Do you think we should subject everyone to the same moral standards?

College Confidential Community
1

<p>This is a question I've thought about for some time.</p>

<p>the reasons:
=> people are dispositionally different, all inclined differently to do certain things</p>

<p>for example, there are a a few Ayn Rand fans. Now, I'd actually be scared if everyone in the world embraced Ayn Rand. But perhaps the few people who do embrace her philosophy are also dispositionally the most suitable people for her philosophy. And perhaps they are better off due to it - they feel more creative, less constrained, etc. While i don't necessarily agree with her on anything, I usually am rationally selfish (e.g. I'm not altruistic unless I know that the other person has some chance of recognizing me, I don't donate to charity, I don't participate in any "help the world" activities). I realize that my actions are of limited impact and that they are unlikely to impact the actions of others, so I just go by my self-interest (i'm actually slightly more inclined to altruism towards areas where people have little altruism towards though). One could argue that too many people could go that way (but there are roots to altruism in human nature, and some are naturally more so than others, and I doubt that too many people would find Rand appealing). </p>

<p>Similarly with altruism. Some people are naturally more altruistic towards strangers than others. It's probably good for the world that there are a number of altruists. </p>

<p>But anyways, it may be good if people of varying dispositions don't all embrace the same moral standards (although there probably is a core set of standards that almost everyone follows - a limited set of standards, such as "don't hurt someone else unless you have a compelling reason to and unless you have no other recourse).</p>

2

<p>In Ayn Rand's "every man for himself, every man for his own desires" philosophy, where is the line drawn?</p>

<p>For example, if a man had the desire to murder another man, would that be fine according to Ayn Rand?</p>

<p>What if man's choices have indirect influences on, impede, or harm (though not to the extent of murder) another man? What that be okay with Ayn Rand?</p>

<p>If man decides to force another man into minimum wage (yes, FORCE, study the cycle of poverty), is that okay with Ayn Rand?</p>

<p>What about environmental factors? Did you know that MAN'S SELF-INTEREST (greed) is what keeps Africa lacking in nitrogenous soil, in essense, poor and malnutritioned?</p>

<p>Ultimately, what I am trying to ask is this:
Does Ayn Rand's objectivism take into consideration the interconnected nature of man's choices?</p>

3

<p>To be honest, I'm not that familiar with Ayn Rand's responses to specific normative concerns rather than general ones. I haven't really read any of her books. I'm actually kind of annoyed with any form of moral absolutism in general, and kind of believe that Rand's moral absolutism would be dangerous if everyone abided to it. On the other hand, it may be fine if individuals used Rand's objectivism as a normative framework, as long as there are not too many of such individuals (perhaps as long as they don't hold positions of governmental power). It's hard to say.</p>

<p>I use "rational egoism" as my moral framework, although I can be a lot more altrustic if I see myself as having the chance to change an outcome (at little risk to myself). Normally I don't have much of a chance in doing that, so I keep to myself. I don't think I abide to Randism - just more to "rational egoism". But if I'm correct, didn't Rand say that individuals should always be selfish? (irrespective of, say, how little they would lose if they became selfless under some circumstances?)</p>

<p>The inspiration for my post came from "Selfish Gene" from Richard Dawkins (actually he described the game theoretic scenario where most individuals are "tit-for-tat", but a few individuals totally altruistic and a few individuals cheaters, and that it's possible for a stable distribution to be maintained when there aren't too many cheaters. An altruistic community would be perfect if everyone else was altruistic - but it would easily fall down to cheaters. But a tit-for-tat community would not fall down to cheaters.</p>

4

<p>The problem with Randism, in any case, is that if everyone followed Ayn Rand, there would be no charity. Yet, charity really is something that has helped millions of people, not to mention strengthen bonds of trust that people normally have with each other. </p>

<p>Randism (and rational egoism in general) would hurt society if too many people subscribed to such philosophies. If a few people did, such philosophies aren't really dangerous (and could stimulate creativity in some). I subscribe to rational egoism because I know my actions aren't going to affect the altruistic behavior of anyone else, so it's not going to hurt society for me to subscribe to a philosophy that would be dangerous if more people subscribed to such philosophy. Of course I'm not totally unaltruistic - but when I can do something anonymously and cannot see the outcome, then I won't do that thing. </p>

