Ayn Rand

“I agree Dunadan, I haul around a cell, a Palm pilot, have 2 computers and 3 monitors in my office, and get the heck in the woods as often as possible. Is it directly making me happy? Well, it is allowing me to be productive enough that I can afford to take time off to get in the woods. I guess it is?”

“That is a great line of enquiry, dayhiker. It seems fudamental to me to ask just what happiness is and what exactly supports happiness. I am not talking about yuk-yuk laugh-laugh happiness, (although there is nothing wrong with that). I am talking more about expanded awareness and peace of mind. Consciousness is a word that comes to mind, often.”

“"fundamental"
Biz, you caught me!”

“What if objectivism is as simple as this: taking a step back and seeing things for what they really are.

Which takes us back to the argument that a 3 year old can see things (often) more clearly than a 30 year old, or a 50 year old. Why?

no value judgements are added”

“Does this mean we're getting back to the point of the thread?”

“A recurring theme at work and in relationships has always been - what's the problem? Does it need fixing? If there is no problem, what are we all doing here?
Ever notice how people will create problems, with value judgements embedded, to make things seem important??

This thread is a perfect example! Oh well, I'm going back to my prime motivation now. Which as Rand would say, is inherent and natural (I think).”

“btw, if you look up 'natural' in Webster's the last definition says

n. a person or thing sure to be successful

so, we're all right!”

“Biz as an engineer you should know the first Theorum of Dilbert: If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features.

The second Theorum of Dilbert: The goal of every engineer is to retire without getting blamed for a major catastrophe.”

“Dunadan - to continue my wrecking of this thread I'll throw in some more Bud info. I did a basecamping trip this past weekend and took in a six pack of Bud in bottles. Set up camp, put beer in creek, bushwhacked up two canyons, and then had shrimp creole and cold budweiser. It doesn't get any better than that.”

“one more thing before I retire. I find myself agreeing with arc here. Why??

because he's right!! He's objective.

oh well, not everyone will agree with Objectivism or Rand, try or even want to.”

“I never heard the "be selfish" theme, it was more "To thine own self be true."

In keeping with that, I have only read the short posts in this thread.”

“you're short = TMI”

“TMI?”

“You are beating a stinking horse, Pedxing. And you talk to ME about pride?

If you had refuted my syllogism by using the science of logic, I believe the conversation would have been even more interesting.

I won't play with you anymore, here goes: In order for a syllogism to have truth, both of the minor premises must be correct. Do we agree that highly moral behavior has value? If not, the syllogism is meaningless. Is the pursuit of self-interest of little value? If not, the syllogism is meaningless. I happen to believe that highly moral behavior has value. In my OPINION that leaves just one stinker here.

Violin’s first statement was “…I don’t think that pursuit of one’s own self-interest is a highly moral cause”. This statement is not only something that I find to be untrue, but there is something else going on here. Violin goes on to say, “What I meant was that it is morally neutral.” But later on he posts, “It’s self-delusion to portray selfishness as some noble calling.” But where did anyone call selfishness a noble calling besides, violin? I have never come away from a Rand novel feeling that she thought selfishness was noble, just moral. I think that her books exaggerate to make points. You see, Ped, I suspected that violin was not being honest with himself about his feelings. I believe that violin actually does not have neutral feelings about the pursuit of self-interest and selfishness. Now THAT is where I can be wrong, because it was an intuitive leap on my part. The rest was just a device to try and bait violin into proving my point. But logically, I can’t find any way to do it. Violin has given me no logical openings to explore my intuition and so, at this point, I must take violin’s word that he has absolutely no right or wrong feelings about the pursuit of self-interest.

I would ask violin about the following two scenarios. A man inherits a lot of money. He uses this money to become an engineer and figures out a way to perform cold fusion and at the same time figures a way to create super conducting wire. He does not do this to help others. He does it purely for the pleasure of using his mind for creation. Now go back to the beginning. This same man inherits a lot of money. He does not use it to improve himself. He gives it all away to homeless shelters. He works during the day at a soup kitchen. Because he is not totally selfish, he plays guitar at night, in clubs, to earn some money and because it gives him pleasure. Is one result more moral or are they both neutrally moral?”

