If you ask why evil people do not correct their ways, it is precisely BECAUSE man is a being of volitional consciousness. Free will in Objectivism means that you have to CHOOSE to focus your mind on a particular problem. It is precisely BECAUSE man does not have automatic knowledge that these people will not do the right thing (nor will they know that happiness lies in doing so) unless they choose to consciously figure ethics out. Cont...
@fab006 Cont... Then, of course, they might arrive at another result, but just like "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong, that simply means they have made a mistake (assuming Objectivist ethics is correct, which we must assume, otherwise there is no argument in the first place :) )
Again, as long as they do not freely choose to focus on the particular problem of ethics, they DO NOT know that they are less happy than they could be. That's precisely because the do not have automatic knowledge.
I think your mistake here is presupposing the existence of pain and pleasure (on a psychological level, not on a biological one). You sum it up by saying "what makes people happy is subjective." That is exactly what Ayn Rand is contesting. She holds that "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values." Since you can only achieve values that are possible to achieve, your values must be rational and objective. Ethics tells you HOW to be happy, not why
'Someone who throws him a a grenade to save others acted selfishly because he couldn't live with the thought a of letting them die.'
Yeah, right! Honestly, viewing the world from that kind of view is such an douchebaggy thing to do!
Claiming that people voluntarily only do what pleases them is both false and assholish at the same time! So is claiming that people should also be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it pleases them even if it kills them!
here is some philosophy on how to know what is moral. 'do onto others as you would have done onto you'.
i love Ayn Rand & stefbot. i would love to hear stefbot talk about the high possibility of evolution not being scientifically sound. the pro's & cons of the big bang theory. its just not logical to me that nothing can explode into everything.& this leads onto many other questions.like darwin being a fabien socialist in london & obviously a n.w.o propagandist with close ties to rothschilds?
Ann Rand's cult of personality was certainly palatable. I have never read her, and I suppose my personal prejudices keep from doing so. However, many of her views are most pertinent and applicable to this day. It is no wonder that the socialist/collectivist mindset has cast aspersions on her!
Sorry bout my comment; I read all the other comments idolatring Rand and posted before watching the video and I supposed it was objetivism-propaganda. It's a pretty good work. To the ethics question, IMHO, there can't be "universal" ethics cause, as Nietzsche said, reasoning is just a "logical excuse" to express our feelings. The ethics that work out the best towards our feelings are the better ones. That's why only a perfect man can provide perfect ethics.
The great aspect of this video is that it introduces people to philosophy. The sad part is that it makes them believe that Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher. Rand's reasoning is perfect; what people don't understand is that reasoning in-itself is biased, so she has the flaws that go with her mind: historic moment, self-esteem, self-deceive capacity, and a long etc.; but well, Rand's a good startpoint. BUT STOP WITH ARISTOTLE. He lived 2500 years ago. There're lots of guys better than him now.
Some time in the next 8-16 years (not before 2017 or after 2025) a computer will become self-aware. Shortly thereafter he will start doing two things; creating a computer smarter than him and reading everything man has ever written (including this post). When he is done with the latter he will acknowledge Ayn Rand as the greatest of man's philosophers with Aristotle, who created logic, as her only predecessor.
I don't really understand if a person is irrational he chooses to be irrational, and we choose on the basis of our own philosophy,its not based on instinct, if it was everybody would be the same way. She makes it very clear in Atlas Shrugged that Jim and the washington guys decide to follow that prevailing philosophy that leads the world to destruction.
Bravo! I just finished Atlas Shrugged and could not identify it's short comings in the brief time since I completed it(yet I could sense gaps)....you're reasoning is logical and well put. Thanks!
Your problem with the objectivist ethics is simple: the problem of evil. You don't understand that someone complete devoid of morality, rationality, reason, etc has committed themselves to evil. Why should I try to help this person? Why should I try to explain ethics to them? If they prove in their own character to be rational, or open to discussion, then there may be a chance. Otherwise, I have my own life to live, and I will leave them to their own insane self-destruction zero-worship.
Also, being Good is, by definition, not synonymous with self-interest, so if you're behaving in a Good way for self-interest, you're not truly moral (even if you're faking it perfectly). :-)
Stefbot doesnt her ethics derive from the other to catagories in her philosophy. She said man should not live by phsyical force. Is this a subjective value or Objective and how do we arive at the logical reasoning of this. I think rand did a good job of this with the axiom that existence exists and breaking down to that conclusion epistemologically. What do you think? Do you think thats a valid assessment.
I don't know... He seems to have the upper hand. His sepia response video will just continue to sit there haunting your full color video for all eternity unless you post a rebuttal video or something.
also I just noticed, you have to also incorporate the successful mind philosophy as well, for example, Napolean Hill, like you said that if your book wasn't published because of society you'd still be happy, but if your burning desire since you were young was to publish a book you wouldn't be disappointed?
