Ayn Rand

“Arclite: you did put words in Violin's mouth. It is a very big leap from saying that "I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause" to saying that people should live only for others.

For me, a truly moral person is someone who embraces "self interest" and is aware of the interests of others and finds an ethical way of integrating the two. Like the Hillel (as quoted by Ronald Reagan said):
"If I am not for myself,
Who will be for me?

If I am only for myself,
What am I?"”

“I am definitely not an athiest, but thoroughly enjoyed the stimulation of Ayn Rand's books. She gives pause to reflect on what the world would be like if there was a lot more individual responsibility at the center of our value system.”

“I am with you, Phil...believe in God, love, serving others, putting others "first," but also in taking responsibility for oneself. And I found her books (one and a half of them so far) to be quite interesting, although some of the characters are really bizarre...which i think flows from the fact that I think any person who would try to live 100% by her "objectivist" doctrine would be a bizarre person, to me at least.”

“Ped, if my comment that people who only live for others don't have much of a life was the part of my post that I was responding to violin with, I would agree with you. But it was merely a statement of fact. The part of my post that pertained to violin's post was, "By thinking little of the "pursuit of one’s own self-interest" you are saying that your self-interest is of little value." I did not assume that violin lives only for others. While in YOUR post, you seem to assume that Rand's philosophy means to only live for yourself. That is not what Rand, nor I, is saying. I would have to agree with your idea of someone who embraces "self interest" and is aware of the interests of others and finds an ethical way of integrating the two. But I would also say that there are people who's interests are of absolutely no moral concern to me and so I avoid them. As I've said before, ped, many people confuse wants with needs. People's needs always concern me. People's wants sometimes concern me.”

“Sorry, violin, I didn't mean to let that one get past. I'm not quite awake yet.

RIGHT HERE PAL! (with finger pointing emphasis) RIGHT HERE!”

“Why are you weenies arguing about Ayn Rand? Let's get back to more important issues like NASCAR and boobs.”

“Howard Roark said that he would build a housing project not for the money (although he liked to be paid,) not for the recognition (although he liked to be recognized for his work,) not for the benefit of those who would inhabit it (although if it was good for them, he would be glad,) but to the exclusion of all of those things he would build it for the joy of building it.”

“As for living a life for others not being much of a life, I suppose that depends on how you measure it, doesn't it?

It's pretty tough to find an example these days, but here's one.

(and anyone who's ever dated a student nurse knows about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs)”

“Tilt, I find this arguement interesting: Who did the most good for the most people, Bill Gates or Mother Theresa?

That was Howard Roark's philosophy for every building he did, Fritz. I understand totally. Creating buildings is an incredible joy to me. Because of the many different users, and their often conflicting needs (especially in hospital design), it would be foolish of me to worry about pleasing every single user. Ayn Rand carries that thought to the extreme to make a point.”

“I'll admit that I haven't read this thread very carefully, and probably have not understood all of what I read, but...just to clarify...has anyone claimed to be a legitimate follower of, or believer in, Rand's objectivism?

I haven't read a statement by anyone here suggesting that service of others is not a good thing.”

“Arc, do you also understand Dominique?

Mondo bizzarro to me!

(Of course, I readily acknowledge that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer...)”

“Arc -
I think Bill Gates did more good for Bill Gates, LOL. In fact, there were other operating systems (better operating systems) that IBM could have chosen and we'd ALL be better off today, *GRIN*.

But like I said, it depends on how you 'measure' a life.

I think Objectivism is like most all philosophies -- It's best not swallowed whole. I'll be tuning in to C-SPAN for the American Writers episode on Ayn Rand. If this thread is any indication, it ought to be quite lively.”

“Absolutely not, Fritz. She acts in some pretty bizzare ways, I totally agree. That rape scene is just totally beyond my comprehension. I do; however, love her conversations with Peter Keating.

I understand Dagny, in Atlas Shrugged, just a bit better, but only because there is a forward to my book. The forward gives some explanation for her behavior. I think without that, I may have been clueless about her too.

Then again, I'm also clueless as to Biz's motivations. Go figure.


Yeah, the Bill Gates story is pretty interesting. But I was taking about the number of people who were able to get jobs and feed their families because of him. How many people were helped to lead productive lives because of his success? His donations to charity are huge. Tilt, thanks for the info. When is the broadcast?”

“I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged years ago, and I found her overall outlook too extreme, but her work really showed how bankrupt the idea of socialism is along with its twin sister - overpowerful employee unions. Together they take rewards away from productive people and hamstring incentives toward greater productivity. It was written at a time when a lot of people believed that technology and mechanisation would put everybody out of work. Everyone should know now how stupid that idea is. If you want to create 80 million (farming) jobs in this country, just outlaw tractors.”

