The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

11-06-2006, 12:24 AM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 My Beliefs This started out being in response to the determinism thread, but it deserves its own thread... Josh, You stated, "keapponlaffin, i don't hear from you as much as i'd like to :(  you guys come off to me as philosophers and this is you're chance to persuade an ignorant person! haha." Well, I get on here a couple times a week, or more depending on what's going on. I wouldn't call myself a philosopher by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply a student of philosophy. If you'd like to be persuaded, I may be the wrong person to talk to. I'm very much against proselytizing. Also, I'll be the first to admit that I'm only confident in a small handful of my beliefs (at least, a small handful of philosophical beliefs). But, if you'd like to start discussions and learn (I believe all discussions can be educational to everyone involved), then I'll give you my basic framework... First off, I'm not an objectivist, though I was a couple years ago. I believe the following: Metaphysics: Realism: I believe there is an external physical world. We can't be absolutely sure of this, but it's the most likely cause of our conscious states. Determinism: The world is orderly and follows a general causal pattern. Sure, there's randomness on the sub-atomic level, but by the time we're at the level that matters for human beings (the neuronal or brain level), it's all causally predictable. Basically I'm saying, I believe in psychology as a real science. Philosophy of Language: This is the most important branch of philosophy (but I'm very biased, as an analytic philosopher). Because it's the most important, it's also the most technical. What matters for our discussions is that I believe words have meaning, and that at least some words have meaning that is not entirely determined by what ideas we have in our head (for example, water). Logic: Also arguably the most important branch of philosophy... The Law of Non-Contradiction: Or, A is A in objectivist terms. From this we get the entire system of logic. I believe in fregean logic as the best form we've come up with. This is the form that allows us to convert any proposition in normal language into the language of logic. Philosophy of the Mind: I believe consciousness is real, for starters. I also believe consciousness is caused by the brain (we don't have souls). Furthermore (and most controversial), I think consciousness is epiphenomenal. That is to say, consciousess doesn't actually do anything. It is produced by the brain, and is simply a state of awareness that correlates to physical activities, but doesn't cause them. Epistemology: I am a foundationalist about knowledge, and I think that for human beings the correct foundation is our senses. I think we are justified in our beliefs to the extent to which we form them through reliable methods. Ethics: Objectivism doesn't provide us with morality, it provides us with a code for living well. This is a fundamental disagreement I have with Oism. A proper system of morality cannot be based on self interest. I am a consequentialist, which means I believe it is the consequences of our actions that matter. More specifically, I think the morally good actions are those which maximize the generall well being of living beings, favoring those beings who are capable of higher levels of awareness. Politics: I'm loosely libertarian, leaning left. Politics isn't really the focus of philosophy though... Aesthetics: Also not the focus of philosophy, but worth commenting on. What feels good seems to be entirely subjective.    Report

11-06-2006, 1:40 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: My Beliefs Beliefs are not the same as knowledge claims. One can belief what isn't true. There is no burden of proof. It is just belief. If somone disagrees with you, there is no way to debate and see who is more right or wrong. Many of your claims are also unsupported value claims, like "Logic is the most important branch of philosophy," or "A proper system of morality cannot be based on self interest." You know what Quine would say about such propositions; they are non-observational, non-measurable, non-cognitive, thus non-scientific. You could, however, take one of these propositions and build a case for it. Try to prove, with evidence and reasoning, that it is true, not just unsupported belief. I will try to build a case for rational self-interest: I am convinced that rational self-interest can be a basis for morality. It can be consequentialist but not in the sense that it must maximize the general well-being of living beings. In fact, I think such thinking, that good is only the greatest good for the greratest number, leads to communistic political systems or Borg mentality, that individuals are unimportant, that it is moral to kill a miser to distribute his money among a great number of people. It leads to subjugation of the individual to the group, to people like J. Alfred Prufrock. It is far more authentic to live for ourselves within the context of allowing others that same right. This is, after all, what Locke and Jefferson had in mind when they spoke of our equal, natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are more positive aspects of utilitarianism. There are aspects the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill which can be assets to objectivism and rational egoism. Bentham’s hedonistic calculus allows us to compare and measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity. Yes, there is another criterion, extension, but this is where it gets to the greatest good for the greatest number. We can avoid that simply by eliminating this criterion. Mill also adds an important criterion, that of quality. Yes, according to Robert Pirsig, “quality” is hard to define, but Mill demonstrated that wisdom can be a qualitative value. He said that he would rather be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool, and rational people would overwhelmingly agree. The fools who would disagree would be limited by their perspectives as fools. I think the same reasoning can be applied to qualitative values such as honor and authenticity. I would rather overcome obstacles and achieve goals honestly than cheat and only make people think I achieved goals or be on drugs all day, only thinking that I am successful. Most rational people would rather live life authentically, in real life, than as brains in a vat. It’s a qualitative value. Using all these criteria for measuring happiness, the rational egoist would, if he or she had a choice, choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so. It would be preferable to win a race honestly rather than cheat and simply make people think one won. It would be preferable to endure the pain of the dentist drill than the pain of the future tooth ache. It would be preferable, in the long run, to tear myself away from my television to attend college classes and work for the happiness of graduating and getting a good job as a result. It would be preferable, more in the rational egoist’s interest, to achieve goals on his or her own and not by being a predator. This is my case. I submit myself to questions and attempted refutation and reserve my right to rebuttal. bis bald, Nick      Report

