are using it as a straw argument.

In other words, for nearly all people, life is a means to an end, not an end in itself.That is a false ethics, as there is no valid reason why the values they are perusing through life should be rationally more valuable than another set of values. Because everyone uses life to peruse values, there's no reason why one set of values is rationally better than another set of values.

The fact of the matter is, no one knows what Rand's logical argument is, for the simple reason that she never provided one!Yes she did. It's right in "The Objectivist Ethics" and can easily be written as a syllogism.

HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HerbSewell said...

Now if the point of Herb's train of reasoning is to refute my claim, then he has made an egregious error.Sorry if I misunderstood you, and I addressed the conditional premise as the metaphysical condition of having an impetus to live and volition. Also, do you mind not addressing me in the third-person?

Red Grant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Red Grant said...

___________________________________

"If so, then does this mean then you believe most people are incapable of reasoning (as defined by Ayn Rand, whatever it happens to be defined as such)?" - Red Grant
===================================

No. - Herb
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe for Ayn Rand's ideal society to exist, most people should cease to exist?





___________________________________

"...and who is/are going to be writing the constitution which the society would use to base their government on?" - Red Grant
===================================

Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others. - Herb
___________________________________






...and how would one objectively identify those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others.

Besides, are you not contradicting yourself here?


___________________________________

Losers would be the people who don't produce anything that society finds valuable. - Herb
-----------------------------------
Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others. - Herb
___________________________________






___________________________________

"Indeed, so how do you think the system should be set up to minimize such problems?" - Red Grant to Michael Prescott
===================================

It would be disallowed in the constitution because a government that protects individual rights could tax people on their prerogative to appropriate on their whims. - Herb

5/03/2009 12:26:00 PM
___________________________________




If government didn't protect individual rights, then who/what would protect individual rights?





___________________________________

I would say that Rand claimed that a society based on reality, reason, egoism, and individual rights (i.e. laissez faire capitalism) was ideal. - anon69
___________________________________





So who would decide individual rights in Ayn Rand's ideal society? - Red Gratn

Anon69 said...

HerbSewell said: "What I absolutely hate about this blog is that it seems completely bent on proving the negative that is Ayn Rand. Regardless of whether they are right or not, why not instead or trying to prove someone wrong, they actually make a correct philosophy?"

I rather see it more as a useful cross-examination. The ability to advocate pro and con - reflected, for example, in the adversarial court system - is a tremendously useful way of checking one's own subconscious biases when applied to a given premise. For all of Rand's talk of "checking one's premises", it seems that her epistemology cannot abide the adversarial method for some reason. As a result, her "reason" is actually rationalizing of bias, unchecked by a thoughtful process of argumentation. This is one of Objectivism's major weaknesses. It enables Rand's sweeping exaggerations and the "cult-like" aspects of her following, among many other difficulties.