“It runs May 12th. There's a post mid-way down the previous page with links.

Uh... those children had full stomachs at night not because of Bill Gates per se, he just lucked into it. The software industry owes much more to the developers of the multipurpose digital computer.

Cornering the PC OS market isn't quite the same as easing the suffering of the dying. You don't mean to simply compare numbers of people and Return On Investment, do you?

Besides, Ol' Bill simply isn't the best example because of MicroSoft's predatory business practices (there's a new one in the news today, but I didn't quite catch it). What does Rand have to say about anti-trust? (I can guess, LOL)

What about the people he ran out of business? Their kids wound up in community colleges instead of Stanford... *GRIN*”

“Thanks, Tilt.

I think there was just a bit more than luck involved there, Tilt. Why isn't cornering the PC OS market better than easing the suffering of the dying? Giving people the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families is extremely noble in my book. Giving people an opportunity to feel dignity through being able to support themselves is noble in my book. Providing capital for other businesses to grow while having enough left over to give to charities that you think will improve people's quality of life is noble in my book. I believe that feeding people who overpopulate areas that have poor carrying capacity is a dubious accomplishment.

Do you believe that human beings are above all other forms of life. That humans are worth detrimentally altering the ecosystems of the planet to save, Tilt? Are you saying that because Gates made a profit along the way, it takes away from the good accomplished?

Don't know what she'd think of anti-trust and I darn sure can't ask her. I believe that anti-trust can be both good and bad.

That's pretty funny, Tilt. My God, little Muffy can't attend Hahvard, we're ruined! What will the neighbors think?”

“I believe that feeding people who overpopulate areas that have poor carrying capacity is a dubious accomplishment.
- arclite
01:53:59 PM
02/20/02

This from a man who thinks Swift's "A Modest Proposal" makes sense.”

“Arc:

#1) But Violin didn't say that self interest was of little value... he simply didn't see it as a guide to what is moral. There is a very big difference. I was agreeing with what he said, not trying to attack or characterize AR.

#2) The interesting thing about Bill Gates's huge charitable contribution is that they seemed to come as a response to the kind of popular attacks and governmental attacks on him that Ayn Rand despises. His donations started after massive and populist anti-trust rumbling began and he felt a need to pump up his PR.

I think Rand might say that his donations are the result of parasitic extortion by the unproductive seekers of handouts.”

“Like I said, rationalize all you want, it boils down to being selfish.”

“Ped, what violin said was, "...I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause."

And you don't think that statement says that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is of little value? Then you must believe that morals are of little value.

Let's run a logic syllogism on that:

Morals are of value.
Pursuit of one’s own self-interest is not highly moral.
Pursuit of one’s own self-interest is not of high value.

Yeah, that works. You were saying?


You may be right about point two, Ped, although I'll never know the machinations of Gate's mind. Then again, it may have given him pleasure to donate to causes he finds worthy.

And selfish is a bad thing to you, right Gear Slut?”

“"Why isn't cornering the PC OS market better than easing the suffering of the dying?"

This was said tongue-in-cheek, right?

Right?”

“The way I remember it was several years ago Ted Turner announced plans to give $1 billion to charity over the next decade and challenged Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and others to give more. He said that people were born selfish, and that you had to learn to give. Gates responded at the time that he was not done accumulating wealth but has since become very generous and has stated his aim to give away his entire fortune before his death. I admire that more than any business accomplishment.”

“Why does it always have to be one or the other? Look at Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity. After graduating law school at Bama he set off to make it big, did so, quit working for $, and founded HFH. By the way his college roomate did the same thing. After making it big, I think they were business partners, he founded the Southern Law Poverty Center that deals, partly with civil rights issues and is a national leader in the tracking of hate crimes around the country.”

“I was absolutely serious, mapper. How important do you feel? Maybe you think humans are the epitome of creation and are God's special creation. I have a somewhat modified belief that all life is precious and interdependant, but that the rules of nature apply to every living creature. In the big scheme of things, I'm just not that important. The world will not stop and life will go on when I die. I believe that it is the height of arrogance to assume that every human being should be saved at whatever the cost. Do you feel that same way about cows, or fish, or plants?

Your beliefs, violin, are discussed in Ayn Rand's books.”

“How Kewl!! Arclite: you just condensed your logical leap beautifully. The illogic is absolutely plain to see.

Your "syllogism" is of the form:
1)all A is B,
2)C is not A,
3)therefore C cannot be B

This is wrong. Basic logic (or set theory) makes this clear. How? Just because all A is B, it does not necessarily mean that all B is A. Your syllogism only works if you add a fourth element: only A is B.