11-06-2006, 8:04 PM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 56 Re: My Beliefs i think most people are rational, and would love the world you describe nick.  but i wonder why these "rational" people allow government and churches to collect taxes or tithes to be redistributed among the masses.  i understand charity and helping people.  i think it's a good thing myself, and i do it on my own terms and to people i know will use my donations in a way that will benefit them.  do you think this is a preference or maybe viewed as a compromise to live in the most free country in the world?  my favorite branch of philosophy is politics, which is why i love ayn rand's books so much haha.  i'm reading capitalism: the unknown ideal again atm.  but to understand what political system is best suited to man, one must understand the nature of man, so i look forward to the discussions of this topic. as far as beliefs i believe in reality and that it's perceived through our senses.  i do believe in an order to the world, although i don't believe things in it are predetermined by a supernatural force.  i believe there are consequences for actions, and  that we can predetermine events based on our knowledge of these consequences.  i believe morality is important, but i don't think it should be legislated.  i believe in individual rights, and that a government's main concern should be preserving these rights. it seems i agree with nick on this topic.  i definitely don't view the "general good" as an entity to be served.  russia is a good example of why this is not suitable for man.  if you guys haven't read capitalism: the unknown ideal, it's a great book that discusses rights and the role of government in society. -Josh    Report

11-06-2006, 10:01 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: My Beliefs Nick, I would be happy to explain why I believe each of the propositions I wrote. This is not to say that I am certain, or even that I *know* in any strong sense. This is merely to show that I have reasons behind my beliefs... I stated, "Logic is the most important branch of philosophy" This wasn't meant to be a value judgment (though, it obviously is). What I mean is simply that logic is used in all branches of philosophy, and mastering this discipline is essential, no matter what type of philosophy you're doing. I stated, "A proper system of morality cannot be based on self interest" This is based upon analysis, and is not meant to be anything more. Dictionary.com defines morality as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." What are the rules of right conduct? Who makes the rules? Well, the general idea is that society does, or religion, or the government, etc etc. Some entity outside of you. Morality is supposed to be about being nice to others, and refraining from harming them. This is *not* to say that egoism is false/wrong. I make no value judgments in conceptual analysis here. Simply put, if you ask your average competent speaker of the english language is being selfish is being moral, the answer is no. If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself. You stated, "You know what Quine would say about such propositions; they are non-observational, non-measurable, non-cognitive, thus non-scientific." Are we making an appeal to the logical positivist's dogma? You stated, "In fact, I think such thinking, that good is only the greatest good for the greratest number, leads to communistic political systems or Borg mentality, that individuals are unimportant, that it is moral to kill a miser to distribute his money among a great number of people." It's worth noting that the first major figure in the libertarian movement was Mill (also, coincidentally, the most famous of the 'greatest good for the greatest number' folks). It's utilitarianism that led to the constitution of the U.S., along with the principled defense of human rights. Adam Smith justified capitalism on utilitarian grounds. Mill justified it in the same way. We know, with overwelming evidence, that communism does *not* lead to the maximization of happiness. Nor does violating individual rights on a regular basis. You stated, "This is, after all, what Locke and Jefferson had in mind when they spoke of our equal, natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson borrows his ideas from Locke. How did Locke justify natural rights? It wasn't selfishness. He argues that the libertarian style of government is justified because it is good for the group. This will suffice as a first line of justification...    Report

11-06-2006, 10:15 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: My Beliefs Nick, You stated, "hedonistic calculus allows us to compare and measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity." Ok... good luck making it work... it seems hopelessly subjective and arbitrary. You stated, "Using all these criteria for measuring happiness, the rational egoist would, if he or she had a choice, choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so." Fine, but rational egoism leads to highly counter-intuitive outputs. What I mean is, it leads to choices which are clearly immoral (on a pre-theoretical level). As long as the egoist is clever enough, and knows he won't get caught, I don't see any reason why he should refrain from stealing. You stated, "It would be preferable to win a race honestly rather than cheat and simply make people think one won." Let's change the question, since that one is loaded. Would you rather lose at a race and not win $100, or find $100 on the ground. It seems that for most of us the anwer is obvious. Free Money = Good. Losing = Bad. You stated, "It would be preferable, more in the rational egoist’s interest, to achieve goals on his or her own and not by being a predator." Maybe for some people. What the heck, we'll even say for 99.9% of people in the world. That does not, however, mean being a predator is never in your self interest. Your case is incomplete by the way. Why Egoism? Why not actually care about other people for their own sake?    Report

11-06-2006, 10:25 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: My Beliefs Josh, You stated, "to understand what political system is best suited to man, one must understand the nature of man" This is true in part, but understanding what political system is best also requires a moral theory. A moral theory is going to have to rest on more than just the facts of the world. (the is/ought gap). Simply understanding what people are doesn't tell us what they ought to be. For example, people kill each other, it doesn't follow that they should. Hearts can get clogged, doesn't follow that they ought to. You stated, "i believe morality is important, but i don't think it should be legislated." Should stealing be illegal? If so, why? You stated, "i definitely don't view the "general good" as an entity to be served." Of course it isn't an entity. Strictly speaking, neither are we. (only atoms* exist) *by atoms, I mean the smallest possible particles, whatever they may be, that make up our universe.    Report

11-07-2006, 1:57 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: My Beliefs (keapponlaffin)I would be happy to explain why I believe each of the propositions I wrote. This is not to say that I am certain, or even that I *know* in any strong sense. This is merely to show that I have reasons behind my beliefs... (Nick)Great! Reasons can be examined to determine the extent to which they justify the beliefs they supposedly support. They can be challenged and compared to other reasons which may support opposing beliefs. At the moment, I am examining the support for your belief that a proper system of morality “cannot” be based on self-interest and challenging it with reasoning supporting my view, that rational egoism “can” be a basis for morality, a superior morality to this subjugation to the herd which you support. (keapponlaffin)I stated, "Logic is the most important branch of philosophy" This wasn't meant to be a value judgment (though, it obviously is). What I mean is simply that logic is used in all branches of philosophy, and mastering this discipline is essential, no matter what type of philosophy you're doing. (Nick)This is still a value judgment. Logic can’t be used to justify itself. We can only vindicate its use. To argue against logic, logically, requires logic. I have, however, in my post about perception, logic, and