The Nature of Man

[Rami Rustom]

All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.

The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.

It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.

Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.

As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.

At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.


Criticisms? Questions?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Rami Rustom]

A new guy commented on this blog post.

joe.liberty64 said:
>
> Rami, in discussing the nature of man, are you forgetting that man is a being of volitional consciousness? Regarding knowledge, man is not omniscient -- he must focus his mind and mentally work to know. Not everything, but that which is reasonably needed to know for him to gain and keep his values. Using Rand's helpful metaphor, much blindness (ignorance) is brought about by the refusal to see (know).
>
> Evasion. In your example of the baby not liking the taste of his formula, in a nation where food distributors have a reputation for low-quality products, it might well be an excellent principle for parents to always keep an unopened can of previously bought formula to double-check. But in the U.S.A, by and large, I believe we are acting rationally in trusting the integrity of major baby food formula makers. In such a context, since man is not omniscient, not knowing (and having no reason to suspect) that a particular batch of baby formula is toxic -- indeed, lethal -- is not normally a moral fault. Evading would be refusing to take normal precautions -- such as sterilizing a previously used nipple. I'd venture to say that the act of evasion (refusing to think) is responsible for most of the evil results in the world, since evasion is the surest way NOT to have sufficient knowledge for addressing any particular human challenge.

End quote.

Thoughts on how to reply?

[Elliot Temple]

On Nov 16, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
> sufficient knowledge.

you're talking about two different meanings of sufficient.

sufficient is a contextual word. sufficient to do what?

in your first sentence, you mean sufficient to not do evil.

in the second, you mean sufficient to be good.

you changed it.

> This is the principle of optimism.

no, you added your own thing, then you act like it's what BoI says.

> This means
> that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
> and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
> good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
> hypothetical situations.
>
> The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
> formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
> Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
> involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
> parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
> she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
> hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
> more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
> Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
> poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
> the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
> shipped by the manufacturer.

this is a detailed example and most of the details are not relevant to your topic.

>
> It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
> or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
> time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
> baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
> baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
>
> Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
> formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
> Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
> different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
> only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
> or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
> spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
> depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
> whether or not he’s expected to win.

you haven't explained why it's immoral to force feed babies. the reason it's immoral, in general, is not that the formula could be tainted.

> As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
> knowledge.

your example did not illustrate that even in one case, let alone every case.

> In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
> bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
> results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
> have resorted to coercion.

you didn't give examples of realistic bad results of bottle coercion or how persuasion might work in that kind of situation.

> In the case of the father who spent his
> entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
> is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
> spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.

this is another unrealistic example and you don't explain why the choice is evil or what would be better. it's not a useful example.

i don't think the problem is writing skill. i think you don't understand the issues or how to explain them. or even how to think through examples in general.

> At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
> principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
> will be eradicated.

i think you believe the principle of optimism *by name* because some people you think are authorities said it, but you barely even know what it is, and you don't know how to apply it. so you shouldn't actually be going around saying it's true since you don't know enough about it to be rationally persuaded yourself, let alone to persuade others.


-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/