Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
alexander
problem of prudent predation is the following:
============================================
1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
that.
2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
============================================
So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent predation
amount to gambling. In the long run, the house always wins.
Yes, there will always be gamblers who ignore the obvious statistical
facts, but they're certainly not the traditional consumers of
Objectivism -- or philosophy in general. Instead reading or taking
courses they hang around in the casinos and engage in petty crime,
trying to beat the system which is called reality. That's why I
wouldn't be to concerned about the danger that this statements could
be interpreted as some sort of incitement. People smart enough reading
Objectivist literature and taking Objectivist courses will understand
the meaning of statistics. Gamblers cannot anyway.
This way Objectivism would gain a great deal of intellectual
credibility, differentiating it from the "don't hurt me and you'll
come in heaven"-religions. Alas, traditional Objectivism has still
these religious elements in it, which it must root out to become
widely accepted among rational people.
Another -- logically derived -- topic is the initiation of force
principle. We must be willing to admit the same as it was the case
with actually successful prudent predator behavior to become credible
as rational philosophy. To be able to do this, we must begin to think
in categories of classes and class interests.
alexander fürstenberg
___________________
Philodata Verlag und
Seminarmarketing e.K.
Don Watkins III
>IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism for the
>problem of prudent predation is the following:
Your opinion is wrong, my good sir.
>============================================
>1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
>everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
>that.
Well, it depends on what you mean by successful. If you mean "getting away
with it," then you're wrong -- because the flaw in PP is not the fact that
might get caught...it's the fact that you harm your ego by taking actions you
know in advance to be corrupt.
If you mean by successful, "in your interest," well, then that's argument by
(mis)definition.
>2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
>successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
Morality isn't about statistics. It's about principles.
>============================================
>So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent predation
>amount to gambling. In the long run, the house always wins.
That's true, but that just means that you must limit your predation to very
rare instances. That's why your whole approach is wrong.
[snip]
>Another -- logically derived -- topic is the initiation of force
>principle. We must be willing to admit the same as it was the case
>with actually successful prudent predator behavior to become credible
>as rational philosophy. To be able to do this, we must begin to think
>in categories of classes and class interests.
Are you kidding?
Don Watkins
Dean Sandin
> IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism
.....which phrasing is unerringly a troll alert....
> for the
> problem of prudent predation is the following:
>
> 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> that.
"Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
rational standards. Logically, it can't exist. If your
"interests" are poverty, ruin, and a nasty, brutish, short life
of thug or be thugged, then they aren't rational. Any attempt to
concretize it as a rational societal system, or even as a rational
personal choice, is an exercise in contradiction and incoherence
intellectually, and misery and death existentially.
If you really do think PP-hood is in your interest, then you're
committing yourself either to an evil existence of violent
criminality or to the moral philosophy of a hypocrite and sleazy
sophist.
Your very advocacy is an abandonment of civil discourse -- and
moral permission for the rest of us to shoot you in rational self-
defense if it should appear that you're getting an opportunity to
practice on us what you preach. Maybe the biggest difference
between you and Islamic terrorists is that _they_ don't pretend
to be rational and civilized. Maybe the biggest similarity is
symbolized by the fact that spending the rest of your life in a
cage would be too good a fate for you.
--Dean
Lon
0...@bellsouth.net>...
> alexander wrote:
>
> > IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism
>
> .....which phrasing is unerringly a troll alert....
>
> > for the
> > problem of prudent predation is the following:
> >
> > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> > that.
>
> "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> rational standards. Logically, it can't exist. If your
> "interests" are poverty, ruin, and a nasty, brutish, short life
> of thug or be thugged, then they aren't rational. Any attempt to
> concretize it as a rational societal system, or even as a rational
> personal choice, is an exercise in contradiction and incoherence
> intellectually, and misery and death existentially.
>
to give us a sense of what the proper values are? I mean
suppose there was someone who through predation was able
to avoid poverty and find wealth, who far from being ruined
gained power, who lived a long life of luxury while his non
predating peers led lives that were nasty brutish and short,
would that show that his predation was prudent? Or can
we only know what counts as a value for the purpose of
criticizing other peoples views and not for the purpose of
supporting ones own?
> If you really do think PP-hood is in your interest, then you're
> committing yourself either to an evil existence of violent
> criminality or to the moral philosophy of a hypocrite and sleazy
> sophist.
>
This is rather amusing. Saying that there is only one
intellectually honest answer is evidence of trolling,
but saying that anyone who disagrees with you must be
either committed to an evil existence of must be a
hypocrite or sophist is not. When you first made the
claim that he was a troll I thought that you were
complaining about his willingness to dismiss people
who disagree with you. Now I find that he was simply
not using the proper amount of venom in his dismissal.
> Your very advocacy is an abandonment of civil discourse -- and
> moral permission for the rest of us to shoot you in rational self-
> defense if it should appear that you're getting an opportunity to
> practice on us what you preach. Maybe the biggest difference
> between you and Islamic terrorists is that _they_ don't pretend
> to be rational and civilized. Maybe the biggest similarity is
> symbolized by the fact that spending the rest of your life in a
> cage would be too good a fate for you.
>
This might be the biggest difference between the poster
and the Islamic terrorists, but I suspect that is unlikely.
A more likely hypothesis is that a theory that has trouble
distinguishing between the two is too simple minded to be
taken seriously.
> --Dean
Lon
Lon
251.49...@posting.google.com>...
> IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism for the
> problem of prudent predation is the following:
>
> ============================================
> 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> that.
>
> 2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
> ============================================
>
> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent predation
> amount to gambling. In the long run, the house always wins.
prudent predation is rare, but it will not by itself
allow one to get rid of it altogether. The reason is
that the house always wins in gambling only when it can
control all of the relevant factors. So, for example,
in horse racing one could get enough inside information
such that one would be in a position to beat the house.
Obviously if one could appeal to God one could use him
to fix this problem, but obviously one cannot make such
an appeal. The result is that one would have to show
that even when one has the equivalent of inside information
that the mechanisms in place to punish predation will
still always outweigh the odds of succeeding. And this
claim is implausible. One needs something more to rule
out the prudent predator, and if one is willing to just
wave ones hand and say in fact there will never be a case
that one will statistically benefit, one might as well
go further and wave ones hand and say one will never
benefit even in a single case.
Lon
alexander
5912.0...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> >1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> >everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> >that.
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean by successful. If you mean "getting away
> with it," then you're wrong -- because the flaw in PP is not the fact that
> might get caught...it's the fact that you harm your ego by taking actions you
> know in advance to be corrupt.
>
> If you mean by successful, "in your interest," well, then that's argument by
> (mis)definition.
Yes, I basically mean with successful "getting away with it" in the
long run. Presumed that there is no mysterious psychological mechanism
that "harms the PP's ego" (which to believe I'd need more good
reasoning or empirical evidence), then you have a problem showing why
a PP's success is not really successful. Stating this amounts to
saying "even if it proves to be good it's not good for you". This
makes no sense.
> >2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> >successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
>
> Morality isn't about statistics. It's about principles.
You seem to confuse valid principles about cause-and-effect
relationships in ethics (Consequentialism) with a duty-bound code of
morality (deontology). Valid principles DO integrate statistical facts
to qualify as such, or they aren't principles at all!
> >So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent predation
> >amount to gambling. In the long run, the house always wins.
>
> That's true, but that just means that you must limit your predation to very
> rare instances. That's why your whole approach is wrong.
Limiting it to rare instances in reality doesn't invalidate the
logical soundness in regard to theory. Saying what I say about the
rationality of PP involves a big "BUT" that I don't advocate evade --
on the contrary.
> >Another -- logically derived -- topic is the initiation of force
> >principle. We must be willing to admit the same as it was the case
> >with actually successful prudent predator behavior to become credible
> >as rational philosophy. To be able to do this, we must begin to think
> >in categories of classes and class interests.
>
> Are you kidding?
I mean it. Where's your problem? As Marxists recognized, there are
indeed different classes and class interests in society, but they got
it wrong in identifying how they are divided and what their real
interests are. It's not the people versus the capitalists, but the
capitalist classes against the predator classes who instrumentalize
the initiation of force via law to exploit the people. Undoubtedly,
some groups profit by letting others pay taxes and becoming this money
as subsidies.
Who are the groups who gain a net profit by being part of the
welfare/warfare state and which groups have a net loss from all the
statist transfer policies? Taxation is all about transferring monies
from one group to the other. We need sophisticated sociological and
economic analysis in this regard.
alexander
> > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> > that.
>
> "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> rational standards.
No, I do ~not~ want it universalized! On the contrary, it would be in
my and society's self-interest to not let people be it. But that is
not the question. We're debating only the PP's point of view, not the
one of his potential victims.
If your
> "interests" are poverty, ruin, and a nasty, brutish, short life
> of thug or be thugged, then they aren't rational. Any attempt to
> concretize it as a rational societal system, or even as a rational
> personal choice, is an exercise in contradiction and incoherence
> intellectually, and misery and death existentially.
It is in nobody's interest to become the target of a prudent predator,
but -- again -- that's not of interest here, because one doesn't have
to advocate PP-hood as societal system just because it's outcome might
be successful for some agents.
> If you really do think PP-hood is in your interest, then you're
> committing yourself either to an evil existence of violent
> criminality or to the moral philosophy of a hypocrite and sleazy
> sophist.
Well, the one who is getting into sophistry and ad hominem attacks
here is you. Remember that I told that ~successful~ PP-hood is in
everybody's rational self-interest, not that ~attempts~ to PP-hood are
so! That's a big difference you don't seem to get. I already stated,
that I don't believe PP-hood pays in the long run.
> [1] Your very advocacy is an abandonment of civil discourse -- and
> [2] moral permission for the rest of us to shoot you in rational self-
> defense if it should appear that you're getting an opportunity to
> practice on us what you preach.
(1) The advocacy of an idea alone -- what I'm not doing anyway with
PP-ship if you're carefully reading -- cannot constitute the
abandoning of civil discourse, on the contrary, a rational discourse
in society requires all topics to be discussed in a matter-of-fact
manner. It is you who's abandoning objectivity by taking it on a
personal level. There's no reason to be afraid. I'm not planning to
kill you.
(2) No, it is not in my self-interest to let you shoot me, but it is
intellectually HONEST to say that it might be in ~your~ interest to do
so. That doesn't involve giving you permission to do so. You're not
differentiating. This might be a result of "universalizing" morality
and using it as self-defense as it is the case in religions that
muddles your mind.
Maybe the biggest difference
> between you and Islamic terrorists is that _they_ don't pretend
> to be rational and civilized. Maybe the biggest similarity is
> symbolized by the fact that spending the rest of your life in a
> cage would be too good a fate for you.
See, now you're getting personal and insulting, i.e. you are
moralizing. That's why I believe with certainty that the most
important function of traditional ethics is self-protection, an
attempt to persuade a potential attacker not to attack, even if it is
good for him to do so. I don't need that.
No genuine Objectivist should do it. I have no problems admitting that
it might be in your self-interest to put me in a cage as it would be
in this case in my rational self-interest to break your neck if you
try.
You don't think. I'm resisting the temptation to call you a moron,
because I believe that everybody has the capacity to focus on reality
if he's given a chance to do so.
alexander
30...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> > alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> > rational standards. Logically, it can't exist. If your
> > "interests" are poverty, ruin, and a nasty, brutish, short life
> > of thug or be thugged, then they aren't rational. Any attempt to
> > concretize it as a rational societal system, or even as a rational
> > personal choice, is an exercise in contradiction and incoherence
> > intellectually, and misery and death existentially.
> >
> Out of curiosity, are the "interests" above supposed
> to give us a sense of what the proper values are? I mean
> suppose there was someone who through predation was able
> to avoid poverty and find wealth, who far from being ruined
> gained power, who lived a long life of luxury while his non
> predating peers led lives that were nasty brutish and short,
> would that show that his predation was prudent? Or can
> we only know what counts as a value for the purpose of
> criticizing other peoples views and not for the purpose of
> supporting ones own?
That's exactly the problem. The critics of prudent predation seem to
ignore the ~hypothetical~ phrasing "IFF it is successful in acquiring
objective values in the long run."
