I find myself wondering what requirement there is for anything but ethical egoism. I have heard and believed many things about ways that we ought to treat others, but I have been unable to find an objective justification for those beliefs. Why should one not aggress against others if it is unambiguously to one's own benefit? I can certainly see why you'd want other people to follow such a code in relation to you, but you could be disingenuous in your own support for the principle. So, why shouldn't you be? I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism? If you were faced with a situation where aggression was unambiguously of benefit to you (lifeboat scenarios, I know you don't like them), why should you not aggress, and why (as most of you would admit you would aggress) would you accept any penalty for doing so?
I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism? "ethical egoism" is a fancy word for "I'll commit any crime if I can get away with it" ?
That's one way of putting it. Although, you might also just be a nice chap who doesn't commit crimes because he doesn't want to.
I would call it "amoralism" or perhaps "moral nihilism," or "moral noncognitivism," rather than "ethical egoism."
Juan:"ethical egoism" is a fancy word for "I'll commit any crime if I can get away with it"?
More "I would commit any crime if it were to my advantage and I would get away with it", but I am asking why that is an illegitimate stance. It sounds bad, I know, but aesthetics are hardly a guide for morality. Or are they?
JCFolsom:I find myself wondering what requirement there is for anything but ethical egoism.
What is the requirement for ethical egoism then? It seems to me that the existance of the term ethical egoism is due to a lack of any requirements.
JCFolsom:I have heard and believed many things about ways that we ought to treat others, but I have been unable to find an objective justification for those beliefs.
Well that is perhaps because there are no such "objective" justifications. At least not in the way you use the term objective in this context. I have nothing against anyone employing a misesian critique of natural rights, i.e. we have no justification to make value judgements of right or wrong in regards to the ends of other people. I would claim that any natural rights theorist is well aware of this critique. But we have to remember how Mises himself arrived at a solution in which you can make value judgements value freely. The solution is to evaluate a given end and then rationally argue how given means are inconducive towards actually attaining this end. As I understand natural rights theorists they would probably agree. They just rationally argue how certain means are inconducive towards the survival of the individual, i.e. the ultimate end of the individual.
JCFolsom:Why should one not aggress against others if it is unambiguously to one's own benefit? I can certainly see why you'd want other people to follow such a code in relation to you, but you could be disingenuous in your own support for the principle.
I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously). Could you perhaps come up with some examples? Just to be on the forefront I would guess you will come up with an example à la this: Suppose there were no witnesses, suppose a rich person walked past you, suppose murders with no witnesses could not be proven, why wouldn't you kill him? My answer would be you have assumed away reality.
JCFolsom:So, why shouldn't you be? I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism?
That it is a stupid strategy to live your life as a cheater thinking you live in a world only of suckers when in fact there are also grudgers. In short, if you aggress against others you have no protection from others aggressing against you. Objective justifications or not, you wouldn't survive long with this strategy.
JCFolsom:If you were faced with a situation where aggression was unambiguously of benefit to you (lifeboat scenarios, I know you don't like them), why should you not aggress, and why (as most of you would admit you would aggress) would you accept any penalty for doing so?
It is not a matter of not liking lifeboat situations. They are intentionally set up so that people are forced to fight for their lives. In such situations the ultimate end of each individual has suddenly become the only and most imminent end. In such cases discussing the best means for the attainment of survival is very difficult and often impossible.
In regards to accepting penalty. When exactly are anyone in a position to not accept penalty?
corpus delicti:They just rationally argue how certain means are inconducive towards the survival of the individual, i.e. the ultimate end of the individual.
But, but, but this is where it falls apart, it is not. Even if it were, it would not imply the NAP.
corpus delicti:I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously). Could you perhaps come up with some examples? Just to be on the forefront I would guess you will come up with an example à la this: Suppose there were no witnesses, suppose a rich person walked past you, suppose murders with no witnesses could not be proven, why wouldn't you kill him? My answer would be you have assumed away reality.