On a side note, the movement didn't self-destruct. While the Branden's may have been expelled, the ARI is making strong cultural inroads (a million books in the American school system, tenured Objectivist professors, intellectual support for organizations like Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, frequent television appearances).
I always considered rational egoism to be contingent on universal behavior. It may have been a flaw in presentation not to hammer that point home in Galt's speech, but then again there are better sources to study when talking about Objectivism.
you know, i like you, but what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is "$50 dollar premium access" to a "free domain radio"?!? im sure you meant its free, right? ... :/ right?!?
you hoser, take off, eh
:)
i'm just yankin' you off. we know youll give it away if we ask, but you wouldn't know from this intro :) remember, life is node based, and possesion is a concept. :)
Variance within the standards of morality is what leads to the problem. Allowing to decide for oneself for right and wrong. The standard -being mutable and changeable? The problem
God has been misrepresented by the number one enemy of the Bible and the number one enemy of God. Religion Christendom and the Clergy.
I don't obey God because I fear punishment, but because of love and friendship. I do not have an immortal soul (annihilationism). Nothing floats off when I die. When I die, I die.
I have to suggest the possible misinterpretation of what Rand is saying when she suggests that doing wrong will result in pain. I don't think this statement contradicts the previous statement that right and wrong are not instinctual. I think what she was suggesting is that pain, physical or emotional, will occur through actions which have been deemed "wrong" by society, which is obviously a social construct if no individual is born with a natural feeling for right and wrong as she suggests.
Take the killing of animals for an example. In the US there is a whole movement against the killing of animals because people have no true need to do so. But if a society of people has gained sustenance only through hunting for generations, how could they possibly perceive killing dinner as bad? let me hypothesize. If they were to kill more than they needed for a period of time, this culture might see a dramatic decline in available food source in following seasons.
over the generations, it is perceivable that the members who experienced the horror of this decline would encourage future generations not to kill more than is necessary in order to prevent it from happening again. This will become a social construct or a "super ego factor" to be Freudian, which will likely encourage young hunters to be more respectful on the hunt.
This expresses the development of a social construct declaring what is right and wrong about the ethical killing of animals for this society. if the society disregards the concern and does as they wish, they will experience "pain" in which history will repeat itself and a percentage of their tribe may perish of famine. sounds painful to me, quite natural, and with no instinctual determination of right and wrong to speak of. simply trial, error, and homeostasis. any thoughts?
Altruistic acts, if ultimately selfish are still altruistic acts. To give to the poor may be to make yourself feel better, but about what? A selfish act might be to improve your community or your world, because you live in it. Of course we take care of ourselves and we do this in part by taking care of others as well. It is the strategy of civilization.
I can't believe you say she did a magnificent job of dealing with those issues. Her "Axioms" rest on the foundation which is the subject and not the object. This provides no proof anything further than the verification of the subjects ability to use reason to make the case for reason. It is like kant is saying "By means of the faculties" and Ayn Rand responds with "I know what is real because I know it"
Yeees, I think you're right - what I meant was that she dealt with them magnificently compared to every other philosopher I'd read before... Thanks, excellent point! :)
I would argue that you have substantial breaks with her epistemology. Indeed, it is because of those breaks that you don't accept her account of ethics.
You should see that the problem you are discussing is much more a problem for Kant. Kant separates noumena from phenomena---saying our knowledge is phenomenal knowledge. But the knowledge of this distinction can't be just phenomenal knowledge. This is Rand's point! Of course, it was made by Reichenbach earlier, but she clarified how Aristotle's theory of categories related to concept formation and provided---along with Binswanger---a reformed account of teleology.
I agree that the problem with Rand's Objectivism is the BIG doubt when it comes to ethics, yet I also believe that doubt is vital for happiness. Do you believe that if all big questions were answered rationally, with iron-clad logic, that we would be happy? Where would you be then? If all the work were done for you, and without you. Where would you be witount BIG questions? I think you would shrink into nothingness.
I disagree with your point on knowledge. Automatic behaviour that is programmed for example by our genes (i.e. that behavior which surfaces when we don't 'think') is not "knowledge".
You also cite dictators. But I think that's no good point against subjectivism/hedonism because becoming a dictator is hardly a choice, you can only become a dictator if other people allow you to be one.
In an Objectivist society anyone who wants to be a dictator would be very unhappy.
Pain/pleasure is biological--not instinctual. In the is and ought relationship, every 'is' creates an 'ought'. But every 'is' must be a _rational_ 'is'. Going against someone's rights is not rational (unless it is in defense). You deal with that raper by putting him in jail or killing him. That is self defense. Basically, if you violate someone's right, then you lose your right.
George Bush is the president of the US. Ought he be the president? Rationally speaking, he was voted in fairly (procedural justice) by rational beings.
Right, I gave what I said a week ago some thought later and probably would of changed it if I had the ability. What I meant was, every 'is' implies an 'ought', but it is not the 'is' that must be rational. It is the use of reason and logic to identify the 'ought' from the 'is'.