language; argued that logic, at least, points to its own weakness. Faith and other forms of truth seeking criterion do not have this safeguard. (keapponlaffin)I stated, "A proper system of morality cannot be based on self interest" This is based upon analysis, and is not meant to be anything more. Dictionary.com defines morality as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." What are the rules of right conduct? Who makes the rules? Well, the general idea is that society does, or religion, or the government, etc etc. Some entity outside of you. Morality is supposed to be about being nice to others, and refraining from harming them. This is *not* to say that egoism is false/wrong. I make no value judgments in conceptual analysis here. (Nick)You should know, keaponlaffin, that dictionary definitions are notoriously non-technical. They offer the popular conventions, not the precise interpretations required by serious philosophers and scholarly researchers. Yes, the popular notion of morality is “being nice to others.” It can be traced back to the religious notions that man is evil, born into sin, and must deny himself to be good. Even the secular versions, like Freud’s Id, identify man as basically selfish and evil, needing a Superego to control himself. Hobbes also theorized that man needs to be socialized to keep him out of trouble. There are, however, different ways of looking at this. Scientifically, man is a living thing which, like other living things, strives to survive and flourish. This is an egoistic drive. Without it, mankind would die. That which promotes and protects man’s flourishing survival is good, and that which threatens and destroys it is evil. Yes, man is a social animal and thrives in a community of other humans, but his or her self-interest is served by serving the interests of others. It is not the primary goal to serve others, to be only a tool for their use. The community of humans would not exist without the individual humans which compose it. Their individual welfare is important for the welfare of the group, not the other way around.   (keapponlaffin) Simply put, if you ask your average competent speaker of the english language is being selfish is being moral, the answer is no. If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself. (Nick)Notice that my explanation of rational self-interest is not equal to the conventional notion of selfishness. It is not acting on the range of the moment without regard for the welfare of others. If you characterize it this way, you are constructing a strawman, not attacking my description of rational egoism. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "You know what Quine would say about such propositions; they are non-observational, non-measurable, non-cognitive, thus non-scientific." Are we making an appeal to the logical positivist's dogma? (Nick)As you told me in a prior thread, Quine is not a logical positivist. He was trained as such but moved away from this movement and did much to weaken it. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "In fact, I think such thinking, that good is only the greatest good for the greratest number, leads to communistic political systems or Borg mentality, that individuals are unimportant, that it is moral to kill a miser to distribute his money among a great number of people." It's worth noting that the first major figure in the libertarian movement was Mill (also, coincidentally, the most famous of the 'greatest good for the greatest number' folks). It's utilitarianism that led to the constitution of the U.S., along with the principled defense of human rights. Adam Smith justified capitalism on utilitarian grounds. Mill justified it in the same way. We know, with overwelming evidence, that communism does *not* lead to the maximization of happiness. Nor does violating individual rights on a regular basis. (Nick)Yes, Mill said a lot of things which were good for libertarian governments. His views on freedom of speech are great. And, I quote him a lot when talking about quality. However, he did say a few things with which I disagree and  which do more to support socialism than capitalism.  Greatest good for the greatest number does not place value on the individual. Whether or not communism has been successful does not change the fact that its goal was to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "This is, after all, what Locke and Jefferson had in mind when they spoke of our equal, natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson borrows his ideas from Locke. How did Locke justify natural rights? It wasn't selfishness. He argues that the libertarian style of government is justified because it is good for the group. (Nick) No, Locke and Jefferson spoke about self-evident truths that all humans are, as humans, equal, and that it follows from that that if one human has a natural right to pursue life, then all of them do. And, it is the function of governments to secure those rights, not violate them. These are individual rights, not group rights. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "hedonistic calculus allows us to compare and measure pleasure in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, and purity." Ok... good luck making it work... it seems hopelessly subjective and arbitrary. (Nick) The hedonistic calculus provides rational criteria for measuring pleasures when compared to one another. I pointed out how the pleasure of earning a degree can be compared to the pleasure of watching a television show. Most rational people would choose the degree. It’s not arbitrary. You are not demonstrating that it is subjective and arbitrary. You merely state what something seems to you. It is hardly a rational argument. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "Using all these criteria for measuring happiness, the rational egoist would, if he or she had a choice, choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so." Fine, but rational egoism leads to highly counter-intuitive outputs. What I mean is, it leads to choices which are clearly immoral (on a pre-theoretical level). As long as the egoist is clever enough, and knows he won't get caught, I don't see any reason why he should refrain from stealing. (Nick) No, you aren’t including my points about qualitative pleasures like authenticity. Stealing and living a lie, without getting caught, is not authentic. Someone who earns rewards honestly is happier than someone who must sneak and take risks. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "It would be preferable to win a race honestly rather than cheat and simply make people think one won." Let's change the question, since that one is loaded. Would you rather lose at a race and not win $100, or find $100 on the ground. It seems that for most of us the anwer is obvious. Free Money = Good. Losing = Bad. (Nick) There is really not a comparison here. Finding money on the ground has no relation to winning or losing a race. Anyway, earning money is far better than simply finding it. I don’t act to find money on the ground. If it happens, it is an accident, not a consequence of my actions. I can’t depend on accidents. And, if I lose the race, at least I gave it an honest try. I don’t want the reward that someone else deserves more than I do. It is not the most authentic and honorable way to live. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "It would be preferable, more in the rational egoist’s interest, to achieve goals on his or her own and not by being a predator." Maybe for some people. What the heck, we'll even say for 99.9% of people in the world. That does not, however, mean being a predator is never in your self interest. (Nick) Your burden is to prove how being a predator can be in one’s self-interest. You don’t accomplish that simply by saying it. Being a predator is not living authentically. It is living as a brain in a vat off of what someone else deserves, and it is risky. People who get caught dishonor themselves. They cannot enjoy the pride of having accomplished their success on their own, as the rational egoist would. In The Fountainhead, would you rather be Howard Roark or Peter Keating? (keapponlaffin)Your case is incomplete by the way. (Nick)So you say. You haven’t proven anything yet. (keapponlaffin)Why Egoism? Why not actually care about other people for their own sake? (Nick) I do care about other people, my loved ones, their interests might be the same as my interests. My interests are tied in with the interests of other people such that concern for them is also concern for myself. And, I may, like Sydney Carton, of A Tale of Two Cities, actually kill myself to save someone else. I would still maintain, however, that that would be a selfish choice, as it was for Sydney Carton. Bis bald, Nick        Report

