Objectivism is stupid.

[Uccisore]

Mad Man P

What you have to understand, MMP, is that the rational egoist would do whatever common sense ethic that have no rational basis would tell everyone else to do. Just like any ethical theory that sounds radical at first, it actually proposes very little in the realm of new ideas, and is mostly caught up in the act of justifing itself to the outside standards it simultaneously denies.

[NickOtani]

Well incoherency, seems to me, is in the nature of this world, Strict rationalism cannot find an example in emprical world where as emprical observations cease to make any sence under the microscope of strict rationality.... Oh well who is John Galt?

This seems like a sweeping unsupported generalization. Please be specific and develop an argument. What, in what I said, is incoherent and why? Is it incoherent because of a logical contradiction or structual problem in the grammar, or is it incoherent to you because you can't understand it, even though others may understand it? If the former, then point out the specific problem. If the later, well, too bad. Keep struggling, and maybe you will understand more in the future. Maybe not.

bis bald,

Nick

[azizarif]

I am sorry to have upset you!
I am not a scholar, not even struggling to be, now and then just like to drop by at ILP which is a not a bad place & which is full of philosophical theories all trying to prove themselves coherent, hope one day we will find one.

[Mad Man P]

Mad Man P

What you have to understand, MMP, is that the rational egoist would do whatever common sense ethic that have no rational basis would tell everyone else to do. Just like any ethical theory that sounds radical at first, it actually proposes very little in the realm of new ideas, and is mostly caught up in the act of justifing itself to the outside standards it simultaneously denies.

I have the same problem with "Rational Egoism" as i do with "Satanism"... their names bother me...

they do not live up to them...

in the case of Rational egoism i'd say it's full of contradictory loyalties... it is internaly invalid..

So i very much agree with you that it attempts to live up to standards it simultaneously denies.. hence the contradiction..

[NickOtani]

I have the same problem with "Rational Egoism" as i do with "Satanism"... their names bother me...

So, you have all sorts of preceived ideas about egoism, possibly influenced by religion and altrustic philosophies which tell you that selfshness is evil, that you can only be good if you deny yourself, figure out what makes you happy and do the opposite. To me, that seems evil.

Hey, authentc selfishness acknowledges that one's own interests are intertwined with the interests of others such that promoting their interests also promotes one's own interests. This doesn't mean that I should live for other people, constantly looking for strangers to help, but I should support human rights. A government which protects human rights protects my rights. We should all do what we want and respect the rights of others to do the same.

If you were sick or injured in a hosptal bed, would you want people to visit you out of a sense of duty, because they think they have to but would rather be somehere else? Or, ould you rather they visit you because they enjoy your company, because they selfishly want to be with you. Would you marry someone who denies herself to be with you? Or, would you rather marry someone who selfishly wants to be with you?

Rational egosm is merely pursuing one's rational self-interest. It doesn't mean hurting others. It means being honest. And, no honest, rational person would choose to live in an immoral comunity or risk being a predator in a moral one. It would not be in his or her rational self-interest.

Do you understand?

bis bald,

Nick

[Uccisore]

The problem, Nick, isn't that Rational Egotism isn't rational, it's that to justify itself, it has to define itself out of existence. You start off by saying that selflessness and altruistic philosophies are evil. Radicial! Intriguing! A Breath of Fresh Air. You spend the rest of the post justifying Egotism by explaining how it results in the exact same behavior as the regular old selfless altruist. "Don't worry," you seem to say, "Selfishness isn't about being selfish, it's about being morally upstanding and considerate to your fellow man!"
That I could accept, I suppose- Rational Egoism would be not an ethical system, but rather a way of thinking about and justifying the ethical system that we all already have. But the problem is, there are people out there who better deserve the "Rational Egotism" title- captains of industry, dictators and criminals who actually excell at being predators, have much greater luxury and pleasure than if they were considerate, and live to a ripe old age with no appreciable consequences to their actions.
But, you say, their behavior is risky- they can fall, and fall hard, and the rational course is to avoid such risk. I say rationality is a faculty that requires discipline to apply, and we don't to it all perfectly. Those that make it through their dog-eat-dog lives and triumph to the very end were simply the most rational, and those that end up in prison or dead before their time did something irrational to invite the consequences.