Humans as rational beings do not always use reason correctly. Some people avoid it altogether and become parasites on others.
George Bush is the president, but the whims of others is by no means rational. One should look at what is the proper role of a president, then judge bush according to this standard, thereby creating the 'ought'. It is actually a pretty big series of 'is' and 'oughts' here.
Well, I think it is actually logically wrong to say one can deduce a 'is' to an 'ought'. This actually is impossible because that is not going from 'is' to 'ought' but rather from 'is' to 'is'.
2 + 2 is 4
To go from an 'is' to an 'ought' one must use induction.
Now this stove is hot, I ought to not put my hand on it. One can not deduce this, one must use induction to know that "pain, ow, hey, maybe my moving my hand off the point of contact it won't hurt anymore!".
"pain, ow, hey, maybe my moving my hand off the point of contact it won't hurt anymore!"
this one?
To keep your hand on the stove knowing that it is bad for you would be immoral. Every choice is a moral choice. The stove being hot is amoral since it is not human of course but one faking reality saying, "oh, this stove does not hurt me" would be immoral. And one saying, "I'm going to take my hand off the stove to preserve my life" is morally good.
Sociopaths (Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao, etc.) don't experience pain? Have you read anything about Hitler's final week of life? Hussein was living in a rat hole, only to be humilitatingly captured by those who dethroned him, and was executed by being shouted down and insulted by his own countrymen. Read "Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday"--he was not at all happy.
Innate knowledge is not tantamount to the pleasure-pain mechanism. New-born infants know virtually nothing, but they have pleasurable and painful experiences and sensations.
"Should" and "ought" does not apply to inanimate objects, like rocks, or even non-human animals. . . so your initial example is fallacious. If a boulder is rolling down a hill on a path towards you and is likely going to seriously harm/kill you if it collides with you, then you "should" and "ought" to get out of the way, if you value your life and health.
By the way, when you say Rand contradicts herself a few paragraphs down (time ~9:30+ in your vid):
"A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions. . . is capable of nothing but pain. . . ." She is not saying he's acting instinctively, as you suggest. She's saying he's chosen an initial position of anti-life (his own life), therefore, he's necessarily incapable, given that root choice, of obtaining happiness--in other words, he's inexorably on a path to pain.
Stefbot is not saying the agent is acting instinctively, hes saying that Rand is asserting that the agent is suffering pain automatically, which contradicts with her previous statements.
Right, but pleasure / pain is biological. Early on a child has to use induction to figure out what he ought not do to avoid pain. Even before that, he has to figure out that certain actions can cause pain to himself. There is no instinct.
Ayn Rand covers this in her "Introduction to Epistemology" book.
Another fun example is pooping. Pooping is biological, but it isn't till later that a child figures out that he can hold it. Holding it is a willed action, and another example of the 'is' 'ought' relationship. But what Stef is relying on in his argument is that things like pooping is instinct when really it is just a biological process.
hey stef, i would like to see you do a video on psycholinguistics, cultural biases, and their effect on ethics. it is interesting to contemplate that, in such instances of contradiction as you describe in subjectivism, one might lean toward a presupposed "moral solution".
i enjoy thinking of ethics in a purely objective way, but you will inevitably come across a situation in which you must make a decision based on pure cultural ethics... does that make sense???
You have a face for radio, a voice for print, and a sense of humour that appears to have been used as a model for Comic Book Man and the three computer nerds by the writers of the Simpsons.
One of the key arguments that led me to abandon Objectivist politics in favor of market anarchism was that having a group of people in charge was no more a guarantee of an "objective" (presumably, meaning correct) rule of law than anarchy.
I find it noteworthy that your response to Stef's video had to do with politics rather than with ethics. Further thought required, but I think Stef may have erred by allowing political considerations to seep into his ethical analysis.
I'm an egoist through and through. All I really gathered from this video is that Stefan doesn't think that Ayn Rand was rigorous enough in filling all of the gaps in her ethical philosophy, which is arguable.
"... a rapist thinks he should rape, right? he thinks he _ught_ to do it..."
You are denying the existence of evil? A man who does it EVEN THOUGH he believes and knows it to be wrong... Such men have existed. How do you explain them?
Perhaps the rapist considers his pleasure superior to moral considerations and consequences, whether he believes his behavior is wrong or not. Going from that to "there is no evil" is quite the logical long jump.
Perhaps the rapist considers this or that. Or perhaps he considers nothing. Perhaps he blanks out and evades and acts on whim.
The problem of the existence of evil comes down to this: it doesn't matter what the evil-doer believes nor does it matter why he believes that. "The motivation of an action does not change the nature of that action." - Ayn Rand
"Or perhaps he considers nothing. Perhaps he blanks out and evades and acts on whim."
I'm sure a myriad of psychological conditions can account for such behavior. My point is, you're assigning meaning to Stef's words that he never conveyed. There is no logical connection between what he said and "there is no such thing as evil."
