-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/03/03/sandefur-on-the-third-letter/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
But I can see a move an Objectivist can make in response to your empirical observation that lots of apparently happy people aren't very rational. You just redefine happiness to be a measure of living the good life, whether subjectively satisfied or not, along the "I'd rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" line.
Even though I'm not an Objectivist, I like that approach. I think there has to be some room for people to come up with controversial theories of what the good life involves. This inovles allowing that people can be wrong about what is the good life is, and even be satisfied with their wrongness.
The problem with Objectivisim is that it is an impoverished theory of what the good life is about, but its defenders are right to resist a purely subjective account of happiness.
On the other hand, even in an anarcho-capitalist society, someone would have to do at least some of the jobs that public sector workers do now. All an anarcho-capitalist can possibly claim is that the market would supply these workers and they would be more efficeint. So why are they engaging in predation and parasitism, at least if they are doing their jobs conscientiously?
Let me clarify. People who work in the public sector and make their living from taxes aren't therefore unproductive or parasitic. Many people are in the business of providing genuine public goods. Even if the market COULD take care of them, they need to be taken care of somehow, and people who work for the government doing this are productive. Similarly, the state often duplicates services that would likely be provided on the market. A public school teacher is clearly doing something productive (provided he or she is actually teaching kids something.) I actually had in mind people who, say, lobby for tariffs for the sugar industry. They are paid by private actors to maintain a stream of political rents. This is predation/parastism. You don't need to work for the state to be doing it. And if you work for the state, you might well not be doing it.
"They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual produce of the industry of other people. Their service, how honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured . . . In the same class must be ranked, some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most frivolous professions: churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers, opera-dancers, etc."
Will grants that public servants can provide useful goods, but either way, isn't the hidden assumption basically humanitarian? In other words, whether politician or autoworker, the goal is to increase the sum total of stuff for other people. Maybe selflessness is actually capitalism's hidden ideal.
Will should be honored to be included with the buffoons and players.
Clarification: I'm not personally arguing that happiness is the only value. I've just been arguing ex hypothesi. Even if we hold fixed the moral goal that Objectivism posits, the theory doesn't succeed. The criticism that other things have a value that is irreducible to their contribution to life and happiness is different, although I think I probably believe it.
In other words:
I am agitating for the government to create everyone's happiness.
I am, therefore, good.
Because we know that the gov't will do whatever we tell it to do.
And if I tell it to do something good, it will.
Therefore, if I tell the gov't to make everything nice for everybody, right now, then I deserve to win a million dollars for doing such a good thing.
Therefore, the gov't should take your money and give it to me.
Because it owes me a million dollars, right?
And where else will it get a million dollars from?
The million dollars is something you give me for being good, or it's something the gov't makes up, right?
So why won't you give me your money, dammit?
This is an inaccurate description of Objectivist motives. In spreading their philosophy, Objectivists claim to be creating--selfishly--the type of society they would prefer to live in.
Also, I think Rand's use of "happiness" may be a bit misleading: She is not suggesting that we live for mere pleasure or physical enjoyment, although she certainly has no problems with these things. Instead, she advocates a full, flourishing, productive, rational life--because the best possible chance we have toward happiness, and also because this is how humans are designed to live. (I know Will has objections to the second half of this argument, as he holds that reason is not how humans are designed to live. I am curious what he thinks of the first half, however... Does rationality offer our best chance at happiness? Or is some other method more probable?)
It should read "...productive, rational life--because this is the best possible chance we have..."
For instance, if you try to pair up with a romantic partner on what you take to be "rational" grounds, you're likely to end up in pretty deep trouble. You'll be better off in a relationship if you apply reason in the right way. But if you're trying to override your "gut" in matters of attraction and compatibility, you're done for. (And, no, your gut in these cases is unlikely to be reflecting integrated rational evaluations.)
In my own experience, I first "noticed" my partner of six years because he was attractive to me--but I remained interested in him because we had very similar values, interests, and tastes. In the end, it really was a rational decision: If pressed, I could certainly enumerate the reasons why I love him, by comparing him directly to his rivals, who (after six years of growing together) are virtually nonexistent.
I've enjoyed the letters and the feedback on them but I want to make an analogy. For a good deal of time, in the field of economics, there was much confusion about what caused inflation. There still is good deal of debate about fine tuning the system (should the U.S. follow a price rule, a gold standard, target M2, etc) but everyone now agrees that you CANNOT just print huge amounts of money and not expect to have inflation. The quantity theory of money holds and that is universally recognized.
Now relating this to Objectivism and Rand, it seems you and others are hammering out the details as to where the her philosophy goes astray (should we target M2 growth at 6%) but I don't see this contradicting the broader picture (quantity theory of money). Debating the specifics is important within the field, but for the layman in philosophy such as myself what I want is basic framework as to what is right and what is wrong.
