The limits of rational self interest?

Ted,

In post 78 you said, "Again, I'll refer everybody back to the opening post of this thread that asked if objectivism advocates men living in accordance with their natures, then what do we say to those whose natures are supposedly that of a serial killer or child molester."

I might not have been clear in discussing the ambiguity I saw. I'll take another shot at it.

Your argument depends upon the word 'nature' having but one meaning within the context of that sentence, yet you are giving it two different meanings - that is the fallacy I was talking about.

First use: "...men living in accordance with their natures..." uses the meaning; "human nature - that which is common to all men",

Second use: In the same sentence you say "...whose natures are supposedly that of a serial killer or child molester" which is not a trait common to all men - it is something that may or may not be in the 'nature' of a particular individual (I say 'may or may not be' because we would still need to say what we are meaning by 'nature' in this manner of speaking).

So, if we were to say that rationality and choice and seeking to maximize ones long-term happiness are the items chosen as "man's nature qua man" - to be common to all men - then it applies to the child molester as well as the non-molester. I see no great burden on him, or any of the other examples you mentioned that would arise from being condemned to "use reason," "exercise choice," and "seek long term happiness" to have a life within the realm of the good.

It is always going to be true that some people will feel an urge to pursue their 'happiness' in ways that might seem rational within their personal context but would violate the rights of another. (e.g., Child molester) I don't think it would just be taking the easy way out to say that living in society is what prohibits them from attempting a double standard (society is made possible by rights - they can't have that cake and molest it as well. And being rational precludes living in denial about the lack of happiness that would come to pass once caught or the high probability of getting caught).

Am I missing something. Because I see no reason at all to delve into physiology, or biology, or the theory of evolution to apply that standard. (Like I said, I still have a lot of questions about the standard, but they are a separate issue from this).

Post 81

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 5:59pm

Ted,

Just a few quick observations on memes. They wouldn't have to cross from a bird to a cat. A birds genes will also not make another bird (or anything else) by way of a cat. What ever vehicle it uses, it only need to show some degree of fidelity in replication, enough variation for change over generations, for the that variation to relate to 'attractiveness' and that the 'attractiveness' be represented in the next generation's phenotype.

I agree that as an idea or theory it still needs work. It is still new and it is floundering about. And it lives in an area (philosophy of the mind) that is a mess out there in the real world. I believe in the 'primacy of the mind' as you put it. The mind picks up and to carries and to passes on those ideas. As far as that goes, 'meme' is unnecessary - 'idea' does just fine.

But if we want to see the difference between minds that at a given moment actively examine an idea, choosing an appropriate focus, and those that passively accept it, the concept of memes becomes much more important.

They are, in effect, the active agent when a person does not exercise their critical factor. Think of an Ad agency carefully crafting attractive memes they hope will slip past your critical factor and, on the other hand, you who prefer not to just buy whatever product is stuck on a billboard.

But without that alleged battle between memes and will (which some might not agree exists) they are still important if we can show that the principles of evolution can work on something other than genes.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/15, 6:04pm)

Post 82

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 6:23pm

Steve,

Okay, I do indeed believe that when speaking of "man's nature qua man" one is treating Man as a concept, rather than as a biological entity, and that this is a potential flaw, because it makes the standard "Life" an abstraction too. Each man's own life is a concrete.

I don't at all disagree with you that a child molester can't "expect to get away with it." I just don't accept that therefore this means his personal nature is somehow less real or valid than is the nature of a typically eusocial person. It's just likely to get him in trouble with us.

Again, the matter is one that must be addressed empirically and individually insofar as ethics is a tool for the individual to guide his own life. But ethics and politics are two different (if indeed related and overlapping) things. Politically, since one is indeed dealing with all men, I have no problem speaking in broad generalities. A polity is indeed on;ly possible amongst the "polite." Politics does still require induction, but I think that as Rand said, once Capitalism had indeed been discovered, there was no excuse to pretend that the humanitarian needed to go looking for some other social system to benefit eusocial Man. But Ethics, which is prior, and which is supposedly a guide for men even in their private lives, requires a look at the nature of each individual (by that individual) to determine what his proper values are or should be based upon, yes, his own individual nature.