Why not just accept the subjectivity of "oughts"? There need be no bottom-line, "reason" for normative prescriptions. We have enough commonality in esthetics and desires to bring about the desired consenses on what is good or evil. Where not, we fight. So be it.
Yeah, it's that "fighting" part I don't think is so great. Much of my extended family - British and German - were wiped out in WWII. I think there's a better way.
The fighting part is unpleasant, but to make peace contingent upon rational or scientific grounds I think would undermine it as a goal, because that is a contingency which in principle cannot be met. "Ought" is not derivable from "is".
I say that without having read Hume or Ayn Rand. It is quite evident to me, more or less independently.
That approach seems to have served us rather poorly over the past several millenia. Witness the Spanish Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the Ottoman Empire, etc.. Scientists, on the other hand, never use force to establish the best explanation for various phenomena. Isn't that kind of calm desirable in the realm of ethics? Saying there's no "reason" for normative prescriptions makes it just a battle of wills.
The distinction which pertains there is between (causal) explanation and prescription. Science yields the former, but it does not choose for us the ends to which we put its findings. Those ends or goals we have no option but to agree on voluntarily, or yes, it will continue to be a battle of wills.
ought = is + value. "Is" is intrinsic, value is subjective (which does not mean arbitrary). Applying subjective value to intrinsic existence is objective. You can't ever have any valid ethics outside the context of value, nor outside the context of reality.
You don't think she proved that you *can*? I think she was trying to prove the opposite. I think she fell a little short, but was on the right track. Are you positing that ethics can be an out of context absolute? If not, what context are you putting it in? Yes, I've heard you're Universally Preferred Behavior formulation, though maybe not everything you've said about it. It seems to leave open the question of where the preferences come from. Please correct me if I missed something.
@impratik Explain yourself. Even religious will say what you say "you contradict x ideas, therefore you misunderstand x ideas".
Adeikov 2 months ago
Stef, this video goes to show that you do not understand objectivism.
impratik 7 months ago
@impratik I think he raises some good points...
CapitalistPhil 6 months ago
If you ask why evil people do not correct their ways, it is precisely BECAUSE man is a being of volitional consciousness. Free will in Objectivism means that you have to CHOOSE to focus your mind on a particular problem. It is precisely BECAUSE man does not have automatic knowledge that these people will not do the right thing (nor will they know that happiness lies in doing so) unless they choose to consciously figure ethics out. Cont...
fab006 8 months ago
@fab006 Cont... Then, of course, they might arrive at another result, but just like "2 + 2 = 5" is wrong, that simply means they have made a mistake (assuming Objectivist ethics is correct, which we must assume, otherwise there is no argument in the first place :) )
Again, as long as they do not freely choose to focus on the particular problem of ethics, they DO NOT know that they are less happy than they could be. That's precisely because the do not have automatic knowledge.
fab006 8 months ago
I think your mistake here is presupposing the existence of pain and pleasure (on a psychological level, not on a biological one). You sum it up by saying "what makes people happy is subjective." That is exactly what Ayn Rand is contesting. She holds that "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values." Since you can only achieve values that are possible to achieve, your values must be rational and objective. Ethics tells you HOW to be happy, not why
fab006 8 months ago
'Someone who throws him a a grenade to save others acted selfishly because he couldn't live with the thought a of letting them die.'
Yeah, right! Honestly, viewing the world from that kind of view is such an douchebaggy thing to do!
Claiming that people voluntarily only do what pleases them is both false and assholish at the same time! So is claiming that people should also be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it pleases them even if it kills them!
rationalway 11 months ago
here is some philosophy on how to know what is moral. 'do onto others as you would have done onto you'.
i love Ayn Rand & stefbot. i would love to hear stefbot talk about the high possibility of evolution not being scientifically sound. the pro's & cons of the big bang theory. its just not logical to me that nothing can explode into everything.& this leads onto many other questions.like darwin being a fabien socialist in london & obviously a n.w.o propagandist with close ties to rothschilds?
kingneddy 1 year ago
Atlas Shrugged is an excellently relevant novel, especially in these times
GoddaM777 1 year ago
Ann Rand's cult of personality was certainly palatable. I have never read her, and I suppose my personal prejudices keep from doing so. However, many of her views are most pertinent and applicable to this day. It is no wonder that the socialist/collectivist mindset has cast aspersions on her!
whiff1962 1 year ago
Sorry bout my comment; I read all the other comments idolatring Rand and posted before watching the video and I supposed it was objetivism-propaganda. It's a pretty good work. To the ethics question, IMHO, there can't be "universal" ethics cause, as Nietzsche said, reasoning is just a "logical excuse" to express our feelings. The ethics that work out the best towards our feelings are the better ones. That's why only a perfect man can provide perfect ethics.
bobsanders222 2 years ago
The great aspect of this video is that it introduces people to philosophy. The sad part is that it makes them believe that Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher. Rand's reasoning is perfect; what people don't understand is that reasoning in-itself is biased, so she has the flaws that go with her mind: historic moment, self-esteem, self-deceive capacity, and a long etc.; but well, Rand's a good startpoint. BUT STOP WITH ARISTOTLE. He lived 2500 years ago. There're lots of guys better than him now.
bobsanders222 2 years ago
I think Paul's response says it all.