No, just simple cost-benefit analysis. If by stealing a ticket I could attend a match, that would turn out an epic, why should I not do that, even if I go to jail after that?
corpus delicti:In short, if you aggress against others you have no protection from others aggressing against you.
And if I don't then what protects me from aggression? (see existing states)
Many ethical egoists (e.g. Rand and Objectivists) argue that what is truly in the best self interest of each and every person corresponds to what is in the best self interest of every other person. For example, one would assume that agribusinesses that receive subsidies should fight for those subsidies because it's in their own self interest to preserve this kind of legal theft. However, an ethical egoist like Rand would argue that it's in the true self interest of agribusinesses to shame subsidies and become productive members of society. By becoming productive, you would build virtues that help you in other areas of life and it would allow you to live a life of better dignity.
As for lifeboat situations, they are completely ridiculous. Everyone always brings them up as "proof" that teleological systems of ethics are false. First of all, the entire point of teleological ethics is that consequences do not matter, hence, the "lifeboat situation" is no proof that any teleological system is false. At best, it is an appeal to emotion, trying to say, "look, if YOU had to survive to see your family and live a happy life, would you violate the rights of others?" In any case, from a natural law/NAP perspective, the lifeboat situation is fairly simple: if people are rushing towards a lifeboat, the rightful owners are those who homestead the boat; if someone else owns the lifeboat (i.e. the captain), then that owner has the right to decide who should go on that lifeboat; if the people on the lifeboat are starving and agree to "draw straws," then obviously that is a contract made that if one loses you volunteer to die, and therefore, there is no violation of natural rights/NAP in this incidence.
Furthermore, why don't you just read the literature available about the subject here on this very website? A good starting point to look at the natural law response to lifeboat situations, etc. would be Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. Rothbard even has a specific chapter about lifeboat situations.
Political Atheists Blog
To further increase confusion, teleological can be used to refer to consequentialist systems as well.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
scineram: corpus delicti:They just rationally argue how certain means are inconducive towards the survival of the individual, i.e. the ultimate end of the individual. But, but, but this is where it falls apart, it is not. Even if it were, it would not imply the NAP.
Saddle down, please. I'm not a natural rights theorist. I haven't convinced myself about the ultimate end necessarily being survival quite simply because I have never taken the effort to understand this field of enquiry fully. However, in another context, I have noted that you have been challenged to demonstrate your view that it is positively not the ultimate end.
In regards to NAP. This is not a question of metaethics to me, not yet anyways. It is a political goal to me. In any case it doesn't matter if the NAP has no metaethical foundation. Even in the context of a democratic republic and monopolized courts of law people expect government, the police, the military, courts etc. to protect themselves and their property from aggression. The only exception would be if the majority voted/ruled otherwise. NAP is apparent to every common man, woman and child on the level of individuals even if it isn't on the level of government.
scineram: corpus delicti:I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously). Could you perhaps come up with some examples? Just to be on the forefront I would guess you will come up with an example à la this: Suppose there were no witnesses, suppose a rich person walked past you, suppose murders with no witnesses could not be proven, why wouldn't you kill him? My answer would be you have assumed away reality. No, just simple cost-benefit analysis. If by stealing a ticket I could attend a match, that would turn out an epic, why should I not do that, even if I go to jail after that?
That is a problem if you live in a system of monopolized courts of law, i.e. where you are fined according to how much harm you have inflicted to "society". To "society" your theft in this case would be nothing more than simple thievery. In a "proper" system of law you would have to pay restitution which would be very hard for you indeed if you had stolen what could have been an epic experience to someone else. The point of a proper system of law is to make all cost-benefit analysis result in criminal activity having exactly no cost-benefit. Again, before you put words into my mouth, I have not claimed that a market anarchic society would have such a proper system of law.
scineram: corpus delicti:In short, if you aggress against others you have no protection from others aggressing against you. And if I don't then what protects me from aggression? (see existing states)
First you bash the NAP and then you fault me for not making sure you are not aggressed against. How many times does it have to be told that natural rights is not a magical shield against aggression? If we were friends in a truly gemeinschaft kind of way, why would I not help to protect you against aggressors non quid pro? If we were acquaintants in a gesellschaft kind of way, why would I not protect you quid pro quo?
