Poll: Objectivism and the Categorical Imperative

[Seldon2639]

So, I have weird thoughts at night. This particular one is based on a discussion about environmentalism, and how in order to make Americans do something about it, we have to be convinced that it's good for *us*.

When environmentalism is presented as a "human" issue, and that the reason we need to do something about it is to save people in China, we don't want to. We don't care about the environment as an entity unto itself, nor about people across the globe. We don't have a moral covenant with anyone except our fellow Americans.

Ignoring whether this is "good", I realized that this sound alarmingly like Ayn Rand's objectivism. And this moved me more toward introspection. I tend to view myself as un-objectivist, and see it as an untenable system if in widespread use. This is where the categorical imperative comes in. Kant's conception of the categorical imperative is that we should not engage in behaviors which (if everyone did them) would be destructive. So, if everyone were purely self-interested, would it be destructive? Or, does the system allow for a certain amount of people to be selfish, balanced by some altruistic people, and with a whole lot of people in the middle who are sometimes a bit of both?

Do you hold to objectivism in your daily life, and do you view most other people as doing the same? For me, it's strange. I don't view anyone I know (for the most part) as being objectivist, but I view people at large as being selfish. Do other people feel the same way?

 

[Horticulture]

So, if everyone were purely self-interested, would it be destructive? Or, does the system allow for a certain amount of people to be selfish, balanced by some altruistic people, and with a whole lot of people in the middle who are sometimes a bit of both?

Using your environmental programs as an example, purely self-interested behavior (even at the State level) would be destructive. Because many environmental issues are international in nature, conservation or care by one state creates positive externalities, or benefits for others in the region/world. Conversely, the negative effects of pollution are spread to other states. Because states don't bear the full costs of their polluting activities, or reap the full benefits of their efforts at protection/conservation, there's an incentive to invest more effort in polluting activity and less in cleanup than in the case of a state which was solely affected by its own policies.

Of oourse, there are other cases where self-interest aligns more closely with general interest. Regardless, I find Objectivism annoying. Even when I find common ground with it, I try to avoid associating myself. Mostly because Atlas Shrugged is such an awful read.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Objectivism is doomed in practise because people are extremely bad at long term planning. The sacrifice of long term viability for short term benefit is a pattern we can see repeated over and over again when no strong regulation is present.

One needs look no further than the causes of the current financial crisis to see the results of unfettered self interest.

 

[dwightsteel]

Objectivism is doomed in practise because people are extremely bad at long term planning. The sacrifice of long term viability for short term benefit is a pattern we can see repeated over and over again when no strong regulation is present.

One needs look no further than the causes of the current financial crisis to see the results of unfettered self interest.

Objectivism, especially defining it the way the OP has (with Ayn Rand's Metaphysical Objectivism), isn't something that actually has anything to do with long term planning. Her view on the subject is that reality exists independent of consciousness and that individuals are a part of reality through sensory perception. People can gain objective knowledge from perception through "concept formation" and inductive and deductive logic; that the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's self-interest vis a vis Happiness; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights.

It's an idea that I believe most people live in, whether they know it or not. The question at hand I think is whether we can use peoples inherent belief system in one's self interest to play at saving the environment.

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kant, so I can't really comment on "categorical imperatives."

 

[Horticulture]

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kant, so I can't really comment on "categorical imperatives."

Kant is similar to Rand in that he was eccentric and lacked the ability to express himself succinctly. The key difference, however, is that his ideas are applicable to the real world.

 

[dwightsteel]

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kant, so I can't really comment on "categorical imperatives."

Kant is similar to Rand in that he was eccentric and lacked the ability to express himself succinctly. The key difference, however, is that his ideas are applicable to the real world.

Ahhh...You see, I come from an LD debating background. I tended to follow people whom are hard disprove because they have no practical place in real world scenarios. Made it hard to poke holes my cases.

 

[Seldon2639]

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kant, so I can't really comment on "categorical imperatives."

Kant is similar to Rand in that he was eccentric and lacked the ability to express himself succinctly. The key difference, however, is that his ideas are applicable to the real world.

To answer the question about the categorical imperative (though I agree about their inability to explain things in a way that makes sense) is that the morality of an action is judged by whether if everyone were to engage in said action it would help or hurt society. So, stealing has a categorical imperative against it, since if everyone stole it would hurt society. There is a categorical imperative, thus, for having children (since if everyone stopped, humanity would end). It's not necessarily the best judge of ethics, except insofar as we apply it to other theoretical views on what humans "should" do.

Objectivism, especially defining it the way the OP has (with Ayn Rand's Metaphysical Objectivism), isn't something that actually has anything to do with long term planning. Her view on the subject is that reality exists independent of consciousness and that individuals are a part of reality through sensory perception. People can gain objective knowledge from perception through "concept formation" and inductive and deductive logic; that the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's self-interest vis a vis Happiness; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights.

It's an idea that I believe most people live in, whether they know it or not. The question at hand I think is whether we can use peoples inherent belief system in one's self interest to play at saving the environment.

Unfortunately, I haven't read Kant, so I can't really comment on "categorical imperatives."

In terms of Rand's views on the morality of egoism, my question is more whether people actually *should* act that way. Rand posits that it's how people act as part of their natures, but then she's just cribbing Hobbes. The distinguishing factor is that where Hobbes argues against the "war of all against all", Rand endorses it. Hobbes wants a government to step in and stop people from trampling over each other, Rand sees it as not only the price of doing business, but a positive force in the world.

Sorry to bust back into my own thread, just thought I'd clarify a few things to try to help the discussion along. This is good for letting some of the massive philosophical and intellectual steam out of my engine.

 

[GloatingSwine]

that the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's self-interest vis a vis Happiness; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights.

She went somewhat further than that though, into the concept that altruism itself is inherently immoral and evil, and that any action not devoted primarily to the self interest of the actor should be held as immoral.

Which, of course, means that when let loose on humans, which have poor long term planning, means that the decisions produced will inevitably prioritise and be used to justify short term gain, even when a contrasting action might have a short term cost for long term stability.

It's as broken as Marxism in practise.

 

[Psychochef]

Hmm...I think I can get on board with what you say, but only in certain terms.

The way I see it is this: people will do what they believe to be in their best self-interest. This is not to say what is in their best self-interest. That's a fine distinction.

Let's continue with the environmentalism example. There are two nations, Nation A and Nation B. Nation A is post-industrial, with a largely service-based economy. It's population is somewhat large, but overcrowding isn't a problem. Those considered poor enjoy a modicum of comfort in their lives, or at least a majority of them do. Nation B, on the other hand, is emerging from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. It's population is extremely large, and overcrowding is a problem in many areas. Most of it's citizens live in poverty, and for a vast number of them life is little changed than it was even a century ago.

Now, apply environmentalism to both nations. At the start, it would seem that environmentalism would be in the best self-interests of both nations. And in the long term, that is most definitely so. But for Nation B, it is much better in the short-term to engage in industry, even at the cost of pollution. It's a poor nation, and whatever profits it can realize from industry are seen as desirable. Moreover, even the harmful effects of pollution don't bother it much. So a few of it's citizens get harmed because of pollution. Disfiguring mutation and disease don't matter when there are so many citizens as is, and even a few deaths are acceptable. Give the state of the nation, it's probable that disease and death were commonplace already. And if the problem of pollution should get worse...well, that's the future. Now is what's important, and now requires money. As long as there are enough marginally able-bodied citizens to keep industry running and the economy growing, so what?

The funny thing is, though, that Nation B has a point. Nation A can easily be environmentalist, because it's citizens enjoy a level of prosperity that they can afford to think long-term. Nation B's citizens are likely living day to day, figuratively speaking. Why would they bother thinking about thirty years from now when the majority of them have no guarantee of survival for even the next year. And what's really funny (in an ironic sort of way) is that altruism works in much the same way, and is victim to the same limited thinking. It's just substituting the needs of the group for the needs of the self.

I voted "Meh", because I personally hate Objectivism. Not because I think it's complete crap, but because too often those who do subscribe to it do so as an excuse to act like a total dick (pardon mon Francais). But as flawed as the idea is, there's a grain of truth to it.

 

[rossatdi]

When it comes to economic and social issues I don't think the free reign, personal focus of objectivism is overly smart. The invisible hand of free market economics is good for a lot of things but basic market failures are abound in most public services, public services being vital for what I consider to be good social morality.

Socially/Morally I like Rawls's On Justice. Its basically an extended 'do unto others':

Imagine that you are in a position to design the world you live in. But that you cannot know the resources that you will be given upon starting life (intelligence, health, wealth, etc). The society you design from that point is Just.

Admittedly I've met some right wing idiots who refuse to believe that they couldn't have reached where they are without help from Daddy, but those people will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

 

[dwightsteel]

that the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's self-interest vis a vis Happiness; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights.

She went somewhat further than that though, into the concept that altruism itself is inherently immoral and evil, and that any action not devoted primarily to the self interest of the actor should be held as immoral.

Which, of course, means that when let loose on humans, which have poor long term planning, means that the decisions produced will inevitably prioritise and be used to justify short term gain, even when a contrasting action might have a short term cost for long term stability.

It's as broken as Marxism in practise.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm bright, but I'm also humble enough to admit that there are things to Rand that I was never clear on. I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead in high school, and both of those books were pretty wordy at the time.

 

[Kevvers]

My gut feeling about this categorical imperative stuff is that I don't like it, but maybe I just don't get it. I mean, if everyone decided they didn't want to go to work any more and quit their job that would be destructive. But that doesn't mean its immoral to do that does it? Surely, its OK for some people to do that and not others because not everyone is the same.

The Ayn Rand stuff on the other hand I'm pretty confident about not liking it, as it seems to regard selfishness as virtue and kindness as wickedness. I'm pretty sure if everyone carried on like selfish robots, then we would have all exterminated each other long ago.

 

[Seldon2639]

My gut feeling about this categorical imperative stuff is that I don't like it, but maybe I just don't get it. I mean, if everyone decided they didn't want to go to work any more and quit their job that would be destructive. But that doesn't mean its immoral to do that does it? Surely, its OK for some people to do that and not others because not everyone is the same.

The Ayn Rand stuff on the other hand I'm pretty confident about not liking it, as it seems to regard selfishness as virtue and kindness as wickedness. I'm pretty sure if everyone carried on like selfish robots, then we would have all exterminated each other long ago.

That's the primary criticism of the categorical imperative, it ignores (and to function must ignore) context. The response to that, of course, is that the categorical imperative does allow for different reactions to different circumstances. Basically, the categorical imperative isn't "don't skip work" but instead "don't skip work to get high and play Halo". The former would prevent me from skipping work to go to a funeral, the latter is more accurate. There's little cost to everyone skipping work to go to funerals they have to go to. There'd be a huge cost in everyone skipping work because they're hung over.

But, once you start having to parse it down into specific statements like that, it loses its powers as a generalized morality, since it's almost always possible for a person to justify their actions as being exceptional (in terms of counting as an exception, not necessarily that their actions are good). If skip a day of class, I can say that because I go to every other class, the categorical imperative of not skipping class doesn't apply, since if everyone only skipped one class, everything would be fine.

But, it's still a perhaps useful way to judge holistic moral systems (like objectivism).

 

[Uncompetative]

... stealing has a categorical imperative against it, since if everyone stole it would hurt society. There is a categorical imperative, thus, for having children (since if everyone stopped, humanity would end).

I feel that this is the key to environmentalism. If more people were like me and committed themselves to not having children, the escalating consumption of resources and pollution that resulted from population growth would be curbed. I don't fly or drive. I tend to buy clothes that will last and then wear them out, rather than engage in faddish fashions that promote the consumption of cheap, disintegrate in the wash, ephemeral statements. I would rather have my character judged on what I say than how "topically" I happen to dress.

Just think about the impact I would have had if I had had two children, who then had two children each (i.e. four), each of whom had two, etc.

I get annoyed when my local council bleats on about my responsibility to recycle as I already feel I have made enough of a sacrifice.

Stop laying your guilt on me you bunch of anxious self-serving breeders.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Humanity has always been a selfish species at heart, hence why so many authors concentrate on those sorts of ideas for their books as they make for good character development.

You get the idea of objectivity drilled into your head in medschool, but you know you can never truly be objective, so you have to be as objective as you can when it comes to situations with patients. I don't think I apply much objectivity to real life. Some things I will, such as games consoles, that doesn't worry me, but other things like music I will stubbornly refuse to be objective about. I guess it all depends on how much passion I have for things which determines what I'll do.

 

[Horticulture]

Ahhh...You see, I come from an LD debating background. I tended to follow people whom are hard disprove because they have no practical place in real world scenarios. Made it hard to poke holes my cases.

LD debate?

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

So, I have weird thoughts at night.

You act as though this wasn't painfully obvious to us all...

 

[Godaz]

Using enviromentalism as an example which does require long term planning, i believe you generally find that when people take part in pursuing thier happiness it is almost always focused on present events. It's my belief that people generally find it hard to orientate thier intrest in long term planning and therefore could never work for a common long term good. In this sense a mass amount self-intrest could potentially be destructive but only through apathy rather than acting on our own self-intrest... if that makes sense.

 

[Seldon2639]

Ahhh...You see, I come from an LD debating background. I tended to follow people whom are hard disprove because they have no practical place in real world scenarios. Made it hard to poke holes my cases.

LD debate?

Lincoln-Douglass, it's an event in the American National Forensic's League. Basically, it's the purely philosophical, theoretical, and ethical side of debating, where Cross-Examination is the real-world "what do the facts tell us" side. Most of the evidence is stuff like"as Hume claimed in his work, all of reality is subject to the interpretation of man", so using a nutso philosopher as your evidence can be really useful.

So, I have weird thoughts at night.

You act as though this wasn't painfully obvious to us all...

To be fair, I wrote this before I wrote the thing about the commas. Perhaps I no longer need to preface late-night posts with this.

 

[dwightsteel]

Ahhh...You see, I come from an LD debating background. I tended to follow people whom are hard disprove because they have no practical place in real world scenarios. Made it hard to poke holes my cases.

LD debate?

Lincoln-Douglas debate, named for when Lincoln and Douglas were campaigning against each other, this format is based on how they debated in town halls and the like. Two people debate 1 on 1. The resolutions are a bit less rigid than styles like Cross X or Public Forum.