Objective Ethics Question
Posted by Abaco 1 day, 16 hours ago to Philosophy
In reading Atlas Shrugged I wasn't confused. I finished it with a strong concept of "reasonable self-interest". So, I'm a little shocked when I hear critics say it just promotes unabashed, damaging self-interest. There is such a thing of course. Look at Epstein. Hilary Clinton. It's why I don't covet my neighbor's wife. In the long run...it doesn't work. But, my own ethics are objective in great part due to my Christian upbringing. Does Ayn Rand, in her writings, cover this concept of self-interest resulting in destruction? I get it from the excellent crony capitalism example she describes in Atlas Shrugged. In fact, that's where I point the critics.
Was listening to the Shawn Ryan Show podcast this morning and he delves into this kind of thing, admitting that he struggles with his faith. Very interesting podcast...he has very intelligent guests.
Was listening to the Shawn Ryan Show podcast this morning and he delves into this kind of thing, admitting that he struggles with his faith. Very interesting podcast...he has very intelligent guests.
Speaking of religion...I heard just recently that only one woman is mentioned in the entire Quran. Mary. I found that interesting.
Passing on Value is done unconsciously by one that has taken care of self first. But what many have done Consciously probably was at the risk of sacrifice or aggrandizement . . . sometimes both!
I was a Christian before I read Atlas Shrugged, all the while I read it and remained so after I added it to my book collection. Why did I read it? Have a brother, an ex-Catholic Protestant just like me, who Christmas gifted me with all 3 Atlas Shrugged DVDs which I also added to my DVD collection. I view Ayn Rand as someone special to both study and listen to. Save for one thing.
When I landed a month over 12 years ago, Christians were spoken of like idiots here. It inspired me to select Allosaurus for a moniker which means "different lizard." Thought it best to keep my mouth shut at first. There was a lot to learn that did not pertain to religion. Then someone started a discussion entitled "What Is Easter?" or something close to that. A brand new female member mentioned going to church. She was quite harshly insulted. I lost my temper and threw a hissy fit at the insulter. Powers that be deleted everything I wrote and I expected to be tossed off this board. Just about all of 12 years ago. Oh, well . . .
A) Rational Self-Interest
B) Irrational Self-Interest
The latter exemplifying the destruction of others, or other peoples properties, in seeking your own "self-interest". Profiting on a VAXX that you knew would increase mortality, decrease birth rates, and lead to more cancers and Excess deaths for years to come...
While you could argue it's all in your self-interest, I believe it is irrational to do so. Because eventually, if EVERYONE acted that way, your family/friends and even yourself may end up being a victim...
And if it doesn't work globally for others because what it does to you, then I believe that is where it becomes Irrational.
It seemed obvious to me, so I never thought about. Now that I have. I had to play with it a bit... To end up where I just stated.
Interesting.
Can you deny that this is the core of Christian teaching?
But I get it, there are many churches in America, and a beautiful thing that has happened in America is that many church leaders think that they need to emphasize living the good life now. That's very positive, although only Christian in the way my Mama wanted Christianity to be.
But, hey, my Mama used to say she couldn't believe in a God who wouldn't want her to be happy. So she made that an axiom of her religious views, though she considered herself a Christian.
It is easy to foresee the limits of self-interest if one's perspective is narrow. For example, killing another is fine for self-interest, until one realizes one will be at minimum ostracized, and one needs and values the contributions and value of others. Ayn directly addresses this (but I don't recall the reference. Maybe that twerp, EWE, can quote it from his idiot homework assignments).
In my "reasonable libertarian" mind (as opposed to radical hard on Libertarians), there is a similar place for government's role. A capitalist system WILL find a monotonic optimum, proven over and over. However, it is limited by local minima. If there is a massive investment required, the investors may not be able to recover their investments within their risk tolerance (or even their lifetimes). In this case, it will converge to a local minima, not a global minima. I argue the interstate highway system overcame such local minima. And yes, I recognize others don't agree, including Milton Friedman, but being in business, no one was going to make that investment, or overcome the local obstructions and build such a system. Maybe Elon would do it now, but we have already benefited from it for 70 years.
Of course there is the issue of shutting down a successful program when it is done, but that is another issue.
To me that is the government inverse, book ending self-interest.
As others have noted, rational self interest means seeking your happiness and survival with a view to the full term of your life and the long term relating to all your goals and values. It is not short-term grasping, it is long-term and thus relies on well-established principles.
From The Objectivist's Ethics.
"A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every “is” implies an “ought.” Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."