11-07-2006, 11:46 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: My Beliefs Nick, You stated, "At the moment, I am examining the support for your belief that a proper system of morality “cannot” be based on self-interest and challenging it with reasoning supporting my view, that rational egoism “can” be a basis for morality, a superior morality to this subjugation to the herd which you support." I'm especially interested in your rhetoric here. "subjugation to the herd". This is clearly a rhetorically loaded phrase. I could just as easily write "subjugation to desires" in describing egoism. Let's play fair and simply describe the theories, not attack them through loaded language (especially value loaded language when our purpose is to establish which value system is right). I stated, "What I mean is simply that logic is used in all branches of philosophy, and mastering this discipline is essential, no matter what type of philosophy you're doing." In response, you stated, "This is still a value judgment" Look at it closely. Where's the value language? This is a factual claim, because it's a claim about how philosophy is actually carried out. You stated, "Logic can’t be used to justify itself." It can't? What about the Completeness and Consistency theorem? Now, of course, to be fair, it should be pointed out that this is circular, since it assumes logic in proving the completeness and consistency. But, this is still a justification, since part of being justified is being logical. (contradictions are generally thought to not produce justified beliefs). Also, circular justifications may just be the only way we can justify at a certain point. You stated, "You should know, keaponlaffin, that dictionary definitions are notoriously non-technical. They offer the popular conventions, not the precise interpretations required by serious philosophers and scholarly researchers." Very true. They do represent popular conventions. But what do you think we're trying to do with philosophical analysis? We're figuring out what we mean when we use a word. We certainly move past dictionary definitions, but those are still important to make sure we're actually analyzing correctly. If your analysis flies in the face of common sense and all ordinary definitions, then you're not doing it right. You stated, "Scientifically, man is a living thing which, like other living things, strives to survive and flourish." A bit over-simplified of course, but close enough I suppose. We are social animals, as you noted. We can use biology to try and support all sorts of moral systems, but in the end we have to recognize the fact/value barrier. What we are doesn't necessitate what we ought to be. In your post you had, "(keapponlaffin) Simply put, if you ask your average competent speaker of the english language is being selfish is being moral, the answer is no. If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself. (Nick)Notice that my explanation of rational self-interest is not equal to the conventional notion of selfishness. It is not acting on the range of the moment without regard for the welfare of others. If you characterize it this way, you are constructing a strawman, not attacking my description of rational egoism." You answered to one of my arguments. The others stand. I will repeat them for emphasis... If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself You stated, "As you told me in a prior thread, Quine is not a logical positivist. He was trained as such but moved away from this movement and did much to weaken it." My point is that you're not accurately representing Quine. You stated, "(Nick)Yes, Mill said a lot of things which were good for libertarian governments. His views on freedom of speech are great. And, I quote him a lot when talking about quality. However, he did say a few things with which I disagree and  which do more to support socialism than capitalism.  Greatest good for the greatest number does not place value on the individual. Whether or not communism has been successful does not change the fact that its goal was to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. " Of course you don't completely agree with him, or else you'd be a consistent utilitarian. The point is, Utility does not promote harming people, or destroying the individual. Just the opposite, a healthy sense of self is important for being a good utilitarian. You stated, "(Nick) No, Locke and Jefferson spoke about self-evident truths that all humans are, as humans, equal, and that it follows from that that if one human has a natural right to pursue life, then all of them do. And, it is the function of governments to secure those rights, not violate them. These are individual rights, not group rights. " And I quote from Locke, Chapter 1 of the 2nd Treatise, that all political power is "only for the public good". What you're referencing is from chapter 2, and you're right. We're all rational beings, and as such we should recognize that we're all *equal*, morally speaking. No one is more important than anyone else, morally speaking. Does this really sound like egoism to you? You stated, "(Nick) The hedonistic calculus provides rational criteria for measuring pleasures when compared to one another. I pointed out how the pleasure of earning a degree can be compared to the pleasure of watching a television show. Most rational people would choose the degree. It’s not arbitrary. You are not demonstrating that it is subjective and arbitrary. You merely state what something seems to you. It is hardly a rational argument. " Ok, sure we can get agreement when we give such an obvious example. How about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? Which is objectively better? By what number of hedons? I stated earlier, "Fine, but rational egoism leads to highly counter-intuitive outputs. What I mean is, it leads to choices which are clearly immoral (on a pre-theoretical level). As long as the egoist is clever enough, and knows he won't get caught, I don't see any reason why he should refrain from stealing." You stated in response"Nick) No, you aren’t including my points about qualitative pleasures like authenticity. Stealing and living a lie, without getting caught, is not authentic. Someone who earns rewards honestly is happier than someone who must sneak and take risks. " And how do you account for prisoners dilemmas? People's interests aren't always going to perfectly align. The world doesn't work like that. You stated, "Finding money on the ground has no relation to winning or losing a race. Anyway, earning money is far better than simply finding it. I don’t act to find money on the ground. If it happens, it is an accident, not a consequence of my actions. I can’t depend on accidents. And, if I lose the race, at least I gave it an honest try. I don’t want the reward that someone else deserves more than I do. It is not the most authentic and honorable way to live. " This doesn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again. In and of itself, which is better, losing a race or finding $100 on the ground? You stated, "(Nick) Your burden is to prove how being a predator can be in one’s self-interest. " Ok, I'll give a few examples, even though I just need one. A) You've been shipwrecked on a desert island, and there's no food available. There's one other person with you. If you kill and eat him, you'll survive longer and perhaps be rescued. If you don't, then you'll starve. It would seem that the best option here, from the self-interested point of view, is to kill this person. B) You're starving because you're poor homeless and jobless. No one will give you any money. You could sneak a loaf of bread from a vendor, and you know you won't get caught. Or you could starve. C) The most obvious one. You find yourself shackled and at gun point by a sadistic maniac who says you have two options. You can be shot on the spot, or go be a predator in the next room over where an unsuspecting innocent individual is sleeping. I stated, "Your case is incomplete by the way." You stated, "You haven’t proven anything yet. " This is in the context is proving egoism. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. That is, unless you want me to prove egoism, but I promise that you'd do a better job of it. I asked, "Why not actually care about other people for their own sake?" You stated, "I do care about other people, my loved ones, their interests might be the same as my interests." Be careful, you just changed the language, and hence the meaning. I didn't ask about merely carign for people. I'm asking about caring for people for their own sake. Precision is key here. You stated, "I may, like Sydney Carton, of A Tale of Two Cities, actually kill myself to save someone else. I would still maintain, however, that that would be a selfish choice, as it was for Sydney Carton." That would be selfish? Interesting. I'm curious about what sort of egoism you're working under. What is your standard of value? (to use objectivist language here)    Report

11-08-2006, 1:12 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 56 Re: My Beliefs i'm agreeing with nick so far haha, so i'll let him back his statements up.  i would like to say that the only way to determine morals is on an individual basis.  you can't analyze it from the perspective of "the public," for there is no entity the public.  you are suggesting that men should serve the good of the public, but who determines what is good for the public (in the good ol U.S. it's majority dictates).  but even with democracy (which democracy failed in greece, i don't know why we think we're different) the minority goes without their happiness being pursued.  look at our government today, business owners are being told not to allow smoking in their own businesses!  without property rights, you might as well have no rights.  who is to determine which groups are to have their needs/wants fulfilled (my guess is the group with the biggest gun)?  without property rights, how is one supposed to sustain one's existence?  for man requires such property as shelter, land to hunt and/or grow food, and tools to build shelter and hunt and/or grow food.  if you guys want some really good insight on the way government should be, check out capitalism: the unknown ideal.  it has mostly ayn rand essays, but also includes essays from alan greenspan, who, in my opinion, has kept our economy from experiencing another great depression.  can't wait to read more! -Josh    Report

11-08-2006, 2:59 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: My Beliefs (Nick)At the moment, I am examining the support for your belief that a proper system of morality “cannot” be based on self-interest and challenging it with reasoning supporting my view, that rational egoism “can” be a basis for morality, a superior morality to this subjugation to the herd which you support. (keapponlaffin)I'm especially interested in your rhetoric here. "subjugation to the herd". This is clearly a rhetorically loaded phrase. I could just as easily write "subjugation to desires" in describing egoism. Let's play fair and simply describe the theories, not attack them through loaded language (especially value loaded language when our purpose is to establish which value system is right). (Nick)You call it rhetoric, but that is a rhetoric of its own. I call it description. Feel free to call egoism subjugation to one’s self. I’m not opposed to that. I’d rather serve myself than a god, a concept, or a group of people. (keapponlaffin) I stated, "What I mean is simply that logic is used in all branches of philosophy, and mastering this discipline is essential, no matter what type of philosophy you're doing." In response, you stated, "This is still a value judgment" Look at it closely. Where's the value language? This is a factual claim, because it's a claim about how philosophy is actually carried out. (Nick) It is a matter of opinion as to how “essential” logic is in the love of wisdom, philosophy. I might agree that it is important, but it is still a judgment. Words are also used in all branches of philosophy, and it is carried out with them. To be value free, one would simply say that logic is used in philosophy. Your statement is a bit more than that. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "Logic can’t be used to justify itself." It can't? What about the Completeness and Consistency theorem? (Nick)Do you know about these theorems? They demonstrate that systems of logic cannot be proved to be consistent and complete. They support the contention that logic can’t be used to justify itself. A system cannot be verified with rules and methods formalized within itself, so another system is needed, but then that system would have the same problem, so this would lead to an infinite regress. Read Gödel. (keapponlaffin) Now, of course, to be fair, it should be pointed out that this is circular, since it assumes logic in proving the completeness and consistency. But, this is still a justification, since part of being justified is being logical. (contradictions are generally thought to not produce justified beliefs). Also, circular justifications may just be the only way we can justify at a certain point. (Nick)Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself, besides being wrong about completeness and consistency? (keapponlaffin) You stated, "You should know, keaponlaffin, that dictionary definitions are notoriously non-technical. They offer the popular conventions, not the precise interpretations required by serious philosophers and scholarly researchers." Very true. They do represent popular conventions. But what do you think we're trying to do with philosophical analysis? We're figuring out what we mean when we use a word. We certainly move past dictionary definitions, but those are still important to make sure we're actually analyzing correctly. If your analysis flies in the face of common sense and all ordinary definitions, then you're not doing it right. (Nick)You contradicted yourself again. Shall we go beyond dictionary definitions or fall back on popular opinion? Do philosophers simply wait to see what gets accepted as “common sense” and then adopt it? Is that what you think philosophical analysis is? Very often, the greatest philosophers do fly in the face of conventional wisdom. They are a step or two above the crowd. They don’t subjugate themselves to majority rule. They often set the standard to which the common people aspire. (keapponlaffin) You stated, "Scientifically, man is a living thing which, like other living things, strives to survive and flourish." A bit over-simplified of course, but close enough I suppose. We are social animals, as you noted. We can use biology to try and support all sorts of moral systems, but in the end we have to recognize the fact/value barrier. What we