JC Folsom:More "I would commit any crime if it were to my advantage and I would get away with it", but I am asking why that is an illegitimate stance.
It sounds bad, I know, but aesthetics are hardly a guide for morality. Or are they?
corpus delicti: JCFolsom:Why should one not aggress against others if it is unambiguously to one's own benefit? I can certainly see why you'd want other people to follow such a code in relation to you, but you could be disingenuous in your own support for the principle. I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously). Could you perhaps come up with some examples? Just to be on the forefront I would guess you will come up with an example à la this: Suppose there were no witnesses, suppose a rich person walked past you, suppose murders with no witnesses could not be proven, why wouldn't you kill him? My answer would be you have assumed away reality. JCFolsom:So, why shouldn't you be? I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism? That it is a stupid strategy to live your life as a cheater thinking you live in a world only of suckers when in fact there are also grudgers. In short, if you aggress against others you have no protection from others aggressing against you. Objective justifications or not, you wouldn't survive long with this strategy.
corpus delicti: JCFolsom:If you were faced with a situation where aggression was unambiguously of benefit to you (lifeboat scenarios, I know you don't like them), why should you not aggress, and why (as most of you would admit you would aggress) would you accept any penalty for doing so? It is not a matter of not liking lifeboat situations. They are intentionally set up so that people are forced to fight for their lives. In such situations the ultimate end of each individual has suddenly become the only and most imminent end. In such cases discussing the best means for the attainment of survival is very difficult and often impossible.
Charles Anthony: corpus delicti: JCFolsom:Why should one not aggress against others if it is unambiguously to one's own benefit? I can certainly see why you'd want other people to follow such a code in relation to you, but you could be disingenuous in your own support for the principle. I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously). Could you perhaps come up with some examples? Just to be on the forefront I would guess you will come up with an example à la this: Suppose there were no witnesses, suppose a rich person walked past you, suppose murders with no witnesses could not be proven, why wouldn't you kill him? My answer would be you have assumed away reality. JCFolsom:So, why shouldn't you be? I guess what I'm asking is: what is your argument against ethical egoism? That it is a stupid strategy to live your life as a cheater thinking you live in a world only of suckers when in fact there are also grudgers. In short, if you aggress against others you have no protection from others aggressing against you. Objective justifications or not, you wouldn't survive long with this strategy. Well, the vast majority of people in the world are statists. So, how do you explain them??? are they all employing a stupid strategy?
The only reason you can even ask this question is because you obviously view "statists" as inherently evil people, or at least as ethical egoists. This is quite frankly a false view. Many, if not all, politically minded people pay lip service to freedom, peace, prosperity etc. In case you hadn't noticed the world we live in is one of humanism. I agree that the greatests tyrants are people who want to help the individual for his/her own good, but statists/humanists are blinded by their beliefs... they can't see how and why they are tyrants, they think all they do is good.
In regards to my comment: "I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously)"
If you view the state as an example of unambiguously gain to one's own benefit through aggression, I have to objections. (1) If you think it applies to every statist voter you a wrong, and (2) if it does apply, which I would grant, it is precisely because the state is one big lifeboat situation.
Charles Anthony: corpus delicti: JCFolsom:If you were faced with a situation where aggression was unambiguously of benefit to you (lifeboat scenarios, I know you don't like them), why should you not aggress, and why (as most of you would admit you would aggress) would you accept any penalty for doing so? It is not a matter of not liking lifeboat situations. They are intentionally set up so that people are forced to fight for their lives. In such situations the ultimate end of each individual has suddenly become the only and most imminent end. In such cases discussing the best means for the attainment of survival is very difficult and often impossible. Therein lies the strength of analyzing lifeboat situations. Would you fight for your lives on a lifeboat if such actions sent you to Hell?
In regards to the former you are wrong. Analyzing lifeboat situations cannot provide any argument any kind of strength. When formulating a lifeboat situation you are stacking the deck in order to prove what you have already asserted, or rather what is already apparent. Any human being can be forced to choose between another person or himself dying. It is only a matter of the right means.