[NickOtani]

Ucciscore, it's not "egotism." It is "egoism." Egotism is all the self-centered, stepping on the backs of others, inauthentic living, actually living for others kind of stuff people usually associate with selfishness. Yes, there are people out there who do this and don't appear to suffer. As far as I'm concerned, they are living in a faked reality. They do not actually deserve their rewards. They are not as authentically happy as someone who lives honestly.

And, rational egoism is not the same as selflessness. There are people who try to subjugate themselves to others, people like J. Alfred Prufrock. They would feel guilty about living for themselves. Compare him to someone like William Ernest Henley's persona in Invictus. Which one is more honorable and praiseworthy? Which one really has a self?

bis bald,

Nick

[Uccisore]

NickOtani

Ucciscore, it's not "egotism." It is "egoism." Egotism is all the self-centered, stepping on the backs of others, inauthentic living, actually living for others kind of stuff people usually associate with selfishness. Yes, there are people out there who do this and don't appear to suffer. As far as I'm concerned, they are living in a faked reality. They do not actually deserve their rewards. They are not as authentically happy as someone who lives honestly.

Sorry about the mis-stating there!

People who live egotistically and get away with it do not deserve their rewards? Where does this concept of 'deserve' come from? That seems directly tied to ethics to me- is the idea that people should only have what they deserve, and what in general they have to do to deserve it a part of Rational Egoism, or is this an appeal to a more common-sense ethic? Prior to your forthcoming explanation, this is another one of those cases where it seems to me Rational Egoism on a higher ethic external to itself for justification.

They are not as authentically happy as someone who lives honestly.

'authentically happy' is confusing to me, since 'happy' is an internal state, and 'authentic' is decidedly external, as I understand it. A person who takes themselves to be happy is happy, aren't they? If you mean to say something like "They may feel happy in general, but deep down they know better..." that's fine, but it seems like speculation along the same lines of the true believer that says that 'deep down', every atheist knows there is a God. If you mean to say "they are legitimately happy, but it is an undeserved happiness", then I have to wait for your explanation of 'deserve' and in the meantime ask 'why should they care?'

And, rational egoism is not the same as selflessness. There are people who try to subjugate themselves to others, people like J. Alfred Prufrock.

I'm not trying to equate egoism with extreme or pure selflessness, I'm equating it to the 'common sense' level of selflessness, where giving and sacrifice are recognized as virtues. It seems to me that bringing this Egoism to the masses amounts to saying 'Do as you always have thought was right, except now we'll say we're doing it for ourselves instead of doing it for each other'. Semantics, in other words.

[NickOtani]

People who live egotistically and get away with it do not deserve their rewards? Where does this concept of 'deserve' come from? That seems directly tied to ethics to me- is the idea that people should only have what they deserve, and what in general they have to do to deserve it a part of Rational Egoism, or is this an appeal to a more common-sense ethic? Prior to your forthcoming explanation, this is another one of those cases where it seems to me Rational Egoism on a higher ethic external to itself for justification.

If one cheats to win a race, people may think such a person is praiseworth, the he or she won the race honestly and deserves praise, but they are wrong. The person who cheated knows it. He or she is accepting praise he or she does not deserve and cannot be as happy as someone who authentically deserves it. It is still a consequentialist, hedonistically driven, utilitarian with Mill's criteria of quality and without Bentham's criteria of extension, ethic.