are doesn't necessitate what we ought to be. In your post you had, (Nick)If we determine flourishing survival as an intrinsic value and acknowledge that humans have free-will, we can get from “is” to “ought”, since humans must then participate in creating their natures, not just do what they do and be what they are. They would be in a process of becoming. (keapponlaffin) Simply put, if you ask your average competent speaker of the english language is being selfish is being moral, the answer is no. If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself. (Nick)Notice that my explanation of rational self-interest is not equal to the conventional notion of selfishness. It is not acting on the range of the moment without regard for the welfare of others. If you characterize it this way, you are constructing a strawman, not attacking my description of rational egoism." You answered to one of my arguments. The others stand. I will repeat them for emphasis... If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself (Nick)I think I did address this. I traced some origins of this thought and pointed out that there are other ways of looking at it. Anyway, notice how you are falling back, again, on the average person. Instead of thinking for yourself, you are concerned with what the average person thinks.  Although some things are self-evident, even to the average person, the average person is not a philosopher. (keapponlaffin) You stated, "As you told me in a prior thread, Quine is not a logical positivist. He was trained as such but moved away from this movement and did much to weaken it." My point is that you're not accurately representing Quine. (Nick)When you make a general statement, like that I’m not accurately representing Quine, you should develop it with a few specifics. Otherwise, it is an unsupported accusation. In what way am I not representing Quine accurately? I think I am. He would say that value judgments are non-observational, non-cognitive, non-measurable, and thus non-scientific. This is not a misrepresentation. (keapponlaffin) You stated, "(Nick)Yes, Mill said a lot of things which were good for libertarian governments. His views on freedom of speech are great. And, I quote him a lot when talking about quality. However, he did say a few things with which I disagree and  which do more to support socialism than capitalism.  Greatest good for the greatest number does not place value on the individual. Whether or not communism has been successful does not change the fact that its goal was to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. " Of course you don't completely agree with him, or else you'd be a consistent utilitarian. The point is, Utility does not promote harming people, or destroying the individual. Just the opposite, a healthy sense of self is important for being a good utilitarian. (Nick)Nevertheless, “greatest good for the greatest number” can be destructive to individualistic philosophies and systems like capitalism. It can be used to support communism and subjugation to the herd. Egoistic utilitarianism can be healthy and moral, but it must separate itself from that catch phrase which Mill promoted. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "(Nick) No, Locke and Jefferson spoke about self-evident truths that all humans are, as humans, equal, and that it follows from that that if one human has a natural right to pursue life, then all of them do. And, it is the function of governments to secure those rights, not violate them. These are individual rights, not group rights. " And I quote from Locke, Chapter 1 of the 2nd Treatise, that all political power is "only for the public good". What you're referencing is from chapter 2, and you're right. We're all rational beings, and as such we should recognize that we're all *equal*, morally speaking. No one is more important than anyone else, morally speaking. Does this really sound like egoism to you? (Nick)Yes, humans are, as humans, equal. We should respect other humans as we would want them to respect us and not do to them what we would not want them to do to us. This is a principle behind individual rights. And, whenever any form of government become destructive of these ends, these individual and natural rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or abolish it and institute new government, laying its foundation on such grounds as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "(Nick) The hedonistic calculus provides rational criteria for measuring pleasures when compared to one another. I pointed out how the pleasure of earning a degree can be compared to the pleasure of watching a television show. Most rational people would choose the degree. It’s not arbitrary. You are not demonstrating that it is subjective and arbitrary. You merely state what something seems to you. It is hardly a rational argument. " Ok, sure we can get agreement when we give such an obvious example. How about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? Which is objectively better? By what number of hedons? (Nick)This is not the province of ethics. It is a matter of taste. I’m not going to tell people what they should choose in matters of taste, only that they should not violate my right to choose what I want in any pursuit of my happiness and flourishing survival. (keapponlaffin)I stated earlier, "Fine, but rational egoism leads to highly counter-intuitive outputs. What I mean is, it leads to choices which are clearly immoral (on a pre-theoretical level). As long as the egoist is clever enough, and knows he won't get caught, I don't see any reason why he should refrain from stealing." You stated in response"Nick) No, you aren’t including my points about qualitative pleasures like authenticity. Stealing and living a lie, without getting caught, is not authentic. Someone who earns rewards honestly is happier than someone who must sneak and take risks. " And how do you account for prisoners dilemmas? People's interests aren't always going to perfectly align. The world doesn't work like that. (Nick)First, let me point out that we are not dealing with intuition, as in “intuitive outputs,” we are dealing with rational outputs. Prisoner dilemmas often work on risk value, and it is not as risky to be honest, moral, than it is to be immoral. The rational egoist would choose to be moral in a moral community, not risk dishonoring himself or herself. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "Finding money on the ground has no relation to winning or losing a race. Anyway, earning money is far better than simply finding it. I don’t act to find money on the ground. If it happens, it is an accident, not a consequence of my actions. I can’t depend on accidents. And, if I lose the race, at least I gave it an honest try. I don’t want the reward that someone else deserves more than I do. It is not the most authentic and honorable way to live. " This doesn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again. In and of itself, which is better, losing a race or finding $100 on the ground? (Nick)Again, I reject your comparison. I wouldn’t mind finding money on the ground, and I would prefer it to losing a race. However, finding money on the ground is not a pursuit I can count on as a moral choice. I would have a better utilitarian chance of winning a race, if I train hard, than I would of finding money on the ground. Someone who only looks for money on the ground and never tries to earn money himself or herself is not very rational. (keapponlaffin) You stated, "(Nick) Your burden is to prove how being a predator can be in one’s self-interest. " Ok, I'll give a few examples, even though I just need one. A) You've been shipwrecked on a desert island, and there's no food available. There's one other person with you. If you kill and eat him, you'll survive longer and perhaps be rescued. If you don't, then you'll starve. It would seem that the best option here, from the self-interested point of view, is to kill this person. B) You're starving because you're poor homeless and jobless. No one will give you any money. You could sneak a loaf of bread from a vendor, and you know you won't get caught. Or you could starve. C) The most obvious one. You find yourself shackled and at gun point by a sadistic maniac who says you have two options. You can be shot on the spot, or go be a predator in the next room over where an unsuspecting innocent individual is sleeping. (Nick)In times of emergencies, I would do what needs to be done, unless it is a matter of principle, as when people choose to remain on the Titanic to allow others to survive. The point is, real life is not one of your life and death emergencies. (keapponlaffin)I stated, "Your case is incomplete by the way." You stated, "You haven’t proven anything yet. " This is in the context is proving egoism. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. That is, unless you want me to prove egoism, but I promise that you'd do a better job of it. (Nick)My reasoning supporting egoism is prima facie, if not compelling. If it is not refuted, it wins. You have not refuted me. Your attempts have been and continue to be rebutted. When you say, “Your case is incomplete…”, it is not an argument, not a reason, not even a true statement. It does not refute the case I presented, and nothing you’ve said so far has even come close. (keapponlaffin) I asked, "Why not actually care about other people for their own sake?" You stated, "I do care about other people, my loved ones, their interests might be the same as my interests." Be careful, you just changed the language, and hence the meaning. I didn't ask about merely carign for people. I'm asking about caring for people for their own sake. Precision is key here. (Nick)You’re a fine one to be talking about precision of language, after trying to turn rational self-interest into range-of-the-moment strawman selfishness. Anyhow, I think it would be evil to deny myself in my concern for someone else. I don’t like people who do that because I think they are phony, in a state of self-deception. More authentic people do what they selfishly want, and I prefer their company. I don’t want people to visit me in a hospital or befriend me out of some sense of selfless duty. I’d rather they do this because they selfishly want to, because there is something about me which brings them pleasure. People who live only to please others end up like J. Alfred Prufrock, and I certainly don’t want to be like him. (keapponlaffin)You stated, "I may, like Sydney Carton, of A Tale of Two Cities, actually kill myself to save someone else. I would still maintain, however, that that would be a selfish choice, as it was for Sydney Carton." That would be selfish? Interesting. I'm curious about what sort of egoism you're working under. What is your standard of value? (to use objectivist language here) (Nick)Yes, have you read the story? Carton was an apathetic cynic until he found something to give his life meaning. We can all envy him. If we are going to die anyway, it is better, more rationally egoistic, to die for something which will have positive consequences than for nothing. Carton knew his death would have consequences. The people he saved would come to his grave and remember him. His story would be told, generation after generation. He knew what he was doing was better than anything he had ever done before, and the sleep he was going to would be a more satisfying sleep than he had ever had. You should understand now how this is a choice which led to a flourishing survival, a qualitative life rather than a quantitative one. I think also the sleep to which Martin Luther King Jr. went to was more satisfying than one after a long but wasted life. BTW, Josh, I've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal long ago.   Bis bald, Nick        Report

11-12-2006, 8:59 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: My Beliefs Hello, First off, sorry for posting so infrequently. I'm in the process of polishing up an old paper, to see if I can make something more of it. Initially just intending to consider the pros and cons of epiphenomenalism, but it's spiraled into a mess of everything. It turns out that I'm going to need to include at least small bits of philosophy of language (specifically, a theory of meaning), epistemology (do we need a causal connection between beliefs and facts?), and metaphysics (over determination and counter-factuals). Anyways, here I go on the posting... Josh, You stated, "you can't analyze it from the perspective of "the public," for there is no entity the public." There is no entity "the public". This is true. But, it is also true that there is no entity "Josh". You're a collection of smaller parts, just like the public is. You stated, "you are suggesting that men should serve the good of the public, but who determines what is good for the public " Who determines what is good for the public? Reality. There is a fact of the matter, and it's our job to figure it out. Of course we might be wrong, just as we might be wrong about what's good for an individual, but that's ok. It's all a part of the beautiful challenge called life. You stated, "without property rights, you might as well have no rights." No government can function without infringing on rights. To protect rights, you have to infringe upon them. (just to clarify, I'm specifically thinking about taxation, but the necessary violations are not restricted to this one set of cases). You stated, "without property rights, how is one supposed to sustain one's existence?" The same way we sustain our existence now. The government doesn't recognize any absolute right to property, yet we still sustain our existences.   Ok, now back to the big debate... Nick, You stated, "(Nick)You call it rhetoric, but that is a rhetoric of its own. I call it description. Feel free to call egoism subjugation to one’s self. I’m not opposed to that. I’d rather serve myself than a god, a concept, or a group of people. " That's fine. Just recognize that your justification is mere whim. It's a matter of personal preference, and nothing more. You stated, "To be value free, one would simply say that logic is used in philosophy. Your statement is a bit more than that." Ok, that's what I really meant from the beginning, though something slightly stronger. I mean to say this: Logic is used more than any other specific branch of philosophy in philosophy as a whole. Thank you for helping me to clarify my language. You stated, "Do you know about these theorems? They demonstrate that systems of logic cannot be proved to be consistent and complete." We must be talking about different theorems. I'm specifically referencing the proof within logic which begins with it's basic assumptions and goes on to show (in purely logical form) that no contradictions exist and also that nothing more is needed for the entirety of logic. Now, of course this is circular, as I said, but it's also ok. You stated, in regards to this, "Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself, besides being wrong about completeness and consistency?" Could you please demonstrate the contradiction? You stated, "You contradicted yourself again. Shall we go beyond dictionary definitions or fall back on popular opinion? Do philosophers simply wait to see what gets accepted as “common sense” and then adopt it?" Once again I ask that you point out the contradiction if you're going to claim that one exists. Additionally, you're trying to make my statement into a black and white claim. My point is that philosophy is more technical, complicated, and subtle than that. We have a linguistic obligation to use words in a way that at least approximates the ordinary meaning, while at the same time refining those concepts. Read Moore. You