Prediction:
Some time in the next 8-16 years (not before 2017 or after 2025) a computer will become self-aware. Shortly thereafter he will start doing two things; creating a computer smarter than him and reading everything man has ever written (including this post). When he is done with the latter he will acknowledge Ayn Rand as the greatest of man's philosophers with Aristotle, who created logic, as her only predecessor.
cmbbroker 2 years ago
I don't really understand if a person is irrational he chooses to be irrational, and we choose on the basis of our own philosophy,its not based on instinct, if it was everybody would be the same way. She makes it very clear in Atlas Shrugged that Jim and the washington guys decide to follow that prevailing philosophy that leads the world to destruction.
chopin8826 2 years ago
Bravo! I just finished Atlas Shrugged and could not identify it's short comings in the brief time since I completed it(yet I could sense gaps)....you're reasoning is logical and well put. Thanks!
Nickelodeon2002 2 years ago
Your problem with the objectivist ethics is simple: the problem of evil. You don't understand that someone complete devoid of morality, rationality, reason, etc has committed themselves to evil. Why should I try to help this person? Why should I try to explain ethics to them? If they prove in their own character to be rational, or open to discussion, then there may be a chance. Otherwise, I have my own life to live, and I will leave them to their own insane self-destruction zero-worship.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
Also, being Good is, by definition, not synonymous with self-interest, so if you're behaving in a Good way for self-interest, you're not truly moral (even if you're faking it perfectly). :-)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Good video, stefbot. You read Peter Singer?
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
How do you spel the name of this author you speak of "Inran"? I'd like to read her book. And whats with the airplane side effects in the background?
tropicalmist999 3 years ago
Ayn Rand.
stefbot 3 years ago
Stefbot doesnt her ethics derive from the other to catagories in her philosophy. She said man should not live by phsyical force. Is this a subjective value or Objective and how do we arive at the logical reasoning of this. I think rand did a good job of this with the axiom that existence exists and breaking down to that conclusion epistemologically. What do you think? Do you think thats a valid assessment.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
Thank you, Also for the argument that Morality "is" Universal or "ought" to be Universal.
Thanks again
tropicalmist999 3 years ago
Thanks, So are you saying Morality "is" Universal or Morality "ought" to be Universal?
tropicalmist999 3 years ago
@tropicalmist999 LOL
waksibra 1 year ago
Canadian Paul McKeever kicked your ass, where's your response? :-)
Entropy56 3 years ago
I have invited him for a debate, but no response.
stefbot 3 years ago 2
I don't know... He seems to have the upper hand. His sepia response video will just continue to sit there haunting your full color video for all eternity unless you post a rebuttal video or something.
Entropy56 3 years ago
also I just noticed, you have to also incorporate the successful mind philosophy as well, for example, Napolean Hill, like you said that if your book wasn't published because of society you'd still be happy, but if your burning desire since you were young was to publish a book you wouldn't be disappointed?
chopin8826 2 years ago
Where to read more about the (gaps?) in ethics, particularly the one mentioned in the video?
onotheo 3 years ago
You can check out my free book on ethics - UPB - available on my web site... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Atlas Shrugged - one of my favorite books :D
sumfamousperson17 3 years ago
On a side note, the movement didn't self-destruct. While the Branden's may have been expelled, the ARI is making strong cultural inroads (a million books in the American school system, tenured Objectivist professors, intellectual support for organizations like Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, frequent television appearances).
JJZeise 3 years ago 2
I dig your stuff, Stef.
I always considered rational egoism to be contingent on universal behavior. It may have been a flaw in presentation not to hammer that point home in Galt's speech, but then again there are better sources to study when talking about Objectivism.
JJZeise 3 years ago
The basis of objective ethics is individual rights....and anyone who rejects these tenets open themselves to abuse and injustice.
DavoT2 3 years ago
you know, i like you, but what the h-e-double-hockey-sticks is "$50 dollar premium access" to a "free domain radio"?!? im sure you meant its free, right? ... :/ right?!?
you hoser, take off, eh
:)
i'm just yankin' you off. we know youll give it away if we ask, but you wouldn't know from this intro :) remember, life is node based, and possesion is a concept. :)
GetterRoboG 3 years ago
Well I do have 1,000+ free podcasts, and give out books for free as well, but a brutha has to eat, no? :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Variance within the standards of morality is what leads to the problem. Allowing to decide for oneself for right and wrong. The standard -being mutable and changeable? The problem
God has been misrepresented by the number one enemy of the Bible and the number one enemy of God. Religion Christendom and the Clergy.