I can't help but wonder why the fact that each man might have his own idea as to what his own happiness entails bothers some objectivists so much. Yes, many people will make big or small mistakes. But in so far as their actions are private, they matter only to that individual. In so far as they are public and affect others through FORCE then they are political and can be dealt with politically. The problem with worrying about whether some "whim-worshipper" might be making the wrong personal decisions is that it reduces us to second-hand-nannies looking out for vegetarians and heavy-metal fans and would-be woman presidents to belittle, to berate, and to bebloomberg. Surely an egoist only cares about another's actions enough to "judge" them when those actions actually impinge on the egoist through force or personal contact in the case of private relationships.

The dictum "judge and be judged" is toxic unless it is qualified with "as necessary."

Again, in so far as the child-molester and the sociopath, I would argue that only the second is known to exist as a congenital or organic condition (see the case of Phineas Gage.) The sociopath "nature" does exist. We can either cull them or redirect their urges. I fear that a policy of culling requires us to wait until they have already acted (killed, what have you) while offering some other sublimating outlet might (and I emphasize might) actually benefit us. In any case, I see this as a matter for discussion. Regarding child (pre-pubescent) molesters, I see no mechanism to explain how this is an organic condition, but I don't pretend to know one way or the other.

My bottom line is, "Man's Nature Qua Man" usually amounts to "what I think is good for you" when it means anything more than being a conceptual ape. What is necessary to guide the individual is that he also know his own nature as himself. This is not whim. (Whim is acting without being willing to consider the reasons for and effects of one's actions.) My sexuality, my preference of vanilla icecream over chocolate, my having blue-green as my favorite color, the need of the Deaf to be allowed to learn true Sign languages, the special athletic and motor skills and inclinations of Touretters, the need for intersexuals to find their own path, these are all unchosen and apparently constitutional, and none follows merely from rationality as the essential characteristic of man as a concept or from life as man's proper standard.

Floresceamus!

Ted

Post 83

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 6:31pm

"Think of an Ad agency carefully crafting attractive memes they hope will slip past your critical factor"

Unfortunately, I spend about 15% of my waking hours (whenever not otherwise verbally or musically engaged, whether aloud or internally) repeating lines of songs and advertising jingles in my head. I used to smoke marijuana just to stop this sort of mental overdrive. So I get the concept. But I like to think I do not let it affect my purchases. My brand loyalty is mostly to fresh food or those brands I was exposed to by my mother, such as Crest, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, and Wendi's. Mc Donalds? I ain't lovin it!

I should not let my disdain for Dawkin's detract from the discussion.

Ted

Post 84

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:19pm

Steve - ye seem to be referring to the 'stickiness' factor as mentioned in "The Tipping Point"......

As for the evolutionary issue and importance of art, in effect ye be asking to read my manuscript, ETHICS AND AESTHETICS - Origins, Consequences, and Resolutions...... still in finalizing the work with another draft... part of it is seen in the short essays seen in the forum, but the specific aesthetic part is only hinted at as haven't specifically written an excerpt to stand alone as an essay...

I've also thought that artists have been so consistently marginalized through out cultures and time that there is something there to be examined.

Part of the answer to this is that artist are individualists, by their 'nature' - whereas the culture, throughout history, despite times of claiming otherwise, has been collectivist, tribalist, patriarchal.. so there has been this conflict between two fundamental worldviews - as much within the artists as without...

(Edited by robert malcom on 1/15, 8:25pm)

Post 85

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 9:26pm

Robert,

I'll look forward to reading your articles and the book when it comes out.

Your answer to why artists have so often been marginalized in collectivist cultures seems so obvious, once stated - it had never occurred to me.

Here in our semi-free, fairly individualistic culture I see a difference in the mentality/psychology that our culture pushes - artists are encouraged to be 'above' business concerns and not trained to be as adept at business practices as they need to be. Because of that they get eaten alive by business men that only see the money they can make from the marketing of art. An issue of needing to see art and artists a little differently.