<p>A lot of society's structure has to do with people doing things that are of no benefit to themselves, but through which collectively affect the outcome of society.</p>

<p>Take voting, for example. It is in everyone's best interest not to vote (since the chances of influencing an election with your vote are next to nil). But society's belief in public service does result in a very large percentage of people voting. And where absentee voting is available, many people do vote absentee (absentee voting is voting without anyone noticing you vote, in effect - which removes any possibility of your gaining bystander respect for fulfilling social roles). This of course makes it possible for society to make collective decisions where each individual ballot is of inconsequential importance.</p>

5

<p>I really wish one of Ayn Rand's followers would answer my questions.</p>

6

<p>mj93 said, "I really wish one of Ayn Rand's followers would answer my questions."</p>

<p>Ayn Rand does not have "followers"; she is not the Dalai Lama. She does have a philosophy, to which many people adhere.</p>

<p>I will answer your questions here with one caveat: you need to read Rand's ideas for yourself. I have not encountered a more misunderstood, more misrepresented and ultimately more maligned philosopher than Ayn Rand.</p>

<p>"In Ayn Rand's 'every man for himself, every man for his own desires' philosophy, where is the line drawn?"</p>

<p>This is not an accurate characterization of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. She does not advocate that "every man [should follow only] his own desires" as you say, but rather that every man should act in his own rational self-interest.</p>

<p>"For example, if a man had the desire to murder another man, would that be fine according to Ayn Rand?"</p>

<p>Most decidedly not. A society that allows indiscriminate murder based on caprice is not in the rational self-interest of anyone. While you would be free to murder people in such a non-society, you would be eligible to be murdered as well.</p>

<p>"What if man's choices have indirect influences on, impede, or harm (though not to the extent of murder) another man? What that be okay with Ayn Rand?"</p>

<p>I cannot address this question as it is too general. You would have to be more specific; I don't know what you are asking.</p>

<p>"If man decides to force another man into minimum wage (yes, FORCE, study the cycle of poverty), is that okay with Ayn Rand?"</p>

<p>In the sort of society Ayn Rand advocates, men cannot force one another to do anything. She believes in free trade among productive men. When force enters the equation then morality has left it. If you believe that poor people are "forced" to be poor, or are "forced" to take low-wage jobs, then I suggest you revisit and clarify your definition of "force".</p>

<p>"What about environmental factors? Did you know that MAN'S SELF-INTEREST (greed) is what keeps Africa lacking in nitrogenous soil, in essense, poor and malnutritioned?"</p>

<p>Again this is too vague for me to know what you are really asking.</p>

<p>As for commentaries on Africa, I think you should take a closer look at the forms of government in Africa and see if they have anything in common with your previous question regarding murder. Any group who perpetrates a murderous regime on the people of a nation are not acting in their own - or anyone else's - true rational self-interest.</p>

<p>"Ultimately, what I am trying to ask is this: Does Ayn Rand's objectivism take into consideration the interconnected nature of man's choices?"</p>

<p>Again, you are being too vague here. If you have a point to make, make it.</p>

<p>On the choices of men in general, Rand recognized volition as axiomatic, and that ultimately we are all responsible for the choices we make.</p>

<p>No matter my answers here I can almost guarantee you will misunderstand the nature of her philosophical system if you try to form your opinion based only on what I have written. I suggest you visit The</a> Ayn Rand Institute to learn about Rand's ideas firsthand from Rand herself.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>P.S. - the word you were looking for is "malnourished".</p>

7

<p>Someone has on their cranky pants.</p>

8

<p>Not at all Se</p>

9

<p>Really? Se</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
She does not advocate that "every man [should follow only] his own desires" as you say, but rather that every man should act in his own rational self-interest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I only note a difference in semantics between MY label and YOUR label. If there is a true difference in meaning, please explain.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most decidedly not. A society that allows indiscriminate murder based on caprice is not in the rational self-interest of anyone. While you would be free to murder people in such a non-society, you would be eligible to be murdered as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You have just found your self in the circle of interconnected choices. Say, I'm this "man". And I think to myself, "someone just commited a crime against me. I, for whatever reason, have no means to retaliate against that individual. Therefore, I will let my anger out by murdering a man I have never seen before."</p>

