Hi, I was looking at this objectivist page about “Misconceptions about Ethics” http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/misconceptions/page4.htm
and that didn’t make it much clearer about what objectivist ethics is about. It said on that site it is complex though.
Rather than me trying to get through big books I was wondering if an objectivist could tell me what according to objectivist ethics, the “correct” thing for the people in these scenarios to do is:
So in each scenario is there only one correct (“objectively moral”) thing the person can do? Or are all valid behaviours (each scenario has a behaviour and its opposite) “objectively moral”.
Also, do objectivists believe that there are varying degrees of morality ranging from perfectly moral to semi-moral to immoral? If so, can they consistently determine that? (I mean if two objectivists were set the same ethical dilemmas, would they always come up with the same solutions?)
An “objective” morality is merely am attempt to prpose a set of rules which one can apply to all moral actors and actions. Many such sets of rules can be proposed - there is no single objective morality. (Indeed, one might even say that one’s choice of objective morality is subjective!)
My personal preference is based on negative utilitarianism, in which minimisation suffering is sought. Of course, this is itself open to all kinds of interpretations of what is and is not genuine “suffering” (as opposed to, say, inconvenience), but my answers are thus:
Heinz’s wife falls foul of property privilege. Society enforces penalties for violation of property privilege. Heinz asks himself whether he is prepared to pay that penalty. In effect, society’s rules (eg. property privilege) reflect rule utilitarianism, and Heinz’s decision to violate them and face the penalty reflects act utilitarianism.
His friend should report the crime, and the judge should follow the regional guidelines for the offence, erring on the side of leniency.
Perhaps Ayn Rand wasn’t justified in naming it “objectivism” but I’ll just call it “objectivism” in this thread.
I wanted to see how objectivists approached the dilemmas though your information about the different kinds of utilitarianism are interesting.
I suspect that it is hard to be a totally non-hypocritical negative utilitarian. I mean there are many people in the world who are suffering extreme amounts. e.g. they might be unable to afford pain killers, etc. And how you use all your time and money mightn’t be the optimal way in which to minimize the world’s suffering… but I guess at least you’ve got a moral goal to try and reach. (like how Christians might want to act as morally and selflessly as Jesus alledgely did)
I’m an ex-Objectivist, but I’ll try to answer according to my old perspective, which may be different than how Ayn Rand herself would answer of course.
For question 1, a lot of assumptions have already been made about the options he’s taken, but if I was still an Objectivist I’d say no. The drug won’t neccesarily fix my wife, 2nd, stealing drugs that have high prices based on high research costs disincentivizes future drug research, and 3rd, anyone in such a dire straight as described already is going to need more than just that drug itself, they also will likely need hospital time, which if you can’t afford the 4000 dollar drug you likely won’t be able to afford either.
Both your lives are in dire straights if you can’t get a loan or second mortgage or something for that money.
I think even though Objectivists believe in absolute morality that doesn’t mean that they believe in a morality that answers moral questions without thought. There’s an absolutely right answer to their thinking, but the algorithm to find it encompasses thinking, starting with self, property, and pre-existing values of other sorts you already have (such as love for someone)
I would answer the second and third questions much more simply with yes in both cases. Brown should report, because failure to report supports lack of justice, and in this case theft of drugs discourages future research, and lack of prosecution encourages more thefts from other people.
On the third question, its my opinion that the objectivist ideal of justice is compensatory. That justice is not for any of the normal utilitarian reasons but instead follows a pre-existing objective schedule of imprisonment based on the crime. So standard sentencing, if the judge was an objectivist, imho.
Assessing moral reasoning from Kohlberg’s (or John Gibbs revisions of Kohlberg) focuses not so much on the yes/no of the response to the question, but on the reasoning behind the response. There is no moral/immoral dichotomy, rather there are stages of moral reasoning that reflect a developing and evolving complexity in reasoning. Very roughly speaking, moral reasoning is said to develop from very concrete considerations (he who is the biggest or possesses the greatest authority is right, or acts that cause greater damage (e.g. breaking 20 plates versus 2) are judged to be wose), to stages of mutual reciprocity, to a reliance on written laws and norms, to a reliance on abstract and putatively universal principles.