There is also the business of our culture being so starved for heros and having an overly large child or peasant-like attitude towards authority that we are set up to 'worship' stars - be they in sports, entertainment, or politics. Then business just feeds that need and the result is that one super-star has a better return on investment than a large number of highly talented artists. And that makes it hard to 'break in' to the business.

My brother is a musician and he gives me a lot of the inside horror stories from the music world.

Post 86

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:16pm

Ted,

You said, "Each man's own life is a concrete." No, actually it is a long, connected set of experiences. Each tiny instance or experience is a concrete. He has to assess his experiences and project what experiences he wants in the future and how to get them. They will eventually add up to a over-all total that represents our success (or failure) at achieving long-term happiness.

But there is no way for an individual to work on achieving long term happiness without measuring using a some kind of standard. All attempts to do so will fall to the fallacy of using emotions or sensations as tools of cognition. Hedonism sucks after the first few moments/days. Things have to be prioritized. "Do I get a new car or make do with the old one and save more money for retirement?"

On the child molester: Without a moral code external to a single human - without a universal moral code - how could we judge that person as doing something wrong? Their argument that the child is enjoying their attention and that they are teaching the child about intimacy would be valid arguments, unless we can use a universal standard to point out what harm the child will suffer later.

I don't think you want to eliminate the concepts of good and bad all together or to take them to the point where they have absolutely no common meaning. But without a standard based upon man's life, or the good of society, of the dictates of the current wizard, or something... you have no theory of value that lets you say this is good (excluding, "this make me feel good right now.")

As to the statement that ethics and politics are separate - yes, but without a foundation of ethics you have no rational base for politics unless you going with the good of society and we both know how evil that becomes (but without a universal code of values, we couldn't call it evil).

This is what I conclude. The heart of the issue as you have presented it is more in the area of psychology and style more than ethics. You really don't like unnecessary moral judgments (those judging an action that violates no ones rights) and especially where they are harsh and/or unwarranted.

We both are repelled by these. But I say that it is throwing the baby out with the bath water - to discard the standard of "mans life qua man" - I believe that is an error. An objective universal standard that doesn't make man a possession of others - that is what we need. If there are details that are wrong in "man's life qua man" we need to fix them - or change it's application - or find its limitations - not throw it out.

I think most of what you've brought up is an issue of psychology (some people like to attack others) and of style (some people think harsh judgments are the only or the best kind of judgments) or of ethics (some people don't grasp that there is a minor virtue called kindness that asks we be no more harsh than need be)

I'd say "judge and be judged" is excellent. I like it. What is missing is in the execution. Have you see two children and how they handle a 'blame' issue. "Tommy did it! He was bad!" There is this intense drive to distance from the bad and a sudden dropping of context - everything is bad in the 'other'. I'm not arguing for shades of gray. But I'm also not buying the idea that one black pixel makes the entire screen dark. And we have a social context we live in. It is of rational value to us all. We damage it by not learning how to wield judgments intelligently and kindly (where it isn't a rights violater we are talking about).

My suggestion is that you see if anything I've said interests you, and then, whether it does or not, we move on to another topic. I've kind of exhausted myself on this one.

Post 87

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:39pm

You said, "Each man's own life is a concrete." No, actually it is a long, connected set of experiences. Each tiny instance or experience is a concrete. He has to assess his experiences and project what experiences he wants in the future and how to get them. They will eventually add up to a over-all total that represents our success (or failure) at achieving long-term happiness.

Yes - it is a continuum, an individualist evolving of the person thru its experiences and the memes it comes in contact with, and how it goes about utilizing those memes.....

Post 88

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 10:37am

Well put Robert.

We are each like Heraclitus' stream. Each moment of our life we are in a different context, different thoughts, different locations, different feelings, different experiences - everything is always changing, our cells die and are replaced with cells that never existed before, our thoughts change, we disconnect from awareness and then wake up again in the morning.

But there IS a constant. We still have our identity. There is an 'I' - a unique person (connected via that unique river of experience back to the head waters of our earliest days).

Post 89

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:22pm

I find your congratulating each other over your failure to understand what a concrete is quite strange. A concrete is what one differentiates from an abstraction.

Since there is no physical existent which does not persist through time, by your formulation, their are no concretes.