'authentically happy' is confusing to me, since 'happy' is an internal state, and 'authentic' is decidedly external, as I understand it. A person who takes themselves to be happy is happy, aren't they? If you mean to say something like "They may feel happy in general, but deep down they know better..." that's fine, but it seems like speculation along the same lines of the true believer that says that 'deep down', every atheist knows there is a God. If you mean to say "they are legitimately happy, but it is an undeserved happiness", then I have to wait for your explanation of 'deserve' and in the meantime ask 'why should they care?'

There is something in existentialsm called "self-deception." One may think one is happy but be deluded. We find ourselves in this situation whenever we awaken from a situation where we realize we are not really as happy as we thought we were. We were fooling ourselves. People realze they are not happy in their marriages and decide to divorce or goe their own way. People convert, realizing they will be happier, more at peace with themselves, in a new direction. They find themselves, so to speak. If Prufrock would wake up and realize he isn't lvng authentically, that he is subjugating himself to others, perhaps he would take back his self and be more like Henley's character.

I'm not trying to equate egoism with extreme or pure selflessness, I'm equating it to the 'common sense' level of selflessness, where giving and sacrifice are recognized as virtues. It seems to me that bringing this Egoism to the masses amounts to saying 'Do as you always have thought was right, except now we'll say we're doing it for ourselves instead of doing it for each other'. Semantics, in other words.

I'm not sure everyone is being rationally selfish. Some people feel guilty about doing things for themselves. They think their hardships are punishment from God for being happy. They feel guilty about being happy. Rational egoism will set them free, let them be themselves and enjoy their lives. Let them see that what Syndey Carton did was a selfish act, not a noble sacrifice.

bis bald,

Nick

[Mad Man P]

NickOtani

So, you have all sorts of preceived ideas about egoism, possibly influenced by religion and altrustic philosophies which tell you that selfshness is evil, that you can only be good if you deny yourself, figure out what makes you happy and do the opposite.

Excuse me? That is one hell of a leap... if you had read on, i stated that my problem with the name was because it FAILED to live up to it... not because it succeeded and that selfishness is "evil"...

The person who cheated knows it. He or she is accepting praise he or she does not deserve and cannot be as happy as someone who authentically deserves it.

Some people feel guilty about doing things for themselves. They think their hardships are punishment from God for being happy. They feel guilty about being happy. Rational egoism will set them free, let them be themselves and enjoy their lives.

You seem to be focusing more one psychology than philosophy.. These are all contestable assumptions that you present...

Try defending the notion that a person cannot be "as happy" as another simply because they cheated to win... How would you messure happiness? even if were the case perhaps that "fear of being selfish" is what makes a difference here as well... for what value does honesty have within Rational Egosim?

So far the only value it has, according to you, is related to happiness... but you would need to value it in order for it to effect your happiness to begin with... So is it an inherent need? is it something we raise our children to value? If so.. Are you suggesting we should continue? If so.. why?

You say Rational Egoism will set people free? free from what? they are still supposed to do all the same things.. Now it's not the fear of god that stops men from cheating... but the fear of being less happy for some inexplicable reason..

If you bring in values such as honor or honesty... you need to justify these values within your own system...

I understand that there are benefits to living in a moral comunity.. i understand that there are benefits in working together... but I also understand that sometimes it is more beneficial to cheat and decieve others in order to get what you want... and if some value should prevent a rational egoist from doing so in such an instance... it needs some justification.. mearly claiming that a person would be "less happy" is not good enough..

I would apritiate a further explanation of WHY a person would/should become "less happy"..

[NickOtani]

I think it is self-evident to rational people that livng authentically from one's own efforts is better, more pleasurable, than living inauthentically, as a leach off of others. Of course, not everyone will agree. Perhaps they are not yet at the Piagetian/Kohlbergian stage of development yet to understand principled behavior. Perhaps they are arrested at a lower stage and will never understand. There always seem to be those who would choose to be brains in a vat rather than real people living in a real world. That's why we need morality.