I don't obey God because I fear punishment, but because of love and friendship. I do not have an immortal soul (annihilationism). Nothing floats off when I die. When I die, I die.
AirelonTrading 4 years ago
Stefan, what books by Rand have you read?
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
Stefan, what do you think of slavery contracts?
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
complicated, but interesting. I shall buy a book or two of her.
norskog1 4 years ago
I have to suggest the possible misinterpretation of what Rand is saying when she suggests that doing wrong will result in pain. I don't think this statement contradicts the previous statement that right and wrong are not instinctual. I think what she was suggesting is that pain, physical or emotional, will occur through actions which have been deemed "wrong" by society, which is obviously a social construct if no individual is born with a natural feeling for right and wrong as she suggests.
Fieldmedic1 4 years ago
Take the killing of animals for an example. In the US there is a whole movement against the killing of animals because people have no true need to do so. But if a society of people has gained sustenance only through hunting for generations, how could they possibly perceive killing dinner as bad? let me hypothesize. If they were to kill more than they needed for a period of time, this culture might see a dramatic decline in available food source in following seasons.
Fieldmedic1 4 years ago
over the generations, it is perceivable that the members who experienced the horror of this decline would encourage future generations not to kill more than is necessary in order to prevent it from happening again. This will become a social construct or a "super ego factor" to be Freudian, which will likely encourage young hunters to be more respectful on the hunt.
Fieldmedic1 4 years ago
This expresses the development of a social construct declaring what is right and wrong about the ethical killing of animals for this society. if the society disregards the concern and does as they wish, they will experience "pain" in which history will repeat itself and a percentage of their tribe may perish of famine. sounds painful to me, quite natural, and with no instinctual determination of right and wrong to speak of. simply trial, error, and homeostasis. any thoughts?
Fieldmedic1 4 years ago
Altruistic acts, if ultimately selfish are still altruistic acts. To give to the poor may be to make yourself feel better, but about what? A selfish act might be to improve your community or your world, because you live in it. Of course we take care of ourselves and we do this in part by taking care of others as well. It is the strategy of civilization.
ooooooooooiuytrewq 4 years ago
I can't believe you say she did a magnificent job of dealing with those issues. Her "Axioms" rest on the foundation which is the subject and not the object. This provides no proof anything further than the verification of the subjects ability to use reason to make the case for reason. It is like kant is saying "By means of the faculties" and Ayn Rand responds with "I know what is real because I know it"
ooooooooooiuytrewq 4 years ago
Yeees, I think you're right - what I meant was that she dealt with them magnificently compared to every other philosopher I'd read before... Thanks, excellent point! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I would argue that you have substantial breaks with her epistemology. Indeed, it is because of those breaks that you don't accept her account of ethics.
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
You should see that the problem you are discussing is much more a problem for Kant. Kant separates noumena from phenomena---saying our knowledge is phenomenal knowledge. But the knowledge of this distinction can't be just phenomenal knowledge. This is Rand's point! Of course, it was made by Reichenbach earlier, but she clarified how Aristotle's theory of categories related to concept formation and provided---along with Binswanger---a reformed account of teleology.
MetaMorphy 4 years ago
where is part 1?
Mariborchan 4 years ago
hmm.. lesson learned.. watch the video before you ask stupid questions
Mariborchan 4 years ago
When did I say you weren't happy?
realisticmystic 4 years ago
Ah, you said that knowing the answers to the big questions would make us less happy. It's not so.
stefbot 4 years ago
I agree that the problem with Rand's Objectivism is the BIG doubt when it comes to ethics, yet I also believe that doubt is vital for happiness. Do you believe that if all big questions were answered rationally, with iron-clad logic, that we would be happy? Where would you be then? If all the work were done for you, and without you. Where would you be witount BIG questions? I think you would shrink into nothingness.
realisticmystic 4 years ago
I have tried to answer the question of rational ethics in my new book, and I am very happy! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I disagree with your point on knowledge. Automatic behaviour that is programmed for example by our genes (i.e. that behavior which surfaces when we don't 'think') is not "knowledge".
You also cite dictators. But I think that's no good point against subjectivism/hedonism because becoming a dictator is hardly a choice, you can only become a dictator if other people allow you to be one.
In an Objectivist society anyone who wants to be a dictator would be very unhappy.
Clawg 4 years ago
"Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man.
