Objectivism is a philosophy regarding the pursuit of happiness, and seeing something as it exists. The value of self interest was an entirely separate philosophy. As an objectivist, neither selfishness nor altruism is a requirement. In fact, both are rather extreme sides of an issue. Nobody is entirely selfish or entirely selfless. An entirely selfless person would be incapable of survival, and an entirely selfish person incapable of relationships. This is not an objectivist argument though
@riverlioness Wouldn't someone who only engaged in relationships that benefited them be selfish? Why would anyone want any other kind of relationship?
My point is you have person A who has needs and person B who has needs; the two relate by give and take. The reptilian brain is the source of both. This part of the brain is primal, it is the essential survival tool. Selfish and selfless describe the actions of one or the other part. Not to get too Dr. Ruth here, but healthy relationships prevent the build up of hormones that cause an imbalance. My boyfriend's a science major, this logic works on women.XD
Can you clarify your statement about performing a kind deed for an underprivileged individual? Are you stating that all acts of sacrifice should be performed as an investment of some kind?
The act of volunteering time or money to improve the welfare of the 'downtrodden', is acceptable if there is a benefit for you?
If I donate clothes, believing it will keep people warm and they will return a service to me indirectly, that is okay? What if they don't? Did that forfeit the act?
Scenario - I go to a soup kitchen to volunteer x hours because people are hungry. A side effect (not the objective) of this sacrifice is the insubstantial 'satisfaction' of knowing I helped someone.
"Evil" is so black and white; nothing is as simple as that. There are so many circumstances which brought this thief to rob you. Personally, I'd not be capable of such a sacrifice, but I look up to the individual who can see beyond the immediate.
Giving the cloak doesn't help the situation - I could see how it may worsen the problem; but transforming the offender into a fellow citizen, that's impressive.
There are several ways you could approach this - again, being a flawed individual, I would give in to my weaker emotional side and respond; but what drives a man to do such a crime? How could we prevent it from happening again, rather than quickly brushing it aside. Is it not better to identify the problem than ignore it? Evil is such an xtian term...
Also, the flaw in your jesus argument - according to him, forgiveness is a reward; thus that example does not demonstrate immoral sacrifice.
How about a society where the presumption of compassion and care keep people involved with caring for the sick and mentally ill so they don't turn into monsters. Where everyone understands what diminishes one man diminishes us all so the health of that man is all our concerns as is the safety of that girl. A society that does not look at the desires of the individual as supreme so that a rape and murder enters fewer peoples heads. Objectivists seem blind to the social contract and community.
This is very simplistic thinking that I think misses the historical context of what jesus was doing. He was breaking a historical cycle of violence that had crippled middle-eastern society by changing the assumptions of he social contract. Based on what I have heard of objectivist moral philosophy, what Gandhi, MLK and Nelson Mandela accomplished was not only immoral but theoretically impossible.
It is a good thing your mother didn't practice this self centered form of "ethics". Things are not always black and white, it is good to care about oneself but it can also be good to care for each other. Nurses, doctors, the afore mentioned mothers, and many more people dedicate their lives to caring for others. It is necessary for our species to survive, this also can be considered an objective "truth".
Are you saying that you don't derive any selfish happiness from the well-being of anyone but yourself? That, if you acted consistently in favor of your long term self-interest, you would never care about or love anyone?
It seems you are saying that caring for others can only be seen through the lens of self interest. I believe that the interest of the group is also a guiding force. It is a way to ensure our species survives.
If you support the interest of a group (which is nothing more than the shared interests of several individuals) for your own survival, that is self-interest. I am ok with this.
If you support the interest of a group by sacrificing yourself, I am not.
I am confused by your belief that altruism is some sort of wacko extremist behavior. Even the Dalai Lama, who supports compassion for others, doesn't starve himself to feed others. Who are these people you are talking about?