Each individual life IS a concrete, "life" as a concept is an abstraction.

Given that Bill Dwyer disagrees with me on the underlying issue of the thread, I call on him as an independent adjudicator on this specific question. Is a single person's life a concrete (as opposed to an abstraction) or not?

Ted

Post 90

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:40am

Ted,

You said, "I find your congratulating each other over your failure to understand what a concrete is quite strange." Is that you being snippy?

You are probably right that an individual's life is a concrete - in the context you specified. Usually a concrete is expected to occupy space and time and be of material in addition to being particular. But lets say you are right that we can refer to a unique phenomena that has no matter of its own as a concrete.

So what.

That is where Robert and entered the picture with our congratulatory remarks. We grasped that you can't make a standard out of your concrete. Tell me how I'm wrong. Tell me how he can reason from his unique nature what is a value.

What I was pointing out, and I suspect it was what Robert was also alluding to, was that no one can grasp their life as whole without an outside standard of some sort. Living is that flow of experiences or, if we mentally freeze frame, it is the immediate set of perceptions.

In the area of morality, what would we relate these experiences or the thoughts we have of them to?

You seem to be intent on shooting down "man's life qua man." And you seem to be doing that based upon some misunderstanding of the concept of man's nature as used for creating the moral standard.

And I don't see anything workable you've put in its place other than pure subjectivity. When you do that, you have no referent by which to judge alternatives, options, etc. You have no morality, no right, no wrong, no good, no bad, no for me, or against me. We need a conceptual frame of reference and you're not telling what that is.

I really don't have any more to say in this area.

Post 91

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 2:09am

Well, I've got something to say ...

If someone rejects the language of natural law, refuses to use such words, pretends not to comprehend them, and rejects them as meaningless, then he is not interested in using words as a medium of communication. He is merely using them as a method of control. It is pointless to attempt to communicate with such a person.

http://jim.com/rights.html

Ted, do you agree with the following follow-up quote, or not?

Aristotle and others argued that each kind of animal has a mental nature that is appropriate to its physical nature. All animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically fitted to live. Thus humans are naturally capable of knowing how to live together and do business with each other without killing each other. Humans are capable of knowing natural law because, in a state of nature, they need to be capable of knowing it.

This theory was demonstrated rather successfully in the �Wild West�, which history shows was not nearly as wild as many modern cities with strict gun control. Beyond the reach of state power, property rights existed, businesses functioned. (Kopel, 323 -373)

Modern sociobiology uses the phrase �social animal� to mean what Aristotle meant by �political animal� and what Aquinas meant by �political and social animal�. In modern terminology, ants and bees are �eusocial� which means �truly social�. Humans, Apes, and wolves are �social�.

The problem of �how do we know natural law� is no different from the other problems of perception. The arguments used by those that seek to prove that we cannot know natural law, therefore natural law does not exist, are precisely the same as the arguments that we cannot know anything, therefore nothing exists, and many notable philosophers, such as Berkeley and Bertrand Russell, who started out arguing that natural law does not exist ended up concluding exactly that - that nothing exists.

Philosophers usually try to reason from reason alone, as is done in mathematics, though it was long ago proven that this cannot be done, except in mathematics, and perhaps not even there.

To draw conclusions about the world one must look both without and within. Like the chicken and the egg, observation requires theory and observation leads to theory, theory requires observation and theory leads to observation. This is the core of the scientific method, in so far as the scientific method can be expressed in words.

Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter.

As a result most people who are not philosophers or lawyers accept natural law as the ultimate basis of all law and ethics, a view expressed most forcibly in recent times at the Nuremberg trials. Philosophers, because they often refuse to look at external facts, are unable to draw any conclusions, and therefore usually come to the false conclusion that one cannot reach objectively true conclusions about matters of morality and law, mistaking self imposed ignorance for knowledge.

Post 92

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 3:36pm

Where once have I made any claim for subjective whim based ethics? My concern with the exploration of each man's individual nature is that one's values depend in part upon one's individual constitution. An individual's own preference for men over women, chocolate over vanilla, linguistics over seamanship depends upon one's unique nature. This is neither subjective nor deducible from general principles.