BTW, I would measure happiness using the utilitarian criterion, including Mill's criteria of Quality but excluding Bentham's criteria of extension. I think I mentioned this before. They say happiness s the goal they are striving for, but it is actually a flourishing survival. Self-actualization or qualtative happiness or eudaimonia is what lets one know his or her life is flourishing, and flourishing survival is the intrinsic good. Asking why one would want to floursh is like asking what is north of the north pole.

This is philosophy even if a little psychology is mixed in.

bis bald,

Nick

bis bald,

[Uccisore]

NickOtani

If one cheats to win a race, people may think such a person is praiseworth, the he or she won the race honestly and deserves praise, but they are wrong.

Of course I would agree.

The person who cheated knows it. He or she is accepting praise he or she does not deserve and cannot be as happy as someone who authentically deserves it.

Then the idea of selfishness loses it's meaning, to my mind. The person gains less pleasure from a cheated victory because they know they are in moral bad standing for having cheated- not because they didn't serve themselves properly. Of course, we will all run into situations where we must either cheat or accept defeat- and accept not gaining whatever prize is to be had for victory. That we are wired or conditioned to feel bad if we cheat- even or especially if there is something great to be gained- is evidence to my mind that in fact behaving rightly often involves working against our best interests.

We find ourselves in this situation whenever we awaken from a situation where we realize we are not really as happy as we thought we were. We were fooling ourselves.

I don't know that this can truly exist- it seems to me that it's more likely that upon realizing our happiness was undeserved or inappropriate, our reaction to this fact leads to a different present understanding of our past happiness. This may be expressed commonly as "I thought I was so happy, but boy was I wrong", but a more accurate description would be either "I am ashamed now of how happy I was then," or "It turns out I was not nearly as happy then as I could have been, had I done this instead."
For if happiness can work this way, it's the only sensation that can- we cannot, upon reflection, realize that we were not really in pain when we thought we were, or not really asleep when we thought we were, or not really sad when we thought we were.

I'm not sure everyone is being rationally selfish.

I'm not sure about the 'rational', but there are many who argue that everything a human does is selfish, regardless of the creed they adopt. I'm not one of them, though.

Some people feel guilty about doing things for themselves. They think their hardships are punishment from God for being happy. They feel guilty about being happy. Rational egoism will set them free, let them be themselves and enjoy their lives.

If someone feels guilty about being happy where no clear moral culpability is involved, then a new moral system wouldn't help them with that, it's a psychological problem.
I guess what I'm looking for is a situation in which an act would be wrong according to the common-sense ethics any man on the street could be expected to have, and right under moral egoism. Or the other way around, if you prefer. Something to distinguish them in practice, as opposed to attitude.

I think it is self-evident to rational people that livng authentically from one's own efforts is better, more pleasurable, than living inauthentically, as a leach off of others.

I half agree with this. I believe it is self-evident to most people that living authentically from one's own efforts is better- but not in the sense that it is more pleasureable. I believe what is evident is that doing so is right, it is morally superior to the alternatives. That is the evident part. The pleasure comes as a consequence of doing what one knows is right- doing the right thing gives one a positive, pleasureable view of onesself to normal people operating in a normal fashion. This pleasureable sensation does not necessarily override the pleasures to be obtained from wrong-living, though, and so choices must be made.
I think the other thing important to point out is that whatever is self-evident is not a product of rationality.

[NickOtani]

Then the idea of selfishness loses it's meaning, to my mind. The person gains less pleasure from a cheated victory because they know they are in moral bad standing for having cheated- not because they didn't serve themselves properly. Of course, we will all run into situations where we must either cheat or accept defeat- and accept not gaining whatever prize is to be had for victory. That we are wired or conditioned to feel bad if we cheat- even or especially if there is something great to be gained- is evidence to my mind that in fact behaving rightly often involves working against our best interests.

If selfishness loses its meaning for you when someone finds it more pleasurable to be authentic than to cheat, then you must have a very shallow idea of pleasure, that winning, even by cheating, is more pleasurable than living in a real world, even if you have to lose. I say that if I have only one life to live, I want to live it as a real person in a real world, not as a phony in an unreal world.