Altruism and self interest are not mutually exclusive. They may under very unusual circumstances come in conflict with each other, but that is rare. Most people are not caught in a sinking boat where they have to decide either they die or someone else dies. Most situations you can take care of yourself and it doesn't affect how you care for others.
Altruism could be explained as thinking of the collective. Protecting yourself from death is protecting an individual in the collective, and also give an individual with altruistic view the possibility to act on it. Such individuals are important to keep alive, so it is important to protect yourself as well.
I'd sure like to hear you differentiate between logic and empiricism. I think an atheist might have a weakness here, because they seem unwilling to accept an infinite, universal singularity. (consciousness) In my mind, logic is in league with that timeless singularity and logic allows existance at all, where empiricism is just another (albeit formidable) religeon based on prevalence. No foundation except cross-corroboration allowed by logic.
The law of identity states that A=B if and only if all that is true for A is also true for B. My question to you would be what does this have to do with causality, or with cause and effect?
The law of identity in metaphysics has a little more to it than the law of identity in mathematics. Those things that are true for both A and B in your example would be the nature of A and B. Causality is identity extrapolated over time. The nature of A is what determines its reaction to other existents, and a reaction is necessary a cause and effect relationship.
Good talk, but one problem arises at the end of your discussion. You said yourself that you are having this discussion because you enjoy it. A decidedly non-rational comment. Arguably, happiness or what makes you feel good is completely irrelevant to living rationally.
It has no inherent value in promoting your own survival, and arguably doesn't improve the quality of your life besides over a relatively small percentage of it. On face value, there's no difference from posting a video between taking a drug that simply makes you feel better at that moment in time. Neither one has any longer term benefit than increasing your pleasure at the moment.
It's perfectly rational. Human beings aren't infallible, and posting ideas on here is one way of getting criticisms that one may not think of by one's self: It helps to validate and be critical of ideas. There are other benefits too (e.g. the long-term benefits of spreading rational ideas) but that's probably one of the biggest ones.
Ah, but none of those reasons were given initially. And it's even arguable that posting something to try and spread rational ideas is illogical (or at best altruistic) since it is sacrificing your own time and effort for the sake of others. (And yes, I'm going somewhere with this argument, but it takes a while to get there).
Actually, I'm not saying anything I don't absolutely disagree with, I'm sort of talking things through (with anyone that wants to chime in).
Then the real question comes down to, which is more important, being rational or being happy? Would you choose rationality over happiness? (Of course, we're dealing with issues where choosing either one does not have a direct impact on survival).
If you're asking me "which is more important, being rational or happy" then you were dishonest with me when you said you didn't believe in the false dichotomy between reason and emotion.
The notion of "choosing rationality over happiness" is nonsensical, because there is no situation where you could actually do this, assuming you mean happiness as a long term goal.
People make decisions every single day that are not rational but make them happy. Usually the decisions are so minor to as not to rise to the philosophical debate level, but it's how most people live their lives. Falling in love, choosing a cheeseburger over a salad, etc, cheering for their local sports team, whatever. The biggest decision of all of these would be religion. Choosing to believe in something because it gives them long-term happiness at the expense of reason and rationality.
Is your argument that irrational decisions, based on emotional whim, do in reality provide the same long term happiness as rational decisions made with long term happiness in mind?
I guess one point that I'm trying to make if we are simply looking at an individual level, there is no inherent difference between one person feeling happy by a belief in a god (for example), than another person feeling happy by a belief in a particular philosophy. In some sense, there is no difference in those two beliefs than two people having a different preference for a flavor of ice cream.
But there is a difference in the results of those beliefs. In the example I gave, someone might be very happy believing that he can pass through solid objects (maybe it makes him feel special or unique), but he'll still die when the truck hits him. He's not very happy as a dead man, I imagine.
That example, however, I hope you would agree is a pretty massive strawman, since 99.999% of religions say nothing about walking through solid objects. I'm talking about the majority of religious people who are moderate about their beliefs and the impact that it has on their lives. Most people will not risk their lives for -anything- (whether it be religion, government or each other).