“You are confusing morality with accomplishment.”

“You don't think accomplishment is moral, Gear Slut?

Biz, I almost agree with you. I think Rand believes that it doesn’t matter whether people who build railroads or invent new types of steel do it for the pursuit of self-interest because the end result is the best for the most people. The “do-gooders” force others to do good things without producing much themselves.

Ulterior motives, Dunadan? What possible ulterior motives could I have?”

“Both are amoral.”

“Accomplishment is niether moral or immoral. Motivation on the other hand can be judged as moral or immoral.

Just because someone creates something which affects others, doesn't make them morally superior.”

“I guess I am a slow reader. I didn't mean to repeat you, Gear Slut.”

“We're not talking about the moral superiority of people, Gear Slut. This isn't a contest.

So, If I design an energy efficient building, you don't believe that is a moral act? I do and so does Ayn Rand. While if I were to stay in my house and sleep all day for a month, that would not be as moral to me or Rand. Do you feel differently?

Deconstructivism: It's all worthless.”

“Violin, I do appologize. Moral and noble are synonyms. My bad.”

“It is moral to do your best with the gifts you are given.”

“I find this to be an interesting discussion and hesitate to really get into it because of time constraints.

However...

Arc, in "childlike" terms, there is good and bad, and there is right and wrong.

In those terms, choosing a line of work where one will accomplish less good for others is only wrong if you assume that we all have an obligation to choose that work which will benefit others the most.

I certainly agree that it is "good" to do good for others, but I cannot say that it is necessarily bad (or "immoral") to do less good for others.

I might grant that if one deliberately and consciously chooses NOT to do good for others, for the sake of not doing good, that may be "immoral," but as has been said (I think) that goes to motive and not simply to evaluation of what one has done.

(Disclaimers: I have read neither Rand, nor this thread, very carefully, so please bear with me if I have mis-stated anyone's position or if I have simply repeated what has already been said.)”

“It's the motive behind designing the energy efficient building which determines whether you are moral and not the fact that you did it.

If you did it just to satisfy your ego, then it's not moral ...it's not immoral either, just selfish. Too much pride is considered a mortal sin. If you did it to make other people's lives easier, then it's moral. There's nothing wrong with a mixture of both motivations.”

“I agree with much of what you say, Fritz. The concept of "right" and "wrong" is morality.

Does anyone agree that because the 9/11 hijackers had good motives (in their own minds) that their actions were good?”

“That would depend on a person's personal viewpoint. Some people like Bin Laden would agree with those actions.

I know where you're going with this "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..etc". I'll leave it to my society and culture to judge whether my motives and actions are moral and let me know when I'm not.”

“Cooool, Gear Slut. That's exactly where I was going with that line of thought.

Also, it seems, that many folks think that morality is relative (and this may be true). Does anyone believe that there are constants of morality? You see, I beleive that we can judge actions and accomplishments to be moral. Because we can measure their effects.”

“Many who "enable" alcoholics do so from the best of motives.

Goodness of motive ensures neither goodness, nor rightness, of actions.”

“To my thinking, being motivated by self-interest could produce results that are either good or bad (moral or immoral). Selfish motivations have produced both great good and great evil. It’s not the motivation that is to be judged but the outcome. That living beings (both those capable of conceiving of right or wrong and those less sentient) will act out of self-interest is a given. Life is impossible without putting ‘self’ first. Please note that I never said that self-interest was immoral. I said that it was not moral (amoral).”

“So, in other words, violin. You've got no disagreements with Rand's philosophy?”

“I think the reason that designing an energy efficient building is morally positive is that, in order to design it correctly, you would have to take the needs and wants of those who will use the building into account. You would have to think outside of your own, small ego, therefore unselfishly. Also, consider where the motivation to design such a building comes from. I have a sneaking suspicion that it can't be purely selfish.”

“Arc:

I think there is a way to explore and settle this... Lemme set up another thread.

My idea is to take the syllogism as you phrased it and substitute terms. Rather than either of us posting an entire argument, we can work through it togehter. How about if I call the thread "Wannabe philosophers virtual hike #1?" We will take the syllogism as you summed it up, and try inserting other terms.