stated, "If we determine flourishing survival as an intrinsic value and acknowledge that humans have free-will, we can get from “is” to “ought”" Ok, now your job is to justify the idea that "flourishing survival" has intrinsic value. I stated, "If you ask the person if morality is really just doing what is best for you, the answer is no. A moral action is one which is generally thought to assign intrinsic value to someone other than yourself" In response, you stated, "I think I did address this. I traced some origins of this thought and pointed out that there are other ways of looking at it. Anyway, notice how you are falling back, again, on the average person." Remember to keep distinct analysis and ontological claims. My claim is merely an analytic claim. In understanding the meaning of words, we do have to consider the way the language is actually used. Now, this isn't to say that egoism is necessary false. It may be the case that we ought to be selfish. This does now, however, make egoism an  analysis of morality. It is, instead, a value claim. As regards Quine, my point is that Quine would not support either side, and did not only criticize moral claims. First, we're both making moral claims, so to criticize my points by appeal to Quine makes you a "partner in crime". Secondly, as regards empirical claims, these end up being meaningless according to Quine. As a final note, my primary concern here is not Quine, and so I'd be happy dropping this subject and not worrying about it. You stated, "Nevertheless, “greatest good for the greatest number” can be destructive to individualistic philosophies and systems like capitalism. It can be used to support communism and subjugation to the herd. Egoistic utilitarianism can be healthy and moral, but it must separate itself from that catch phrase which Mill promoted." a few points... First: I grant that people could try to justify communism on utilitarian grounds, but that's not the same as communism actually being justified on utilitarian grounds. One could just as easily try to justify it on egoistic grounds, but that don't make it right. Second: You talk about subjugation to the herd... Is this really how you would describe humanity? If so, no wonder you don't find any intrinsic value in others. Third: Egoistic utilitarianism is a contradiction. Just say a hedonist. You stated, "(Nick)Yes, humans are, as humans, equal. We should respect other humans as we would want them to respect us and not do to them what we would not want them to do to us. This is a principle behind individual rights. And, whenever any form of government become destructive of these ends, these individual and natural rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or abolish it and institute new government, laying its foundation on such grounds as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. " Ok, but this doesn't refute my point. Locke isn't an egoist. He alligns himself with either A) utilitarianism, B) Christianity, C) Social Contract Theory, or D) general altruism. The quotes I provided justify this claim, and not egoism. I stated, Ok, sure we can get agreement when we give such an obvious example. How about chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? Which is objectively better? By what number of hedons? You stated, "(Nick)This is not the province of ethics. It is a matter of taste. I’m not going to tell people what they should choose in matters of taste, only that they should not violate my right to choose what I want in any pursuit of my happiness and flourishing survival." Ok, so it's not a moral decision what I should eat. Interesting, so morality isn't about pleasure and pain? Furthermore, how do you get any theory of rights out of strict hedonism? The two claims are mutually exclusive. You stated, "Prisoner dilemmas often work on risk value, and it is not as risky to be honest, moral, than it is to be immoral. " So can you make a categorical claim, that it's always less risky to be honest? You stated, "I wouldn’t mind finding money on the ground, and I would prefer it to losing a race." Ok, this shows that the earned is not always better than the unearned. That's all I need. You stated, "In times of emergencies, I would do what needs to be done, unless it is a matter of principle, as when people choose to remain on the Titanic to allow others to survive. The point is, real life is not one of your life and death emergencies." Real life isn't an emergy, of course not. That's part of the definition of emergency, that it's not the norm. But, it's exactly in these emergency situations when morality is most important. In everyday life, the egoist and the utilitarian are going to act almost identically (the utilitarian being slightly more willing to help others). So, you say that you would do what needs to be done. What needs to be done? That doesn't answer the question really. Also, how can you justify dying on the titanic on egoistic grounds? You stated, "(Nick)My reasoning supporting egoism is prima facie, if not compelling. If it is not refuted, it wins. You have not refuted me. Your attempts have been and continue to be rebutted. When you say, “Your case is incomplete…”, it is not an argument, not a reason, not even a true statement. It does not refute the case I presented, and nothing you’ve said so far has even come close." And I repeat the refrain: You still havn't justified egoism. Provide me with reasons for believing that I ought to be selfish, without any appeal to whims or a resort to arbitrary stipulations. You stated, "Anyhow, I think it would be evil to deny myself in my concern for someone else. I don’t like people who do that because I think they are phony, in a state of self-deception. More authentic people do what they selfishly want, and I prefer their company. I don’t want people to visit me in a hospital or befriend me out of some sense of selfless duty. I’d rather they do this because they selfishly want to, because there is something about me which brings them pleasure." First: I'm not convinced that the altruist is being "phony". Now, I agree with you that there's something authentic, even admirable, about the egoist who openly announces that he's an egoist. That's cool. I can then better predict that person's actions. But, I think there's also something authentic and admirable about someone who openly announces (and actually commits to) utilitarianism. When a friend of mine is strictly vegetarian, I smile and admire their integrity. I think the real deceivers and phonies are those who claim to be altruistic for the sake of receiving egoistic gains (and, to keep it balanced, I would be just as upset about someone claiming to be egoistic for the sake of altruism, both are wrong). Second: I'm actually very sympathetic to the hospital case. I think the Kantian is the worst offender here, announcing that he's only visiting his friend because of his "duty to pure rationality"... what a load of garbage. But, come on, if the friend says, instead, "I came because I wanted you to feel better", that's hardly deplorable like the Kantian answer is. My point is, I think there's something morally praiseworthy about valuing an individual because of his or her intrinsic value, seeing that person as valuable in and of themself, without having to appeal to the pleasure you can get out of them. You stated, "If we are going to die anyway, it is better, more rationally egoistic, to die for something which will have positive consequences than for nothing." Ok, I would agree with that. But what about when you didn't have to die? What of those cases where one chooses to die when they didn't have to? You stated, "I think also the sleep to which Martin Luther King Jr. went to was more satisfying than one after a long but wasted life." What's this talk about a satisfying sleep? We're talking about death. There's nothing satisfactory or unsatisfactory