The dismayed and even rabid responses of others to my posts on this thread are simply incomprehensible to me. I have provided dozens of illustrations and examples of what I mean about the necessity of empirical investigation of the individual or atypical such as that of the deaf. Not one person who is openly critical of me here has addressed or even acknowledged any of my examples. Instead I continue to get accused of holding positions I have never advocated (subjectivism, e.g.) and my actual statements are addressed silentio.

I believe that given my arguments, evidence, concepts, and willingness to address what others have said, I have won this debate on rhetorical grounds. If people wish to retire form, it, no skin off my phenotype.

Just a few unaddressed issues: Who here has acknowledged or refuted my claim that individuals and biological species, but not races, genera, families...phyla are ontologically special? Who has explained how the Deaf, without a specific understanding of their unique nature available only through empirical investigation, could achieve Sign and happiness from a repeated insistence (however true) that man is a rational animal and that "life (an undefined floating abstraction without scientific investigation) is the standard."

Pheromones were discovered first in animals, and only recently identified in humans. I myself have long known that my bisexuality is in large part due to my attraction to the smell of certain men. Is this something that I chose? Do men smell good due to a false premise on my part? Yet the position of Peikoff and Diana Hsieh (so far as I understand) is that homosexuality is an early accepted premise that is somehow unnatural or suboptimal.

Do all human values follow from premises? Do babies have to concluded that milk is good after an intellectual debate before they begin to consume it?

Much of what I am saying is unfamiliar to objectivists. There were no biologists in Rand's inner circle. There is no writing of length on biology or general understanding of Darwinism from an objectivist viewpoint. This is all a matter which I myself believe must be treated in book form by someone who has some knowledge of biology

But in a post above, a certain person implies that my own Darwinism is either heretical or somehow at odds with objectivism. If objectivism is at odds with Darwinism, then objectivism is simply false. I don't hold that the two conflict. I hold that "life as the standard" requires one to know in detail what life is. Biology will tell us this but no mere definition will. If the meaning of a concept is its referents then those referents must be understood in order for the concept to be meaningful. Hence biology is indispensable to ethics.

Whoever wishes to declare defeat and withdraw, feel free. It is not I who has refused to acknowledge the actual arguments and explicit examples (what examples?) provided by others on this thread. It is not I who thinks begin the question ("So what?") answers the question in the very first post here.

I do not hold that sociopaths and child-molesters do indeed have special natures that make them have exceptional moralities appropriate to them that are not appropriate to us. I simply hold that the question, as posed in the first post, is a valid question to ask given the supposed belief of objectivists that a proper moral system is based upon an understanding of human nature. My only argument is that there is enough prima facie evidence not to dismiss the question out of hand. The deaf and the homosexual do not have victims, so their examples don't conflict with objectivist orthodoxy, even if they fall outside of objectivist examination and consideration to a large extent. The sociopath or child-molester - if such natures exist - do fall outside the bounds of the no conflict of interest teaching - if they cannot be sublimated. I don't argue that it's the duty of anyone here to provide a means by which to attempt to extend rational egoism within a free society to such types. But I don't think that scoffing or denying the issue itself makes the issue disappear.

To quote a sentiment with which I agree, "I think there are problems in the definition of the standard of values as it stands, but I do agree with the spirit, the intent and the direction Rand took. I just don't think the job is done." To paraphrase another, "Philosophers, because they often refuse to look at external facts, are unable to draw any conclusions, and therefore usually come to the false conclusion that one can reach objectively true conclusions about matters of morality and law, from deduction alone, mistaking self imposed ignorance for knowledge."

Ted

Post 93

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 3:45pm

Ed,

I do generally agree with what is said in that quote, although the issues are manifold and there is no progression to a conclusion, just some statements which seem valid as they stand.

Regarding my own use of "eusocial" I was using it to refer to the standard human type of truly-social nature as opposed to the anti-social (parasitical) nature of the sociopath or criminal. I should have defined my usage, but assumed it was obvious from the context. If you ask me, I would rather define the insects as hive organisms than as social organisms. There is no mind or society amongst them. They do not make decisions or have intentions or theories of mind, but act mechanically and locally based on rules and signals which give rise to emergent behaviors that appear social.