The idea you put in Violin's mouth was that only what is highly moral is of value (only A is B).

Look at it this way. At a video rental it might be true that all the comedies are movies worth watching(all A is B), I might say that I don't think Hitchcock films are highly comical (C is not A), this does not mean I believe that Hitchcock films are not worthwhile. They are worthwhile, in fact I think he made some masterpieces. I don't believe that only comedies are worthwhile movies.
Similarly, not everything of I value is highly moral. Water, food, bicycles, lightweight gear are all worthwhile to me. This doesn't mean they are "highly moral." I place a lot of value on humor, this doesn't meant that all jokes (even ones I value are highly moral).

Having said all this, I suppose I can't persuade you that:

Arclite's syllogism was an argument against something I believed.
Arclite's syllogism was not logical.
Therefore none of Arclite's arguments against things I believe are logical.”

“I think swinger accomplished his goal by starting this thread.”

“Math 303 all over again!

The HORROR.”

“I assumed arclite was only trying to get me riled up by taking my statement to the extreme but I'm enjoying this. It's kind of like when I made a sculpture in high school and listened as people argued about what it meant.”

“Actually, Ped I assumed that "highly moral" equaled value.

A=B
C does not = A
Therefore C does not = B.

It is a given that all values are not moral. You splitting hairs here?”

“Heck, I thought couper les cheveux en quatre was the order of the day, *G*”

“she was a hypocritical moocher.”

“Arclite... there are no hairs being split here. If it is a given that all values are not moral, then "highly moral" is only one way something can be of worth. To say something is not highly moral is not to say that it is of no value.

To say that all A are B, is very different than to say A is idental to B ("A = B"). You've fudged a huge distinction. The difference ain't hair splitting. If your reason and logic are that imprecise, then you are arguing by intuition or by prejudice under the guise of reason and logic.

These are the kinds of distinctions that separate "reasons" from "rationalizations."

BTW Violin: I ain't arguing about what you meant to say. I am arguing about what you said.”

“Dagny Taggart (the heroine in Atlas Shrugged) summed up Rand's philosophy well: "I'm not interested in helping anybody. I want to make money."

The world has far too many Gordon Geckos and too few Mother Theresas.

Remember a man who renounced material goods and chose to live in poverty? Dedicated himself not to his own selfish goals and interests, but to the mission set for him, even if that meant to suffer and die.

I think his name was Jesus?”

“Oh, I know what I said, and I know what I meant and I know that arc erred in assuming that I meant that self interest is of little value and that I don’t respect what I do or feel that I have anything to offer.

Quite the contrary. Based upon my own personal experience, I know that single-minded pursuit of pure self-interest is a hollow and unfulfilling goal. Leading a life focused on others has brought me great joy and satisfaction. I know my service to others is valuable.”

“... and moral as well.”

“I'm sure that there is a happy medium out there.”

“Pedxing, once again you got me to think. I couldn’t go to sleep until I shared this with you. Your refutation of my syllogism was incorrect and my explanation of the logic used in creating it was wrong. I got out my old logic book (Creative and Critical Thinking by Moore) and did some research. Check it out, man…


My syllogism was as follows:

Highly moral behavior has value (my assumption)
Pursuit of self-interest is not highly moral behavior (according to violin)
To violin, the pursuit of self-interest is of little value (my conclusion)

This is a valid categorical syllogism. To be valid, a categorical syllogism must satisfy five factors: 1. It must have Structure. 2. It must not succumb to The Four-Term Fallacy. 3. It must not succumb to The Fallacy of Faulty Exclusion. 4. It must not succumb to The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. 5. It must not succumb to The Fallacy of Illicit Distribution.


1. Structure- A categorical syllogism consists of two categorical propositions used as premises and a conclusion in categorical form drawn from the premises by inference.

Proposition #1 (minor premise)- Highly moral behavior has value
This is an A-Form proposition where all of one class is within the other. Highly moral behavior always has value. Value does not always include high moral behavior because many things other than high moral behavior have value.

This is logic diagramed: value (d) < highly moral behavior (u)

(Where (d) is the symbol for distributed- A term is distributed when it accounts for all members of the class in so far as its relationship to the other class is concerned. This pertains to both inclusionary and exclusionary relationships. And (u) is the symbol for undistributed- A term is undistributed when it accounts for less than all of a class in so far as its relationship to the other class is concerned.)

Proposition #2 (minor premise)- Pursuit of self-interest is not highly moral behavior. This is an E-Form proposition which names two classes and declares that the relationship between them is total exclusion i.e. that the two classes are entirely separate.

This is logic diagramed: Pursuit of self-interest (d) <| highly moral behavior (d)

Conclusion- To violin, the pursuit of self-interest is of little value

This is logic diagramed: Pursuit of self-interest (d) <| value (d)

As you can see, the syllogism satisfies the structure requirement.