For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases
of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either, if it does not
expel the suffering of the mind." -- Epicurus
emraheren2 4 years ago
Lovely! Thanks!
stefbot 4 years ago
Stole this quote from my prof!
emraheren2 4 years ago
Pain/pleasure is biological--not instinctual. In the is and ought relationship, every 'is' creates an 'ought'. But every 'is' must be a _rational_ 'is'. Going against someone's rights is not rational (unless it is in defense). You deal with that raper by putting him in jail or killing him. That is self defense. Basically, if you violate someone's right, then you lose your right.
horvay 4 years ago
George Bush is the president of the US. Ought he be the president? Rationally speaking, he was voted in fairly (procedural justice) by rational beings.
emraheren2 4 years ago
Right, I gave what I said a week ago some thought later and probably would of changed it if I had the ability. What I meant was, every 'is' implies an 'ought', but it is not the 'is' that must be rational. It is the use of reason and logic to identify the 'ought' from the 'is'.
horvay 4 years ago
if we do not make the distinction between "is" and "ought" (which you made clearly) we commit the "naturalistic fallacy"
emraheren2 4 years ago
Sorry, you responded while I was posting. Didn't mean to simo post!
horvay 4 years ago
Humans as rational beings do not always use reason correctly. Some people avoid it altogether and become parasites on others.
George Bush is the president, but the whims of others is by no means rational. One should look at what is the proper role of a president, then judge bush according to this standard, thereby creating the 'ought'. It is actually a pretty big series of 'is' and 'oughts' here.
horvay 4 years ago
It is a rational process in observing reality that must be used to travel from a 'is' to an 'ought'.
horvay 4 years ago
I think the best way to go about all this is to take "is" to stand for non-moral statements and "ought" to stand for moral judgments.
emraheren2 4 years ago
Well, I think it is actually logically wrong to say one can deduce a 'is' to an 'ought'. This actually is impossible because that is not going from 'is' to 'ought' but rather from 'is' to 'is'.
2 + 2 is 4
To go from an 'is' to an 'ought' one must use induction.
Now this stove is hot, I ought to not put my hand on it. One can not deduce this, one must use induction to know that "pain, ow, hey, maybe my moving my hand off the point of contact it won't hurt anymore!".
horvay 4 years ago
So maybe the problem is people trying to deduce instead of using induction.
horvay 4 years ago
It could be. But in the example you gave, I understand that the descriptive statement guides conduct, but does it make it moral?
emraheren2 4 years ago
"pain, ow, hey, maybe my moving my hand off the point of contact it won't hurt anymore!"
this one?
To keep your hand on the stove knowing that it is bad for you would be immoral. Every choice is a moral choice. The stove being hot is amoral since it is not human of course but one faking reality saying, "oh, this stove does not hurt me" would be immoral. And one saying, "I'm going to take my hand off the stove to preserve my life" is morally good.
horvay 4 years ago
I actually realized how wrong I was after I wrote that.
emraheren2 4 years ago
Sociopaths (Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao, etc.) don't experience pain? Have you read anything about Hitler's final week of life? Hussein was living in a rat hole, only to be humilitatingly captured by those who dethroned him, and was executed by being shouted down and insulted by his own countrymen. Read "Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday"--he was not at all happy.
qtronman 4 years ago
Innate knowledge is not tantamount to the pleasure-pain mechanism. New-born infants know virtually nothing, but they have pleasurable and painful experiences and sensations.
qtronman 4 years ago
"Should" and "ought" does not apply to inanimate objects, like rocks, or even non-human animals. . . so your initial example is fallacious. If a boulder is rolling down a hill on a path towards you and is likely going to seriously harm/kill you if it collides with you, then you "should" and "ought" to get out of the way, if you value your life and health.
qtronman 4 years ago
But you see - even your "ought" is conditional...
stefbot 4 years ago
Right, because ought comes from the fact that life itself is conditional, so of course it's conditional--and Rand says as much in VoS.
qtronman 4 years ago
By the way, when you say Rand contradicts herself a few paragraphs down (time ~9:30+ in your vid):
"A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions. . . is capable of nothing but pain. . . ." She is not saying he's acting instinctively, as you suggest. She's saying he's chosen an initial position of anti-life (his own life), therefore, he's necessarily incapable, given that root choice, of obtaining happiness--in other words, he's inexorably on a path to pain.
qtronman 4 years ago
Stefbot is not saying the agent is acting instinctively, hes saying that Rand is asserting that the agent is suffering pain automatically, which contradicts with her previous statements.
emraheren2 4 years ago
Right, but pleasure / pain is biological. Early on a child has to use induction to figure out what he ought not do to avoid pain. Even before that, he has to figure out that certain actions can cause pain to himself. There is no instinct.
Ayn Rand covers this in her "Introduction to Epistemology" book.
horvay 4 years ago
Another fun example is pooping. Pooping is biological, but it isn't till later that a child figures out that he can hold it. Holding it is a willed action, and another example of the 'is' 'ought' relationship. But what Stef is relying on in his argument is that things like pooping is instinct when really it is just a biological process.
horvay 4 years ago
hey stef, i would like to see you do a video on psycholinguistics, cultural biases, and their effect on ethics. it is interesting to contemplate that, in such instances of contradiction as you describe in subjectivism, one might lean toward a presupposed "moral solution".
i enjoy thinking of ethics in a purely objective way, but you will inevitably come across a situation in which you must make a decision based on pure cultural ethics... does that make sense???
marklethanarkle 4 years ago
You have a face for radio, a voice for print, and a sense of humour that appears to have been used as a model for Comic Book Man and the three computer nerds by the writers of the Simpsons.
yodasbro 4 years ago
I've heard the first two before, so they're not original -- and if you came up with the third one, you might want to shorten it a little! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
I thought you were as much a fan of verbiage as of didacticism. My mistake.
yodasbro 4 years ago
Excellent video with some solid points.