Ted

Be aware that my emphasis in this thread has never been political (natural law) but has always been with happiness of the individual. And I mean true, long-term happiness, based upon the integrable joys of a self-consitent self-view and practicable values coherent with that view, not just the pleasure of the moment of acting on an impulse to rape or murder or do whatever. I don't think there would be any disagreement here if I were to be discussing politics, and there might (I guess) be less disagreement if others were to understand that I never have been talking politics.
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 1/17, 3:50pm)

Post 94

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 5:32pm

Ted,

An individual's own preference for men over women, chocolate over vanilla, linguistics over seamanship depends upon one's unique nature. This is neither subjective nor deducible from general principles.

But it HAS to be (one or the other, either subjective, or based on objective principles -- the other option would be some sort of mystical intrinsicism). In your examples, the "preferences" (the 'esthetic desires') are subjective and, in a sense, amoral.

... the necessity of empirical investigation of the individual or atypical such as that of the deaf.

You forgot about folks with one leg shorter than the other, folks who are left-handed, folks who have one blue eye and one green, folks who ... [do you see where this is going, Ted?]. Where it's going is delving into non-essentials -- overshadowing that which it is that is essential (and shared) by all men; that that is what it is that allows for non-subjective morality to even get off of the ground. But I'm repeating myself now, and that gets old quick. You complain of not being listened to, I empathize with that sentiment.

I believe that given my arguments, evidence, concepts, and willingness to address what others have said, I have won this debate on rhetorical grounds.

You've been the most verbose but, like I said before, sometimes rounding-up more details is wrong/detractive (if they're not getting properly integrated).

Who here has acknowledged or refuted my claim that individuals and biological species, but not races, genera, families...phyla are ontologically special?

Each individual is special, sure, but each individual human IS the concrete instantiation of 'something' special (rather than of 'nothing' special -- or of nothing determinate or non-arbitrary).

... myself have long known that my bisexuality is in large part due to my attraction to the smell of certain men. Is this something that I chose? Do men smell good due to a false premise on my part?

That's getting back to subjective, amoral 'preferences' again (and, again, missing my point) ...

Do all human values follow from premises?

No. See Eric Mack (The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand) on rationally-promulgated values vs. rationally-validated values. And now, finally, I can see us getting somewhere on this issue.

And -- in response to your concern -- I'll stay away from politics. I'm not "in-it-to-win-it" here (where I'd seek out new and win-able battles in order to maintain an artificial rhetorical "edge"). Instead, I'm seeking truth and understanding -- and the consequent progress afforded by them.

No ill will.

Ed

Post 95

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 6:49pm

Just the first candystripe.

A homosexual's recognition that he is homosexual is not a subjective whim but an objective recognition of a biological given. He can chose to ignore it all he likes, and become a pedophile priest, or a back-alley fornicator who leaves his wife unsatisfied and then ends up getting her HIV+ due to his denial.

The value hierarchy as it is experienced is: that which brings me pleasure. A standard appropriate to infants, which brings pleasure for the moment and ends when the moment ends. The maturing child learns joy - the positive feeling brought about by recognition of the good. Joys emerge from pleasures, but come to stand on their own. I take joy in holding an after school job because I know that it will bring me the future pleasure of buying that ice-cream cone next weekend. I then learn that by being the virtuous productive holder of a job I can pursue many subsequent pleasures and joys, among which I can choose for their coherence with my individual life - my innate preferences judged as a rational being.