2. The Four-Terms Fallacy
A valid syllogism must have exactly three terms; each used exactly twice to refer to the same class.

Highly moral behavior, self-interest, and value are those three terms. Each is used exactly twice.

The syllogism satisfies the Four-Terms Fallacy requirement.


3. The Fallacy of Faulty Exclusion
A valid syllogism must have no exclusions, or exactly two, one of which is in the conclusion.

Proposition #2 and the conclusion are exclusionary, proposition #1 is not.

The syllogism satisfies the Fallacy of Faulty Exclusion requirement.


4. The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
In a valid syllogism, the middle term must be distributed at least once. The middle term is easily identified. It never appears in the conclusion; it must appear in both premises.

That would be highly moral behavior. It is distributed in proposition #2.

The syllogism satisfies the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle requirement.


5. The Fallacy of Illicit Distribution
In a valid syllogism, every term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premise in which it appears.

Self-interest and value are both distributed in the conclusion. Self-interest is distributed in proposition #2; value is distributed in proposition #1.

The syllogism satisfies the Fallacy of Illicit Distribution requirement.


Therefore it is a valid logic syllogism, Pedxing.

Violin’s original post was, “…I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause”. From this statement, I made the assumption that violin feels that highly moral behavior has value. Without this assumption, violin’s statement is meaningless. My statement to violin was, “… you are saying that your self-interest is of little value.” I went on to say, “…you don't respect what you do and you don't think you have anything to offer. What we produce in life is very much concerned with self-interest. It is very much a function of how well we have educated or trained ourselves, and how well we have taken care of our own health. We can only be of benefit to others after we are first of benefit to ourselves. This is self-evident.


BOY-HOWDY THAT WAS FUN!

Mr. Pedxing, I’d hike with you any time. Thanks again for helping me to think.”

“"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
- Richard Nixon


What if the pursuit of self-interest is value neutral?

All life pursues it's own self-interest, amoebas, slugs and humans. Just because humans do it as a necessity for survival, doesn't make it moral or immoral.”

“There's a lot a person can learn by being a backpacker. Know what I mean?
One of the prime functions of any organism is to survive, (read, take care of one's self-intersts). In humans, however, while it is a given that people will look out for themselves, there is also the possibility to forego some personal satisfactions in order to be of help to another. In fact, that might be the definition of being human. Only looking out for #1 would seem to put us in the classification of the unconscious.”

“Sorry, Violin, didn't get my post in in time.
And, Arc, I thoroughly enjoyed your last post. I'm not even gonna say anything sarcastic about it, though it pains me to do so.
I can imagine a backpacking trip with some of you cats would be one wild trip, man. Think of the fireside chat!”

“What you were guilty of was false dichotomy – assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. Pursuit of self interest does not have to be either moral or immoral.”

“That will teach me to hit refresh before posting. My last post was directed at arclite, of course.”

“Arc is hiding because he has come up against superior debaters..... Just kidding, don't hurt me.”

“Dunadan, you shouldn't make me laugh in the office this early, it just reinforces everyone's belief that I'm nuts.

Violin, you're drowning, son. You can rant all you want, but logic is not opinion. I like you, but you're making a real horse's a$$ of yourself right now.”

“Yeah, you guys are a pretty wacky bunch. What's next? Proof by Induction?”

“Oh, sure, pull out the old "Proof by Induction" argument! Tilt is one of the "whackys", also.”

“That's an ad hominem arc.

Just because I'm a horses ass, doesn't make me wrong.”

“You're right, violin. You're wrong in addition to being a horse's a$$. You've got a two-fer.”

“Can ya feel the love?”

“Arc, obviously I like the fact that you think about your opinions. People who who disagree with me as a result of real thought are far more interesting that people who agree with me for no particular reason (or out of some simple prejudice or received truth). Besides, sometimes people who consider their opinions and conclusions teach me a thing or two - and show me where I am wrong or need to reconsider.

Nonetheless, no listing of logical rules which you did not violate, no amount of verbal gymnastics can allow you to dance around the fact that you made a totally unsupported leap from "what is highly moral has value" to "what is not highly moral has no value."

Work it out with colors and shapes or with beans.

All lima beans are beans,
kidney beans are not lima beans,
nonetheless, you cannot conclude that kidney beans are not beans.

If you really can't see this, then I really do have to wonder how much irrationality interferes with your logic. Consult a philosophy prof if you wish. Maybe we can can get Phil to weigh in.

I do think Violin's testimony is relevant, although once the words are in print... everyone is equally expert on what the words mean and what they imply.”