I don't know that this can truly exist- it seems to me that it's more likely that upon realizing our happiness was undeserved or inappropriate, our reaction to this fact leads to a different present understanding of our past happiness. This may be expressed commonly as "I thought I was so happy, but boy was I wrong", but a more accurate description would be either "I am ashamed now of how happy I was then," or "It turns out I was not nearly as happy then as I could have been, had I done this instead."
For if happiness can work this way, it's the only sensation that can- we cannot, upon reflection, realize that we were not really in pain when we thought we were, or not really asleep when we thought we were, or not really sad when we thought we were.

Self-deception does happen. We only hope it doesn't happen when it is too late to do anything about it. It would be sad to think, just before you die, that you had wasted your life subjugating it to a false god or person. Gatsby chose the wrong person with whom to fall in love. Macbeth thought being King, by deceit and assination, would make him happy. For him, life became sound and fury signifying nothing. Could these guys have seen the light. Ivan llich, a character of Tolstoy's, woke up to his wasted life only a moment before he died. He was going though life just going through the motions, not living authentically.

I'm not sure about the 'rational', but there are many who argue that everything a human does is selfish, regardless of the creed they adopt. I'm not one of them, though.

There is psychological egoism, the theory that all motivated action is egoistic. However, it is defended with a tautology. "How do we know people do what they want? Because they do it." Well, I think people sometimes try to do what they don't want to do, and they sometimes go crazy or end up with sad lives, like the life of J. Alfred Prufrock, who tries to subjugate himself to others.

I half agree with this. I believe it is self-evident to most people that living authentically from one's own efforts is better- but not in the sense that it is more pleasureable. I believe what is evident is that doing so is right, it is morally superior to the alternatives. That is the evident part. The pleasure comes as a consequence of doing what one knows is right- doing the right thing gives one a positive, pleasureable view of onesself to normal people operating in a normal fashion. This pleasureable sensation does not necessarily override the pleasures to be obtained from wrong-living, though, and so choices must be made.
I think the other thing important to point out is that whatever is self-evident is not a product of rationality.

John Stuart Mill would point out that qualitative happiness is so much more pleasurable than quantitative happiness that no rational person would choose quantitative happiness over it. For example, wisdom is a qualitative value, and Mill said he'd rather be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfed fool. I say it is the same with authenticity and honor. I'd rather be an honest loser than a phony winner, than a brain in a vat.

bis bald,

Nick

[AVD]

Ok so I would like to propose a scenario under the "perfect" Ayn Rand circumstances.

But first a starting point: I'd like to note the paradox contained in Ayn Rand's basic principle: one should act out of his selfish pursuit of happiness however he sees fit, while not interfering with others selfish pursuit of happiness. The problem lies in the fact that rational egoism can't function unless applied only to one specific person. It cannot be universal.

Example: If I allow the other person's selfish pursuit of happiness to impose onto my own selfish pursuit of happiness than I'm being altruistic and unselfish in allowing him to ultimately impose onto my rights for selfish pursuit - this is wrong and "amoral" since I'm giving away my right and is a form of altruism (in accordance to Ayn Rand's principle); on the other hand if I guard against other person's imposition onto my selfish pursuit of happiness than I prevent him from his own pursuit, which contradicts the second half of the principle.

Lets focus on a pure laissez-faire capitalism economical system as a setting for a hypothetical scenario.

In this system I am an entrepreneur whose moral code answers only to my own selfish goals. I'm unopposed by any form of government regulations or any other ethical and/or moral regulations. My goals are to produce the best product and be the most successful vendor in my specific area. This goal is admirable even noble, however its implications in laissez-faire capitalism are slippery at best. My product by the way is energy.

Now for the sake of argument let's say that I'm a brilliant inventor/industrialist with starting capital (as most of Ayn Rand heros are). I am an inventor of an ingenious system that produces cheap and officiant power from water. The resource is plentiful and most importantly free (there is yet another interesting alternative ). Slowly but surely I drive all of my competitors out of business because my energy is more cost efficient. Since we live in a society where every one is completely objective, my fellow industrialist producers will have the most return using my energy as it will cut their production costs. The choices must be purely rational without any emotions.

Within a decade I corner the energy market by driving my competitors out of business in a "fair" competition unopposed by any regulatory system and now I'm the only provider of energy for the whole population. Next step. As a good objective capitalist I have absolutely no concern for my fellow industrialist. If you need energy? Better pay up. Lets also suppose that I'm an ambitious type and since I have no competition in my initial industry and a constant urge for a challenge I decide: well why not spread out. One by one industries fall to my empire because if any of them try to compete with me I will take a loss in a new field while maximizing the gain in my monopolized energy-industrial complex. (That is only if I'm a nice capitalist if I am a true objective capitalist I would most likely cut off their energy supply and wait for the card house to crumble as it will be the quickest and least painful transition). Being well-behaved objective capitalists themselves, my fellow industrialists gladly except the challenge and one by one die in the gutter since in the perfect society we have no altruism what so ever. Whatever consequences they might suffer from my perfectly moral tactic is none of my business since all I'm doing is pursuing my selfish goals.

To guard against any future objections like "well, there is always going to be an altruistic type" I would like to quote Ayn Rand:
"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject." And we dedicated ourselves completely to the objective realities of laissez-faire capitalism.

But let's get back to our "perfect" model. Very soon I'm mankind's mother and father. As a good capitalist I must maximize my profits without eliminating consumption so I make sure that any given individual gets paid only enough to spend on the services (all of them) that I provide. Progress stops and we have a self-efficient swamp of plutocracy.

As a disclaimer I would like to say that I do not reject objectivism. I think it is a cleverly set paradox and an interesting exercise. It is a good motivator to say: I need to be productive for my own sake. No job - no food. Do I want to be begging on the street or do I have an integrity to get off my arse, turn off the TV and go accomplish something. In fact I agree on few points with Ayn Rand:

-People are selfish by nature. The animal instinct in us fights for self preservation but it is the intellect that allows us to be altruistic, cooperative and compromising. I DO NOT imply that instinct is bad it is just as important as intellect. Without instinct no individual would be able to avoid any fatal incidents. We are both selfish and selfless to a degree. A simplest example is a woman who is by nature a selfish individual concerned with her own well being but once she has a baby she will happily sacrifice her life for the well being of her child. An objectivist might argue that it can be explained from a selfish stance: "She is only raising a child so it can take care of her when she cannot do it herself". But I dare you to tell this to any woman with children and I guarantee you she will crack your skull.

-People should be motivated by self interest. If not me than who else? However one of the missing ingredients is equality of opportunity. In most societies the so called "achievers" are in the position that they are because of the simple fact that they had more opportunities to begin with. They were neither smarter nor more hard working that their classmates but through their social status or monetary freedom were able to explore the opportunities through availability and not through merit. So where is the natural right to achieve and produce there?

What bothers me with the model that objectivism presents is its complete disconnection with reality. It deals with absolutes. People are neither absolutely selfish nor absolutely altruistic, but a bit of both. It is finding an equilibrium that should be one's goal and not to force one over the other. The rejection of the principle of cooperation and compromise is the rejection of the basic reason for survival of mankind as species. Without cooperation our ancestors would turn out to be nothing more then food for predators.

The name for the topic is a bit distasteful but it provoked an interesting discussion. Objectivism is not stupid, it is interesting. However it is stupid to negate it completely or to follow it to the "t" as it is as unrealistic and harmful as communism.
When exploited to the fullest and used as a real economical and social model objectivism simply provides license for unlimited exploitation of the market (ironically parasitic) and gives a moralistic loophole for monopolization and plutocracy.