E.g. I like cotton candy by my innate sweet tooth. I have a paper route. There is a carnival next week. Do I spend ALL my money at the carnival on only cotton candy? No, it would get me sick, as I know from experience (and not from having read Rand.) Do I spend my entire savings at the carnival? No, I want to buy that new DVD when it comes out next month. I go home with change in my pocket. I am proud of my self control, and of the fact that I could both achieve an immediate pleasure and pursue a long term joy. I graduate, Do I stagnate as a paperboy, even if this can pay the rent? No, I get jobs in fields that I like, so that I can date whom I like, have more money than I need just to survive, and can take joy in my job itself as an activity, rather than just as a source of income. I could date that sexy girl, but she just wants my money and while sex with her is fine, I know that after a year she will be a bore. I hold off and look for a mate who pleases me physically and with whom I share long term goals and interests. But there is something wrong with girls. I find I am unsatisfied. Ah, I think I might like boys. I put a personal ad in the paper, bi-curious... Wow, does he smell good! I've never felt so happy. But he's a democrat and likes slasher flicks... I find a man who likes what I like. We can live together and pursue common goals. I am not deceiving myself or a woman. I will have to give up on fathering my own child perhaps - but I have nieces and nephews. I might like to teach. Can I have my lover and my career and my long term happiness? Do I have to lie, cheat, steal or deceive? Am I denying my own body's signals? Did I choose homosexuality, or did I choose to admit my own homosexuality?

Is any of this subjectivism? Whim worship? Nietzscheanism? Does it come through honest self-exploration, or from a formula, or from doing what society, or my parents, or only what Rand would have approved of? Does life as the standard tell me that I like cotton candy more than chocolate bars? Women more than men? Teaching more than pizza delivery, or medicine? Is homosexuality an option? Can I talk myself into liking women? Liking chocolate?

Our values and lives emerge from the bottom up. Conflicts arise. We don't necessarily know what we want until we have tried it. We make mistakes. Some things we like (sugar) have consequences we don't (diabetes). Can we talk ourselves out of liking sweet things? No, but we can discover artificial sweeteners! As we mature, we find that being a paperboy won't pay for our trips to Rome. Eating what we want, when we want, won't leave us happy three hours later as we puke our guts out in the toilet. We study philosophy. We learn that virtues bring pride which is in itself a self-sufficient joy. We see how we can modify some of our desires and satisfy others. We do indeed see how these can be integrated into our long term happiness - our "lives." My life - my lifelong happiness in accord with my nature - is my standard. But the potential sources of pleasure and joy for me are not matters of choice.

My nature proposes and I dispose. I can act on my homosexuality or not, but I can't act as if I am not a homosexual. I cannot choose my nature. I cannot act as if I am just like everyone else. I cannot act like the statistical average. I cannot act like the norm. There IS NO norm. There is only me. And I am happy.

Ted

Post 96

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 6:52pm

Winning on rhetorical grounds? Not what I want, but what I get when people don't address my specific examples and direct questions. What I get when they address straw men, and announce they are leaving the discussion, or will let others speak for them. Not what I want, and not, apparently what I will get. Thanks

Post 97

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 6:59pm

The Deaf versus the Limp?

I think my long discussion of why the deaf are special, not typical humans, and not able to be happy by living as typical humans was clear. Deafness, like intersexuality, homosexuality, and many other conditions makes a person's nature such that the values natural to him and the choices open to him are not the same as the typical person, and cannot be derived from deduction or ignored without dire consequence.

The values and choices open to the person with one leg shorter than the other or a hair color he wants to change are not significantly affected by those conditions. A shoe insert and hair dye are easy remedies. No such easy remedies are available to the hermaphrodite, the Touretter (sic) or the functioning autist.

Ted

Post 98

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 7:07pm

I'll just make a few observations rather than address your full post (#92). (that is what I wrote when I started this - now look at this book I've written!)

It isn't that I don't see value in some of what you've raised, I do. I felt sad that this discussion has started to feel contentious - because I didn't come to this site for heated debates.

I have no problem with debating � I�ve been struggling for about 8 months to get Rand properly installed in many of the different, philosophy pages on Wikipedia - and that provides as much contention as I want right now (picture herds of socialists, analytic philosophy grad students, nihilists, crusading neo-cons, evangelical advocates and quirky 13 year olds, all of whom get to anonymously delete anything you enter).

I was looking forward to friendly discussions here, where we share basic beliefs.

My point was that if you eliminate an abstract, external frame of reference as your standard of value I don't see anything left but subjective methods. I felt reinforced in that view by the image of each unique individual you gave as an example (deaf, blind, etc.) having unique natures and that seemed to be where you wanted to locate a standard. If a standard would be unique to one type of person it wouldn't work for the other types and that would be subjective (subject to the individual or type). I don't think I called you a 'whim worshipper' - I said that if we don't have an objective way to measure value we will be left with emotions. (Based upon that, do you still feel like I was being 'rabid' and calling you a 'whim worshiper'?)

I still believe, as I've said before, that you are abandoning the "man qua man" standard prematurely. You are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that because the properties of a "typical" man will are significantly different than properties of certain individuals (examples given being child molesters, blind, deaf, etc.) that a standard based upon a 'typical' man would be inappropriate for those others. Did I get that right?

If I got that right, then I can continue like this:
- Human nature is a concept where the individual measurements of the subsumed units are omitted.
- This would include the degree of sightedness, the measure of hearing ability, the direction of sexual attraction, etc.
(It would NOT omit or include child molestation since that is an action � we both agree on that).
- It is this process that takes the important aspect of humanness from of all units (concretes if you wish) - retaining the essentials for the purpose of further elaboration into a standard.

Thus, I saw your abandoning of "man qua man" as unnecessary. Because, properly formulated, there is no aspect of human nature that treats one individual differently than another (if they are human - that is all it asks). If there is separating out of an individual type, it is due to an error in formulation or due to an error in application.
There have been errors made where people thought they had reasoned that X or Y could be derived from the concept of human nature 'as man ought to be' - Hey, we all ought to be rich and handsome and healthy and.... The people were dropping a context that took them away from a proper formulation of human nature. They, in effect, added something, implicitly, and therein lay the error.

Anyone that takes the position that homosexuality is exclusively the product of early, accepted premises may be right about some aspects of a small number of homosexuals, and there is the case of 'situational homosexuality' - like prison populations. But my understanding is that genetics is the primary or sole determinant in most cases. However, I don't think that any of that matters to the arguments here because I see 'direction of sexual attraction' being omitted during the formation of the concept of human nature. What are left are homosexual actions (whether they are in response to desires born of genetic predisposition, enforced situations, or early premises (psychological). Actions have to be shown to be harmful or beneficial to the person or that they harm another to get any moral/ethical consideration. To say 'unnatural' or to say 'suboptimal' are to sneak out to some other standard - abandoning a rational application of 'man qua man'

----- Now, some smaller points -----------

You ask "Do babies have to concluded that milk is good after an intellectual debate before they begin to consume it?" Well, their mothers need to - she is the one required to use her reason to care for her child until it can reason on its own. So, in this case, yes, 'human values follow from premises' - I assure you, most new mothers are quite assiduous in studying things like breast vs bottle. What ever milk they use will be the product of premises.

You said, "There were no biologists in Rand's inner circle." Well, I don't know about the definition of 'inner circle' but one of the people writing for The Objectivist had a Ph.D. in Biology. And Nathaniel studied a fair about of science as he took philosophy courses. I don't think any of these people were unfamiliar with Darwin or the basic principles of Evolution.

You said, "I hold that 'life as the standard' requires one to know in detail what life is." Man's life qua man is that reference to human nature which, as I've said, subsumes the constituent units with unique measurements omitted. So it isn't "Life" as a study proper to biology or any of its constituent disciplines, like physiology, that is being referred to. What I'm saying is that you are using the word 'life' in the beginning of the sentence differently than the word 'life' at the end of the sentence. There are lots of flavors of meaning for life (this is the good life, medically speaking life would be possible if..., Life is defined as, a typical day in the life of..., the biological definition of life is..., Man's life requires..., etc.)

You said, "Whoever wishes to declare defeat and withdraw..." I would see defeat as either leaving people unhappy to see me here or finding I no longer enjoyed it here - because I'm here not to fight or conquer or contest - but for fun (and to challenge my mind a little now and then and to learn).

You said, "But I don't think that scoffing or denying the issue itself makes the issue disappear." It wasn't my intention to scoff or deny.

I still stand by what I said earlier, "I think there are problems in the definition of the standard of values as it stands, but I do agree with the spirit, the intent and the direction Rand took. I just don't think the job is done." We haven't gotten to the things I'm uncomfortable with - but without more resolution on the human nature issue my concerns can't even get on the table.

Post 99

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 9:20pm