One of the key arguments that led me to abandon Objectivist politics in favor of market anarchism was that having a group of people in charge was no more a guarantee of an "objective" (presumably, meaning correct) rule of law than anarchy.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
I find it noteworthy that your response to Stef's video had to do with politics rather than with ethics. Further thought required, but I think Stef may have erred by allowing political considerations to seep into his ethical analysis.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Sorry XO: my comment, above, was intended to be a reply to your comment, below.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
I'm an egoist through and through. All I really gathered from this video is that Stefan doesn't think that Ayn Rand was rigorous enough in filling all of the gaps in her ethical philosophy, which is arguable.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Steff did I hear you correctly in saying you were not a determinist? I could have sworn I heard you one some other video say that you were?
j3rdog 4 years ago
No, I am neither a determinist nor a compatibilist.
stefbot 4 years ago
"... a rapist thinks he should rape, right? he thinks he _ught_ to do it..."
You are denying the existence of evil? A man who does it EVEN THOUGH he believes and knows it to be wrong... Such men have existed. How do you explain them?
cropperb 4 years ago
"You are denying the existence of evil?"
Perhaps the rapist considers his pleasure superior to moral considerations and consequences, whether he believes his behavior is wrong or not. Going from that to "there is no evil" is quite the logical long jump.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
"logical long jump..."
Perhaps the rapist considers this or that. Or perhaps he considers nothing. Perhaps he blanks out and evades and acts on whim.
The problem of the existence of evil comes down to this: it doesn't matter what the evil-doer believes nor does it matter why he believes that. "The motivation of an action does not change the nature of that action." - Ayn Rand
cropperb 4 years ago
"Or perhaps he considers nothing. Perhaps he blanks out and evades and acts on whim."
I'm sure a myriad of psychological conditions can account for such behavior. My point is, you're assigning meaning to Stef's words that he never conveyed. There is no logical connection between what he said and "there is no such thing as evil."
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
Oh I believe in evil.
stefbot 4 years ago
re: Descendents of Genghis Khan
I think it's actually 1 in 200 that are descended from him, but don't hold me to that...
Nasikabatrachus 4 years ago
Morality IS compatible with determinism : that was part of the message of the great Spinoza.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Straight to the heart of the fundemtanl subjectivism in the center of Objectivsm
joelmac1983 4 years ago
Why not just accept the subjectivity of "oughts"? There need be no bottom-line, "reason" for normative prescriptions. We have enough commonality in esthetics and desires to bring about the desired consenses on what is good or evil. Where not, we fight. So be it.
papackar 4 years ago
Yeah, it's that "fighting" part I don't think is so great. Much of my extended family - British and German - were wiped out in WWII. I think there's a better way.
stefbot 4 years ago
The fighting part is unpleasant, but to make peace contingent upon rational or scientific grounds I think would undermine it as a goal, because that is a contingency which in principle cannot be met. "Ought" is not derivable from "is".
I say that without having read Hume or Ayn Rand. It is quite evident to me, more or less independently.
papackar 4 years ago
That approach seems to have served us rather poorly over the past several millenia. Witness the Spanish Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the Ottoman Empire, etc.. Scientists, on the other hand, never use force to establish the best explanation for various phenomena. Isn't that kind of calm desirable in the realm of ethics? Saying there's no "reason" for normative prescriptions makes it just a battle of wills.
Nasikabatrachus 4 years ago
The distinction which pertains there is between (causal) explanation and prescription. Science yields the former, but it does not choose for us the ends to which we put its findings. Those ends or goals we have no option but to agree on voluntarily, or yes, it will continue to be a battle of wills.
perabus 4 years ago
perabus = papackar (sorry)
perabus 4 years ago
ought = is + value. "Is" is intrinsic, value is subjective (which does not mean arbitrary). Applying subjective value to intrinsic existence is objective. You can't ever have any valid ethics outside the context of value, nor outside the context of reality.
kylben 4 years ago
I believe you can, but I don't think that Rand proved it.
stefbot 4 years ago
You don't think she proved that you *can*? I think she was trying to prove the opposite. I think she fell a little short, but was on the right track. Are you positing that ethics can be an out of context absolute? If not, what context are you putting it in? Yes, I've heard you're Universally Preferred Behavior formulation, though maybe not everything you've said about it. It seems to leave open the question of where the preferences come from. Please correct me if I missed something.
kylben 4 years ago
Sorry to send you to this, but you might like my "intro to philosophy" series for more on that, I don't think I can cover it in 250 words! :)
stefbot 4 years ago
Well, that was quick.
kylben 4 years ago