Is Objectivism inherently 'other-regarding'?

While reading a bunch of scientific abstracts (that's what I often do with free time), I found researchers choosing to speak of altruism as "other-regarding" whereas they would speak of selfishness as of having a self-regard. I spoke with a friend and he told me he looked into Objectivism. He said (sneeringly) that Objectivism was selfish. He had unwittingly adopted thinking which descended from wrong philosophers.

Okay, fine, Objectivism is selfish -- but is Objectivism also inherently other-regarding?

Second Question: Is any other philosophy besides Objectivism inherently self-regarding?

Ed

Post 1

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 6:23am

Must note that this altruistic view of morality [or 'otherism' as I prefer] stems from the Taking Syndrome worldview [just as 'selfism' and individualism stem from the Trading Syndrome worldview] and that it goes hand-in-hand with the syndrome as an inevitable part that provides the cohesion to the 'virtues' of that syndrome - that is, as long as that Taking Syndrome is considered as of real value, whether given its euphemism of the Guardian syndrome or some other more pleasing and obfuscating tag, the so-called moral approbation of 'otherism' will remain, however it may eventually be discredited [and indeed, for that reason, will not be fully discredited]... [from post 6 of The New Individualist thread]

In light of this, doubt there are any others, as even Aristotle would quibble on the issue, given the paternalistic nature of the world civilizations then...

Besides - 'other-regarding' ? is a loaded line, as if opposing forces, one or the other, with one losing out [the 'win/loss zero-sum view of the Taking Syndrome]...
(Edited by robert malcom on 2/18, 6:26am)

Post 2

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 6:57am

I assume the researchers meant that altruism was "other-regarding" in a benevolent (or at least not harmful) way.

Reply to your first question: Yes, but I think it gets insufficient attention. Self-regarding and other-regarding are not incompatible. (A big problem with traditional moral codes is that the two are fundamentally incompatible. One's gain is another's loss.) Their being compatible is readily apparent in personal relationships -- with family and friends. They are compatible in business. One cannot succeed in business without being other-regarding of customers. Indeed, attention to their interest, or customer satisfaction, is a huge factor in the degree of success. (Howard Roark says he doesn't intend to build in order to have clients, but intends to have clients in order to build. This is non-other-regarding and fodder for Rand critics.)

It seems to me there are two ways of being self-regarding without being "other-regarding" in a bad way. One is to be a hermit. The other is to be a predator. Objectivism advocates neither and even condemns the latter.

Reply to your second question: Aristotle in a positive way. I haven't read Nietzsche in a long while, but I believe he could be taken as overly self-regarding and other-regarding in a negative way.

Post 3

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 8:13am

Rev',

I like what you said and I almost entirely agree with it.

Merlin,

I entirely agree with what you said.

Ed

Post 4

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 10:58am

This has probably been covered at length by now, but I wouldn't categorize Objectivism as either "self" or "other" regarding. I would call it "objective regarding". (not to sound like a smart ass) I can place value in myself or others, and I can justify either through Objectivism. It is possible that another could become so valuable to me that I would die for them. It is also possible (though unlikely) that I could reduce myself to such a state that I could no longer value myself. I'm certainly inclined to inherently value myself, but I think a critical look at US culture would show that that can certainly be overcome. The difference between self or other regard and what I think of as objective regarding is that I regard self or others on the basis of real traits of value that I see or think I or they have. Traits other than "me" or "being someone who isn't me".

Post 5

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 11:33am

Good perspective, Ryan.

Ed

Post 6

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:03pm

I sanctioned Ryan, because I too don't like the self-regarding or other-regarding terms - what does "regarding" even mean in this context? It is clearly one of those fuzzy terms intended to be loaded with moral meaning, while posturing as value neutral and scientific.

Robert, we still have our on-going disagreement over Jane Jacobs' moral precepts ("Trader" and "Guardian") and my conclusion that your version of them is only valid from an anarchy framework. I use Jacobs' term "Guardian" because it relates to a guardian doing a proper job of policing, guarding, legislating, etc. Or, it could refer to a guardian that is violating rights instead of protecting them. Under Jacobs and Objectivism both kinds of guardians are possible, and her precepts work in both, and we can see that both have evolved from a common root. Your version does not allow for that distinction. So, our disagreement is that your use of "Taking syndrome" is the one that is obfuscating... by hiding the anarchy it requires.

Merlin, I had a different take on this statement of yours, "Howard Roark says he doesn't intend to build in order to have clients, but intends to have clients in order to build. This is non-other-regarding and fodder for Rand critics." Roark is putting his purpose of doing architecture his way above his financial bottom-line. He still cared a great deal about what would be the best building for his customers, but he wasn't interested in those customers that wanted him to violate his sense of how buildings should be built. That is integrity and commitment and selfishness as Rand defined it. Someone in business has to pay attention to what the customer wants and they have to decide who to cater to and what 'compromises' to make in winning customers. Rand painted a picture of man who put his principles and his passions first.

Post 7

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:23pm

Ed,

Objectivists are obligated always to consider whether their actions violate others' rights. In this way, Objectivism is inherently "other-regarding." Nietzsche is the only guy I can think of who is really not, but he isn't "selfish" in the Objectivist sense either.

Jordan

Post 8

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:26pm

Steve, I wasn't expressing my take, but that of a critic, and even ignoring what Roark says immediately before. Here is a bigger quote:

"The Client," said the Dean. "The Client. Think of that above all. He's the one to live in the house you build. Your only purpose is to serve him. You must aspire to give the proper artistic expression to his wishes. Isn't that all one can say on the subject?"
"Well, I could say that I must aspire to build for my client the most comfortable, the most logical, the most beautiful house that can be built. I could say that I must try to sell him the best I have and also teach him to know the best. I could say it, but I won't. Because I don't intend to build in order to serve or help anyone. I don't intend to build in order to have clients. I intend to have clients in order to build." (The Fountainhead, p. 26)

Post 9

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:33pm

Merlin, I knew that my grasp of what you wrote didn't represent the Merlin I've been reading here at RoR (I just didn't see another way to interpret it. Today is one of those days where I feel like I need another cup of coffee)

Post 10

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 12:44pm