It's not a straw man so much as an ad absurdum argument. Less extreme versions of this example occur all the time (such as money wasted on a collection plate that could've been used for something more valuable). What the majority of religious people do is unimportant; you can't provide a solid argument that anything is more effective at achieving happiness than making an actual, logical assessment of the real world and using reason to determine which actions lead to the most happiness.
The reason there is no way to argue that fact has nothing to do with either side - it has to do with the fact that it is impossible to quantify happiness, or determine that one happiness is 'better' than the other.
History is filled with people who pursued happiness but when they achieved their goals they found they were not happy. And no, please don't give me 'that's because they weren't rational'. That's a cop out.
Care to give an example of a person who achieved their goals but found they weren't happy? Chances are they were irrational in some respect, but you'll have to be specific. I also never said that rationality = happiness; I said rationality (and subsequent successful living) causes happiness. Happiness without rationality IS lesser than rational happiness, just like pride in something one did not accomplish is hollow and meaningless.
From a purely scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between 'rational' happiness, and your so-defined 'hollow' happiness. It's an entirely artificial construct you're trying to place upon the emotion to justify the 'superiority' of rationality.
The difference is in the facts. One is a result of action that contributes to one's life, the other is not, and is effectively an improper response. Do you have an real-world example?
Emotions are not tools of cognition - it is irrational to pursue something just because it makes you feel happy. There is no dichotomy, as XOmniverse said, between reason and happiness because happiness is a result of rational action, i.e. that which promotes one's life to the fullest extent.
I don't agree with the premise with rationality = happiness, nor that happiness without rationality is somehow different/lesser than happiness justified by rationality.
I regret not mentioning Objectivist Ethics, in my other video. However when you mentioned that all altruists needed to engage in egoism for their survival (eating, drinking, etc), my answer to this, is that even that fundamentally "selfless" aspect of themselves, at the base level is what their doing is egoism. Its not rational egoism, yet its egoism none the less.
The audio is gone for this one.
AttunedFlux 1 year ago
Objectivism is a philosophy regarding the pursuit of happiness, and seeing something as it exists. The value of self interest was an entirely separate philosophy. As an objectivist, neither selfishness nor altruism is a requirement. In fact, both are rather extreme sides of an issue. Nobody is entirely selfish or entirely selfless. An entirely selfless person would be incapable of survival, and an entirely selfish person incapable of relationships. This is not an objectivist argument though
riverlioness 1 year ago
@riverlioness Wouldn't someone who only engaged in relationships that benefited them be selfish? Why would anyone want any other kind of relationship?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse
My point is you have person A who has needs and person B who has needs; the two relate by give and take. The reptilian brain is the source of both. This part of the brain is primal, it is the essential survival tool. Selfish and selfless describe the actions of one or the other part. Not to get too Dr. Ruth here, but healthy relationships prevent the build up of hormones that cause an imbalance. My boyfriend's a science major, this logic works on women.XD
riverlioness 1 year ago
Hmm, this bearded circus lady makes a lot of sense.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
"long term self-interest"?
Do we operate only in our own self-interest, all of the time? (cf. Hobbes, 1651)
Guevaristas 2 years ago
You know, I might espouse objectivism, were it not for its elitist tendencies.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
Can you clarify your statement about performing a kind deed for an underprivileged individual? Are you stating that all acts of sacrifice should be performed as an investment of some kind?
The act of volunteering time or money to improve the welfare of the 'downtrodden', is acceptable if there is a benefit for you?
If I donate clothes, believing it will keep people warm and they will return a service to me indirectly, that is okay? What if they don't? Did that forfeit the act?
thedreameater 3 years ago
A sacrifice in the genuine sense of losing some value without gaining some equal or greater value in return is irrational.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Thanks for the fast reply.