<p>It is of my "rational self-interest" to carry through with that thought, since it will successfully relieve me of anger. Just as forcing a man into minimum wage relieves my desire to HAVE MORE.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"What if man's choices have indirect influences on, impede, or harm (though not to the extent of murder) another man? What that be okay with Ayn Rand?"</p>

<p>I cannot address this question as it is too general. You would have to be more specific; I don't know what you are asking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hmm. Maybe someone else can answer it (Taggart, I would really love your input!).</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the sort of society Ayn Rand advocates, men cannot force one another to do anything. She believes in free trade among productive men. When force enters the equation then morality has left it. If you believe that poor people are "forced" to be poor, or are "forced" to take low-wage jobs, then I suggest you revisit and clarify your definition of "force".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your response epitomizes exactly why I don't subscribe to objectivism. It is oversimplified and can't apply to the complex society that we live in.</p>

<p>Ayn Rand forgets an important thing -- men are not born as men. They are born as babies. Babies who are at the whim of another man's (namely, their parents') choices. Parents who are the whim of a society that once kept them down (i.e., slavery). Societies that are at the whim of people who are willing to cheat in the corporate world. People who are willing to cheat, why? At least partially because their parents and the society they were brought up in, IN SOME WAY (be it, an idolization of power, or a lack of "absolute morals") caused them see it as OK to cheat.</p>

<p>Obviously, not all men are born with equal, or CLOSE to equal resources. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a fallacy because it is heavily based on comparing apples to oranges, in that it compares people born homeless to people born to the President.</p>

<p>FORCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECT. Force can go through a million check points and resemble a spider web before actually causing harm.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"What about environmental factors? Did you know that MAN'S SELF-INTEREST (greed) is what keeps Africa lacking in nitrogenous soil, in essense, poor and malnutritioned?"</p>

<p>Again this is too vague for me to know what you are really asking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really, it's vague? I find it to be a relatively specific example.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"Ultimately, what I am trying to ask is this: Does Ayn Rand's objectivism take into consideration the interconnected nature of man's choices?"</p>

<p>Again, you are being too vague here. If you have a point to make, make it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK. Here's my point.</p>

<p>Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't take into consideration the interconnected nature of man's choices. :)</p>

11

<p>mj93,</p>

<p>As I suspected you have a lot of mixed up concepts, floating abstractions and just plain wrong ideas. Off the top of my head: you are ignoring volition, failing to correctly identify force, and failing to recognize the possibility that what people think is good for them is not necessarily a perfect overlap with what really is.</p>

<p>Again, I can't stress enough that you should really read Ayn Rand for yourself. Studying any philosophy at all would be useful. Before you decide that you, at 14, have so easily dismissed the life's work of a brilliant philosopher as "oversimplified" you should at least understand the issues on the table.</p>

<p>Good luck,
Capitalisimo</p>

12

<p>Just because she's 14 that doesn't make her ideas so easy to be dismissed. I'm 15 and I find Ayn Rand to be crazy. Brilliant... What is brilliant? </p>

<p>You simply disagree, that makes neither her nor you wrong.</p>

13

<p>To answer the original question, yes. The problems with relativism are innumerable. If we do not hold everyone to the same moral standard, then there is no right or wrong.</p>

14

<p>One of the problems is - how do we define "rational self-interest?" I've tried to define it in my own way - and it's "the most sustainable [something related to happiness] given the conditions of the immediate environment (and how changeable such conditions are), irrespective of whether the person realizes what actions provide him with the most sustainable happiness or not"</p>

<p>Otherwise, you face problems such as the problem where authority can brainwash someone into believing that something else is in his own self-interest. For example, the quote"religion is the opiate of the masses", refers to the notion that religion has the power to change people's conceptions of their own "rational self-interest", even if it may not necessarily be their most rational self-interest on an absolute scale.</p>

<p>^^actually, happiness isn't the right word here, because someone brainwashed into a particular religion can be eternally happy. meaning isn't the right word here, for such religion could also be the meaning of such person. So then how do we define "rational self-interest?" hmm</p>

15

<p>thanks, snoopy</p>

<p>Capitalism -- ad hominem attacks?</p>