In this system, one would not make an evaluation about the respondent’s level of moral reasoning simply based on a response that Heinz should steal the drug, but on the reasons given as to why he should.
Hentor the Barbarian:
Well the scenarios I quoted did say “Why or why not?” - I guess I assumed that objectivists would also give reasons and not just yes or no.
MindWanderer:
I hadn’t ever come across that response to Heinz’s dilemma - things I’ve read on the dilemma seem to assume that Heinz would only attempt to steal the drug once and then it would cure his wife. (or if the drug doesn’t work then she’d be incurable…) I guess Heinz’s dilemma isn’t a very good example of a moral dilemma since it isn’t very clear.
I think the framer of the dilemma intended people to think that if Heinz stole the drug he would cure his wife (or find out that the drug is useless on her) and she would simply be cured or die.
Can you roughly summarize this algorithm? I mean is there a hierarchy of how some things are more important than others? e.g. maybe the lives of people you love are more important than the lives of others, and the lives of some people (e.g. some people from Africa) could be so low on your priorities that you’d rather not give more than maybe $1 a day to saving them from death so that you have more money for things like entertainment… BTW, do objectivists place much importance on telling the truth? I mean telling lies can be beneficial and even save lives, etc… (BTW, I see morality as being about priorities - and in difficult moral dilemmas a person has to work out where their priorities lie in order to decide)
Actually you didn’t - you said “if I was still an Objectivist I’d say no”.
Well, Ayn Rand said despite (or perhaps because) believing in self-interest, a situation could arise in which it would be moral to die for another, or for a cause. Its possible if the dilemma were framed differently for an Objectivist to answer yes they would steal the drugs, but it would have to be rather different, and the answers to #2 and #3 would still be yes.
The first section about lives of those close to you being more important than the lives of random strangers is exactly spot on as you said it. I don’t think Ayn Rand would judge people based on the nation they lived in, with exceptions. During a war with a despotic nation she wouldn’t value those who still stayed in that country.
On the subject of lies, the classic Objectivist situation relating to honesty is to be honest during pretty much all non-emergency situations. But the situation usually mentioned as an example, (and its kinda a silly one), is if a man coming to murder your wife asks where she is, its not only not immoral to lie, its immoral to not lie, (assuming your wife is a value to you.)
Its difficult to analyze what other situations lying would be acceptable under objectivism. One of them I know for sure, is under an oppresive government. This probably comes from Rand’s background in Russia.
On the subject of spending and the 1 dollar entertainment, generally its not moral under objectivism to just spend all your money on just anything. Investment is considered important as well as living within your means. Entertainment is not a virtue (nor a vice) under objectivism, but playboys who produce nothing and simply live a life of leisure are considered immoral.
Objectivism would not approve of giving 1 dollar a day to a charity which disperses that money. If you lived in Africa yourself, and found someone who shared your values but was struggling, it would be moral to do so. Generally to help someone under Objectivism you have to have determined that they are someone worthy of help.
Of course Ayn Rand said there are seperate rules during emergencies but that she did not consider corrupt nations starving their citizens as part of their policies (or part of their way of doing things, ie, thugs in government) as an emergency that should be acted on. Her threshold for emergency is quite high. Thats her way of looking at African poverty.
The conditions in African contries under brutal government would be a valid emergency for those living in it, and other countries would be allowed to invade to fix the situation, but giving money which is supposedly earmarked to individuals living there would be wrong to Ayn Rand because in her opinion it would tend to prop up those corrupt regimes.
MindWanderer:
Thanks for that info… On the subject of lies, the classic Objectivist situation relating to honesty is to be honest during pretty much all non-emergency situations.
I guess that means when some guy or girl you’ve never met before asks “how are you going?”, who isn’t interested in your answer, and you’re depressed or angry, you’re meant to tell the truth.
Investment is considered important
I never thought of investment having a moral dimension…
Objectivism would not approve of giving 1 dollar a day to a charity which disperses that money.