Scenario - I go to a soup kitchen to volunteer x hours because people are hungry. A side effect (not the objective) of this sacrifice is the insubstantial 'satisfaction' of knowing I helped someone.
Was that sacrifice irrational, yes or no?
thedreameater 3 years ago
The satisfaction comes from the fulfillment of your values. In this case, you clearly see value in ensuring that the homeless are fed.
I would say its only irrational if X is so great that it inhibits other, more effective means of obtaining satisfaction.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Does Objectivism determine what one should find value in?
I understand charity is generally a no-no. What if, since I can not sacrifice time, I sacrifice money to ensure the same result?
thedreameater 3 years ago
The Objectivist ethics do not say that charity is a no-no. It says sacrifice, defined as giving up a greater value for a lesser one, is a no-no.
Sacrifice, as I just defined it, is considered immoral in the Objectivist framework.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Last time I bug you on this - seriously thank you for clearing this misconception of mine up.
Can you give an example of immoral sacrifice?
thedreameater 3 years ago
Jesus, in one of his speeches, talks about how if a man shows up to rob you of your cane (I think), give him your cloak as well.
I would consider that one of the most immoral sacrifices, to respond to evil not with contempt and condemnation but with love.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
"Evil" is so black and white; nothing is as simple as that. There are so many circumstances which brought this thief to rob you. Personally, I'd not be capable of such a sacrifice, but I look up to the individual who can see beyond the immediate.
Giving the cloak doesn't help the situation - I could see how it may worsen the problem; but transforming the offender into a fellow citizen, that's impressive.
Obstacles are teachers.
thedreameater 3 years ago
A man kidnaps a child, and then rapes it and murders it, throwing the corpse into a nearby river.
What was that about morality never being black and white?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
There are several ways you could approach this - again, being a flawed individual, I would give in to my weaker emotional side and respond; but what drives a man to do such a crime? How could we prevent it from happening again, rather than quickly brushing it aside. Is it not better to identify the problem than ignore it? Evil is such an xtian term...
Also, the flaw in your jesus argument - according to him, forgiveness is a reward; thus that example does not demonstrate immoral sacrifice.
thedreameater 3 years ago
How about a society where the presumption of compassion and care keep people involved with caring for the sick and mentally ill so they don't turn into monsters. Where everyone understands what diminishes one man diminishes us all so the health of that man is all our concerns as is the safety of that girl. A society that does not look at the desires of the individual as supreme so that a rape and murder enters fewer peoples heads. Objectivists seem blind to the social contract and community.
michalchik 2 years ago
This is very simplistic thinking that I think misses the historical context of what jesus was doing. He was breaking a historical cycle of violence that had crippled middle-eastern society by changing the assumptions of he social contract. Based on what I have heard of objectivist moral philosophy, what Gandhi, MLK and Nelson Mandela accomplished was not only immoral but theoretically impossible.
michalchik 2 years ago
brief is less then 8 mins
brightmatt2 4 years ago
It is a good thing your mother didn't practice this self centered form of "ethics". Things are not always black and white, it is good to care about oneself but it can also be good to care for each other. Nurses, doctors, the afore mentioned mothers, and many more people dedicate their lives to caring for others. It is necessary for our species to survive, this also can be considered an objective "truth".
monkeycrunch73 4 years ago
Are you saying that you don't derive any selfish happiness from the well-being of anyone but yourself? That, if you acted consistently in favor of your long term self-interest, you would never care about or love anyone?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
It seems you are saying that caring for others can only be seen through the lens of self interest. I believe that the interest of the group is also a guiding force. It is a way to ensure our species survives.
monkeycrunch73 4 years ago
If you support the interest of a group (which is nothing more than the shared interests of several individuals) for your own survival, that is self-interest. I am ok with this.