In regards to the latter. I hesitate to answer because it is a loaded question. If I answer I acknowledge the existance of Hell, but conversely, if I do not answer you can fault me for dodging the issue. I'd rather then turn the question around, since you do believe in Hell.
Would you fight for the survival of you and your family on a lifeboat of infidels? I mean, since they are infidels they will go to Hell anyways.
My answer to your question would be that it depends. I'm not interested in supernatural* reasons for right or wrong. I do not believe in a universalized golden rule, which incidentally Jesus himself did not. I always consider the context in which to apply the golden rule. Hence; it depends!
*)I do not use this word condescendingly.
corpus delicti:The only reason you can even ask this question is because you obviously view "statists" as inherently evil people, or at least as ethical egoists.
corpus delicti:This is quite frankly a false view. Many, if not all, politically minded people pay lip service to freedom, peace, prosperity etc. In case you hadn't noticed the world we live in is one of humanism. I agree that the greatests tyrants are people who want to help the individual for his/her own good, but statists/humanists are blinded by their beliefs... they can't see how and why they are tyrants, they think all they do is good.
I think my view of statists is accurate because I identify a statist as a person who ultimately rejects the NAP as a moral standard. For the purposes of this discussion, I define evil as a rejection of the NAP.
corpus delicti: In regards to my comment: "I fail to see how anything can be unambiguously to one's own benefit if you gain this benefit through aggression (disregarding lifeboat situations, obviously)" If you view the state as an example of unambiguously gain to one's own benefit through aggression, I have to objections. (1) If you think it applies to every statist voter you a wrong, and (2) if it does apply, which I would grant, it is precisely because the state is one big lifeboat situation.
I believe that we, as self-proclaimed anarchists, are surrounded by crowds of people who, when it is clearly explained to them, ultimately reject the non-aggression principle.
corpus delicti:In regards to the former you are wrong. Analyzing lifeboat situations cannot provide any argument any kind of strength. When formulating a lifeboat situation you are stacking the deck in order to prove what you have already asserted, or rather what is already apparent. Any human being can be forced to choose between another person or himself dying. It is only a matter of the right means. In regards to the latter. I hesitate to answer because it is a loaded question. If I answer I acknowledge the existance of Hell, but conversely, if I do not answer you can fault me for dodging the issue. I'd rather then turn the question around, since you do believe in Hell. Would you fight for the survival of you and your family on a lifeboat of infidels? I mean, since they are infidels they will go to Hell anyways.
Anyway, in answer to your stacked question: no, I would not fight for their survival at the risk of sending them to Hell because the infidelity of the other people on that boat has no bearing on the judgement I expect upon myself or my family, in my belief.
Furthermore, I do not believe that "infidels" are going to Hell anyways. Nice try though.*
*) I do not believe you were trying to trick me with the question. I think you are genuinely ignorant of religious beliefs other than your own.
corpus delicti:My answer to your question would be that it depends. I'm not interested in supernatural* reasons for right or wrong. I do not believe in a universalized golden rule, which incidentally Jesus himself did not. I always consider the context in which to apply the golden rule. Hence; it depends! *)I do not use this word condescendingly.
I hope you don't mind it if I just answer you in this reply. We have had a similar discussion here (in case you hadn't noticed).
You ended your reply to the other topic with the following words:
Well, it is easy for me to discount survival on Earth because I believe in life after death. I know that is not a very fashionable belief system in public discourse but I believe it.
So, let me just begin by saying that I have nothing to hold against your system of belief. In fact I can only respect it, and I couldn't even care less whether it is fashionable or not.
The following quotes I have just sampled from your last reply on the present topic. I want to prevent a long series of quotes upon quotes, but please point out if you think I quote you out of context. Here are the samples:
Charles Anthony: Correct, I believe that people who reject the Non-Aggression Principle in their motives and in their actions are evil or at least should not be trusted. Look. I am not going to pretend that I know what is in the minds or souls of anybody. However, all I can do is offer how I would deal with people who reject the Non-Aggression Principle. I think my view of statists is accurate because I identify a statist as a person who ultimately rejects the NAP as a moral standard. For the purposes of this discussion, I define evil as a rejection of the NAP. I just do not see any reason to make an arbitrary division between a lifeboat situation and statism. I believe that we, as self-proclaimed anarchists, are surrounded by crowds of people who, when it is clearly explained to them, ultimately reject the non-aggression principle.
Correct, I believe that people who reject the Non-Aggression Principle in their motives and in their actions are evil or at least should not be trusted.
Look. I am not going to pretend that I know what is in the minds or souls of anybody. However, all I can do is offer how I would deal with people who reject the Non-Aggression Principle.
I just do not see any reason to make an arbitrary division between a lifeboat situation and statism.
Fair enough. My only objection is that few people overtly and directly reject the NAP, precisely because they do not understand it. I mean, your caveat "when it is clearly explained to them" suggests you agree with me to some extent, no?
In any case, what you objected to originally was my answer that it was a stupid strategy, or way of life, to be a "cheater", as I called it. This is a term I have borrowed from Richard Dawkins. A cheater is what we would call a freerider, but in the context I used it, I did not just mean a freerider in the conventionel sense. I meant a freerider who benefits from aggressing against other's rights. I grant you that this is not a stupid strategy from the view point of a strictly profit-maximizing ethical egoistic statist mindset. But this is only possible because of the state i.e. because you can profit from disregarding the NAP. From the view point of a free market I still fail to see how you can effectuate a strategy of being a cheater, and this was always my view point. So, how is this not a stupid strategy in a free market where the power of the grudgers are maximized? (Grudgers are yet another term I have borrowed from Dr. Dawkins. Grudgers can be understood as PDAs).
Charles Anthony: corpus delicti: Would you fight for the survival of you and your family on a lifeboat of infidels? I mean, since they are infidels they will go to Hell anyways. Speaking of stacking the deck! That is exactly what you have done! Anyway, in answer to your stacked question: no, I would not fight for their survival at the risk of sending them to Hell because the infidelity of the other people on that boat has no bearing on the judgement I expect upon myself or my family, in my belief. Furthermore, I do not believe that "infidels" are going to Hell anyways. Nice try though.* *) I do not believe you were trying to trick me with the question. I think you are genuinely ignorant of religious beliefs other than your own.
corpus delicti: Would you fight for the survival of you and your family on a lifeboat of infidels? I mean, since they are infidels they will go to Hell anyways.
Speaking of stacking the deck! That is exactly what you have done!
Indeed. After all, it is a lifeboat situation, and I did infact try to trick you. I had expected you to acknowledge that you would indeed fight to save your family from drowning. I would then have asked you if you would do the same if the others were not infidels. I will not drill this issue any further. I can only respect your convictions.
About being genuinely ignorant of religious beliefs you are mistaken. I am, however, ignorant about how beliefs can motivate my actions. I will grant you that I am quite cynical in this regard. I honestly doubt my own ability to stand idly by if either my own life or the lives of my nearest were in peril. Also, you would be correct in pointing out how my doubts about myself casts a biased shadow upon other people, in such a way that I doubt they would be able to live up to their religious or ethical convictions in such cases. Thus I must apologize to you. I am not in a position to doubt your abilities to live up to your convictions.
This is perhaps also the reason why you objected to my disregard of lifeboat situations? I would grant you that analyzing lifeboat situations could tell us something about how we, each individual, would react. It still doesn't change my view when it comes to lifeboat situations and application of different right theories. If 30 people are in mortal peril and only 20 can be saved there are no mechanisms or rights by which we can save the 10. Thus the outcome is that 10 people must die regardless of any rules of conduct. Hence the lifeboat situation can be stacked against any person simply by putting this person in the dilemma of assigning death sentences.
Of course if you were given this hypothetical role you could say, as you just did, "I take great pride in the realization that my reasons are of a supernatural origin" and opt out simply by saying that God will decide which of the 10 must die. I can do the same by living up to my convictions of the NAP and assign chance the job of deciding.