tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4228850978815630855..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Politics, Part 7Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50323559711658998662009-05-04T16:24:00.000-07:002009-05-04T16:24:00.000-07:00HerbSewell said: "What I absolutely hate about thi...<I>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><BR><BR>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.Anon69noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66855894145577837092009-05-03T17:51:00.000-07:002009-05-03T17:51:00.000-07:00___________________________________
"If so, then ...___________________________________<br /><br />"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<br />===================================<br /><br />No. - Herb<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Does this mean then you believe for Ayn Rand's ideal society to exist, most people should cease to exist?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />"...and who is/are going to be writing the constitution which the society would use to base their government on?" - Red Grant<br />===================================<br /><br />Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others. - Herb<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />...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.<br /><br />Besides, are you not contradicting yourself here?<br /><br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />Losers would be the people who don't produce anything that society finds valuable. - Herb<br />-----------------------------------<br />Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others. - Herb<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />"Indeed, so how do you think the system should be set up to minimize such problems?" - Red Grant to Michael Prescott<br />===================================<br /><br />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 <br /><br />5/03/2009 12:26:00 PM<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />If government didn't protect individual rights, then who/what would protect individual rights?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />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<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />So who would decide individual rights in Ayn Rand's ideal society? - Red GratnRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-89448401975508977642009-05-03T17:41:00.000-07:002009-05-03T17:41:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45216539790614151822009-05-03T16:29:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:29:00.000-07:00Now if the point of Herb's train of reasoning is t...<I>Now if the point of Herb's train of reasoning is to refute my claim, then he has made an egregious error.</I>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?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38893248684580125852009-05-03T16:28:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:28:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54004221576764655022009-05-03T16:27:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:27:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32281638604821597782009-05-03T16:25:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:25:00.000-07:00First of all, it's not a "definition" of her ethic...<I>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:<br /><br />The adoption of value system x is necessary for the survival of any human being.<br />You are a human being.<br />Therefore, you should adopt value system x.</I>Let's see the definition of summed up:<br /><br />sum up: 1. To present the substance of (material) in a condensed form; summarize:<br /><br />definition of definition:<br /><br />A statement conveying fundamental character.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><I>In other words, for nearly all people, life is a means to an end, not an end in itself.</I>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.<br /><br /><I>The fact of the matter is, no one knows what Rand's logical argument is, for the simple reason that she never provided one!</I>Yes she did. It's right in "The Objectivist Ethics" and can easily be written as a syllogism.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44124372223793936762009-05-03T16:24:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:24:00.000-07:00HerbSewell: "1. Life as a human being can be achie...HerbSewell: "1. Life as a human being can be achieved.<br />2. Life as a human being can be defined and is independent of situations.<br />3. Life as a human being can only be achieved under certain conditions.<br />Therefore, life is both a conditional and objective value."<br /><br />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 <EM>conditional</EM> 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. <br /><br />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.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30554903653611063352009-05-03T16:22:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:22:00.000-07:00The point of this syllogism is merely to show how ...<I>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.</I>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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33156444987446793242009-05-03T16:07:00.000-07:002009-05-03T16:07:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13779539739960466102009-05-03T15:52:00.000-07:002009-05-03T15:52:00.000-07:00HerbSewell: "Considering she's never used that syl...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."<br /><br />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 <EM>that she never provided one!</EM> 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 <EM>is</EM> to an <EM>ought</EM>. The only way to get around this is to accept a conditional argument.<br /><br />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.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31629685952395076882009-05-03T15:23:00.000-07:002009-05-03T15:23:00.000-07:001. Rational men recognize that every man is an end...1. Rational men recognize that every man is an end in himself.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />3. To know and respect what rights men are entitled to, one has to be rational. <br /><br />4. Rational men would not act on whims that would go against their self-interest.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />6. Encroaching on other men's rights is acting on whims because logically, it is never in one's self-interest to do so.<br /><br />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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91730584085855163252009-05-03T15:15:00.000-07:002009-05-03T15:15:00.000-07:00A rational individual realizes that every man is a...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. <br /><br /><I>Conflicting desires will exist in spite of the efforts of ethicists to argue them out of existence.</I>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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7719659959626511742009-05-03T15:05:00.000-07:002009-05-03T15:05:00.000-07:00Anon69: "By the way, the following passage is deep...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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13141556608205933512009-05-03T12:36:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:36:00.000-07:00All this shows once again how treacherous it is to...<I>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.</I>Especially when you purposefully try to find inconsistencies in her arguments.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66729381899103233112009-05-03T12:35:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:35:00.000-07:00If life is the ultimate value, as Rand argues in "...<I>If life is the ultimate value, as Rand argues in "The Objectivist Ethics," how, then, can it be a conditional and an "objective" value.</I>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.<br /><br />1. Life as a human being can be achieved.<br /><br />2. Life as a human being can be defined and is independent of situations.<br /><br />3. Life as a human being can only be achieved under certain conditions.<br /><br />Therefore, life is both a conditional and objective value.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47586188862546194022009-05-03T12:29:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:29:00.000-07:00This is an invalid syllogism. Rand’s ethical argum...<I>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.</I>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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16360105340624207352009-05-03T12:26:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:26:00.000-07:00"If so, then does this mean then you believe most ..."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)?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />"...and who is/are going to be writing the constitution which the society would use to base their government on?"<br /><br />Hopefully, those who believe that man is an end in himself and the not means to the ends of others.<br /><br />"Indeed, so how do you think the system should be set up to minimize such problems?"<br /><br />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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79288287881021344242009-05-03T12:24:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:24:00.000-07:00There really is no reason to live, because looking...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. <br /><br />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?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61819367427567105522009-05-03T12:18:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:18:00.000-07:00Michael: "I think Rand would have said, 'Therefore...<I>Michael: "I think Rand would have said, 'Therefore, if you wish to survive, you should adopt value system x.'<br />As I recall from my Objectivist days, the decision to live or not to live is not dictated by Objectivist ethics."<br /><br />Mike, great catch, that's devastating...</I>If choosing to live or not is a metaphysical issue, why should it be dictated in the Objectivist ethics?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20308710630407365582009-05-03T12:17:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:17:00.000-07:00"So the idea that suicide is an acceptable choice,..."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.)"<br /><br />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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21353629113155392542009-05-03T12:14:00.000-07:002009-05-03T12:14:00.000-07:00"Insofar as the primary choice to live goes, it mu..."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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7984741849505239732009-05-03T11:58:00.000-07:002009-05-03T11:58:00.000-07:00To Graig:
That shows you misunderstand Rand's eth...To Graig:<br /><br />That shows you misunderstand Rand's ethics. It stems from the fact that life is the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action. <br /><br />1. Life is the process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.<br /><br />2. Any action is either for or against one's life, (per the law of the excluded middle.)<br /><br />3. An animal acting against his nature is acting contra to its own life.<br /><br />4. The fact that an animal 'is' implies what it 'ought' to do to stay as 'is'<br /><br />Essentially:<br /><br />Every 'ought' implies a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.<br /><br />Without such process there would be no 'is' by which one could do which one would 'ought' to do.<br /><br />Life is a a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.<br /><br />To act against such process is to act against the ability to act against the ability to do that which one 'ought' to do.<br /><br />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.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24797249792884702912009-05-03T11:34:00.000-07:002009-05-03T11:34:00.000-07:00Insofar as the primary choice to live goes, it mus...<I>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.</I>"<br /><br />Ouch! That's a great point. <br /><br /><I>Mike, great catch</I>...<br /><br />Thanks, but I owe it mainly to Jerome W. Robbins, who makes much of this issue in his book <I>Without a Prayer</I>. <br /><br /><I>how can you morally judge someone who does not choose life, if the decision to live or die is not dictated by your ethics</I>?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=XOVelCewRMIC&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=%22John+Galt%22+suicide+Dagny+%22no+values%22&source=bl&ots=D9Db98lvwH&sig=VT32acWaWSquSQyr9U2fitB-tuY&hl=en&ei=1OL9SabgJIuMtgem6N2iDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1" REL="nofollow">here</A>.) 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.)Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66577490129335729982009-05-03T01:02:00.000-07:002009-05-03T01:02:00.000-07:00I find it strange that an essay as replete with br...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. <BR><BR>By the way, the following passage is deeply troubling: <I>"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><BR><BR>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."Anon69noreply@blogger.com