So if there was a non-corrupt charity in South Africa (an emerging democracy) that helps look after orphans whose parents died from AIDS I guess it would be immoral (according to Objectivism) to donate to it…
Of course Ayn Rand said there are seperate rules during emergencies
Well maybe AIDS orphans would qualify as an emergency… but perhaps there is a charity which involves protecting the environment overseas… maybe that would be more immoral to donate money to that than to spend it on personal entertainment.
but that she did not consider corrupt nations starving their citizens as part of their policies (or part of their way of doing things, ie, thugs in government) as an emergency that should be acted on. Her threshold for emergency is quite high. Thats her way of looking at African poverty.
BTW, what books of hers would talk about what you wrote about African starvation and poverty?
So more or less, giving to people who have corrupt governments is immoral (an invasion can be carried out), but giving to people who have non-corrupt governments is moral. i.e. there seems to be a sudden switch between “moral” and “immoral” based on whether or not the government is corrupt. I wonder how Ayn Rand works out whether or not a government is corrupt in an “objective” way. I mean many governments could be right on the threshold - they could be moderately corrupt.
Most of the sources for her non-fiction stuff are compilations of essays. I can reinstall my Ayn Rand cd and find out what essays covered what.
On the environmental donation question, Ayn Rand and Objectivism consider environmentalism to be fundamentally evil, outside of relatively minor pollution issues. There was a really complex publication about property rights relative to pollution that talks about it, but I never really understood (his main premise was that the first owner in an area dictates certain terms but I don’t remember the details. Objectivists believe this earth is a incredibly large collection of resources that we haven’t even begun to really tap, and thus they deny things like peak oil.
The motivation of environmentalists can also be that they like the scenery of nature… It’s interesting to hear about quirks like that in Objectivist ethics.
BTW, assuming that China is an oppressive and/or corrupt country according to Ayn Rand, and that the money we pay to China for its exports help prop up the government, does this mean that objectivist business people and consumers should avoid buying anything imported from China? The same question could also be asked about the oil imported from oppressive Middle Eastern countries. Maybe charity sent to individuals in those countries does less to prop up those governments than our imports of their goods do…
The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal both talk some about poverty and the Ayn Rand’s perspective on poor countries.
Especially the virtue of selfishness in the later chapters. She doesn’t talk much about Africa in specific.
In the Ayn Rand letter she talks about a proposal to turn people into vegatarians so crops don’t have be fed to the animals, for efficiency. But thats in the Ayn Rand letter, its generally not available (except through the cd I guess, cause I have all her letters from the beginning on cd)
Its quite possible that you are right. Ayn Rand supported withdrawing all diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union during the cold war, and I know a common issue for Objectivists to talk about has been the favored nation status with China and repealing that. On the subject of Oil, I think they would support taking over those countries and then getting the oil.
That vegetarism thing was quite unexpected… anyway, thanks for the info. I guess the CD you’re talking about is “The Objectivism Research CD Rom: The Works of Ayn Rand”… hopefully I can get a hold of it somehow…
Sure. Knowing the risk he is taking, and still doing it for the one he loves, is alright with my bleeding heart. If the company has insurance (and I’m sure they do), their fiscal loss is minimal, and not only is no one harmed, a life is saved.
Yes. He’s taken an oath to uphold the law. Heinz knowingly broke the law, took the risk, and should accept punishment.
See above. Heinz knowingly broke the law, and he should take the punishment.
If my wife were dying of cancer, I would gladly pay two years of my life and a conviction on my record to save her. Hell, I’d probably turn myself in to the cops after making sure she was alright.
Err, Ayn Rand was explaining that some leftist had proposed this theory and she was criticizing it on the grouns that it would lead to many lost jobs in the meat packing industries and many others. I goofed that up too.
Hmmm… well to be consistent, if she was living during the industrial revolution she should be against new factories because they can lead to lost jobs (of the crafts people), and in the computer age, computers can also lead to the loss of jobs… if she didn’t personally know meat-packers, etc, I thought their jobs wouldn’t be very important. I thought her objection would just be that imposed vegetarianism means less choice for self-centered consumers…