If you support the interest of a group by sacrificing yourself, I am not.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I am confused by your belief that altruism is some sort of wacko extremist behavior. Even the Dalai Lama, who supports compassion for others, doesn't starve himself to feed others. Who are these people you are talking about?
monkeycrunch73 4 years ago
It is impossible to live without some degree of selfishness. Altruism cannot be practiced consistently as an ethical code.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Altruism and self interest are not mutually exclusive. They may under very unusual circumstances come in conflict with each other, but that is rare. Most people are not caught in a sinking boat where they have to decide either they die or someone else dies. Most situations you can take care of yourself and it doesn't affect how you care for others.
monkeycrunch73 4 years ago
Every piece of food you eat is food someone else could've eaten.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
thanks for clarifying. i have an ethics final tomorrow.
smilingeyes25 4 years ago 2
A truck does not most likely leave you dead, only terribly injured. Anyone who is an expert in suicides would rather prefer a train.
Luxaquitaine 4 years ago
I think, hang on because this is a bold statement...i think you're the most boring person that's ever lived
BringNYBack 4 years ago
Altruism could be explained as thinking of the collective. Protecting yourself from death is protecting an individual in the collective, and also give an individual with altruistic view the possibility to act on it. Such individuals are important to keep alive, so it is important to protect yourself as well.
Censeo 4 years ago
I'd sure like to hear you differentiate between logic and empiricism. I think an atheist might have a weakness here, because they seem unwilling to accept an infinite, universal singularity. (consciousness) In my mind, logic is in league with that timeless singularity and logic allows existance at all, where empiricism is just another (albeit formidable) religeon based on prevalence. No foundation except cross-corroboration allowed by logic.
Logic = order, empiricism = the ensuing chaos.
fstsw 4 years ago
The law of identity states that A=B if and only if all that is true for A is also true for B. My question to you would be what does this have to do with causality, or with cause and effect?
gklr 4 years ago
The law of identity in metaphysics has a little more to it than the law of identity in mathematics. Those things that are true for both A and B in your example would be the nature of A and B. Causality is identity extrapolated over time. The nature of A is what determines its reaction to other existents, and a reaction is necessary a cause and effect relationship.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Good talk, but one problem arises at the end of your discussion. You said yourself that you are having this discussion because you enjoy it. A decidedly non-rational comment. Arguably, happiness or what makes you feel good is completely irrelevant to living rationally.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
What exactly is irrational about doing something because you enjoy it? Don't tell me you buy into the false dichotomy of reason and emotions.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I don't, but the issue becomes the conflict of choosing something irrational because you enjoy it.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
I don't see how posting a video on Youtube is irrational. Your argument isn't making much sense.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
It has no inherent value in promoting your own survival, and arguably doesn't improve the quality of your life besides over a relatively small percentage of it. On face value, there's no difference from posting a video between taking a drug that simply makes you feel better at that moment in time. Neither one has any longer term benefit than increasing your pleasure at the moment.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
It's perfectly rational. Human beings aren't infallible, and posting ideas on here is one way of getting criticisms that one may not think of by one's self: It helps to validate and be critical of ideas. There are other benefits too (e.g. the long-term benefits of spreading rational ideas) but that's probably one of the biggest ones.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
Ah, but none of those reasons were given initially. And it's even arguable that posting something to try and spread rational ideas is illogical (or at best altruistic) since it is sacrificing your own time and effort for the sake of others. (And yes, I'm going somewhere with this argument, but it takes a while to get there).
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
I know you learn towards Objectivism yourself, so clearly you don't believe what you are saying its true.
(A) Living in a more rational world is in my long term self-interest.
(B) Sharpening my mind by exercising my rational faculty to discuss philosophy is in my long term self-interest.
(C) Survival qua survival is meaningless; ask a dying cancer patient. Happiness is of major importance.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Actually, I'm not saying anything I don't absolutely disagree with, I'm sort of talking things through (with anyone that wants to chime in).
Then the real question comes down to, which is more important, being rational or being happy? Would you choose rationality over happiness? (Of course, we're dealing with issues where choosing either one does not have a direct impact on survival).