What I have taken from Objectivism is that reality exists, reason makes it possible to understand the facts of reality, we are volitional beings (not to say that our choices are not influenced by evolution or other aspects, but we do make choices), life should be one's standard of value, an individual is an end in himself not a means towards some end of "society," it is moral and right to live my life as I see fit provided I allow others the same courtesy, and it is a good thing to enjoy life... not something to feel guilty about. Following from this the purpose of government should be to protect individual rights.
While I'd love to work out all the details you guys are getting into, I'm not a philosopher and I just don't have the time (although someday I hope to find it). But is there anything wrong with these broad ideas I've taken from Objectivism? So far I just haven't seen them clearly refuted.
But on this account of selfishness, all goal-directed activity is selfish. After all, a communist is selfishly trying to create the type of society they would prefer to live in. Similarly, a person who sells all he hath and gives to the poor wants the poor to have the money.
Since people can't help but be "selfish" in this sense, it is pointless to advocate.
What you've laid out is a relatively banal account of the enlightenment, liberal tradition. Plenty of non-Objectivists subscribe to most or all of those propositions without being an Objectivist.
Rand'd philosophy was a lot more specific and provocative than a mere commitment to reason and individualism. To take just one examples, she held that choosing to pursue the welfare of others at one's own expense is immoral--even if you have a happy and satisfying life doing so. Personally, I think that's just wrong. There are plenty of people who devote their lives to helping others, and they lead happy, fulfilling lives doing so.
Similarly, she doesn't merely hold that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. She makes the stronger claim that that is government's only legitimate purpose, and that, moreover, taxation is theft even when the taxes are used to protect individual life. That simply doesn't follow from the general principle that individuals are ends in themselves.
Rand's work certainly sounds some worthwhile notes-- rationality, individualism, an admiration for excellence--a sense of life she compellingly expounded in The Fountainhead. But she didn't stop there-- she went on to develop a very detailed philosophical framework that doesn't withstand logical scrutiny, much less empirical evidence.
With regards to pursing the welfare of others, I don't interpret her philosophy the way you do. Clearly anytime you help others it involves a "sacrifice" of money, time, and/or effort. Does this mean that Rand was against charity and helping others? No. What she was against was the idea that using your time, money, effort and getting nothing out of it was the source of virtue.
In your own example you state that these people "have a happy and satisfying life". By definition then they are getting out more than they are putting in. That's not a sacrifice. Let's say you have $150 and can spend it on a X-box or loan it to a friend that has fell on hard times and is in dire need of cash. Now critics of Rand often argue that being moral in her view would be spending the money on an X-Box for yourself, as anything less would be a sacrifice. But this isn't true. Not giving it to your friend would represent that you have no concept of the word friendship in the first place. This can be extrapolated to all mankind. When the tsunami hit South East Asia sending $50 to Oxfam isn't a sacrifice if it means I eat in instead of out twice that month. It means I value human life, even the life of complete strangers, and I want to help them as they were struck by this unforeseen natural disaster that could have happened to anyone. I mean think of it, I've spent countless dollars going to movies to get the pleasure of watching fictional characters succeed and better their lives in ficitional situations. It would almost be sick not to think that I wouldn't get more pleasure when receiving an update from Oxfam explaining how my money is helping real people overcome this real and horrific tragedy.
But I should also say that the thought that someone might be dependent on the misfortune of others for their happiness is disturbing. A true source of happiness must come from the fulfillment of your goals, sharing that excitement with the ones you love, and of course sharing in their accomplishments as well.
As for her belief that taxation is theft even when it only goes to support institutions that support individual rights, I agree with that statement. Do I believe that this means that we should overthrow the government and accept nothing less than voluntary forms of taxation such as lotteries and contract insurance? No it doesn't. But I do keep in the back of my mind that the initiation of force is wrong. Why not start by first trying to move the system to one where our tax dollars are going to funding institutions that protect individual rights, (not agribusiness, etc.) and see if in the long run such government funding might be possible? Maybe I'm too idealistic on this one but a government that is funded by voluntary means, at the minimum, seems like a moral goal to keep in the back of our minds, even if completely impractical in today's political environment.
I should also note that before a real Objectivist pipes in that I'm misrepresenting Rand, I admit I might very well be. But I've definitely been influenced by her greatly as she explained a moral case for freedom more clearly to me than Mises, Hayek, or Friedman ever did. For that I'm indebted to her.
Frankly, I think you're interpreting Rand's philosophy charitably. I'm pretty sure that Rand would tell you that it's immoral to give money to the tsunami victims unless they were friends of yours, and therefore in the position to potentially benefit you in the future.
If "altruism" simply means "doing things that make you unhappy," then virtually no one is an altruist. In that case, it's not even clear what the word means, since people rarely make themselves miserable on purpose. Rand thought there was an objective fact of the matter about what is and isn't in your self-interest that's not determined by whether it makes you happy. So even if you get more satsifaction from helping tsunami victims than from eating out twice a month, she would say that you're engaging in "whim worship," and that a truly moral (that is, selfish) person would spend the money on himself, not strangers halfway around the world. I think she would say that sending money to a tsunami victim you don't know is altruism even if gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.
Frankly, I think your charitable interpretation of Rand's views are a lot more appealing than Rand's actual views. And actually, the implicit sense of life in her novels is closer to your interpretation than her explicit philosophy. Rand was always much more talented as a writer and polemicist than she ever was as a philosopher.
It sounds to me like you picked up the positive aspects of Rand's philosophy, and simply ignored the pinch-souled, dogmatic aspects that make humorless Randroids so annoying. Which is, I think, to your credit. There's a lot to like about Rand's sense of life that I don't think her explicit philosophical positions really captured.
I got the impression that motive, rather than action was the important thing. For Rand, a philanthropist motivated to be altrustic because he likes doing it is A-Ok. A philanthropist motivated to be altrustic because he believes he has a duty to be or because he doesn't believe he is the rightful owner of his money is not ok.
No?
Good reply but I have to disagree once again. I don't think Rand would tell me it's immoral to give to the tsunami victims (but for the life of me I can't find my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness to quote her directly).
However, I've got a copy of George Reisman's Capitalism right in front of me. He was a student of Rand (and actually of Mises as well) and considers himself an Objectivist. He clearly states that giving to complete strangers is in fact moral as by helping them out "we see a confirmation that we can be successful and happy, and so we feel better as a result." He references the VOS in a footnote at the end of this paragraph and throughout the discussion goes into much more detail.. If you have time head over to his website (www.capitalism.net) where you can access his entire book in pdf format. This discussion on charity is on page 334.
As for the definition of altruism, and Will can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Kant, who Rand viewed as her nemesis in philosophy, believed that all moral acts were dictated by duty (sacrifice). Yet if an act was performed out of duty but the person performing the act received any kind of pleasure from it, then there would be no moral credit given to the action. That is what Rand was fighting. It's absolutely true that people "rarely make themselves miserable on purpose" and her message was don't feel guilty about that fact. Sacrafice is not the source of virtue.
Of course most of my knowledge on Kant's ethics comes from third party sources as I have not read his work myself, so let me know if I am misrepresenting his views.
I also don't think you're being fair to Rand.
She explicitly said that she wasn't just talking about life, but about the life of man qua man; which she took to mean using reason to choose and pursue values.
Yes, one may not maximize his happiness by being super-rational all the time, but I think she was right that flourishing human lives require freedom to creatively solve their problems, and coercion hurts them.
The race doesn't always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, and the use of reason doesn't always lead to the most happiness.
But...that's the way to bet.
I went back and re-read the relevant essay in TVOS, and her position is actually closer to your description than I remember. She says it's ok to help others, but only if you can afford it and only for emergencies (i.e. not to alleviate poverty or other non-emergency conditions).
I decided that the main take-home message of Objectivism is that it's okay to live for yourself, to pursue what makes you happy. Lots of philosophies argue that you can do that, but there's no moral merit to it and you're only moral insofar as you live for others. No need to feel guilty about living for yourself, or enjoying life.
As for the conditions Rand put on when you can help others in TVOS--I think those are mainly illustrations of when it's not altruistic/purely self-sacrificial. If you're not losing much by helping other people, it's not much of a sacrifice; as Peter said, having to eat at home a couple of extra nights a month isn't really a substantial cost. Her point is that you shouldn't feel obligated to put substantial costs on yourself and make yourself miserable for the benefit of others.
On a related note, I've noticed that the sanest and most reasonable Christians among my friends, and the ones most tolerant of atheism, are the ones who believe that Christianity and following God's Word is the way to make themselves happy. The most balanced version of Christian ethics is that God gives men rules because he wants them to be happy, and following his guidelines is the best way to be happy. These Christians don't feel like they're making sacrifices by being religious and hewing to a code of ethics; they feel like I'm hurting myself by not following these ethics, since they're the way to be happy. For that matter, in some cases they have a point--I'm not religious, but some of the advice the Bible gives is just generally a good idea (being generally nice to people, don't get upset by others' good fortune, etc).
Sorry for rambling. I guess the upshot is Rand was a little nuts, but had some good ideas; one of the most important (though not necessarily original) was the idea that it's okay to live yourself, and you have no generalized obligation to live for others; and that fewer people realize that last than you might think.
1. Everyone should take the course of action they prefer over all the alternatives, with moral and other-regarding considerations included in preference.
2. The Kantian/Puritan claim that an action is only virtuous if you would rather not do it is false.
3. The most virtuous life is also the life that will (in the end) make you happiest, even if it involves taking actions one would not take if one excluded moral and other-regarding considerations.
4. There are no legitimate considerations in taking action other than one's own personal gratification.
The problem with #1 is that it is hard to see how anyone could act otherwise, so it can't be a guide to action. #2 is reasonable (although Rand clearly did not take the time to understand Kant before she criticized him). #3 is a venerable claim of the Western philosophical tradition, but it seems empirically false. #4 is what Rand is popularly taken to be saying, but I take it Objectivists don't really defend.
It's time to get stupid. I'll be smart in the morning.