I suggest doing this on another thread, since this thread is about more than just this disagreement.”

“Ped, throws down the gauntlet!
The thread should be titled "TT Logic Smackdown".”

“Why don't we drop it, Ped. I've already stated that while satisfying the demands for a categorical syllogism, my arguement was untrue because at least one premise was untrue. We could apply the science of logic to it, on another thread, and find out where it fails if you wish.

For me, the motivation to create a building comes purely from the joy of creation, Dunadan. Visualizing and creating three dimensional space that satisfies many conflicting requirements, is a problem that I find fascinating. Except for sending people into space, I'm not sure what form of creation is more complex.

It is in my self-interest to figure out peoples needs for these spaces, because that is what makes them work well.”

“By the act of studying other people and what they need, you have to step outside of yourself. Even if you do so unconscously, what you meditate on, you become. If you meditate on what serves others in order to create, you are becoming a servant of others.
But, hey, what do I know?”

“I don't think so, Dunadan. Shall we run the logic on that puppy?

I don't know, bubba. What do you know?”

“So Arc: I figure that doing this carefully, will expose where precisly the disagreement lies. Is there some interpretation that we differ on, that is making us think the other is illogical? Is there an identifiable error? Or is there some hidden assumption on which we differ, but which appears to us as a difference in logic?

To avoid a false start. Tell me if I have framed your syllogism accurately:

1) Highly moral behavior is valuable.
2) Pursuit of self-interest is not highly moral behavior.
3) Therefore pursuit of self-interest is not valuable.

In more abstract terms, this means:

1) A is B.
2) C is not A.
3) Therefore C is not B.

What I see you saying is that

Your point is that if someone believes 2 to be true, logic dictates that they also believe 3 to be true, unless they reject 1. (If this is true, it would be fair to say that anyone believing that pursuit of self-interest is not highly moral behavior is either amoral or self negating)”

“Arc: I think we have a clear disagreement and if we two intelligent people with some mutual respect can't either resolve it or identify the real bone of contention, then there is really no point in discussing things. So lets get into the logical issue and hope we all learn something from each other.

Anyway, if the last phrasing of the syllogism doesn't work for you, how about:

If you don't like that way of framing it, how about:

1) The category "moral" falls within the category "valuable"
2) The category "self interest" does not fall within the category of the moral.
3) Therefore the category of the self interest does not fall within the category of the valuable.

In other words,

1) Category A falls within the category of B (A could be identical with B or it could be a subset... although in this case we all agree moral is a subset of value).
2) C does not fall within category A (i.e. C is neither identical to A, nor is it a subset).
3) A does C does not fall within B (i.e. it is not identical, nor is it a subset).

How are we doing? Are either of these fair statements?

If you don't like that way of framing it, how about:

1) The category "moral" falls within the category "valuable"
2) The category "self interest" does not fall within the category of the moral.
3) Therefore the category of the self interest does not fall within the category of the valuable.

In other words,

1) Category A falls within the category of B (A could be identical with B or it could be a subset... although in this case we all agree moral is a subset of value).
2) C does not fall within category A (i.e. C is neither identical to A, nor is it a subset).
3) A does C does not fall within B (i.e. it is not identical, nor is it a subset).

How are we doing? Are either forms of the syllogism acceptable for our purposes?”

“OK, Ped, if you're gonna suck me in here, just don't suck too hard will ya.

Syllogisms follow concrete scientic rules of logic. May I suggest that you get a book on logic and argue from that perspective.

As far as your word substitute examples go: Substitute "sex," "water," or "backpacking" for "pursuit of self interest" and see if the syllogism is still true:

Highly moral behavior has value (my assumption)
Drinking water is not highly moral behavior (according to Ped)
To Ped, the drinking water is of little value (my conclusion).

As you should especially know, what is true, is not always what people think they believe.

If you don't believe that drinking water is highly moral (because it keeps you alive) then you really don't value yourself much.

We can use that for every example you stated. If you believe that sex or backpacking is good for you, then you believe in the morallity of self-interest.

Despite what you think you believe.”

“I think Dunadan is making a really important psychological point. Looking out for #1 does involve a lot of awareness of other folks. That to design books, buildings and the like that others will use we do have to move beyond ourselves and think about other people and what will be pleasing to them.

However, I don't think that his conclusion is logically inevitable... but it depends on how you define servant and "serving neeeds."

Here are two "counter-examples."

Tempest Bedsole designs architecture used in livestock "processing." She was autistic as a kid and has a gift for being able to understand what her structures will be like for the animals. For example, she has done a wonderful job of designing slaughterhouse operations where the cattle wait inline to be slaughter. There is far lesss panic and injury in her cattle shutes than anyone elses. She empathisizes with he cattle. In making her designs, she "studies them," "steps outside herself" thinks about what the cattle "need" and meditates on what serves them as they wait in line to be slaughtered. She addresses the needs of the cattle to keep them calm and content, so they can be slaughtered with maximum efficienct. Is she the servant of the cattle?


#2) Scams often target people in need. They identify people with problems and needs in order to offer to serve their needs. A good scam requires empathy. It even temporarily meets people's needs. For example, people who are distraught and in agony over having lost their homes in natural disasters are sometimes scammed into paying upfront fees in order to get assistance. Lets say, for example, a family made homeless was placed in a hotel and was told that in exchange for an upfront filing fee of 1000 dollars they would be guaranteed to receive a large housing grant and that they would be moved into a hotel at no cost to them while they waited for the grant. Their needs would be met and everything would be fine until they were asked to pay the hotel bill and found that the people who they gave the money to had dissappeared.”

“Arc: Your talk of logical rules and principles is concealing, not revealing. We will have to substitue for all the terms in order to get to the bottom of this. Are either or both of my reframings of the syllogism (from today) fair?”

“Is this moronathon still going on? Arclite you aren't going to accomplish anything by arguing with these spoiled kids. They only know the me-me generation.

Responsibility and morality are dirty words to them.”

“I tried to get out BUT THEY KEEP PULLING ME BACK IN!

Am I still not being clear?

Please read the rules, Ped. I can't memorize all this stuff and my book is at home.

I agree with your first post, Ped. At least the parts where you talk about definitions. I don't believe Tempest Bedsole would be designing structures if it didn't serve a need for her. It is in her self-interest to design it well. Part of the job of designing a good building is being aware of other’s needs (but I repeat myself). It does not make you a slave. Slavery is forced coercion. You don't have to be an architect, you don’t have to accept the commission, or you can do a poor job of programming by not taking their needs into account. And I have seen the latter. Believe me, it doesn’t serve the architect’s self-interest. The job of discovering cold fusion or super conducting wire does not require this awareness.

Your second example does not serve the scammer's self-interest, unless you call putting yourself at risk of jail, at risk of alienating yourself from others, and intentionally causing harm to others, self-interest.”

“Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks, "Would you like a beer?"

Descartes replies, "I think not" and POOF! he vanishes.”

“Kleetn, you rascal, you just made me disturb everyone here with my laughter. Think of the others, please”

“Arc: basically I was agreeing with you regarding logic and the one aspect of his claim (r.e. becoming someone else's servant)

But that still leaves us with the other question. Do you accept either representation of your syllogism as fair (11:13:48 or
11:21:02 AM, 02/22/02. Take your time to decide. I think (despite my repetitive editing on 11:32:02) both my reproductions are fair. If they aren't, it may be that the source of our disagreement lies elsewhere.”

“Sure, ped, but hang on. Even though it's Friday, I'm spending WAY to much time on this thread. My level of frustration is up because I'm not serving my self-interest here. That's purely a testiment to my fascination with this discussion.

I'm going kayaking this weekend, and I may help Om with her move. I may not post again until Monday.

Enjoy, you crazies!”

“No one wins at solitaire.”

“Arc... I'll prolly start the "amature philosopher's virtual campfire thread" over the weekend. Unless I hear otherwise, I will start by posting the syllogisms and suggesting that we substitute the terms. I will say no more on this today.

I would not be so villainous as to try to deflect you from the path of moral virtue.”