As soon as they are forced to accept this scenario as hypothesis for
the sake of discussion, they try to introduce some other alleged
negative effects through the backdoor -- like "damaging your ego" or
"self-esteem", or other kinds of what I call "pseudo-psychological
moralizing." It is the secular equivalent of "if we don't get you, God
will punish you in your afterlife."
Or they attack the counter-position as if they were threatened by the
disputant personally... as we have seen. I wish I could encounter in
this debate a more detached point of view by its participants. That's
the difference between true objectivity and emotionalism.
alexander
a3...@posting.google.com>...
> > ============================================
> > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> > that.
> >
> > 2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> > successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
> > ============================================
> >
> > So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent predation
> > amount to gambling. In the long run, the house always wins.
> This argument will get you closer to the claim that
> prudent predation is rare, but it will not by itself
> allow one to get rid of it altogether. The reason is
> that the house always wins in gambling only when it can
> control all of the relevant factors. So, for example,
> in horse racing one could get enough inside information
> such that one would be in a position to beat the house.
Yes, it depends on the degree of control both the prudent predator and
society are able to exert. The side who has a better control of the
situation then the other wins. In a highly interconnected trader
society where reputation is a important capital, it will usually be
"society."
> Obviously if one could appeal to God one could use him
> to fix this problem, but obviously one cannot make such
> an appeal. The result is that one would have to show
> that even when one has the equivalent of inside information
> that the mechanisms in place to punish predation will
> still always outweigh the odds of succeeding. And this
> claim is implausible.
Not at all, if you properly understand what "odds" means. It is about
the degree of probability of succeeding. One could claim, for example,
that in a certain societal form (like capitalism) the probability of
succeeding with attempts to PP is, say, 2.5%. So the odds are 97.5%
against you. The bet is bad enough to effectively shy away every
rational person.
One needs something more to rule
> out the prudent predator, and if one is willing to just
> wave ones hand and say in fact there will never be a case
> that one will statistically benefit, one might as well
> go further and wave ones hand and say one will never
> benefit even in a single case.
We're not talking about ~never~ or ~always~ in regard to individual
instances, but about generalized degrees of probability. One doesn't
have to claim that any attempt at prudent predation will fail with
100% certainty. The foolishness of this obviously false claim will not
only fail to persuade more intelligent individuals, but it might even
motivate a PP to try to show that it's wrong. It is enough to tell
that the odds are (with far more then 50%) against the PP.
Dean Sandin
> Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> > > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> > > that.
> >
> > "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> > alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> > rational standards.
>
> No, I do ~not~ want it universalized!
You maintained, "...~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
everybody's rational self-interest." Not that it's true, but to
consider it for purposes of seeing what it might mean, it's
necessarily a universalization. There's that word "everybody" in
there; and rational self-interest necessarily applies as the same
principle to all rational people. You didn't say that "PeePee-
hood is good for me and maybe some others, but the rest of you are
screwed." You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
principle."
If you can't grasp that, then you're something like a 3-year-old
playing with matches. An adult will slap your hand and try to
scare you straight by shoving the meaning of your clueless conduct
in your face.
> > [1] Your very advocacy is an abandonment of civil discourse -- and
> > [2] moral permission for the rest of us to shoot you in rational self-
> > defense if it should appear that you're getting an opportunity to
> > practice on us what you preach.
>
> (1) The advocacy of an idea alone -- what I'm not doing anyway with
> PP-ship if you're carefully reading -- cannot constitute the
> abandoning of civil discourse, on the contrary, a rational discourse
> in society requires all topics to be discussed in a matter-of-fact
> manner. It is you who's abandoning objectivity by taking it on a
> personal level. There's no reason to be afraid. I'm not planning to
> kill you.
I don't believe you.
You've already stated a doctrine that means exactly that you'd
kill me to gain values from me if you thought you could "get away
with it". That's the essence of PeePee-hood, which you endorse.
Well, I'll kill _you_ -- to protect my values. Protection means
action to avoid reasonably suspected or anticipated harm. Given
the alternative of your hypocrisy or your thuggish intent, I'll
hardly stake my life on your merely being hypocritical.
Here's a suitable concrete of a general principle. I'll avoid
dark alleys if I think you (or your ilk) might be around. And if
I have to go down that alley anyway, I'll carry protection. And
if you pop out of a dumpster, I'll be prepared to blow you away.
Why? You've announced that you're my deadly enemy.
> Maybe the biggest difference
> > between you and Islamic terrorists is that _they_ don't pretend
> > to be rational and civilized. Maybe the biggest similarity is
> > symbolized by the fact that spending the rest of your life in a
> > cage would be too good a fate for you.
>
> See, now you're getting personal and insulting, i.e. you are
> moralizing.
You set the terms. People who advocate the propriety and efficacy
of initiating force are ipso facto "getting personal and
insulting". They are telling me what philosphical values they
have and what policies I can expect from them. What they sanction
and want to do means degrading and destroying my life.
There's no such thing as civilized advocacy of predation. There's
no hiding behind some spurious dichotomy between moral belief and
moral action. That's the dodge of the devious, who wish to fool
their victims -- or the hypocritical, who wish to fool themselves.
Take your choice of which evaluation of you that your beliefs cry
out for: hypocrite or subhuman.
--Dean
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Sandin" <dsa...@bellsouth.net>
>
> Here's a suitable concrete of a general principle. I'll avoid
> dark alleys if I think you (or your ilk) might be around. And if
> I have to go down that alley anyway, I'll carry protection. And
> if you pop out of a dumpster, I'll be prepared to blow you away.
> Why? You've announced that you're my deadly enemy.
Someone take that poor Objectivist to an infirmary.
x
x
Acar
IMO what you are proposing is consequentialist ethics. Trying to fit that
fix to Objectivism is a philosophical aberration. Objectivism is about
reality and objectivity in respect to reality. If morality is based on that
yardstick there can be no probabilities. If Objectivism is true there can
not be a successful predator. If there is the remote possibility of one
successful predator in the entire past and future history of mankind,
Objectivism is false (which it is, of course). That explains Dean's panic.
That is why Peikoff says: "There is only one way. If you like a lot of Ayn
Rand stuff but you want to make accommodations, go ahead and do it, but
leave us alone." I agree with Peikoff that if a morality is based on reality
it can swing only one way. And if reason is not capable of knowing reality,
then why Objectivism?
x
x
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Sandin" <dsa...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
> alexander wrote:
>
> > Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote
> >
> > > > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > > > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other
than
> > > > that.
> You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> principle."
Read. He did not say that pphood is good for everyone. He said that
predation, if successful, could obviously be in anyone's rational
self-interest. He is not advocating evil. He is saying that there is evil in
the world. You are saying that if the world were rational there could be no
evil (Objectivism). But he is saying that that is false. IMO he is
inadvertently saying that Objectivism is false, and I agree.
dbuel
251.49...@posting.google.com>...
> 2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
I think an explanation about that would require knowing what methods
you're talking about, what it is you're planning, and so on. I don't
see how we can talk statistics until we get more specific. For
example, stealing candy bars is a lot easier than robbing banks.
James E. Prescott
> > [...] I'll be prepared to blow you away.
> > Why? You've announced that you're my
> > deadly enemy.
> Someone take that poor Objectivist to an infirmary.
Well said. Dean's attitude is scary. Apparently, sober intellectual
discussion with some Objectivists ends in threats of physical violence. A
disturbing prospect, but I plunge ahead.
Alexander was on the right track, and nearly there, but not quite done with
the Prudent Predator problem. Nobody else seems to have a clue. Certainly,
Mr. Watkins and others who claim "harm to the ego" from "actions you know to
be corrupt" are way, way off track. If an action is in my genuine long term
self-interest, then I do /not/ know that action to be "corrupt," and my ego
is obviously in no danger of being harmed in any way for taking it. It
doesn't matter if the action is predation. By what standard is predation
"corrupt"? If, say, Man's Life Qua Man, caused one to forsake actions that
one /knows/ to be in one's own genuine long-term self-interest, then that
would be an /irrational/ standard for an egoist to hold!
Also, wrong -- and a bit silly -- are those like Dean who claim that
advocacy of prudent predation makes you an enemy. Shouldn't they be more
suspicious of altruists, of those who /denounce/ prudent predation? I mean,
isn't that precisely what predators do??
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
alexander
5...@bellsouth.net>...
You're still not getting it, Dean.
I'll try hard to explain it better to you this time:
> > > "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> > > alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> > > rational standards.
> >
> > No, I do ~not~ want it universalized!
>
> You maintained, "...~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest." Not that it's true, but to
> consider it for purposes of seeing what it might mean, it's
> necessarily a universalization. There's that word "everybody" in
> there; and rational self-interest necessarily applies as the same
> principle to all rational people. You didn't say that "PeePee-
> hood is good for me and maybe some others, but the rest of you are
> screwed." You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> principle."
Yes, but you are assuming falsely that it is in everybody's rational
self-interest that ~other~ people act in ~their~ rational
self-interest! This is plainly false.
At the very core of moral (i.e. ideological) communication lays the
attempt to persuade others to act altruistically ~toward you.~ And the
Randian philosophy is following this tradition, their claims to
advocate "selfishness" notwithstanding. The reason behind this error
is rooted in the over-generalization of the (basically valid) "harmony
of interests" principle. Recognize that this type of persuasion
doesn't work with everyone, especially not with people familiar with
philosophic reasoning. You'll have more success trying this type of
communication on religious types.
> If you can't grasp that, then you're something like a 3-year-old
> playing with matches. An adult will slap your hand and try to
> scare you straight by shoving the meaning of your clueless conduct
> in your face.
If you can't grasp the difference between ~your~ interests and the
interests of ~other~ people, then you're not applying the law of
identity consistently in your thinking. By mentally fusing all mankind
into one hypothetical individual, your operating epistemologically on
collectivist principles.
> > > [1] Your very advocacy is an abandonment of civil discourse -- and
> > > [2] moral permission for the rest of us to shoot you in rational self-
> > > defense if it should appear that you're getting an opportunity to
> > > practice on us what you preach.
> >
> > (1) The advocacy of an idea alone -- what I'm not doing anyway with
> > PP-ship if you're carefully reading -- cannot constitute the
> > abandoning of civil discourse, on the contrary, a rational discourse
> > in society requires all topics to be discussed in a matter-of-fact
> > manner. It is you who's abandoning objectivity by taking it on a
> > personal level. There's no reason to be afraid. I'm not planning to
> > kill you.
>
> I don't believe you.
You're nuts! I already explained that it doesn't pay to be "PeePee"
(your term).
> You've already stated a doctrine that means exactly that you'd
> kill me to gain values from me if you thought you could "get away
> with it". That's the essence of PeePee-hood, which you endorse.
Sure. If I really could do it (which I doubt), and if I really
wouldn't suffer negative consequences in the long run (which I also
doubt), and if I really had to gain something by doing so (which I
especially doubt in your case), you would be right. And now? What do
you want to do? In this hypothetical (!) scenario I eliminated all
risk factors, so you'll have a hard time explaining to me in a
logically consistent way why one shouldn't go after your life. Note
that I'm ~not~ advocating to kill you!
> Well, I'll kill _you_
Guessed so... Why don't you reread my reasoning why I think an ATTEMPT
to PP would be futile, although it can't be logically denied that by
the very definition of "successful" a successful OUTCOME would be in
anybody's self-interest?
-- to protect my values. Protection means
> action to avoid reasonably suspected or anticipated harm. Given
> the alternative of your hypocrisy or your thuggish intent, I'll
> hardly stake my life on your merely being hypocritical.
Note that I'm exactly ~the opposite~ of a hypocrite -- on the
contrary, I'm brutally honest by admitting that it have no good
reasons to persuade sociopathic types like you to go after me besides
counter force.
> Here's a suitable concrete of a general principle. I'll avoid
> dark alleys if I think you (or your ilk) might be around. And if
> I have to go down that alley anyway, I'll carry protection. And
> if you pop out of a dumpster, I'll be prepared to blow you away.
That's rational. I'd do the same in your place if I'd be as paranoid
about me as you are.
> Why? You've announced that you're my deadly enemy.
Bullshit. You're still not reading. Why don't you try to think instead
merely looking at words?
> > > to be rational and civilized. Maybe the biggest similarity is
> > > symbolized by the fact that spending the rest of your life in a
> > > cage would be too good a fate for you.
> >
> > See, now you're getting personal and insulting, i.e. you are
> > moralizing.
>
> You set the terms. People who advocate the propriety and efficacy
> of initiating force are ipso facto "getting personal and
> insulting".
I'm not advocating it for others, because that would harm me. I'm
merely stating the obvious: that it can't be denied that successfully
robbing or cheating me can be in other peoples rational self-interest.
And I myself wouldn't initiate force not only because I cannot, but
also because it will backfire almost with certainty -- as I already
tried to explain to you.
They are telling me what philosphical values they
> have and what policies I can expect from them. What they sanction
> and want to do means degrading and destroying my life.
You're supposing that your life has value to anybody besides yourself
and maybe your family. I seriously doubt that you're so important.
> There's no such thing as civilized advocacy of predation. There's
> no hiding behind some spurious dichotomy between moral belief and
> moral action. That's the dodge of the devious, who wish to fool
> their victims -- or the hypocritical, who wish to fool themselves.
By admitting that it might be in other people's rational self-interest
to engage in prudent predation against me I'm hypocritical? Think
again, Dean.
> Take your choice of which evaluation of you that your beliefs cry
> out for: hypocrite or subhuman.
I emphatically choose "subhuman"! -- And if the only reason for doing
so is that "subhumans" seem to show a better quality of thinking then
you do. You're fooling yourself.
Don't rely on that in post-biblical times you'll be successful in
fooling others by crying like a baby and throwing insults like "YOU
ARE EVIL, SUBHUMAN, YOU WILL ROT IN HELL!" etc. blabla at people. Calm
down.
You'll be much more credible in your attempts to avert possible
attacks on you by arguing with negative probabilities of outcome. The
best argument I know is a gun firmly planted in your fist -- or in
that of a cop. You're disappointing me, Dean. Philosophy is not for
you -- at least not objective philosophy.
Don Watkins III
>Mr. Watkins and others who claim "harm to the ego" from "actions you know to
>be corrupt" are way, way off track. If an action is in my genuine long term
>self-interest, then I do /not/ know that action to be "corrupt," and my ego
>is obviously in no danger of being harmed in any way for taking it.
Well, that's why my post to this thread was a conclusion...not an argument. I
just spent a month giving my reasons for rejecting PP, and so I didn't want to
return to that issue, presently. I was simply pointing out that
Alexander...contrary to your statements, Jim...was not on the right track.
>It
>doesn't matter if the action is predation. By what standard is predation
>"corrupt"? If, say, Man's Life Qua Man, caused one to forsake actions that
>one /knows/ to be in one's own genuine long-term self-interest, then that
>would be an /irrational/ standard for an egoist to hold!
The problem is that you've made a fundamental mis-identification of what
self-interest means. It's not "whatever serves the interests of the body,"
(although moral actions usually do that) but what serves the interests of the
ego.
Now, again, that's just an assertion...but a true one!
Don Watkins
Chris Cathcart
0...@bellsouth.net>...
Okay, who's "imping" Dean Sandin, making look like a wacko
mouth-frothing fanatic?
Or has Sandin really gone off the deep end? His mind *has* shown
progressively greater deterioration over the years up till now, but
his latest postings represent a maniacal mindset. This latest,
assuming it's from Sandin himself, is at another level of looney even
compared to his more recent stuff.
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
bb
b
Acar
From: "alexander" <rational...@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
> Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<3C595D8C.8AB4FB0
> 5...@bellsouth.net>...
>
> You're still not getting it, Dean.
> I'll try hard to explain it better to you this time:
>
> > > > "Actually successful" PP-hood -- on even the individual level, let
> > > > alone universalized as you would have it -- is an impossibility by
> > > > rational standards.
> > >
> > > No, I do ~not~ want it universalized!
> >
> > You maintained, "...~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest." Not that it's true, but to
> > consider it for purposes of seeing what it might mean, it's
> > necessarily a universalization. There's that word "everybody" in
> > there; and rational self-interest necessarily applies as the same
> > principle to all rational people. You didn't say that "PeePee-
> > hood is good for me and maybe some others, but the rest of you are
> > screwed." You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> > principle."
>
> Yes, but you are assuming falsely that it is in everybody's rational
> self-interest that ~other~ people act in ~their~ rational
> self-interest! This is plainly false.
In the simplest possible terms, this is what Dean was screaming about:
Consider these concepts:
(1) Reality
(2) Reason
(3) Reason knows reality.
Above you have a 100% rigid, unyielding framework.
Then:
(4) Morality is based on Reality through reason.
Still unyielding.
(5) Reason respects rights at all times.
The above should make it crystal clear why Objectivism can not compromise
with predation. You can not ask Reality to yield. Now, you can take issue
with (3) or (4) or (5), but then you are not an Objectivist.
What Dean is saying is that if (5) is not true, but (3) and (4) remain true,
then egoism runs rampant, all hell breaks loose and Objectivism is hell.
If (5) is right you can not fix Objectivism by asking Reality to give a
little. You are saying: Accepting all 5 above means that predating can be
good but respecting rights is much better. IMO you are correct in saying
that your fix flows from Objectivist dogma, but a morality in which
predation is not evil is not what Objectivists would take to heart as a good
"fix".
Dean Sandin
> mouth-frothing fanatic?
>
> Or has Sandin really gone off the deep end? His mind *has* shown
> progressively greater deterioration over the years up till now, but
> his latest postings represent a maniacal mindset. This latest,
> assuming it's from Sandin himself, is at another level of looney even
> compared to his more recent stuff.
A CLASSIC case of projection....
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
ftb
Dean Sandin
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...] I'll be prepared to blow you away.
> > > Why? You've announced that you're my
> > > deadly enemy.
>
> > Someone take that poor Objectivist to an infirmary.
>
> Well said. Dean's attitude is scary. Apparently, sober intellectual
> discussion with some Objectivists ends in threats of physical violence.
Sober discussion is fine. But this Alexander, to whom I was
replying, began with the settled conclusion that Objectivism is
irrational for opposing PeePees (those who hold implicitly or
explicitly as a matter of morality that the initiation of force
can be in their "rational" interest). Sobriety? He wasn't asking
why Objectivism condemns PeePees. He wasn't requesting help in
figuring anything out. He wasn't looking for discussion or
criticism of an idea he found of academic interest.
Rather, he was insisting -- despite his patent ignorance or
disregard of what the concept of "rational self-interest" means
in Objectivism -- on something evil. He was doing so as a matter
of general principle -- putting it on a universalized basis. And
he was declaring that Objectivists are dishonest for opposing it.
To wit: "The only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism"
is to "admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
everybody's rational self-interest". (Silly me, I forgot to point
out that a complaint of dishonesty is laughable coming from a
PeePee.)
I allowed that he might be just a hypocrite who really doesn't
want what his advocacy means, but I did not shy from taking him
at his word. Words have meanings. As an advocate of moral ideas
he has a right to expect them to be taken seriously and recognized
for what they are.
--Dean
Lon
528.1a...@posting.google.com>...
> Lon <bec...@bgnet.bgsu.edu> wrote in message news:<c24964d1.0201302310.79f
> a3...@posting.google.com>...
>
> instances, but about generalized degrees of probability. One doesn't
> have to claim that any attempt at prudent predation will fail with
> 100% certainty. The foolishness of this obviously false claim will not
> only fail to persuade more intelligent individuals, but it might even
> motivate a PP to try to show that it's wrong. It is enough to tell
> that the odds are (with far more then 50%) against the PP.
>
as if there is a single value for the prudent predator.
In fact different acts of predation will have different
payoffs and different probabilities of working. Someone
gave the example of a opportunistically stolen copycard.
Here the payoff is small, but the chance of getting
caught was apparently insignificant. So on balance
the theft was "prudent." (Of course there are other
factors including guilt and they matter somewhat although
they don't determine the issue a priori). For your
argument to work it would have to be the case that one
never finds oneself in a situation in which the rewards
times the odds of success outweighs the penalties times
the odds of failure. But to get this one cannot
generalize over the general features of all cases of
predation. One needs to be able to say that given this
persons information about the risks and rewards in this
case, if he were to predate every time he found himself
in such a situation he would lose on balance. But this
claim is only a little bit more plausible than the
view that you are opposing namely that it is never in
your best interest even in a single case. Obviously
there are cases where one finds oneself around other
peoples things with nobody around and the risk of being
caught being low. Your argument requires you to be able
to rule out anyone knowing that they are in such a
position. But this is implausible.
Lon
> alexander fürstenberg
>
>
Dean Sandin
> Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote ...
>
> > You maintained, "...~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest." Not that it's true, but to
> > consider it for purposes of seeing what it might mean, it's
> > necessarily a universalization. There's that word "everybody" in
> > there; and rational self-interest necessarily applies as the same
> > principle to all rational people. You didn't say that "PeePee-
> > hood is good for me and maybe some others, but the rest of you are
> > screwed." You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> > principle."
>
> Yes, but you are assuming falsely that it is in everybody's rational
> self-interest that ~other~ people act in ~their~ rational
> self-interest! This is plainly false.
There's no "yes...but" to it. You're stating gibberish. "Yes"
means you're agreeing that "rational self-interest necessarily
applies as the same principle to all rational people" (which I
could have phrased better). Our interests in as important and
universal a matter as the use of force stem from the same vital
facts about each of us. It CAN'T mean different things for
different people.
> If you can't grasp the difference between ~your~ interests and the
> interests of ~other~ people, then you're not applying the law of
> identity consistently in your thinking.
The law of identity (applied here) says that we all have the
_same_ fundamental interests.
> > You've already stated a doctrine that means exactly that you'd
> > kill me to gain values from me if you thought you could "get away
> > with it". That's the essence of PeePee-hood, which you endorse.
>
> Sure. If I really could do it (which I doubt), and if I really
> wouldn't suffer negative consequences in the long run (which I also
> doubt), and if I really had to gain something by doing so (which I
> especially doubt in your case), you would be right.
All of those "if I really"s (beyond the raw power to kill) are
false. But the fact that you say you'd genuinely initiate force
in instances where you think they do hold, continues to make you
either a hypocrite or the natural enemy of everyone around you.
--Dean
Acar
I'm sorry, I erred. Predation can not be good if you accept (5). You are
rejecting (5). You are saying that predation can be rational (good) but
respecting rights is much better. So if Objectivism accepts your fix and
modifies (5) two things would happen:
(1) It would be recognizing reality as it is.
(2) It would admit that predation can be rational.
Do you see what a mess this turns into, why Objectivism can't be fixed?
Chris Cathcart
5...@bellsouth.net>...
Yep, just keep on frothing and raving there, silly one. Why, *of
course*, the problem must lie somewhere else than yourself.
I'd say that any typical newsgroup regular who has been here over the
years (among those willing to identify and integrate facts, anyhow)
has been witness to the transition that Sandin has undergone: from
someone who was generally reasonable and made accessible points and
arguments, into the semi-coherent, ranting and raving mess that he is
today. The Google archives are readily available to compare the
Sandin of then to the Sandin of today. It's quite sad, really, to
observe a valuable mind's descent into la-la land, having been
bludgeoned into near-oblivion by his own self-inflicted adherence to a
corrupt mode of dealing with ideas. He now appears truly incapable of
dealing with ideas in a normal way -- and, quite unsurprisingly,
virtually as a result, he appears incapable of seeing this fact for
himself.
alexander
4$05208f00$5caffea9@prescott>...
> Alexander was on the right track, and nearly there, but not quite done with
> the Prudent Predator problem. Nobody else seems to have a clue. Certainly,
> Mr. Watkins and others who claim "harm to the ego" from "actions you know to
> be corrupt" are way, way off track. If an action is in my genuine long term
> self-interest, then I do /not/ know that action to be "corrupt," and my ego
> is obviously in no danger of being harmed in any way for taking it. It
> doesn't matter if the action is predation.
Indeed. I'm personally aware of some individuals with a "PP lifestyle"
who display a quite contended and stable personality. In contrast to
such hysterically reacting people like Dean, they seem to be
unshakeable in their sense of self-esteem.
By what standard is predation
> "corrupt"? If, say, Man's Life Qua Man, caused one to forsake actions that
> one /knows/ to be in one's own genuine long-term self-interest, then that
> would be an /irrational/ standard for an egoist to hold!
Absolutely. It may seem somewhat disturbing to admit that, but
objective values, properly seen in their full context, are what they
are, no matter whether other people's values are damaged in the
process of acquiring them.
> Also, wrong -- and a bit silly -- are those like Dean who claim that
> advocacy of prudent predation makes you an enemy. Shouldn't they be more
> suspicious of altruists, of those who /denounce/ prudent predation? I mean,
> isn't that precisely what predators do??
Yes. A genuine PP will try to elicit values by proclaiming altruism as
standard for others. And to put the record straight, I want you to
recognize that I'm ~not~ advocating attempts to prudent predation --
out of practical considerations. I'm only saying IFF prudent predation
is (in rare circumstances) indeed successful, the objective values
gained by it can't be invalidated based solely on their allegedly
"immoral" process of acquisition. I want that to be differentiated.
To sum it up in one sentence:
"There is no metaphysical law that says that PP can ~never~ be
successful in the long run, but, actually, the chances of succeeding
with it (in the long run) are in interconnected societies so bad, that
it would be irrational even to try engaging in it."
alexander
5961.0...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
> >It
> >doesn't matter if the action is predation. By what standard is predation
> >"corrupt"? If, say, Man's Life Qua Man, caused one to forsake actions that
> >one /knows/ to be in one's own genuine long-term self-interest, then that
> >would be an /irrational/ standard for an egoist to hold!
>
> The problem is that you've made a fundamental mis-identification of what
> self-interest means. It's not "whatever serves the interests of the body,"
> (although moral actions usually do that) but what serves the interests of the
> ego.
I'm afraid that you misrepresented his position. He already stated
that he sees "success" in this case in its full context. By
incorporating the expression "genuine long-term self-interest" he
already took away all your possible objections against it, including
the "not serving one's ego" claim you made.
In determining whether a specific method of value acquisition (PP) can
invalidate the objective values gained by it, we are already assuming
what you desperately insist to deny afterwards: that the values ARE
rational in their full context -- including the psychology of the
agent. If you're seriously interested in participating in the
discussion, you must accept this hypothesis as all other participants
do, or we'll be talking about ~totally~ different issues here!
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> > IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism for the
> > problem of prudent predation is the following:
> >
> > ============================================
> > 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be other than
> > that.
> >
> > 2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> > successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
> > ============================================
> IMO what you are proposing is consequentialist ethics. Trying to fit that
> fix to Objectivism is a philosophical aberration. Objectivism is about
> reality and objectivity in respect to reality.
It may be a aberration from traditional Objectivism, but I don't see
it as aberration from reality. If O'ist ethics differs from empirical
reality, the it is Objectivism which must adapt. Trying it the other
way round won't work.
If morality is based on that
> yardstick there can be no probabilities. If Objectivism is true there can
> not be a successful predator. If there is the remote possibility of one
> successful predator in the entire past and future history of mankind,
> Objectivism is false (which it is, of course). That explains Dean's panic.
I don't see it in this absolutist way. Not "Objectivism" as entire
philosophy is false, but only some secondary elements of it, which are
in need of reconstruction. The ~essence~ of Objectivism, which lies in
its commitment to the law of identity in metaphysics and epistemology,
is still undeniably true.
> That is why Peikoff says: "There is only one way. If you like a lot of Ayn
> Rand stuff but you want to make accommodations, go ahead and do it, but
> leave us alone." I agree with Peikoff that if a morality is based on reality
> it can swing only one way. And if reason is not capable of knowing reality,
> then why Objectivism?
You are inferring the wrong conclusions from the two valid
observations you made. Yes, morality is based on reality, and yes,
reason is capable of knowing reality, but that doesn't mean that
Objectivism in its entirety is false. So, no, I won't leave
Objectivism alone! Although I may consider leaving alone the adherents
of the orthodoxy. There's a difference between Randianism and
Objectivism that some don't (or won't?) understand. A consequentialist
code of ethics may be exactly what is needed to replace the
intrinsicist elements in Rand's conception of selfishness.
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> > You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> > principle."
>
> Read. He did not say that pphood is good for everyone. He said that
> predation, if successful, could obviously be in anyone's rational
> self-interest. He is not advocating evil. He is saying that there is evil in
> the world. You are saying that if the world were rational there could be no
> evil (Objectivism). But he is saying that that is false. IMO he is
> inadvertently saying that Objectivism is false, and I agree.
I don't! You're making the mistake of identifying the philosophy of
Objectivism with its false but secondary positions in ethics inferred
by Rand. This is not the core of the O'ist philosophy!
The essence of Objectivism is validly identified by Dave Saum in this
article:
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/davesaum/essence.html
Read it. Objectivism is all about the consistent application of the
law of identity in all areas of existence.
alexander
8ab...@posting.google.com>...
> > 2.) Explain that -- in reality -- the statistical probability for a
> > successful outcome is, at least in the long-run, extremely poor.
> I think an explanation about that would require knowing what methods
> you're talking about, what it is you're planning, and so on. I don't
> see how we can talk statistics until we get more specific. For
> example, stealing candy bars is a lot easier than robbing banks.
Absolutely. There are big differences in the amount of possible risks
and outcomes when engaging in behavior that fits in the broad category
of prudent predation. It's essentially a mathematical problem.
While I'm currently not able to quantify the values or disvalues in
question, we do have a mechanism which takes care of exactly this
task: the market in a free economy. If you're able to stick a price
tag on each value, the next step would be to consult Game Theory to
make a rational decision about what to do.
GT is an important part of ethics neglected by Objectivist scholars
until now, as far as I can see. This must be fixed as soon as
possible.
Acar
> He is not advocating evil. He is saying that there is evil in
> the world.
Another correction. If Alexander was trying to fix Objectivism and saying
that predatory conduct can be rational, he is saying (by Objectivist
definitions), that predatory conduct can be good, but not as good as
respecting rights.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "alexander" <rational...@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
Well, this is the battle of definitions. You can ask Gardner, Dance, Klein,
Prescott, Sandin, Peikoff, Kelley, etc and each one will tell you what
Objectivism really is, yet each one is different. When I argue, it seems
reasonable to stick with Rand's version.
May I comment parenthetically that an ethics (presumably based on the law of
identity) which regards predatory conduct as a moral (because it is rational
and based on the law of identity) is fraught with danger.
x
x
x
x
Don Watkins III
>> The problem is that you've made a fundamental mis-identification of what
>> self-interest means. It's not "whatever serves the interests of the body,"
>> (although moral actions usually do that) but what serves the interests of
>the
>> ego.
Alexander Fürstenberg writes:
>I'm afraid that you misrepresented his position. He already stated
>that he sees "success" in this case in its full context.
He stated it, but that doesn't mean he's correctly identified what "success"
actually means means.
>By
>incorporating the expression "genuine long-term self-interest" he
>already took away all your possible objections against it, including
>the "not serving one's ego" claim you made.
What objection? It's a simple identification of what self-interest means. You
don't think that's relevant to the issue?
>In determining whether a specific method of value acquisition (PP) can
>invalidate the objective values gained by it, we are already assuming
>what you desperately insist to deny afterwards: that the values ARE
>rational in their full context -- including the psychology of the
>agent.
Desperately insist to deny? Surely you jest.
>If you're seriously interested in participating in the
>discussion, you must accept this hypothesis as all other participants
>do, or we'll be talking about ~totally~ different issues here!
<sigh> What's the issue? Whether an object gained by predation can be in the
interests of a rational egoist.
Well, then, the first question to ask is: what are his interests? My answer to
that question is -- that which serves the ego. Don't you think that's relevant
to the PP debate?
Not only do I think it's relevant, I happen to think that it's the_only_thing
that is relevant (broadly speaking, of course!). Any bodily gains, or Gordon's
"social" gains, are moot if it can be demonstrated that predation harms the
ego.
Don Watkins
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
What comes next from Acar, is another example of disturbingly bad
reasoning:
> In the simplest possible terms, this is what Dean was screaming about:
>
> Consider these concepts:
> (1) Reality
> (2) Reason
> (3) Reason knows reality.
>
> Above you have a 100% rigid, unyielding framework.
> Then:
I totally agree.
> (4) Morality is based on Reality through reason.
>
> Still unyielding.
Again, I totally agree.
> (5) Reason respects rights at all times.
Nope. You're evading ~who's~ rights! A right is a value for the holder
of the right. HAVING rights is a value, not necessarily GRANTING
rights to others!
> The above should make it crystal clear why Objectivism can not compromise
> with predation. You can not ask Reality to yield. Now, you can take issue
> with (3) or (4) or (5), but then you are not an Objectivist.
I'm neither taking issue with (1), nor with (2), nor with (3) and (4).
But I'm strongly opposing the undifferentiated view and its
collectivist implications expressed in (5).
> What Dean is saying is that if (5) is not true, but (3) and (4) remain true,
> then egoism runs rampant, all hell breaks loose and Objectivism is hell.
Not necessarily. As I don't get tired to explain, while engaging in PP
(initiation of force or fraud) ~may~ produce objective values, in a
closely knit information society even trying it is irrational, for
it's very likely that it won't work without negative long term
consequences! You don't have to be afraid that a "war of all against
all" will occur by simply acknowledging the obvious: that a harmony of
interests does ~not~ exist in the absolutist terms orthodox
Objectivists like to see it.
> If (5) is right you can not fix Objectivism by asking Reality to give a
> little.
The statement of (5) is to undifferentiated to tell you more about it.
In its current phrasing it evades the unambiguous identification of
the beneficiary of holding a right. You must understand that there is
a difference in holding a right and ~granting~ a right, and that the
latter is not always in one's rational self-interest. For example, I
may grant to you the right to steal from me and others. For you, as
rights holder, this would be of value, while it would be at the same
time of disvalue for me and all others who are required to respect
this right.
HOLDING rights, as you see, is ~always~ in one's rational
self-interest. Alas, this is not the case with ~granting~ rights! One
could even say, that granting rights is most of the time (or always!)
contrary to one's rational self-interest!
You are saying: Accepting all 5 above means that predating can be
> good but respecting rights is much better. IMO you are correct in saying
> that your fix flows from Objectivist dogma, but a morality in which
> predation is not evil is not what Objectivists would take to heart as a good
> "fix".
You are still misunderstanding me. PP ~is~ evil for the victim! But it
is ~good~ for the successful culprit! Values are agent relative. They
don't exist in a vacuum, like intrinsicism holds. That means that we
have intrinsicist elements in Objectivist ethics that we must get rid
off. I'm prepared to develop a "fix", and I'd like to hear from
competent Objectivists that they to are willing to work on it to. You
can't hide from reality.
To be fully effective as human beings, we need perfection in ethics.
It is still lacking in traditional Objectivism.
alexander
b322.0201312...@posting.google.com>...
> Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3C59BD89.B4E51BA
> 5...@bellsouth.net>...
> > A CLASSIC case of projection....
> Yep, just keep on frothing and raving there, silly one. Why, *of
> course*, the problem must lie somewhere else than yourself.
>
> I'd say that any typical newsgroup regular who has been here over the
> years (among those willing to identify and integrate facts, anyhow)
> has been witness to the transition that Sandin has undergone: from
> someone who was generally reasonable and made accessible points and
> arguments, into the semi-coherent, ranting and raving mess that he is
> today. The Google archives are readily available to compare the
> Sandin of then to the Sandin of today. It's quite sad, really, to
> observe a valuable mind's descent into la-la land, having been
> bludgeoned into near-oblivion by his own self-inflicted adherence to a
> corrupt mode of dealing with ideas. He now appears truly incapable of
> dealing with ideas in a normal way -- and, quite unsurprisingly,
> virtually as a result, he appears incapable of seeing this fact for
> himself.
This is the most objective, rational and on the point contribution I
came recently across. I agree without reservation!
alexander fürstenberg
Matt Ruff
>
> alexander wrote:
>
>> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
>> predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
>> always wins.
>
> prudent predation is rare, but it will not by itself
> allow one to get rid of it altogether. The reason is
> that the house always wins in gambling only when it can
> control all of the relevant factors. So, for example,
> in horse racing one could get enough inside information
> such that one would be in a position to beat the house.
A minor nitpick -- in horse-racing, you don't bet against the house.
Horse tracks use a "pari-mutuel" wagering system in which the winners
split the money bet by the losers, with the track owners skimming a
percentage of the winnings as a transaction fee.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff
>
> IMO the only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism
> for the problem of prudent predation is the following:
>
> ============================================
> 1.) Admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest. Logically, it can't be
> other than that.
>
> for a successful outcome is, at least in the long-run,
> extremely poor.
>
> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
> predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
> always wins.
That is true for casino gambling, where the house sets the odds and
payoffs to (slightly) favor itself. But the PP doesn't gamble in a
casino, so there's no all-powerful house decreeing that he must always
be more likely to fail than succeed.
> Yes, there will always be gamblers who ignore the obvious
> statistical facts,
But the PP isn't one of them. Unlike a bettor at a casino, he sticks to
gambles where the odds and payoffs are in his favor.
It's worth pointing out that prudent *non*-predators do the same thing.
*Everybody* gambles, in the sense of undertaking actions that are not
certain to succeed, or that may turn out not to be worth the cost.
Prudent people try to minimize their risks and maximize their payoffs,
but they still gamble.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff
>
> Alexander writes:
>
>> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
>> predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
>> always wins.
>
> predation to very rare instances.
No, it means that you should stay out of the casino and look for a venue
that offers better odds.
-- M. Ruff
alexander
4...@bellsouth.net>...
> Sober discussion is fine. But this Alexander, to whom I was
> replying, began with the settled conclusion that Objectivism is
> irrational for opposing PeePees (those who hold implicitly or
> explicitly as a matter of morality that the initiation of force
> can be in their "rational" interest). Sobriety? He wasn't asking
> why Objectivism condemns PeePees. He wasn't requesting help in
> figuring anything out. He wasn't looking for discussion or
> criticism of an idea he found of academic interest.
As everybody who follows this thread can see, I'm as well seeking
discussion of my solution regarding the PP-issue, as I'm open to
logically consistent criticism. Since I'm not new to Objectivism, I'm
familiar with pretty all arguments for and against the engagement in
prudent predation, so I don't have to ask any more "why" traditional
Objectivism condemns PP-hood. I know why. I'm familiar with this
philosophy more then you might imagine. Furthermore, ethics is for me
not merely of "academic interest" but a real life guide to efficient
action. I backed up my position with the reasons I gave you. I was not
expecting you to swallow it unthinkingly, as Dean likes to suggest.
> Rather, he was insisting -- despite his patent ignorance or
> disregard of what the concept of "rational self-interest" means
> in Objectivism -- on something evil.
I'm also familiar with the meaning of the expression "rational
self-interest" in traditional Objectivism. But this doesn't mean that
it is therefore self-evidently true. In regard to "evil": Values are,
as Ayn Rand recognized, agent relative. The only problem in
traditional Objectivism is, that she, and obviously Dean, failed to
apply it consistently in ethics. While it may be for you "evil"
(life-diminishing) if somebody is successfully stealing something from
you, it can at the same time be "good" (i.e. life-enhancing) for the
thief. An action can have a different value status for each individual
person affected by it. Some profit, others loose. For the latter this
action is "evil", while for the former it is "good". The ignorance of
this fact introduced an almost lethal dose of intrinsicism into O'ist
ethics.
He was doing so as a matter
> of general principle -- putting it on a universalized basis. And
> he was declaring that Objectivists are dishonest for opposing it.
If you're still opposing my view, after hearing all the reasons for
and against it, you must be indeed dishonest -- or simply stupid.
Sorry Dean.
> To wit: "The only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism"
> is to "admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest". (Silly me, I forgot to point
> out that a complaint of dishonesty is laughable coming from a
> PeePee.)
As I repeatedly stated, I'm opposing attempts to prudent predation out
of practical reasons. It simply doesn't pay in a interconnected
information society. But provided that it would be an empirical proven
fact that it usually ~does~ pay, I had no choice but to concede that
it is in an agent's rational self-interest trying it, even if I may be
harmed by it. However, even then I wouldn't advocate this specific
kind of rationality, since their rationality wouldn't be in ~my~
rational self-interest. Who's dishonest here? Me or the one who tries
to brainwash other people in believing lies, just because he is afraid
of their rationality? The latter approach, as practiced by religions
and politically correct philosophies, is dishonest, not mine.
> I allowed that he might be just a hypocrite who really doesn't
> want what his advocacy means, but I did not shy from taking him
> at his word. Words have meanings. As an advocate of moral ideas
> he has a right to expect them to be taken seriously and recognized
> for what they are.
I ~do~ expect to be taken seriously. Only that you are mentally not
able to recognize the moral ideas in question as what they really are.
If you're not deliberately misrepresenting my views, you're simply
incapable of following a case logically presented.
Matt Ruff
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> alexander wrote:
>>
>>> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
>>> predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
>>> always wins.
>>
>> prudent predation is rare, but it will not by itself
>> allow one to get rid of it altogether. The reason is
>> that the house always wins in gambling only when it can
>> control all of the relevant factors. So, for example,
>> in horse racing one could get enough inside information
>> such that one would be in a position to beat the house.
>
> predator and society are able to exert. The side who has a
> better control of the situation then the other wins. In a
> highly interconnected trader society where reputation is a
> important capital, it will usually be "society."
If a society places a high value on reputation, open acts of predation
will be discouraged. But unless the same society places no value at all
on privacy, secret acts of predation may still be possible and
profitable.
>> Obviously if one could appeal to God one could use him
>> to fix this problem, but obviously one cannot make such
>> an appeal. The result is that one would have to show
>> that even when one has the equivalent of inside information
>> that the mechanisms in place to punish predation will
>> still always outweigh the odds of succeeding. And this
>> claim is implausible.
>
> Not at all, if you properly understand what "odds" means. It
> is about the degree of probability of succeeding. One could
> claim, for example, that in a certain societal form (like
> capitalism) the probability of succeeding with attempts to
> PP is, say, 2.5%.
Remember that "PP" is short for *prudent* predation. To describe a
strategy where the odds are 25-to-1 against you as "prudent" seems like
an oxymoron. Presumably what you mean to say is "suppose the probability
of successfully predating is 2.5%." This claim can be interpreted in one
of two ways:
(1) For any given act of predation, the odds of success are only 2.5%.
This would certainly make predation a bad gamble -- much worse than any
of the gambles offered in a casino, by the way -- but it seems very
unlikely to be true. Even people who think that predation is always a
losing game will usually agree that some acts of predation are much
riskier than others.
(2) 2.5% represents some sort of averaging of the risks of all possible
acts of predation considered together. Such a claim, if true, would
imply that it is a bad strategy to predate every chance you get. But it
doesn't mean that all predatory acts are "bad bets". A prudent predator
will, of course, only act on those opportunities where the odds favor
success.
-- M. Ruff
dbuel
812.5a...@posting.google.com>...
> Absolutely. There are big differences in the amount of possible risks
> and outcomes when engaging in behavior that fits in the broad category
> of prudent predation. It's essentially a mathematical problem.
But see, you're putting the cart before the horse. You're saying that
Objectivism must take into consideration these statistics that haven't
been described.
It's the other way around. You'd have to describe the statistics for
anyone to know that Objectivism "must" consider them.
Short of that, "prudence" may well mean "not taking enough of a risk
to outproduce the benefits of nonpredation."
JoeOrrion
>the
>interests of a rational egoist.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether an act of predation can be in the
actor's interest. That is, whether predation is ever prudent. If it is, then
an egoist cannot say that predation is always immoral. You try to define
egoism in a truly bizarre way and then say that predation can't be in an
egoist's interest, but might very well be in a sane person's interest. That is
not to say that you've managed to succeed even on that level. You have not, at
least as far as I've seen, offered any substantive argument that predation
harms the ego beyond referring to your personal experience and saying that it
feels that way to you.
Joe Teicher
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "alexander" <rational...@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
I will reply as a devil's advocate.
First let's get "good"/"bad" out of the way. Since you agree with (4)
(Morality is based on reality through reason) predatory conduct is not bad
(irrational) in principle, but in the context of an information society it
is bad (irrational) to choose a lesser good (predatory conduct) over a
greater good (respecting rights at all times). You can see the philosophical
tangle here: It is not true that respecting rights at all times is rational
(5) but it is irrational to act otherwise in a real life context. And this
does not even address the dramatic statement that predatory conduct is not
bad in principle, that as a matter of fact it can be good (rational). (But
not as good as respecting rights at all times, which is not rational!)
Your correct grasp of the meaning of (5) vis a vis egoism highlights the
basis of my hypothesis that Rand, having recognized some altruistic values
as essential values, desperately tries to reconcile them with her brand of
egoism, but fails.
> > If (5) is right you can not fix Objectivism by asking Reality to give a
> > little.
>
> The statement of (5) is to undifferentiated to tell you more about it.
> In its current phrasing it evades the unambiguous identification of
> the beneficiary of holding a right. You must understand that there is
> a difference in holding a right and ~granting~ a right, and that the
> latter is not always in one's rational self-interest. For example, I
> may grant to you the right to steal from me and others. For you, as
> rights holder, this would be of value, while it would be at the same
> time of disvalue for me and all others who are required to respect
> this right.
>
> HOLDING rights, as you see, is ~always~ in one's rational
> self-interest. Alas, this is not the case with ~granting~ rights! One
> could even say, that granting rights is most of the time (or always!)
> contrary to one's rational self-interest!
Perhaps I miss your point but it seems to me that "respecting rights" means
respecting other people's rights. Thus it falls in the category of granting
rights. Similarly I see NIF as granting rather than asserting.
(I have to stop here)
> You are saying: Accepting all 5 above means that predating can be
> > good but respecting rights is much better. IMO you are correct in saying
> > that your fix flows from Objectivist dogma, but a morality in which
> > predation is not evil is not what Objectivists would take to heart as a
good
> > "fix".
>
> You are still misunderstanding me. PP ~is~ evil for the victim! But it
> is ~good~ for the successful culprit! Values are agent relative. They
> don't exist in a vacuum, like intrinsicism holds. That means that we
> have intrinsicist elements in Objectivist ethics that we must get rid
> off. I'm prepared to develop a "fix", and I'd like to hear from
> competent Objectivists that they to are willing to work on it to. You
> can't hide from reality.
>
> To be fully effective as human beings, we need perfection in ethics.
> It is still lacking in traditional Objectivism.
> alexander fürstenberg
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acar
> philosophy is false, but only some secondary elements of it, which are
> in need of reconstruction. The ~essence~ of Objectivism, which lies in
> its commitment to the law of identity in metaphysics and epistemology,
> is still undeniably true.
If you are going to develop a morality based on the law of identity first
you will need to define the natural properties of man, not just the
essential properties but all the pertinent properties. That would include
among others, not just the ability to think and the choosing faculty, but
also faculties such as the social instinct, race identification, and you may
even have to consider Don Wilson's claim which boils down to an allegedly
innate sense of integrity.
I realize of course that your argument is not about those issues, but you
have chosen to start where Objectivism left the issue: with reason and
choice allegedly leading to a doctrine of egoism.
Precisely because you and Mr. Prescott are correct about predatory conduct
in the context of Randian egoism is why:
(1) The Objectivist vision of the noble rights respecting hero fails
and
(2) An internally consistent morality based on Randian egoism would be a
morality of hypocrisy, opportunism and abuse which can only lead to
exploitation and eventually dictatorship, because it has no principle to
support the granting of rights in preference to egoism.
Your claim that there are so few chances of success in our society that "it
would be irrational to even try" is empty rhetoric which ignores the fact
that your moral engine drives you, not to respect rights, but to identify
those allegedly rare opportunities for successful theft and deceit. Behind
your facade of honesty you would be driven by your ever present moral
commitment. You must respect other people's rights only to the extent that
it appears to be in your interest, but going beyond that would be an immoral
sacrifice.
Now you may say that you are trying to put a contextual clause on "at all
times". This meaning that respecting rights at all times may be rational in
some contexts, such as the context of contemporary society. IMO this would
be an irrational guideline in the sense that it compromises the moral
obligation to be on the lookout for predatory opportunities and positively
sanctions the occasional sacrifice.
Don Watkins III
>><sigh> What's the issue? Whether an object gained by predation can be in
>>the
>>interests of a rational egoist.
Joe Teicher writes:
>That is not the issue. The issue is whether an act of predation can be in
>the
>actor's interest.
How are you defining the actor's interest?
>That is, whether predation is ever prudent.
What's the standard of "prudent?"
> If it is,
>then
>an egoist cannot say that predation is always immoral.
Well, I haven't asserted that predation is always immoral. I've said that it's
immoral for an egoist. All "oughts" are chosen oughts. The oughts an egoist
chooses_do_establish that predation is always immoral for him.
>You try to define
>egoism in a truly bizarre way
Nah...I've identified what egoism really_means_.
>and then say that predation can't be in an
>egoist's interest, but might very well be in a sane person's interest.
I haven't said that. I've said that I can't establish that a non-egoist should
never predate. It depends upon his chosen ought. I might think mine is
better, as far as it is the best means perserving one's ego (something most
everyone tries to do), but I haven't tried to argue that here.
>That
>is
>not to say that you've managed to succeed even on that level. You have not,
>at
>least as far as I've seen, offered any substantive argument that predation
>harms the ego beyond referring to your personal experience and saying that it
>feels that way to you.
I've done a little more than that, but more or less that's true. What's your
point?
Don Watkins
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Watkins III" <aynr...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
>>
> I haven't said that. I've said that I can't establish that a non-egoist
should
> never predate. It depends upon his chosen ought. I might think mine is
> better, as far as it is the best means perserving one's ego (something
most
> everyone tries to do), but I haven't tried to argue that here.
You seem to have strayed very far from Objectivism. Moral for me but immoral
for you? Objectivists hate moral relativism.
x
Acar
> You are still misunderstanding me. PP ~is~ evil for the victim! But it
> is ~good~ for the successful culprit!
If it is good for the successful "culprit" it is good, moral and required
from you because "you" is who egoism is about. Respect for rights is then an
instrument of egoism. The principle trumps the tactic, so succesful
predation is the ideal of this morality which you claim to be based on the
law of identity and which you regard as the real Objectivism.
If there is something unsavory about that picture it may be time to rethink
the soundness of the egoist derivation. Rand, who gave birth to it, could
not digest it without NIF. The logical contradiction in Rand's fix suggests
that there is something wrong with the train of logic that ends in egoism.
The unsavory consequences of your fix of Rand's fix suggest the same thing.
Kent
>...because "you" is who egoism is about.
How you come to this conclusion.
Kent
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent" <ke...@voyager.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 04:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
> >...because "you" is who egoism is about.
>
> How you come to this conclusion.
Uh?
x
x
x
x
Don Watkins III
>> I haven't said that. I've said that I can't establish that a non-egoist
>should
>> never predate. It depends upon his chosen ought. I might think mine is
>> better, as far as it is the best means perserving one's ego (something
>most
>> everyone tries to do), but I haven't tried to argue that here.
Acar writes:
>You seem to have strayed very far from Objectivism. Moral for me but immoral
>for you? Objectivists hate moral relativism.
Where's the moral relativism?
All I said was that all oughts are chosen, which is true. And I said that you
can only measure morality and immorality by a chosen standard, which is true.
And I said that the standard an egoist chooses establishes that predation is
always immoral, which is true. And, I said that I believe the egoist standard
is the proper standard for a human being to choose, which is true. And I said
that I didn't argue that last point in the PP threads, which is true.
Sounds pretty Objectivist to me, since everything I said was true.
Don Watkins
Dean Sandin
> Dean Sandin <dsa...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> > Sober discussion is fine. But this Alexander, to whom I was
> > replying, began with the settled conclusion that Objectivism is
> > irrational for opposing PeePees (those who hold implicitly or
> > explicitly as a matter of morality that the initiation of force
> > can be in their "rational" interest). Sobriety? He wasn't asking
> > why Objectivism condemns PeePees. He wasn't requesting help in
> > figuring anything out. He wasn't looking for discussion or
> > criticism of an idea he found of academic interest.
>
> As everybody who follows this thread can see, I'm as well seeking
> discussion of my solution regarding the PP-issue, as I'm open to
> logically consistent criticism.
Bullshit. Your thesis statement that opened the thread said
Objectivists are intellectually dishonest because they deny that
the inititiation of force is in the rational self-interest of
those who supposedly can get away with it. You've dismissed
their arguments in advance.
I don't take part in a debate that begins, "resolved, that the
Objectivist ethics, and anyone who would argue knowledgably for
them, are intellectually dishonest". But as a substitute, I don't
mind pointing out that someone like you -- who claims to have
carefully and fully considered the matter s as to come up with
firm, mature conclusions -- ipso facto is either a bald-faced
hypocrite or truly a thug who sees the initiation of force as a
proper tool of his self-interest. Neither sort can say with
honesty, "I'm...seeking discussion of my solution regarding the
PP-issue, as I'm open to logically consistent criticism."
> Furthermore, ethics is for me
> not merely of "academic interest" but a real life guide to efficient
> action.
Ah, then you're not a hypocrite after all. You really DO mean
that you'd bash heads in if you thought you could get away with it.
--Dean
joe teicher
1100.0...@mb-dd.aol.com>...
> I wrote:
> >><sigh> What's the issue? Whether an object gained by predation can be in
> >>the
> >>interests of a rational egoist.
>
> Joe Teicher writes:
> >That is not the issue. The issue is whether an act of predation can be in
> >the
> >actor's interest.
>
> How are you defining the actor's interest?
Well, intuitively it's quite obvious. I won't go the objectivist
route and say that whatever furthers your life man qua man is in your
interest. I think that definition is pretty weird, especially
considering Rand's erroneous view of human nature. So, I'll just
define it the obvious way and say that an act is in a person's
interest when it makes them happier than they would have been had they
not performed the act.
> > If it is,
> >then
> >an egoist cannot say that predation is always immoral.
>
> Well, I haven't asserted that predation is always immoral. I've said tha
> t it's
> immoral for an egoist. All "oughts" are chosen oughts. The oughts an egoist
> chooses_do_establish that predation is always immoral for him.
This is quite an annoying little statement. In my view, an egoist is
someone who believes that when someone acts in their own self-interest
they are being moral, and when they act against their own
self-interest they are being immoral. This might mean that for some
people, even some egoists, predation is always immoral. My claim is
that I can be a rational egoist by the ordinary meaning of the term,
and that I can engage in acts of predation that are moral by my own
standard and which every other rational egoist can agree were moral
for me.
> >That
> >is
> >not to say that you've managed to succeed even on that level. You have not,
> >at
> >least as far as I've seen, offered any substantive argument that predation
> >harms the ego beyond referring to your personal experience and saying th
> >at it
> >feels that way to you.
>
> I've done a little more than that, but more or less that's true. What's your
> point?
My point is that predation doesn't necessarily harm the ego. I can do
certain acts of predation without harming my ego. Most people can do
certain acts of predation without harming their egos. Now, your retort
can either be that I can't tell when my ego is being damaged (in which
case I don't know why I should care) or that I'm not an egoist (in
your sense). In regards to the latter, all I can say is that if all
egoism does is make your ego more easily damaged, so that you can't do
what every normal person can do, then egoism pretty much fails at it's
intended objective.
Joe Teicher
Don Watkins III
>> How are you defining the actor's interest?
Joe Teicher writes:
>Well, intuitively it's quite obvious.
> I won't go the objectivist
>route and say that whatever furthers your life man qua man is in your
>interest. I think that definition is pretty weird, especially
>considering Rand's erroneous view of human nature. So, I'll just
>define it the obvious way and say that an act is in a person's
>interest when it makes them happier than they would have been had they
>not performed the act.
Offhand, I don't have a problem with that, keeping in mind that we are speaking
of happiness in the context of a person's entire life.
>> Well, I haven't asserted that predation is always immoral. I've said tha
>> t it's
>> immoral for an egoist. All "oughts" are chosen oughts. The oughts an
>egoist
>> chooses_do_establish that predation is always immoral for him.
>This is quite an annoying little statement. In my view, an egoist is
>someone who believes that when someone acts in their own self-interest
>they are being moral, and when they act against their own
>self-interest they are being immoral.
That's true almost by definition.
>This might mean that for some
>people, even some egoists, predation is always immoral. My claim is
>that I can be a rational egoist by the ordinary meaning of the term,
>and that I can engage in acts of predation that are moral by my own
>standard and which every other rational egoist can agree were moral
>for me.
I realize that's your claim. You're rarely difficult to understand.
>> I've done a little more than that, but more or less that's true. What's
>your
>> point?
>My point is that predation doesn't necessarily harm the ego. I can do
>certain acts of predation without harming my ego. Most people can do
>certain acts of predation without harming their egos. Now, your retort
>can either be that I can't tell when my ego is being damaged (in which
>case I don't know why I should care) or that I'm not an egoist (in
>your sense). In regards to the latter, all I can say is that if all
>egoism does is make your ego more easily damaged, so that you can't do
>what every normal person can do, then egoism pretty much fails at it's
>intended objective.
Listen, you can tell me you don't suffer for your crimes and I can tell you
that you do and we will have gotten no where, which is exactly where we are.
So, until I have something new to say, I'll bow out of this discussion, because
I think I've made my POV pretty clear. I'll let it stand or fall according to
the facts.
Don Watkins
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Sandin" <dsa...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
> "James E. Prescott" wrote:
>
> > Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > [...] I'll be prepared to blow you away.
> > > > Why? You've announced that you're my
> > > > deadly enemy.
> >
> > > Someone take that poor Objectivist to an infirmary.
> >
> > Well said. Dean's attitude is scary. Apparently, sober intellectual
> > discussion with some Objectivists ends in threats of physical violence.
>
> Sober discussion is fine. But this Alexander, to whom I was
> replying, began with the settled conclusion that Objectivism is
> irrational for opposing PeePees
While you start with the settled conclusion that it isn't so.
>(those who hold implicitly or
> explicitly as a matter of morality that the initiation of force
> can be in their "rational" interest). Sobriety? He wasn't asking
> why Objectivism condemns PeePees.
He knows. You will not concede that he knows until he agrees with you.
> He wasn't requesting help in
> figuring anything out. He wasn't looking for discussion or
> criticism of an idea he found of academic interest.
Probably not true, but regardless, what's wrong with that?
> Rather, he was insisting -- despite his patent ignorance or
> disregard of what the concept of "rational self-interest" means
> in Objectivism -- on something evil. He was doing so as a matter
> of general principle -- putting it on a universalized basis. And
> he was declaring that Objectivists are dishonest for opposing it.
Just like Objectivists call the opposing view "dishonest".
> To wit: "The only intellectually honest solution for Objectivism"
> is to "admit that ~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> everybody's rational self-interest". (Silly me, I forgot to point
> out that a complaint of dishonesty is laughable coming from a
> PeePee.)
>
> I allowed that he might be just a hypocrite who really doesn't
> want what his advocacy means, but I did not shy from taking him
> at his word. Words have meanings. As an advocate of moral ideas
> he has a right to expect them to be taken seriously and recognized
> for what they are.
>
> --Dean
x
x
x
x
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent" <ke...@voyager.net>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:34 AM
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 04:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
> >...because "you" is who egoism is about.
>
> How you come to this conclusion.
Obviously meaning if he is the actor. Another misunderstanding?
x
alexander
8204.0...@mb-ba.aol.com>...
> Alexander Fürstenberg writes:
> >I'm afraid that you misrepresented his position. He already stated
> >that he sees "success" in this case in its full context.
>
> He stated it, but that doesn't mean he's correctly identified what "success"
> actually means means.
I think he meant "success success", not "success but not really
success". NET success in its full, long-term context. That's what
we're talking about.
> >By
> >incorporating the expression "genuine long-term self-interest" he
> >already took away all your possible objections against it, including
> >the "not serving one's ego" claim you made.
>
> What objection? It's a simple identification of what self-interest means
> . You
> don't think that's relevant to the issue?
See above. You're constantly trying to state that it is metaphysically
impossible that PP'hood is in one's "rational self-interest" (if you
prefer that term). The hypothesis that it ~is~ possible in principle
is the basis of the PP'hood discussion.
> >In determining whether a specific method of value acquisition (PP) can
> >invalidate the objective values gained by it, we are already assuming
> >what you desperately insist to deny afterwards: that the values ARE
> >rational in their full context -- including the psychology of the
> >agent.
>
> Desperately insist to deny? Surely you jest.
No. You're doing it all the time. Again, see above. For the sake of
discussion it is necessary to accept this as hypothesis -- if you're
not already convinced that it's indeed the case.
> >If you're seriously interested in participating in the
> >discussion, you must accept this hypothesis as all other participants
> >do, or we'll be talking about ~totally~ different issues here!
>
> <sigh> What's the issue? Whether an object gained by predation can be in the
> interests of a rational egoist.
Yes. But more precisely: "in one's rational self-interest".
> Well, then, the first question to ask is: what are his interests? My ans
> wer to
> that question is -- that which serves the ego. Don't you think that's re
> levant
> to the PP debate?
>
> Not only do I think it's relevant, I happen to think that it's the_only_thing
> that is relevant (broadly speaking, of course!). Any bodily gains, or Go
> rdon's
> "social" gains, are moot if it can be demonstrated that predation harms the
> ego.
I don't know what you mean by "ego" in this context, but it's not
necessary to agree on the specifics anyway if you mean that it's the
"ultimate value". The issue is about what to do if it is ~possible~
that PP'hood can serve the ultimate value. I think if you formulate it
this way, the answer should be pretty obvious -- even for you.
Alexander Fürstenberg
alexander
90A...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
> > predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
> > always wins.
>
> That is true for casino gambling, where the house sets the odds and
> payoffs to (slightly) favor itself. But the PP doesn't gamble in a
> casino, so there's no all-powerful house decreeing that he must always
> be more likely to fail than succeed.
That's true. But remember that we're talking about probabilities.
Gambling in the casino serves only as a metaphor to illustrate the
principle.
> > Yes, there will always be gamblers who ignore the obvious
> > statistical facts,
>
> But the PP isn't one of them. Unlike a bettor at a casino, he sticks to
> gambles where the odds and payoffs are in his favor.
>
> It's worth pointing out that prudent *non*-predators do the same thing.
> *Everybody* gambles, in the sense of undertaking actions that are not
> certain to succeed, or that may turn out not to be worth the cost.
> Prudent people try to minimize their risks and maximize their payoffs,
> but they still gamble.
I agree. Since we usually have no absolute certain knowledge of the
future, especially not in complex, social situations, our calculations
are always more or less prone to error.
alexander
29...@posting.google.com>...
> > We're not talking about ~never~ or ~always~ in regard to individual
> > instances, but about generalized degrees of probability. One doesn't
> > have to claim that any attempt at prudent predation will fail with
> > 100% certainty. The foolishness of this obviously false claim will not
> > only fail to persuade more intelligent individuals, but it might even
> > motivate a PP to try to show that it's wrong. It is enough to tell
> > that the odds are (with far more then 50%) against the PP.
> Here is the problem with your argument. You are talking
> as if there is a single value for the prudent predator.
> In fact different acts of predation will have different
> payoffs and different probabilities of working. Someone
> gave the example of a opportunistically stolen copycard.
> Here the payoff is small, but the chance of getting
> caught was apparently insignificant. So on balance
> the theft was "prudent."
Yes.
(Of course there are other
> factors including guilt and they matter somewhat although
> they don't determine the issue a priori). For your
> argument to work it would have to be the case that one
> never finds oneself in a situation in which the rewards
> times the odds of success outweighs the penalties times
> the odds of failure.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure to understand your use of the expression
"times" right, so I can only guess what you meant...
> But to get this one cannot
> generalize over the general features of all cases of
> predation. One needs to be able to say that given this
> persons information about the risks and rewards in this
> case, if he were to predate every time he found himself
> in such a situation he would lose on balance. But this
> claim is only a little bit more plausible than the
> view that you are opposing namely that it is never in
> your best interest even in a single case.
Have I said that? Anyway, I do believe that one can generalize that
there's always the risk of unintended consequences following practiced
PP'hood.
> Obviously
> there are cases where one finds oneself around other
> peoples things with nobody around and the risk of being
> caught being low. Your argument requires you to be able
> to rule out anyone knowing that they are in such a
> position. But this is implausible.
As I said, knowledge becomes with the increasing complexity of the
represented situations more and more prone to error. If the costs of
failure are only high enough, this should be able to scare off many or
most attempts to PP'hood. This is the job of the justice system.
alexander
2...@bellsouth.net>...
> > > You maintained, "...~actually successful~ prudent predation is in
> > > everybody's rational self-interest." Not that it's true, but to
> > > consider it for purposes of seeing what it might mean, it's
> > > necessarily a universalization. There's that word "everybody" in
> > > there; and rational self-interest necessarily applies as the same
> > > principle to all rational people. You didn't say that "PeePee-
> > > hood is good for me and maybe some others, but the rest of you are
> > > screwed." You said that "PeePee-hood is good for everyone, on
> > > principle."
> >
> > Yes, but you are assuming falsely that it is in everybody's rational
> > self-interest that ~other~ people act in ~their~ rational
> > self-interest! This is plainly false.
>
> There's no "yes...but" to it. You're stating gibberish. "Yes"
> means you're agreeing that "rational self-interest necessarily
> applies as the same principle to all rational people" (which I
> could have phrased better). Our interests in as important and
> universal a matter as the use of force stem from the same vital
> facts about each of us. It CAN'T mean different things for
> different people.
If you shoot me, or rob me, or who-knows-what, this may be in ~your~
rational interest, but not in mine. The same situation, you shooting
me, has a different value status for each of the affected parties.
When you kill a chicken to fry it, that's in your interest, not in the
chicken's interest. Are you able to grasp that, Dean?
> > If you can't grasp the difference between ~your~ interests and the
> > interests of ~other~ people, then you're not applying the law of
> > identity consistently in your thinking.
>
> The law of identity (applied here) says that we all have the
> _same_ fundamental interests.
Yes, sure. But that doesn't mean that they are not in conflict with
each other. See the examples above. I tried to explain it as easy as I
can for you.
> > > You've already stated a doctrine that means exactly that you'd
> > > kill me to gain values from me if you thought you could "get away
> > > with it". That's the essence of PeePee-hood, which you endorse.
> >
> > Sure. If I really could do it (which I doubt), and if I really
> > wouldn't suffer negative consequences in the long run (which I also
> > doubt), and if I really had to gain something by doing so (which I
> > especially doubt in your case), you would be right.
>
> All of those "if I really"s (beyond the raw power to kill) are
> false. But the fact that you say you'd genuinely initiate force
> in instances where you think they do hold, continues to make you
> either a hypocrite or the natural enemy of everyone around you.
I choose "natural enemy". I'd be a hypocrite if I would deny it... as
most religions and "philosophies" do...
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> >You are saying: Accepting all 5 above means that predating can be
> > good but respecting rights is much better.
>
> I'm sorry, I erred. Predation can not be good if you accept (5). You are
> rejecting (5). You are saying that predation can be rational (good) but
> respecting rights is much better. So if Objectivism accepts your fix and
> modifies (5) two things would happen:
>
> (1) It would be recognizing reality as it is.
> (2) It would admit that predation can be rational.
>
> Do you see what a mess this turns into, why Objectivism can't be fixed?
You are identifying Objectivism with a secondary position in ethics if
you say this. If (2) is true, I have no problem stating that this is a
part of objectivism. My agenda is truth, not telling fairy-tales. This
is what OBJECTIVISM should be about. Or are we politically correct
now?
alexander
041...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Yes, it depends on the degree of control both the prudent
> > predator and society are able to exert. The side who has a
> > better control of the situation then the other wins. In a
> > highly interconnected trader society where reputation is a
> > important capital, it will usually be "society."
>
> If a society places a high value on reputation, open acts of predation
> will be discouraged. But unless the same society places no value at all
> on privacy, secret acts of predation may still be possible and
> profitable.
Depends on privacy for whom. For potential victims or culprits? The
less privacy is in a society, the more PP'hood will be discouraged.
But since an Orwellian state is not what we want, we must find a
balance here.
> > Not at all, if you properly understand what "odds" means. It
> > is about the degree of probability of succeeding. One could
> > claim, for example, that in a certain societal form (like
> > capitalism) the probability of succeeding with attempts to
> > PP is, say, 2.5%.
>
> Remember that "PP" is short for *prudent* predation. To describe a
> strategy where the odds are 25-to-1 against you as "prudent" seems like
> an oxymoron. Presumably what you mean to say is "suppose the probability
> of successfully predating is 2.5%." This claim can be interpreted in one
> of two ways:
>
> (1) For any given act of predation, the odds of success are only 2.5%.
> This would certainly make predation a bad gamble -- much worse than any
> of the gambles offered in a casino, by the way -- but it seems very
> unlikely to be true. Even people who think that predation is always a
> losing game will usually agree that some acts of predation are much
> riskier than others.
Agreed.
> (2) 2.5% represents some sort of averaging of the risks of all possible
> acts of predation considered together. Such a claim, if true, would
> imply that it is a bad strategy to predate every chance you get. But it
> doesn't mean that all predatory acts are "bad bets".
Yes, I meant an overall average, and as such it should be a
statistical integration of all subclasses of predatory conduct.
> A prudent predator
> will, of course, only act on those opportunities where the odds favor
> success.
Where he ~thinks~ that the odds favor success. He can still loose the
bet.
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> I will reply as a devil's advocate.
> First let's get "good"/"bad" out of the way. Since you agree with (4)
> (Morality is based on reality through reason) predatory conduct is not bad
> (irrational) in principle, but in the context of an information society it
> is bad (irrational) to choose a lesser good (predatory conduct) over a
> greater good (respecting rights at all times). You can see the philosophical
> tangle here: It is not true that respecting rights at all times is rational
> (5) but it is irrational to act otherwise in a real life context. And this
> does not even address the dramatic statement that predatory conduct is not
> bad in principle, that as a matter of fact it can be good (rational). (But
> not as good as respecting rights at all times, which is not rational!)
Yes.
> Your correct grasp of the meaning of (5) vis a vis egoism highlights the
> basis of my hypothesis that Rand, having recognized some altruistic values
> as essential values, desperately tries to reconcile them with her brand of
> egoism, but fails.
Agreed. But, for the record, I wouldn't identify all of Objectivism
with this secondary position.
> > The statement of (5) is to undifferentiated to tell you more about it.
> > In its current phrasing it evades the unambiguous identification of
> > the beneficiary of holding a right. You must understand that there is
> > a difference in holding a right and ~granting~ a right, and that the
> > latter is not always in one's rational self-interest. For example, I
> > may grant to you the right to steal from me and others. For you, as
> > rights holder, this would be of value, while it would be at the same
> > time of disvalue for me and all others who are required to respect
> > this right.
> >
> > HOLDING rights, as you see, is ~always~ in one's rational
> > self-interest. Alas, this is not the case with ~granting~ rights! One
> > could even say, that granting rights is most of the time (or always!)
> > contrary to one's rational self-interest!
>
> Perhaps I miss your point but it seems to me that "respecting rights" means
> respecting other people's rights. Thus it falls in the category of granting
> rights. Similarly I see NIF as granting rather than asserting.
> (I have to stop here)
Yes to the first two sentences. But what's "NIF"?
Don Watkins III
>But what's "NIF"?
It's the "No Initiation of Force" principle.
Don Watkins
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> > I don't see it in this absolutist way. Not "Objectivism" as entire
> > philosophy is false, but only some secondary elements of it, which are
> > in need of reconstruction. The ~essence~ of Objectivism, which lies in
> > its commitment to the law of identity in metaphysics and epistemology,
> > is still undeniably true.
>
> If you are going to develop a morality based on the law of identity first
> you will need to define the natural properties of man, not just the
> essential properties but all the pertinent properties. That would include
> among others, not just the ability to think and the choosing faculty, but
> also faculties such as the social instinct, race identification, and you may
> even have to consider Don Wilson's claim which boils down to an allegedly
> innate sense of integrity.
Yes, that's right. There are some hardwired social instincts that a
rational philosophy must take into account. I even agree that it is
not mere value acquisition what counts but indeed "survival as man qua
man" -- only that I'm not d'accord with Rand what that means.
> I realize of course that your argument is not about those issues, but you
> have chosen to start where Objectivism left the issue: with reason and
> choice allegedly leading to a doctrine of egoism.
>
> Precisely because you and Mr. Prescott are correct about predatory conduct
> in the context of Randian egoism is why:
>
> (1) The Objectivist vision of the noble rights respecting hero fails
> and
I agree if you mean this in an absolutist way like the orthodoxy.
Respecting rights is ~almost~ always in one's self-interest.
> (2) An internally consistent morality based on Randian egoism would be a
> morality of hypocrisy, opportunism and abuse which can only lead to
> exploitation and eventually dictatorship, because it has no principle to
> support the granting of rights in preference to egoism.
I wouldn't go so far. In fact, I believe that most people already are
able to acknowledge the truth of these identifications, but are under
an EXTREME social pressure to officially deny it, each thinking for
himself that he's the only weirdo at the place. So, yes, hypocrisy is
already the standard. And, no, being honest about these issues
wouldn't change that much that we would be ending in a dictatorship.
> Your claim that there are so few chances of success in our society that "it
> would be irrational to even try" is empty rhetoric which ignores the fact
> that your moral engine drives you, not to respect rights, but to identify
> those allegedly rare opportunities for successful theft and deceit. Behind
> your facade of honesty you would be driven by your ever present moral
> commitment. You must respect other people's rights only to the extent that
> it appears to be in your interest, but going beyond that would be an immoral
> sacrifice.
Sure. And I'm honest enough to admit that I think this is the only
rational attitude. On the other hand, I'm limited in my rationality by
hardwired social instincts which are preventing me to operate in a
full-blown PP mode. Of course this is sub-optimal.
> Now you may say that you are trying to put a contextual clause on "at all
> times". This meaning that respecting rights at all times may be rational in
> some contexts, such as the context of contemporary society. IMO this would
> be an irrational guideline in the sense that it compromises the moral
> obligation to be on the lookout for predatory opportunities and positively
> sanctions the occasional sacrifice.
Not sure to understand "and positively sanctions the occasional
sacrifice" in your last sentence right. Please explain.
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> You seem to have strayed very far from Objectivism. Moral for me but immoral
> for you? Objectivists hate moral relativism.
That's not moral relativism if properly stated: value acquisition is
in everybody's interest for himself. Isn't this a universalized
statement?
alexander
cinci.rr.com>...
> > You are still misunderstanding me. PP ~is~ evil for the victim! But it
> > is ~good~ for the successful culprit!
>
> If it is good for the successful "culprit" it is good, moral and required
> from you because "you" is who egoism is about. Respect for rights is then an
> instrument of egoism.
Sure. It has no intrinsic values, as anything in Objectivism properly
understood.
> The principle trumps the tactic, so succesful
> predation is the ideal of this morality which you claim to be based on the
> law of identity and which you regard as the real Objectivism.
No, not a specific mode (like successful predation or trade) is the
ideal, but maximizing value acquisition. I already stated that I
believe PP'hood being the least useful method of value acquisition.
I'm still in favor for trade.
> If there is something unsavory about that picture it may be time to rethink
> the soundness of the egoist derivation. Rand, who gave birth to it, could
> not digest it without NIF. The logical contradiction in Rand's fix suggests
> that there is something wrong with the train of logic that ends in egoism.
> The unsavory consequences of your fix of Rand's fix suggest the same thing.
I'm interested in the facts, not whether these facts are politically
correct. That's the job of philosophy -- being objective. An idea is
not wrong only because it stirs up negative feeling. Believing this
would be emotionalism. And what's "NIF"?
alexander
1...@bellsouth.net>...
> > As everybody who follows this thread can see, I'm as well seeking
> > discussion of my solution regarding the PP-issue, as I'm open to
> > logically consistent criticism.
>
> Bullshit. Your thesis statement that opened the thread said
> Objectivists are intellectually dishonest because they deny that
> the inititiation of force is in the rational self-interest of
> those who supposedly can get away with it. You've dismissed
> their arguments in advance.
Anybody here cares to comment?
> I don't take part in a debate that begins, "resolved, that the
> Objectivist ethics, and anyone who would argue knowledgably for
> them, are intellectually dishonest". But as a substitute, I don't
> mind pointing out that someone like you -- who claims to have
> carefully and fully considered the matter s as to come up with
> firm, mature conclusions -- ipso facto is either a bald-faced
> hypocrite or truly a thug who sees the initiation of force as a
> proper tool of his self-interest.
In fact, I'm a balding thug with only moderate amounts of hypocrisy...
I didn't say, especially not in the unqualified way you stated it,
that the initiation of force is a proper tool for my (or anybody
else's) self-interest. You're putting up a straw man by this
statement, which you seem enjoying to knock out. I said that it CAN be
in one's rational self-interest -- as anybody who is the
net-beneficiary of the statist taxation and subsidy game will confirm
to you.
> Neither sort can say with
> honesty, "I'm...seeking discussion of my solution regarding the
> PP-issue, as I'm open to logically consistent criticism."
Oh yes, I can! I'm now in discourse mode, where my interests are not
lying to you (what would I have to gain by it anyway?), but in
identifying the truth. I'm genuinely interested in resolving this
issue. Even if I were a PP, there's no reason to suppose that somebody
like me couldn't participate in philosophical discussions of that
sort.
> > Furthermore, ethics is for me
> > not merely of "academic interest" but a real life guide to efficient
> > action.
>
> Ah, then you're not a hypocrite after all. You really DO mean
> that you'd bash heads in if you thought you could get away with it.
Only if it serves my ultimate value: eudaimonia. This will be rarely
the case... but I could make an exception with you, should you insist.
;)) Take it easy, buddy. I live in another continent, and I have
nothing to gain by bashing heads. I'm past that age.
alexander
51c8...@posting.google.com>...
> > How are you defining the actor's interest?
>
> Well, intuitively it's quite obvious. I won't go the objectivist
> route and say that whatever furthers your life man qua man is in your
> interest. I think that definition is pretty weird, especially
> considering Rand's erroneous view of human nature. So, I'll just
> define it the obvious way and say that an act is in a person's
> interest when it makes them happier than they would have been had they
> not performed the act.
I would cut through that unnecessary discussion in the context of the
PP issue simply by talking of a generic "serves the ULTIMATE VALUE".
(For me that's "eudaimonia".)
> In my view, an egoist is
> someone who believes that when someone acts in their own self-interest
> they are being moral, and when they act against their own
> self-interest they are being immoral. This might mean that for some
> people, even some egoists, predation is always immoral.
You have to differentiate: being ~the subject~ of predation is always
immoral, being ~the agent~ of successful predation is always moral. On
the other hand, that doesn't mean that ~attempts~ to predation are
(always) in one's rational self-interest.
> My claim is
> that I can be a rational egoist by the ordinary meaning of the term,
> and that I can engage in acts of predation that are moral by my own
> standard and which every other rational egoist can agree were moral
> for me.
"For me" is the key phrase here... yes.
Matt Ruff
>
> Matt Ruff wrote:
>
>>> So I see the solution in stating that attempts to prudent
>>> predation amount to gambling. In the long run, the house
>>> always wins.
>>
>> That is true for casino gambling, where the house sets the
>> odds and payoffs to (slightly) favor itself. But the PP
>> doesn't gamble in a casino, so there's no all-powerful house
>> decreeing that he must always be more likely to fail than
>> succeed.
>
> That's true. But remember that we're talking about
> probabilities. Gambling in the casino serves only as a
> metaphor to illustrate the principle.
But it's a bad metaphor. Arguing that "The house always wins, therefore
you shouldn't gamble" only makes sense in situations where there's a
house.
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff
>
> Matt Ruff wrote:
>
>>
>>> Yes, it depends on the degree of control both the prudent
>>> predator and society are able to exert. The side who has a
>>> better control of the situation then the other wins. In a
>>> highly interconnected trader society where reputation is a
>>> important capital, it will usually be "society."
>>
>> If a society places a high value on reputation, open acts
>> of predation will be discouraged. But unless the same
>> society places no value at all on privacy, secret acts of
>> predation may still be possible and profitable.
>
> Depends on privacy for whom. For potential victims or
> culprits?
Everyone is *potentially* both a culprit and a victim. If you have
privacy at all, you will have privacy for potential predators.
Of course, but the same objection applies to any endeavor where the
outcomes are less than certain. Investment of capital, for instance --
obviously a prudent investor will put his money into profit-making
ventures that he *thinks* will be successful. But sometimes he will
"lose the bet." Does that mean a prudent person should never make
investments? I'd say no.
And the same logic would appear to apply to predation. If you're talking
about making statistical analyses of a broad range of predatory acts,
you must believe that it is possible to make fairly good estimates of
the odds of success of particular acts of predation -- and such
estimates are all that a prudent person needs to decide whether an act
is a good or a bad gamble.
-- M. Ruff
Lon
311.2a...@posting.google.com>...
> Lon <bec...@bgnet.bgsu.edu> wrote in message news:<c24964d1.0201311529.e10
> 29...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> > factors including guilt and they matter somewhat although
> > they don't determine the issue a priori). For your
> > argument to work it would have to be the case that one
> > never finds oneself in a situation in which the rewards
> > times the odds of success outweighs the penalties times
> > the odds of failure.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure to understand your use of the expression
> "times" right, so I can only guess what you meant...
figure out whether an act is prudent one takes the
possible outcomes and their respective values to you
weighted by how likely they are to come about.
>
> > But to get this one cannot
> > generalize over the general features of all cases of
> > predation. One needs to be able to say that given this
> > persons information about the risks and rewards in this
> > case, if he were to predate every time he found himself
> > in such a situation he would lose on balance. But this
> > claim is only a little bit more plausible than the
> > view that you are opposing namely that it is never in
> > your best interest even in a single case.
>
> Have I said that? Anyway, I do believe that one can generalize that
> there's always the risk of unintended consequences following practiced
> PP'hood.
>
In many worthwhile actions there is a risk of unintendted
consequences. That is just something one includes as
a factor in deciding whether to do something.
>
> > Obviously
> > there are cases where one finds oneself around other
> > peoples things with nobody around and the risk of being
> > caught being low. Your argument requires you to be able
> > to rule out anyone knowing that they are in such a
> > position. But this is implausible.
>
> As I said, knowledge becomes with the increasing complexity of the
> represented situations more and more prone to error. If the costs of
> failure are only high enough, this should be able to scare off many or
> most attempts to PP'hood. This is the job of the justice system.
>
At this point I have lost track of what you mean to be
proving. The argument that you started out improving
on said that predation will never be prudent. You rightly
responded that this seems implausible. You brought in
the fact that even if in some cases it is the case that
one will benefit, it still will not be prudent because
one won't know when it is prudent because of the problem
of probabilities. I agree that this will reduce the
number of cases in which predation is prudent. But it
does not appear that it will reduce it to zero. So
the problem with the old argument that it still leaves
prudent predation as a possibility remains with your
view. Which is to say that nothing that you say in
this message is wrong. It just doesn't solve the
problem. There are still cases in which predation
is prudent, and one can still wonder then whether such
behaviour is moral.
Lon
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lon" <bec...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Possible Solution for Prudent Predation
> At this point I have lost track of what you mean to be
> proving. The argument that you started out improving
> on said that predation will never be prudent. You rightly
> responded that this seems implausible. You brought in
> the fact that even if in some cases it is the case that
> one will benefit, it still will not be prudent because
> one won't know when it is prudent because of the problem
> of probabilities. I agree that this will reduce the
> number of cases in which predation is prudent. But it
> does not appear that it will reduce it to zero. So
> the problem with the old argument that it still leaves
> prudent predation as a possibility remains with your
> view. Which is to say that nothing that you say in
> this message is wrong. It just doesn't solve the
> problem. There are still cases in which predation
> is prudent, and one can still wonder then whether such
> behaviour is moral.
I'll step in and try to speak for Alexander thus inviting the benefit of
correction if I have misunderstood his claim. As I understand it Alexander
has no problem with the morality of predation as it follows from egoism. But
he believes that respect for rights is the more rational of the two, because
it yields numerous obvious benefits as opposed to the risks of predation
with its low probability of success. He believes that a moral man will
always respect rights because it is the more rational choice, even though
there's nothing wrong with predation.
I agree with you that when the rare opportunity comes along which presents a
huge reward with no risk, Alexander is morally compelled to steal or murder
for gain as the case may be. If he fails to do "the right thing" he will
have irrationally sacrificed his best interest.