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
If you're asking me "which is more important, being rational or happy" then you were dishonest with me when you said you didn't believe in the false dichotomy between reason and emotion.
The notion of "choosing rationality over happiness" is nonsensical, because there is no situation where you could actually do this, assuming you mean happiness as a long term goal.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
People make decisions every single day that are not rational but make them happy. Usually the decisions are so minor to as not to rise to the philosophical debate level, but it's how most people live their lives. Falling in love, choosing a cheeseburger over a salad, etc, cheering for their local sports team, whatever. The biggest decision of all of these would be religion. Choosing to believe in something because it gives them long-term happiness at the expense of reason and rationality.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
Is your argument that irrational decisions, based on emotional whim, do in reality provide the same long term happiness as rational decisions made with long term happiness in mind?
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I guess one point that I'm trying to make if we are simply looking at an individual level, there is no inherent difference between one person feeling happy by a belief in a god (for example), than another person feeling happy by a belief in a particular philosophy. In some sense, there is no difference in those two beliefs than two people having a different preference for a flavor of ice cream.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
But there is a difference in the results of those beliefs. In the example I gave, someone might be very happy believing that he can pass through solid objects (maybe it makes him feel special or unique), but he'll still die when the truck hits him. He's not very happy as a dead man, I imagine.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
That example, however, I hope you would agree is a pretty massive strawman, since 99.999% of religions say nothing about walking through solid objects. I'm talking about the majority of religious people who are moderate about their beliefs and the impact that it has on their lives. Most people will not risk their lives for -anything- (whether it be religion, government or each other).
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
It's not a straw man so much as an ad absurdum argument. Less extreme versions of this example occur all the time (such as money wasted on a collection plate that could've been used for something more valuable). What the majority of religious people do is unimportant; you can't provide a solid argument that anything is more effective at achieving happiness than making an actual, logical assessment of the real world and using reason to determine which actions lead to the most happiness.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
The reason there is no way to argue that fact has nothing to do with either side - it has to do with the fact that it is impossible to quantify happiness, or determine that one happiness is 'better' than the other.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
Why is this impossible? I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to determine what things make you the happiest and then work to achieve them.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
History is filled with people who pursued happiness but when they achieved their goals they found they were not happy. And no, please don't give me 'that's because they weren't rational'. That's a cop out.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
Care to give an example of a person who achieved their goals but found they weren't happy? Chances are they were irrational in some respect, but you'll have to be specific. I also never said that rationality = happiness; I said rationality (and subsequent successful living) causes happiness. Happiness without rationality IS lesser than rational happiness, just like pride in something one did not accomplish is hollow and meaningless.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
From a purely scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between 'rational' happiness, and your so-defined 'hollow' happiness. It's an entirely artificial construct you're trying to place upon the emotion to justify the 'superiority' of rationality.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
The difference is in the facts. One is a result of action that contributes to one's life, the other is not, and is effectively an improper response. Do you have an real-world example?
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
'contributes to one's life'? What does that even mean?
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
Things that make you live longer, healthier, more easily etc.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
Emotions are not tools of cognition - it is irrational to pursue something just because it makes you feel happy. There is no dichotomy, as XOmniverse said, between reason and happiness because happiness is a result of rational action, i.e. that which promotes one's life to the fullest extent.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago
I don't agree with the premise with rationality = happiness, nor that happiness without rationality is somehow different/lesser than happiness justified by rationality.
mrmortonblogs 4 years ago
Nicely said. *mulling* I should probably head back to the bookstore on this Objectivism/Egoism subject.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
I regret not mentioning Objectivist Ethics, in my other video. However when you mentioned that all altruists needed to engage in egoism for their survival (eating, drinking, etc), my answer to this, is that even that fundamentally "selfless" aspect of themselves, at the base level is what their doing is egoism. Its not rational egoism, yet its egoism none the less.
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago